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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Discrimination against Trans People

   Since the Supreme Court judgment—and even more so since the code of practice was published—my constituents who identify as trans are contacting me daily. One has told me that he feels entirely pushed out of public life, and has had to leave his job due to customer harassment. He says that finding a new job is nigh on impossible. Does the Minister perceive that to be an intended or unintended consequence of the draft guidance, and will the Government please give Parliament the opportunity to vote on it?

   Hansard source
2. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Climate Change

   Last year was the worst on record for outdoor fires in Dorset. A part of my constituency burned for weeks on end, with many fires starting before others had been brought under control. I am really concerned that if we do not prepare better, we will be unable to manage the changes ahead. The Government’s resilience framework, which was published last year, mentions climate change less than six times. Perhaps that explains why the Climate Change Committee has repeatedly warned that UK preparedness is inadequate. Will the Minister look again at the resilience framework? Home-grown energy is a key way to adaptation and mitigation. Earlier this month, I called for offshore wind projects to be accelerated in Dorset, but we are told that those projects are a decade away—a decade in which average temperatures are expected to have increased by another quarter of a degree and in which well-paid, green jobs and associated economic growth in Dorset will be lost to our community. I must ask the Minister to look again at how we share green energy jobs around the country. My biggest concern is this: tomorrow is the final day of the planning appeal for another incinerator in Dorset. At a time when the Government have committed to a circular economy and expanded recycling, it is totally contradictory to continue to approve these plants. Government policy published in December 2024 stated that only plants with a clearly defined waste management need should go ahead, yet documents released this week on the Canford incinerator suggest that only 20% of the burned waste will come from the two council areas in Dorset. Furthermore, the carbon capture and storage facility pledged at the time of the development will not be built; there is just a commitment to regular updates on potential future feasibility. We are due to meet our net zero target in just 25 years, yet this incinerator will be burning waste for 40 years. That is 40 years in which we will be reducing waste and will need to bring waste from further afield to feed the monster. How can we claim to be serious about achieving net zero while enabling business models that depend on the long-term combustion of waste? When I visited Bearwood primary school last week, children urged me to do more to protect marine life. When I attended the national emergency briefing in Wareham last month, I was touched by the concern of residents about what they were seeing, sometimes for the first time. When I write back to those children next week, I want to tell them that this House listened, and when I speak at the national emergency briefing in Wimborne next week, I want to tell the people there that we recognise the scale of the challenge and the opportunity that is before us. I ask the Government to please pause decisions on new incinerator development so that we can achieve this carbon target, and to ensure the national emergency briefing reaches a wider audience with a prime-time screening by the public broadcasters.

   Hansard source
3. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Morrison

   Elections: First Past the Post

   It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate. Some months ago, I was in this room on the International Day of Democracy, and the concerns I raised then matter now more than ever. I have not seen a political discourse that is so polarised as it is today. Tensions have risen, divisions are deepening, and the public is losing faith in our democracy. I am proud that my constituency is a diverse community, bustling with local campaign groups and organisations. I love my work with those groups, building strong relations across all faiths, ages, ethnic groups and with people from all political backgrounds. However, I am not blind to the fact that more people voted for other candidates in the last general election than voted for me. The first-past-the-post system is a brutal way to determine the future of our country. It often creates a situation where winning candidates need only a small section of a community to back them, leaving many votes pointlessly cast and making some constituencies more important for determining the direction of our country than others. First past the post distorts our democracy leaving many unrepresented, unheard and disillusioned. It creates a winner-takes-all system that incentivises parties to work against each other and encourages those who want to divide our communities rather than unite them. We are at a crucial moment where progress can be made and where we can build a stronger, cohesive community. We have to make the right choice; we have to make proportional representation the default. We must strengthen our democracy and make people feel seen and heard. We must empower local people to shape their societies and build a politics that works for them. We must encourage politicians to work in collaboration. There will always be disagreements—that needs to be encouraged—but finding common ground and moving forward is the only way we can solve the huge questions that our country faces. The other option is to do nothing and carry on as we are, watching our politics become even more fractured and polarised. We could carry on with a system where parties chase the votes that will make them the winner and the others the losers, and where bad-faith actors are encouraged to divide our communities in an effort to secure the win. I hope that all Members in this room know which option is the right one and what the right path for our country is. We need proportional representation for a healthier, engaged and united society. This Government have made progress, but more needs to be done. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 was an opportunity for the Government to enact true electoral reform for local elections, but they chose not to do that. We must choose proportional representation as our default electoral system. I ask that the Minister reflects on the arguments made today and makes the right choice.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Morrison

