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·Lib Dem·Freddie van Mierlo

   Representation of the People Bill

   I would like to speak to new clause 19, in my name, which concerns overseas voters. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving voting arrangements. It has more than 50 signatures from Members from across the House, including many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, but also Conservatives, Greens and Independents, demonstrating a clear call for change. It also briefly had a Labour Member supporting it, before the Government Whips presumably intervened. We are demanding change on behalf of the 3.5 million overseas voters, including members of our armed forces stationed abroad. Postal ballots all too often arrive too late for them to be returned to the UK in time. The postal ballot return rate was just 48% in the last general election. Proxies, which are a potential solution, are problematic to arrange if people no longer have contacts where they previously resided. The UK is lagging on the international stage. In France, voting is allowed at overseas embassies. In the Netherlands, constituents can print their own secure ballot, as I have previously done. Estonia permits the use of electronic voting, and New Zealand’s voters can download and return ballot papers online. Of course, any change to our voting arrangements would need to be secure, and to be adapted to the UK context, but if other countries can improve their participation of overseas electors, so can we. However, the Government have so far refused to act. In a recent meeting with the former Minister for Democracy, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), I was disappointed by the lack of ambition. I was told that it is not possible to make the printing of ballots secure, yet other European and Commonwealth countries do it. What is so unique about either the UK electoral system or the British state that means we are incapable of enfranchising our overseas voters? Under a Bill that is supposed to ensure the representation of the people, the Government have made only negligible and limited changes to support the 3.5 million eligible voters abroad. The Minister’s response, if there is one, will refer to minor changes made to the timeline for registering for postal voting and the mailing of ballots, but this will not be enough. Half of all overseas voters were registered before the last election, and they still suffered from delayed ballots, so we already know that the changes proposed will not be effective. One voter got in touch with Liberal Democrats in Europe to share her story. Angela, a voter in Oldham living in France, was registered to vote before the election, but she received her ballot in the post the day after polling day. If this is the experience in France, what hope is there for those in Australia? Under the new leadership, can the previous Prime Minister’s incrementalism be dropped in favour of a solution that meets the size of the problem? As we have heard, there is interest in this Bill from Members from across the House, and not all amendments will be voted on, but I do hope that my new clause, or something similar, will be pursued in the Lords, and will, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation expressed by the Prime Minister, get a fair hearing.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Edward Morello

   Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

   It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. My very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), warned earlier against pitting different parts of the UK against each other. At the risk of flying in the face of that advice and angering the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), I will just say that West Dorset is the most beautiful place to live. My rural community shares a lot of the same difficulties as everyone else here. My constituents are spread across small towns and villages, so distances are longer, there are fewer service providers and councils have fewer opportunities to achieve economies of scale. Almost half of Dorset’s residents live in areas that are among the 20% most deprived nationally in access to services. Whether it is GPs, dentists, post offices, shops, primary schools, access is much more difficult than in urban areas. As has also been highlighted, waste collection is difficult, vehicles have to travel further, highways teams have to cover more miles, social care workers have to spend more time travelling with patients, and a child with special educational needs has to travel a larger distance to reach the right school. At the same time, Dorset has one of the oldest populations in the country: 31% of residents are aged 65 or over. Although I have repeated it many a time, and it may well not be true, my favourite fact about West Dorset is that if we were a country, we would have the oldest population in the world—we would be older than Japan. That matters because an ageing population creates additional demand for adult social care and other council services. The Government have increased funding for local government, which is welcome, but our councils are still dealing with years of financial pressures and cuts alongside inflation, demographic change, the national living wage and increased national insurance costs. That was compounded by the change in the fair funding review 2.0 to remove rurality from all grant formulas bar adult social care. The cost of providing home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs has risen 33% since 2016-17. Dorset has the seventh highest weekly cost for children with SEND of any authority in England. Children can live a long way from the specialist provision they need, with fewer available capable specialist providers, and transport costs more. The same applies to adult social care. There are fewer providers willing to operate across rural areas because travelling between clients takes longer. Those providers that do operate in rural areas can charge more to cover the additional time and transport costs. The council has more roads to maintain, more miles to travel and more dispersed communities to serve. A funding formula that treats rural and urban areas the same does not produce a fair outcome, as has been highlighted. In West Dorset, bus frequency has fallen by an astonishing 62% since 2010, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns have been identified as transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. Just over one in five people in large parts of rural Dorset cannot reach a town centre within 30 minutes by public transport, yet Dorset received just £3.8 million in the bus services improvement plan funding, compared with the £11.6 million allocated to our neighbours in Devon. The funding formula needs to recognise rurality, population age, visitor number increases and accessibility needs. We also need to look at the future of Dorset and the wider Wessex region. Since 2025, Dorset council has been working with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, Somerset council and Wiltshire council through the Wessex Partnership. Wessex has a population of almost 2 million people, and it already works together across areas including defence, clean energy, digital and life sciences. The partnership has developed a shared regional vision and is preparing to take on greater devolved responsibility. The Government’s current devolution framework will create different levels of opportunity depending on which model an area achieves. It is estimated that mayoral strategic authority status could provide around £460 million in additional funding each year across the Wessex region, which is about £245 per resident, as well as an estimated £16 billion of additional economic output over 30 years. If other parts of the country receive powers, greater flexibility and greater funding, Wessex needs to be able to compete on a level playing field. I would ask that the Minister agrees to meet the Wessex Partnership to discuss devolution for Wessex. If the Government want economic growth in every postcode, funding formulas need to recognise the real costs of rurality, ageing populations and providing services across large geographical areas. Rural communities should not receive less because delivering services simply costs them more.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ed Davey

