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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

   EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

   I am grateful to have a couple of minutes to sum up what has been an excellent debate with some fantastic contributions. I secured this debate because I could not believe that in June this year, no one made any attempt to even recognise the fact that we had left the European Union 10 years ago. There was no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) down the Mall in ticker-tape processions. There was nothing in the way of celebration or even to mark the event. I found that a bit unusual, which is why I secured the debate. I am pleased that I did, because we have heard some pretty scary things today. There were two words that came out loud and clear from practically every contribution: unmitigated disaster. That is the conclusion that any sane and rational person would have to make when they look at what has happened in the 10 years since we left the European Union. I listened carefully to my Conservative colleagues talk about the history of all this. They do not seem to be able to accept the forecasts that are clearly laid out in the House of Commons Library briefing. Maybe we have the wrong type of Brexit, the wrong type of Government, the wrong type of deal or the wrong type of House of Commons Library. I do not know what their real issue is, but they fail to accept and recognise that there has not been even a mixed response. It was quite alarming that the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who spoke for the official Opposition, could not even acknowledge that there have been difficulties over the past 10 years. My last word to the Government is that, yes, they can make progress, and we are all keen to support them in trying to improve the relationship with the European Union, but unless they are prepared to consider rejoining the European Union, which is what the vast majority of the people of this country want, I am afraid they will not be able to make much progress. It will just be more tinkering and making slight progress at the very edges of a very clear and distinct problem. I urge the Government to have a look at the benefits of rejoining the EU, even through some sort of examination or inquiry about what it could do. It is not good enough to just blithely say that we are not looking at it and we are sticking to our red lines, and it is not what the people of the country want. They want to be back in the European Union—a sensible place to be—and to end the unmitigated disaster that we have experienced in the last 10 years. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Graham Leadbitter

   Rewiring the State

   Can I remind the First Secretary that during this summer my constituency experienced the extensive Cairngorms wildfire? It was a major incident in difficult terrain that destroyed around 20 square miles of iconic hillside and forestry, threatened homes and businesses, and required the efforts of over 500 firefighters and volunteers. There are actions required of the UK Government, the devolved Governments and numerous public agencies and landowners, and I am pressing all of them on these issues. With the risk growing, my ask of the First Secretary is that the lack of military aerial firefighting capability within the UK be urgently reviewed, so that aerial assistance can be provided in these extreme and often prolonged incidents. What work is being done with our European neighbours in respect of mutual aid in tackling wildfires? We must recognise that exceptional local effort cannot be a substitute for national and international preparedness.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Dave Doogan

   Representation of the People Bill

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Dave Doogan

   Representation of the People Bill

   Just to develop the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s theme, the Minister is taking some steps to control foreign contributions and donations to politics, but why not just ban them? She touched herself on the malign influence of people who would seek to offshore their tax liabilities—not contributing to the business of Government—and then, from some offshore location, direct that Government in how to spend that money, which they will not be subject to the consequences of, and neither will they have to contribute. It is totally unjust. Why is it not banned?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Brendan O'Hara

   Rewiring the State

   A 15-minute statement on rewiring the state, yet Scotland does not merit a single mention—not even the Cairngorm wildfire. It is becoming increasingly clear that this Prime Minister is almost exclusively focused on pursuing an English domestic agenda. Having lost five parliamentary elections in a row and slumped to 17% of the vote last May, I can understand why the Labour party has given up in Scotland, but does the Minister think it is wise to make it so obvious?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Brendan O'Hara

   Representation of the People Bill

   Is it Conservative party policy to reverse the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland? Every single piece of evidence that we can point to suggests that engaging 16 and 17-year-olds makes them better citizens. Does the right hon. Lady seriously want to undermine that?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·SNP·Brendan O'Hara