   Bramhall High School: Condition of Buildings

   I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for attending this debate. He may recall that I wrote to the Department for Education last July and outlined that Bramhall high school is a fantastic institution that provides not only an excellent education, but a wealth of wider opportunities for young people in my Cheadle constituency. Despite the extremely poor state of its buildings, the school has continued to deliver for its pupils. I have seen at first hand the challenges that the school faces. The site is simply not fit for purpose. One of the blocks has no access to water or toilet facilities, the corridors are extremely narrow, meaning movement between classes is a constant battle for teachers, and pupils have been using temporary cabins since November 2023. So no one will be surprised to learn that the school was extremely pleased to be invited to be part of the school rebuilding programme, which offered everyone a fresh start and an exciting opportunity to create something that matched the school’s incredible ambitions. The school was presented with a number of options, including a full rebuild. That option would best serve the ambitions of the school and the wider community, and avoid further costly and disruptive work in the future. Rightly, the school hoped that this would be the way forward. We all believe that Bramhall high school could become a flagship project for the rebuild programme, with a legacy where long-term thinking is prioritised, students and teachers are empowered, and true potential is invested in. When I met the school’s leadership team a few months ago, the headteacher, Mr Williams, told me how proud he was that Bramhall high school provided a true, comprehensive education, where students’ skills, passions and talents would be catered for and everyone was given the chance to succeed. A new school would allow this to continue and enhance the fantastic offer that is already available, but sadly the Government have blocked Bramhall high school from receiving a full and complete rebuild, despite it being completely within the budget. I would like to set out in detail the problems that Bramhall high school faces and the disappointing experience that the school has had with the school rebuilding programme. The school’s buildings suffer from many significant design flaws and large parts cannot be used due to the risks of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. John Peckham, an ex-headteacher of the school who now works for School Improvers UK, says that it currently rates as the least inspiring education building in the country. He says that the design of the estate is poor and that repairing and refurbishing it simply would not help. John wrote to me to say that generations of children have been deprived of the opportunities and inspiration that can be promoted through good school design, and that the day-to-day lives of teachers were much more difficult as a result. The block with RAAC is over 60 years old and was last significantly invested in by Cheshire county council in 1974. The other block is ageing rapidly: built in the early 2000s, it will soon need serious investment and, as I mentioned previously, has no running water, kitchen or toilet facilities. Money has been spent on rewiring, new heating, asbestos removal and disability access, but none of those have addressed the fundamental issues that the school faces. A rebuild is more than 30 years overdue. We should not be at this point, the teachers should not be at this point and the pupils in the building should not be at this point. The school eagerly completed the school-specific brief and associated work under the assumption that it would get a complete re-build due to the state of the whole school site. The appointed contractor agreed that a complete rebuild would meet the criteria of the school-specific brief and also meet the school’s vision, all within the budget that was set. The contractor also emphasised reservations about a partial rebuild. But sadly, the Government have pushed for the partial rebuild, despite the evidence, specialist advice and budget showing that a full rebuild was the most sensible option. The leadership team and governors at Bramhall high school are dismayed and disappointed, and so am I. The partial rebuild does not meet the requirements of Bramhall high school-specific brief, it fails to meet the school’s vision and will not meet the school’s requirements or needs in the long term. Throughout the process, Bramhall high school was consistently told that funding would not be the main driver of the project. It was told that the project would be based on the needs of the school, its teachers and students, but clearly that is not the case and funding is indeed the main driver behind the Government’s decision. I ask the Minister: if effective use of the public purse is a driver behind the programme, why refrain from a full rebuild when it will make the estate more sustainable, help the school evolve to meet future challenges, create an estate that can last for decades and save costs going forward? A partial rebuild will cost the public purse more in the long term as it will end up being a sticking plaster, covering up cracks that really need to be filled in. The Government have a real opportunity to showcase how targeted, sensible capital investment can save money in the long term while achieving incredible results for our young people. They need to take this opportunity, but instead they have chosen minimal savings and a bigger cost down the line. That is short-sighted and will not achieve the goals of the rebuild programme. Another issue with the partial rebuild is that it will leave one block standing—the block without running water. Despite investment going into the school site, we will end up with one new, fresh block fit for the modern world next to a block that is falling apart and unable to function. It will leave parents wondering why only half the school can be given the best chance. When parents see the plans, they will be disappointed. It is not just the buildings that are the issue. We now know that the Government will not provide essential equipment such as new technology, desks and chairs, despite the allocated budget allowing for that. Bramhall high school will have to make up the shortfall of £650,000, and that does not include costs such as CCTV and other infrastructure. All Members across this House know that schools are operating on extremely tight margins with no surplus, and we all know that years and years of under-investment from the last Government has led to that. Mr Williams told me that he has to think carefully about replacing staff if they leave while also making cuts to department budgets to ensure that they still function, as with so many other schools. How is the school then supposed to pay more than £500,000 for desks, chairs and teaching equipment? The school has no choice but to appeal to the community for help. We find ourselves in a position where, despite the promises of a new school and the opportunities it would bring, Bramhall high school is having to go cap in hand to businesses and residents to source money so that pupils can have a seat. That is ludicrous. The root cause of the problem is a lack of long-term thinking, planning and investment. The previous Government oversaw a 48% decline in capital spending for education, and the National Audit Office reported that, as of October 2024, there is a £13.8 billion maintenance backlog in English schools. That is a really dire picture. The Government are showing a lack of ambition. We should be celebrating the plans that saw a full rebuild of this magnificent school, met the brief and, importantly, came within budget, but instead we find ourselves demoralised and trying to solve problems that did not exist until the Government made the wrong decision. That really leaves a bitter taste. The school and I are saddened and deeply disappointed by the Government’s position. Bramhall high school had hoped that being part of this new approach to rebuilding schools would set it up for the next 60 years at least. The headteacher told me that this is about the message sent to teachers—those who must deal with a declining block and adjust their lessons accordingly while looking out the window at a better block, unsure of why only half the school deserved better. When I spoke to him before writing this speech, he said that he would like to ask the Minister, “Are you really, truly trying to rebuild our schools?” We need a Government who plan for the future—for 20, 30 and even 40 years down the line. As the Chancellor stated last June, this is about showing children that their education matters and their future matters. Changes in policy and legislation also need to be accounted for. The Government’s proposed special educational needs and disabilities reforms ask mainstream schools to do more, but if they are not given the investment to create more space and resources, that simply cannot happen. For example, Bramhall high school is having to fund a SEND room for students, which will cost around £75,000, but it wants to do that to meet the educational needs of its students, now and in the future. That is a challenge it willingly accepts. At the beginning of this speech, I talked about how proud the teachers are of the curriculum they offer. They want to provide classes and experiences for children of all passions and skills, and that includes technology, design, drama and music—the subjects that create a fully rounded education. Any new build needs to have that at its very core. On top of that, any new school design must keep pace with new policies and legislation. Phone-free schools mean that there must be phone storage on site. It feels like the Department for Education is not in lockstep with the school and that this rebuild is being done to the team at Bramhall high school, not with them. That is a real shame and a missed opportunity. The potential benefits are never-ending; there is no shortage of research to confirm that investing in children’s schooling and education makes a better future for all. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that school spending can increase test scores and positive outcomes in the long run. I believe it is not too late for Bramhall high school; I believe that the Department has the chance at this moment to reconsider. It is not too late to give Bramhall high school the full rebuild it needs. The case is clear, and we know that the budget is there. If the Minister cannot agree to reconsider the decision today, I have three asks on behalf of Bramhall high school and schools across the country. Will he commit to improving the school rebuilding programme, to ensure that decisions are made hand in hand with schools and are not done to them, as seems to have happened with Bramhall high school? Will he update building regulations and design so that they keep pace with recent policy changes while ensuring that facilities match the vision and aims of the school? Finally, will he meet me and the school’s leadership team to discuss financial support for Bramhall high school in meeting the shortfall of equipment needed in the proposed new block and to hear at first hand their experiences of dealing with the programme? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

