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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
This is quite a serious point. There are people arguing for PR to be introduced before the next general election, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined, but she must accept, as a democrat, that we cannot change the electoral system because we are worried about a certain outcome. We have to look at the bigger picture, take our time and do it right.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I apologise for giving you late notice of my intention to speak. I start by acknowledging that although I am not a fan of PR, it is right that all of us MPs do a great job representing every one of our constituents, whether they voted for us or not. In Scotland, we have three elections over each five-year period. Two of them use PR and one, the general election, uses first past the post. I want to talk about the single transferable vote system that we use for local authority elections in Scotland, and my lived experience of it as a councillor. I was elected via the STV system back in 2017. I came second out of three councillors who were elected, and was elected thanks to transfers from Green voters. Even though some transfers also came from elsewhere, it was the Green voters who got me across the line, so I always felt an obligation to make sure that those few people were very well represented. I worked alongside two Conservatives in the ward over that three-year period. The council had 63 councillors in total. An SNP-led administration was formed, supported by Labour in a coalition, but it tended to be Green votes that got things across the line, so those three parties tended to work together. I have to say that the Greens back then were a bit more sensible than they sometimes are today. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) is not offended by that. I must pay tribute to my ward colleague Jason Rust, who is still a councillor in the Colinton, Oxgangs and Fairmilehead ward. He has been there for a long time and he is a fantastic, hard-working councillor—despite being a Tory. In 2022, I stood for re-election, and on that occasion I managed to come first under the STV system, which was a huge privilege and honour. The SNP managed to take one of the Conservative seats. The SNP candidates’ tricky strategy was that they went around looking for people who were voting for me and asked whether they would give them their second votes. I thought that was quite sneaky, but it got the party across the line. That is evidence that PR leads to a different way of campaigning, in that people look for alignment between parties during the election, not just afterwards. The formation of the council was a bit trickier in 2022: 63 councillors were elected, and only 13 were Labour councillors. However, Labour managed to run the city, and is still running it, as a minority administration—if my memory serves me right, there are now 12 Labour councillors out of 63—largely because, given the tensions among the other parties, they find ways to support us from time to time. Again, that is a different kind of politics. I convened the transport committee from ’22 up until I was unexpectedly elected as an MP. On my committee were two Labour, two Green, two Tory, two Lib Dem and three SNP councillors, all elected via the STV system. Each report we had to pass meant creating an individual coalition of votes. By and large, that meant that the other parties, if they were to support my proposals to the committee, wanted something added or taken away. Reflecting on that after two years, I would say that every deal I did with the other parties made what we were proposing better. Ultimately, I was elected only by a minority of people, even in the STV system; the other councillors were elected by people as well, and it was important that their views were taken on board. The outcome was fairer, and it created a better kind of politics in the council. I am not saying that there were not disagreements—if I am honest, there was sometimes was quite bad behaviour from councillors—but PR works in Scotland. The results in England show the brutal way in which first past the post treats council elections—it looked like cavemen trying to start politics up and get democracy working. Some of the results were anomalous, and we have to reflect on that. PR for general elections would have to come via a manifesto commitment and a referendum—a manifesto commitment would not be enough. I support the call for a national commission, but I do not think there is any appetite among the public for another referendum on anything. The APPG for fair elections recently had a meeting with John Curtice. He said there was a consensus that the only way to move the UK to PR in a general election would be if a coalition was formed and one of the partners demanded PR in return for the stability of the coalition. Of course, we saw that in the past, in the alternative vote referendum, which I think it is fair to say was disastrous. We heard the other day that the Lib Dems held up the submarine-building programme. The failure to deliver PR back then is a real issue, and we should reflect on it. Although there is a huge hurdle to installing PR for general elections, we could move much faster on council elections in England. We could consult and then deliver. I have two final points—
I apologise; I have not been looking at the clock. First, we are the only country in Europe that uses first past the post, and we should reflect on why that is. Secondly, in Scotland we use the d’Hondt—or Jefferson—system for PR for the second votes. Nobody really understands how that works, and we have to be careful about that. We have to be able to communicate how the result has been reached. I apologise for overrunning, Mr Turner.
I welcome this bold Green Paper, which refers to: “access to, accurate news, and informative and entertaining content that reflects the diversity of the UK and brings audiences together.” Will my right hon. Friend do all she can to uphold the practice of independent, rigorously researched journalism in this world of algorithmically driven clickbait content that monetises hate? Given the record fines it has had from Ofcom, is there any way of reining in GB News—and maybe even looking at the effectiveness of Ofcom?
10. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce inequalities experienced by children in poverty.
We know that the attainment gap holds back children who grow up in poverty. The gap reached its highest levels under the Tories, and in Scotland the SNP has failed to close it. Does the Minister agree that it is shameful that the Tories’ only policies for children are bringing back the two-child limit, plunging hundreds of thousands into poverty, and bringing back tax breaks for private schools?
5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce inequalities experienced by children in poverty.
In Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove, literacy levels among our children and young people fall behind the England average. That can severely impact a young person’s future earnings. Our libraries play a key role in addressing that, yet Reform-led Staffordshire county council has ordered them to remove Pride displays. Does the Secretary of State agree that libraries should be inclusive and welcoming to all, and that children and young people should never be placed at the centre of such divisive culture wars?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the financial sustainability of the farming sector. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. In a shameless effort to garner sympathy, I thank you for allowing me to sit down if I need to; I have a bad back today. Members can feel free to be sympathetic in their interventions. It is a great pleasure to be here for this debate on the financial sustainability of the farming sector. The best beef in the world is reared in my constituency of North Northumberland. There may be some competition there, but let me assure the Chamber that that is true. However, farmers are not taking home the best cuts in terms of profitability. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—the FFCC—found that in 2023-24, an average cereals farm in England took in a quarter of a million pounds from selling crops such as wheat and barley, but after costs, it made a loss. For profit, it relied on subsidies, diversification and environmental schemes. Those are all good things, but they come with an underlying challenge. As the party of labour, we should be alarmed when any worker receives a poor return for their work. I know that alarm is shared by my colleagues in the Labour rural research group, many of whom are present, and by the Minister, whom I welcome to his new role and to this debate. In her profitability review, Minette Batters was very clear that “there is no silver bullet to achieve farming profitability.” Today, by genuinely happy coincidence, the Government have published their 25-year farming road map, with a focus on profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience. I look forward to digesting the road map, which I have with me, and I trust that many of the points raised in the debate will chime with its contents. I hope that the Batters review, the farming road map and the LRRG’s upcoming report on farming profitability can help the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government to tackle the wide range of reasons why farming often does not pay. I want to focus on three elements: protecting our farms from the global markets as part of a drive for food security, regulating the marketplace so that produce receives a fair price, and cutting costs and boosting innovation so that farmers have more at the end of their work. On food security, one farmer recently told me that “covid and the current conflict in the Gulf have shown that globalised supply chains do not have the resilience of a strong indigenous industry.” He is right, and I am glad that the Government share that view in the road map, but our industry is not strong enough. Our farmers earn a lower share of food chain gross value added than farmers in Germany, France or the Netherlands. Just 9% of farms produce 62% of our food, and high production costs mean that high-quality British produce struggles to compete with the international market on price.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will see this in the road map and in the Government’s approach. There needs to be the right balance between environmental approach, renewables and food production. I agree that the decision about where solar farms go is key. We need to help British farming to develop greater financial resilience and shield it from external pressures. That starts with ensuring that imported food products meet the same high standards as home-grown produce. I ask the Minister to offer some thoughts on what guarantees he can make so that alignment with the EU and other trade deals will maintain a level playing field on quality. That subject was not heavily touched on in the road map. Stability is also vital for our farms. Although agri-environmental schemes should not be the difference between the black and the red, they have a role to play in farm budgets. They can cover a bad year or provide extra on top, but take-up, delivery and financial sustainability demand stability. The withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive last year dented farming confidence; I encourage the Minister to pay very close attention to roll-out of that, which we expect imminently. Devolved economies have a role to play in developing food security, too. Farming should be part of a tightly bound regional ecosystem in which regional investment banks, devolved funding pots and local authorities work together to match up funding, skills and procurement pathways. In our manifesto, we promised that half of all food purchased across the public sector would be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards—a great ambition. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards that, and on what work he is undertaking to create a public record of how much of public institutions’ food is sourced from the UK? We can create a virtuous circle in that way.