   Engagements

   The Prime Minister said yesterday that Brexit ushered in “a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.] He is right. Our economy is stuck in this mess thanks to the Conservatives—and the leader of Reform UK—and their terrible Brexit deal. Unless we grow the economy, there is no way that we can end the cost of living crisis or cut the cost of borrowing for the Government. The answer is staring the Prime Minister in the face: join the single market, get a new deal with Europe, and cut costs for families, businesses and Government. It is the bold step our country desperately needs. Will the Prime Minister take it?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ed Davey

   Engagements

   I hope at that summit the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal for our country, our economy and our defence, and that means rejoining the single market. North Devon’s maternity unit has been closed for three weeks due to staff shortages, so women now have to travel for up to two hours to give birth. I cannot imagine the extra stress and anxiety that would have caused us when my kids were born. Women are even being taught how to give birth in their cars—that should be unthinkable in our country. Will the Prime Minister commit to reopening North Devon’s maternity unit in days, not weeks? Will he stop maternity closures across the country so that expectant mums never have to face travelling such terrifying distances?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

   A couple of weeks ago, I visited a business called Squeaky Clean in Winchester. What was striking about that business was the number of students, young people and sixth-formers it employs, giving them their first job, getting them a CV and teaching them what it is like to work—to turn up on time, to take responsibility—before they go on to university and do other things. The owner told me that the single biggest difficulty she faces in keeping that business going is the rise in national insurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at this as a matter of urgency, not just for those businesses but for young people’s opportunities?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·David Chadwick

   Strengthening the Union

   I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. Many of my constituents are reliant on cross-border healthcare, particularly in Hereford hospital. Indeed, many of them will end up stuck in Hereford hospital because we do not have enough community hospital beds in Powys. Powys teaching health board acknowledges that it needs 400 beds, but we only have 148, and it is considering cutting that number further. Can he please outline what are his priorities for fixing cross-border healthcare issues?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

   EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, backed by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), continues to burden the UK economy. Back in 2016 he, Boris Johnson and others told us that Brexit would lead to a stronger and more prosperous economy. Today, we are confronting the reality that those promises were misleading, with no substance behind them. The botched Brexit deal has cost the Treasury billions of pounds in revenue, held back British business and left our young people without the opportunities they need to begin their working lives and careers. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said, Britain’s GDP is 6% smaller as a result of Brexit—a disaster for families across the country. In my Wokingham constituency, I have heard from businesses that once exported successfully to the EU but, since Brexit, have seen their profits reduced. It is small and medium-sized businesses that have suffered as a result of Brexit. The botched Brexit deal has created almost 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork for British businesses since we left the EU, enough to wrap around the Earth nearly 15 times. That is certainly not the freedom from bureaucracy that the hon. Member for Clacton, Boris Johnson and others promised. I know from speaking to businesses in Wokingham that they are eager to grow again and to rebuild partnerships with European businesses. That is why the Government should listen to the Liberal Democrats’ call for a growth and defence partnership with Europe. Such a partnership would cut trade barriers, reduce red tape and help businesses to grow. It would boost jobs and incomes while giving the Government more money to tackle the costs of living, strengthen the armed forces, and invest in our NHS workforce and hospitals. It might even help to fund a new Royal Berkshire hospital to serve my constituency. Beyond the economic benefits, a new partnership with the EU would bring much-needed stability and security. Trump has proved himself to be an unreliable and erratic partner on the global stage, while Putin has shown no signs of halting his expansion plans in Europe. Now is the time for the Government to show ambition and to rebuild security ties with our dependable European allies.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

