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

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

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

Labour Party

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
1,235
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
533
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
319
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
23
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
28
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

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

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentLib DemVikki Slade

    Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This issue is about tax receipts. I am not talking about stopping people cutting their family members’ hair or stopping genuinely self-employed people running a start-up from home. This is not about where people trade; it is about whether they trade legitimately and how we sustain the next generation of the industry. I am really glad that the hon. Member mentioned that point, because I want to tell a story that was shared with me by Mike Taylor about an apprentice who has taken up his programme. Mike has an incredible academy that takes on about a dozen young people—mostly NEETS—aged 16 to 18 in Broadstone, where I live. He has an apprentice who every week is travelling from Kent—it is a long way from Kent to Dorset, but he could not find a local training placement—to stay with his aunty in Dorchester for his training so that he can develop his skills. He could not get an apprenticeship close to home. The only opportunity available to him was working for an unscrupulous barber, who paid him just £1 an hour, despite the employer charging customers for his services. That is not entrepreneurship; that is not business. That is exploitation. That young man wants to learn a trade and build a career, and he should not have to choose between exploitation and abandoning his ambitions. Legitimate businesses, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), should not have to compete with such people. That brings me to the issue of public safety. The House of Commons Library notes that anyone can practise as a hairdresser or barber without holding any recognised qualifications. In a profession involving chemicals, blades and close physical contact with the public, that is increasingly difficult to justify. Most practitioners are highly skilled professionals who take enormous pride in their work, but consumers deserve confidence that those offering professional services have met the appropriate standards and wield their scissors safely. Most members of the public would reasonably assume that someone advertising themselves as a professional hairdresser or barber had demonstrated some level of competence, but that assumption cannot always be made. Poorly applied chemicals can cause burns, overuse of bleach can lead to hair loss and poor hygiene standards can contribute to skin conditions such as ringworm. A mandatory register would help provide the public with confidence that practitioners had achieved recognised qualifications and, just as importantly, it would enhance the reputation of those who already meet those standards every day. This proposal is practical, proportionate and achievable. We are not trying to create a system from scratch. The register already exists, and the Hair and Barber <span id="695" class="column-number" data-column-number="695"></span>Council already administers it. The infrastructure is in place. We want to build on the infrastructure that is already there. Mandatory registration would simply strengthen and modernise an existing statutory framework for the realities of today. The sector estimates that costs to hairdressers would be likely to fall if registration was universal, and that registration could become a recognised prerequisite for securing insurance and demonstrating professional competence. It would improve standards for consumers and it would support legitimate businesses. It could help enforcement agencies to tackle the tax evasion, illegal working, employment status abuse and criminal activity associated with rogue businesses. Indeed, support for the proposal now extends beyond the industry itself. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, chaired by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), has highlighted concerns about the extraordinary growth in barbering alongside declining tax enforcement activity.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentLib DemVikki Slade

    Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The vast majority of people in the sector are doing the right thing. The problem is that they are watching other people in the sector with empty chairs all day, and wondering how on earth they support five or six employees or other people working in the space. The sector has said that it is happy to share the information so that we can know the scale of the industry, how many hairdressers are working in it and where we need more training places. This is a means of using a register that already exists to professionalise the system and help the Government to move it forward for the future. Rather than relying solely on expensive raids and investigations after problems have emerged, the register could allow for standards to be established from the outset, and for the scale and shape of the sector to be mapped, with sufficient training providers in the right place to help people such as the young man who needs to have training available in Kent. A survey by the National Hair and Beauty Federation found that support for a mandatory register in the sector is at around 80%. That figure should give Ministers pause. Industries do not often ask Parliament for regulation, yet this one is—not because it wants bureaucracy, but because it wants a sustainable future. Some critics suggest that registration could increase costs or unnecessary burdens, but I disagree. The greatest threat to consumers and the industry is not professionalisation, but the <span id="696" class="column-number" data-column-number="696"></span>continued erosion of standards, legitimate businesses being forced from our high streets by those willing to ignore the rules, the loss of apprenticeships, the loss of public confidence and the gradual devaluation of a skilled professional. When the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 was debated, its promoter described hairdressing as both an art and a science. The Government of the day recognised the need for standards, qualifications and public confidence. They were right then, and those principles remain just as relevant today. Making the register mandatory would not create a new principle; it would just bring what was considered a pioneering proposal in 1964 into the 21st century. It has the potential to increase revenues and make it harder for illegal businesses to operate in our town centres. Ultimately, it would support the next generation of hairdressers and barbers. If it succeeds, perhaps that would mean fewer bad hair days for all of us. When a profession, its employers, its training providers and its representative bodies are all asking Parliament to act, Parliament should listen. Parliament recognised the importance of standards in hairdressing in 1964. The time has come to finish the job that Parliament started more than 60 years ago. I commend these proposals to the House, and I look forward to working with the Minister to deliver them.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentLib DemVikki Slade

    Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

    The various agencies, in my discussions with them, have said that the cost of being in the voluntary register is currently about £75. They have suggested that if a mandatory register was extended to all people working in the area, that would reduce the cost to £25. It would cost probably less than the cost of a haircut to be on a register with an organisation, which then itself would be involved in some of those enforcement activities that would benefit the Government.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentLib DemTim Farron

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{701D69C2-466F-49B5-8E54-10AFC395B626}">T4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{5393DA83-0986-431A-A4D0-A8467F75F41F}"></QuestionText>Westmorland and Furness council is England’s most rural unitary authority, but the Government’s new formula has punished us for being rural with a crushing 31% cut in our funding, putting care homes, help for the homeless and support for schools at risk. Does the Secretary of State think that is fair? Will she revisit this travesty urgently and provide emergency support?</Question>