If the right hon. Member bears with me, I will get to exactly that point. The second area of concern is the marketplace. The FFCC reports that farming productivity increased by 60% from the ’70s to the 2020s, but that farming incomes have not increased in line with that. The size of and competition between supermarkets have forced farmers to accept bargain basement farm-gate prices at times, and the middle men have consolidated too. The National Farmers’ Union reports that, in the ’70s, there were 2,500 abattoirs across the UK; there are now just 200. The reality for the fragmented farming sector has been bleak: its increased productivity still ends in lower prices. One of the best responses to this high-cost, low-price trap is to create a new labelling and welfare system based on the Made in Australia approach, which the LRRG has advocated for. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for his work on that. Every food product in supermarkets, wholesalers and catering should clearly tell consumers how much of it was made in the UK, ideally in which region and to what welfare standard. Indeed, regional identity systems should be supported and verified. Instead of superb Northumberland beef being thrown into the same mincer as low-cost, low-welfare imports, packaging can help consumers choose between different quality products at different price points and different welfare standards. The farmers who invest more in their produce can then negotiate for more at the farm gate. The Government have to develop tighter rules on what can and cannot be claimed as “farmer-supported”, “grown in Britain” or other heartwarming slogans that do not reward the hard graft of British farmers. I welcome the fact that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has already been taken into DEFRA following the Batters review. We should help farmers consider how to develop better collective bargaining power. My understanding is that the Agriculture Act 2020 provides a framework for producer organisations to form co-operatives. We should give that our full support. At the end of the day, we the Labour party are a party of mutuals and co-operatives. The third and final string of the bow is innovation. There have been some major steps in this direction under Labour. I am really pleased that the road map is so committed to innovation, and that £123 million has been committed to investing in innovation this year alone. The NFU has urged the Government to implement the national policy planning framework as soon as possible, which would really help. We need to look at how we can cut inputs and free up capital for farmers to reinvest in their farms. Energy prices are too high. The recent red diesel fuel duty cut was an incredibly welcome step and has been well received by my farmers. I am now interested to see what options are open to help farmers install renewable energy supplies on their estates via GB Energy. I support the NFU’s ask of the Government to help farmers cut electricity prices by opening a standard industrial classification subdivision for energy intensive farming. Fertiliser prices are too high. There is massive unease about the incoming carbon border adjustment mechanism regime and its effect on fertiliser prices, which is already one of the biggest costs for farmers. We can transform the fertiliser conversation altogether by restarting ammonia production in this country. Sadly, the last plant to produce virgin fertiliser in this country was allowed to wind down by the previous Government in 2023. I know that the Minister for Industry has been working hard in this area already, and I hope that the shadow farming Minister can look at this. All that strategic support would cut input costs, thus freeing up capital for farmers to use on developing new technologies that help them produce more for less. The Government’s farming innovation fund will have £200 million up to 2030. That is an excellent example of state-backed innovation. Farmers in North Northumberland are already experimenting with using soil and sampling and targeted purchases to cut their fertiliser bills. The Government need to find those farmers and invest in their work. A local farmer told me recently: “As a farming family we often accept that we are privileged to work in the profession that we do…but it is often somewhat demoralising (and distracting) to consider what little relative financial reward we receive for the work we do.” Other industries grow and shrink as conditions change, but we will always need food, and we will always need much of our food to be grown here in the UK. The issue is that what we pay for food today is also what we are paying for our food tomorrow. While farmers remain stuck at the wrong end of the low-price, high-cost cycle, our national food security is also at risk. It is the role of Labour, not a laissez-faire Conservative party or a rootless Reform UK party, to dignify the work of farmers by ensuring that they receive proper reward for what they do. All workers should be supported by the Labour party, whether they are blue, white or green-collar workers. By developing more resilient British farming as part of our national security, regulating the marketplace so that quality produce gets a fair price, and opening up opportunities for farmers to innovate and increase their margins, we can make sure that farming is sustainable for years to come, and we can keep North Northumberland beef on the menu.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive speech, and especially for touching on the issue of fertiliser. That issue is significant for all hon. Members here, and we will follow up on it. The discussion has, for the most part, been cross party. If the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would like to see the level of conversation and the in-depth relationships that Labour MPs have with our farmers, I encourage him to go on social media to look at all our different listening exercises. He should also look at just how many—there are more than 100—rural Labour MPs sit in this House. I could say many things, as some fantastic points were raised, but I finish with the idea of identity in our countryside and way of life. We need to secure that, and we will not do so unless we make farming financially sustainable.