   Hansard source
5. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

   I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of her statement and I echo her thanks to Baroness Batters for her fantastic work on this issue. I also welcome the relatively new Farming Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), to his place. The Liberal Democrats welcome the production of a long-term vision for farming and look forward to engaging with Ministers on the details. The road map rightly states that “food production will remain the primary purpose of funding”, but it continues to leave England as the outlier. It is now the only country in Europe with a farm payment system that does not actively support farmers to produce food. The consequences are as inevitable as they are inexcusable: the loss of farm businesses and the loss of food security at this dangerous time. I ask the Secretary of State to think again. The road map also rightly observes the unfairness in the system, and that unfairness to farmers is a block to increasing output. Dairy farmers, especially, are right now being forced into ruin and despair because of unfair and sudden changes to farmgate prices, but there is no plan to strengthen or unify the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, two frankly weak and under-resourced referees with too few powers to protect our farmers from the abuse of market power from supermarkets and processors. Will the Secretary of State act, and if so when, to give us a strong referee to protect our farmers? The reopening of the SFI is welcome, as is the update on the upland review, but still the Government insist on a first-come-first-served application process which always disadvantages our poorest farmers. On the uplands, the continued failure to provide support for common land is leaving our most precious landscapes, which make up 25% of the land mass of my constituency in the Lakes and the Dales at the risk of wildfires and biodiversity collapse, while our upland farmers sink into greater poverty. Is the road map not warm words but cold comfort for the uplands? The review fails to put into practice the recommendations, in any serious way, of the Rock review on farm tenancies. [Interruption.] I will come to a conclusion. Does the Secretary of State not see that if tenants do not have protected long-term tenancies of at least eight years, they will have no chance of meeting the long-term environmental goals? Will she protect tenants from being evicted from their land in order to meet those goals? Very finally, this is a report—

   Hansard source
6. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

   Elections: First Past the Post

   It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate. The House of Commons Library has called the 2024 general election the least proportional election in British history. Labour won 411 seats out of 650—almost two thirds of the Commons—on a third of the vote. The problem is not that a party can win power; the problem is that first past the post inflates that power beyond what the public voted for. A system that turns one third of the votes into two thirds of the power and a massive majority is not representing the public’s choice; it is warping it. As we have all seen, it allows wildly unpopular policies to be forced through with little pushback. I may not agree with Reform, but they came third on vote share with around 14% and won just five seats. The Greens won roughly 7% and returned only four seats. The truth is that my own party, the Liberal Democrats, took 72 seats on around 12% of the vote. The system rewarded us where our support was concentrated. That means that under first past the post, where you live decides whether or not your vote counts. We have all been told that this gives us a strong and stable Government. Clearly, that is not true. A system that hands enormous power to one party on a minority of the vote does not produce consistency; it produces lurches. One Government builds solutions; the next tears them down and creates their own. I represent the Scottish seat of Mid Dunbartonshire. Scotland shows both how far reform can take us and why it must go further. The Scottish Parliament has used a form of proportional representation since its creation in 1999. Of its 129 Members, 73 are elected to represent 73 constituencies and 56 from regional lists using the D’Hondt system. That is a complicated system of proportional representation that very few voters fully understand. Last month at the Scottish elections, the SNP won 58 seats and was the party with the highest number of seats. Following a deal with the Scottish Green party, which had 15 seats, the Scottish Government are calling for the UK Government to agree to a second independence referendum. However, taken together, pro-independence parties now hold 73 of the 129 seats on around 43% of the vote.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

   Elections: First Past the Post

   What we need to aim for is a system where our constituents feel properly represented and that their vote counts. The parties that want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom won a majority of the votes at 56.7%, but a minority of the seats. As a litmus test, that result shows little change from the result of the 2014 independence referendum, which rejected independence by 55% to 44%. The votes cast in the 2026 Scottish election are not a mandate for a second independence referendum, despite what the First Minister might have us believe. That clearly demonstrates why it is so important that our democracy reflects voter intention. Instead, the case for independence has been thrust back to the centre of Scottish politics, taking attention away from the real issues such as our broken schools and hospitals. In 2022, Labour’s own conference voted for a proportional system. Its own national policy forum has recognised that the flaws in the current voting system contribute to the distrust and alienation that we see in politics, and it is widely acknowledged that we need to restore trust in politics. I ask the Government, at the very least, to agree to examine the system seriously, including how we elect Members and how a fairer system could be introduced. People should be able to use their vote to vote for something, not against something. Evey vote should carry the same weight, wherever it is cast and whoever it is cast for, and the only way we can achieve that is proportional representation.

   Hansard source
8. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steff Aquarone

   Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

   On-farm reservoirs can really help to reduce flooding and the need for water extraction, yet the Minister for Housing and Planning was rather dismissive of this during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Will the Secretary of State commit to taking steps to review permitted development rights, and can she give us some timescales?

   Hansard source
9. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steff Aquarone

   Climate Change

   My hon. Friend knows well about the issues of coastal erosion on the north Norfolk coast and the existential threat to communities such as Trimingham and Happisburgh. There is hard work being done by our local authorities and our Lib Dem councils through schemes such as Coastwise, and there is much more to do in the future, but does she agree with me that everything being done to protect those communities will be undermined by the worsening climate emergency, which has sped up erosion and will cause it to worsen further?

   Hansard source
10. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Elections: First Past the Post