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentLib DemTessa Munt

    Topical Questions

    Councils spend far more on enforcing against a breach of planning controls than the offender is ever fined—and even then, that money goes to the Treasury. When it is cheaper to break rules than follow them, we lose any sense of deterrence, and there is a perception that breaches have few consequences. Will the Minister look again at the amount of fines, and at whether councils could receive the proceeds of fines, so that they can recover their costs?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentLib DemTessa Munt

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    The 2009 Gurkha justice campaign, spearheaded by Joanna Lumley, achieved settlement rights for British Army Gurkha veterans, and my understanding is that many progressed to settlement here by virtue of the access to indefinite leave to remain. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that none of these changes will adversely affect the ability of those heroes to settle in the UK when they retire?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLib DemSarah Olney

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    I have constituents who are waiting on the five-year route to ILR, who have brought their spouses and children with them to this country and taken on high-skilled, high-paying roles. Their spouses will now have to apply separately and will be on a 10-year scheme. If their children reach adulthood before both spouses have achieved ILR, they will not be eligible to remain in this country, despite having been here since childhood. Can the Home Secretary give any reassurance to those families in my constituency who are deeply worried about their children being left without citizenship?

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentLib DemSarah Gibson

    Budget Resolutions

    I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that rural economies rely on transport. In my constituency, colleges have had to cut their hours because the bus does not come late enough and employers have had to put on their own buses in order to get shift workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that for rural economies to thrive, we really need to look at transport?

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentLib DemPippa Heylings

    Budget Resolutions

    As we head into winter with bills rising again in January, households and businesses across the country are worried. This Budget needed to match the scale of the energy and climate challenges, but we as Liberal Democrats are concerned that it does not. While the standing charge removal and the proposed energy bill cost control framework are welcome, struggling households cannot wait until the next spending review in 2027 for policy costs to be taken off bills—one of the quickest ways to reduce bills while supporting electrification. The Government could have introduced the Liberal Democrat essential energy guarantee to protect basic household energy needs. If we are truly to break free from the volatile fossil fuel prices driven by despots and Trump’s stupid wars, we must accelerate renewables, grid connections and electrification. That is why I am disturbed by the seeming inconsistencies in the approach taken in the Budget. First, the Treasury says that it is setting an entirely new path on energy, while Ministers tell us that their clean energy ambitions remain unchanged. With the allocation round 8 auction budget due within weeks, Ministers must urgently clarify what that means for investment certainty in floating offshore wind and port regeneration, which is critical for supply costs and supply chains.<span id="639" class="column-number" data-column-number="639"></span> Secondly, cheaper energy does not automatically lead to electrification on its own. As winter approaches, why is the Treasury cutting the flagship warm homes plan—the surest way to electrify heating in our homes and reduce wasted wind energy? The Budget slashes £1 billion of capital funding from the programme and reintroduces VAT on clean technologies from 2027, effectively creating a solar panel and heat pump tax. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny reports that a further £1.5 billion could be removed from the warm homes plan’s financial transactions funding. That is the very zero-interest loan schemes that have just been launched and lauded. With 90% of domestic bill increases since 2020 linked to wholesale gas price spikes, despite and contrary to all the protestations from the Conservatives and Reform, the answer is clear: a national electrification strategy, making it easier, not harder, for households to move away from fossil fuels. This Budget should have advanced that mission; instead, it risks setting Britain back.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentLib DemOlly Glover

    Budget Resolutions

    For all the positives in this Budget, the real disappointment is that it does not match the radicalism and the claims of the now endless Government social media and TikTok barrage. It is extraordinary, given everything that he said when he was Secretary of State for Defence, that the Chancellor has kicked the big defence spending decisions down the road. There are warm words, but there is no plan for helping people back into work—and, of course, nothing concrete on Europe, something that even the previous Chancellor acknowledged over the weekend needs to be addressed. A big theme for my constituents is the need for infrastructure to support housing. I believe that there would be less despair and opposition to new houses if central Government listened to calls for transparency and ambition when it comes to infrastructure and public services to support housing growth. Setting and publishing targets for the amount of primary healthcare, transport, large-scale leisure or policing per head of population, based on an analysis of local demographic needs, and showing progress or otherwise against those metrics, would help to restore trust and would highlight where investment is needed. That is all the more important as local councils do not have direct control of most of these areas. The lack of acknowledgment of such challenges, let alone action on them, in the Budget is disappointing. It is also regrettable that there are no rolling funds or investment programmes for major transport improvements. Without them, no hope has been created for a new railway station serving Grove and Wantage, accessibility improvements to Cholsey station, or electrification from <span id="655" class="column-number" data-column-number="655"></span>Didcot to Oxford. We have to hope that the Government’s slow embrace of devolution, amid the utter shambles of local government reorganisation, will fill this void, but that very much remains to be seen given the number of unanswered questions. There are some welcome measures to support hospitality, but small producer relief for small-scale producers of alcohol still excludes vineyards such as Hendred vineyard, which produces a few thousand bottles a year. That makes little sense: the alcohol intensity of a drink does not inherently correlate with how much it is abused, and English wine has a promising future. Let me end by referring to what the Budget says about science and high tech. Despite some positive measures on AI safety and capital gains tax founders’ relief, the Government’s previous decisions on science mean that this is the biggest area of disappointment. My constituency contains a wide range of science and technology organisations, and the Government’s decision to cut Science and Technology Facilities Council funding significantly is incomprehensible and unforgivable. No wonder that after three months the Government have still not had the basis courtesy to reply to my letters about that. The 15% funding cuts in Harwell’s three national and globally significant research facilities—Diamond Light Source, the ISIS Neutron and Muon Source and the Central Laser Facility—will lead to significant decreases in operating time, of up to 25%. I am used to the Government ignoring me, but perhaps they will listen to the deputy general secretary of Prospect, Sue Ferns, the Liverpool city region mayor, Steve Rotherham, and the physicist Brian Cox, all of whom have warned that the cuts would “cause lasting and possibly irreparable damage to the UK’s scientific capabilities”.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentLib DemMr Paul Kohler

