What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Scotland is not a region, and nor should it be treated as one. Those in Scotland are hurt and frustrated at the way the Prime Minister has conducted the conversation around devolution and so arrogantly dismissed the pro-independence mandate that the Scottish people gave. Why does the Prime Minister think he can dismiss the democratically elected mandate of the Scottish people?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing the debate. Members will be aware of the half-hour Adjournment debate that I recently led, in which there were 19 interventions on me and the Minister. Many of those Members are present today, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of cross-party support on this issue. It is important to bear that huge cross-party support in mind. In my constituency, I have communities that are 65 miles from the nearest bank branch. For context, that is the same distance as from here to Hastings or Cambridge. It is an enormous distance, and people are hours of travel from a bank branch. That includes people who may be seeking entrepreneurship advice, perhaps on the first steps in setting up their own business. They may not know who to contact, but if they are able to see someone face to face in a branch, they can be told, “These are the people you need to speak to. This is how you set up an account”—not detailed business advice, but just the basics of how to access the system. People risk falling at the first hurdle otherwise. I restate the point about people who may be unsure about digital services, or who are attempting to use apps but need a bit of advice. They might do something on the app and then think, “Oh, I’m not sure I’ve done that right.” They need the opportunity to go into a bank. If someone has suffered a bereavement, they are looking for face-to-face contact and reassurance that their joint bank account will be sorted out. These are critical points in people’s lives. Finally, many of us will have been at highland games and agricultural shows, where charities hold lots of raffles and collect lots of cash. For people in my constituency, it is hours of travel to go to bank that cash.
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In so doing, I extend my best wishes not only to him but to his family, as he takes up the manifold burdens of his new role. In his assent to high office, he was heard to report that the UK is not working and Westminster is not working —well, I am 100% in agreement with him on that, although my prognosis would be terminal rather than treatable. He understands that energy bills are now £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the general election, and there is another large increase coming before Christmas. He touched on energy in his statement, so will he give us a date—between now and whenever the general election will be—by which energy bills will be £300 lower, just in the way that Labour promised?
T5. It is beyond doubt that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are illegal, and the Foreign Secretary has stated that sanctions for those who participate in illegal settlement expansion will be brought forward. Sadly, Labour MPs in this House are trying to prevent that on the basis that it could result in retaliatory measures from the US. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK’s adherence to international law will not be traded away, that the rights of the Palestinian people are not bargaining chips, and that he will not be bullied by Back Benchers or President Trump into allowing continued settler violence and the deliberate destruction of the two-state solution?
The Prime Minister has spoken about his desire for a written constitution, arguing that a formal legal framework is necessary for the devolution agenda, yet in his short time in office he has already attempted unilaterally to defy the legally binding Good Friday agreement by declaring that a border poll is “off the table”. Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate to defy the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Scotland or the people of Wales, and that any written constitution or devolution agenda must include a pathway for each of those nations to choose their own future?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new role. He will be aware that none of his recent predecessors were ever short of an angry word or condemnatory statement about Israel’s actions in Gaza or the west bank, but they were woefully short on any meaningful action to back up their supposed outrage. What is happening in the west bank is happening right now, so time is of the essence. When will he spell out exactly the consequences for the state of Israel and for any UK national or UK-based company found to be complicit in this illegal E1 expansion programme?
The Prime Minister has spoken a lot about the increase in the cost of living. Much of that is driven by the increase in energy prices, because of the rush towards net stupid zero and the multiple increase in renewables such as solar farms on our productive agricultural farmland. It is madness to import gas from overseas when we have our own gas in the North sea. When will the Prime Minister do the right thing: approve the licences at Rosebank, Jackdaw and elsewhere in the North sea?
The Prime Minister says that he puts devolution at the heart of his agenda, and I believe him. We both know that decisions are best made closer to the people they affect, but Wales still lacks the powers already available to Scotland, and even to Greater Manchester. That cannot be right. When he meets the First Minister next month, will he work with Plaid Cymru to make good that devolution gap on policing, on the Crown Estate, on rail and on the fiscal powers that Wales needs to build and prosper?
The Government tell us that restriction zones will keep people safe, but victims need to see the small print to believe that, especially after the warnings in July’s National Audit Office report into tagging. If an offender leaves a restriction zone, what guarantee can the Justice Secretary give that the GPS system will warn police and probation officers so they can act to keep victims safe in real time?