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of first-past-the-post in general and local elections. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to be in an environment with such great air conditioning. “I am committed to proportional representation…I think it would change the political culture. I don’t see how first past the post and the point-scoring inherent within it lifts Britain out of the doom loop it is in.” Those words could have been spoken by any Liberal Democrat Member, in this Chamber or beyond, but they were not: it is a direct quote from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is believed to be the Prime Minister-elect. The quote not only highlights the need for proportional representation but underscores the limitations of first past the post, which the new right hon. Member for Makerfield identifies as causing political instability. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party before us have called for fair votes for a century, and I am delighted that the advocacy for change has a new voice in Parliament in the newly elected right hon. Member for Makerfield. The view should not be controversial among his colleagues, either: more than two thirds of the Labour party membership have voted in favour of adopting a system of proportional representation for UK elections. I look forward immensely to prospective new leadership in the Labour party representing the views of its members and finally ensuring fair votes for all. Of course, support for change is not confined to the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but shared across the House. In December 2024, my ten-minute rule Bill sought to introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary and local government elections. It passed in the main Chamber with cross-party support, including from 59 Labour MPs. It was a historic moment in the House, as it was the first time that the Commons had voted in favour of reforming our electoral system to bring in a fairer and more representative process. However, my Bill spent a year and a half awaiting its Second Reading before ultimately falling, because the Government failed to make time for it in the previous parliamentary Session. Concerns are often raised to me that a change of electoral system will benefit Reform UK and other right-wing parties. Ironically, of the four Reform MPs who voted on my Bill, one voted against change while Reform’s leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), abstained. In an era of multi-party politics, many parties are likely to benefit from a more proportional system. However, the Liberal Democrats are perhaps perfectly placed to neutrally make an argument in favour of the principles of proportional representation, as we received an almost exact proportion of votes to seats at the last general election. At last month’s local elections, the Liberal Democrats won every single seat on my local Richmond upon Thames council, but we won only 51.5% of the vote share. While the councillors will take every step possible to ensure that all residents are represented, the voting system produced results that disregarded 48.5% of voters in the borough. To repeat: the Liberal Democrats want electoral change on principle. To address the increasing lack of public trust in politics, it is essential that the electorate know that their voices matter equally, wherever they are in the country. First past the post has not been fit for purpose for decades, but it has perhaps never been more outdated than it is now. The growth of the multi-party system in our politics means that some constituency seats are being seriously contested by five, six or even seven different parties. A system that encourages competition from just two parties leads only to tactical voting: more than ever before, people are voting against a party that they do not want to win rather than for their first preference. With a fairer electoral system and more democratic institutions, politicians and parties will have to be more focused on the things that really matter to people. We will have better public services and a fairer society as a result, and people will feel more engaged with politics if they feel that their voices are being heard and represented. One of the leading arguments in favour of first past the post used to be that it produced stable Governments—I think that argument has fallen by the wayside. I could poke fun at former Conservative Governments, or even the current Labour Government, but it is important to highlight that the first-past-the-post system has proven to contribute to instability. This Government won 411 seats at the last general election with just 33.7% of the vote. The consequence of that has been clear: two thirds of people did not vote for a Labour Government, and, although the Government have made decisions that have not helped them, public opinion was against them from the start. It is obvious that our electoral system needs to change. The man we believe will be Prime Minister is in favour of proportional representation and the Labour party is in favour of proportional representation. The House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, and the last decade of governance has done nothing to convince me or the general public that first past the post produces stable governance. Our politics is not fit for purpose, and reform can begin with changing how we elect Members of Parliament to ensure that UK residents’ views are fairly represented in this place. I understand that the Minister cannot commit to changing our electoral system, but I ask her whether that could be considered by a future Labour Government, or even the one set to continue under new leadership.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Elections: First Past the Post

    In this place, we have recently changed the voting system for metropolitan mayors. Can the Minister comment on whether the voting system for the London Mayor will be changed before the 2028 London mayoral election?

    Hansard source
12. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Elections: First Past the Post

    Thank you for your chairing the debate, Mr Turner. It is interesting that the majority of voices in the room have argued against first past the post, when all of us are here because we were elected under that system. That shows how even those of us who have—dare I say—benefited from the system recognise its flaws and are here to make the case for change. That is because we operate in the system that first past the post has built, and we all recognise that it forces us to behave in ways we do not feel comfortable with and creates obstacles to achieving the change we want. I want to pick up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). First, I thank him for reminding me that I demonstrably have a better constituency than he does. He made a point about turnout. He was trying to make the case—I am not sure how well it landed—that it is all our fault that turnout is not better because we need to be better politicians. I put it to him that we behave in the way we do because our voting system forces us to do. I want to particularly mention the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), who made the case really powerfully in his speech. I thank all other hon. Members who contributed, but particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). They all made excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) taught us all a great deal more about Edinburgh council than I think we were aware we needed to know, but I am grateful for it. The Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) commented on the “bearpit” of PMQs and how badly that actually goes down with our constituents, and that point was also picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds. This is a topic to which the Liberal Democrats certainly intend to return. I thank the Minister for her comments and hope we will meet again. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the use of first-past-the-post in general and local elections.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Gibson

    Climate Change

    I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank the Minister for the time she has given to such an important topic. In its report on this budget, the Climate Change Committee clearly stated that behavioural change is essential to achieving the carbon reductions we need. However, the seventh carbon budget prioritises emerging technologies and greenhouse gas removals, a strategy that courts failure if those technologies do not deliver. Equally as important, it runs the risk that large parts of the population will be left downstream. The public need to see direct benefits from decarbonisation, and they need to feel that it is something they can be part of—as the seas rise, there has to be space for everyone on the boat. I would like to draw the House’s attention to one particular area that has already been mentioned by colleagues, which is the decarbonisation of our homes. In 2022, emissions from residential buildings accounted for one fifth of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, yet the Climate Change Committee has admitted that retrofitting existing dwellings is not going to be one of the easiest bits to shift. I speak on this topic as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, as an officer on the future homes, skills and innovation all-party parliamentary group, and as an architect by trade. Decarbonising our existing homes is essential to achieving our carbon budget, and the public need incentives, clear information, consumer protection and accountable technical advice. The warm homes plan is a step in the right direction, but it already risks making some of the same mistakes that past Government-funded retrofit schemes encountered. I have a doctor in my constituency who, with the best will in the world, tried to put external insulation on her home, only to find that it was damp. Before she even sent me the photographs, I knew exactly what the cause was, but what was really worrying was that she did not, and neither did her installer. Without sufficient knowledge, neither contractors nor occupiers can make the right decisions for their homes. If you were having a knee replacement, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not expect to need to source your own surgeon, book your own operating room and then decide which implant material is the most appropriate, because that is a complex and expert-led process. However, so is retrofitting a home. That is why I am asking for technical support for those applying for Government funding, from an initial analysis through to installation support and final sign-off. We need people to trust in the decarbonisation process, or we risk alienating the communities necessary for its success. It takes only one horror story for the surrounding community to become nervous, and it takes only one media circus for that to spread. The warm homes plan is a fantastic opportunity to realise significant change in one of the stickiest and most difficult areas, but if the seventh carbon budget is to succeed, retrofitting our existing housing stock must be an essential part of that. It cannot be left on the “too difficult” pile. It represents a threefold benefit: it decarbonises people’s homes; it reduces energy bills; and it improves quality of life. I would be delighted to meet the Minister to set out a plan for how we can make retrofitting viable and take it off that “too difficult” pile. For this carbon budget to succeed, we need a clear road map. We need those contingency plans, and we need to make sure that while this Government are leading internationally as an example to others, they are bringing the whole community with them.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    Farming: Financial Sustainability

