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
I, too, hope that the right hon. Lady remains in place, and I thank her for bringing forward the road map. On behalf of the livestock and arable farmers in North Dorset, Blackmore Vale and Cranborne Chase, what should they be looking for in this road map to support and enhance livestock farming and to lead to further investment in agritech, which will boost production while leaving a far lighter environmental footprint on their farming?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The farming sector is vital. I know that because 88% of my constituency is agricultural land. Farms are a unique sort of business because they not only have to make our food and protect our countryside but, like all businesses, have to make a profit. We must respect and understand that. I appreciate that the Government have published their farming road map, and I am grateful that they have finally recognised that farming needs long-term planning but, ultimately, actions speak louder than words. The NFU has highlighted many issues that we need to focus on but, given the limited time available, I am going to focus purely on energy. The Food and Drink Federation told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that food inflation will reach 9% by the end of this year and that energy prices are at the heart of that inflation. The Government have put in place help for energy-intensive industries, but subsections of farming are not recognised under that scheme and are therefore excluded. I raised that point with the Chancellor. I urge the Minister to go back to her and consider whether the Government can include farming and food producers in those schemes to allow them to get support. While he is doing so, perhaps he will ask again if she will scrap the family farm tax in order to give farmers the support they ultimately need.
The UK-EU SPS agreement is going to be vital, and we need to understand its terms, particularly about the implementation period, as it will have an impact on our trading deals with other nations. Given that it is due to be implemented next year, and time is ticking, can we have more detail on the agreement, or can the relevant Minister come in front of the EFRA Committee to explain further details?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate. I welcome the Minister to his place. His natural passion and enthusiasm for this vital sector is evident in the zero parliamentary mentions he made of farming prior to his appointment, despite his having been elected in 2017. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best. For the good of the sector, I hope that he gets out and engages with the farming community more than his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). This debate is about financial sustainability for the farming sector. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have continually pulled the rug out from under our farmers. We have had the sudden and unannounced closure of the SFI scheme, the rapid acceleration of delinked payments, the introduction of the family farm and family business tax, the jobs tax and, soon, the fertiliser tax. The result? Record farm closures under this Labour Government, and greater food insecurity than we have seen before. Our farmers are fed up, worried and increasingly concerned about the future of their farming businesses and their livelihoods. I know that because, unlike the Government, the shadow DEFRA team and I have been out and about, travelling up and down the country, attending agricultural shows and speaking to farmers across the United Kingdom. We have been to the Royal Highland Show, the Royal Cornwall Show, the Royal Cheshire Show, the Lincolnshire Show, the Essex Country Show, the Balmoral Show in Belfast, and Cereals—just to name a few. The locations may vary, but the same theme comes out again and again: devastating cash flow challenges as a result of the fiscal decisions made by this Labour Government. Unlike in other professions, income from agriculture can be volatile. Farm businesses are price takers, and the determinants of the prices they receive are out of their control. By the time the crops or livestock reach the market, prices may have dropped, but goods must be sold anyway. Income schemes such as the SFI are so important—but not in the Government’s eyes, with their chop-and-change approach. Under this Government, the schemes are not providing any reassurance or support to the majority of farmers. Last year, the Government closed applications for the SFI scheme with no warning, and yet again they have announced a budget that does not meet farmers’ requirements.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On the day when the farming roadmap has been announced, this just shows the direction that the Government want to take: to destock and produce food less. The key question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Secretary of State did not answer in the Chamber was: if that is the ambition of the Government, where is our food coming from? The £100,000 cap for the SFI will be a disaster, resulting in lower environmental roll-outs. The changes to delinked payments that went through as a statutory instrument just a couple of weeks ago had no costed impact assessment associated with them. It is an absolute disgrace that Labour MPs all voted to drastically reduce the payments despite no impact assessment having been done. The Conservative party has been clear that we will reverse the family farm and family business taxes. We will reinstall the 100% relief on agricultural and business property because we know the huge negative implications that is having on family businesses needing to mitigate any inheritance tax liability and on the investment they are able to put into their businesses. That is impacting not only our primary producers but the wider supply chain. I say to those Labour MPs that they should be ashamed of themselves for continuously voting that through. Then we come to the challenges associated with input costs, including the fertiliser tax. If we want to increase or stabilise domestic self-sufficiency at 63%, why on earth are the Government coming through with the fertiliser tax? It has been raised as a concern, but the Government seem unwilling to tackle the challenge. The Conservatives will scrap that tax. [Interruption.]
