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. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

   Strengthening the Union

   I appreciate the tone of the Secretary of State’s answer. I note that the Prime Minister said yesterday that change begins with honesty, so let us be honest: harping on about the strength of the Union in the same breath as calling for change is a distraction. A Union that treats people differently depending on where they live must change. Does he honestly believe that the city region of Greater Manchester should have more powers over policing and keeping communities safe than the Parliament of Wales, the Senedd?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

   Engagements

   Q5. Our new Plaid Cymru Government have laid the foundations for change, showing what Wales can achieve with the powers we have. The Prime Minister says that devolving powers means better public services, and I agree with him, but policing in Wales is still controlled from afar here in Westminster. Will he please put his devolution instincts into practice and confirm that devolving policing will be on the table when he meets the First Minister next month?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

   Engagements

   Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 September.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

   Engagements

   May I first welcome the Prime Minister to his place? I also welcome his exemption of offences including death by dangerous driving from early prison release, but this comes after months of anguish for bereaved families, including my constituent Lisa Jones, whose husband Aaron was killed on 23 December 2024. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to victims and their families who have been put through significant distress throughout this process? Can he also assure them that, unlike the Labour precedent, there will be no Government U-turn on this?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

   Rewiring the State

   Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is great to see the powers being devolved to England to drive economic growth, yet the most minimal powers are not being considered for Wales. The promise made by the UK Government in February to jointly consult with the Welsh Government on the devolution of the vacant land tax has stalled. Will the First Secretary of State say what conversations she has had with the Treasury on that matter, and tell us when the consultation will be published?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

   Representation of the People Bill

   It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed. We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities. The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

   Representation of the People Bill

   I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates. Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level. If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it. I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Rewiring the State

   I align myself with the comments about firefighters and suggest that the right hon. Lady might need a bigger room for the summit, as there is so much interest in it. I seek some clarity on business rates. She mentioned that devolution might lead to business rates retention, but it is the structure of business rates that is causing the decline of our high streets and the decimation of our hospitality sector. Giving local authorities such as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and Dorset council the right to cut them will simply move the problem from the business to the statutory services of the councils. Could she clarify this and expand a little on her intentions?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Rewiring the State

   I welcome the First Secretary of State to her place. Two weeks ago I held a hospitality business roundtable, and its participants will be pleased to hear her mention a pro-business culture and cutting the barriers that businesses face. At that event at North Bar, one thing that businesses such as the Fat Badger, Westmorland Coffee and other lovely hospitality businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough brought up was the high VAT rates that our businesses face. They are some of the highest in Europe, so will she make it her mission and this Government’s mission to look at how we can cut VAT to support local businesses and get our high streets and local areas thriving?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

    Rewiring the State

    For my Torbay constituents, and indeed all constituents in Devon and Cornwall, No. 10 North is actually two hours further away than No. 10 Downing Street. Although we Liberal Democrats genuinely welcome devolution that brings power closer to people, I represent a constituency that has high levels of deprivation. Can the First Secretary of State advise me on how the Government’s reforms will support areas such as mine in particular?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    Food Security and Cosmetically Imperfect Food

    I present this petition on food security following the extreme summer heat that has left tonnes of safe, nutritious but cosmetically imperfect produce rejected at the farm gate, deepening import reliance and showing the urgent need for a good food Bill. “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables, by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices, introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, Declares that this summer's extreme heat has left cosmetically imperfect but safe, nutritious fruit and vegetables rejected at the farm gate, with one surplus food redistributor alone taking in 6,000 rejected cauliflower heads in a single week; further declares that rigid retailer cosmetic specifications are forcing farmers to destroy edible produce while shortfalls are filled by imports; further notes that new analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit warns 2026 could be the worst UK harvest on record, with dairy farmers already losing 18.5 million litres in milk yields and growers facing water abstraction cessations; and further declares that food security is national security, and that this waste deepens the UK's reliance on imports at the exact moment self-sufficiency matters most. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables, by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices, introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003234]

    Hansard source
12. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he is absolutely right about road mileage. Devon has to maintain over 8,000 miles of road, which is the most of any upper-tier authority in the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that partitioning Exeter off from the rest of Devon—from the rural Devon hinterland—will strip away the tax base from Devon county council, meaning it will be unable to provide alternative services that would otherwise power growth?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the pleasant experience we had in Odesa recently, with Russian drones almost falling on our heads. Reports from Germany suggest that the recent drone attack on Leipzig airport was indeed coming from Moscow. Does he not agree that dealing with and having a good relationship with our nearest allies is the safest route to our national security?

