partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alistair Strathern

   Engagements

   Gareth Southgate’s documentary last month spotlighted some of the heartbreaking ways that we are failing too many young men growing up in Britain today, but it was heartening to see the inspiring work that Hitchin youth worker Dan Gaze was able to carry out with young men in my community who had found themselves in hard times. Both Dan and the boys at Hitchin boys’ school who were interviewed as part of the documentary were an absolute credit to my town, but how can we make sure that we are encouraging more men into teaching and youth work roles, so that every young man growing up in Britain today can benefit from positive role models across their community?

   Hansard source
2. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alistair Strathern

   Climate Change

   I thank the Minister for the leadership she has shown on this issue, not just since taking up her role, but long before she came to this House—that is a powerful lesson at the heart of some of today’s debate. We have heard a lot from some Opposition Members about how inherently global this problem is, and that the UK decarbonising alone will not tackle climate change. They are obviously right—it is an inherently and intractably global problem that we cannot tackle alone—but they seem somehow to build from that to an argument that we will get other countries to go faster by going slower ourselves. The lesson that the Minister showed in a previous job by arguing for the Climate Change Act is that by showing global leadership, we can bring other countries along with us on this difficult journey. We brought in the Climate Change Act, and now 75% of the country’s GDP is covered by binding emissions targets. We know we need to go further, which is why the debate about how we meet those targets is so important—but it must be a debate about how we meet them. There has been a lot of loaded language about climate denialism, and I accept that Conservative Members are not denying the existence of climate change. However, by denying the real and existential consequences of not meeting the science-backed targets, they are engaging in a subtler, but no less pernicious form of denialism. That is betraying our constituents and their futures by failing to recognise the existential challenge of climate change, and by failing to engage with the real and important debate that we should all be having about how we meet those targets and the policy trade-offs needed.

   Hansard source
3. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alistair Strathern

   Climate Change

   The right hon. Member is right to highlight that we need to do more to drive down the costs of energy and bring others with us on the journey of decarbonisation, but that is not the debate we are having today. We are having a debate about scientifically binding and informing climate targets that will have existential implications if we do not meet them. By not engaging with some of the deeper policy conversations about how we get there, the right hon. Member is letting us all down. There will absolutely be areas where we can go further, because we have already shown that we can. Whether that is by renewing some of the renewable energy auctions to get better value out of the outcomes for consumers, by evolving the way we are delinking gas from electricity markets to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment, or by reforming some of the planning costs that have been holding back the new nuclear and clean energy that we desperately need to get cracking with, we have already made progress. There will absolutely be areas where we need to go further, and many hon. Members have made good contributions to highlight some of them. That could be thinking about how we can do more to take policy costs off electricity to speed up the electrification journey, or how we can deregulate better some of the innovate start-up technologies that will make some outcomes possible in ways that we might not even be able to imagine today, or thinking carefully about how we manage the industrial costs and implications of the journey to net zero, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the fantastic industrial heartlands that our country has relied on for far too long, and which we should be preserving long into the future. Those are big important questions, but that is not the discussion and argument that has so often been thrown back from the Opposition Benches today. That argument has denied the implications of failing to meet the target, and it is deeply disappointing, because it lets down our constituents and all our collective futures.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

   Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 14 May 2026. The order makes a small but important change to existing arrangements that govern significant financial decisions made by councils during local government reorganisation, including those on land disposals and contracts. The Government’s programme of reform, as set out in the English devolution White Paper, will move power out of Westminster and strengthen the foundations of local government. A key part of that programme is local government reorganisation, replacing two-tier councils with single-tier councils that are simpler, clearer and more accountable to the communities that they serve. The Government’s long-term aim is to create local government structures that make it easier for residents to understand what group is responsible for local services and decisions, while enabling more strategic choices that support growth and improve public services. To meet that ambition, the transition must be orderly and legally sound, and must properly protect the public interest. Existing councils must continue to discharge their functions while new councils are being established, and decisions taken during that period should not undermine the position of the successor councils. For that reason, the framework includes safeguards, which are set out in section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Those provisions allow the Secretary of State to issue directions that control certain land disposals and significant contractual commitments. Where a decision could have implications for the successor council, councils may, in certain situations, be required to secure consent before proceeding. In practice, that consent will usually come from the relevant shadow council. Those controls ensure that major financial decisions taken during the transition will not adversely affect successor councils. Specific consent will be required for larger decisions, while general consent can be used to enable day-to-day activity to continue. The order, made under section 29 of the 2007 Act, makes a targeted change to the way that those safeguards apply. As the framework currently operates, councils may need to take account of previous land disposals and contractual dealings when assessing whether the relevant financial thresholds have been reached. The starting point of that aggregation period has remained fixed at 31 December 2006, which could require authorities to examine almost 20 years of historical activity. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were intended to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, rather than to create unnecessary retrospective burdens. The order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to 31 March 2025, to ensure that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historical analysis, while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. The Committee should note that the order does not represent a change of policy, and does not alter the underlying safeguards.

   Hansard source
5. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

   Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

   The hon. Gentleman asked about a specific example, which sounds like it relates to a specific concern.

   Hansard source
6. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

   Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

   He is nodding, which is helpful. In that case, I will write directly to him about that important local issue. I am not overly concerned that the example the hon. Gentleman raised is engaged by this change, but I will write to him to confirm that, because it sounds like an important issue in his constituency. The clarification in the order is designed to make sure that the existing safeguards operate as intended and can be applied with greater consistency across councils. The order preserves the balance between enabling councils that are due to be abolished to continue to operate effectively, and protecting successor councils, residents and taxpayers’ money. Although the amendment in the order was first identified through engagement with Surrey, it has been tested more widely with local government representatives, including engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Department’s local government reorganisation advisory group, which brings together senior officers and experts from across local government. It is therefore not a measure designed only for Surrey, but an update that will apply across the local government reorganisation programme. This statutory instrument supports a legally robust transition by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and promoting consistent application across the reorganisation programme. It makes a small but necessary technical change to ensure that the safeguards that govern significant financial decisions during transition work as intended, thereby supporting the whole local government reorganisation programme.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

   Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

   I am afraid I am finishing. The SI reflects engagement with councils and wider consideration with local government representatives, and will help to support the safe, orderly and effective delivery of our programme of reorganisation. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

   Hansard source
8. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

   Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

   I thank members of the Committee for their contributions to this debate. Before concluding, I want to address some of the points raised. The shadow Minister asked about disputes between councils. I want to be explicit that councils remain responsible for their decisions during the transition and must act in line with their legal duties. We expect councils to act transparently and have regard to their fiduciary duties and wider public responsibilities when taking such decisions as local authorities do week in, week out—and local authority officers know that. Decisions regarding ongoing service delivery and the medium-term financial strategies of existing councils should not compromise the future sustainability of new councils—I say that just for clarity. We have published an explanatory note to councils undergoing reorganisation about financial decisions before reorganisation and we continue to work with councils to support orderly and effective transitions. However, decisions on individual assets are the responsibility of local authorities. I will happily circulate the explanatory note to members of the Committee if that would aid them. The officials in my Department are in touch with councils on a regular basis. This framework tries to create safeguards to make sure that significant actions taken during transition do not adversely affect successor authorities.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

   Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

   I will do so in a moment. The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point on councils in receipt of exceptional financial support and the disposal of assets. He knows that the number of councils in EFS is a great concern of mine. We liaise with those local authorities week in, week out to do all we can to support them. It serves none of us to have exceptional financial support become normalised, and we are in touch with them.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

    I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Lady in a moment once I finish responding to the shadow Minister. On arm’s length management organisations and academies, this depends on the specifics of the contract and the transfer that has taken place. Again, we are working actively with councils. On the value of sites and the issue that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned with developers being able to garner extra value from their sites, we have provided councils with checklists and much information about things that they should be wary of. Nevertheless, I thank him for raising it. I will double check that it is on the checklist.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