I thank you, Mr Turner, for your advice to colleagues. If they wish to intervene, they are more than welcome to do so. Red diesel has been a huge challenge: its price rose dramatically from 67p a litre to about £1.35p a litre at its peak. However, the Government’s rebate or reduction applies only to this year. If someone is growing crops or producing livestock, they need greater certainty beyond this calendar year. I call on the Minister to reinstate a level of reassurance that goes beyond the end of this calendar year. We then have the EU reset. Pushed by EU members, the Government have put back the date beyond 22 July. However, CropLife UK has rightly estimated that the EU reset deal, as it is being promoted at the moment, could drain £810 million from UK farmers and sacrifice almost 9,000 jobs. What reassurance can the Minister provide to our arable sectors, which are suffering and struggling right now? Today we had the announcement about the farming roadmap for the next 25 years. Where is the reassurance that cross-sector Government Departments have bought into that? Labour’s record on this is not good. It does not matter what food strategy the Secretary of State for DEFRA comes out with: if a Chancellor comes out with fiscal decisions like those under the last two years of this Labour Government, that will blow any food strategy out of the water.
Absolutely, Mr Turner. The financial sustainability and profitability of the farming sector is vital. Through the choices that the Government have made and voted on, they have demonstrated that when the revolving door of farming Ministers say that food security is national security, that is just warm words.
For covid!
I thank the Minister for his very clear laying out of the measures before us. May I say that sometimes there is no place for partisanship? Perhaps we have had a taste of that today. I have a series of questions for the Minister. As I did not have a chance to brief him about them beforehand, as I wanted to, it is perfectly okay if he wants to get his ministerial team to reply in due course. I do not expect him to have all the answers straightaway. The first of the three measures is on the electricity generator levy. I will probe three points in the written statement about it. It states that “the 45% EGL rate will increase to 55% and will be extended past its scheduled conclusion in 2028. This will support the Government’s objective of reducing the impact of gas prices on businesses and households.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 10WS.] What is the Treasury’s estimate of the amount it anticipates to raise from this measure? Is it a straight-line assessment—essentially going from 45% to 55%—which will mean roughly £600 million? Is it the intention of the Government that the revenues that come from the EGL will be treated in the future as an established line item in the Budget, or will they be seen as a levy that will potentially go away in a short period of time? Secondly, one of the concerns about the levy is the uncertainty and the effect that it may have on investments in electricity generation in general. What feedback has the Minister had? What feedback has the industry provided to the Government about this change? Does the Minister have a view about what the impact on industry investment will be? Surely, at this time, we are looking to extend the energy capacity of the UK at all levels that we can, so I am interested to know if the Government feel that there is a chilling effect on investment from these taxes. Thirdly, why has the Minister not announced an end date for this increase? It was originally supposed to be a temporary levy. Indeed, not announcing an end date adds to the uncertainty in the sector. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that. This measure is temporary, but how long is temporary? I am interested to know whether the Government would consider a sunset clause, with a review or some other aspect that might provide additional certainty for the sector. Let me move on to the mileage allowance increase from 45p to 55p per mile. We have no opposition to the change being made, but it would be worth while if the Minister could say a few words about the mileage allowance after 10,000 miles. The Government have decided not to change that at this time, so I am very interested to know what their thinking was. There are some people, particularly in rural areas and in certain types of jobs, who may well hit that 10,000 mile limit. What is the Government’s view on that? As the Minister outlined, the allowance has not changed for a considerable period of time. Will he consider annual indexation? There are issues with that, because it is not just tied to the price of petrol or fuel; it includes issues to do with depreciation. Identifying some form of indexation therefore may not be straightforward, but I am interested to hear the Government’s view. Finally, I think the Minister will recognise that the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday will probably have a limited impact, because it is just a one-year change. What sort of behavioural impact analysis did the Government undertake prior to introducing this measure? The industry is a little bit sceptical about whether it will actually change behaviour in the near term. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for laying the issues out so clearly and, as I said, I am happy to receive written answers to my questions in due course if necessary.