    Hansard source
14. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    As a part-Devon Member of Parliament—the other part of my constituency is in Somerset—I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The part of my constituency in Devon is 800 square miles and will form just part of an enormous rural authority. Does she agree that that authority does not have the fiscal power to sustain itself?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Barker, after a bit of a break since the last time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for setting out so well the funding challenges facing upper-tier councils. She quite correctly articulated the challenges in relation to special educational needs provision, to which I could add home-to-school transport and, in the case of Oxfordshire, a population that is not just ageing but growing. Social care accounted for 52% of Oxfordshire county council’s budget in 2024-25. I want to focus my remarks on perhaps the most visible public service that councils provide, which is highways. For the current financial year, Oxfordshire’s Government allocation for highway maintenance is £33.5 million. This funding must maintain all highway assets in Oxfordshire, including 3,009 miles of carriageway, nearly 2,000 miles of footways and cycleways, 3,500 bridges and public right-of-way structures, 168,000 drainage assets and 124,000 electrical assets, such as street lighting, traffic signals and safety infrastructure. Oxfordshire county council was graded “Green” in the spend category of the Department for Transport’s recent exercise in respect of the Government’s local road maintenance ratings. That means the council invests “significantly” in maintaining its roads and goes beyond what the Government funds. Independent modelling shows that in Oxfordshire around £50 million per year is needed simply to maintain the network in its current condition, which means the Government funding falls short by around £16 million per year. Ideally, the county council would want to go even further and improve the condition of the roads rather than just maintaining them in a steady state; the amount of funds needed would then be even higher, at £60 million per year. Oxfordshire consistently spends significantly more than it receives from the Government for highway maintenance, but it is still a long way off the amount required. The council estimates that there is a maintenance funding backlog of over £700 million across the county’s highway network, part of which is to do with the previous Conservative administration and its stated policy of managed decline. The situation will only worsen with prolonged underfunding from central Government. This is a national issue. There are Members present from throughout the country, as we see whenever we discuss the subject of road surfaces. Without sustained funding, local authorities remain locked into a reactive cycle, whereby potholes re-emerge faster than they can be eliminated. Despite such challenges, Oxfordshire county council is trying to do things differently and get on to a proactive and preventive footing in relation to highways maintenance. It has significantly improved its programme of gully clearance and delivered the largest programme of surface dressing in at least 20 years, investing £14.5 million and treating around 2 million square metres of carriageway to prevent potholes from forming in the first place. In the past year alone, the council repaired more than 57,000 defects, including 37,000 potholes. It is spending £8 million this calendar year on a new surface dressing programme to tackle long-term road maintenance issues and prevent the formation of potholes. Between April and June, 87 roads across the county were treated, covering more than 1 million square metres of carriageway across 62 towns and villages in Oxfordshire. Amid these challenges, the changes to Government funding formulae will mean a cut to Oxfordshire county council’s budget of £24.1 million over three years, further undermining its ability to do more preventive work. If the Government continue to make unwise decisions, the council is, like so many others, at risk of seeing a vicious spiral of cuts and deterioration to highways and wider services. It is important that we do not pit different parts of the country with different geographies and demographics against one another. Every part of the country has a need in one form or another. Of course, our new Prime Minister has said so himself with the idea of “good growth in every postcode.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.] The Government have certainly talked about that a lot in respect of Oxfordshire, with the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor being so pivotal to scientific research and to accommodating housing targets. A new funding formula is needed that clearly cannot be based on the number of people alone. There are different challenges in urban and rural areas and, indeed, in those that fall between the two, as much of my constituency does. There remains a question of how we can work together to properly design, build and proactively maintain our roads and highways. Individual councils acting alone cannot hope to solve that problem by doing their own thing in isolation. Oxfordshire county council will soon cease to exist, thanks to the local government reorganisation. The question remains: what of the future? I conclude by emphasising that the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor aspirations will certainly not be achieved if our councils are starved of funding and our highways further deteriorate.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Joshua Reynolds

    Global Tin Availability

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this debate. Tin is one of those materials that most people never really think about, but our everyday lives depend on it because it is the material that physically holds all our devices together, with soldering being one of its most significant uses worldwide. It joins the components on our circuit boards. It is in almost every single device, from the smartphones that we all own to the computers and data centres powering the AI revolution. This debate is not about a niche commodity; it is about a key component of our everyday lives. However, one of the problems is scale. Globally mined tin output this year will be about 294,000 tonnes, which is absolutely tiny compared with copper or aluminium. That scale is so small that the market is acutely sensitive to any disruption in any single place. The supply of tin, as we know, is extraordinarily concentrated. China is one of its largest single producers, accounting for about a third of the global tin supply, and Indonesia, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of the Congo hold much of the rest. Several of the jurisdictions mining the majority of our tin are affected by international conflict, resource nationalism or simple geological decline, and the result, since 2025, has been the strongest price rally of any major industrial metal in the UK. The Government already recognise that, which is why tin sits on the UK’s critical minerals list. However, just because it is on the list, we do not necessarily get anything from that recognition. Many other countries know exactly what critical minerals they have in the ground. Canada is specifically good at that, knowing its exact critical minerals map across the nation. The UK Government do not have a critical minerals map for the entire United Kingdom, so I ask the Minister if there is a plan for his Department to try to see what critical minerals we have in the ground. We do know that tin is in the ground in Cornwall. It is not a new idea to extract tin from the ground there; it is one of the oldest industries on these islands. Cornish tin was being carted to the coast and shipped to the Mediterranean even before Rome ruled Britain. Under the Romans, extraction significantly increased. From the late Roman period to the late medieval period, Britain had a monopoly on the tin trade. Some 2,000 years later, we import almost all of our tin. Cornwall remained one of the most significant tin-producing regions for more than 400 years, and Cornish Metals is now doing work to try to re-establish that long history. Dewatering has reached about 350 metres in the tin mines we are looking to reopen, and the old pumping infrastructure has been found intact nearly three decades after it closed. We are glad to see flagship project status for that in the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and that the National Wealth Fund has invested £28 million in equity as part of its wider project. If we manage to reach the production targeted for 2028, South Crofty could create 300 direct jobs and hundreds more indirect jobs in the Cornish economy, in an area that is economically disadvantaged compared with large parts of the country. That is incredibly important. It would not just be important for the UK, as it would be the only primary tin mine in Europe or North America —not one of the largest, but the only one. That is why it is so significant: the United Kingdom and Cornwall have the chance to have one of the only tin-production facilities on this side of the world. We must take that into account when we consider how the critical minerals strategy will move forward. I have questions for the Minister on this topic. First, what practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the mid-2028 target is met, particularly on permitting, skills and grid connection? Secondly, what assessment has been made of a strategic tin stockpile, particularly from the recovery of electronic waste, so that we reduce demand for imports rather than simply redirecting it? Thirdly, what is being done on due diligence, given that tin comes from some regions where trade is entangled with armed conflict? Fourthly, what is the Government’s plan for critical minerals partnerships with reliable partners around the world, in the European Union and in Commonwealth countries? An alternative supply chain can exist, but the United Kingdom is not large enough to do it on our own. However, with a coalition of the willing and other partners around the world, we could bring that forward, and we need to work for that. Resilience cannot be ordered at short notice; it must be built, and that building needs to start now, with our friends and neighbours.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