   Representation of the People Bill

   During this Bill’s Second Reading back in March, I said that the SNP generally welcomed its introduction, particularly its extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We on the SNP Benches still do. Evidence is always helpful; unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is no longer in her place, but Scotland has had this in place for 12 years, and it has been an unqualified success. No serious person is planning to backtrack on it. That said, we do still have serious concerns about the Bill, because what is currently on offer is a far cry from what the Labour party promised during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. Back then, we all recognised that that Act was an appalling piece of legislation; it was nakedly partisan, and quite rightly, when opposing it, the Labour party promised to shred it. Now it is in power, I fear that it has chosen to tinker rather than shred. We can see for ourselves the levels of frustration that exist on the Labour Benches, because Labour Members know that this Bill was an opportunity to undo great democratic harms that were caused by the 2022 Act and introduce an entirely new system—one that would have fairness, equality, transparency and accountability at its heart. I fear that the Bill as it currently stands squanders that opportunity. The clearest manifestation of that frustration is the number of amendments to the Bill that have originated from the Government’s own Back Benches. There are scores of amendments—215 pages of them. I want to highlight a few that I believe would have significantly improved the Bill, had the Government taken them on. New clause 34, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), would tighten up cryptocurrency. He explained in an intervention earlier that the Government’s position in the Bill does not go nearly far enough, and we agree. New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would extend the franchise to those with indefinite leave to remain. Such a system has been in place in Scotland for more than six years, and it works well and has been entirely uncontroversial.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

   Rewiring the State

   I congratulate the First Secretary on her appointment. I am sure that the reforms planned to rewire the state are well-intentioned, but it seems that we are going from No. 10 plus the Cabinet Office to No. 10, No. 10 North, the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Cabinet Office and a new OneGov Delivery Agency. We are going from two to five. Does she understand our concerns that she is increasing the size of the state, increasing the cost and slowing down decision making?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Danny Kruger

   Engagements

   Q10. I applaud the Prime Minister’s focus on civil society and on support for young people, but the fact is that in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester youth employment did not improve. In fact, it got worse and no amount of taxpayer-funded support is going to fix that. Will the Prime Minister accept that the way to get young people into work is to provide meaningful tax cuts for businesses and to ensure that people who can work should be working?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Danny Kruger

    Rewiring the State

    I want to be constructive because I welcome the creation of a stronger centre, with a proper political centre in No. 10 and a corporate HQ for the non-political functions. My question to the Minister is: what is the residual point of the Cabinet Office in this new structure? Some 12,000 people are currently employed in the Cabinet Office and all its quangos. Some of them will be redistributed, but what is the point of that office in future? Likewise, what is the point of the Cabinet Secretary’s post? How is anything going to change when the same people are working in the same buildings, under the same incentives?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Danny Kruger

    Representation of the People Bill

    The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) about the impact of algorithms, social media and deepfakes. There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology that the Bill does not closely address. Let us face it: the Bill is not concerned with those questions. The claim is made that the Bill will defend democracy, but it is actually a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap Reform UK. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—always reliable—who made clear exactly what the Bill is about and who it is aimed at. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, too, for pointing out that the Bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction donations by trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour party in the last five years, £10 million of that at the last election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are delighted; they welcome it. Of course they are happy with that sort of support. This is partisan and highly partial legislation. I put on record my resentment and outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to Reform UK, whom the Minister called “malign actors”. I wonder who she is referring to. She is talking about individuals, British citizens, who have made money and are choosing to donate it in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Danny Kruger

    Representation of the People Bill

    No, I am not going to give way. It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way. Some suggest that the Bill will restore trust in politics, which is exactly what is needed, but what they mean is restore trust in the class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in—[Interruption]—including, I am afraid to say, the party of which I was a part. That is why I left it. We need change. I am glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, and it will put the interests of the British people, not the class of politicians and parties that got us into this mess, first. That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy. Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can. Our democracy is underwired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system and therefore did not need to be stated. They did not need to be stated, but now they do, and they need to be stated because over the last couple of generations, we have brought into this country millions of people, many of whom do not understand or honour those implicit principles. Let me go through the changes that are necessary to make explicit formerly implicit principles. The first is that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and commitment that that brings. There were historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who were in this country. That now needs to change. The number of Irish citizens is still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens resident in this country who are entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is wrong; it is time to correct that anomaly.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Danny Kruger