Just across from No. 10 North in Manchester, but also in many towns and cities throughout the country, women are being secretly filmed on a night out, and the videos are then posted online along with vile, degrading, misogynistic contents and comments. The women only find out once the videos have been shared 100,000 times and more, and they do not know what to do. We need to change something. Will the Prime Minister support the campaign to end this vile practice, and consider reform to make misogyny a hate crime?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. I am sure that many Members have had the same frustrating experiences I have had when I meet a bank that is planning to close a branch. It has all this data and statistics telling us about the number of people who use that branch, but never asks how many people would use it if they knew that they could get access to it. Link also cannot tell me why, despite the measures that are in place, the percentage of people with access to cash in my constituency continues to reduce. It is also important to remember that in many of our communities, the bank branches that do exist often have very reduced hours. Business customers in particular express real frustration to me about that. I do not want to repeat the things that have been said today, but I want to pick up on scams and vulnerable constituents. Rural poverty is real. We all deal with it. Citizens Advice locally and food banks are seeing an increase in people’s need for support. Banks have a responsibility to improve financial literacy. In addition, rural transport is non-existent, as many people have touched on. Over the summer, I went out with a constituent who used a wheelchair. We had to take two buses to make the journey and, to add to her distress, one of the bus’s lifts was not working and the whole bus had to decant while she was left on the pavement. We need to remember that it is not always easy for people to get to banks. I am very conscious that the party that talks about broken high streets and broken Britain is not represented in this debate, but if we think back to the past, the bank manager was someone we knew. I have a constituent who subject to a very distressing scam involving a significant amount of money. I am confident that if they had been going into their bank branch, the staff would have known them and asked the right questions to prevent the scam in the first place—it is not about the person asking for advice. The Government know what they need to do; I hope they get on and do it.
One of the problems we have experienced with the Link criteria is that the town is classed as urban by the Office for National Statistics, but is actually servicing a rural community. That mismatch means that some hubs are being missed out.
After a horrendous summer of wildfires and the catastrophe in Nepal and Tibet, it is clear that if we are going to solve these problems, we need to act globally but think locally. It is really important that the public trust the information they receive on climate change. Will the FCDO work with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the public are educated, and will it consider funding a national programme of public information, or perhaps screenings of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, so that we can all understand more about the situation?
We have had the hottest summer on record, and we have had an exceptionally high number of tragic deaths in the rivers and seas around the country. At the same time, so many children are no longer able to learn to swim; over 200 public and school swimming pools have closed since 2020. Will the Prime Minister look at how we can better fund leisure centres and swimming pools to make sure that every child knows how to save themselves and to float—with the advice from the Royal Life Saving Society? Will he ensure that we do not have such a terrible summer again?
When the Justice Committee visited a young offenders institute earlier this year, we found that most of the young people were not able to access even a minimal amount of education or training, which means that they are more likely to go on to commit more offences. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to improve access to education, training and financial preparedness to ensure that young offenders and their adult counterparts do not reoffend and fill up the prisons again?
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his show of cross-party support for my campaign to scrap the time restriction on disability bus passes. I genuinely and sincerely appreciated the fact that he came to the parliamentary event and drop-in that we held last year with Whizz Kidz, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Bus Users UK, Transport for All, and many other charitable organisations, as well as the likes of Jackie Snape from Disability Action Yorkshire. The Prime Minister showed what cross-party working can do when he delivered that change for Greater Manchester, and is now rolling it out across England. I am grateful to him that, come next year, disability bus passes will not start at 9.30 am, because disabilities do not either. The Prime Minister mentioned in answer to another question that he does not like postcode lotteries. With that in mind, one issue that will still exist relates to companion bus passes, which are granted to disabled people who need someone to accompany them. This is an issue where we will still see a postcode lottery. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has been campaigning on this vigorously. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue, and deliver the same cross-party success to scrap those injustices too?
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) asked the Prime Minister about bluetongue. He gave an answer about farming, but he will recall that he did not address the issue directly. He was elected for the first time to this place in 2001—I welcome him back—in the election that was postponed because of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. There are 754 reported cases of bluetongue in Great Britain already. It takes three weeks after the first dose of vaccine for sheep to become immune, and six weeks for cattle. This is an animal welfare disaster, a human tragedy, and a farm business nightmare. Will the Prime Minister make the tackling of bluetongue and the immediate delivery of the vaccine an urgent priority for him and his Government?
I beg to move, That this House has considered aluminium recycling and local authorities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to have secured this debate, as I believe that what I am about to set out is one of the most significant and least understood failures in our country’s local authority waste and recycling policy. It concerns aluminium, the most valuable material in every household recycling bin in Britain. We should ask ourselves, what happens to the aluminium cans that residents put out for the council to collect? What do councils do with that aluminium? Is it managed in the best possible way? And how does the disposal of aluminium impact the Government’s critical minerals strategy, aluminium recycling targets and circular economy objectives? For many years, I have collected used aluminium from businesses in my constituency. Once I have collected enough, it goes to our local scrap merchant, and I donate the money to local charities. Recycled aluminium has roughly 10 times the value of mixed plastic waste and several times the value of paper or cardboard. As aluminium can be recycled indefinitely, it is the most valuable material that councils collect from households by a very wide margin. I knew that a number of councils in my region, including my own council, had an efficient kerbside collection scheme and return much of the collected aluminium’s commodity value to the council’s coffers, but I wondered about the rest of the country. How much aluminium is recycled each year? What happens to it once councils have collected it? Are councils getting a fair income from its commodity value? Is it recycled in the UK or sent abroad? And what, if any, are the Government’s regulations regarding the export of aluminium? Those are some of the questions to which I wanted answers. Earlier this year, I submitted a freedom of information request to more than 300 councils across the UK. I asked them what happens to the aluminium collected from their residents’ kerbside recycling. While I waited for replies, I did some further research on the subject. I discovered from the House of Commons Library that about £1 billion-worth of scrap aluminium is sold abroad each year by waste management companies. Industry groups told me that manufacturers are spending about £5 billion importing reprocessed aluminium. According to the Aluminium Packaging Recycling Organisation, which I would like to thank for being here today, we use around 12 billion aluminium cans every year.