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I proposed an amendment to our recent report on earned settlement that included a plea to only make changes to indefinite leave to remain for those not already embarked on the pathway to settlement. While my amendment was defeated, only three Labour MPs on the Committee voted against it, with four other Labour colleagues voting with me or abstaining. In the statement, which I applaud and welcome, the Home Secretary rightly lauds the UK’s reputation for playing fairly, so will she join the Liberal Democrats in agreeing not to make any retrospective changes to the time required to achieve indefinite leave to remain for all those already on pathways to settlement, not only care workers—or do other contributions not count?

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentLib DemMr Paul Kohler

    Budget Resolutions

    I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This country faces fundamental problems: the faces at the top may have changed, but once again Labour has shown itself incapable of making the tough calls. This morning, I hosted a post-Budget roundtable for local employers in my constituency. I regret to report that the business community in Wimbledon shares my concern about this short-term, lacklustre Budget. By kicking the can down the road, this mañana Budget has failed the businesses that are critical to growing the economy. Rather than providing businesses with breathing space, the Chancellor has many of them drowning in crippling taxes and excessive regulation. Raising the business rates relief threshold to £18,000 is, of course, welcome, but high streets across my constituency, in Wimbledon, Raynes Park, New Malden and Morden, will see little benefit. Craig Hurring, the chief executive officer of Love Wimbledon, informed me today that the change will benefit an estimated 1% of the businesses in his business improvement district. Other changes that are in the pipeline are making matters worse. A company that manages fantastic serviced office space for new businesses in Wimbledon tells me that new restrictions on business rates relief mean that it will have to increase rents by up to 25%—a huge cost to start-ups. Business rates are crippling my local businesses. Gina Conway runs an award-winning hair and beauty salon in Wimbledon. She employs 38 people and trains up to 20 apprentices every year, but she tells me that “the pressure for most salon owners is too much to bear”. The long shadow of covid, soaring energy bills, VAT and crippling business rates are killing high street businesses. I was honoured to be present for the excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali). I own a bar in Covent Garden in her constituency, so it feels a bit like she is my MP—I will invite her to it one day. That means that I know at first hand how the night-time economy is suffering. Since 2020, the UK has lost almost three in 10 late-night venues, and across the sector we continue to lose the equivalent of 13 businesses every week. The changes for self-assessment taxpayers are just as worrying. The Chancellor said that he would champion “the small British firms that give character to our communities”.<span id="vol792_col305" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="305" data-volume-number="792" data-external-id="D4B71A13-44AC-4127-9B51-E65739BB69CB">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 305.]</span><span id="679" class="column-number" data-column-number="679"></span> Instead, 2029 risks becoming a brutal cash crunch, with 18 months of tax squeezed into 12 months. Increasing the tax on rental income is misguided. As the OBR has outlined, it will inevitably result in fewer homes to rent and higher rents. I fear that the new Prime Minister is repeating his predecessor’s mistakes. His only plan is to have a plan. The Budget makes no substantive progress on addressing welfare spending, social care or defence readiness. The only glimmer of hope is the Prime Minister’s recent comments on Europe, but even here my constituents still do not know what he really intends. According to Goldman Sachs, a close relationship with the EU could boost our economy by at least £60 billion per year. The Prime Minister must be bold. He must tear up his predecessor’s red lines, seek unfettered access to the world’s largest market and let British business realise its full potential.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentLib DemMike Martin

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{1DE7BEF8-8C1D-4E15-8C95-9845FB9EEECB}">T5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E878CDDC-3AC1-458D-9DD4-4474DC78E662}"></QuestionText>Recently, I visited Standing Joint Command in Aldershot, which is responsible for co-ordinating military support to the civil power, working through local resilience forums and councils. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of <span id="575" class="column-number" data-column-number="575"></span>Defence to ensure that devolution and local government reorganisation strengthen the country’s resilience rather than weaken it?</Question>

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentLib DemMax Wilkinson

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    It is a year since the Home Secretary’s initial statement on her immigration reforms, and we still disagree with the Government and with the official Opposition. Just as we predicted, the Government’s immigration reforms are unravelling. By prioritising tough rhetoric rather than a system that works, the Home Secretary has apparently split her party and the Cabinet, and has alienated people on all sides. Viewing immigration simply as a matter of raw numbers and images of small boat arrivals is degrading the nation’s ability to engage in the informed national discussion that we need. Immigration reforms must of course bring greater control, and they must prevent small boat crossings too, but, crucially, they must also serve our economy and public services. The Home Secretary previously claimed that ILR for care workers will cost us £10 billion. The shadow Home Secretary made much of that today, yet the IPPR, using the same methodology, estimates that the net benefit of skilled migrants settling in the UK under the current rules is £115 billion. Will the Home Secretary publish the full economic impact of the changes that she is suggesting? As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, being an EU member brought more order to our migration system. It prevented small boat crossings, and it meant that many who came to work here went home again in due course. This is not all down to the Government; <span id="590" class="column-number" data-column-number="590"></span>they simply would not be considering today’s changes to ILR if it was not for the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal and the record levels of immigration that they allowed while promising lower numbers. It is no wonder so many people in this country are confused. Now that the Conservatives are the official Opposition, their No. 1 policy on immigration is leaving the European convention on human rights. But something does not add up. The Conservatives tell us also that their Brexit deal is settled and must never be reviewed. The fact is that the Brexit deal they negotiated with the EU would be ended if this country left the European convention on human rights, which would send the UK into further chaos. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> They look confused and are disputing this, but perhaps that is because Conservative MPs have no idea what they are actually arguing for. Either they are misinformed, or they are misleading the public. I turn back to this Government. Today I have two further questions for the Home Secretary. First, why does she think that so many of her Back Benchers disagree with her about immigration? My second question relates to Europe. Our future clearly lies closer to Europe, which will bring opportunities to fix our migration system, so why does the Home Secretary disagree so strongly with the Prime Minister about this?