    It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing this important debate. Farmers are the foundation of communities across the country, but British farming is in crisis—not a crisis of effort or ambition, but a crisis of confidence that successive Governments have chosen to ignore. Chris, a farmer in Babcary, has spent his whole life in agriculture, building a business worth passing on to his son, but Chris has terminal prostate cancer. For 18 long months, what caused him the greatest anxiety was not his health, but the tax bill his son would soon face following the Government’s cut to agricultural property relief, should he not survive seven years. I know how he feels, as I had very similar painful conversations with my mother. Like many farmers across the country, I was relieved when the Chancellor has moved the threshold to £2.5 million, but the family farm tax should be axed altogether. Somerset farmers are struggling because successive Governments have let them down. The Conservatives gave farmers a kick in the teeth with their £358 million underspend on the farming budget, and Labour has delivered more of the same: a family farm tax with no consultation, a real-terms DEFRA budget cut of 2.3% a year, a farming budget slashed by more than £100 million and the closure of the SFI last year without notice. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, and we will keep opposing every policy that treats our farmers with disdain rather than lifting them up, because they are critical to our national security. Jonathan, who farms in Little Weston, looked to the Rural England Prosperity Fund, only to find that DEFRA excludes farmers who want to diversify into food and drink. It is a fund for rural businesses to apply to, but it excludes adding value to the very products that farms produce. DEFRA also promised uplifted stewardship payment rates in April, but that promise has not been fulfilled, and there is no clear route from old schemes to new ones. The Government are asking farmers to transition and then shutting the door in their face. British farmers are the best in the world, and the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion a year into the farming budget so that they can continue to produce high-quality food for our tables while protecting and enhancing our natural environment. We would set payments over 10-year periods and ensure that every farmer has a route from old schemes into new ones. In February I visited Andrew Moon, a third-generation pig farmer based in Baltonsborough who has more than 400 sows. His business is fighting for survival. Without warning, processors demanded a 30% cut in production, but Andrew asked a question that I could not answer: if farmers are forced to cut herds by 30%, where will the pork come from? Perhaps the Minister can help me answer that question. Producers are being squeezed out of their own supply chains, with no commitment from retailers and no consultation—just an immediate demand to produce less. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a strengthened Groceries Code Adjudicator, with real teeth, to protect producers like Andrew, as well as public procurement that supports high-standard food and a guarantee that future trade deals will never undercut British farmers. Yesterday marked 10 years since the Brexit vote, and it would be remiss of me not to address the impact that it has had on British farming. The botched deal has strangled trade across our food, farming and fishing industries. Every border check, every lorry held at port and every delayed consignment is a cost absorbed somewhere in the supply chain, and it is rarely the supermarkets that suffer. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to sign a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, so that Somerset’s pork, cider and cheese reach European shelves without the paper eating into their profit. We are sleepwalking into dependency on fragile global supply chains and into a crisis of empty fields and empty plates at home. The Government must treat farming as critical infrastructure, because Britain is not secure unless food supply is secure. That means providing long-term financial security for our farmers.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

    Instability in the middle east is a stark reminder that food security cannot be taken for granted. British farmers are the best in the world and they get up every single day to put food on our tables. While I welcome the farming road map, it lacks real ambition for farmers and food security. Will the Secretary of State commit to a good food Bill that backs British farmers and puts long-term food security at the heart of Government policy?

    Hansard source
16. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Engagements

    Q14. Tony Blair suggested that at the beginning of his premiership he was at his most popular and least capable, and talked about ending his time in office at his least popular and most capable. For the sake of people in the south-west and across the country, what tips can the Prime Minister offer his successor?

    Hansard source
17. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

    The Great South West pan-regional partnership produced an agrifood growth plan which I commend to the Secretary of State. It was launched by Baroness Batters back in February. The south-west region accounts for one third of England’s dairy farms and makes an outsized contribution to the UK food system. How will the Government’s farming road map affect farmers in the south-west in particular?

    Hansard source
18. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Climate Change

    The real choice before us is whether we prepare our economy for the future or watch other countries seize the opportunities that we allow to pass us by. The UK has every reason to be proud of its record on international climate leadership and diplomacy. The Climate Change Act 2008 has become a model for climate governance around the world. Some 76 countries have followed the UK’s lead in developing climate governance frameworks and we have stood at the forefront of international co-operation on the issue, positioning Britain as a key player in securing the 2015 Paris agreement and COP26 in Glasgow. We have shown that reducing emissions and building prosperity can be complementary: this is not just an environmental question but an economic one. Recent years have shown that the cost of our dependence on fossil fuels is serious. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit suggests that the energy crisis following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine cost the UK more than £180 billion, including a rise in food price inflation of 19%, whereas the economic opportunities are significant. Britain’s green economy now supports around 1.1 million jobs and generates more than £100 billion. It is one of the fastest growing parts of our economy, creating productive, well-paid jobs across manufacturing, engineering and technology. Whether Britain embraces the energy transition or not will not change whether the transition happens. The question instead is whether the jobs, the investment and the expertise are located here or somewhere else. History rarely rewards those who cling to yesterday’s technologies when the world is investing in tomorrow’s. Members need not trust me on this point; they should trust the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. On 23 June 1914, Winston Churchill was being travailed in this House by MPs who were pursuing an old energy source in the face of a new one. On the eve of the first world war, Churchill pursued oil for powering the ships of the Royal Navy in the face of MPs who pressed the case for coal. This was long before Britain had access to our own oil, but Churchill could see that this new technology was going to change the way that the 20th century would be powered. A century later, we are faced with another transition, from fossil fuels to clean energy generation. That is particularly relevant where I live in south-west England. Yesterday afternoon, I hosted the Great South West new nuclear futures event here in Parliament. This debate is ultimately about whether Britain chooses to lead or to follow. It is about whether we develop the industries of the future or allow others to forge ahead. The cost of inaction will ultimately be far greater than the cost of transition.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Farming: Financial Sustainability

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I rarely miss an opportunity to speak about farming in this place. It was a privilege last October to be elected by Government MPs as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on farming. I suspect that there is too often a perception in Whitehall that farmers do rather well. Land rich? Perhaps. Cash rich? Rarely. It is too rarely acknowledged that many farmers earn little more than £20,000 a year. My region, the south-west, has the lowest average farming business income of anywhere in the country, at just £35,100 per farm. My farmers are not landed gentry. They are people who work with their hands. They are up before dawn, toiling through the winter. As I said in the House yesterday, the Brexit deal we ended up with has strangled trade in food, farming and fishing. We need a comprehensive sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the Europeans as soon as possible. It would reduce trade friction and lower costs for farmers directly. The effects of getting things wrong in this area spread far beyond the farm gate. As farms fall, so do butchers, delivery drivers, packagers, suppliers, labourers and contractors. The elephant in the room is that food security is national security. There is simply no substitute for a farmer. Without them, we all go hungry.