Yes, of course I agree. The more we can do to recycle everything that we potentially throw away, the better. Around 60% of the 12 billion aluminium cans used each year are exported for recycling, with only 40% recycled in the UK. I also learned that, although we currently have a high recycling capacity, next year we will have the capacity to recycle every aluminium can used in the UK. By this time next year, there should be no need whatsoever for any council in this country to send its aluminium cans abroad. I shall return to that point. Environmental groups revealed that every tonne of aluminium recycled in the UK saves 95% of the energy needed to produce primary aluminium. Of equal importance, recycling in the UK avoids the carbon emissions of shipping material to smelters in China, India, the USA, Thailand and Greece. I mention those countries because, according to the manufacturers’ trade body, Make UK, and aluminium industry analysts AL Circle, that is where 84% of our aluminium scrap ends up. Exports of aluminium to the USA are particularly worrying, because they have surged by almost 1,200% from 2,000 tonnes to 24,000 tonnes in just 12 months. Aluminium scrap is exempt from President Trump’s tariffs on primary aluminium, so the waste management companies are profiteering by sending as much scrap aluminium there as they can. In April, answers to my FOI requests began to arrive. The results were revealing. Far too many councils could not say where their aluminium ended up. Too many have no policy requiring their aluminium to be recycled in the UK and, I have since discovered, too many councils that do have a UK recycling requirement are blissfully unaware that their aluminium is being exported abroad by private waste management companies. The most shocking thing my research revealed, however, was the number of councils that do not know the value of their aluminium waste and the number receiving little or no income from the sale of this valuable commodity. Equally alarming was the number of council leaders who refused to answer my question about income, quoting commercial sensitivity. I found that those councils that understand the value of their aluminium and manage their recycling well are retaining significant amounts of money each year. However, councils of similar sizes and demographics, sometimes using the very same waste management company, are losing money for reasons that simply make no commercial sense. I will give a few examples: Cambridgeshire county council made about £1.6 million from aluminium recycling last year; West Sussex county council made about £1 million; Surrey county council made £2,000; Warwickshire county council made £500; and Lancashire and Kent county councils made nothing.
No, Kent county council has probably done absolutely nothing. In a moment, I will give my hon. Friend an example of where a council has changed hands—control changed hands and the council did a really brilliant job. There is money to be had and, when councils are up against it trying to provide for adult social care, children’s social care and, frankly, every flipping pothole, it is amazing that they do not get on and tune into this. County councils are not alone in that income discrepancy. It happens in unitary authorities, too: South Gloucestershire council made £500,000 and one of my own councils, North Somerset, made £400,000, but North Lincolnshire made absolutely nothing. Doncaster city council made £300,000, but Coventry city council and Leicester city council made nothing. Another interesting example is that the Labour-led Nottingham city council made an impressive £300,000 from the sale of its aluminium, but the Reform-led Nottinghamshire county council, which serves three times the population of the city itself, made absolutely nothing. Something went awry there. According to the Local Government Association, aluminium cans are worth some £54 million per year to English councils. If the responses I have received to my FOI questions are anything to go by, that seems to be a sizeable underestimate. I therefore want to return to this question of commercial sensitivity. I understand that contracts between councils and waste management companies can contain some commercially sensitive terms and information; however, surely how much income a council earns from the sale of recyclable materials collected from its residents is a matter of public interest and should not be hidden behind exemptions. Residents who sort their recycling every week are entitled to know where it is going, if for no other reason than it encourages them to keep recycling and to recycle more. Secrecy does not help anyone in this arena. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 rightly provides exemptions for genuinely commercially sensitive information, but I trust that the Minister will agree that income from aluminium recycling is hardly a trade secret. It should be a matter of public record. Both councils in the Minister’s constituency replied to my freedom of information requests by stating that they could not identify income from aluminium. However, Hull city council informed its own scrutiny committee that aluminium cans are worth £900 to £1,000 a tonne and that it takes 80% of that value, and East Riding of Yorkshire council told its committee that revenue was £1.6 million. Does the Minister accept that councils that publish this information for a council committee meeting should be more transparent with their residents and the public? Can she assure me that she will offer guidance to ensure that councils always release such information? The Local Government Association’s “wealth from waste” review says that councils across the country receive only around 28% of the total financial value of the materials that they recycle. Waste management companies retain the remaining 72%. That disparity cannot be right. Some councils have refused to accept that financial imbalance and have resorted to going to the courts to receive a fair income for their waste materials, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) referred to in relation to Kent. To give an example, in June 2024, Buckinghamshire council took its waste management company, FCC Environment, to the High Court. The council claimed that the 75%/25% revenue share in favour of the waste management company did not reflect the council’s entitlement. The High Court agreed, and the council was awarded substantial funds for underpayments going back as far as 2016. As the Minister knows, FCC Environment now controls waste management for the councils in her constituency, both of which have extended their contract to 2030. South Ribble borough council is a clear example of action being taken after political change, as was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. When Labour took control of South Ribble, the new administration immediately terminated the contract with the waste management company, brought services in-house and saved £178,000 in the first year. Where there is political will, injustices can be corrected. When local government finances are so tight, I find it puzzling that so many councils let this source of extra income slip through their fingers. I wonder how much children’s and adults’ care could be delivered