    Representation of the People Bill

    No, I will not. The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language? The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that. Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    I am very confused. The hon. Gentleman seems passionate about independence for Scotland, so why does he not believe in independence for the whole United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
16. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to debate this issue, 10 years on from the sovereign decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave a political union—that is the important message that seems to evade most people in this Chamber today. We were not part of a simple trading arrangement: under the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government of John Major signed us up to without a referendum, our sovereignty was handed away to a political union. When my parents voted to join a common market, or to stay in a common market, in the 1970s, that was about free trade; it was about co-operation and working together as neighbours. But over the years it became a political union, and our laws—the laws that we are elected to make—were overridden by a massive unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. Our trade has to be global—

    Hansard source
18. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    A Parliament that had no real power, as the hon. Member knows. Our democracy and our historic constitutional rights and liberties were gradually being eroded. I want this country to be prosperous. The real prosperity in the world today does not come with a diminishing market in the continent. The global market is there for us to grab if we take that opportunity. Unfortunately, the political establishment of this country has failed in the last 10 years to grab the opportunities that being independent has given us. Those in the civil service, those in government under Theresa May and the establishment in this country did everything they possibly could to derail Brexit. Under Theresa May’s agreement, we would have been half in and half out of the European Union. That would have been a disaster. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), myself and others voted against that deal, and gave us a Brexit that actually meant something. The opportunities are there for Britain to take if we choose to do so. The alternative is to go back into a political union and be subjected to rules, laws, regulations, the euro—all the things that come with being in the European Union—and free movement. If the people of Iceland had the good sense to say no, then we should have the good sense to think of the long-term future of our country, retain our independence, never go back to the European Union, but maintain good relations and trade co-operation with our neighbours.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    rose—

    Hansard source
20. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and correct speech, offering the facts. Does he not regret that, in all those years of Conservative Government after we had left the EU, we did not seize the opportunities to be more radical, to ensure that the benefits of Brexit were properly realised? Does he also repudiate John Major’s Government for bringing in the Maastricht treaty, which created political union in the first place?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Llinos Medi

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    My constituency has one of the busiest roll-on roll-off ports, in Holyhead. There has been an announcement regarding passport requirements for travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Teithiau Elfyn, a local tour company, has warned me of the serious economic impact of such short-notice announcements. Does the hon. Member agree that the Brexit agreement has not worked for the people of Ynys Môn or Wales, and has had a negative impact on the economy?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

    Strengthening the Union

    If this is a Union of equals, let me turn to the wildfires that we suffered in Wales and England this summer. The Rhinogydd mountains of Eryri national park are the last true upland wilderness in Wales. They burned for over two weeks in July, causing immeasurable damage to peatlands and wildlife. Despite heroic work by local firefighters, there were no UK-wide resources available, including the military, to tackle this ecological disaster. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the Welsh Government have sufficient resources in the face of overwhelming climate change?

    Hansard source
23. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

    Strengthening the Union

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

    Hansard source
24. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

    Engagements

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

    Hansard source
25. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

    Engagements

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

    Hansard source
26. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

    Engagements

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

    Hansard source
27. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

    Rewiring the State

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

    Hansard source
28. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

    Representation of the People Bill

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

    Hansard source
29. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

    Representation of the People Bill

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

    Hansard source
30. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Rewiring the State

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

    Hansard source
31. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Rewiring the State

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

    Hansard source
32. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

    Rewiring the State

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

    Hansard source
33. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    Food Security and Cosmetically Imperfect Food

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

    Hansard source
34. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

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

    Hansard source
35. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    It is elected—it is a Parliament.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

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

    Hansard source
38. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

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

    Hansard source
39. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

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

    Hansard source
40. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Joshua Reynolds

    Global Tin Availability

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

    Hansard source