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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, but let me correct him on what I said. I am not in any way accusing his wonderful constituents of being climate deniers; I am simply pointing out the case made by some of his colleagues. I absolutely agree that we need to bring communities with us, and I am sure the whole House shares that aim.
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, Monday was Windrush Day, founded by Patrick Vernon to celebrate the contribution of migrants to our community. Will the Prime Minister outline exactly what this Government are doing to recognise and serve the Windrush generation, who did so much to play a vital role in our country’s history?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Leader of the Opposition called the Secretary of State for Education a “spiteful class warrior”, and previously she has compared her to a Gestapo officer. I started working in Parliament when I was a teenager, and in 25 years of being involved in politics, I have never seen the atmosphere here in Parliament and outside to be quite so hostile and intimidatory, especially towards female elected representatives. Words matter, and inflammatory language contributes to this hostility towards politicians, especially women. Could I ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether the language used by the Leader of the Opposition today towards the Secretary of State for Education—a woman who grew up in poverty on a council estate, was raised by a single mother and was on free school meals, and worked her way up to the Cabinet—is appropriate to be used in the Chamber? I ask because not only does this language contribute to hostility, it puts off women from coming into this important profession.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on his recent win. Of course, his was not the only big win in Scotland in recent times. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar—the Western Isles—the Labour candidate Donald MacKinnon won a historic victory after 19 years of SNP neglect and complacency. What we did in Na h-Eileanan an Iar we did against the political tide: despite the polling and without the magic of Makerfield, we created a new king of the north. In short, we won because of Donald MacKinnon’s island credentials. Our local identity trumped the SNP’s artifice of a national identity. I know that we will be one Scotland tonight in Miami, but in reality, Scotland has many different communities and many different voices. A large part of our island identity over the last two generations has been the North sea. The issues that anchored the by-election in Aberdeen South were currents that ran through the Western Isles during our May election as well. The fortunes of the North sea have shaped my village in Lewis and many other communities on the west coast and in the north. It has sustained us for two generations now. It is not just the men who have made that contribution; women are effectively running single-parent families because of the two weeks on, two weeks off or three weeks on, three weeks off pattern of the North sea. The North sea has become part of our identity. Its shifts, weather and fortunes ripple through the Hebrides just as much as they do through the communities of our Doric cousins. It is not appreciated by many in this debate on the transition away from the North sea that our identity, a sense of belonging and who we are because of where we work are a big part of this. The UK is undertaking one of the greatest economic and industrial transformations of our time, from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear power. I wish the SNP Scottish Government, although apparently they now have a new industrial strategy, would show some maturity on nuclear power and recognise that it has a role in our future as oil and gas diminish. We should be clear-eyed about why we are moving out of the North sea. It is a mature and declining basin, and at the same time we face—as we do outside today—the undeniable reality of a warming planet. We have a responsibility to meet these challenges and a duty to those who will inherit the world after us to act. The transition away from the North sea and into renewables is not the same as abandonment. This Labour Government are not, and must not be, in the business of switching off the North sea. We must not allow a justifiable drive to renewables to lead us into decisions that as a nation we may later regret. There remains lots of work to be undertaken, revenues to be generated and energy to be produced in this sector. As long as this country requires oil and particularly gas, and that can be produced and processed domestically, we should carry on working in the North sea. We should make more of tiebacks, and I would like to hear about Ministers doing so. The industry knows what that means—using existing infrastructure to explore and extract extra resources from the basin—but the public do not, and I call on Ministers to make more of tiebacks.
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I hear him and I hope Ministers hear him as well. In that transition, we on the west coast and he in the Northern Isles have a privileged vantage point. We look eastwards to the North sea and the jobs and fortunes that it has provided to our islands, and we look westwards into the Atlantic and see the wealth of wind, the promise of renewable energy and the next chapter of our country’s story. The Minister knows that we in the Western Isles have the highest concentration of community-owned renewables anywhere in the UK. I believe that communities should have a big share in that new industry and in the renewables fortune. The Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero, of which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is a member, recently recommended that community power schemes should have priority access to the grid. Communities and councils should have the right—indeed, they already have the right; it is just that it has not been enacted—to take a 20% stake in any commercial renewables scheme in their area, onshore or offshore, and commercial wind farm companies ought to be incentivised through the planning system to see communities as partners, not just as peanut beneficiaries of their schemes. In that way, my community and those across Scotland that have earned a fortune for this country and for commercial companies in the North sea will have a share in the future and the fortune of renewable energy. Let me be clear that I support a pragmatic transition in which we utilise domestic gas production rather than importing it, and support Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce into renewables and elsewhere. I accept that, as the hon. Member said, there may not be a like-for-like match between existing jobs and emerging jobs. The North sea is one of the most dangerous environments to work in anywhere in the world, and the pay reflects that. But this is not just a question of pay. It is not just a question of economics, climate change or tax regimes, important as all those things are. It is just as much a question of who we are—a question of identity and belonging, and the relationship that we have with place and our place of work, which is a powerful political emotion that we should take note of. And as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, it is not an either/or. Our task is not to choose between the two, but to manage the transition from one to the other responsibly, pragmatically and in a way that protects the country’s energy security and, crucially, ensures that we enrich the communities that have already powered this nation for two generations.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of public libraries in Bournemouth East constituency. It is an honour to speak under your chairpersonship, Mr Turner. This debate is the third that I have called since my election. My first was on playgrounds all over our country; my second was on playgrounds all over my constituency. Sadly, today is not the third playgrounds debate, but just like “Back to the Future”, that trilogy will conclude. Playgrounds are a lot like libraries. They take us back to the future. They are two sides of the same coin of a healthy and happy childhood. In my constituency, many families visit Springbourne library and the play area beside it, bringing a packed lunch in the summer. That is so important for our families. Since 2008, playgrounds have been debated four times in Parliament. I have doubled the number of those debates. This is just the fifth Commons debate on libraries since 2008. When I banged the drum for playgrounds in this place, we began to make progress, with smoke-free playgrounds enshrined in law, protected playgrounds codified in planning policy and the first dedicated funds since 2008. In two years, this Labour Government have made better half the number of playgrounds made worse by Conservative Governments over 14 years. I know the positive steps that can arise when I bring my constituents’ hopes to Parliament, and I hope for the same for libraries. I wish to begin, here in Westminster, with Charminster. Charminster library, which opened on 7 January 1932 and closed on 22 December 2025, has now been padlocked for six months. I am fighting alongside Labour councillor Sharon Carr-Brown, Louise Norman, who is the secretary of the Friends of Charminster Library, and our community to reopen that library. There was a successful and packed demo there recently. In February, Labour’s plan to put £500,000 into Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole libraries was put to the administration. Every party but Labour voted against it. Now, those