and, as I said earlier, how many potholes could be filled with the extra income highlighted in those examples. The issue is becoming increasingly important to our councils because aluminium is fast replacing plastic and glass across a wide range of drinks and consumer goods. Industries are turning to aluminium more and more. It is lightweight, substantially more recyclable and its quality is not time-sensitive, unlike that of plastic and glass. Many brands also see it as increasing their sustainability credentials, especially among younger consumers. In the last few years, the use of aluminium cans has expanded from a few soft drinks and craft beers into spirits, wine, coffee and water. Last year, Diageo sold more than 80 million cans of Baileys alone, and Marks and Spencer sold 35 million aluminium cans containing a variety of drinks—an increase of about 1 million on the number sold in the two previous years. Even the whisky industry is looking to aluminium to replace its traditional glass, although I am not sure what some hon. Members will think of that. I am sure that the Minister sees my point. Year on year, right across the country, our councils’ residents are purchasing increasing numbers of aluminium cans, our councils are collecting an increasing number for recycling and, at the moment, waste management companies are allowed to sell increasing quantities of that precious resource abroad to the highest bidder. I anticipate that when she replies the Minister will offer the packaging recovery notes system and the coming deposit return scheme as possible solutions. I plan to seek debates on both topics later in the year, and my research tells me that the packaging recovery note system has been plagued by fraudulent scams that open the doors to even more aluminium exports. The Minister will know that the Local Government Association claims that the system does not channel revenue to councils and has called for changes. As for the deposit return scheme, despite the benefits that it may bring the Government are allowing the drinks companies and the supermarkets to manage it, with no regulations whatsoever to restrict them from exporting as many aluminium cans as they want. When my constituents put their cans in their recycling bag or bin they consider that recycling, and in one sense they are correct. It has become very clear from my research that when councils hand over their waste to a private material recovery facility most consider that to be recycling, but that is not the case. All a recovery facility does is divide the waste into different components. Consequently, when the aluminium comes out of such private facilities it has not been recycled; it is nothing more than crushed and broken bits of aluminium. I raise that point because the definition of “recycling” is important. The current confusing definition allows councils to be persuaded, whether honestly or otherwise, that their aluminium is recycled, and recycled in the UK, when too often, after it leaves the recovery facility, waste management companies sell it to the highest bidder abroad. It is important that the Minister and her Government establish some clarity on this issue, so I would like to know the Government’s definition of recycling and its main characteristics, and at what point in the process the Government consider items such as aluminium to be actually recycled. To try to answer those questions for myself I took some of my aluminium to the largest aluminium can recycling centre in the UK: the Novelis reprocessing plant in Warrington. I thank the amazing Allan Sweeney and his team at Novelis for showing me around the plant. I saw how crushed and broken aluminium cans are cleaned, melted down and cast into brand-new 27-tonne ingots—they are huge. I also saw the almost-completed £75 million expansion of Novelis’s facilities, which is jointly funded by the Government. Once operational it will allow all the UK’s used cans to be recycled in the UK. Each year in Warrington 8 billion cans are reprocessed, ready to be rolled into new aluminium cans and bottles. For me the question was answered right there in Warrington: aluminium is not recycled until it is reprocessed ready to be made into a new product; up to that point it is just scrap metal. That definition would resonate with my constituents and with all those who take the time to recycle their aluminium. I will return to how that all impacts the Government’s critical minerals strategy and their circular economy objectives. I believe that there is no question but that it does impact them, and in a manner that makes a mockery of the Government’s intentions. I will give the Minister three very clear examples. First, the critical minerals strategy categorises aluminium as a national strategic asset, central to our defence, infrastructure, manufacturing base, circular economy and net-zero targets. It says that the UK must secure access to such critical minerals; the amount of scrap aluminium exported abroad each year seriously undermines that. Secondly, one of the critical minerals strategy’s primary pillars is reducing exposure to volatile global markets, yet waste management companies are given free rein by the Government to export unlimited quantities of aluminium scrap into the very volatile markets that the critical minerals strategy says must be avoided. Thirdly, circularity is central to the critical minerals strategy. As I have already pointed out, aluminium is infinitely recyclable and reprocessing uses 95% less energy than primary production. Exporting scrap aluminium breaks the circular loop that the critical minerals strategy says is essential for resilience. All the research that my team and I have conducted so far this year has led me to conclude that many of our councils have a good understanding of the commodity value of the aluminium that they collect from the public. They manage it well through prudent procurement agreements and secure real value for money for their residents, but far too many fail to take the management of their waste seriously. They sign contracts that simply hand everything over to waste management companies, which then profit massively from aluminium and other materials’ value. Far too many believe that UK recycling policies are being adhered to, when in reality, the truth is shrouded from them and their aluminium is being sold abroad to the highest bidder, lining the pockets of the waste management companies. I am well aware that the responsibility for this issue lies not with central Government but with the leadership at local government level. Might the Prime Minister’s devolution initiative help here? I urge the Minister and her Government to act now to stop scrap aluminium from councils all over the UK being exported by waste management companies. What those companies are doing undermines all the Government’s initiatives around the critical minerals strategy and circular economy initiatives. Aluminium, that vital commodity to our country, should not be sent for recycling or reprocessing abroad while there is capacity to do so here in the UK. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to give me some reassurance that the Government will act on this matter before our national interests are further harmed.