Q4. My Hendon constituency is proud to sit at the heart of the UK’s largest Jewish community in the London borough of Barnet, but today many of my constituents and many from that community are living in fear. In north-west London in recent months, we have seen Jewish charities firebombed, synagogues attacked and Jewish people stabbed in the street, and all that against the backdrop of a daily drumbeat of abuse and intimidation. I know that everyone on the Government Benches is determined to defeat that despicable hatred, and I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to root out the poison of antisemitism. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government are doing not only to protect the Jewish community in Hendon and Barnet, but to ensure that they—we—can live full and proud Jewish lives, free from fear?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a long name; there are lots of letters in the second bit. The farming road map that we have seen today sets out a long-term plan for fertiliser. That will be really welcome for farmers across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages because, due to actions way beyond this Government’s control in the strait of Hormuz, we are seeing real cost pressures. Can the Secretary of State give us an idea of when that long-term plan might be ready, and whether it will consider strategic reserves and diversifying the sources of fertiliser? Can she tell us what that will do to ensure that we have the fertiliser we need?
I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that in the interests of food security we really need to think hard about how we boost food production in this country? That, I think, will need an embracing of new technologies. It will also need the ability to build new facilities. In the poultry sector, the investment is there, but we need to explain to the public that new investment would not only boost food production but improve animal welfare, biosecurity and environmental outcomes.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for all her work. My heart goes out to those families in Nottinghamshire, and I pay tribute to their work as well. I cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child in those circumstances, but I do know what it is like to see your own child suffer a brain injury at birth. I work very closely with other families with children who have cerebral palsy or hemiplegia, because of what they have been through and what my own family have been through. The reasons why such things happen are often connected with negligence, but they are often a result of other circumstances. In our circumstance, our children were born at 31 weeks, as twins. In other families, it is the fact that this woman is black or that woman is disabled that has caused those issues and that negligence. Will my right hon. Friend act on the recommendations of the Ockenden review and the review that is being undertaken by Baroness Amos, and work to ensure that those disparities are overcome when mothers have a greater risk of these things happening to them?
I beg to move, That provision may be made increasing the rate of the electricity generator levy to 55%.
The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses to be responsive in a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The measures before the House assist the Government in that objective. The way that the current energy system works means that households and businesses pay more for their electricity when the gas price is high. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when high gas prices push electricity prices over the current threshold of £82.61 per megawatt-hour. The Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from 1 July. That will do two things: first, it will ensure that a large proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to the Government, providing a revenue stream so that money is available to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east; and secondly, in the longer term it will support the new voluntary contracts for difference scheme, which was announced in April, by encouraging participation in the scheme. In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees using their own vehicle for work and the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates. In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the effects of the Iran war, the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years, backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles, and then 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April. That represents the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles. It was a privilege recently to meet care workers and the Unison general secretary to hear directly about the difference that this uprating will make to those on the frontline. The general secretary said to me and the Chancellor that this measure is good news for people providing essential public services. It was an honour to meet those who work day in, day out looking after people across the country. I am glad that this measure will have a positive impact on those who do such vital work. Looking ahead, beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of those rates and will set out further steps at the Budget. The third measure recognises the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles, which will save a typical HGV £600 on top of the savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help to prevent cost pressures from the Iran conflict spreading across the economy. The announcements on mileage rates and HGV VED were part of a wider package of measures announced in May, including on fuel duty. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government. This Government are taking action to support the economy at a time of global economic uncertainty following the Iran conflict. Our approach of targeting support at those groups who are hardest hit by the conflict will ensure that the measures we take are effective, while protecting the economy from the effects of reckless borrowing that took place under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman says it was for covid, but he forgot to mention Liz Truss. This Government’s record shows that despite that instability, our plan is working. UK GDP growth in the past two years was the second fastest in the G7. Real household disposable income per person has grown by more than 2% so far in this Parliament, compared with a fall of more than 2% in the last Parliament. Real wages have increased in every single month since this Government took office, with wages rising faster than inflation. These measures will continue that track record and demonstrate that this Government are committed to supporting working people.