parties campaign to reopen Charminster library without saying how they would make the money available, although there is now £5 million in extra council tax flexibility for BCP council because of the Government’s support. Often, a fight for something entails a fight against something, but I want to be clear to my constituents that in fighting for Charminster library, fighting for library users and fighting for Bournemouth East, I am not fighting BCP council, I am not fighting the Liberal Democrats and I am not fighting their independent allies. Charminster library’s closure lies in 14 years of austerity that cannot be reversed in five minutes. The neglect that ensued was exacerbated by Conservative council leaders burning through £90 million of reserves on vanity projects. In our politics, there is so much to feel angry, feel upset and feel let down by, all at once. That is made worse by a technological revolution that puts the world’s information in the palm of our hand and simultaneously spreads fear, fake news, bile and hate. Rarely have we needed libraries, temples of reason and sanctuaries from menace like today. Another bug of modern politics is the rarely resisted urge to think only of the place, the building, the resources and the books. As any librarian or library user knows, those are but the building blocks. What matters most and is mentioned least is the people—the life force of people joining together, the hope and happiness that springs from spontaneous meetings of strangers often enough in the same shared space to form friendships and create connections. Charminster library created the space for these things to happen all at once, nearly every day: the toddler who falls in love with words before they read them aloud; the child with no computer at home who masters the technical means and enjoys a warm place to do the homework that they would otherwise have nowhere to complete; the jobseeker—in truth, the seeker of dignity and purpose—who gets on, because of the online connection, to complete their applications; the widowed pensioner living alone, with few reasons to leave the house, who will have a conversation, read a newspaper, hear laughter they would not hear at home and have a community to belong to and feel part of; the tired and nervous mum who never knew how much she needed a way to meet other new parents and learn everything that nobody teaches you when they hand you a newborn. So what is the solution? I have set countless council budgets and taken tough choices, as a councillor and deputy leader for a decade. I respect the creative councils that worked around Tory austerity rather than passively accepting the cuts, so I ask BCP council to show some vision, to grow our local economy by seeking investment and to develop the homes we need by setting out a local plan. That would not merely create the good that Bournemouth needs, but generate income so that the council can do more, rather than just protest in a passive state. That is what I did when I secured tens of millions of pounds in investment in green infrastructure and, with it, significant council developer contributions. I call on BCP council to just fight for our community. I thank my constituents who have taken the time and care to stand up for Charminster library. I want to put some of their views on the official parliamentary record. For new parents, it was clear that the library was a social lifeline. I think of Roxanne of Ashling Close, Harriet of Charminster Avenue and Helen of Mortimer Road. Helen says: “I made lifelong friends at Wriggle and Rhyme, and I was so grateful for these sessions as an isolated single mum.” I think of Victoria of Portland Road, Sarah of Richmond Wood Road and Wendy of Beatty Road. Wendy speaks for many when she says that the library “has been the hub of the local community for at least fifty years.” Carl of Brackendale Road, Iris of Meon Road and Mark of Strouden Avenue spoke about the importance of ending isolation and loneliness. Carl says: “There is too much social isolation, and losing this much-loved library will only add to it.” Stuart of Hambledon Road and Catherine of Charminster Avenue called the library “a godsend to the elderly and children” and “a place where older people get patient, free help to get online.” Charminster library is one of the last places that people can spend time without spending a penny. That was true for Vanessa of Mallard Close, Anne of Bartlett Drive, Glynis of Uplands Road and Rebecca of Chatsworth Road. Vanessa tells me: “The library services literally keep our family functional and bringing in an income. We cannot afford other types of paid childcare.” In a cost of living crisis that we seek to abate in the face of another energy price shock unleashed by President Trump’s recklessness, we need more libraries as a solution, not fewer. Charminster library sits within walking distance of six schools and hundreds of children. Denisa of Parkway Drive, Amy of Feversham Avenue and Emma of Pine Road have all written with concerns about their children. Of her daughter, Emma says: “The routine of popping in to borrow books, take part in activities and meet friends has been completely taken away. She is devastated.” Pamela of West Way, a special educational needs teacher, and George of Court Road agree. We need to think about the voices of children. A voice that I need to bring to this place is that of the schoolchild Sabong of Queen’s Park Avenue: “It is not just about books. It is also a quiet place where I can do my homework and meet my friends. We need the library back.” I was pleased to receive a letter from Lily and James of Strouden Park, who wrote to raise their concerns and say that they just want their library reopened. When a child writes to their Member of Parliament to ask for their library back, we adults need to do one thing: sit up and listen. We rightly worry about children lost to their screens. Kenelm and Amy of Bradpole Road see the library as a solution to that problem because of the role of books. Constituents also see the library as an answer to another—indeed, the opposite—problem, which is summed up by Adil of Charminster Road, who says of his childhood at the library: “I didn’t have any access to the internet or computers at home. Charminster Library let me have free internet access, borrow books, and join the reading challenge.” Olivia and Angela of Branders Lane remind us of the scale of the challenges that libraries help to overcome. Angela says that “a third of the nation are not online because of poverty, age, disability or ill health.” In all our libraries in Bournemouth, volunteer tech buddies support customers with learning how to use a computer, set up emails to apply for jobs and help with applications for a blue badge or universal credit. So many council services are now digital by default, but libraries offer a human being—a person who can support and refer citizens on. We cannot say that we will end digital exclusion and then let the buildings that fight it stay closed. A phrase ran through the letters I read: libraries matter because they offer a vital “community hub”. That much was true for Jenny of Homeside Road, Christine of the Grove, Andrew of Chatsworth Road and Gerard, who all said the same. For Christine, the library is “a children’s meeting place, an information centre, a landmark, and a treasured asset to the town.” On the theme of the beauty of the building, with which I strongly agree, David of Brackendale Road, Richard of Queen’s Park Avenue, Erik and Joanna all cared about this treasured asset. Richard describes the library as “an oasis of calm, with high ceilings and amazing light.” Nicola and Laura of Mavis Road and Bernadette of Beatty Road are among the many to celebrate the most important part of the library: the librarians. As Bernadette tells me, the staff ran four book clubs, and “whenever I visited the library, it was always well attended.” When I visited, I always had a very warm welcome. As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I say clearly and proudly that the library is a community space that is brought to life only by the people who use the services and the people who work there, who committed years of service and who cared about each other and about their community. They deserve our thanks. I have worked closely with Councillor Sharon Carr-Brown and Louise Norman, and a plan is starting to form. A first phase of work is under way to remove the significant asbestos found in the roof space, and the hope is that with the first phase drawing to a close, we can begin to move towards the second phase. However, that does not guarantee the reopening of the library. This debate is therefore significant in keeping the pressure on and ensuring that local people feel heard. With Charminster library now closed, five libraries are open in my constituency. They have undoubtedly suffered from the worst hardships of austerity, and more than most. On the latest figures, the average total open hours per week for the six libraries was 26 hours, compared with 35 hours in England. Unsurprisingly, the most consistent issue raised in a survey that I launched after I secured the debate was limited and inconvenient opening hours, which were highlighted by Jonathan of Saint Mary’s Road, Kathy of Webster Road, Clare of Leaphill Road and Sarah of Broughton Avenue—the list went on. Elaine in Springbourne calls for more evening and weekend opening, so that working people can access services, while Lorraine of Petersfield Road and Jenny of Percy Road say clearly that opening hours do not reflect the needs of our modern society. Adjusted for inflation, spending on BCP libraries has fallen more than in England overall: by 52% since 2010, compared with 