I am grateful to the Minister for clarification that there is active consideration of an end date for that higher rate of 55%, but he will know that the 45% rate had an end date too. Will the review also consider announcing the end date for the levy overall, or has that not yet been considered?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 457). It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I appreciate that it is incredibly warm in here, but bear with me, because this is an important debate. I want to sound the alarm about the statutory instrument: it hands the Government sweeping discretionary powers, with too few safeguards and too little scrutiny, by allowing the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend the length of fixed-term personal independent payments. The measure is intended to tackle the backlog of award reviews following covid-19, but we believe it takes us backwards, not forwards. Under the previous approach, people’s awards were regularly reviewed to ensure that they received support that reflected their actual circumstances, yet under the new approach, most claimants will get only two checks in 10 years—one review period will last four years, with subsequent reviews lasting six years. That is just not good enough. Taxpayers deserve confidence that support is being targeted correctly. Previously, 77% of PIP awards were for up to two years, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, so many people will experience substantial extensions to their review periods. We must acknowledge the serious problems with PIP caseloads, which shot up after covid. At best, however, this secondary legislation is a blunt tool to fix a difficult situation; at worst, it grants the Secretary of State discretionary powers that are wide open to future misuse. It moves us away from proper oversight towards a system where awards can continue for ever longer periods without appropriate checks—in simple terms, more benefits, less scrutiny. The Government’s answer to that objection appears to be little more than a reminder letter. If reviews are pushed further apart, Ministers will rely more heavily on claimants to self-report changes in their circumstances, but given the longer timeframes, will people have a genuine incentive to report changes that could lead to their award being reduced or withdrawn? It is easy to loosen the system, but far harder to tighten it. Once rules have been relaxed, people adjust their expectations—the horse has bolted. One day, the backlog may be cleared—we hope—and the Department may seek to increase the frequency of reviews again, but if that happens, I worry that claimants will quite understandably resent the return of more frequent checks. There has been no public consultation on this secondary legislation, because it is supposedly a mere administrative tweak to support the delivery of PIP. Labour is in effect using this opportunity to extend assessment periods by the back door. Responsible welfare reform means building a system that works as best it can for those who need it most. For many, PIP is a lifeline; it helps them to live independently, to stay connected and, for some, to remain in work. In many cases, people with the most severe and lifelong disabilities already receive longer awards, where appropriate—the system already contains that provision. To maintain confidence in the system, PIP and other welfare entitlements must be accurate and fair. People’s health situations change, circumstances evolve and some conditions naturally worsen, but others improve. For those with less serious needs, this measure will reduce the opportunities to review whether the support being offered is still appropriate. That is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat to the la-la land of ever more state handouts and ever less oversight. I know that some will say that regular reviews create anxiety, and I understand that. Of course, no one wants unnecessary stress, but we must remember what reviews are for—they are there not to catch people out, but to ensure that support is going to the right people, at the right level and for the right reasons. In fact, for people who continue to have genuine needs, reviews can provide certainty by extending existing rewards. In cases where someone’s condition has deteriorated, they can also lead to higher levels of support. We believe that this statutory instrument is merely a symptom of a wider problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has said, we are becoming far too quick to sign people on to welfare and far too slow to help them into work. We are seeing a passive and permissive approach from this Government when what this country needs is an active and ambitious one.