I thank all those who have spoken, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for his warm remarks. I will respond to the points made by the shadow spokespeople. I assume that this change will appear as a line item, although I would not want to prejudge any future decisions by the OBR on how it scores all these things and presents them in Budgets, as it is a specific tax head. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople asked how much this change will raise. It is difficult to know. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), highlighted, prices are coming down. They are at the moment slightly above the threshold in the system, but prices, as the shadow Energy Secretary will know, are volatile. In the usual way, the independent OBR will set out its estimate at the Budget for how much this change will raise and how much will be raised overall by the electricity generator levy. He is right to note that the levy does not raise billions and billions. It is a relatively targeted policy. We have increased the rate from 45% to 55%, but we have not changed the threshold and the routine uprating that takes place within it. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), asked whether there will be a review and whether this new higher rate is now the rate out into the future. That is something the Government are considering. He is right to highlight that we have not made a definitive announcement on whether that rate will last a short period or will go on into the future, but we will update in due course—it is not something that we want to leave hanging. I would expect that update will be at the Budget, if not before. However, that issue will be reviewed by the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary in the coming weeks.
As the shadow Minister will know, all tax rates, thresholds and the design of tax policy are considered in the round in the run-up to Budgets. With the key policy intention of the increase in the rate, and by extension the decision to continue the policy in any form, one of the things that the Government have been considering is the fact that having the rate in the system should change the incentives and encourage electricity generators to partake in the wholesale contracts for difference, which are being developed and which the Energy Secretary will bring forward in the coming months. The shadow Minister asked about investment. It is always difficult to make changes in taxation, particularly outside of the Budget cycle. The Chancellor have been cautious about making changes in response to the conflict in Iran. We wanted to take a measured approach to ensure that we manage the public finances well, but also to ensure that we support businesses and households that have been particularly affected by the impact of the conflict washing up on our shores. It is worth highlighting that new investment is excluded from the electricity generator levy, so a business owner thinking of investing in renewables or nuclear in the UK should note that their new investments will not be affected by the increase in the rate. Turning to the second measure, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield were right to point out that the mileage rates have not been changed since 2011. It is very disappointing that, although we saw plenty of inflation spikes, the previous Government did not take the chance to uprate them.
I am not sure. I have been in the Chief Secretary’s office in the Treasury, and there are many pictures on the wall of the countless Chief Secretaries who served under the last Government—especially towards the end, what with all the chopping and changing. However, both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had ample time to make more than the one change that was made in 2011. The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked why no change was made in the “above 10,000 miles” rate. We did of course consider that when developing the policy. A very significant proportion of those who drive for work drive less than 10,000 miles. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, some will drive more, especially if they have long distances to drive or live in rural communities, but we thought that this approach—providing a significant 10p increase in the rate up to 10,000 miles while leaving the 25p rate unchanged—got the balance right between supporting people who need help right now and being fiscally responsible. The hon. Gentleman will know, and drivers will know, that the marginal cost of each extra mile driven will decline over time, because the up-front costs can be spread over more mileage. As for annual indexation, it is not the Government’s policy. I welcome the representation, but, again, that is not a policy that was pursued before. As he rightly observed, it would be a complicated process, given the volatility in petrol prices. I should, of course, mention to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that I am from Witney, and Chris Hayter Transport, the haulage company, is based just behind the housing estate on which I grew up. It is a very good local business, and I am glad to know that it will benefit from this measure. I take the points raised about the challenges facing the haulage sector, but I hope that our temporary and targeted change will benefit that business and businesses across the country. Question put and agreed to. Income Tax (Mileage Amounts) Resolved, That— (1) In the table in each of— (a) section 230(2) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (approved amount for mileage allowance payments), and (b) section 94F(2) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (appropriate mileage amount), for “45p” substitute “55p”. (2) In consequence of paragraph (1), in section 94F(3) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, for “45p” substitute “55p”. (3) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—(Dan Tomlinson.) Vehicle Excise Duty (Temporary Rates for Goods Vehicles) Resolved, That— (1) The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 has effect in relation to vehicle licences, other than trade licences, taken out in the