   National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

   Just off the M49 in Severnside is a junction that has never carried a single vehicle. It was built six years ago and cost the taxpayer £40 million, but in those six years not a car, van or lorry has used it. The national press has dubbed it the “ghost junction”. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter before the House today, because the future of the M49 Severnside junction is one of real consequence for my constituents in Thornbury and Yate. I am here because I want the junction to be fixed and so do my constituents. I hope the Minister listens and acts: doing something about this kind of issue is exactly how he can show people he is here to serve them and not himself. We are all quite fed up with ineptitude. First, some housekeeping. In a response to my letter, the Department referred to this as the Avonmouth junction. It is not in Avonmouth. The Avonmouth spur lies some three miles down the motorway. This junction sits in Severnside. I raise that because a botched junction whose supposed name is three miles adrift from where it stands tells us something about how far the responsible authorities are from the reality on the ground. I would be grateful if the Minister adopted the correct description in his own dealings, so that there is no confusion in the future. I would not want the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) to think that I am in any way moving the boundaries of our constituencies. Let me set out the background briefly. National Highways built this junction in 2020, at a cost of £40 million to the taxpayer. It was designed to connect the motorway to the Severnside enterprise area, one of the largest concentrations of industry and logistics in the west of England, and it was forecast to support some 14,000 jobs. Yet in the six years since, not a single vehicle has used it. There is a reason for that. Ever since it was built, the junction has stood unconnected to the local network, because the short stretch of road linking it to the estate had not been built, and no one would agree who was responsible for building it. In a letter to me, the Minister blamed a private developer for this. Questions could be raised around whether National Highways and the previous council Administration could have secured an enforceable agreement, but I will not rehearse that whole saga tonight. It is at last being resolved. South Gloucestershire council has taken the work on itself, with funding from the Department. Construction is under way. The council expects it to be finished by the end of this year. I want to put on record my recognition of the councillors and council officers who stepped in to deliver what others would not. They have done their part. However, that issue is not the reason I have sought this debate. We have now learned that the junction itself is defective. National Highways has admitted that it has identified defects at the junction that must be repaired before it can safely open to traffic. A junction built by National Highways, completed six years ago and signed off as finished, cannot safely carry traffic until National Highways repairs it—is the Minister as baffled as I am? National Highways has set out no programme for those repairs and no timetable for opening. The council has been told that there will be no further update until later this autumn, and the Roads Minister echoed that to me personally in response to my recent letter. To enlighten the Government, the traffic that the junction would have carried has not simply vanished. Instead, it runs through my constituency’s small country lanes—heavy goods vehicles, day and night, on roads that were never built to carry them. Residents in villages and isolated homes live with the noise and the lights of lorries passing at all hours. How can residents feel safe crossing their own roads? A parent with a pushchair should not have to weigh up whether it is safe to step out of their front door. Cyclists and runners have to tread carefully through what should be peaceful country lanes. When National Highways told me about the problem, it saw businesses as stakeholders, but not local residents. My constituents vehemently disagree. It is not just the smallest roads that are affected. Councillors and constituents alike tell me that the A403, the B4461 and others are facing misuse by HGVs. Horse riders, agricultural vehicles and families are finding it difficult to access those roads—if the Minister is looking for a way to apologise to my constituents for this debacle once it is fixed, he could do worse than providing permanent safety improvements on roads such as the A403. One constituent has told me that, over just 15 minutes, he recorded multiple HGVs seemingly over 7.5 tonnes using the B4461 despite environmental weight restrictions. This is a regular issue in Hallen, too. My constituents tell me that it is difficult to report those vehicles, because the short time they get to see them is not enough to grab the registration and other necessary details. They feel that the companies using the roads pay lip service, but never take concrete action. I am totally against those vehicles breaching the weight limit in this way, but I understand the motivation: they have no direct access to the motorway. The businesses of Severnside continue to wait. This is a major logistics centre, and its operators depend on efficient access to the motorway and the docks. Every year the junction stays shut is a year of longer routes and higher costs. The economic case for this junction was made years ago and accepted by the then Government, but the delivery has lagged behind. I need not explain to the Minister why getting this junction functional is so important to the economic aims of this Government. Further costs are falling on the council and local people. The council spent scarce funds on repairing the very roads that this delay will now be damaging. HGVs continue to blitz through country lanes, and newly repaired roads will only be subject to the same continuous pressure for longer. The council expected the roads to be used by local people, which is why they repaired them now. From the perspective of both local people and the public purse, it is utterly farcical just how much money and effort is being wasted due to the delays in opening the junction. The council will now have to find the money to mend those roads once again after traffic finally arrives on the junction—I need not explain why the funds are not there. This is public money spent once, and needed again, to repair damage caused by a failure that was not of the local authority’s making. This Government’s devolution agenda will be undermined if situations like this are not put right for local communities. National Highways is not a private developer the Minister can gesture towards; it is an organisation answerable to the Minister’s Department. When it builds a junction that does not work and then declines to say when it will put that right, I must ask the Minister to justify its approach. My constituents and I find that approach unacceptable. I understand that there may be legal issues and investigations that the Minister cannot reveal, but the lack of communication from the Department has been shocking. I want to raise one further concern, which I raise as a question, not as a claim. I understand that this junction used a novel construction technique, and that one other location where that technique has been used has been identified as defective. The House deserves to know whether these are isolated faults, or two instances of something more systemic in how these structures were built and signed off. If it is the latter, that is a far graver matter than one junction in Severnside, and the Minister would be wise to get ahead of it. He may recall that National Highways already has something of a record in my area, because we have a large amount of motorway infrastructure that was built in the 1960s, and we recently endured a three-year road closure when a bridge over the M4 had to be closed for safety reasons and completely replaced. We already have an ageing infrastructure; if we are adding new problems, that is worrying. I will close with a few questions, and I ask the Minister to answer each of them directly. First, will he require National Highways to publish a clear timetable for the repairs, rather than the open-ended promise of an update at some point this autumn? Secondly, will he tell the House what the defects actually are and when they were first identified, given that the junction was declared complete in 2019? Thirdly, will he commit to a firm date by which this junction will finally open to traffic? Fourthly, will he establish how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures? Fifthly, who is responsible? Will this Government do what is right and launch an investigation so that the public and all stakeholders can properly scrutinise those responsible? Sixthly, will he provide additional funding for the council to repair the roads again, once the junction is finally open? My constituents have waited six years. They have watched a £40 million junction sit empty above a motorway that they cannot access using the junction, and they have carried the traffic and the disturbance in the meantime. They are not asking for much; they are asking for a date and for someone, at last, to take responsibility. I hope the Minister can give both tonight.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