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentLib DemMartin Wrigley

    Homes for Ukraine

    <Question HRSContentId="{3418D750-36CE-46C3-B5B5-92DA6384BD80}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{340771E4-2AB6-4E54-89CA-71DF26C5B3F3}">What assessment she has made of the potential impact of reducing the value of thank you payments under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme on the retention of hosts.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentLib DemMartin Wrigley

    Homes for Ukraine

    With the dropping of the thank you payment from £350 to £100 on 1 January, many hosts find that their costs are no longer being covered and are considering evicting their guests. Hosts and guests are <span id="559" class="column-number" data-column-number="559"></span>being encouraged to move to a lodger scheme using the “rent a room” scheme. I am told that the going rate for a room in my constituency is around £600, and universal credit would pay a lot more than the £350 saved from the thank you payment. In addition, Ukrainian guests would lose the help available from the local authority to move on to a first private rental. All in all, this reduction in the thank you payment looks likely to cost the state more than it might save and to reduce the help on offer to our Ukrainian guests. Will the Minister meet me and local Ukrainian hosts, or would she prefer to think again about the reduction?

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentLib DemMarie Goldman

    Topical Questions

    The issue of restrictive covenants, raised so ably by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is also affecting my constituents, some of whom have been extorted out of tens of thousands of pounds. Will the Government give any comfort to the residents who are campaigning so hard on this that the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will contain provisions to stop this awful practice?

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentLib DemManuela Perteghella

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    Does the Home Secretary believe that it is fair to change the rules retrospectively for people who are not earning in excess of £50,000 but nevertheless have built careers, raised families and paid taxes based on the settlement pathway that existed when they arrived? Does this not violate the British value of fairness and risk real damage to our economy and our social fabric?

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentLib DemManuela Perteghella

    Budget Resolutions

    I welcome aspects of this breathing space Budget. Additional investment in council housing, support for rough sleeping programmes and some positive news on business rates with action to revive our high streets are all steps in the right direction. But for many families, businesses and communities, such as those in my constituency, the Budget does not go far enough to address the pressure they face every day, including the brutal cost of living. People in Stratford-on-Avon worry about the future of their local high streets, about heating their homes this winter, and about whether their favourite shop, pub, café or restaurant—businesses that give our towns their character—will still be there next year. That is why I believe that the Budget misses opportunities in a number of important areas. Our small businesses on high streets—the independent businesses that make our towns unique and create jobs for local people—face pressure from every direction. Under this Government, rising employment costs, energy costs, business rates and regulatory burdens are all taking their toll, and empty units are blighting our streets up and down the country. We need stronger powers for councils to bring long-term vacant properties back into use, and more support for the independent businesses that give our towns their character. The business rates discount will help some, but many will be left in the cold. Hospitality is of particular importance to Stratford-on-Avon; one in nine constituents are employed in the sector. That is why I am disappointed that the Government did not go further on VAT for hospitality. A temporary reduction in VAT would have provided immediate help <span id="666" class="column-number" data-column-number="666"></span>to businesses, while helping consumers who are also feeling the squeeze. Businesses in my constituency tell me that a VAT reduction for hospitality would have allowed them to keep the lights on after the busy Christmas period. On fuel poverty, while the payment of £100 is welcome, we know from the Resolution Foundation that 1.4 million low-income households are in higher council tax bands, and they will miss out on that untargeted payment. Will the Minister look at that cohort urgently, so that they do not fall through the cracks? While I am on the subject, council tax is a deeply unfair tax—we know it, and the Minister knows it, and it needs to change. Many households remain vulnerable to high energy costs, which is why I am concerned about the reduction in funding for the warm homes plan. Investing in warmer homes cuts bills and reduces carbon emissions; it is one of the smartest investments that any Government can make, particularly for families and older residents already struggling with the cost of living. The Budget and the Government’s wider plan place considerable emphasis on devolution. Warwickshire is a long way away from a mayor. People in my constituency want local services that are responsibly rooted in the places that they serve. Any organisational devolution must strengthen local democracy and voices, because whether we are talking about high streets, fuel poverty, housing or hospitality, the people closest to those challenges are often those best placed to solve them. For my constituents, the Budget does not go far enough to support small businesses, tackle fuel poverty and help communities thrive.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLib DemJosh Babarinde

    Topical Questions

    Two brave Eastbourne families are fighting for improved regulation of supported accommodation, after their respective relatives were found dead in the accommodation that was meant to be supporting them. Will the Minister meet them, and me, to discuss how we can better protect vulnerable people in supported accommodation?