47% nationwide. Despite the challenges facing the libraries, they are strongly praised by hundreds of my constituents. Seren of Parkwood Road describes Boscombe library as “somewhere we all wanted to go and hang out.” Annette on Seafield Road highlights the same in relation to Pokesdown and Southbourne library, while Julie of Sunnylands Avenue reflects that Tuckton library is brilliant but could become even more of a community hub. Jenny on Leeson Road describes Springbourne library as a true community hub, while Isabelle on Seagrim Road highlights Castlepoint’s support and advice services. Children’s development and free family activities emerge as significant priorities. Emma of Uplands Gardens values Castlepoint library for “helping children enjoy reading and learning.” Fay of Southwood Avenue describes Pokesdown and Southbourne library as nothing less than a “lifeline” for children without access to resources at home. Tom of Bennett Road sees Springbourne library as a “warm, safe community space”, while Cathryn of Gloucester Road highlights the importance of children’s activities, alongside social connection, at Boscombe library. Emilia of Heathcote Road stresses that libraries are especially important for children and families. Alice of Seagrim Road links children’s learning directly to safe community spaces, while Victoria of Twynham Road makes the case that schools should actively encourage library use. Libraries give people access to digital inclusion and services that they would get nowhere else. Lucynda of Gladstone Road West and Jake of Boscombe Grove Road both emphasise the importance of Boscombe library’s free internet, computers and digital support, and Julie of Sunnylands Avenue highlights the role that libraries play in helping people to access training, benefits and local services. Alex of Knole Road and Jennifer of Boveridge Gardens point to the importance of libraries as places where people access practical support and information. More broadly, libraries across my constituency are seen for what they are: non-profit third spaces. Michelle lives near Castlepoint library and sees it as “a lifeline…a second home”. Catherine lives on Castlemain Avenue calls the wonderful Tuckton library “safe, welcoming, warm and free”. Emma on Gloucester Road described Pokesdown and Southbourne library as a “safe and supportive” space “for children and adults”. Emilia on Heathcote Road speaks of “free, accessible community spaces”, while Averil on Norwood Place describes her library as a peaceful centre for learning and advice. Castlepoint library will be especially busy at the moment, as it is exam season. It is an especially important space for children, particularly on Saturdays and in the summer, with there being three secondary schools, at least six primary schools, hundreds of children and many homes nearby. The Saturday morning Lego club is popular, with many families becoming friends as a side benefit of play and creativity. Emma on Uplands Gardens, Nathalie on Cecil Road and Lorraine on Petersfield Road are clear: they want more of this, and they want their libraries to reflect how communities live today. Jake on Boscombe Grove Road points to the need for play, as well as digital education services, while Tamzine on Southbourne Overcliff Drive and Katarzyna on Castle Lane West highlight an appetite for cafés, longer hours and more welcoming multi-purpose spaces. Throughout my consultation, constituents said that they want books to remain at the heart of our libraries. Rosemary on Rolls Drive says that “physical books should always be at the core”. Mary on Hengistbury Road calls for “more books and faster reservations”, while Fiona on Sparkford Close highlights the need for up-to-date fiction and bestsellers at Castlepoint library. Jill on Leydene Close similarly points to the importance of strong and varied book collections. Each library offers something different, based on the needs of the local community it serves. Boscombe library, for instance, has a large collection of books in Polish that were donated by the community. Books offer escapism, spark imagination and inspire empathy, as we jump into someone else’s world and experience it as they do. The ability to step into other people’s shoes is so critical in today’s politics, and it comes from the changing displays every month in the libraries, which highlight awareness months such as Pride Month. Sadly, the books at Charminster library are gathering dust in the year of reading. Clearly, that is unacceptable. I have named so many of my constituents who feel so disempowered, so powerless and in some cases so hopeless, because I want them to know that their fight is not in vain and that they are on the official parliamentary record for evermore. I want them to know that when they raise their voices, they will be heard by their representatives, and I want them to know that I and the Government are doing all we can to bring Charminster library back into use and to support all our libraries across Bournemouth East after 14 terrible years of austerity. On that note, I have some asks of the Minister. First, will he take back this point back to the Department and confirm that the duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 does indeed still bind BCP council? The Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to superintend the service and to make sure that councils discharge their duties, and where there is concern that a council is failing, the Secretary of State has the power to hold a local inquiry on a complaint or on the Department’s own initiative. Charminster library is a beautiful and historic building, but it has been closed for six months, because of neglect after years of poor maintenance, with the current administration voting down Labour’s library rescue plan to allocate just 10% of the extra £5 million secured from this Government in council tax flexibility on visible improvements such as upgrading our libraries. I have another request: will officials from the Department meet me and a delegation of Charminster library users to look at what an intervention could achieve? Lastly, will the new national libraries strategy directly cover buildings such as Charminster library and the gap between a council’s legal duty and the closure of libraries? I end where I began. As a new MP in 2024 without a parliamentary office in the constituency, I went into almost every library to hold my surgeries. Ever since, I have seen the work of librarians and libraries. They are absolutely fundamental to our democracy and indispensable to a thriving society. We need Charminster library to open once again. We need the lights to be turned back on and the librarians to be back doing their essential work of enriching and gluing together our community. This is my vision of the future of libraries in Bournemouth East. This is a future worth fighting for. I ask the Minister and the Government to support this vision and to back this future for the libraries of Bournemouth East and the constituents whom I am so proud to represent.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I welcome this debate because it goes to the heart of two vital national priorities: tackling climate change and maintaining secure and affordable energy supplies. I support the transition to a low-carbon economy. The science is clear and the need to decarbonise and adapt is urgent, but if we are serious about delivering a just transition—as is the case with the electric vehicle mandate, which I have spoken about at length—we must be equally serious about protecting the workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on the North sea. Thousands of workers right across the UK are employed directly and indirectly in the oil and gas sector. When I talk to those workers, they are not opposed to change; they are asking a very reasonable question: what are the equivalent jobs, with equivalent pay, conditions and security, that are supposed to replace those that are being lost? At present, I do not hear a convincing answer, while, at the same time, the UK becomes more reliant on imported oil and gas. That uncertainty does not reduce demand; it simply exports jobs, economic activity and tax revenues. In an increasingly unstable world, energy security matters. It is hugely important, and recent international events have shown just how vulnerable global energy markets can be. We should be cautious about increasing our dependence on imports from countries that may have lower environmental and labour standards. That is why projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw should be considered in the contexts of jobs, industrial capacity and energy resilience alongside our climate commitments. The choice should not be between net zero and good jobs; the challenge for Government is to deliver on both of those things. That requires a clear industrial strategy, investment in new industries, a “North sea 2” vision, strong domestic supply chains and genuine job-to-job pathways for workers affected by the transition. A just transition cannot mean managed decline; it has to be planned, funded and delivered in partnership with workers and trade unions such as Unite and GMB, which have been doing great work representing their members. I urge the Government to ensure that energy security and decarbonisation go hand in hand and to demonstrate clearly how North sea workers and their communities can be protected as we make the transition to a cleaner energy future.
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. In my contribution, I neglected to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular the donations that were made by Unite and GMB to my election campaign. I would like to put that on the record.