    Hansard source
20. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am sure that the whole country joins you in finding it difficult to deal with this heat and to perform to the best of one’s ability. I am thinking about those students who are sitting GCSE and A-level exams this week. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. We have heard how seriously we are considering our current and future jobs for oil and gas workers in the North sea and in the new renewable energy sector. Families across the country and businesses are struggling with skyrocketing energy bills. We are also seeing hits to our economy and avoidable deaths from a warming planet. This week, we have had the first red alert under our new UK Health Security Agency alert system, alerting us to the climate impacts of global warming. Less than a month ago, families and households received the news that, once again, their energy bills are going up, this time by an average of 13.5% or £221 a year—what we could call a Trump tax. We know that rising energy bills are one of the biggest worries facing households and businesses. They bring stress, anxiety and uncertainty, and they are plunging more and more people into unaffordable debt. Right now, energy debt in the country is about £5 billion, and it is due to rise exponentially. Also, our businesses are seeing some of the highest industrial energy prices, making us as a country among the least competitive, which is hitting our economy. Families, too, will now be bracing themselves for the next price cap announcement and wondering how much they will have to pay through the colder winter months. The reason for these spikes in our energy bills is clear: our dependence on the rollercoaster of volatile global fossil fuel markets. The energy crisis is an oil and gas crisis. Just as with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the middle east conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses exposed to shocks entirely beyond their control. That is not inevitable. In Spain, an increase in renewables has seen the Spanish electricity market go from the 10th most expensive in the EU to among the cheapest. But as we have heard in this debate, a transition will not happen without a careful, concentrated and accelerated focus on the oil and gas we need today, on the renewables that we need to scale up, on the infrastructure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, on the jobs and, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned, on the culture and identity involved in this change. We need a serious and honest debate about this transition. Even proponents of the “Drill, baby, drill” argument from the Conservatives and Reform have recognised that further expansion of oil and gas production in the North sea, a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93%, will do nothing to cut people’s energy bills. Any oil and gas extracted is sold on the international market to the highest bidder.

    Hansard source
21. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I thank my right hon. Friend. We have many discussions about this issue, and he is absolutely right to point out that it is complex. We know that if we extract beyond what has already been licensed, the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of global supply, particularly of oil, even if new licences are given. It will not cut bills, and it will not shield us from global price shocks. The next argument is about UK energy security. On that point, Members from across the House have admitted that most of the UK’s recoverable North sea oil and gas has already been extracted.

    Hansard source
22. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend; I will be coming on to exactly that point. For more than a decade, the previous Government had a policy of maximising North sea oil and gas extraction and of removing and reducing taxes on oil and gas companies. With the issuing of hundreds of new licences in a maturing basin, what we have seen produced after 14 years is little more than a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security. We know, and have admitted in the debate, that we have to reduce our dependency on gas and come to a transition. The Liberal Democrats recognise not only that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but that the North sea’s most productive years are behind it. That is why we support a managed and just transition away from North sea oil and gas, with investment in renewables at its heart, and strong support for the workers and communities most affected. Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on and have contributed enormously to our economy. They deserve our support through transition—not just words—and honesty about the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of a just transition commission and an acceleration of the clean energy jobs necessary. Under the Conservatives, jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000, and at that time we did not hear the cries that we hear now about what is happening or how those workers are being supported. I grew up in Hull, a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transitions—from coal and from the cod fisheries—and through my father’s work as a GP, I saw the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. We cannot repeat those mistakes. No community should be left behind. In Hull today, when I go back, I see what success can look like: the manufacture of offshore wind turbines by Siemens; the Humber region pioneering the offshore wind industry; investment creating skilled, well-paid jobs now and for the future. Confederation of British Industry economic data has shown that beyond Hull, across the country, the new green economy underpins the jobs of 1.1 million workers throughout the UK, generating £105 billion in gross value added. That is the model we should be scaling up towards, with our skilled oil and gas workers and the supply chains front and centre of the transition. Finally, in this sweltering heat, with this first ever red health alert for danger to life from extreme heat, we must recognise the costs of failing to tackle climate change. This week has shown us the future we face if we do not act—lives lost to extreme heat, schools closed, fields parched, transport networks gridlocked and economic costs spiralling. Climate breakdown is a national security threat, driving instability, displacement and economic shocks. It is incumbent on us to do all we can to avoid worsening climate shocks, so we must find a way forward through electrification that balances cheaper energy bills and security of energy supply, and meets our climate commitments. The future of the North sea plays a vital role in that endeavour of transitioning from being a net exporter of oil and gas in the past to becoming a net exporter of home-grown green energy—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said—again trading in the EU internal electricity market and joining North sea countries in meeting joint offshore wind investment goals, while decarbonising the gas production we will still need for decades to come. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify whether he agrees with the Liberal Democrat proposal: a just transition commission, acceleration of clean energy jobs, and our essential energy guarantee, to ensure that all families have their basic energy needs met. In addition, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about the identity and culture of the communities that have to face this transition. That, too, is crucial. The sooner we embrace the transition and the sooner we can deliver a secure and affordable energy system, the sooner we can finally give families the lower, stable bills that they deserve.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    I thank the Minister and the Government for allowing a good length of time for us to debate and give due consideration to this issue of national security, just as it demands. On the day that we are debating the draft Carbon Budget Order 2026, which aims to balance our carbon emissions from 2038 to 2041, it has just been confirmed that we have surpassed the UK’s record June temperatures, which were set in 1976. The record has been surpassed in Charlwood in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan). The Met Office has also issued a red warning for extreme heat this week, with temperatures likely to hit 40°C, but once again the UK is woefully unprepared because we keep putting our head in the sand. Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is here with us today and the consequences are already being felt. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), asked about costs. This week alone, hundreds of schools have closed. GCSE and A-level students are taking what may be the most important exams in their lives in sweltering conditions, in schools unfit for the current temperatures. Public transport is gridlocked and trains are being cancelled today. Telecommunications are down and the economy faces hundreds of millions of pounds of lost productivity and infrastructure failures. Turning to the public health costs, last summer’s heatwaves contributed to an estimated 16,500 avoidable excess deaths across Europe, with 1,504 heat-associated deaths last year in the UK alone. We know that that is affecting our elderly and the most vulnerable.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    Absolutely, I agree with the hon. Member. Let us no longer hide from this, but look it clearly in the eye: there are clear costs. They are no longer in the future; they are here now. There are costs to our economy, but also to our communities. Let us talk about food costs. Food supplies are coming under increasing pressure. Three of the UK’s worst harvests on record have occurred within the last five years, hitting our farmers and driving up costs for families at every shop. Floods and wildfires are making homes uninsurable and putting lives and livelihoods at risk. But this is much more than a story about a few hot days. If we think that this week’s heat is uncomfortable, the difficult truth is that what today feels exceptional will increasingly become normal, and without purposeful climate action, it will keep on getting worse.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    Like the hon. Member, I regularly meet young people across my constituency. I find it hard to look my children and children in my constituency and beyond in the eye, because that is one of the things they talk about the most. I challenge any MP in this Chamber to say that they do not receive those emails or have those meetings in schools where this issue is brought up. I feel that responsibility deeply, and I believe that that feeling is shared across the majority of those in this Chamber. Without action, we risk handing our children and the next generation a Britain where extreme heat regularly keeps children out of classrooms. Did we not learn from covid, during which the more disadvantaged were left behind because they were told to go home? They did not have large homes, cool gardens or broadband, and that is happening yet again this week. We will have a Britain in which thousands die prematurely each summer and in which water scarcity, with a deficit of 5 billion litres a day of public water, is a reality. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, which is one of the most water-stressed in the country, this issue is affecting growth right now, so we know how critical it is.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for her passionate defence and her knowledge on this issue. I worked for 20 years in east Africa, southern America and the Caribbean on UK climate policy, including under the previous Conservative Government. I saw countries already facing water shortages and what that meant: devastating crops and economies, and putting countries into recurrent economic recession. We must be committed to net zero emissions by 2050 because the science when the former Government agreed this—