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLib DemJohn Milne

    Budget Resolutions

    This Budget has around 100 separate measures, but most would never have featured in the previous Chancellor’s Budgets—not because of any particular policy difference, but because they are just too small. It is less “Steady as she goes”, and more “Let this grind to a complete halt.”<span id="670" class="column-number" data-column-number="670"></span> As far as taxation goes, by far the biggest impact comes from a policy that was not even mentioned: the continued freeze on personal tax thresholds. This year alone, it means another half a million people will start paying tax for the first time, and a further half a million will be pushed into a higher tax bracket—all a function of that handy Chancellor’s trick: fiscal drag. Understandably, the Conservatives give the Government an easy ride on this, as it was their idea in the first place. When it comes to welfare, the critical Milburn and Timms reviews have both been conveniently kicked to the other side of the Budget, but the issues that we face are not what people think they are. It has been said so many times that everyone assumes it must be true that millions of people are getting personal independence payment or universal credit health awards for mild anxiety. The appeal of this story is that it makes people think that we can slash social support for vulnerable people and feel morally good about it. Unfortunately, it is just not true. In reality, absolutely no one gets PIP for mild or severe anxiety, or for any form of mental health condition. That is because PIP is not awarded according to condition. Rather, applicants are assessed according to their daily abilities or lack of them—whether they can wash themselves, cook for themselves or manage short distances walking. There is not even a category for mild anxiety. I find it incredible that politicians, including Members who are the welfare spokespeople for their parties, can continue to ask for something that they must know by now is not possible. What chance have we got of making smart reforms to the economy if politicians cannot even get the basic facts straight? While we continue to wait for all the missing parts of the Budget over the coming weeks and months, I urge caution. Welfare cuts are just a right-wing version of the magic money tree. As a proportion of GDP, today’s spend on non-pension welfare is roughly the same as it was in the mid-80s, when a certain Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. At that time, the Defence budget was twice what it is today, so clearly the current level of welfare spend is perfectly compatible with meeting our defence targets, and welfare is not the reason why our defence budget is in such trouble. The peace dividend did not go to UC and PIP; it went to the NHS and pensions. Above all, this is a challenge caused by a general decline in the economy, not welfare. Yes, it is always important to control welfare spend, and I support that, but slashing welfare on the basis of an arbitrary financial target invented simply to raise enough to pay for some dramatic manifesto pledge is not a credible path to anything. What we have is a Budget that does not seek to do anything very much about anything; the real battles have yet to come.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLib DemJames MacCleary

    Budget Resolutions

    The Chancellor has promised growth in every postcode, but those of us in the south-east could be forgiven for thinking that the Government have forgotten us altogether. Take London out of the equation, and the south-east, and Sussex in particular, does not seem to be part of the Government’s infrastructure strategy at all. While London has the <span id="643" class="column-number" data-column-number="643"></span>highest per capita public transport investment in the country, by contrast the south-east has the lowest of any English region, at 11% below the national average. Where I live in Newhaven, nothing stands out more than the A259—the main coastal road that runs the length of East Sussex, passing through Seaford and Newhaven, as well as serving the hugely popular Seven Sisters country park, which attracts visitors from around the world. The road is vital to the local economy. Department for Transport figures show that more than 19,000 vehicles squeeze along South Way in Newhaven every day, which has a massive impact on neighbourhoods and businesses. The traffic system, designed in the 1970s, is now fundamentally failing our coastal communities. Newhaven is a strategic port and Seaford is a town of over 25,000 residents that attracts tens of thousands of visitors to its beautiful beach and serves as a major access point to the famous Seven Sisters cliffs. The road is a critical artery for our area and, like all coast roads, it is hard to expand it in its current location. In 2023, a multi-year major road network study recommended a package of upgrades, including safety improvements to junctions like Bishopstone Road. The county council submitted its business case to the Government to fund the upgrade package, but that is where it stopped. Will the Minister say whether the Government will commit the money necessary to get the A259 finally moving, and press the Reform-Conservative administration at East Sussex county council to get on with funding immediate improvements, like the Bishopstone Road junction, to boost roads in our area? The Chancellor has said that he wants more houses to be built as a result of this Budget, but building more houses without the necessary infrastructure is a road to nowhere. I am very clear about this: it is not reasonable or fair to ask residents in my community to just accept more and more housing, while they watch their roads clog up and their public services deteriorate and while they cannot get access to a GP. Take Ringmer, a beautiful village in my constituency, where over 1,600 new homes have been proposed as part of the district council’s local plan process. It is worth noting that the village currently has only 2,000 households. I have heard Ministers refer to people in villages like Ringmer, who are concerned about how their communities can possibly cope with so much new housing, as nimbys. That is grossly unfair and frankly insulting. If we want house building and growth, the Government need to offer communities a fair deal, not call them names. Housing plans must be led by need. Too much house building is just waved through and sometimes it is not even built at all. If the Chancellor wants to build Britain, he needs to invest in roads, schools, health facilities and public transport to make the new houses and the communities in which they are built truly sustainable, otherwise we are just building problems for the future. This Budget contains many warm words. However, the residents of Lewes, Seaford, Newhaven, Polegate and our local villages will judge it based on what actually changes for them.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLib DemIan Roome

    Topical Questions

    Now that the Government have withdrawn plans for local government reorganisation in Devon, the law still requires councils such as North Devon to change from a committee system to a cabinet system by June 2027. Six months have been lost and the Secretary of State can grant only a year’s extension. Can the Minister tell us whether councils such as North Devon will be given extra time or extra funding to help make that change?

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLib DemHelen Morgan

    Rural Local Authorities: Funding

    <Question HRSContentId="{B453A442-4B79-4DD2-9492-A31115B72FBC}">15. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{03B199A0-B081-4EBF-9767-968E45E570E0}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding for local authorities in rural areas.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLib DemHelen Morgan

    Rural Local Authorities: Funding

    Shropshire council is in receipt of exceptional financial support following 16 years of disastrous Conservative mismanagement and a settlement from the Government that reduces its central allocation over the next three years. The issue for the council is that any council tax rises it opts for in future will cover only the repayment terms of that exceptional financial support, and will not allow for any financial restructuring. We are clearly in an unsustainable situation, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the terms of the exceptional financial support?