Today’s publication of Donna Ockenden’s report has laid bare absolutely appalling and systemic failures in maternity services in Nottinghamshire, with thousands of families suffering avoidable harm, and in many cases feeling ignored, dismissed or let down by the very institutions that were put in place to protect them. The report identifies profound failures of leadership, governance and accountability, and an inability to learn from mistakes. Given the scale of the failings and the repeated concerns raised in previous maternity reviews, is it now time for the Government to establish a full, judge-led, statutory public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses, and examine whether wider NHS and regulatory failures have allowed these tragedies to occur over such a prolonged period?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. It was in this Chamber, on 28 January 2025, that I was the only Labour MP to speak out against the Government’s proposed changes to agricultural property relief. I did so in the knowledge that such changes would have been damaging to the livelihoods of huge swathes of my constituents. There is no industry more important than the food industry. The food sector employs 17% of Wales’s total workforce, and at the heart of that sector lie our farmers. A sustainable farming sector requires fairness and transparency throughout its supply chain. An industry built on long-term planning, fair returns and transparency will make for a more resilient industry in the face of current challenges than one based on short-term decision making. As most farmers do not sell directly to retailers, the NFU has long campaigned for the Government to extend the code to include more retailers, food service businesses and manufacturers in order to oversee the trading relationship between farmers and their intermediaries, ensuring that farmers get the best possible deal. We must also recognise the importance of trading with the European Union, on which Wales relies heavily for 75% of our food and drink exports. A commitment to strengthen our relationship with the EU would create valuable opportunities for Welsh producers and support growth across the sector.
I welcome the draft order and regulations laid before the House. The timing for this debate obviously could not be more apt; not only is it currently London Climate Action Week, with Exeter Climate Forum taking place next week, but here in the UK and across Europe we are currently experiencing extreme temperatures. Frankly, this is not normal. The science of this is settled; what we ought to be doing, and what we must continue to do, is limiting climate change, mitigating its impact and continuing to grow the economy. This Labour Government are delivering world-leading climate action, driving jobs, growth and investment in every corner of the UK. Setting the target in this seventh climate budget is the goal, but the means by which we meet that target is what we will be judged on by future generations. If we are to meet the targets set out today, as well as our nearer-term 2030 commitments, we must now turn our attention to the acceleration of delivery at pace and at scale. Central to that effort is a new and enabling approach to climate technology. Just this morning, I spoke at the Startup Coalition and British Business Bank’s energy innovation event with climate tech founders, investors and policymakers representing more than £10 billion-worth of scale-ups. We are fortunate to be home to firms at the forefront of energy innovation, not just in Europe but the world over. I am proud to say that the south-west is already leading the way. My home city of Exeter is home to the Met Office and the University of Exeter, both of which are pioneering in weather forecasting, ocean science, climate modelling, conservation and climate tech. Of the top 21 climate scientists in the world, five are based in the UK, and all of them are based in Exeter. The wider south-west economy already contributes £1.5 billion to our net zero economy, and the firms that make up this economy are at the cutting edge, from small modular nuclear reactors and tidal energy systems to low-carbon construction methods and sustainable food technologies.
I absolutely agree; the Celtic sea has massive potential for the reindustrialisation of our peninsula as well. In Hull, my home town, wind power has provided a huge number of new jobs in lieu of others that were there in the past. I want to talk about our innovators, who are too often held back by a system that is not keeping pace with the urgency of the challenges we face. Time and again, climate tech companies tell us that regulation is the single biggest barrier to scaling and deploying tech—not access to capital or talent, though those matter, but regulation. One founder I spoke to this morning said that he is deploying his tech in Estonia, Morocco and elsewhere, and that it was easier to do so in those countries than in the UK, despite his not speaking a word of Estonian or Arabic. Our regulatory framework is, at times, more focused on managing legacy risks than delivering future solutions. If we are serious about delivering on this carbon budget, we must fundamentally change how the system works. Regulation should not simply be a system to police compliance; it should reward carbon reduction and enable innovation. That means embedding climate innovation outcomes into the mandates of our key regulators—Ofgem, the Environment Agency, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and others—and ensuring that they have the flexibility and tools to adapt in real time. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was a welcome step, introducing statutory timelines and embedding net zero into the decision making, but on the ground progress is still too slow. Developers still face years of delay and inconsistent decisions across local authorities. If we are to meet the scale and pace required by carbon budget 7, we must go further. We should look at a national net zero test for planning decisions that provides consistency and clarity. We should also have a climate fast-track for essential infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging, solar power and battery storage. That could help to unlock projects that are critical to reducing emissions and lowering costs for consumers. We must also address bottlenecks in emerging sectors such as nuclear. Small modular reactors can play a vital role in our clean energy mix, but the current licensing timelines, stretching to over a decade, are incompatible with the urgency of the challenges we face. By embracing digital licensing, fast-tracked siting, and regulatory sandboxes, we can significantly accelerate deployment while maintaining the highest of safety standards. Encouragingly, we have already seen that that is possible. The creation of the Regulatory Innovation Office was a bold, forward-thinking step. Its sandbox approach is now helping regulators and innovators work in new ways, testing, adapting and accelerating solutions in real time. Feedback suggests that not only is this model effective, but it has been transformational. If it continues to prove successful—and I believe that it will—we should expand this approach across more sectors, embedding carbon reduction at its core. The Government have set the destination, and this carbon budget provides a credible and vital milestone along that journey, but to reach it we must ensure that our regulation keeps pace with our best and brightest. Our climate tech companies can get us there, but only if we help them to help us.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this important debate. He has championed animal welfare for many years in this place. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention. I pay tribute to Katie Amess, who has campaigned strongly on this issue, as we have already heard, and to her late father, Sir David, who was such a passionate advocate for animal welfare. He is sadly missed in this place. I would also like to pass on my appreciation to the array of animal rights and welfare charities that do so much to support our nation’s well-loved animals and pets. This has been a good debate on an important and sensitive subject, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the work the Government are doing to address many of the issues that have been highlighted. Let me state from the outset that the Government believe that every stray dog deserves care, dignity and proper consideration for its welfare. Our focus is on reducing the number of dogs entering the system in the first place, improving reunification and rehoming outcomes, and ensuring that euthanasia is only ever used as a genuine last resort. Local authorities play a central role in the system, and we are backing them to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Councils have a legal duty to deal with stray dogs, whether they are lost, stolen or abandoned. Each year, they handle tens of thousands of cases. They collect dogs quickly, check for injury or neglect, and make every effort to identify the owner through microchips and tags. If an owner cannot immediately be found, dogs must be held for at least seven days to give people the chance to come forward. After that point, authorities work to reunite, rehome or transfer dogs to rescue organisations wherever possible. The outcomes data shows that this system does work for the majority of cases: most dogs are either reunited with their owners or passed on to rehoming centres. But we know that much more needs to be done, particularly as rescue organisations face growing pressures, as the hon. Member for Romford identified. The cost of living and the legacy of the pandemic have led to increased abandonment and stretched capacity. That is why the Government are actively working with the sector, through our animal welfare strategy, to understand the pressures and support high welfare standards, and we are preparing to consult on proportionate steps to strengthen the system further. We are also taking practical action to improve the rates of reunifying pets with their owners. Microchipping has been mandatory for a decade. Although uptake is high across the general dog population, it remains too low among stray dogs and too many records are out of date. We are working directly with database operators and welfare organisations to drive up compliance, improve data accuracy and give local authorities faster, easier access to the information they need. This is about getting more dogs home quickly and reducing the need for further intervention. Alongside that, we are updating the Government’s guidance on stray dogs. It will set a much clearer expectation that euthanasia should only ever be considered in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. That principle will be at the heart of the revised guidance that we will develop with councils and animal welfare groups. We must also tackle the root cause. Too many dogs enter shelters because of preventable issues, including irresponsible ownership, lack of training, and poor breeding practices that result in serious health problems. That is why we are now taking forward the recommendations of the responsible dog ownership taskforce to strengthen enforcement, improve education and support better behaviour and training. At the same time, we are acting on low-welfare breeding, with plans to consult on tighter standards, better genetic health monitoring and measures to reduce the harmful practices that leave dogs and owners struggling. Finally, I want to address the issue of euthanasia directly. It is of course a deeply sensitive matter. There will be cases in which an animal is suffering from severe illness, trauma or behavioural distress and euthanasia may, with clear veterinary advice, be the most humane option, but these decisions are never taken lightly. They will weigh heavily on the professionals involved and must never become routine or default practice. The Government are taking a clear and active approach. We are strengthening guidance, improving systems, supporting the sector and acting to prevent dogs from entering shelters in the first place. Our aim is simple: more dogs reunited, more dogs rehomed, and far fewer dogs reaching the point where euthanasia is even considered. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Romford and for Strangford for raising these issues, which I will certainly take back to the Department and raise with the Minister responsible, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford for the specific points he raised in his speech. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues across the House and with partners outside it to drive forward improvements in animal welfare. Question put and agreed to.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing this important debate and thank all those who have made contributions this afternoon. I am delighted to see the excellent Labour rural research group here in force. Their speaking with such insight and passion is a reminder to me of the real champions for rural affairs issues who we have on our Benches. What a shame that so few Conservatives are here! Maybe that is a reminder of their disastrous election result in 2024. I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for her hard work and dedication to the role. Her ambition for farming and food security will make her a tough act to follow. I have already had the opportunity to meet a range of stakeholders from across the sector and visit a range of farms and farmers across the country, which has reinforced to me the importance of farming. It matters to our country, supports rural jobs and communities, provides the food we rely on and underpins our national resilience. As I mentioned earlier, today we published our farming road map, which sets out our plan for farming up to 2050. The road map sets out a clear direction towards a future for farming. It will give businesses in the sector confidence to invest, grow, plan for the future and secure farms for the next generation. The road map will help our food and farming system to become more resilient to global crises, adopt nature-friendly methods that support profitable food production in the long term and shore up food supplies. It sets a direction for agriculture that involves clearer, fairer routes to market, with better access to the tools, technology, skills and supply chains that farmers need to run sustainable businesses. Alongside the road map, today we published our full response to Baroness Minette Batters’s independent farming profitability review. The vast majority of her recommendations are either already under way or are being implemented soon, including the formulation of the farming and food partnership board, which has already met twice. Today, we announced that we will be taking a number of additional actions to create an environment for profitable farm businesses to thrive. That includes an additional £53 million investment for the farming innovation programme to help farmers to harness new technology that improves productivity, reduces reliance on inputs and improves long-term resilience. It also includes investment in the skills and people that the sector needs. By supporting training and new entrants, farmers’ hard-earned knowledge will be passed down to the next generation. I also want to recognise the pressures that many farm businesses face—a theme that has come out very clearly in the debate. Input costs rise quickly, and global markets can shift overnight; that uncertainty makes it harder to plan, invest and employ. That is why I want to reiterate this Government’s long-term and practical approach to farming, our commitment to stable funding, and our simpler and fairer funding schemes, which are designed to make farming more resilient and sustainable for the future.
I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder of the Conservative party’s record of failing rural Britain. I am very happy to take away the action he suggested. If we are to deliver our road map successfully, it will require lots of cross-Government working, and I am very committed to making that happen. Let me address the fertiliser issue; I appreciate that major input costs are real source of worry for farmers. We are very conscious of the increases in fertiliser prices that have occurred because of the middle east conflict, and we are working actively to monitor the impacts on the agricultural supply chains. We have regular communication with domestic fertiliser suppliers, commodity traders and farming stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union, and we have been clear that we are committed to ensuring that markets function fairly. We continue actively to monitor developments in the middle east, as well as other impacts on our food and farming sectors, including through ongoing engagement with industry leaders. My Department is aware that there are signs of some pressures easing but that prices still are above pre-conflict levels. We recognise that these costs continue to be a significant issue for farmers; that issue was raised with me on my first day in this role, when I met with the NFU. The pressures that it is imposing are absolutely worth considering further. Whether through more effective use of technology or the adoption of more sustainable farming practices, we can better equip our farmers and growers to produce good food in a more resilient way, and this Government stand ready to help farmers to do that.
I remind Members that we currently have a good supply of fertiliser and are keen to support domestic production. The Government are live to the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raises; I will take them back to the Department, and am happy to write to him on his concerns. The Government are also sharing information and guidance to support farmers to diversify sources of nutrients to reduce reliance on artificial fertilisers and strengthen long-term resilience by managing more effectively. DEFRA’s new nutrient management planning tool is already supporting our farmers by matching nutrients to crop and soil needs. That enables farmers to make the most of nutrient sources and to reduce their reliance on artificial fertilisers. More than 500 farms have used the tool since it was launched. DEFRA has launched a consultation and call for evidence to inform how the Government modernise fertiliser production and the regulations around it, which will further improve future fertiliser supply options. We will continue to work with farmers to ensure that they become more resilient, through our innovation funds and equipment grants or our continued shift from area-based subsidy to environmental land management schemes. Another issue raised in today’s debate was about fuel. Farmers have told the Government how important manageable fuel prices are to the financial sustainability of the farming sector and food security, and we have listened. While the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), worries about his selfies for social media, we are focused on taking decisive action to support farmers by slashing the fuel duty rate on red diesel from 10.18p to 6.48p per litre—its lowest rate in 20 years. That means that red diesel now benefits from an 88% tax discount, saving farmers more than £300 million a year. We have also extended the 5p fuel duty cut until the end of this year, keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120. My Department will continue to work actively with others to monitor developments in the middle east, including their impact on the supply and price of red diesel. We are committed to ensuring that the market functions fairly, and will continue our discussions with industry leaders, including the NFU and farming stakeholders. There are real, recent issues that need to be addressed; I have heard from the stakeholders I have already met that additional pressures are affecting farmers. The Government are well aware of the impact of climate change -related extreme weather on the financial sustainability of farms in recent years—this week’s heatwave is a reminder of that. We are committed to working with farmers to deliver long-term solutions to the risks associated with extreme wet or dry weather, and to increase profitability, because farmers being able to run profitable businesses is good for the whole economy and vital for food security. That is why we are investing in farming schemes and grants to make farming more resilient to economic and environmental shocks, and to safeguard our long-term food security. We have allocated a record £11.8 billion over this Parliament to sustainable farming and food production. Overall, farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year through our farming and countryside programme.
I am happy to write formally to the hon. Lady to respond to her questions. The message I leave with Members is simple: this Government believe that food security is national security. We are standing alongside farmers through global uncertainty, and supporting them by equipping them to manage volatility more effectively. We have already responded to the real pressures around fertilisers and fuel that farmers face and are backing British farming with record investment, improving schemes to make them simpler and fairer and supporting productivity and innovation. We are proud to work with British farmers as we grow the future of farming together.