Of course we want to save money, but we do not think that this statutory instrument is the right way to do it. We think that it will just reduce the opportunities for people to have those reviews—the assessments that need to take place. Arguably, more money can perhaps be saved if those reviews happen within a quicker timeframe, because there are many people who, if the right things happen, can be moved off benefits much more quickly than we believe the statutory instrument allows for. Over 4 million people of working age are now on sickness and incapacity benefits, nearly half a million of whom are under 25. One in four people in the UK now report as disabled. At the same time, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Timms review of personal independence payment is not designed to deliver welfare savings, something that I find extraordinary. How can that possibly be an effective review if it refuses to tackle the elephant in the room—our ballooning benefits bill? Real compassion means not abandoning people to a life on benefits. State support must act as a springboard, not a destination. As the official Opposition, we believe in supporting the vulnerable, but we also believe in fairness to taxpayers—fairness to those who get up every morning, go to work and expect the welfare system to be properly managed. The Government’s own rationale regarding work disincentives is also deeply inconsistent. PIP awards will be extended only for claimants aged 25 and over. The Department argues that unemployment can have “long-term scarring effects” on younger people. Therefore, those whose health has improved should not remain on PIP any longer than necessary. Of course, younger claimants are more likely than older claimants to see improvements in their functional capacity, which helps explain why they are exempt from these longer review periods, but the logic just does not hold up, because unemployment can have scarring effects at any age. If regular reviews are important for younger claimants because circumstances can change, why should that principle suddenly cease to apply when someone reaches 25? Either regular reviews matter or they do not. The Government cannot have it both ways. Speaking of work incentives, Members are being asked to trust the Government with a significant new power under the statutory instrument, but why should we place that trust in Ministers when they cannot even tell us the scale of the backlog in Access to Work? I have been told by the Department that it does not hold information about average waiting times between the approval of an Access to Work application and when support actually starts, because—so it says—it would require a painstaking manual review of individual records. If the Government cannot easily access that kind of basic data, is it any wonder that they have been so reluctant to grasp the nettle on other areas of welfare reform?
I assure the Minister that we did know what was going to happen. We will not change our minds on the position that has already been set out. We believe that this instrument moves us in the wrong direction. I appreciate the points that were made by the Minister and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Horsham, who highlighted that there was apparently little difference between in-person and online reviews. That highlights that the issues that we have raised have not really been addressed—the Minister certainly has not.
Clearly, face to face is good, where possible. The 7% figure that you commented on was from the pandemic and from when you picked up. We know that we had a huge backlog to deal with—
Did I say “you”? I am sorry, Mrs Hobhouse. Obviously, where possible, face to face is good, but we are not convinced that it is the right trade-off—that it makes it acceptable not to see people as regularly as there should be an ambition to see them. As I highlighted, and the Minister has not addressed this, certain people will no longer need any support from PIP within that three-year period, and some might need more. If this instrument is purely about administrative convenience and enabling the backlog to come down, rather than having proper oversight, we feel that that is watering down the system and weakening the public’s confidence in it. It is also true to say that the regulations lack real ambition, because they have no end date; they just give the Secretary of State completely discretionary powers with no finish point. There is no ambition to say, “By x date, we want to have dealt with this backlog and then we will refresh.” Indeed, they give powers for a future emergency, when we seemed to manage perfectly well in the previous emergency, so we think it is not right to use that as a reason for these unending powers. We also believe that the measure risks locking more people into welfare, when we should be helping more people into work. I know that the Minister thinks the same, so I am surprised that this is the tool being used. For those reasons, we urge the Government to think again and we urge Members to reject this statutory instrument. Question put.
2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle antisemitism.
The inaugural Jewish Culture Month has just concluded. More than 100 events took place across the country to celebrate Jewish culture, community and creativity. For example, the Plymouth Jewish community partnered with the Klezmer Village Band to bring traditional Jewish music to local schools and Plymouth Theatre Royal, helping to share Jewish culture with a wider audience. Given that the Prime Minister believes that rooting out antisemitism is a highlight of his tenure, what support was the Minister able to show for Jewish Culture Month, and did she attend any events?
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Let me start by inviting the new Minister—I welcome him to his place—to visit Dartmoor over the summer to meet farmers, commoners, the Dartmoor hill pony organisations and, importantly, the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group. I invite him to bring Natural England, too, because it is at the centre of quite a lot of what has been said about Dartmoor in the past few weeks. Previous meetings with Ministers and officials since the Government came into office do not seem to have made a difference and have not delivered a plan for sustainable farming on the moors. In 2023, the previous Government launched the Fursdon review on the future of Dartmoor. Its report includes a recommendation —No. 27, or paragraph 23.2 according to gov.uk—to ensure that ponies remain on the moors, but it also reports, in paragraphs 23.1 and 23.3, that cattle and sheep in significantly deliverable numbers are an intrinsic part of delivering that and the land management needed for Dartmoor; otherwise, farms on Dartmoor are not sustainable. The Dartmoor Land Use Management Group was set up following the Fursdon review to assess how farming and environmental land management can co-exist. It has yet to report back, which is why it is so disappointing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England are pushing ahead with livestock stocking numbers that risk the sustainability of farms right across Dartmoor and, with them, the ponies themselves. A petition to adopt recommendation 27 has more than 200,000 signatures. Ponies, cattle and sheep are intrinsically linked on the moors. In a visit over the summer, the Minister could be assured of a friendly welcome and hear directly from those involved.