    You are very generous, Mr Vickers. The hon. Member knows that I am sympathetic; it is a matter for the authorities themselves, of course, but he makes a good case.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

    I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I will happily come to this House and spend hours talking about local government finance any time anybody wants—

    Hansard source
13. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

    I fear that it would test your patience, Mr Vickers. Let me make a final point to the hon. Member for Broxbourne. He makes a reasonable point, but the issue is that local government finances are in such a state—I am thinking particularly about the situation in Woking. All of us, up and down the country, will pay the price for that, so there is a sense in which responsibility is always collectively shared. I will say nothing further, Mr Vickers, in case you tell me off. In conclusion, the draft order will make a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on disposals operate effectively during local government reorganisation. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting it. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison Hume

    Violence against Women and Girls

    11. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison Hume

    Violence against Women and Girls

    The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) embarrassed herself and this House when she said that the England football team needed to keep winning to keep women safe from domestic abuse. Does the Minister agree with me and with Refuge that linking domestic violence to football allows perpetrators to avoid accountability for their horrific actions?

    Hansard source
16. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Baker

    Engagements

    In Aldershot and Farnborough, thanks to this Labour Government, this week we are bringing the National Armed Forces Day celebrations back to the home of the British Army. However, in a week when we salute those who have served and are serving our country, elderly Gurkha veterans were assaulted in the park by our war memorial and told to go home. Will the Prime Minister and the House join me in standing against that despicable attack, and commend the heroism of our Gurkhas, and does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to resolve the long-standing issues relating to Gurkha pensions that we have been working towards, because the Gurkhas have given so much for our country?

    Hansard source
17. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Adam Thompson

    Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and extend my thoughts to everyone who has been a part of the Ockenden review. I also hugely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for her unending efforts in campaigning for the families we represent in our constituencies, who have been through so much. Of course, I also thank Donna Ockenden for her work, her amazing support, and her constant engagement with us as the local affected Members of Parliament and with our constituents. In the past two years, I have met so many families who have been harmed in ways I cannot understand or comprehend, and have heard of and seen horrors that I can barely believe. In addition to those babies and mothers who lost their lives, it is important that we highlight children like our mate Ryan, who recently turned 18 but who will never be independent because of his acquired brain injury. Can the Secretary of State please reassure the House that he will do everything in his power to support children with acquired brain injuries, such as by recognising their conditions in education, health and care plans?

    Hansard source
18. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Adam Jogee

    Farming: Financial Sustainability

    Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many brilliant farmers who work relentlessly to supply our shops, pubs and restaurants and to tend to our green and pleasant land. When I was elected I promised my farmers and their families that I would fight their corner every single day. We need a fairer deal for our farmers and the supply chain. Our farmers are the price takers, not the price makers. They are feeling the squeeze from our supermarkets. We must deliver and enforce fair contracts across all sectors. Our farmers also need long-term certainty. Although I welcome the new 25-year farming road map, our farmers need more from us. They need a sustainable framework that lets them plan for the next decade, not just the next season. Our farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our United Kingdom are the backbone of our country. We must go further and do more to give them the power to earn a fair return and to give them and us the certainty to plan for the future. I gently encourage the Minister to look for the letter I sent him last week. I congratulate him on his appointment and look forward to welcoming him to Newcastle-under-Lyme before too long.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Adam Jogee

    Proposed development of site AB2 in Newcastle-under-Lyme

    On this hot day I rise to present the petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I also draw the House’s attention to the declaration of interest from the new leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council at the cabinet meeting yesterday. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Declares that the land to the south east of Junction 16 of the M6 should not be released from its green belt status for development as this would have a significantly detrimental impact on Audley residents; further declares that the proposed employment site represents a loss of 6% of the parish’s green belt, which would devastate the rural character of the conservation area; further declares that the proposed development would likely favour commuters over local people, increasing pressure on the A500/M6 roundabout and disrupting nearby rural lanes used by local people; further declares that the development is expected to cause poor air quality, noise, litter, 24-hour illumination and loss of habitat, while severely impacting views across the Cheshire plains and North Staffordshire; and further declares that, as the local planning authority tasked with producing the Local Plan, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council has a responsibility to listen to the overwhelming concerns of its residents and ensure the long-term protection of the green belt by removing site allocation AB2. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council to remove site allocation AB2 from its Local Plan and not to permit the release of green belt land for this development. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003213]