    Rewiring the State

    The transition to clean energy could be an opportunity to build a different model that would, to use the First Secretary of State’s own words, end “overly centralised decision making and over-privatisation”. Development thus far has simply concentrated power in the hands of the big corporates and left communities feeling left behind and disempowered. In Shetland, we host one of the largest onshore wind farms in the country, but we have the highest levels of fuel poverty, and last year the developer SSE was paid £9 million in constraint payments not to generate electricity—that is regulatory madness. In this rewired state, will the communities that host renewable energy developments have control and get direct financial benefit from them?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Rewiring the State

    The First Secretary mentioned the heroics of firefighters during the summer. Gloucestershire fire and rescue service was involved in fighting the wildfires, even though we did not have any within our county boundaries, but the funding pressures on the fire service in Gloucestershire are now so acute that Cheltenham West fire station will be closed overnight if the consultation proposals are accepted. That cannot be right when we know we are going to be having more wildfires, perhaps even in Gloucestershire. Will the First Secretary have a chat with her colleagues in MHCLG to work out how we can get the support that the county fire service and the county council need to keep Cheltenham West fire station open overnight?

    Hansard source
19. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Manuela Perteghella

    Rewiring the State

    I, too, warmly welcome the First Secretary of State to her place. Last month, my constituents experienced wildfires, including the major incident in the parish of Salford Priors where Warwickshire fire and rescue service worked through extremely challenging conditions to protect homes and save lives. I pay tribute to all the firefighters, ambulance crew and those from the local community who assisted. Given the increasing frequency of heatwaves and drought and the severity of wildfires, particularly in rural areas where access to water is challenging and gaining access to burning fields is difficult, will she tell the House what urgent actions are being taken to better protect rural communities, farmland and natural habitats from future wildfire risk?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Manuela Perteghella

    Representation of the People Bill

    The Bill gives us a real chance to defend and strengthen our democracy, and although it is not in the scope of the Bill, I hope that the Government will look in future legislation at electoral reform and proportional representation. I have tabled new clauses 20 and 21 and supported many amendments because the Bill as it stands does not go far enough. New clause 21 enshrines in the Bill the principle of a cap on political donations. It is time to kick big money, foreign or domestic, out of British politics, and restore public trust in our political system. As I have said previously, the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires—foreign or otherwise—or corporate interests, should decide our country’s future in elections and referendums. I welcome the Government amendment on donations from overseas electors, but at present there is no limit at all on how much a single individual in the UK can give to a political party. New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on political donations, informed by an independent review, so we can ensure that the cap is sustainable. The Bill’s title is “Representation of the People”. New clause 20 would extend the parliamentary franchise—that representation—to qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and would extend the local government franchise in England on that same basis. Having leave to remain does not automatically give someone the right to vote, no matter how long they have been in the UK, and we now have different franchises in relation to EU citizens living in the UK following Brexit. That means that millions of residents have no right to vote at all. Like many of us, I represent a constituency where people who have lived here for years, who pay their taxes, work in our hospitals and run our businesses, still have no vote in the elections that decide who represents them. Residents pay council tax but some of them cannot vote on who is going to be in charge of their refuse collection. As the old American revolution slogan goes, “taxation without representation is tyranny.” Voting based on residency rights means that democratic participation is extended fully to people across the whole of British society. I want to set out where else I think the Bill needs to go further, because the argument runs the same way throughout: open up participation and representation, close down improper or malign influence, restore trust in our politics, and raise the standards for the campaigns we run. On widening participation and making voting genuinely accessible, I want to see a proper feasibility study into overseas voting, because British citizens abroad still face real, practical barriers to casting a ballot. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard from British electors living abroad about the challenges and barriers they face just to exercise their right. I support the Government extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is really brilliant news for our young people and for representation. I welcome the case for automatic registration, so that the right to vote does not depend on people navigating forms. On the integrity of political money, which is where I believe the Bill still has the most to tackle, the same logic that applies to new clause 21 applies with even more costs. The loopholes that currently let donations flow from foreign Administrations, from those linked to political violence and from undeclared foreign income and corporate interests, like those fossil fuel companies, have no place in our politics and I want them closed. I fully support closing the loophole currently exploited by non-permissible donors giving in small amounts, and I support tightening the rules on cryptoasset donations, which are far too easy to hide. Parties should be required to carry out proper due diligence on where donations actually come from, and I support a proper independent look at spending limits. Finally, on standards and the world in which we now campaign, candidates deserve proper safety guidance. AI-generated campaign material must be honestly labelled, and I want the Electoral Commission to have strong powers over online harms and disinformation, along with proper measures against foreign interference. Our democracy should be open to everyone who lives under its laws, and closed to the money, undue influence and manipulation that nobody voted for.

    Hansard source
21. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for her patience. Does she see the conflict between addressing problems with family voting, which may well be caused by members of a family not having English as their first language, or as a language at all, and therefore needing to be informed in a language that they are comfortable with, and taking steps to restrict information being produced in a language that enables a family member to understand the arguments that are being made in an election? We can all agree that understanding the English language, which the vast majority of us speak, learning it and having access to it is important for integration, but does she not agree that these measures will have two conflicting outcomes? One is to restrict communication with all members of a family; the other is to ban their influence.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Representation of the People Bill