   National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

   I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to clarify one point. He said that it would have been appropriate for me to be notified earlier. Probably more importantly, it would have been helpful for South Gloucestershire council, which is proceeding with the work, to have been aware of the work earlier. Will he take that point back to National Highways?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Before moving to rural South Devon in 2007, I had spent all my life living in and around major cities: Edinburgh, Sheffield and then London. After nearly 20 years living in the rural south-west, I can honestly say that I had previously not understood rural life because I had not lived it. I have since come to realise that the rural-urban divide is possibly one of the deepest divides in our country and one that is too often overlooked, especially by Governments made up of city and urban MPs who simply do not understand the reality of rural communities and fail to see the deprivation that lurks behind the hedgerows. Those communities are often forgotten when spending decisions are taken despite a set of circumstances that mean we desperately need the Government’s financial backing. Incomes are lower due to the older average age, jobs are often seasonal and low-waged, people in rural areas travel almost twice as far as those in urban areas, and there is often no public transport. Healthcare is a challenge because community services have been cut, hospitals are miles away and hospital transport has all but disappeared. High-speed internet is crucial when services are scarce, yet broadband connectivity lags far behind urban areas. Banks, pubs and post offices are closing, hollowing out communities and increasing rural isolation. As the hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham)—all of them from Cornwall—have said, the high number of second homes, high house prices and low wages massively exacerbates the housing affordability crisis. In Devon, the full-time salary to house price ratio is 10.6:1—well above England’s average of 8.7:1. Despite all that, funding is persistently driven into urban areas while rural communities are left behind. The previous Conservative Government forced councils to do more with less. Their policy to force local authorities to use their reserves to subsidise their revenue expenditure was deeply wrong and, as a result, six rural upper-tier local authorities are on the brink of issuing section 114 notices, which would effectively declare them bankrupt. The current Government have committed to providing multi-year funding settlements for local authorities, which we welcome, but for rural communities the 2026-27 to 2028-29 settlement falls well short. The withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to councils in Devon, costing about £14 million, and no rural councils benefited from the replacement funding or recovery grant. The new formulas mean that local authorities in cities will have higher spending power than in previous years while rural shire districts will have less to spend. Under the local government finance settlement for this year, urban councils will receive 32% more per head in Government-funded spending than rural councils. Devon county council will receive £1,056 in core spending power per head compared to Hackney council’s £1,645 or Liverpool city council’s £1,598. It does not cost 50% more to provide services in Hackney or Liverpool than in Devon. In fact, I would argue it potentially costs less because of the rurality. Furthermore, the Government’s 2026-29 local government finance settlement does not include any explicit support for rural upper-tier authorities. The new formula has included remoteness only as an uplift in the formula for adult social care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, a rural child is not easier to service than a rural adult. It is utterly shocking that the Government do not believe that remoteness is relevant to the delivery of any other service, such as school transport or waste collection. It goes way beyond the additional time it takes to travel. Rural councils have several other considerations that urban councils simply do not have to contend with, including requiring more service centres due to the spread-out population and more professionals to cover visits across a huge rural area. They receive fewer responses to contract tenders, perhaps only getting one from the incumbent provider, which leads to a market with increased prices for services. There are physical constraints such as needing smaller refuse vehicles, especially on the narrow lanes near where I live in Devon. Those vehicles have to return to base to be emptied more often, and rural areas also need multiple depots for equipment and vehicles. Thus, they need more equipment to service the streets and more drivers. Pockets of deprivation, often hidden by prettiness, are particularly hard hit. Social mobility for young people living in deprived rural areas is one of the lowest in the country. None of this is considered in the new funding formula outside of adult social care. I urge the Minister to review that. Quite simply, the new system of allocation does not recognise that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in recruitment of staff for key services and requires local authorities to provide a greater public subsidy for the provision of public transport. This is very much in keeping with a Labour Government that have persistently failed to acknowledge that every service is harder to deliver across rural areas. Let me use Devon to illustrate why this service delivery is so tough. Rural Devon is a drive of over 100 miles from north to south. It would take me 10 hours to walk across just my constituency, which is a fraction of the county, and nowhere near the biggest. I am not sure how Manchesterism will translate to rural areas, but we cannot apply the same principles to a city of 3 million people and villages with just 10 houses and expect to see the same results. The trajectory for rural councils over the next three years is deeply concerning. The very limited increase in Government funding will require service reductions or significant increases in council tax or business rate income to maintain core spending power. As has been said, rural residents will pay 17% more in council tax per head compared to urban residents this year, yet Government funding will be directed towards urban authorities. The Government are relying on a regressive council tax to fund services in rural areas that it was never meant to. As a result of this funding settlement, by 2028-29 urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared to only 2% for rural councils. How can that be fair? These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; we are talking about people’s lives. From the growing number of children with SEND who cannot access the support they need to the closing of vital community spaces like libraries and leisure centres, this lack of funding has a real impact on people. We are concerned by the Government’s decision to allocate additional funding within the local government finance settlement on a need and demand basis. It will jeopardise the sustainability of rural local councils. The Liberal Democrats oppose the three-year local government finance settlement, which does not go far enough in providing a truly fair funding settlement to all local authorities across the board. We urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that reflects the true impact of rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve through the application of the fair funding formula. The ability to provide services to people in my constituency and across rural Devon will only be made worse by the proposal for four unitary authorities recently chosen by the Government for the local government reorganisation in Devon. I urge the Minister to bear with me on this. That proposal from Labour-run Plymouth and Exeter will see those two cities massively expanded, to the great delight of their Labour MPs, and a new urban growth area based around Torbay, leaving a fourth authority—the bits that were left behind when the urban areas were gouged out—stretching 70 miles from Ilfracombe in the north to Salcombe in the south, but 100 miles by road. That authority will have to maintain a road network not dissimilar to the whole of Luxembourg’s with no major town to offer opportunities for growth and regeneration and the most deprived area of Devon to support.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    I absolutely agree. It makes no sense to any of us in Devon. I have spent the entire summer listening to constituents who are deeply distressed about what has happened, which leaves them in a rump rural local authority with no option for economic growth or regeneration.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    I absolutely agree. The Government ignored local voices and went with the proposal that came fourth out of five in a public consultation, but was backed by Labour council leaders and Labour MPs who had the ear of Ministers and wanted to expand their cities. None of my constituents want it. I have spent the whole summer listening to distressed residents, as has my neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). The chosen proposal was a blatant prioritisation of economic growth for the cities of Plymouth and Exeter at the expense of the economic and social cohesion of rural Devon. How do the Government expect this council to be financially viable when they deem remoteness irrelevant to the delivery of every service except adult social care, and when no one can even work out where the authority could be based? How can rural Devon expect growth in every postcode when there is clearly no consideration of the economic growth potential for rural Devon in the chosen proposal? The Prime Minister talked yesterday about supporting rural areas and not creating a two-tier country, but the Government have created a two-tier Devon. I urge the Minister to listen to the many Devon MPs and the local people, go back to the drawing board on the reorganisation in Devon, look at the alternative options that were on the table, and pick one that will not leave rural communities struggling even more than they are now. If we are to have any hope of bridging the urban-rural divide, a fair funding settlement for rural councils and local government reorganisation that works for rural areas must be the start. If the Prime Minister wants a political system and economy that works for every person in the country, the Government must change the way they value and recognise rural communities.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Rewiring the State