    Hansard source
20. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The hon. Member says that the oil and gas belong to the Union, but it is Scotland’s oil and Scotland’s gas. Can he explain why Scottish bill payers are paying the highest bills in the UK when the oil and gas is being extracted from the North sea?

    Hansard source
21. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Media Green Paper

    The proliferation of misinformation, invidious algorithms and harmful content are the defining features of the current media landscape, and they are causing real harms and divisions within our communities. We need bold action to tackle this, and that surely includes taking on those who direct and abuse these situations. How will the Secretary of State promote trusted sources when there are people, even in this House, who are prepared to undermine them, and we are losing jobs and services at public service broadcasters?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Graham Leadbitter

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north-east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full-scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full-on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Graham Leadbitter

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime. The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Graham Leadbitter

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Graham Leadbitter

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course. Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition. A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north-east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states: “That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.” He goes on to say: “The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.” What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co-ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so-called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition. Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north-east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north-east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north-east of Scotland. The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Graham Leadbitter

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    That is not the reason for my intervention. If there is such a drive to get investment and renewables in Scotland—there is some, though it is not nearly fast enough—why did it take two years to make a decision about Ardersier? After two years, the rug was pulled from underneath that with a simple no. If that was the decision the Government were going to come to, surely it could have been made sooner, and the project could have moved on and had some investment. That has the potential for 1,500 jobs on site and a further 4,500 in the supply chain.

    Hansard source
27. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Robert Jenrick

    Media Green Paper

    Let me get this straight: the Government—either a Minister or, worse, unaccountable civil servants—are planning to decide which news providers are deemed trustworthy and which are deemed untrustworthy; and then the Government, or unaccountable civil servants and quangos, are going to give priority to the services that they deem to be trustworthy, and reduce the prominence of those that they do not like and consider to be untrustworthy. That sounds quite dystopian to me. How can it be seen as anything other than a serious attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech?

    Hansard source
28. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Robert Jenrick

    Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

    May I put on record my admiration for the 2,500 families across our county of Nottinghamshire who gave evidence to Donna Ockenden and shared what were undoubtedly the most personal stories that one could ever imagine sharing as a parent? I will never forget a family coming to see me at my surgery, who said they had been told that their time was up when they were sitting together with their baby, and they were asked to leave. They went to the café, and then they sat on the floor, on the kerb in the car park, and cried together. They said that it was like being shooed out of a restaurant by a rude waiter, not literally the most heartbreaking moment in someone’s life. I was very disturbed to read for the first time revelations about the mortuary service at Nottingham, which is frankly astonishing. It seems as if the right steps are being taken, but we all hope that those responsible for that feel the full force of the law. Nationally, I hope that every hospital trust reading the report now treats the situation as the emergency it truly is. It is astonishing that the NHS is spending almost as much on negligence claims as on maternity services themselves, although of course the money is nothing compared with the misery and pain that has been inflicted on families. For our hospitals in Nottingham, improvements seem to have been driven by ensuring that there is now regular and high-quality training, which was sadly very absent for a long time. Can the Secretary of State assure me that mandatory and regular training is now ensured in all maternity hospitals across the country?

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how to ensure that named day written parliamentary questions are answered by the Department on time. My written questions 10935 to 10940 to the Foreign Office about a company called Siren Associates Ltd had not been answered by 22 June. They are of great personal and national importance, and we want to know when they will be answered.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    Given that we have reduced our carbon emissions by some 54% since 1990, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State agrees with me that we have led the way and done our bit. It is now time for others to do theirs.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    Will the hon. Gentleman just answer a very simple question, as this is in the Labour manifesto and the Secretary of State bangs on about it week after week? When will energy bills and electricity bills come down?