    Hansard source
27. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    Perhaps I would contest the fact that we cannot equate the emotion with a rational mind as well. These are science-based targets that the hon. Member’s Government agreed to set. What is recommended in the carbon budget order is set by the independent Climate Change Committee, with robust figures, and the science has shown us that this is our best chance to limit warming to under 2°. Global collective action avoided—at least for now—a 4° warmer world, and as I understand it, the Treasury has accepted modelling to show that we have accepted a 2° warmer world. It means that every Department will have to look at what a 2° warmer world means and how we adapt to that. I agree, however, that the impact on our industry, with some of the highest energy prices, means that it is less competitive. Let us therefore work together and focus directly on how we can get energy bills down. The Liberal Democrats welcome the seventh carbon budget, and we are glad that the Government have accepted the advice of the robust and science-based Climate Change Committee, which puts us on a consistent and achievable pathway to meeting net zero while building a fairer and thriving new economy.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    I very much appreciated the work that the hon. Member did in her former role, and we were together at that COP meeting. Yes, I congratulate the Prime Minister, but I also congratulate former Prime Ministers. I was working internationally, and I worked on the macroeconomic budgets of developing countries, particularly the emerging economies, and we saw what they could do to follow the UK’s lead and leapfrog technologies in their economies. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, which is why it is disappointing to hear from those on the Conservative Front Bench that they want to delay science-led targets and oppose environmental action, which would lead the world in a more insecure and uncertain place, and leave businesses without the certainty they need. I urge them to help us rebuild the consensus that we need. It can only smell of a desperate attempt at political opportunism to join Reform and gamble with the lives and livelihoods of future generations.

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    I will look forward to seeing its answer when you send a letter back—

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    When a response to the letter comes back. Let us talk about the economics.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    The answer to that is in two ways. First, we must take gas out of the system as much as possible. Secondly, we must fix a broken electricity market. The way we charge customers and businesses right now is broken, and we need to change that. I do not believe in what happened under a previous Government, when George Osborne as Chancellor reduced taxation on oil and gas companies three times. By the end of that we had negative receipts to the Treasury, because we were also looking at decommissioning exemptions. Until some of the windfall tax profits came in, negative receipts were coming into the Treasury at that point. If we talk about the economy, let us talk about the transition. As we have already heard, research from the CBI and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows that the green economy is already contributing more than £100 billion and over 1 million new jobs. Clean power and decarbonisation are about growing our economy, creating those jobs, lowering energy bills and strengthening our energy security. Although we welcome the carbon budget, setting targets is the easy part; delivering them is what counts. That is why we look forward to the Government’s delivery plan and seeing the steps that will be taken, because we worry that there is a risk they will fall short. The carbon budget will take much more than decarbonising our power supply and cannot be delivered in a centrist way from Whitehall alone. We Liberal Democrats want to see more action and ambition from this Government, not a focus on energy alone. Emissions reductions will be experienced in people’s lives, and not just environmentally but economically, through changes in how homes are heated, how people travel and how energy is used. Local authorities, communities, farmers and businesses will be required to be partners in delivering change. We will have to double our efforts to restore nature, which is one of our most powerful tools for tackling climate change, by more generously supporting our farmers to accelerate tree planting and peatland restoration. But please, we should not treat nature protections as a blocker to economic growth. I ask the Government to get rid of the lazy, reckless rhetoric that divides climate and nature, rather than seeing them as indivisible necessities. We will also have to increase powers and funding for local authorities and communities to implement credible local climate and nature delivery plans.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    I feel deeply about what my hon. Friend says. He is a well-known champion for rural and coastal communities that are facing such an insecure future, not knowing whether their homes will still be standing and whether they will be insurable. That is definitely something we need to look at. Most importantly for this carbon budget, as we have heard from Members across the Chamber, electrification across key sectors is the key to rapidly reducing emissions and helping households to cut bills. Today, the Climate Change Committee has warned that progress in electrification has slowed, with heat pump installations up just 7% this year compared with 56% the year before. What is more, the share of electricity in industrial energy use fell last year, so we must see greater acceleration of electrification.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    My hon. Friend often brings that issue up in the Chamber and in the Select Committee. We have to fix the broken system whereby households and businesses do not feel the benefits of cheaper renewable energy from solar and wind. Finally, the Liberal Democrats believe that building public confidence in the transition to net zero requires people to see the benefits in their own communities. That means empowering those best placed to deliver change on the ground. Local authorities, community organisations and local leaders understand the needs of their areas, can bring people with them and are uniquely placed to turn national ambition into practical action. We need regulatory change so that community energy projects can sell energy locally, but those bodies can also take action on better public transport, warmer homes, nature restoration or street-by-street electrification. Too often local climate action remains fragmented, underpowered and dependent on short-term funding. Critically, local authorities still have no statutory responsibility for delivering net zero for climate and nature duty. Such responsibility has been voted down every single time it has been introduced in devolution legislation. Will the Minister look at placing local authorities at the centre of delivery of the seventh carbon budget by legislating for a clear climate and nature statutory duty for local authorities, and by ensuring that they have the funding and powers needed to unlock these opportunities? Many Liberal Democrat Members have been local councillors and we know that local authorities can do that, together with local people. Climate change will not wait and neither should we—the time is now.