    The First Secretary of State talks about a broken political model that will cost jobs and opportunities, and I am afraid the decision that the predecessor Government made on local government reorganisation in Devon is exactly that: it will create a two-tier Devon, leaving one area behind. It has carved out three urban growth areas and dumped together all the bits that are left behind in a vast rural local authority of 100 miles from north to south with a road network equivalent to that of Luxembourg, leaving communities divided with little chance of ever being sustainable. This rural local authority has no chance of the same growth opportunities that the other ones have. This goes against everything the Prime Minister believes in about devolution being done from the ground up with the consent of communities, not from the top down from Whitehall. He told me that himself in July, so I urge the First Secretary and the Minister for Communities to listen to me, to other Devon MPs—perhaps not the Labour ones—and to the thousands of my constituents, and to review this decision.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Housing Affordability

    2. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Welsh Government on the affordability of housing.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Housing Affordability

    I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, as the Minister is well aware, the Welsh Government have failed to meet their own 2021-26 social housing target. I wonder what lessons have been learned from that, and indeed from the Welsh Government’s introduction of curbs on second homes through the planning system. Surely this refreshed Government must be taking lessons from Wales and applying them across the UK as a whole.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Engagements

    Q6. My private Member’s Bill on community-led homes aims to help combat widening inequality in the UK. In Cornwall alone during the last decade, more than half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has been handed out to second home owners through tax loopholes, while the housing problems of locals have got significantly worse. The planning system is fuelled by greed rather than need, allowing land value speculators simply to fill their boots while housing problems get worse. Will the Prime Minister meet me so that we can identify tools within my private Member’s Bill to empower communities to address that desperate need?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of changes to employer National Insurance contributions on small businesses in Hampshire. It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I am equally privileged to be joined by a number of local business owners from North East Hampshire, who are in the Public Gallery. Soaring energy costs, a business rates system in desperate need of overhaul and, perhaps the most damaging of all, a rise in employer national insurance contributions: individually, any one of those changes would be hard for a small business to absorb, but together they are too much for many small businesses across Hampshire. When a small business’s costs rise, that cost moves on to workers through stagnant wages, to customers through higher prices and to the business owners in lower profits. When the numbers simply cannot add up, the cost also moves on to local communities, through weaker local economies and hollowed out high streets. In Hampshire, where almost 98% of businesses are small businesses, that is felt by an entire county. Small businesses cannot design their way around these tax changes. A big national chain can negotiate volume discounts, restructure its human resources or draw on a financial buffer; a beauty salon in Church Crookham or a care home in Ewshot cannot. That is why 35% of small firms say that they are planning to close or significantly scale back this year, and why these changes are, in plain terms, a jobs tax. This matters because these are precisely the employers we need. The Government’s own research has warned that without urgent action, one in six young people could soon be a NEET—somebody not in education, employment or training. Hospitality, retail, personal care and customer service are the sectors facing the steepest rise in labour costs, yet they are the very sectors that traditionally give young people their first, vital experience in the world of work.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