As the report makes clear, carbon budget 7 is one of the most important stages on the path to net zero. In previous carbon budgets, cuts in emissions came from more straightforward changes, such as moving electricity generation away from coal. As we continue along this path, this carbon budget will involve changes to the way we heat our homes, the way we travel and the technology we use. Delivering that will require behavioural and structural changes, and future emissions reductions will depend increasingly on the choices made by our constituents. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) when he warns that if the Government are to be successful in delivering carbon budget 7, they must have the support of the public. The policies to achieve net zero must therefore be fair and must avoid placing disproportionate burdens on those households with the fewest options. The Committee was clear that the continued pathway to net zero requires greater policy certainty and co-ordination, and more joined-up Government action. I would take this further and expand on a point that I made when the Climate Minister gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee last week. As this Labour Government continue with their mission of shifting power away from Westminster and into the regions, we should ensure that mayors and local authorities have the support they need to help to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I was coming on to talk about my own local council, where we are facing problems. Local authority involvement is all the more important given the fracturing of the long-standing cross-party consensus. We now hear voices, particularly from Reform UK, who would simply abandon net zero altogether. Walking away from the challenge would not protect our constituents, but leave them more exposed to higher energy bills, energy insecurity and the growing impacts of climate change itself. Where there is opposition at a national, regional or local level, it is important that the Government are proactive in setting out the explicit case for the net zero agenda as well as the tangible benefits of particular policies. Let me draw on an example from my own local authority. Last year, the Government made £25 million of funding available through the electric vehicle pavement channels grant. That funding was for local authorities to install cross-pavement channels to support residents without access to off-street parking so that they could charge their vehicles at home and benefit from cheaper domestic tariffs. I had concerns about how the grant was being used in Kent, so I wrote to Kent county council. In response, the Reform-led administration said that the council had decided not to submit an application for the grant. As a result, of the £667,000 of funding that could have been available to the people of Kent, the council received only £50,000. That represents a shortfall of well over half a million pounds of funding that could have been used to help my constituents. That is deeply disappointing at a time when the Labour Government are putting forward practical support to help households with the transition to net zero.
I absolutely agree. Hundreds and hundreds of constituents would like to drive an electric car but have no access to home charging, and they would have benefited from that funding. Yes, we are talking about taxpayers’ money, but by not becoming an energy-secure country, we are only helping countries like Russia. Given the urgency of meeting our national emissions targets, it is essential that no opportunity for progress is left unused. Will the Department work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as other relevant Departments, to take a more proactive and co-ordinated approach? That should include identifying barriers that prevent local authorities from applying for funding, improving communication about available schemes, and providing practical support where needed. In particular, will the Government consider measures such as offering targeted guidance or even establishing a more strategic framework to ensure that funding reaches all parts of the country effectively? By strengthening collaboration across Departments and supporting local authorities more directly, we can help to ensure that councils are fully equipped to access the funding available to them and, in doing so, maximise our collective ability to deliver on the UK’s climate commitments.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for permitting us to take our jackets off. I thank hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. As we have heard—my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley made the point absolutely correctly—this statutory instrument amends regulations to enable the best use of the assessment resources that we have available. It will help us to repair the broken system that we inherited, which needs to be repaired, and provides a much-needed safeguard against potential future challenges, in order to protect payments to vulnerable people. As mentioned by my hon. Friend, under the contracts with assessment providers that were negotiated by the last Government, we can call on only a finite volume of assessment capacity. We could, as the last Government did, use a large chunk of that capacity for frequent reassessments of PIP claimants whose circumstances most likely have not changed at all, or we can use that resource in a more productive way. That is what we have chosen to do. We want to do two new things. First, we want to recommence, properly, reassessments for the work capability assessment, which provides a gateway to the health premium in universal credit. The situation we inherited is that work capability assessments are carried out when somebody makes a new application, and after a period that person is due a reassessment. The number of reassessments that it has been possible to carry out has been lamentably low. The hon. Member for South West Devon commended PIP reassessments—if only the Conservatives had carried out the work capability reassessments. We want to switch some of the assessment capacity that was being used ineffectively by the last Government, so that it will be used effectively in future. The second thing we want to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred to, is to increase substantially the proportion of assessments that are carried out face to face. Almost all of them used to be face to face, then came the pandemic, and for reasons that we all understand, they switched to being phone-based or occasionally video-based assessments instead. But once the needs of the pandemic had passed, face-to-face assessments were never properly switched back on. Telephony was retained as the main channel, with just a small number of face-to-face assessments restarting in 2021. In our view, that is not good enough.
There certainly has been data along those lines; I think it was data along those lines that made the previous Government think that they need not start face-to-face assessments again. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: to build confidence in the system, not least on the part of the people being assessed—I was speaking to somebody yesterday who said, “I wish that I’d had a face-to-face assessment”—and to make sure that the correct decisions are being made, we do need face-to-face assessments. By the time of the general election, only about 7% of work capability assessments and PIP assessments were being carried out face to face. We want to do a great deal better than that. It was not just that the resources for face-to-face assessments were not provided in the assessment contracts, although that was certainly part of the issue; the other factor was that the previous Government walked away from large amounts of the assessment estate so there were no longer enough places where face-to-face assessments could be carried out. That is a pretty fundamental problem. The hon. Member for South West Devon spoke about la-la land, but frankly, that is where the Government who she supported left us. We are therefore mounting a major rebuilding task to regain the capacity for face-to-face assessments that the last Government threw away, because our view is that these assessments should be done properly. We have started to rebuild the capacity that the previous Government threw away. We have increased the proportion of work capability assessments and PIP assessments carried out face to face, and we are on our way to achieving our target that at least 30% of both will be face to face. To achieve that, we need additional assessment resource; this measure is a key step in enabling us to obtain that.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not yet got to that bit in my list, but I am coming to it—I am looking forward to that part of my speech. The Conservative party is telling us that it would maintain its failed approach, with hardly any assessments being carried out face to face. That does at least have the benefit of consistency, I suppose, but we do not think it is good enough, and we will make the changes necessary to do far better. As my hon. Friend correctly highlighted, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, this change that we have announced will reduce benefits spending by almost £2 billion—£1.9 billion—over five years. We inherited an assessment system that was not equipped to do the job. The previous Government agreed contractual limits that meant at most 20% of assessments would be face to face. That was written into the contracts they signed, but there was not nearly enough capacity even to meet that level. We are having to fix a broken system, and we are making good progress, with the measure we are debating being an important step. The purpose of this straightforward change is to provide the Secretary of State the power to extend personal independence payment awards in a limited set of circumstances, where it is deemed necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration of benefits. Before the amendment, a decision to extend an award of PIP required either a new claim for PIP, evidence of an error or mistake in the first decision, evidence that the claimant’s circumstances had changed, or the completion of a report by a healthcare professional appointed by the Secretary of State. In many cases, that would involve a claimant undergoing an assessment. Where such a decision could not be taken before an award expired, claimants would cease to be entitled to PIP until a further decision was completed. They would remain so until a further decision on entitlement could be made. The amendment grants a specific discretion, making it possible to extend only the length of an award, and only where doing so is necessary for the administration of the benefit. As well as allowing the more efficient use of assessment resources, the discretion protects vulnerable claimants who would risk losing entitlement to PIP if, as in the pandemic, circumstances threatened to limit the state’s capacity to administer it. We are ensuring that the Department can lawfully maintain benefits payments to the most vulnerable people. The new power will be used initially to increase the length of existing awards in line with the policy on award lengths for new awards, for which the Secretary of State already has the power. Existing claimants’ awards will be extended so that most first-time awards for those over 25 will be reviewed after three years, and most subsequent awards will be reviewed after five. Only awards deemed to be appropriate for those durations will be extended. The Committee may well be interested to know that the average annual increase in the PIP caseload has slowed under this Government: it fell from an increase of about 13% a year in 2019-20 to 2024-25, to a forecast average of about 7% a year over the subsequent five years. The hon. Member for Horsham made a point about the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think he said that the committee had not looked at this; that is not correct—the committee has looked at it. It looks at all the regulatory changes that we propose, and it does a very good job. It plays an important role, and we welcome its scrutiny. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee asked questions, and we were happy to set out the purpose of the regulations and the reasons for them. The committee accepted the information that we provided, and it chose not to take the regulations on formal reference. I think the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about the committee’s view of this change. I am grateful for the points that have been made and the opportunity for scrutiny that the debate has provided. The changes we are making enable the Department to make more efficient use of limited assessment capacity, to reduce assessments where they are not needed in order to focus on where they are needed, and to allow PIP awards to be extended in an emergency or crisis, as emerged during the pandemic, thereby protecting some vulnerable people from unnecessary hardship. This is a measured amendment to ensure the effective administration of the benefits system. I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon will not press the motion to a Division, but I fear she probably will—her party issued a press release before this Committee to say that Conservative Members would vote to annul the amendment, possibly before they realised what exactly was going on. If that is the case, I urge the Committee not to vote against the amendment.