    I will speak in favour of new clause 88, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would require the Government to establish a royal commission on political donations and campaign expenditure. It would examine the case for a donations cap review and whether existing campaign spending limits remain effective, and would report back within 12 months. Crucially, it would take account of the modern flavours of old challenges, because money can now shape political debate through social media platforms, algorithmic amplification, third-party campaigning and political advertising that can reach millions of voters almost immediately. When we knock on doors in our constituencies, or even when they are only our prospective constituencies, we are taking part in the most important act of our democratic system. We are listening to the concerns of citizens. We are empowering them to test us on our politics and to push us to champion their causes, and through taking forward the electorate’s concerns, we are giving them a voice. The principle is simple: one citizen, one vote. It is the basis of a democratic system. If a voter is particularly taken by our arguments, they may choose to donate to us to cover the cost of those snappy little pamphlets we leave behind in our wake, which some on the Liberal Democrat Benches are particularly passionate about. At this point, I will explain something that we did in Sutton to welcome the huge number of Hongkongers who moved to our borough and to my constituency over the last few years. We produced leaflets in their local language, so that those who did not have particularly strong English skills could read the information about our political party. They had travelled here, escaping the Communist regime to take part in a democratic process, and escaping the crackdown on democratic rights in Hong Kong. I invite an intervention from the Conservative Benches to explain why that communication, in a language that was understood by those who had not long been in our country and did not have the language skills to understand the English leaflets, is such a bad thing. There are none. When our election laws were written, donations to political parties would have probably have been covered by the existing laws. Maybe a big local donor would pay for an advertising board, or for posters and a loudspeaker on the roof rack of a clapped-out old Volvo of the kind that my dad used to go around his prospective constituency in the ’90s. However, our citizens still held the levers of power relatively directly. Today, the spending in our politics, and therefore the influence and power of money and donors, has shifted so dramatically that the question is how we rise to the challenge of constantly having to patch the cracks and the potholes in our outdated election law. If we fail to answer that question, we condemn the voting public to powerlessness, as those with the deepest pockets and strongest influence rip our hands off the wheel of the ship of state. We cannot fail to address the modern challenges first posed by those who bankrolled the Brexit campaign, who promised to give back control to the public and then handed it straight to their oligarch friends. For those reasons, I was disappointed the Government did not use this Bill to introduce a meaningful cap on political donations. Wealthy individuals are increasingly able to spend sums that would be completely beyond the reach of ordinary voters, while public confidence in the way politics is funded remains extremely weak. We can see how members of two parties in this Chamber have received more than £56,000 through X, a company owned by the very model of a modern fascist oligarch. It has an algorithm that he designs and the payments are therefore decided and funnelled directly to those political actors. There will always be those with bigger pockets who can make a larger contribution to political parties and projects than others. The vast majority do so for the right, philanthropic or ideological, reasons. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has given a passionate explanation of why political donation through unions, with proper controls, is absolutely an appropriate way to deliver political support and political power to those groups of people who need that representation the most. However, when money has been flowing in from those who would do our country harm and who want to rip control of the state away from the voting public and turn our nation into a Russian-style oligarchy, and when democratic institutions are just shopfronts for a nefarious state captured by the rich and powerful, we cannot stand idly by. That is why new clause 88 is so important.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and on the vim and vigour with which he introduced it. Ten years on, we can now see the devastating impact that the referendum had on this country—not just on our economy, but on the integrity of our democracy and political debate. Since June 2016, we have had seven Prime Ministers in a decade. We have had a Parliament that could not resolve the question in front of it, a Government who prorogued this House unlawfully to get round it and a public who have watched the whole spectacle and drawn the obvious conclusion that our political system is broken. The Conservatives put a question to the country that they had not thought through. They lost control of the answer and then spent years arguing among themselves about what it meant while the rest of the country paid for it. Into that vacuum walked the people who benefit from it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has built an entire career on a promise he never had to deliver and now takes no responsibility for. He and others like him told the public that leaving would let us take back control of our borders. Since then, over 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats. Before the referendum, there were no small boat crossings. They created the conditions, and they now travel to Dover to be photographed pointing at the result.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    My point is that there were no small boat crossings before the 2016 referendum. I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me on that. British GDP is between 6% and 8% smaller than it would otherwise have been. Investment has been reduced by between 12% and 18%. Employment and productivity are each down by 3% to 4%. Estimates from the House of Commons Library, those well-known doughty remain campaigners, put the cost to the Exchequer somewhere in the region of £90 billion a year in tax revenue that is simply not there. Every Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box and says that money is not available is describing a hole that has been enlarged as a result of Brexit. That is £90 billion a year that could be used for projects across the country to support our constituents. It could be used to fund renovations to my Stepping Hill hospital, the rail services my constituents wait for every morning or cleaning up our waterways so that sewage stops being pumped into the Goyt or the Mersey. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned the nearly 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork that now sit on British firms—enough to wrap around the world 15 times. Tighter border restrictions with our European neighbours devastated our hauliers, with more than double the number of insolvencies seen between 2021 and 2025 than in the previous five years. In our food and farming sector, exports to the EU have fallen by 22% since 2018, which is close to £4 billion in lost trade. The question for the House is, “What do we do now?” Ministers know that the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever available to them. Their response so far has been to make small adjustments around the edges of a bad deal. They have ruled out the single market and a customs union, drawing red lines around two things that would make a material difference. On fisheries, the Government have made things worse. The EU came asking for a five-year extension to the arrangements in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement, and this Government agreed to 12 years. That is a loss worth around £6 billion over the period at today’s prices, down not only to the previous Government but to this Labour Government. Being timid is a political choice, and it has political consequences. When mainstream parties refuse to name the cause of a problem, the field is left to those who offer easy answers and no substantive solutions. The Lib Dems are offering something different. We want a growth and defence partnership with Europe. That would mean joining the single market and a UK-EU customs union, so that our businesses can trade again without drowning in red tape. It would mean a proper UK-EU defence pact. We currently sit outside EU decision making and outside funding streams such as the European Defence Fund and the Security Action for Europe loan programme, at the precise moment when Vladimir Putin is testing this continent’s resolve and the White House is reneging on international commitments. We want a new European security council, British participation in SAFE and a European rearmament bank to support collective rearmament. Our security does not stop at Dover, and it never has. We are also calling for the UK to join the EU’s migration and asylum pact, so that we can return people who arrive by small boat to the first EU country they entered, and so that we can see the biometric data that tells us whether someone has already been refused asylum elsewhere. That is how we actually take back control of our borders, rather than shouting about it on a beach. Finally, we should fix the politics that produced this. A system that hands total power to a party with a minority of the vote and then dares it to govern for everyone will keep generating exactly this kind of instability. The Liberal Democrats want proportional representation through the single transferable vote at local and general elections. We want a second Chamber with a democratic mandate. We want the big money taken out of politics. We want the Electoral Commission protected from ministerial direction and serious measures against foreign interference in our elections and referendums. From the cost of living to our broken public services, the result of the 2016 EU referendum stands in the way of making things better, and we have to fix it. Ten years on, it is clear that it has negatively impacted the UK, and I would be really grateful if the Minister could tell us today just what it would take for this Government to move their red lines.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Rewiring the State