    I wholeheartedly agree. That is the exact crux of the issue, and it is borne out in the data. The Bank of England decision-maker panel revealed that 46% of firms nationally have cut staff because of these changes, and that 20% have paid lower wages than planned. Nationally, small businesses account for 60% of private sector employment, so when they pull back it is not a footnote to the labour market; it is the labour market. Nowhere is that clearer than in the hair and beauty sector. Kerry Mather has run KJM Salons in Fleet for 36 years, employing around 20 people including six apprenticeships, training a new generation in a key town centre location. In the past decade, apprenticeships in the UK hair and beauty industry have dropped from nearly 19,000 to 3,000. If we are not careful, soon there will be no apprenticeships left.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I agree that this is a matter for Government, which, of course, is why I am raising it today. The pressure compounds, of course, where a workforce is already stretched. Vehicle repair already loses around 1,700 workers a year. The Institute of the Motor Industry says: “Protecting that workforce is not just a matter for bodyshops and garages—it is a matter for insurers, fleet operators, and ultimately for every driver who needs their vehicle repaired.” Foster and Heanes, a name that is well known in North East Hampshire for providing MOTs and repairs, sits squarely in the path of that shortfall. Where there are no staff available to repair a vehicle, the consequences ripple out to every tradesperson who needs a van back on the road and every local supply chain that depends on vehicles moving on time. In a constituency with limited bus infrastructure, the school run is also affected, because for many families there is no alternative but to use a car. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have said, such business challenges are of course felt across the country. Some 69% of businesses cite employer national insurance contributions as one of the top three cost threats to UK labour market competitiveness, while business confidence has fallen—even since the market turmoil of autumn 2022, which is a really damning indictment of this policy. A quarter of firms cut back investment in the very quarter that these changes took effect, making it no surprise that growth under this Government has never once crept above 0.6%. The policy is just so hard to understand given the rhetoric used by this Government. There is talk of growth, talk of apprenticeships and talk of opportunities for young people, but the action seems to be the opposite—fewer jobs, fewer apprenticeships, less business investment and an economy that continues to stagnate. Small business owners need to understand how the Government can justify this policy. Nowhere is the policy harder to defend than in health and social care. This year alone, independent care providers have been billed an extra £940 million. Ministers point to additional social care funding, but for providers on the ground that funding is little more than a consolation prize, because the Government voted down every single Lib Dem amendment tabled in the House of Lords to exempt care and early years providers from this rise. It has landed on a sector that is already in profound crisis and that simply cannot reduce its workforce to cope. Hundreds of thousands of people are currently waiting for care, many of them stranded in hospital beds simply because the care they need is not available, which piles more strain on to the NHS. Liberal Democrat analysis found that almost 900,000 people had their request for care denied in the last financial year, while—tragically—a further 6,000 people died while waiting for their care to be approved. This policy does not simply squeeze care providers’ margins; it deepens a crisis with a real human cost. That gets to the very heart of the matter. At the centre of this situation, as local business owners in North East Hampshire have told me, are people. Good employers who pay their staff a fair wage, who train and invest in their teams and who contribute to the communities in which they operate are being squeezed to breaking point. Having barely recovered from the covid years, service and retail businesses no longer have the financial buffers they once had. That means their staff lose out not just on a pay rise but on a Christmas party or a team training day, or perhaps their equipment is not replaced as regularly or they do not get a bonus. Whatever the consequence, it is people who are impacted—the ones who this Government claim they want to support. Hampshire’s experience and the national picture are one and the same story, but none of this was inevitable. The Office for Budget Responsibility itself says that firms will pass on 60% of the higher costs, whether through reduced wages or higher prices. Coupled with five consecutive years of falling living standards, the changes to NICs are nothing short of regressive. There is no doubt that our public services need funding and that our country’s infrastructure needs urgent repair, and I am the first to call for those things, but there is a fair way to do this—and one that will not strangle the UK’s economic growth. The Government must focus on taxing those with the broadest shoulders so that they contribute more through a higher digital services tax, on overhauling the broken business rates system, on ensuring that enormous multinational corporations are paying their fair share for doing business in the UK, and on reversing the Conservatives’ banking tax cuts. Positive change is possible. The Government’s steps towards cross-party discussions on social care and the 20% cut in business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues are welcome, but we must go further. Any relief to those sectors cannot leave NICs off the table. Today and every day, I represent the brilliant North East Hampshire business community. Small businesses are the engine room of the British economy, so I call on the Government to give them the certainty they need to invest, grow and create jobs. Our businesses should be thriving, not barely surviving.