Half the problem is that councils often think they are doing the right thing, and they have put something in their contract that says everything needs to be recycled in the UK. It goes back to my point of how to define recycling. There are problems all the way along the chain. If a waste management company can say, “Yes, we have recycled everything,” because it has put everything into a facility, separated it and sorted it, and the council is happy to accept that, then something has to change.
As I explained, one place I went to was Warrington. It is clear that next year that plant, Novelis, will be able to take all our cans, for example—we do not need to think about the other bits of aluminium that there are around the place. That is a Government-funded expansion, and it is brilliant. Can we not do something that stops this stuff going abroad on the basis that it is a critical mineral?
I thank the Minister for her summary and her wind-up speech. I will give her a copy of my questions —I think she may have them already—and ask her to consider writing to me with the detail, because this is so important and so good for the UK that we cannot miss the opportunity. I would be hugely in favour of us getting to the point—next year, the year after or any time in the future—where we are not sending our aluminium by any means whatsoever to places such as China and the US, because it is not good for the UK. We can do it here. We should keep it here and use it again here. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered aluminium recycling and local authorities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Making sure that people can still access cash and speak to someone from their bank has been one of my longest-running campaigns in my time working for the residents of North Norfolk. I remember well the trip that the council leader Tim Adams and I took to Acton in London to see one of the first banking hubs in action back in 2023. There were only seven in the whole country then, and I am glad to report that there are now three in my constituency alone. However, in the coming months I will still be campaigning to secure services in both Stalham and Hoveton, which are without any high street banks. There are clusters of thousands of people in the villages in my constituency who are left underserved because the current criteria do not guarantee them access to services, as we have heard from many hon. Members today. People in constituencies such as North Norfolk still rely on physical banking and the benefits of handling financial matters with a friendly face in person. A constituent from one of those broads villages told me that she considers herself to be fairly digitally able, but that she finds herself anxious about online banking when large sums or important transactions are at stake. Banks need to accept that is a perfectly reasonable position and deliver reassurance for their customers. Access to non-digital alternatives should be a right, not a privilege. It is about providing security and comfort for those who are not native to the digital world. It is not just about age; it is also important for those in rural areas for whom digital access is a challenge. I know that the answer to many of the questions raised today will be, “Wait for the access to banking services review.” I want to be able to look my constituents in the face and tell them that the review will make a meaningful difference to them. If the Minister will not give us an early hint today, all I ask is that she gives us the reassurance that rural communities such as North Norfolk will be well served by the findings of the review and that the concerns raised today on their behalf are being heard and acted upon.
I want the Lord Chancellor to know how grateful I am for the phone call he placed with my constituent, Rosie Shepherd, whose sister, Fenella Hawes, was killed by a drunk driver four times over the limit. The words he was able to speak to her were a great comfort to her family. Does he accept that the nature and timing of the communications that have gone out during the summer have been devastating for families? Have lessons been learned in general for future situations that require wholesale correspondence with victims?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this particularly important debate. The decline in face-to-face banking services is evident across the country—just visit any high street—but it is felt most acutely in rural areas. While the Government have taken steps to protect access to cash, protecting cash is not the same as protecting access to banking services. The number of bank and building society branches has declined dramatically, from 21,600 in 1986 to fewer than 6,900 in 2025, with more closures scheduled for 2026 and 2027. In rural areas, only 33% of people live within three miles of a bank branch, compared with 93% in urban areas. When bank branches are closed in rural market towns, it does not just inconvenience people, but can be the difference between a small business thriving and a small business failing.