    I thank the First Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and warmly welcome her to her place. The Liberal Democrats strongly agree that the political system is overly centralised. We believe that the best decisions are taken closest to the people they affect, but renewing communities must also mean giving councils the powers and resources that they need to revitalise our high streets, support independent businesses and improve local public services. After years of severe financial pressure, devolution cannot simply mean transferring responsibilities from Whitehall without the funding necessary to deliver them. The First Secretary mentioned national resilience. That is about whether the lights stay on, whether the shelves stay stocked, and whether a family in Hazel Grove can get through a week or more of serious destruction without losing their livelihood. The covid inquiry was blunt: it found that we were ill prepared for an emergency, never mind a pandemic. Those failures cost lives, and people deserve to know that lessons have been acted on, rather than filed away. There is certainly progress to welcome. We have the resilience action plan, the UK Resilience Academy, and Exercise Pegasus, which was the largest pandemic exercise this country has ever run. Those are steps that my party has long called for, but announcements are not preparedness. I would welcome hearing from the First Secretary what plans she has to improve public awareness and understanding of what the whole of society needs to do to be ready. We are in an increasingly uncertain world, so will the Government think again on digital sovereignty, so that the critical systems that our constituents rely on are not dependent on suppliers that this country cannot control?  I strongly agree with the First Secretary that this country has a broken political system. Later this afternoon, we will debate the Representation of the People Bill, which is meant to fix that. It takes some steps in the right direction, but fails to rise to the moment. Does she agree that there is still so much more to do, starting with halting the scourge of big money that is poisoning our democracy by capping political donations and bringing in a fairer voting system? We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the country. I have heard her talk previously in this House about moving fast and fixing things. I urge her to crack on.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Representation of the People Bill

    I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Representation of the People Bill

    Let me begin by putting on record my thanks to the Minister, who I very much welcome to her place. In particular, I thank her predecessor, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who has shown with her comments today the grace and thoughtfulness with which she conducted herself throughout the whole process. We did not agree on everything in the Bill Committee—indeed, all members of the Bill Committee did not agree—but we conducted our discussions with good grace and occasionally a hint of humour. I am grateful for the work that the other members of the Bill Committee put in, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), who led for us on all matters to do with candidate safety and candidates, given her hugely relevant experience as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. It would be remiss of me not to share the gratitude of the House for Philip Rycroft’s efforts in conducting his review, the recommendations from which have given this legislation more teeth than it started out with. I do not think it will surprise anyone, however, that we Liberal Democrats think much more could and should be done. The political freedoms and assurances we have relied upon for decades are increasingly vulnerable to insidious, hostile actors. We saw an entirely unnecessary by-election over the summer. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and was brought about by a resignation whose circumstances are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Our rules should not permit a Member under investigation to trigger a by-election and then walk straight back in here at the public’s expense, and that is precisely what new clause 79 in my name would prevent. However, I do not believe it was selectable, so I will move on. That saga was yet another example of how big money is infiltrating our politics, with millions of pounds paid to politicians, uncapped donations and direct payments for inflammatory social media posts. It is totally disfiguring our politics. We have to tackle big money wherever it comes from, and that is a major omission from the Bill. New clause 88 would require the Secretary of State, within three months of Royal Assent, to publish proposals for a royal commission to consider a cap on political donations and the level at which that cap should be set, and whether existing limits on campaign expenditure and the period over which they bite are still fit for purpose. It would require those proposals to cover terms of reference, membership and funding, and the commission would have to report within 12 months. It is a straightforward request. It does not demand or impose limits without buy-in. It does not ask any Member to sign up to a particular figure. It takes a conversation that has been going on for the better part of 20 years or more, and gives it a proper remit, a proper deadline and a proper independent home. I want to be fair to the Government, because over the summer things have moved in a positive direction. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about the defending democracy taskforce yesterday, but we need to hear more detail about how it will function, particularly around money coming into political parties in and around our politics, how its recommendations will come into force and, importantly, when they will come into force. The threat is real, the threat is now, and urgent action is vital. We have tabled further amendments on money in politics. New clauses 9 and 10 would introduce barriers on who can donate, preventing donations from those who are or have been members of, or political advisers to, foreign Administrations and those convicted of promoting or inciting political violence. New clauses 11 and 12 would require candidates and parties to declare and mitigate the risk of foreign-linked donations. Taken together, they are a natural extension of the “know your donor” scheme, which this Bill enhances. We should know exactly who funds us, and the public have that right, too. Money is not the only way in which influence is bought. We now live in a world where a handful of people own the platforms and write the algorithms that decide what millions of our constituents see about politics every day. When the owner of a social media platform can openly discuss handing tens of millions of pounds to a British political party, the danger is in plain sight, and the Bill does not meet the moment. The Government chose to reject sensible amendments on deepfakes, AI-generated content and the clear labelling of digital campaign material. Those were not wrecking amendments; they were an offer of cross-party work on a threat that is moving faster than we are legislating. I ask the Government even now to commit to the real-time disclosure of donations and a publicly searchable database of every pound spent on online political advertising, so that voters can see who is trying to influence them and with whose money. That will be more important as we extend the franchise. The Lib Dems warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16. Indeed, we have campaigned on it for decades, but we are concerned that the current voter registration system does not work well for young people. If we want votes at 16 to be a success, we need the voter registration improvements that the Bill enables to be implemented in time for the next general election. I would welcome hearing some reassurance from the Minister, when she is winding up, that they will be in place for the next general election. My final point is the one that, I feel, matters the most. This Bill tidies the rules of the game, but it leaves the game itself untouched. There is no silver bullet for fixing our politics—it requires will, consensus and graft—but one thing that is shared by dozens and dozens of Members across the House is the understanding of the need for fairer votes. We cannot have a conversation about representing the people without addressing the elephant in the room: we have a voting system that handed one party two thirds of the seats in this House on barely a third of the vote. Millions of people cast ballots that changed nothing and elected no one, and then they are told to have faith in the result. I therefore tabled new clause 8 to bring in proportional representation for elections across the United Kingdom. It details the way in which a fairer voting system could be implemented, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity the Bill presents to rise to the occasion. First past the post is unfair and unrepresentative, and lets Governments take voters for granted. No amount of tightening around the edges fixes a system that was out of date a century ago. Despite identifying the crisis of confidence in our political system in their 2024 manifesto, this Government have yet to back even modest steps towards making our voting system fairer, such as a national commission on electoral reform, as detailed in new clause—