    Hansard source
21. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Rewiring the State

    I welcome the First Secretary to her place. One area of the state that needs rewiring is support for neurodiverse people, because lots of decision makers do not get it. Will the First Secretary appoint a Minister for neurodiversity to the Cabinet Office to help ensure decision makers across the country get it and solve the challenges related to neurodivergence that they may face?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Representation of the People Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her opening remarks on Report of the important Representation of the People Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), repeated—I am sure inadvertently—misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election, despite the fact that it was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester police found no evidence of criminality. What steps can be taken to ensure that the record is properly corrected?

    Hansard source
23. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairship. Clearly, Brexit has been a disaster for Britain—the sooner we acknowledge that, the better our conversations will be, because we will then be able to move forward. It has been economically disastrous. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, it has been a slow puncture; in fact, it has been a huge slow puncture, taking 4%, 6% or 8% off our GDP, which costs every household in the country enormously in real terms. It makes us all much worse off. In North Herefordshire, business owners have spoken about the additional barriers they face when trading with Europe and the admin created by the supposed reduction in bureaucracy. Brexit has been an economic disaster, but it is not just economic: environmentally, we are diverging from Europe, and in 28 areas of law, we now have weaker protection for our natural environment. Socially, politically and culturally, Brexit has been poisonous. It has catalysed and reinforced a toxic political debate, leading to polarisation, the proliferation of disinformation, political short-termism, and a discounting of the rights, opportunities and needs of young people in particular. The UK is now poorer, weaker and more isolated in a context in which we have a completely unreliable and unstable partner in the US President, and we have war on the eastern border of Europe with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    I am sorry, but because of time I will not. We are also facing the climate crisis barrelling down towards us. All of these issues require stronger co-operation with our closest neighbours. In that context, more than 10 years on from this disastrous wrong turn in British politics—this monumental act of self-harm—it is time to change course. I welcome the noises that the Government have made about resetting. That is certainly a start, but we need to be honest about what we have lost. We need to recognise the importance of co-operation and working together politically as well as economically. We need to recognise that the majority of the British people think that we would be better off back in the European Union, and that is why I believe we need to set out a path to rejoin. The best future for the UK lies within Europe. With the summit coming up, I hope that the Minister will be genuinely ambitious and deep in setting out the path forward.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill

    I would like to speak to amendment 15 and new clause 30, tabled in my name, and to new clauses tabled by other colleagues from across the House. First of all, I welcome the new Minister to her place and I welcome the Bill. I always like to start where there is common ground. It is certainly true that there are steps forward in the Bill: the implementation of the Rycroft recommendations to tackle foreign influence in our politics; movements towards automatic voter registration; and dealing with crypto to some extent, although not enough. Those are all positive steps forward. I also warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16, which is a long-standing Green party policy. But—there is a big but, I am afraid, Minister—the Bill could and really should do far, far more to clean up our politics. There are three big things that we need to do: get rid of the influence of dirty and big money in our politics; eliminate the poison of disinformation in our politics; and fix the fundamental structures of our politics that disenfranchise so many people. It is therefore frankly ridiculous that in a Bill about elections called the Representation of the People Bill we are not even allowed to discuss new clause 31 on a national commission on electoral reform. This is fundamentally important to our politics. The fundamental principle of democracy is that everybody’s vote must count equally. The Government, of course, do not need to legislate on a national commission on electoral reform. They could kickstart one anyway. I really hope that the Minister will take that back to the Prime Minister—who, after all, is supposedly a supporter of electoral reform—and strongly encourage him to put his action where his mouth is on this issue and demonstrate that, if he is serious about problem-solving, he needs to work to solve the problems in our democracy.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was speaking in relation to the title of the Bill.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill

    I will move on to my amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment 15 seeks to ban all corporate donations. Donations from companies are banned in France and Canada, among many other countries. According to research conducted by CenTax, about a quarter of donor companies are so opaque that it is not possible to identify who controls them, and almost £1 in every £10 given by companies comes, indirectly, from people who could not make donations themselves. This is a loophole in our politics. The Bill already accepts that a company has no independent right to donate, as it depends on the individuals who own it being on the electoral register, so it makes sense to complete the step and ban corporate donations altogether. If the House is not willing to go as far as a ban, it can still strengthen the Bill by strengthening clause 60. I have also tabled new clause 30, which calls for “a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis”. The new clause would deal with another huge loophole. We recognise that money skews politics; that is why there are spending limits during the short campaign; but we know that politics does not happen just in that short period before an election. Politics happens all the year round, especially now that the online world is such a big part of our politics. Long gone are the days when elections were fought only in those short weeks. Political campaigning happens throughout the year, not just on doorsteps but also online, and it is therefore imperative to place limits on annual campaign expenditure to prevent our politics from being skewed out of all proportion by big money. That is why I support new clause 70, tabled by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which would lower limits for campaign spending altogether. In her new clause 120, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) makes a clear case for a cap on all donations. Big money has been allowed to skew our politics for far too long. I would prefer the cap to be much lower, perhaps at £50,000 a year, and that view is supported by the majority of the British people, but any move in that direction would be an improvement. Moreover, some donations simply should not be allowed. I welcome new clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon): there is no place for fossil fuels in a sustainable future, and no place for dirty fossil money in our politics. I also welcome the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), particularly new clause 43, which calls for “a repository of digital political advertising”. This is absolutely crucial: we have to guard against the use of AI to fuel disinformation. We have to take big money out of politics, take the poison of disinformation out of politics, and fix our political system once and for all.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Rewiring the State

    This summer, we have seen extreme heat and prolonged drought, with far too many people losing their lives in heatwaves, huge pressures on farming and many wildfires. We are unlikely to have another cooler summer than this year, and we need to be prepared for an ever-warming world. That requires a cross-Government approach. While there has been lots of talk of a No. 10 for the north—and devolution is welcome—does the First Secretary of State recognise that we could have a No. 10 for the future in the form of a climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office, which is needed to drive the cross-Government approach we must have to keep people safe?