On that point specifically, I raised Dartmoor and invited the Minister to visit my constituency. He has about 30 seconds left to speak, but could he respond to that point?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on our voting system. She and I do not always agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we more often than not disagree vocally, although in good spirit, I hope. Although I do not share her views on electoral reform, I recognise and respect the sincerity with which she holds them. Her persistence in bringing the issue before the House reflects her commitment to the causes that she champions. She beat me in another forum on Times Radio’s “It’s a Constituency Knockout” for the good people of Richmond Park. And I lost a battle on her private Member’s Bill, but we will see about round three. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is my only ally in this debate, barring what the Minister might say. I am happy to have him as an ally, because he is one of the most respectful Members of this House. He is a braver man than me, as he is surrounded by my old Bill Committee adversaries. We can all agree on one thing, though: electoral systems shape our politics. It is important that the method we use for catapulting representatives into high office is robust and secure, easily understood by voters, and provides strong local accountability. I believe, as my party has always believed, that the first-past-the-post system achieves that better than any other. I do not often pay compliments to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so they are in for a shock this afternoon, but one of their skills is mobilising voters to go to the polls. I have seen that myself on my home patch, much to my and my councillors’ annoyance. One of the clearest criticisms of first past the post is the impact that it has on eroding voter confidence in the electoral system and therefore suppressing turnout. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Voter turnout has been on the decline for generations, but not consistently. It is fair to say that we are unlikely to see the levels of the 80% turnouts of the 1940s and 1950s. Growing voter apathy is a problem, but I do not think that the electoral system is to blame per se. The blame is with us as politicians—all of us. I sincerely believe that if we inspire, we make others aspire. We can all raise our game in this House and as political parties. I find it slightly bizarre to keep revisiting a debate that the British public have made clear they do not support. First past the post has proven to be the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance—I will come back to that—and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. We want a system that forms a single alternative Government rather than the more fragmented alternative often seen under proportional representation systems. I think that is not just a theoretical point. In countries where proportional representation is used, we can see the consequences of fragmentation very clearly. For example, in Belgium, proportional representation has contributed to fragmented Parliaments and lengthy coalition negotiations where no single party is able to present itself clearly as a Government in waiting. Clarity of outcome is an important feature in our democratic system. As Members of Parliament, first and foremost our roles are to represent our constituents and our constituencies here in Parliament. First past the post creates a clear and direct link between Members of Parliament and the people we represent. It provides the voter with clarity over who represents them, whose surgery they can go to, who they can hold to account and, importantly, who they can remove at a general election. Such clarity is a democratic strength and a crucial part of maintaining voter trust. Why would we adopt a system that weakens the direct link between voters and their representatives? Proportional voting systems where members are elected from long party lists make that relationship less direct and less clear. That direct constituency link is not only a practical strength of the system, but part of a much longer tradition in our parliamentary democracy. I think many advocates for an alternative voting system overlook the historical significance of first past the post. It has been in place since medieval England, and it is the bedrock of our democracy. Changing the way we elect Members of this House is not a minor administrative matter. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly, nor should it be driven by dissatisfaction with a particular electoral outcome.
I believe I have already addressed that point: it is because of us, as politicians. I absolutely agree with many of the comments that Members across the House have made today about trust in politicians and the level of discourse, but we need to improve our game. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between the voting system and turnouts at general elections; I genuinely think that it is normally about whether a voter feels good or not. If the hon. Gentleman’s only issue is voter turnouts and he wants to have a conversation about compulsory voting, then I am up for that debate, but I do not believe that we should move to another system without looking at whether voting should be compulsory or by choice. It is worth recalling, as I lightly touched on, that the British public have previously been asked whether they wish to move away from the existing voting system for Westminster elections. That was in 2011, and it was a condition of the Liberal Democrats being in government from 2010 to 2015. A clear majority voted to retain first past the post rather than adopt an alternative system. In fact, only 2% of local counting areas wanted rid of first past the post.