    Hansard source
28. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Representation of the People Bill

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the Government are putting forward a piece of legislation written in such a way that it prohibits proportional representation and fairer votes from being discussed on the Floor of the House. We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the things we need to fix in our country, so we will support the Bill as a step forward. However, a step is not the final destination. Until this House finds the courage to give people a Parliament that actually reflects how they vote, we will not have restored trust in our democracy. We will keep making that case, and we will support this Bill as the beginning, but certainly not the end, of this work.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Representation of the People Bill

    It is welcome that the Government have asked the Electoral Commission to look at spending limits. I love a task-and-finish group almost as much as I love a taskforce or a sub-committee, but will the Minister put a little more meat on the bones, and say what she is doing on donation caps, specifically on timing, and on whether things will be in place ahead of the next general election? I would not want a Member to press for a separate Division on an amendment because there was not enough meat on the bone.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Representation of the People Bill

    It has been a privilege to be part of this process and to listen to the impassioned contributions from Members across the House, from Second Reading through to Committee and Report. The contents of this legislation have been a long time coming, and owe a great deal to the hard work of the people who have campaigned tirelessly for improvements to our system and to clean up our politics, and of course, to those who do the work on the ground. Our returning officers and those who deliver democracy, often on shoestring budgets, so that we can sit here, rarely get the praise they deserve. We should be strengthening what they do and how they do it, and we owe them the resources to do what is needed. The Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight, and we will do so because it extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—a measure that we have argued for over many years, and which I will be delighted to vote for this evening. We will also support the Bill because, without it, corrupt practices will only entrench further. The “know your donor” regime is not perfect, but it is a step that we welcome, and we will not obstruct it. We do not stand in the way of progress. The Bill will make it easier for people to register, safer for people to stand and harder for the wrong money to stay in our politics. Those are good things and will have a long-lasting effect. I look forward to the discussions with Ministers that were promised on further work that they are doing on donation and spending limits, which they outlined earlier. The true test of whether the people really are represented fairly will be whether votes count when they are cast. That argument has not been resolved yet, and I do not think it is an argument that will fade away any time soon. For tonight, though, I am content that this is a better Bill than the one that arrived, and that is down to the scrutiny and grit that this House has been supported to deliver. I look forward to seeing how our noble friends in the other place can make it even stronger. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Rewiring the State

    I warmly welcome the First Secretary to her post. I also welcome her good judgment in taking one of the esteemed former members of our Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), to be her Parliamentary Private Secretary. I know the First Secretary has probably already had some of this in her ear already, but I cannot lose this opportunity. This morning, the Health and Social Care Committee, with the Education Committee, heard moving evidence about why death by suicide has now overtaken almost everything else as the No. 1 reason that we lose children in this country. Often when we dive into issues like this, we find that education is not talking to health or to the local authorities. It cannot be beyond the wit of man, or indeed a shared governance structure with the right fiscal flows, to stop these stories happening. Will the First Secretary of State meet me to discuss what we are seeing in the Committee so that we can unlock the potential in all parts of society, because without doing that, I fear that the devolution agenda might fail?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse. This Government have rebuilt the local government funding formula and launched an ambitious devolution agenda, both in the name of fairness and moving power closer to the people. I question how that is working. Ministers say that the new funding formula matches money to need, and that by the end of the settlement, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived. Nobody disputes that deprivation matters, but measuring deprivation in rural areas is not straightforward. According to the County Councils Network, county authorities will receive only £345 per head in grant funding against a national average of £526, and will therefore have to find more than 90% of any budget increase from council tax alone. That means they will receive roughly 2p of any additional Government money for every £1 of new cost pressure, while metropolitan boroughs will receive 42p. That is an enormous difference. Although individual councils vary, the Rural Services Network shows that rural residents already pay 70% more council tax per head than urban residents, despite lower wages on average. That gap is projected to widen every year of this settlement. As others have pointed out, the Government removed the remoteness indicator from every part of the funding formula except adult social care. How does a remote child cost less to reach than a remote adult? Part of the current recovery grant is also still allocated using 2019 deprivation figures, even though updated 2025 data already exists and is used elsewhere in the very same formula. That makes no sense and perhaps the Minister can explain. There is an unspoken assumption that needs correcting: rural does not necessarily mean rich. Research into so-called pretty poverty in Cornwall shows real deprivation hidden behind a scenic view. Measures built to track deprivation in cities simply fail to spot it. The Government’s new devolution programme has the same design fault. Evidence that I have heard this year from rural bodies and local leaders is consistent. Combined authority structures, funding pools and business rates growth incentives were all built around city region economics first and do not necessarily work in the same way in rural areas. One flagship funding tool, full retention of business rates growth, was piloted in Greater Manchester. Will the Minister say whether that model has been tested where the business rates base is small and slow growing, as it typically is in rural England? Again, in honour of my Cornish colleagues, Cornwall tried a version of full retention in 2018, and it had to give up its rural services grant as the price of entry. I would not want rural authorities steered towards a tool that rewards growth but lacks the tax base to successfully generate it. If the Government are serious about devolution, it has to mean something for parish and town councils, not just mayors and unitary authorities. There is no proper funding settlement and no training offer for the clerks and officers who will be increasingly asked to take on responsibilities that have been devolved down from a disappearing district tier, as in my area of Horsham. With the best will in the world, they are not properly equipped for that. The fundamental assumption of the fair funding formula is that more deprived, mainly urban authorities have had a raw deal compared with rural shire counties, but the clear fact is that every type of council has been struggling over a long period. My county council of West Sussex is carrying almost £200 million in debt under its dedicated schools grant for special educational needs. Even with the proposed 90% reduction in SEND debts, which is welcome, that still leaves £20 million to be stripped out of a general budget that is frankly already buckling under the strain. The Government’s policy risks forcing yet more cuts on services that have already been cut too far. Two thirds of spending in West Sussex is ringfenced, which means portfolios such as highways or buses—transport—have to bear the whole burden of any savings. The new funding formula risks condemning councils across the country to failure, but they are mostly not Labour councils and it is hard not to see a political angle. Does a pothole cost more to fix in a deprived area than in a wealthier one? No, it does not. The cost of many council services is not related at all to deprivation, so it is wrong to build an entire funding formula around that one criterion. Local councils are not the main cause of deprivation, and neither can they be the main fix. This Government promised to help working people and to devolve power. Rural authorities are still waiting. I hope the Minister will commit to using 2025 data consistently, to reinstating remoteness across the whole formula, and to properly funding and training parish and town councils so that devolution reaches the communities it is meant to serve.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Rewiring the State