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLib DemGideon Amos

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, although I confess that I would rather see the social media companies give way and accept ways of cleaning up their act, rather than young people having to give way and lose their access. He mentioned the checks, and passports and driving licences will be required. Does that not disproportionately disadvantage poorer households, which are less likely to have those documents?

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLib DemGideon Amos

    Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, and to continue the almost daily tradition of meeting the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, in these Committee Rooms. The Liberal Democrats support the principle of directing interest payments towards tenants and the schemes that they want to see for their communities. The 9,000 private tenants in Taunton and Wellington would very much like to see the proceeds of these profits being directed in that way, although we do not see any guarantee in the order that the funds will be ringfenced for the use of private tenants. Paragraph 5.6 of the draft explanatory memorandum says it is an “expectation” that “The Secretary of State would use the funds received towards programmes or activities that benefit tenants in the private rented sector”. Paragraph 5.8 says, as an example, that the Secretary of State could require funds to be “used to fund a programme supporting vulnerable tenants.” We would like to these funds to be ringfenced, so that they are used for the benefit of tenants and do not disappear into some Treasury coffer. At this stage, without that guarantee, we have difficulty supporting the order.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLib DemGideon Amos

    House Building

    The increase in starts is welcome, but the Government’s package of reforms was designed to increase consents. The most recent quarterly figures show that although consent applications are down, the rate of granted consents remains high at 88%—that figure is over 90% when councillors are involved in making the planning decisions. Does that not show that taking away powers to make decisions on major applications—those of over 150 homes—from councillors through the NPPF has made no difference whatsoever to the number of consents? Will the Government give those powers back to councillors, who support over 90% of applications when they come to committee?

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLib DemGideon Amos

    House Building

    The Minister clearly did not hear: I referred to the removal of councillors’ powers to make decisions on applications relating to over 150 homes, which happened at an early stage of the year. Moving on, the warm homes grant has come in for cuts. We have now discovered that not only is £1 billion being cut from the scheme, but an extra £1.5 billion will be cut from the loan system that goes towards those warm homes. How will people get the renewable energy and efficient homes they need if the scheme is being dismantled in this way?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLib DemDr Danny Chambers

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    For a long time, big tech companies in silicon valley and China have dictated what it is like for children to grow up in the UK. On self-harm, chatbots are often integrated into social media, and some of them give unregulated medical advice. Sometimes, people with eating disorders learn about low-calorie diets or how to access weight-loss drugs. Does the hon. and learned Member agree that any regulation on social media companies must include chatbots, whether they are integrated into social media or stand-alone?

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLib DemClaire Young

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{8269437C-66A5-4279-8EF6-BE499C446581}">T1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{75CF2F87-1DBD-4C01-A7FA-3EBE2CE540A4}">If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.</QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLib DemClaire Young

    Topical Questions

    The Housing Minister promised me in January that we would see protection from fleecehold exploitation in this Parliament. The Government are running out of time. When can my constituents in freeholds expect unfair service charges to be properly regulated?

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLib DemClaire Young

    Budget Resolutions

    The Chancellor called this a “breathing space” Budget, but it seems only to be breathing space for the Government to put off the hard decisions. It is not a breathing space for my constituents, with frozen tax and student loan repayment thresholds. It is not a breathing space for my local businesses: the rise in employer national insurance contributions has not been reversed, there is no emergency <span id="674" class="column-number" data-column-number="674"></span>VAT cut for hospitality to help our high streets, and on business rates, which I have repeatedly raised in this House, the Budget just tinkers with a system that needs wholesale reform. The Budget is not a breathing space for farmers. There is no change in the family farm tax. The cut to fertiliser tariffs will make little difference when, as the NFU has pointed out, much already arrives tariff-free. I am disappointed that the Budget does not treat food security as national security. The Budget is not a breathing space for local transport users. In a Budget that mentions the north repeatedly, the west barely gets a look in. South Gloucestershire is mentioned once—a brief reference to a mass transit system that we have been hearing about for decades and that is unlikely to touch our rural villages. A £1 bus fare cap and discounted rail fares would have helped families in the short term, and investment in rural transport would help them in the longer term. The west of England is a growth engine outside of London. It deserves more ambition than that. The Budget is not a breathing space for energy bill payers. Suppliers forecast that the price cap will rise by around a quarter in January. Although welcome, the £100 for this winter and the promise of scrapping gas standing charges in the future do not touch the sides. Scrapping the standing charge will save people just £45 on average—and only those who actually use gas. One in five properties in Thornbury and Yate is heated by oil. Those households have no price cap at all, and there is nothing to ensure that the removal of import tariffs on kerosene is passed to consumers. The surest way to bring down bills is to insulate homes and move people off volatile oil and gas, so why is there a £1 billion cut in the warm homes plan? What of the promised growth? When will we hear about plans for new nuclear at Oldbury? The outcome of Great British Energy Nuclear’s review was promised this autumn. If data centres that meet the new British data centre covenant are to get priority grid connections, then, given the problem with providing nuclear connections, where is the grid capacity for new homes to meet the Government’s own housing targets? Where is the investment in skills in the rural west of England so that our local young people can access the technical jobs available? This Budget is a missed opportunity to provide real breathing space for our constituents, our businesses and our economy.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLib DemChris Coghlan