    Hansard source
29. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Rewiring the State

    I congratulate the First Secretary of State and welcome her to a very important role in government. I agree with a number of things that she said, particularly about strengthening the role of No. 10. However, there is a large gap in this statement on rewiring the state, and that is to do with civil service reform. There are many excellent civil servants, but I am afraid that it remains a classic 80:20 model; 20% of exceptionally good civil servants do about 80% of the work. If we are really to rewire the state, we need to look at that and not only empower that 20% to deliver more, but find savings from the headcount among the 80%. If the Secretary of State really wants to rewire the state, I urge her to grasp this nettle while she looks at the entire picture.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Smith

    Rewiring the State

    I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place, and I am sure that she will be very effective at this job. On the issue of wildfires, may I urge her to talk to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is putting further constraints on moorland owners? Moorland owners have traditionally undertaken controlled burning, and they are really worried at the moment that this change in DEFRA policy will make moorland areas such as the one I represent more vulnerable to wildfires in the future?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Rewiring the State

    Normally when functions and roles are devolved from London to another area, we see a diminution in the capital and an increase in the area concerned. There is an obvious danger of duplication by having a No. 10 North and a No. 10 South, so will the First Secretary, whom I congratulate on her appointment, be transparent about this and agree that the public should be able to see how many people are working permanently in No. 10 North, how many are working permanently in No. 10 South, and how many are going back and forth between the two?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Strengthening the Union

    4. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to strengthen Wales’s place in the Union.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Strengthening the Union

    A strength of the Union is unity in diversity. Notwithstanding much progress since 2010, the last two years have seen a diminution in the number of Welsh speakers in Wales, particularly among young people. Does the Minister have a plan to nip that in the bud and stop it becoming a trend?

    Hansard source
34. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    As a rather lone voice in this debate, I do not complain that it is not going to be a balanced debate, but somebody has to make the case.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Indeed, there are a few of us, but what we are hearing is a group of aggrieved remain supporters who have never come to terms with their grief and remain ideologically committed to rejoining. To anybody who wants to have another referendum, I do not say, “Bring it on,” because that is the last thing the public want, but I say that we would win again. When it comes down to the crunch, the British public do not want to hand back control of our laws to the European Union, and all the polls show that. If we ask them in a poll, “Do you want Westminster or Brussels to control farming policy?”, or whatever policy it is, people always vote for Westminster to maintain control.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    I totally agree. Defence is a reserved matter for member states in the European Union. The European Union does not have any troops. NATO is the forum through which we operate, and it is NATO to which we should be committed, rather than setting up a rival defence organisation in the European Union. I will also point out the contributions. According to a table from the House of Commons Library, we were making a gross contribution of £16 billion or £17 billion a year, but, with the rebate, the net contribution was £9.4 billion in the last year of membership. Our latest contribution was £103 million. To all those people who advocate for rejoining or for the reset, where will the money come from? Will it come out of defence or welfare, or will there be more taxation to generate the extra revenue needed once we start making increased contributions to the European Union? There is also the myth-making. There is a myth that there were no small boats until Brexit—what rubbish. The small boats started in 2018, before we left, and by 2020 there were more than 8,500 crossings. That is not due to Brexit. The Dublin regulation was useless. It was in place during those years and it was never enforced. I will finish on the question of forecasts, which are all conjectural. They are all based on what the British economy might look like compared with a basket of other economies, including the United States, which has had a huge fiscal stimulus and an AI boom, and has more free enterprise policies. The fact is that since we left the European Union, Wolfgang Münchau, who somewhat reluctantly voted remain, has made it clear that leaving was an economic non-event. We were growing at about the same rate of France and Germany, and we still are. There has been no smashing disaster in the economy. There is a disaster in Scotland, where the SNP is campaigning against reopening the North sea and supports the high energy costs imposed by the ridiculous dash to net zero—the Government are doing that too—but the fact is that we are better off outside the EU in the long term.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Which goods does the EU charge tariffs on? The hon. Member said that it charges tariffs; which goods are they on?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    The referendum was in 2016, but all the legalities of membership of the European Union, including the Dublin convention, applied until 2021. The small boat crossings were rocketing before Brexit. They have nothing to do with it.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    The question of scrutiny was raised by the Minister’s colleagues. In the absence of a European Scrutiny Committee, how is this stuff going to be scrutinised if he brings in direct applicability and direct effect of European laws?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Representation of the People Bill

    What consideration did the hon. Member give to extending his proposed amendment to trade unions, which—a neutral observer might conclude—gave very large sums of money to the Labour party precisely to influence the Employment Rights Bill that it has now turned into law?

    Hansard source