Absolutely, and we can talk about that, but that was the system that the Liberal Democrats proposed in that referendum, and they lost the argument when they were in government. When they were last in government, they put a question on reforming the voting system to the country and it was resoundingly rejected. I agree with the hon. Lady; I am not in favour of referendums a lot of the time. But I believe that we have put the issue of reforming our voting system to bed for the foreseeable future—that is, unless a Government come in with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system, in which case we can have that discussion, even though my party would still oppose it. It is worth saying that 2% of local counting areas voted against the last referendum. I struggle to see why we would reopen a question on which the public have already expressed a clear preference. That, in my view, is the crux of the matter. This debate is not fundamentally about voter understanding or participation; it is about dissatisfaction with how support for certain parties translates into seats under the current system. Many Members make the case that we should switch to a proportional representation system in order to follow the example of other major democratic nations. I do not accept that. This country has consistently delivered stable Governments—which is slightly ironic, given the last week or so. I also remind Members of the comments made in previous contributions: we vote for Members of Parliament, not for Prime Ministers. That is the key point about the system in our country. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been spoken of as the Prime Minister-elect. We do not have that. We elect Members of Parliament, and the party that has the most MPs forms a Government. If they do not have a majority, they try to form a coalition—that has happened in recent history. We do not vote for Prime Ministers. That is why I do not think that argument pushes the case forward for proportional representation. This country has consistently delivered stable Governments, in contrast to a number of European systems, which rely on complex coalition arrangements. That is not to suggest that we need to compare systems like that to justify our own, but it is clear that first past the post prevents smaller and more extreme parties from having undue influence, which is a respected element of the UK’s democracy. I refer Members to some of the parties elected to the Israeli Parliament, which has a proportional representational system. In conclusion, first past the post is not a perfect system, but it is a proven one. It delivers a clear link between constituents and their representatives. It provides voters with identifiable accountability, and it ensures that Governments are formed with a clear mandate from the electorate. I utterly respect the case made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I utterly respect the fact that we are likely to see calls for electoral reform in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto, but I dearly hope the voters reject that option. For the reasons I have set out, I believe first past the post is the system to form strong and stable Governments in the United Kingdom.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the publication of the media Green Paper.
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said, and there is much to be applauded in the media strategy. The overall intent, which is to ensure that everyone has access to trustworthy news and to counter misinformation, is noble. The challenge and its potential danger is how we do that. Of the positive elements that the Secretary of State mentioned in the strategy, I welcome the Government’s intention to add on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, but there are many controversial aspects. As she said, the plan to close down digital terrestrial transmission by 2034 or 2044 is a major concern, especially for those living in remote or rural areas. The strategy also covers interventions to support media literacy and promoting the questioning of the accuracy of news, but pushing such an onus of responsibility on to the media companies themselves may reduce the responsibility on schools or, indeed, parents. What are her thoughts on that? We then come to the thorny issue of prominence. The Government are proposing interventions to make trustworthy news providers easily discoverable to counter misinformation, and that includes national and local news publishers and broadcasters, but who decides who is a trustworthy news provider and what trusted content is? Will there be an approved list, or will it be an algorithm or a human being? We need to be careful about descending into some kind of Orwellian society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to our free society, and the concern of some of the press is that, to qualify for prominence, a newspaper may need to sign up to a state-backed regulator. Can the Secretary of State rule that out? The proposals in the Green Paper to support our public service broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are well intended, especially in an age when there is undeniably so much misinformation online, but a requirement for third-party platforms and social media entities to make such broadcasters’ content prominent is problematic for the obvious reason that their content is not always to be trusted and is not always unbiased either, so who decides whether it is? Many people question the BBC’s coverage of politics in general, of trans rights, of Israel and so on. The BBC doctored a video of President Trump, it fails to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, it has pushed highly questionable content through BBC Arabic and it reprimanded a newsreader for saying “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people”. There may be plenty of people who like the idea of legislation to push woke or leftie content online, but I am not one of them, and many people agree with me. Can the Secretary of State provide more details about how trusted content will be defined and who will ultimately be the arbiter? Finally, can the Secretary of State confirm how extensively she has engaged with the industry to come up with these proposals?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House may be interested in this following the earlier point of order. Earlier today, the Minister for Women and Equalities accused me of “racism” in reference to comments I made about the mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square. Although the Minister did not inform me that she would mention me in the Chamber, I gave her advance notice of this point of order, but she has chosen not to come to the House to withdraw her remarks. Given past precedent, I would like your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether that is acceptable language for one Member to use about another. I also seek your guidance about the free speech of Members and those we represent. The Government’s Islamophobia definition is already being used to shut down legitimate debate over questions of religion, belief and public policy, as we warned it would be, and it falsely equates racial identity with religious belief. It is an Orwellian outrage. How do I ensure that the Minister for Women and Equalities withdraws her remarks, explains how she confused racial identity and religious belief, and apologises?