    Budget Resolutions

    When my grandfather Lieutenant Austin Coghlan, a naval officer, served in the battle of the Atlantic, he did not expect to survive. That he did was in no small part due to the codebreakers at Bletchley Park, who diverted convoys away from U-boats. In the process, the codebreakers invented the world’s first computer, Colossus, which powered the economic development of the post-war world. The spill-over effect from military technology to civilian use is one of the most powerful forces for economic growth, and we can use it now. Many have said that there is not much that is transformative in this Budget, but that overlooks the Chancellor’s decision to invest up to £5 billion in dual-use military technology through the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, and to borrow jointly with our allies through the multilateral defence mechanism. I have called for that for the past two years on the Treasury Committee, so I am grateful that the Government and the Liberal Democrats have embraced that policy. Academics now recognise that the economic dominance of the United States has been powered by public research and development, especially in defence. In my Budget speech last year, I called for £5 billion more on public research and development, so that we spend the same share of GDP on that as the US does. The £5 billion in this Budget, while over four years, is a start.<span id="652" class="column-number" data-column-number="652"></span> Public investment in research in universities and laboratories is powerful because it de-risks the cost of developing new technologies, and enables private investment to take that research forward in start-ups. The London Business School’s Paolo Surico has found that innovation that is funded by the Government, but taken forward by the private sector, generates productivity and growth that is eight times larger than innovation taken forward by the private sector alone. More borrowing is of course a concern in the current fiscal environment, but as the Government have correctly identified, borrowing jointly with allies can remove most of the credit risk. The latest academic research enables us to forecast the returns with confidence. If this programme was scaled in increments of £2 billion a year annually over the next 10 years, it could lead to: growth finally returning to pre-2008 levels, transforming living standards; a debt-to-GDP ratio that is 2 percentage points or £60 billion lower; and meeting our NATO defence spending commitments. British politicians in the 1930s were labelled the guilty men, because they failed to prioritise defence over the deficit. My grandfather’s generation paid the price. As a reservist, an infantry officer and an MP, I want to ensure that our generation does not.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLib DemCharlotte Cane

    Budget Resolutions

    On growth in every postcode, the Chancellor seems to have forgotten the people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire. There was nothing in the Budget and no funding for the Ely junction improvements, which would increase capacity on that rail line for freight and for passengers and make it more reliable. There was nothing to reduce rail fares, which are getting out of many people’s reach. There was nothing to help the county council with the phenomenal cost of mending our soil-affected roads. It estimates the cost to be £500 million, an amount that no county council can find. It is roughly 10 times its annual budget for road repairs. We have roads that, over <span id="662" class="column-number" data-column-number="662"></span>this summer, actually had no earth underneath them any more, and when people go out to repair them, they instead have to close the road, because there is no earth on top of which to repair it. On buses, it is great that we have capped bus fares, but many of my villages do not have buses at all. There was nothing in the Budget about improving bus routes and getting more buses. There was nothing on the A10. The money for that has been removed, and nothing has been put back in the Budget. So is growth really for every postcode? Not for mine. As for the farmers, who had that catastrophic sustainable farming incentive process that closed within hours, there is nothing for them. There is nothing to recognise the problems they had over this long, hot, dry summer. We need to back our farmers. They are in my postcodes, and they feed all of us. On the breathing space, there are some good things in the Budget to help people with the cost of living, but not for people on heating oil. I have had a letter from a young mum who tells me that she has to find £650 just to buy the minimum amount of oil that can be delivered, and that would not last her the winter. She cannot ask for money from the crisis and resilience fund, because she had that back in the spring, and she has been told she cannot ask again. Yes, she will probably get £100 in January, but she needs £650 now. To add insult to injury, the Chancellor has cut the budgets for helping people get away from their dependence on oil heating, so I cannot even be sure that all my constituents can take advantage of moving on to heat pumps or other technology. At the very least, will the Chancellor please look again at how he can help people on oil central heating, because they desperately need it this winter, and please can we not just tell them to eat gherkins?

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLib DemCharlie Maynard

    Budget Resolutions

    The Chancellor said in his speech last week that people were looking to Government “not to solve all their problems but to give them a bit of breathing space”.<span id="vol792_col304" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="304" data-volume-number="792" data-external-id="D4B71A13-44AC-4127-9B51-E65739BB69CB">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 304.]</span> That may be partly true, but I think it demonstrates the lack of ambition that sits behind this Budget. The Government should be solving the systemic problems in our economy, or at least making a much more serious attempt to do so than we saw last week. Those problems are at the root of why so many families are struggling to make ends meet and so many businesses are failing. When the economy is as damaged as it is, when public sector debt sits at 104% of debt to GDP—according to the International Monetary Fund—when productivity is decreasing, when consumer confidence is down and when housing costs continue to rise, I think it is the Government’s job to do something substantial towards solving the country’s problems. Make no mistake: the various incremental measures that the Chancellor announced, such as those on household energy bills, will be welcome, but they are not sufficient to “move the dial on growth”, in the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. As bigger, more difficult decisions are kicked down the road for another time, what my constituents want to know is how they are to absorb another year of no real earnings growth, while mortgage increases are coming down the pipe on the back of a likely Bank of England rate rise this week. My constituents want to know that the public services on which we all rely are safe, and they are not. My constituents want to see genuine hope for a future with better jobs and more opportunities, and they want to know that our food supply is secure and our rural economy will be supported. Across the board, however, this Budget was too unambitious, and ducked the big decisions that our country is crying out for.<span id="657" class="column-number" data-column-number="657"></span> Let me give two examples that could “move the dial”. First, the Chancellor’s speech was silent on Britain’s relationship with our biggest trading partner, the European Union. Our country prospers when fair, dynamic markets for goods, services, capital and labour operate effectively. If the Government are serious about our economy and want growth, they should get on with opening negotiations for our country to rejoin the EU now. Secondly, if we are serious about getting our national debt under control, we must look at reforming our fiscal rules. Why? Because they do not work. That is demonstrated by the fact that for the last 25 years there has not been a single year in which tax receipts exceeded spending. Our fiscal rules front-load spending in the early years, and difficult decisions—as epitomised by last week’s Budget—are put off, frequently to the other side of an election. There are good international examples from which we can learn. Other countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden, do this better. I therefore urge the Chancellor to take steps to rejoin the EU, and to establish a cross-party commission exploring more prudent fiscal rules.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLib DemBen Maguire