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    It is an excellent idea to talk about the economics. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) could not answer this simple question, but perhaps the hon. Lady can instead: when will the bills come down?

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    Well, we are debating the carbon budget order, but I think we should rename it the job-destroying, industry-killing order, because that is essentially what net zero is doing. For the hon. Members who do not appreciate the economics of this, let us go on a little history lesson, shall we? Let us go back to the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. Yes, our energy consumption increased by some 20%, and real GDP per capita—per person—increased every year by 3.2% per annum. Let me now take everyone forward to the last 20 years: our energy consumption has declined by about 15%, and guess what has happened to our GDP per person? Yes, it has collapsed to just 0.5% per annum. There is a direct link between the quantity of energy we consume—

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    What a tragedy it is that the truth clearly hurts for the Green party; and, by the way, the Greens do not believe in carbon capture, which has been mentioned previously. The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between higher energy use per capita and higher GDP per capita—the richer a nation is. That is the fundamental point that everybody in this place seems to forget. As we have reduced our carbon emissions since 1990 by 54%, people seem to forget that carbon emissions around the world are increasing. Other nations are not admiring our net zero leadership; they are laughing at our utter stupidity, as they steal our jobs and our money. They are laughing at us.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    And what labour are the Chinese using? Slave labour is what they are using—that is the reality. They are laughing as they sell us Chinese cheap solar panels to cover our brilliant food-productive farmland in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is insane.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    There we are. Apparently Labour Members want more asbestos, when we know that is dangerous—yes, it is in the wind turbines. The reality is—

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    I will give away shortly; I am doing well. The reality is that industries across our country are being slaughtered and jobs are being destroyed—from pottery businesses to aluminium businesses, chemical businesses, steel businesses and oil refineries. Why? Because of our high energy costs. We have seen the brilliant, highly skilled, highly qualified jobs in Aberdeen being slaughtered because this Government will not allow more exploration of the North sea. This is the reaction, and this is the consequence of net stupid zero.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The renewables sector keeps saying that it is going to reduce the bills, yet the bills are going up. Indeed, only recently an energy boss said that even if the price of gas went to zero—clearly, it is not going to, folks—our electricity bills at the next general election, assuming that is in 2029, will be even higher. Why? Because of all the increased policy costs, increased levies, increased constraint costs and beyond.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Climate Change

    Oh dear, oh dear. How desperately sad it is that the hon. Lady does not appreciate that the wholesale price of electricity, which some claim is driven by gas, is about a third, so it is not the majority—a third is less than 50%. The simple reality is that there is a direct causal link between the growth of renewable generating capacity in the last 20 years and the growth of our electricity prices to the highest in the western world. That is the reason that everybody is feeling so much poorer. It is as simple as that. All the advocates of the renewables industry cannot answer the question: when are the bills going to come down? The answer is: they are not going to. The Government can try to cheat by putting it into general taxation, but the simple fact is that, actually, costs are going to go up. We have heard, for example, that the cost of more contracts for difference is going to increase by £4 billion, £5 billion or £6 billion by 2030, and that the extra cost to the grid is going to increase by some £10 billion a year by 2030. Per household—which is how people will want to understand it—that equates to about £500 per year extra on the cost of living because of the costs of net zero. Everybody needs to understand that point, as they debate and vote on this issue. As we look to the future, having explained the history and the economics to those who do not seem to understand, we hear that the Secretary of State for Energy—he is rather absent at the moment; where is he?—wants to get rid of all our wonderful tumble dryers. No, no, we can’t have tumble dryers in the brave new world of the Secretary of State for Energy! Then we hear that, through this carbon budget, the Government want us to reduce our dairy and meat consumption by some 20%. We have had enough of this. We should vote against this ridiculous motion and scrap net stupid zero.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Reform·Lee Anderson

    Climate Change

    The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech. She seems to be an expert on this subject, so could she advise the House by how much it would reduce the Earth’s temperature if this country became net zero right this minute?

    Hansard source