period beginning with 1 July 2026 and ending with 30 June 2027 as follows. (2) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Act (rates for rigid goods vehicles exceeding 3,500 kgs revenue weight) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1), (2)(b) or (3) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “shall be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “and not exceeding 44,000 kgs is £1.”; (b) where sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to rigid goods vehicles mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, in that sub-paragraph for “basic goods vehicle rate” there were substituted “£1”; (c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “£1,703” there were substituted “£1”. (3) Paragraph 10 of that Schedule (rates for certain rigid goods vehicles exceeding 11,999 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if— (a) in sub-paragraph (3), for “to be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “£1.”; (b) in sub-paragraph (7), for “£654” there were substituted “£1”. (4) Paragraph 11 of that Schedule (rates for tractive units exceeding 3,500 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1), (2)(b) or (3) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “shall be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “and not exceeding 44,000 kgs is £1.”; (b) where sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to tractive units mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, in that sub-paragraph for “basic goods vehicle rate” there were substituted “£1”; (c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “£1,703” there were substituted “£1”. (5) Paragraph 11C of that Schedule (rate for certain tractive units exceeding 41,000 kgs but not exceeding 44,000 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if for “£10” there were substituted “£1”. (6) Where subsection (2) of section 3 of that Act (6 month licences) applies in relation to a vehicle for which any of paragraphs (2) to (4) has effect, that subsection has effect as if, in paragraph (a), for “£50” there were substituted “£0”. (7) Article 3(1)(b) of the Vehicle Licences (Duration of First Licences and Rate of Duty) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/1428) has effect in relation to vehicle licences, other than trade licences, taken out in the period beginning with 1 July 2026 and ending with 30 June 2027 for vehicles for which any of paragraphs (2) to (5) has effect as if for “£50” there were substituted “£0” And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—(Dan Tomlinson.) Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions; That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lucy Rigby, Rachel Blake, Dan Tomlinson and Torsten Bell do prepare and bring in the Bill. Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Presentation and First Reading Dan Tomlinson accordingly presented a Bill to increase the rate of electricity generator levy and mileage amounts relating to income tax and to provide for temporary rates of vehicle excise duty for goods vehicles. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 103) with explanatory notes (Bill 103-EN).
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, with which I very much agree. I want us to tackle climate change as fast as possible, and to accelerate the bringing online of that cheap, clean energy that will help both households and businesses. Does he, however, understand the pressures on the automotive industry? Will he join me in asking the Minister to look carefully at a rescheduling of current targets so that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction, but instead have a long-term plan that industry can sign up to, which would provide the certainty that is needed in that particular sphere while we battle on with the other things we are doing to bring down emissions?
We know that misinformation and disinformation is on the rise right across our country, and that was shown in the recent Makerfield by-election; the Social Market Foundation reported that ahead of that by-election, there was a quadrupling of fake news, and that one in six posts on all the local Facebook groups were fake news. We have seen the same thing in my constituency; after a news article was published, the news went rampant across our town that a woman and child had been attacked at a train station. It never happened, but it caused fear and anxiety. I warmly welcome the Green Paper, but how can we get more support for our trusted local news services, including local papers and broadcasters? They are what residents turn to in times of crisis when they need information. The Secretary of State rightly pointed to the example of the Liverpool Echo.
Thank you, Mr Speaker—21 again. I thank the Secretary of State for her response to this urgent question, and particularly for her emphasis on the importance online literacy, which, as a former teacher—Chris Vince bingo in full force today—I know to be really important. I pay tribute to Michael Casey, editor of Your Harlow, an online newspaper that prints tens of thousands of articles every year, and that filled the hole left by Harlow Star when it closed down. I would like to build on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who said that more and more people are using AI summaries to get their news, and are not relying on trusted sources. Is there not a danger that if we, and the AI companies, do not provide support to trusted sources, they will not be able to continue?
For many years we have expected farmers to steward our environment and at the same time deliver food at rock-bottom prices to make up for the failure of politics to secure an affordable cost of living across the rest of society. That has made agricultural profitability increasingly difficult. Now, with the crisis posed by climate change to our national food security, we must pull every available lever to reverse that trend. At the general election, the Labour manifesto committed to a target of half of all food purchased across the public sector being locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on progress towards that target?