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a very good point, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Small businesses also suffer from bank closures because they are not able to deposit their takings, transfer money between accounts, manage fraud or get simple advice on opening a business account. This has a large impact on small businesses in rural areas. For local charities, closures can mean the difference between banking the proceeds of a coffee morning and not banking them at all. This also demonstrates the impact of the rural premium that people in rural communities face when living their everyday lives. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton has felt the full consequences of the decline. Many market towns have lost all banking facilities already, and the Lloyds branch in Street is due to close next March. I have collected many signatures from concerned constituents who will be impacted by this change, and I have urged Lloyds—and will continue to do so—to reconsider the decision. I recognise that a community banking hub is expected to begin visiting Street from early 2027, and I welcome that effort to maintain some local presence of banking services, but let us be clear: a fortnightly visit from a community banker is not a substitute for a staffed bank branch. Of course, banking hubs and community bankers do have an important role to play, but they must be integrated as part of the conversation around banking services, rather than being the Government’s answer to it. In addition, the Coventry Building Society branch in Wincanton will close in nine days’ time, leaving the town without any face-to-face banking services. Coventry Building Society has informed its members that they will be able to deposit their cash at their nearest branch in Frome, but that is a 40-mile round trip, so the closure will undoubtedly affect both rural local residents and local businesses, who will now need to make alternative arrangements.
The hon. Member makes a very good point. For people wishing to access banking services in Wincanton only the post office remains, despite the town’s continued growth, with more homes being built. Yet research from the Post Office found that 82% of consumers find it important to be able to access at least one in-person banking service, and the many small local and independent businesses that make Wincanton such a lovely market town will undoubtedly be inconvenienced. In a rural county such as Somerset a significant number of businesses are SMEs: 78% employ fewer than five people. As the Countryside Alliance outlined earlier this year in its submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on access to banking services, cash plays “an important role across much of the rural economy.” Business owners in rural areas are forced to travel further to bank their takings, deposit cash and obtain change. That reduces their productivity, increases fuel costs and adds to their administrative burden when they already operate on tight margins. SMEs, on average, deposit cash twice per month, but rural businesses may now postpone cashing in until they have more to deposit in order to avoid additional travel. However, that makes them more vulnerable to a growing rural crime epidemic. The total cost of rural crime in 2025 was estimated by the National Farmers Union Mutual to be £41.5 million, and increasingly sophisticated and organised gangs are operating in rural areas. If rural economies are to thrive it is vital that rural businesses are not put at a disadvantage simply due to their location. That is why Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would require the Treasury to assess alternative frameworks, including the post office banking framework, for providing access to banking and cash services. In many rural areas the post office network has become a lifeline. It is often the only local place to make cash withdrawals, deposits, and everyday banking transactions. During the summer recess I was delighted to support the reopening of two post offices in my constituency. Henstridge post office recently opened after local residents Lesley and Andy Scard and their neighbours Barry and Helen Howlett worked tirelessly to reopen the much-missed and much-needed community shop and post office. In Somerton the long-awaited post office has also returned, based inside the Stationery House, after Malcolm Adams stepped up and refurbished part of his shop to accommodate it. However, many local post offices are still under threat and we have seen closures recently in Butleigh and Charlton Adam. Following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must commit to rural-proofing the post office and look at ways in which the post office can drive wider access to banking as part of the Treasury’s ongoing access to banking services review. Without adequate investment post offices cannot replace bank branches. Will the Minister commit to properly rural-proof the post office network so that postmasters are adequately resourced to take on the increased demand for local banking, rather than forced to absorb the cost when they are providing such a vital service? The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a fair banking Act to tackle financial exclusion. We have committed to the introduction of a national financial inclusion strategy that would require both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard for financial inclusion, such as by protecting access to cash in remote areas and supporting banking hubs. Of course, the impact of bank closures is compounded by a deeper problem of digital exclusion. Across the country 1.7 million households have no broadband or mobile internet at home, around 2.4 million people cannot complete a single basic online task such as opening an internet browser, and over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital tasks at work. Basic digital skills are set to become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. With the cost of living still biting, up to 1 million people have cut back or cancelled their internet packages altogether in the past year, while banks push them to access services online. In rural Somerset, patchy mobile signal and frustratingly slow broadband are not just an inconvenience; they are the difference between banking and not banking at all. Older and disabled residents, and those with visual impairments, are too often advised to download an app as if that were an appropriate solution; instead, it simply causes a further barrier. Rural communities are not asking for special treatment or to be treated differently. They ask for a fair formula so that they are not left behind. Face-to-face banking, a functioning post office network and reliable connectivity are not luxuries; they are part of the basic infrastructure of rural life. Will the Minister commit to rural-proof banking policy and to bring forward without further delay a national financial inclusion strategy that genuinely supports rural communities? Unreliable access to face-to-face banking stymies economic growth and drives people and businesses out of rural communities. Somerset cannot wait, and neither can rural Britain.