    Topical Questions

    The Government have now baked the £20 million-a-year second homes council tax premium into their core funding; but business rates loopholes, which were increased in the recent Budget, make those payments easily avoidable, so that revenue cannot be relied on consistently. Will the Minister meet the six Cornish MPs to ensure that Cornwall benefits from the second home council tax premium?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLib DemAnna Sabine

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    Does the hon. Member have any examples of how the age of a child could be proved if that child had never been on social media? How would a tech company that, theoretically, <span id="284WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="284WH"></span>would not know their information, be able to verify the child’s age without effectively using some form of digital ID by the back door?

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLib DemAnna Sabine

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank all hon. Members in this Chamber; I found myself nodding along extensively during other Members’ contributions. I absolutely support banning children from accessing harmful social media. The Liberal Democrats have long called for decisive action in this space. The Government joined us in those calls earlier this year, announcing proposals for a social media ban, but it has been many months since the initial announcement, and we are still not entirely sure what to expect. That uncertainty over what a possible ban will look like may be driving many of the concerns of those who signed this petition. What we know so far is that the Government have plans for an Australian-style ban; not only is that vague, but the Liberal Democrats have concerns that an Australian-style ban will ultimately fail in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online. As we have heard from other hon. Members, after a few months of the Australian ban, early data suggests that it has had a limited impact on prohibiting young people from accessing social media. On top of that, the Molly Rose Foundation found that among children aged 12 to 15 who had social media accounts before the ban came in, more than half said that the ban had made no difference to their online safety. I would add that, while my children are too old to be affected by the ban, I was often a very busy and tired single mother while they were being raised and using social media, and I totally understand the points being made about the possible unfairness and social justice issues with a blanket ban. This is important because, as we know, the message of this petition is not that children should keep access to harmful content; it is that a ban could cut young people off from safe spaces. For vulnerable children, online communities can often be a lifeline. A blanket ban risks cutting children off from that support. If the Australian evidence is anything to go by, the Government’s proposals could take away those positives without making the online world any safer. A few weeks ago, I met pupils from a local primary school, Peasedown St John, here in Parliament, and they shared similar concerns. In the Q&amp;A session with a class of six and seven-year-olds, the first question was: “Are you going to ban social media?” When I asked what they thought, they told me, in six and seven-year-old terms, that they wanted inappropriate content restricted, but that they still wanted to use educational platforms. Even at that age, they recognise that different platforms carry different levels of harm, and I must admit that I agree with them. This is exactly the nuanced approach the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Unlike an Australia-style ban, the Liberal Democrats would assess and regulate platforms based on the harms they cause, with film-style <span id="288WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="288WH"></span>age ratings reflecting that harm. Platforms that cause the most harm would be closed to children—but, if a tech company did the work to redesign the platform, removing addictive algorithms and harmful content, that form of social media could possibly be accessible. Unlike a fixed ban, that would give tech companies a reason to change. It would preserve safe spaces for young people to talk online and make safety part of the design of these platforms rather than an afterthought. While we are considering safe spaces, I appreciated the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) that there has been a deterioration in alternative spaces—practical, real-life spaces—for young people to go to over the past 10 or 20 years. I notice that the excellent campaign group Make Space for Girls has been making the point that specifically for young women and girls—particularly as the nights draw in—it is unclear where they will be going to spend their time. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) also made the point that rural communities particularly face this challenge. As someone who represents a semi-rural community, I know that many young people simply do not have anywhere to go if they are not going to be on their phones. I am not saying that that makes it right that they are on their phones, but it poses a challenge when that phone use is suddenly cut off. The Liberal Democrats are also clear that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy. Several constituents have asked me to attend this debate; again, they are not in favour of children accessing harmful content, but their concern is that a ban may effectively require a form of digital ID to be enforceable. The Liberal Democrats have always criticised plans for mandatory digital ID, and we will properly scrutinise any regulation of social media to make sure both that it is effective and that it safeguards personal privacy. I am wholeheartedly in support of a ban on harmful social media, but I think that this debate has allowed us to raise important questions about what a ban should look like. I will therefore finish with a few questions for the Minister. Do the Government believe that the best way forward is still a harms-based approach to banning social media? Can we still expect to see a ban by spring 2027? If so, could the Minister lay out exactly what we can expect to see, and confirm that any regulation will always prioritise privacy and that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals?

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLib DemAnna Sabine

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    The hon. Member is absolutely right—that was poorly worded. I should have said, “Alongside the safety of children, we should be prioritising privacy.” I thank him for allowing me to make that clarification. Finally, on 8 September, the Government also announced legislation to enforce device and app-level restrictions to stop children taking and sharing nude photos of themselves. Could the Minister tell us when we will see that come into force? The Liberal Democrats want to protect young people from online harm. We believe that the only way to do that successfully is through a harms-based ban on social media. I hope that the Government will today agree.<span id="289WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="289WH"></span>

    Hansard source