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Will she clarify her party’s position? Does the Conservative party think that more than 7% of assessments ought to be carried out face to face, or is it not really bothered about whether they are carried out face to face or over the phone?
It is a joy to serve when you are chairing, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this debate. He reminds us of his campaign for playgrounds, and I am sure that he will continue to be equally committed to the campaign that he is on with libraries. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister responsible for libraries, my noble Friend Baroness Twycross.
I absolutely agree. The hon. Member points out and underlines the richness, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East drew attention, of the role that libraries play in their communities. My hon. Friend talked about libraries in his constituency, especially Charminster library. I want to take this opportunity to strongly agree with those of his constituents who have sung the praises of public libraries, the value of which he so ably demonstrated in his speech. It is rare to find someone who does not believe that libraries are important to their communities. It is more than 175 years since the first Public Libraries Act, in 1850, and it is fair to say that libraries look a bit different from those originally established, but I like to think that even where the technology and style of delivery have changed, an 1850s library user from “Back to the Future” would recognise the core of what libraries do—they would recognise the shelves full of books and the knowledgeable library staff. Public libraries open up opportunity by democratising access to information and knowledge. They level the playing field by providing spaces for study and reflection.
My hon. Friend is right. A local library is a very special place. It is a place of potential in every sense of the word by introducing children to the world of reading, shaping young minds through Baby Rhyme Time and giving agency and choice to young readers—no book is the wrong book—but also by helping people of all ages to develop wider skills and, in particular, digital skills, supporting people to access the huge expanse of the digital world we now live in. Libraries provide inspiration, education and entertainment for many thousands of people every week. In particular, the act of reading expands our minds, opens up our thinking and makes us more tolerant. In a diverse country like the UK, every child should be able to see themselves represented in our literature and to read and learn about other children who are not like them.
Certainly. It is always a negative thing when libraries’ time is cut, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East demonstrated in his speech. It is important that we remember that the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires all local authorities in England to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service. I can confirm that that is binding on all library authorities, including Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. Public libraries are funded through the local government finance settlement. Each local authority is responsible for assessing the needs of its local communities and designing library services to meet those needs within its available resources. We recognise the financial pressures facing local authorities after 14 years of Conservative cuts. This Government are committed to restoring the stability of council funding, but there cannot be cuts of that scale over that period without a significant impact on services, including public library provision. The most recent local government finance settlement is our most significant step yet towards making English local government more sustainable. We are making good progress on long overdue promises to fundamentally update the way that we fund local authorities. We are delivering fair funding, targeting money where it is needed most. We are delivering the first multi-year settlement in a decade, simplifying an unprecedented 38 revenue funding streams worth almost £57 billion over three years. That should provide greater stability, certainty and flexibility for local authorities. It is important to note that the majority of funding in the local government finance settlement is not ringfenced for a reason. Local leaders are best placed to identify local priorities. It is for them to determine how funds are used to finance their activities to best meet local needs. For BCP, the settlement will make up to £499 million available in core spending power by 2028-29—an increase of 24.2% since 2024-25. The people of Charminster are clear about how they feel about their local library, and they want their council to make quicker progress to find a long-term solution to its closure. We hope the council hears that passion and the value that its residents place on the library, and weighs that in the balance as it make the necessary decisions. My hon. Friend also specifically asked about the Government’s superintendence responsibilities. It is for the local council to determine how it will meet its statutory duty to deliver a comprehensive, efficient library service. The Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has the statutory duty to superintend that provision in England, but we expect any council to be able to justify its decisions and to be clear about how local need has shaped the service in order to comply with the duty. Our guidance on libraries as a statutory service provides local authorities with clarity on their statutory responsibility. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport encourages local authorities that are considering making changes to their service to inform it about their proposals before public engagement or consultation. Between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, DCMS directly engaged with 40 local authorities, which involved 62 conversations either in person or virtually. None of those conversations took place with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has a statutory power to intervene by way of local inquiry if she considers that a local authority is not providing a comprehensive, efficient library service. She takes that role seriously, and should a complaint be made, Ministers will challenge the local council and carefully consider evidence before deciding if a local inquiry is needed. I can certainly take my hon. Friend’s request for the Libraries Minister to meet him and a delegation of Charminster library users back to the Department. My hon. Friend is right to say that the library is a vital community hub; we have heard other Members underline that point. Many people may be aware that on 2 March, the Government announced their intention to publish a new strategy for public libraries later this year. It will aim to restore their position at the heart of communities. We want libraries to be well run, well used and well connected. More than anything, we want them to have an impact in their communities. That work is ongoing; we hope to publish the strategy shortly and we appreciate the views and feedback that we have received, which helped to shape it. This debate questions the future of public libraries in Bournemouth East in particular. My hon. Friend has spoken with passion about the value of libraries in Bournemouth East, using the voices of the people who live there and their lived experiences. I have heard how much the people of Bournemouth East value their libraries and their anxiety about the future of the much-loved Charminster library. I hope that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council will carefully consider the options available to it. Question put and agreed to.
The rise in antisemitism is unacceptable; antisemitism has no place in Britain. It requires a whole-of-society response. That is why we are strengthening policing, and investing in record protective security funding to keep Jewish communities safe. We are also clamping down on antisemitic extremism, tackling antisemitism in schools and universities, ensuring that Arts Council England withdraws funding from those who promote antisemitism, and accepting all the recommendations in Lord Mann’s review on antisemitism and racism in the health service.
The hon. Lady speaks for the whole House in recognising the importance of celebrating and sharing Jewish culture, and that is why this month has been so valuable. She may be aware that an event was held in the Department for Education. We will leave no stone unturned to tackle antisemitism. Members on both sides of this House are committed to ensuring that no person from the Jewish community feels that they have to change their way of life, or what they wear, in order to be safe.
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. He is absolutely right that this hate and abuse must also be tackled online; that is why the Online Safety Act 2023 has robust provisions to protect people from online abuse. We have ended the era of self-regulation, and are enforcing strict legal duties that compel platforms to design out racial hatred and protect users. It is vital that this work continues, and that we step up active enforcement programmes that have been under way since March last year.