I declare an interest as vice-chair of the climate and nature crisis caucus. It is time to put it plainly: if we fail to prevent man-made climate change from getting worse, we face an existential threat to the British way of life. As our weather becomes more extreme, we face the threat of repeated crop failures and the heat-related deaths of thousands of livestock. With our country built for a climate that no longer exists, the impact of storms and heatwaves on our roads, hospitals, schools and pylons will finish off the efforts of the previous Tory Administration to wreck most of our national infrastructure. Iconic wildlife species, such as the curlew and the salmon, may disappear from these islands, and the British seasons will lose their traditional rhythm. Even our veteran English oaks will begin to vanish from our landscapes. It is bitterly ironic that the Conservative party, which takes our oak tree as its symbol, has abandoned in recent years its commitment to the protection of the environment in a way that puts that icon of our national identity at risk. It has given up conserving anything. I fully support the Government’s determination to keep our country on track for net zero and to play our part in tackling the climate emergency. Failing to act would put 1,000 years of history and the prosperity of every generation to come at risk. Nevertheless, delivering the seventh carbon budget will be possible only if we face head-on the problems in our society that so often stand in our way. As the Government’s impact assessment shows, there are huge potential benefits to becoming a more environmentally sustainable society: new export industries, better insulated homes that are more affordable to keep at a comfortable temperature and, with less pollution in our air, healthier lives. We will never realise those opportunities, however, if we do not work towards meeting our carbon budgets in a way that also addresses the deep inequalities across the UK. With millions in our country already struggling for a decent standard of living, tackling climate change will be impossible if it becomes a threat to their jobs and livelihoods, and to their ability to pay rent, heat their home and put food on the table. The fight against climate change must also be a fight for full employment, decent wages, affordable homes and an end to fuel poverty. The Government’s impact assessment for this carbon budget is clear: there is a risk to delivery if efforts to deploy new technologies outpace the capacity of industry and households to respond. If it takes up-front spending to invest in net zero technologies such as solar panels and heat pumps to play our part and to benefit from long-term savings, the Government must ensure that everyone is able to do so, regardless of income. Similarly, for Ministers to secure public backing for the measures needed to deliver carbon budget 7, we must have a geographically fair approach that puts genuine decision-making power in the hands of local communities up and down the country. Once again, the impact assessment is clear that there is the potential for adverse ecological and landscape impacts from the delivery of net zero infrastructure. Rural communities such as those that I represent cannot just be told to lump it, and that is where I think the impact assessment is inadequate. It is not enough to say that there will be net benefits overall, so it is okay that places such as Stocking Pelham in north-east Hertfordshire are being inundated with speculative proposals for renewable energy schemes. Unless we address the clear disconnect between the development of new infrastructure, how it is done, who it benefits and who experiences the harms, public backlash will continue to delay and frustrate the essential progress that we urgently need. Will the Minister not only make more of the obvious win-win opportunities, such as rooftop solar on commercial buildings and over car parks, but invest more resources in local area energy planning so that rural communities are empowered to decide what technologies they host in their local landscape, where, and at what scale?
I thank the Secretary of State for the excellent farming road map that she has laid out. I am really glad to see that supply chain fairness is at front and centre of the new road map, and I welcome the moving of the Groceries Code Adjudicator from the Department for Business and Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as this will make things more joined up. Farmers in Monmouthshire have raised with me so many times the issue of unfair practices; in fact, five dairy farms there—yes, five—have recently had their milk contracts cancelled. Does the Secretary of State agree that processors and supermarkets have far too much power, and that that power imbalance must be remedied?
We have made the landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and we have begun delivering already; providing domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres, specialist rape and sexual offence investigation units in our police forces, and £16 million for programmes in schools on healthy relationships and tackling harmful behaviour. Our ambition is clear, but there is much more work to do.
My hon. Friend is right: far too often, the least safe place for a woman is her own home. Children who witness or experience abuse in their home are victims in their own right. This Government are determined to tackle domestic abuse; we are putting domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres, prosecutions are rising, and domestic abuse protection orders can provide unlimited-duration protection, and are already protecting more than 1,000 victims. I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to legislating to protect children and young people who are caught in abusive relationships, and I look forward to working with her on her private Member’s Bill.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. Where domestic abuse drives a woman to take her own life, it is a profound tragedy and an injustice, and perpetrators must be held to account. Those who drive their partners to take their own life can face prosecution for the offences of manslaughter and encouraging suicide. The Government have asked the Law Commission to conduct a wholesale review of the law of homicide and the sentencing framework for murder, which will include a review of the use, and any obstacles to the use, of manslaughter charges where abuse may have driven someone to suicide. We recognise that there is more to do, particularly on better understanding and preventing suicides linked to domestic abuse, and we will continue to work with experts, frontline services and campaigners to strengthen our response.
I completely agree. Domestic abuse is not caused by football results; it is caused by perpetrators who make the choice to abuse women. Refuge, Women’s Aid and other specialist organisations are clear that suggesting otherwise allows abusers to deflect responsibility and avoid accountability. This Government are clear that there is no excuse, no context and no mitigating circumstances that make domestic abuse acceptable. I hope that the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) will reflect on the harm that that kind of framing causes to victims.