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), on securing this important debate, her excellent speech and her continued advocacy on the issue. The Liberal Democrats are committed to delivering a circular economy where value is kept in the system, not thrown away—one that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products and that cuts costs for consumers and businesses, reducing exposure to volatile commodity prices, protecting the environment and creating new economic opportunities. Aluminium is one of the success stories of the circular economy and has an important role to play in this cycle. Aluminium can be recycled indefinitely without quality loss. Cans can be recycled and back on supermarket shelves within 60 days. Some 75% of all the aluminium ever produced is still in use today. Reprocessing aluminium uses 95% less energy and 90% less carbon than primary manufacturing. Aluminium is a critical mineral and recognised as such by both the UK Government and NATO. Reprocessing it domestically protects the broader UK supply chain, supporting defence, construction and green energy infrastructure. However, the supply chain is increasingly vulnerable, with scrap aluminium being exported to Asia and the US, while our domestic reprocessing capacity has fallen. UK and EU reprocessing of UK scrap packaging fell from 83% in 2021 to 68% in 2024. Alupro’s projections show a further decline without policy intervention amid the impact of UK tariffs and instability in the middle east. That is despite UK capacity for reprocessing this material having increased in recent years following multimillion-pound investments. Somerset’s focus on improving recycling rates has been a success. Nearly 150,000 tonnes of waste was collected, with 87,500 tonnes reprocessed here in the UK—over half of it within the county itself. Somerset Waste sends its scrap steel and aluminium to reprocessing facilities within the UK. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills stated in opening this debate, the disparity in local authorities’ recycling arrangements varies widely. Aluminium can be hugely profitable for local authorities. Somerset gains considerable income from its recycled aluminium, while others receive nothing at all. In addition, despite some councils specifically requiring their aluminium to be reprocessed in the UK, it is subsequently discovered that it has been exported to China. With the deposit return scheme due to launch in October 2027, councils stand to lose used aluminium cans, the most valuable material in recycling bins, from kerbside collection altogether. We are going to lose that most important and valuable recycling material, which generates an income for councils when sold as recycling—it is really important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outlined, transparency is really important here and it is much required. A recent poll found that the single factor most damaging public confidence in recycling is the lack of information on what happens to materials after collection. That indicates that greater traceability is not just supported by the public; it could drive higher recycling rates through greater public participation. Local authorities play a vital role in managing waste and reducing pollution, yet too many are being asked to deliver world-class recycling services on a shoestring budget. They must be properly funded and supported to deliver high-quality, consistent recycling services that maximise the value recovered from these materials, not left to patch together a postcode lottery of provision. The Liberal Democrats have been keen to see changes to the waste management system that encourage more recycling. However, with extended producer responsibility live since October 2025 and simpler recycling live since April 2026, local authorities are already having to adapt to a changed landscape. The next major shift will be the deposit return scheme from October 2027. Once most aluminium is no longer collected at the kerbside, local authorities could lose a valuable revenue stream. Furthermore, despite these changes, some residents will inevitably continue to place their aluminium in kerbside bins, so can the Minister confirm whether local authorities will be able to claim that deposit for the aluminium items they continue to collect? Aluminium recycling sits at the intersection of our climate ambitions, our industrial strategy and our local government funding crisis. To conclude, I want to ask the Minister to address three things. Can she confirm how the deposit will be treated for aluminium cans left in kerbside recycling after DRS launches, and will it contribute to the local authority collection costs? Will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ensure that local authorities are properly funded to sustain high-quality recycling services through the transition, given the revenue that it stands to lose? What steps are the Government taking to close the loophole that allows UK-collected aluminium, including aluminium collected from councils with UK-only reprocessing requirements, to end up being processed overseas? I hope the Minister will give me some answers on that today.
I join this debate to speak about an appalling bank heist. It is happening not just in one town but in rural towns across the country. It is not a vault being raided, and it is not cash being snatched; it is the very banking services that support our most vulnerable being taken away. Too often, people’s concerns about bank branch closures are misrepresented as issues of convenience, but they are about lives and livelihoods. Let me offer an anecdote or two in support of that argument. Jack and Jacqueline Barrass from Honiton have an adult daughter who has significant learning difficulties. Unable to remember her PIN without prompting, or to conduct telephone banking without a parent present, she relies on in-person banking. Virtual services are too complex and leave vulnerable adults like her dangerously exposed to online scams. Another constituent of mine, who is in her late 70s, had a miserable experience of using a banking hub. She wanted to pay her husband’s care insurance with cash. She was told that, because her local branch of Lloyds bank was closing, she would have to use the post office. The post office said that it could not make the payment and told her to ring Lloyds bank. After using an automated system, she gave up. She went to a banking hub, where she was reduced to tears as the helper again tried to navigate her through the Lloyds automated service. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. The figures she set out are stark: Lloyds closed 218 branches across the country last year, including in Seaton, and will close 95 more in the next year, including in Honiton, while reporting £6.7 billion of pre-tax profits. That is an outrage, and the Government need to do more than just set up an independent review into access to banking services. They need to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society get the services they need in rural regions.