    On the subject of wildfires, the Prime Minister has said that he does not believe our fire service have the right equipment, and I could not agree with him more. West Sussex fire and rescue service currently does not have access to wildfire personal protective equipment, and its newest off-road vehicle is 26 years old. Will the First Secretary of State or the relevant Minister please meet me and the chief fire officer of West Sussex fire and rescue to talk about how we can ensure that we keep the services on a sustainable financial footing so that they can keep us safe and we can also keep them safe?

    Hansard source
34. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rural upper tier local authorities. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I am extremely worried about the widening gap in opportunity, social mobility and economic growth between rural and urban areas. Rural areas are being held back and the futures of rural children are being limited by public services that are underfunded and overstretched, lamentably slow digital connectivity, the lack of public transport, and urban-centric perceptions based on misunderstandings about the nature of rural life. The last local government finance settlement laid bare that neglect in financial terms. It was a stark admission from this Government that their plan is to strip funding from rural areas to improve services in urban ones. The Rural Services Network has calculated that urban councils will receive 32% more funding per head than rural councils next year. Meanwhile, rural residents pay on average 17% more council tax per head than urban residents, out of lower than average wages, to plug the gap, yet the cost of delivery means that they receive a poorer public service. For Shropshire council, the funding situation is particularly grave, following 16 years of catastrophic management by Shropshire’s Conservatives. When the Lib Dem administration took over in May 2025, Shropshire was in the most difficult financial position of any council in England. The recent Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report on the huge challenge in Shropshire reveals the details of the Conservatives’ poor management: unrealistic budgets and constant overspends that burned through all the remaining reserves; an obsession with unaffordable vanity projects, such as the purchase of Shrewsbury’s shopping centres and millions spent on an unaffordable road; a sloppy workforce restructure in 2024-25, which drove out the talented managers needed to transform the financial situation; and the “legacy impact” of five years of consecutive council tax freezes. All that was left as a parting gift for the new administration to pick up. The report describes the direction of the council under its recently appointed new chief executive and four-to-five-year improvement plan as a “positive step”, and a peer review by the LGA praised the “significant strides” made so far, but the financial position remains perilous and the challenge to restructure the council is huge. Eighty per cent of Shropshire council’s budget is spent on social care, an issue on which the Liberal Democrats have long called for urgent action. The cost of delivering social care in a rural area with the demographics of North Shropshire, where 25% of the population is aged over 65, means that the pressure is only set to rise. Adult social care spending has already been rising by about 5.8% a year, more than could have been generated by council tax increases, because people are living longer, needs are becoming more complex, and workforce costs are rising, with care providers consequently charging more. Demand for education, health and care plans has risen even faster. Shropshire now has 3,016 active EHCPs, a 21% increase in one year compared with national growth of 11%. The number of school-aged children with EHCPs has increased by 78% since before the pandemic. That puts more pressure on specialist education, school transport and family support. Last year, the council put up council tax by 8.99%. Although that brought in a massive £21 million a year, it covered only about a third of the extra cost from demand and inflation alone. Amid that financial turmoil, the Government have cut funding per head in Shropshire. It is projected to fall well below 90% of 2024 funding by 2028, while the national average is set to rise to around 118%. The exceptional financial support provided to balance the books bears interest and must be paid back; it worsens prospects for the future, and for a considerable time. Under the Government’s new devolution plans, there is a risk that the gap between mayoral and non-mayoral authorities could increase further. During the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I asked him about the importance of power and resourcing being made available to all authorities, not just those that have formed a combined authority or have a mayor. His answer was in some ways encouraging, but in other ways it bothered me. He said that when Shropshire council could “stand on its own two feet”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 49.] it would be able to access devolution, but the Government’s own three-year financial settlement is forcing austerity on rural areas, making the achievement of self-sufficiency far less likely.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would need to see the detail of that proposal and what it would mean. Shropshire is already a unitary authority and is essentially at the bottom of the list for a devolution plan, so that seems too far off. There seems to be no prospect of stabilising the financial situation until there is a firm plan to ensure that the powers needed to turn the area around, and the resources to go with them, are firmly in place. We urgently need clarity on that. The hardship and austerity in rural areas has come about largely as a result of the removal of remoteness as a factor when calculating what it costs for a rural authority to deliver services across a vast area. The County Councils Network estimates that that has removed £300 million from its members’ budgets—an amount that the Government expect to be made up by increased council tax. Shropshire council has been squeezed at both ends—first by years of Conservative maladministration, and then by Labour cutting its funding, despite the obvious need —and it is far from alone. Rather than tackling the problem head on, the Government have underfunded rural councils, which has perpetuated rural deprivation. That is particularly acute where people lack access to services, and it is hidden, unlike urban deprivation. While door-knocking in my constituency, I met a delightful elderly gentleman living in a small cottage, and I was astonished to also meet his grandson, who was apparently living in his shed in the garden because he was unable to find anywhere else to live. Such cases go unnoticed in homelessness statistics, because families and communities find their own solutions to wrap around those individuals, but no one thinks a shed is appropriate accommodation for that young man. He should not have been allowed to fall through the net. A lack of funds for local transport perpetuates isolation and leads to a vicious cycle, stunting economic growth and creating further challenges for the council’s provision of services such as social care. When members of the Casey commission came to Shropshire to talk about the challenges of delivering social care in a rural area, they were astonished by the notion that carers must have a car because there is no transport in the evening or on a Sunday. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of local transport and publicly provided services. We all agree with him, but Shropshire’s bus allocation has been cut despite the fact that it has lost more bus miles than anywhere else. Revenue funding is due to drop £175,000 in 2027-28. The Secretary of State for Transport, in an answer to me about step-free access at Whitchurch station, implied that the funds will be spent where the people are, not where the need is. She said: “When we are investing in the accessibility of stations in the future, we need to get maximum benefit for the travelling public.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1059.] Previously, that has meant that the funds go to the most densely populated areas, not to those where there are no real alternative forms of transport. The patchy public transport network across North Shropshire means that it is almost impossible for most residents to manage without a car, and that brings further associated costs. Those who cannot access a car, whether they are young or old, become isolated and unable to access opportunities, education and services. Similar patterns of deprivation are reinforced through Government funding for education in rural areas, even though they often already struggle with teacher recruitment and retention. Schools in North Shropshire received an average of £6,460 a head last year, compared with a national average of about £7,910, but outcomes at GCSE and key stage 4 are consistently lower than the national average, and indeed the west midlands average. How can the Government justify lower funding when the outcomes are already lower? Surely every child deserves the opportunities provided by a properly funded education. That applies to capital spending in education too. One shocking example in my constituency is a primary school in one of the most rural parishes that still has outside toilets, in their original Victorian red-brick building. A lady told me during my summer tour this year that her granddaughter was too afraid to use the toilets because they are full of spiders and had an accident at school as a result. That is unacceptable. That is the kind of thing that people remember when they are 50 if it happened to them when they were seven at school. Young people in rural areas are having their horizons limited as a direct result of Government policy. That needs to change, urgently. In what way are the Government tackling inequality if rural and coastal areas are persistently underfunded, despite their worse outcomes? My constituents rightly perceive an entirely broken system in which every year they pay more and receive less. That is obviously unfair and is opening the door wide to populists and extremists who exploit the situation with divisive messages to divide our community and simple but unworkable solutions. The new Prime Minister has given us all hope by promising growth in every postcode. He will fail in rural areas if he does not address the obvious unfairness that Government policy combined with the pressures of ever-increasing demand for social care are delivering. Proper devolution will help rural councils tailor public services to the areas that they serve, but there must be acknowledgement of the need for a fair allocation of resources to go with those theoretical powers. I hope the Minister can provide details in his response.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    The hon. Gentleman is making an important and fundamental point: everything costs more when it is spread out. For example, bin collections cost a huge amount more for unitary authorities. Home-to-school transport is not just for children with SEND but for children who cannot catch the bus to school because there is no bus. Everything costs a vastly significant amount more than when people just live down the road. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is really important that that is reflected in Government funding formulae, because it is crippling our councils?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    The point of combined authorities is to derive economies of scale from placing urban and rural areas together. Some of those economies of scale can be driven by the density in the urban area. Does my hon. Friend agree that it makes no sense to split up the urban and rural areas in the way she describes?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    I thank all hon. Members who have come along and made excellent speeches—particularly team south-west, who have turned out in force. They all highlighted the difficulties in delivering services in sparsely populated areas with vast distances to travel. They spoke about the impact on highways funding, the importance of generating economic growth, the cost of delivering SEND, and the proxy creation of district councils through the re-empowering of town and parish councils to deliver things that the unitary council can no longer afford to deliver because they are not a statutory requirement. They were really good speeches. I am very disappointed that the Minister wound up with a speech that kind of told us that everything is actually fine. On the day that the local government finance settlement was announced, I sat on the Opposition Benches, along with all my colleagues, without a clue about what my local authority had been awarded because it was not findable, we had not been told and it could not be googled, yet everyone on the Labour Benches appeared to know what their settlement was and congratulated the Minister on its delivery. That is symptomatic of a pattern of this Government. They tell rural areas, “Everything is fine. It looks pretty. Go away and stop worrying, and actually, we are going to focus on urban areas.” We all recognise that urban areas need investment and are not thriving as they should be—this is not about pitting one area against another—but rural areas need fair funding and devolution. In a council that has stripped back every single employee that it can, there is no capacity to generate economic growth or transform the underlying financial structure of the council, because nobody has the time in the day to do it. They need that devolution funding to rethink how they deliver services in a sustainable way for the future. I hope the Minister will take those points on board. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for rural upper tier local authorities.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Freddie van Mierlo

    Rewiring the State

    My summer tour took me to such wonderful villages as Forest Hill, Little Milton, Stanton St John and Warborough, and no one I met wants to be part of the new proposed Greater Oxford authority. These parishes have been pressganged into a new authority they do not want to be part of. Will the Government review the decision to split Oxfordshire into three—a messy solution—and support other solutions, such as the two-and-one local authority proposals?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Freddie van Mierlo

    Representation of the People Bill

    Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that all 3.5 million overseas electors should not be able to donate to political parties?

    Hansard source