The scourge of abuse, whoever commits it, must be rooted out, across all professions. We are committed, through our violence against women and girls strategy, to halving violence against women and girls. We need to look at healthcare settings as well as everywhere else, and I would certainly be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that issue further.
We are committed to tackling violence against women and girls, whether it happens on the street, in people’s homes or online. In order to tackle abuse and harms online, we have criminalised the creation of non-consensual deepfakes and are banning nudification tools. We are also putting a legal duty on platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours. There is more that we can do, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss solutions.
Our police receive calls relating to domestic violence every 30 seconds. Victims of domestic violence need to be treated well, and to see much more action taken, whether we are talking about our police, our courts, or the services that victims need. This Government are taking that action, not only by putting domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres, but through domestic abuse protection orders, but we know that there is so much more that is needed by victims of domestic abuse.
I have met victims and campaigners from the al-Fayed campaign, as has the Prime Minister. We must ensure that no matter who you are or where you are, there is always justice. I look forward to continuing to work with campaigners to ensure that they get justice.
The hon. Member is right that we need to not just pursue perpetrators and provide support to victims, but prevent violence against women and girls. That is why this is a cross-Government strategy. No one Department can tackle this alone. The Department for Education is piloting programmes with young people in schools. We need to ensure that all Departments are doing their bit—and they are.
In 2026, the question is no longer whether we act on the climate crisis, but how fast we do so. Most people accept the science, which shows that the Earth’s average surface temperatures have increased significantly over the past century. It is hard to deny this in a week where the UK is yet again experiencing record-breaking heat, although one climate sceptic told me online recently that “it’s just weather”. Yes, there have been hot periods in recent history, but these are becoming more frequent and more prolonged, with global temperatures set to rise by 1.5°C to 2°C by 2050. While that may sound like a small number, these increases will lead to farmers’ crops failing more regularly, threatening food security. People’s health will be impacted. Sea temperatures will further increase; this will melt ice sheets and release massive amounts of carbon and methane into the permafrost, further increasing temperatures. The net zero brand, however, has become toxic, failing to clearly communicate what must be done and why. Measures to deal with climate and the environment are not “nice to haves”—they are essential to protect the country’s ecosystem, agriculture and infrastructure. It is no longer about whether we can afford to take action; it is about whether we can afford not to do so. If we do, our economy will actually benefit. We must confront the misinformation directly and put forward credible, practical solutions. The populist right promotes the misleading claim that the UK can secure its energy by drilling more oil and gas in the North sea, but in reality, projects such as the Rosebank oilfield would deliver only a relatively small supply of oil and be subject to global price shocks, all while causing significant environmental damage and giving more profits to oil giants. True energy security and lower costs will come from sustained investment in renewable energy, not from doubling down on fossil fuels. Some 37 years ago, Margaret Thatcher stood before the UN General Assembly and warned of the dangers of rising carbon emissions and their impact on the Earth’s climate. At the time, the Conservatives respected that evidence and engaged seriously with the science, but today the party is a pound shop version of its former self, more preoccupied with chasing Reform votes than offering serious solutions to the challenges facing our country. We urgently need to tell a better story on climate change and to show the public how policies will benefit them where it matters—in their pocket. During the last heatwave a few weeks ago, more than 80% of the energy in the grid came from renewable sources. That is a fantastic news story, and the public are set to reap the benefits from the planned decoupling of gas and electricity prices. Across the UK, we are already seeing warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, but this is not a task for DESNZ alone. A golden thread of safeguarding our environment for future generations must run across all Departments.
Tackling child poverty is a moral mission for this Labour Government. Background should not determine what people go on to achieve in life, but we know that inequality and poverty hold back too many of our children. We are improving the life chances of every child by scrapping the two-child limit, rolling out free childcare, Best Start family hubs, and free breakfast clubs, and expanding free school meals. Our child poverty strategy will deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. This is the difference a Labour Government are making.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The joy of reading should be open to every child, and that is really important in this National Year of Reading. Local libraries are special places, and Reform should be investing in our libraries, so that children can access them, not shutting down displays that make all families feel welcome. Sadly, this is characteristic of a party that, in my area, let back in a councillor who said that Nigerians should be “melted down” to fill potholes. Not fit for power at any level.