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. That was far too long.
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Order. Questions are far too long. Show us how it’s done, Lee Pitcher.
I call Callum Anderson; he has gone. I call Jack Robertson—[Interruption.] You know when you stare at something and you can see it, but you are incapable of reading it? I call Dave Robertson.
I fear that that is more about the bottles of champagne than the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Hon. Members are responsible for what they say in the Chamber, and we do not write the scripts for colleagues. “Erskine May” states: “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.” I remind all Members that that is the way they should be conducting themselves inside the Chamber.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is important that Members who are sent here by their constituents receive timely answers to their questions. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the hon. Member’s remarks and contacted the right Department so that he gets a response as soon as he can.
The hon. Member has got his point on the record. As I have already said, Members must take responsibility for what they say in the Chamber—
Of course, Mr Snowden, on both sides: “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.” The hon. Member has got his point on the record; let us see what happens next. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 160, so the Ayes have it. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Motion on income tax (mileage amounts)— That— (1) In the table in each of— (a) section 230(2) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (approved amount for mileage allowance payments), and (b) section 94F(2) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (appropriate mileage amount), for “45p” substitute “55p”. (2) In consequence of paragraph (1), in section 94F(3) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, for “45p” substitute “55p”. (3) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. Motion on vehicle excise duty (temporary rates for good vehicles)— That— (1) The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 has effect in relation to vehicle licences, other than trade licences, taken out in the period beginning with 1 July 2026 and ending with 30 June 2027 as follows. (2) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Act (rates for rigid goods vehicles exceeding 3,500 kgs revenue weight) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1), (2)(b) or (3) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “shall be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “and not exceeding 44,000 kgs is £1.”; (b) where sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to rigid goods vehicles mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, in that sub-paragraph for “basic goods vehicle rate” there were substituted “£1”; (c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “£1,703” there were substituted “£1”. (3) Paragraph 10 of that Schedule (rates for certain rigid goods vehicles exceeding 11,999 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if— (a) in sub-paragraph (3), for “to be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “£1.”; (b) in sub-paragraph (7), for “£654” there were substituted “£1”. (4) Paragraph 11 of that Schedule (rates for tractive units exceeding 3,500 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1), (2)(b) or (3) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “shall be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “and not exceeding 44,000 kgs is £1.”; (b) where sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to tractive units mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, in that sub-paragraph for “basic goods vehicle rate” there were substituted “£1”; (c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “£1,703” there were substituted “£1”. (5) Paragraph 11C of that Schedule (rate for certain tractive units exceeding 41,000 kgs but not exceeding 44,000 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if for “£10” there were substituted “£1”. (6) Where subsection (2) of section 3 of that Act (6 month licences) applies in relation to a vehicle for which any of paragraphs (2) to (4) has effect, that subsection has effect as if, in paragraph (a), for “£50” there were substituted “£0”. (7) Article 3(1)(b) of the Vehicle Licences (Duration of First Licences and Rate of Duty) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/1428) has effect in relation to vehicle licences, other than trade licences, taken out in the period beginning with 1 July 2026 and ending with 30 June 2027 for vehicles for which any of paragraphs (2) to (5) has effect as if for “£50” there were substituted “£0” And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Minister to wind up.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: That the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 14 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. That the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 14 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.