10. What steps he is taking to improve UK-EU foreign and security co-operation.
Four EU member states have written to the European Commission, asking that it explores new options for Ukraine to make use of immobilised Russian state assets for its self-defence. They propose that EU states spread the legal and financial risks of seizing those assets. When the Foreign Secretary goes to Ireland this evening, will he support that initiative?
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine is large at 1,250 square miles and the population is elderly. The No. 25 bus runs every two and half hours. If a constituent needs to bank in Taunton, it takes five hours to get there and back. Does she agree that increasing face-to-face banking services, particularly in enormous constituencies such as mine, is crucial?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The extension of the Government’s powers to support energy costs will be welcome news for my South Cambridgeshire constituents and for people all over the country, who face continued pressure from high bills. We Liberal Democrats support this necessary extension but remain concerned that families and businesses are still far too exposed to global energy market shocks. The latest tensions and the ongoing conflict in the middle east serve only to increase the volatility in energy markets, so the Government’s £150 reduction on energy bills was welcome. However, the increase in wholesale gas prices resulting from the closure of the strait of Hormuz and from the existing tensions between the US and Iran was the main reason for Ofgem’s recent 4% price cap rise, which meant that the average household now faces a further £60 a year in costs. The extension enables the Government to continue to fund 75% of the renewables obligation with public spending through the Exchequer, rather than through energy bills. We have called for that for a long time. We urge the Minister to go further and to remove the entirety of the levy from people’s bills. The £150 reduction in bills also comes from the discontinuation of the energy company obligation scheme. At the time of that discontinuation, we warned that delays in detailing how the scheme will be replaced would mean many households once again facing cold, damp homes this winter. I know that is an issue of deep concern to the Minister, but it is deeply concerning that only 5,470 homes have been upgraded through the warm homes local grant—just 0.1% of the Government’s target of upgrading 5 million homes by 2030. With energy prices remaining so volatile, improving the energy efficiency of our homes is one of the best ways to reduce bills in the long term and to protect households from future shocks. It is time to provide a progressive social energy tariff for those struggling with costs. It is time that we acknowledge energy as a basic human need. That is why we Liberal Democrats call for an essential energy guarantee to give every household a discount on the basic portion of their energy use. That would save a typical family around £100 a year, and save the 20% least well-off around £140. Although we support the extension and the Government’s action to reduce some of the costs on energy bills, much more needs to be done to bring bills down and to protect households from future energy price shocks.
Local authorities and council leaders were asked to produce evidence-based proposals according to the criteria laid out by the Government, and they did so, but since then, as we have just heard, all we have seen is uncertainty and a vacuum of decision making at a time when councils should be gearing up for the local elections for the new unitary authorities next May. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would like to hear two things from the Minister? First, in terms of the criteria, will it be the original criteria laid out by the Government that will be used to determine what the new unitary authorities will look like, and secondly, what timeline—
Our schools and colleges cannot be fuelled by hope alone. At the start of the summer, the Prime Minister outlined an overhaul of 14-to-16 education. This comes on the back of far-reaching reforms to special educational needs provision and a new—and as yet un-resourced—requirement to expand enrichment activities in our schools. Could the Prime Minister tell schools, and indeed parents, across the country how he is going to find the people and the cash to deliver all this? Our schools are at breaking point and teachers are leaving in their droves already.
With the United States stepping back from multilateral climate co-operation, what specific coalitions is the UK convening to fill the gap that the United States is leaving? Which countries have signed up to that so far?
The metropolis of Gairloch in Wester Ross—[Laughter.] It is a major town, I will have you know. It has seen its only bank closed, and Dingwall has seen its bank closed, so people have to travel two hours, each way, to get to Inverness city, and there is only one bus a day. That is bringing the town to its knees, and it is happening up and down the west coast. Does the hon. Member agree that this sort of thing is an enormous reason why we are seeing such major depopulation in remote areas?
I welcome what the Prime Minister just said about strengthening farming. If he is serious about this, one of the first things he can do is ensure that our farmers do not have to compete with imported food that is produced to lower standards than we expect. On Thursday, the European Union will ban the import of beef from Brazil, because it is not satisfied that it is produced safely, and the USA, China and Norway are likely to do the same thing. Will the Prime Minister offer to our consumers and farmers the same protections that those Governments offer theirs?
May I put on record that the Liberal Democrats’ concern and thoughts are with the people of Nepal and Tibet as this tragedy unfolds? I urge the Government to stay the distance with them. The UK’s spend on international aid and development aids our national security not only in climate change but in keeping extremism, pandemics and illegal immigration from our shores, but the Government have slashed aid brutally, and the true impact of the cuts was finally realised only in the final hours before summer recess. The cuts are deep and worrying. Will this Administration reverse them? Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when UK aid will return to 0.7% of GNI—a commitment that the House legislated for?