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Climate Change

    Can the hon. Lady confirm by when China said it will meet its net zero commitment?

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Elections: First Past the Post

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, for her passionate opening remarks and for her courage and nobility in potentially being willing to sacrifice the North Korean-esque majorities that our party achieved in the recent local elections. I fear that, given the heat, there would be frayed tempers if I made my speech about the relative merits or otherwise of alternatives to first past the post. Instead, I shall make the case for how change could make a major contribution to fixing our politics, because so much of what is holding our country back is one party or another—it does not really matter which one—having undiluted power, and not having other parties in government to be the voice of conscience, alternative ideas and challenge. That is one of the reasons why we have yet to make progress on social care, despite innumerable reviews and commissions on how we should resolve that very challenging issue. As other hon. Members have said, first past the post has not succeeded in delivering political stability over the last decade, because we have had seven Prime Ministers in 10 years. We also see the phenomenon manifesting in other ways: stop-start decisions on transport or various Governments enthusiastically advocating for different devolution models, rather than as many of us as possible uniting on one. When researching for this debate, I wondered what fuels our apparent fear of moving away from first past the post. Nearly all the other countries in the world that have that voting system are former parts of the British empire. That shows a positive thing about Britain in the sense that the empire and its legacy have helped to introduce democracy, or at least forms of it, to large parts of the world. However, some former members of the empire have found themselves able to make progress and move on. Australia and New Zealand are two countries that we greatly admire, and they have decided to ditch first past the post in favour of something else. In the meantime, we have to ask ourselves whether proportional representation is really so bad. We seem to think it is not in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so what is it about introducing a proportional voting system that has England trembling in fear and terror at the very idea? It is almost as if we think civilisation would end if England were to embrace some of these concepts. We are already seeing how parties can work together when there are fractured election results, as recent English council elections have shown that we have the capability to have multi-party negotiations and multi-party local governments. We should embrace that maturity and hope to have it in this place one day as well. The current Prime Minister’s love of first past the post was shown in a remarkably clear answer when I asked him recently whether he thought it can still deliver strong and stable government. He gave me a three-word answer: “Yes, I do.” I suppose it remains to be seen whether the next Prime Minister, whoever they may be, will agree with him. Looking to the future, as well as the prospect of a new Prime Minister and perhaps a new way of thinking on these topics, we do not need to debate which voting system to choose to replace first past the post. That is not the next best step; a national commission for electoral reform could properly look at the pros and cons of the options and think through the matter. We saw the support for that in the 143 signatories to an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel): 81 Labour signatures, 48 from the Liberal Democrats and the rest from many other parties, though interestingly none from Reform UK, despite its past commitment to proportional representation. That might be another issue where it finds itself embracing establishment thinking, despite telling us that it is the radical saviour of our future. For now, it is over to the Labour party, which is commanding a remarkable 18% support in opinion polls, to determine our future. [Interruption.] That is the polling average, I say to the hon. Gentleman speaking from a sedentary position. We should only look at polling averages, never individual ones. I conclude with a direct appeal to whoever is the next Prime Minister. There seems to be a lot of reporting on who that is likely to be but, as I have not notified that individual, I shall avoid naming them. Let us hope that the expectation and hype around the possible next Prime Minister are justified, because this is about changing our politics for the better and for good. It is about embracing the most meaningful change for transforming our political culture: proportional representation. We need that for social care, political stability and empowering our region.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Elections: First Past the Post

    Given the hon. Gentleman’s faith in the first-past-the-post system, does he have any theories as to why turnout in our elections tends to be significantly lower than in comparable western European countries?

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Farming: Financial Sustainability

    Thank you, Mr Turner—I am in a state of astonishment at being called first. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for his articulate opening speech. Most of what I am going to say follows a recent farm visit and farmers’ roundtable. I thank the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association for arranging that, the 20 attendees who gave their time, and Robert Clayton for having us at Mill Farm in West Hendred. Three key challenges face farmers in my constituency and across the country. The first is the question of regulation and costs, with the impact of the Iran war a major concern on top of existing Brexit-related challenges, with red diesel and fertiliser subject to major inflation, and electricity standing charges for farmers having risen by 44% to 91%. Secondly, prices incentives and food culture need to change. We need to strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is welcome to finally see a Government response to the Minette Batters profitability review today, but fundamentally what farmers raise is a lack of Government understanding and listening to farmers about the challenges that they face. Thirdly, we need more investment and funding for our farmers. Food security should be thought of in the same way as wider national and defence security. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for investing £1 billion extra in environment land management schemes, so that we can properly support our farmers and make sure they contribute to a resilient food supply chain.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Joshua Reynolds

    Media Green Paper

    Over recent weeks, one of the most frequent adverts served to me and many others on X is an AI-generated fake image of a Member of this House fighting with the Governor of the Bank of England. When half of adults cite social media as one of the sources from which they get their news, can the Secretary of State confirm what conversations she has had with colleagues in DSIT to make sure that these fake-news social media adverts do not become our news?

    Hansard source
39. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The hon. Gentleman comes to the crux of what we mean by a transition. The difficulty for the Government is that, on the current trajectory of development, we risk reducing at a speed that means we will lose the critical infrastructure and end up pushing the whole industry off a cliff. If we do that, we will have no just transition.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    Much of what the hon. Lady says is correct, but she is setting oil and gas up in opposition to the development of renewables, when they absolutely are not. I do not believe there is a long-term future for the oil and gas industry, but we will need oil and gas in the future. We are talking not just about the long term, but about the short to medium term. That is the whole point of a transition: it is about how we get from here to where we want to be. There is no way of getting to the renewables future without going through oil and gas first.

    Hansard source