1. What steps she is taking to help tackle discrimination against trans people.
I recently spoke to a trans woman at my coffee morning. She was in tears, as she feels that life for trans people in Britain has gone backwards. She was always able to live and work in peace and dignity, but feels that her right to do that has been severely impacted, and she is worried about her chances of getting new jobs because of the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on, for example, toilets. Can the Minister reassure me and my constituent that this Government will fight to protect the rights of trans people in Britain?
Given that we are in a world of fake news, and the impact of that on public trust, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s work to modernise the prominence regime. The BBC is the jewel in our national crown. People have mentioned the cuts; it is a real shame that we are seeing cuts to really important consumer shows, like “Money Box Live”. Scams are everywhere, so these shows are vital to our nation. Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about the BBC and its importance to our nation?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. As I frantically go through the speech that I wrote before the statement today, I might end up saying a load of things that have been covered already, so I will snip it really short, mindful of the short amount of time that we have. I want to raise awareness of something I have already written to the Secretary of State about: the recent introduction of crippling electricity standing charges in the farming sector. I also want to put back on the agenda using the sustainable farming incentive to fund increased uptake of leguminous protein crops, and recognising the value of those crops as nitrogen-fixing tools in arable rotation. That would allow growers to optimise the efficient use of artificial fertiliser alongside strategically and environmentally beneficial crop production methods that also support domestic food production. I am mindful, as always, of the need to support our farmers—now more than ever. We need to show our farmers that we care by taking action to support and celebrate them. I very much look forward to reading in full this report in my hand. I could not be in the Chamber for the statement, but I look forward to watching that back and to listening to everybody else’s questions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for calling the debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed to it. The Government recognise the strength of feeling expressed today regarding our voting system, which after all sits at the heart of our democracy. We welcome open and constructive debate on the voting systems we use and their effectiveness, whether by long-standing Members or more recently elected Members. As set out in our manifesto and our strategy for modern and secure elections, the Government believe that strengthening our democracy, upholding the integrity of elections and encouraging voter participation are key priorities and fundamental responsibilities for Government. Our Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains a range of measures that will deliver on those commitments. As the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned, that includes protecting elections against foreign interference. It also means moving towards more automated voter registration, strengthening the resilience of our electoral processes and opening up democratic participation for the next generation by removing barriers to increased participation. Those are substantial electoral reforms, and the Bill represents the boldest and most ambitious change to our democracy for decades. It will help to keep our elections secure, build public trust and encourage more people across society to engage and participate. Turning to the specific matter of this debate, the Government recognise that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections. We believe that the first-past-the-post system works where people are elected to a body, such as a council or Parliament, where there is a mix of representatives from different parties and platforms. Although it is not perfect, the first-past-the-post system provides a robust, efficient and secure way of electing those representatives. It provides for strong and clear local accountability, ensuring a direct link between elected representatives and local constituents, as so ably demonstrated—and dare I say, embodied—by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The first-past-the-post system is also well understood by voters, and as such we do not want to make any changes just for the sake of it. At present, therefore, the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections or local council elections in England. For single-person executive positions, such as mayors or police and crime commissioners, the same reasoning does not apply, as they exercise their powers as individuals. We therefore believe it is appropriate to use a different voting system—the supplementary vote system—which allows voters to express a first and second preference, and which requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of the votes counted.
I will write to the hon. Member on that point, but I would say that the supplementary voting system ensures that mayors have a broader base of support from the people they represent. SV was the system used when the roles of mayors and PCCs were first established, and it was changed to first past the post following the Elections Act 2022. The Government have been consistently clear about our intention to revert the system back to SV. I refer the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) to the fact that we have already passed the necessary legislation to change it back in some cases. The change for other mayoral systems and police and crime commissioners will occur in due course, once the relevant measures in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 are commenced. The forthcoming mayoral election in Greater Manchester will therefore take place under SV, which we have always been clear is the most appropriate system for electing mayors. However, the electoral system we use is just one part of ensuring trust in our democracy. We are also strengthening the postal and proxy voting system to make it more resilient and responsive. We are introducing tougher political finance rules that will give electors more confidence in how political parties are funded and protect UK politics from foreign interference. And we recently launched a democratic engagement fund to provide £2.5 million to increase democratic participation. Turning to the points raised by other hon. Members, trust in our elections is important to everyone in this House, as referenced by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). That is central to what we are trying to do in the Representation of the People Bill. The Government recognise that our voting system is of fundamental importance in ensuring trust between elected representatives and the public. Although the first-past-the-post system is not perfect, it is a way of ensuring that elected representatives have a strong connection with their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about disengagement from voting. I would gently suggest that that was not borne out by the recent by-election in Makerfield, which saw high levels of participation. In reference to his remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) regarding the devolved Governments, we work closely with them; indeed, I met Ministers from Scotland and Wales yesterday to discuss our proposals for legislation and bringing them forward, so that we can learn and work together across our country. I think I have covered the comments about trust and involvement. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire, and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West and for Falkirk—asked about a national commission on electoral reform. We have no plans to set up such a commission and do not believe that doing so is appropriate or necessary at this time. The important reforms we plan to introduce as part of the Representation of the People Bill will ensure that our democracy remains secure and robust in elections going forward. To summarise, the Government are content that first past the post is the appropriate system for use in UK parliamentary elections and local council elections in England, and that the supplementary vote system should be used for single executive positions. We currently have no plans to make any further changes to that approach. Although I appreciate that that is disappointing news for many hon. Members in the room, we will continue to welcome discussion and feedback on this important topic. In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I support this technical but important correction. Section 27’s anti-avoidance provisions exist to prevent authorities facing dissolution from disposing of assets to avoid scrutiny, but their value depends on the reference date staying current. My constituency of North Somerset is a useful illustration of why this matters in the long term. It has been a unitary authority since 1996 and, even 30 years on, legacy questions around assets, contracts and historical boundary decisions can resurface. Updating the baseline in section 27 from December 2006 to 31 March 2025 is sensible housekeeping, which ensures that the consent regime keeps pace with present-day restructuring, rather than the baseline being tied to the 2008-09 wave of unitarisation. It is the kind of provision that must be kept under continual review so that it does not drift out of date in the same way a second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. My constituency is built on the backs of family farms that I have visited, many of them run by the same family for generations. I have had the privilege of sitting around kitchen tables with farmers and the NFU, and I hear the same thing time and again: making a profit from growing food in this country is almost impossible. However, North Somerset farmers do not do this job for the money; they do it as a way of life, and with the hope—often a distant one—that one day prices will allow them, or their children, to make a decent living from this land. I warmly welcome the long-term farming road map published today and the Government’s response to the Baroness Batters review. I also welcome the action on supply chain fairness and the transfer of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to DEFRA. That matters because farmers need a fair price. As a member of the Labour rural research group, I asked the Minister, as this road map is delivered, to keep welfare labelling firmly in view. It could put an extra £60 million into farmers’ pockets. LRRG research suggests British farmers are losing out by as much as half a billion pounds, undercut by lower-welfare imports. A mandatory tiered labelling system would build on the excellent foundations laid today. Farmers in North Somerset have waited a long time for a Government willing to back them with a genuine plan. Today, they have one.
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and showing her commitment to domestic food production. Supporting farmers should not just matter to those of us in this House who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies; it should matter to everyone, because it is so crucial for our national security. With that in mind, what support can we give to our farmers to ensure that they can buy equipment such as tractors from UK manufacturers and not have to rely on production elsewhere?