Climate Change
I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Climate Change
What a tragedy it is that the truth clearly hurts for the Green party; and, by the way, the Greens do not believe in carbon capture, which has been mentioned previously. The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between higher energy use per capita and higher GDP per capita—the richer a nation is. That is the fundamental point that everybody in this place seems to forget. As we have reduced our carbon emissions since 1990 by 54%, people seem to forget that carbon emissions around the world are increasing. Other nations are not admiring our net zero leadership; they are laughing at our utter stupidity, as they steal our jobs and our money. They are laughing at us.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
And what labour are the Chinese using? Slave labour is what they are using—that is the reality. They are laughing as they sell us Chinese cheap solar panels to cover our brilliant food-productive farmland in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is insane.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
There we are. Apparently Labour Members want more asbestos, when we know that is dangerous—yes, it is in the wind turbines. The reality is—
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I will give away shortly; I am doing well. The reality is that industries across our country are being slaughtered and jobs are being destroyed—from pottery businesses to aluminium businesses, chemical businesses, steel businesses and oil refineries. Why? Because of our high energy costs. We have seen the brilliant, highly skilled, highly qualified jobs in Aberdeen being slaughtered because this Government will not allow more exploration of the North sea. This is the reaction, and this is the consequence of net stupid zero.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The renewables sector keeps saying that it is going to reduce the bills, yet the bills are going up. Indeed, only recently an energy boss said that even if the price of gas went to zero—clearly, it is not going to, folks—our electricity bills at the next general election, assuming that is in 2029, will be even higher. Why? Because of all the increased policy costs, increased levies, increased constraint costs and beyond.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Oh dear, oh dear. How desperately sad it is that the hon. Lady does not appreciate that the wholesale price of electricity, which some claim is driven by gas, is about a third, so it is not the majority—a third is less than 50%. The simple reality is that there is a direct causal link between the growth of renewable generating capacity in the last 20 years and the growth of our electricity prices to the highest in the western world. That is the reason that everybody is feeling so much poorer. It is as simple as that. All the advocates of the renewables industry cannot answer the question: when are the bills going to come down? The answer is: they are not going to. The Government can try to cheat by putting it into general taxation, but the simple fact is that, actually, costs are going to go up. We have heard, for example, that the cost of more contracts for difference is going to increase by £4 billion, £5 billion or £6 billion by 2030, and that the extra cost to the grid is going to increase by some £10 billion a year by 2030. Per household—which is how people will want to understand it—that equates to about £500 per year extra on the cost of living because of the costs of net zero. Everybody needs to understand that point, as they debate and vote on this issue. As we look to the future, having explained the history and the economics to those who do not seem to understand, we hear that the Secretary of State for Energy—he is rather absent at the moment; where is he?—wants to get rid of all our wonderful tumble dryers. No, no, we can’t have tumble dryers in the brave new world of the Secretary of State for Energy! Then we hear that, through this carbon budget, the Government want us to reduce our dairy and meat consumption by some 20%. We have had enough of this. We should vote against this ridiculous motion and scrap net stupid zero.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech. She seems to be an expert on this subject, so could she advise the House by how much it would reduce the Earth’s temperature if this country became net zero right this minute?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
My hon. Friend is making a passionate and very intelligent speech. Is he aware that we are also importing from China wind turbines—windmills, if you like—that are stuffed with asbestos?
- Hansard source
Animal Shelters: Regulation of Euthanasia
I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of deep concern to animal welfare organisations, rescue centres, veterinary professionals and millions of animal lovers across the United Kingdom: the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters, and the wider challenges facing animal welfare across this country. Before I begin, I pay tribute to my dear late friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was one of Parliament’s most passionate champions of animal welfare. Throughout his distinguished parliamentary career, he consistently spoke up for animals—God’s creatures—who could not speak for themselves. Whether campaigning for stronger welfare protections, raising welfare concerns in Parliament or supporting charities working on the frontline, his compassion for animals was unwavering, and I am determined that his legacy on animal welfare will live on, hence this debate today. I would also like to recognise the work of his daughter, Katie Amess, who has continued that commitment with great determination and dignity. Through her engagement with rescue organisations, campaigners and welfare charities, she has ensured that these issues remain firmly in the public consciousness. Those working tirelessly to improve animal welfare across our country are grateful for her continued advocacy. Sir David understood a simple truth: the way a society treats its animals says much about the values it upholds. It is in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House. The issue before us is not simply one of euthanasia; it is about transparency, accountability, responsible ownership, animal welfare and whether our current systems are equipped to cope with the pressures they now face.
- Hansard source
Animal Shelters: Regulation of Euthanasia
The hon. Member is, of course, absolutely correct. The laws in this area are completely inadequate, and as I will go on to say later, this is something that people across the British Isles care deeply about. We are a nation of animal lovers, and there is no greater animal lover than the hon. Member. He speaks very passionately for the people of Northern Ireland, and I thank him for his intervention. Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, rescue organisations report that they are overwhelmed. Shelters are full, waiting lists are growing and charities are being forced to make impossible decisions as increasing numbers of dogs and other animals are abandoned, surrendered or left as strays. The RSPCA has reported significant increases in abandonment in some areas, and rescue organisations throughout the country consistently warn that they are operating beyond capacity. The consequences of the cost of living crisis, combined with irresponsible breeding practices and impulse pet purchases have created what many in the sector now describe as a genuine animal welfare crisis. When shelters are full and rescue spaces cannot be found, local authorities and contracted kennels face a difficult decision. Under existing legislation, once a stray dog has completed the statutory holding period and remains unclaimed, authorities may rehome the dog, transfer it to an appropriate establishment or euthanise it. The law therefore clearly provides alternatives to euthanasia, but campaigners, rescue organisations and those working directly with council pounds have serious concerns about how the system operates in practice. Many local authorities no longer operate their own pounds. Instead, they contract the service to private kennels or commercial providers. Those facilities often have limited space and resources and significant operational pressures. As a result, many do not conduct the full behavioural assessments and adoption processes required for direct public rehoming. The practical reality described by many rescue organisations is that once the seven-day statutory holding period expires, the race begins to find a rescue space before a healthy dog loses its life. Volunteer groups known as pound pullers spend countless hours attempting to find rescue placements for dogs facing euthanasia. Rescue organisations report that they are frequently contacted to take dogs from council pounds, but many are already operating at full capacity. One of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that we do not actually know the true scale of it. There are no centralised systems recording how many healthy or treatable animals are euthanised by local authorities, contracted kennels or veterinary practices. Freedom of information requests often produce inconsistent results, records vary significantly between local authorities, and veterinary practices are not required to report such figures centrally. There is no direct knowledge of what is really happening on the ground. The absence of data is a serious problem. Good public policy demands that evidence is provided, and depends upon it, yet there is a remarkable lack of transparency in this area. We cannot properly assess the scale of the issue, identify trends or develop effective interventions if the information is not collected. I therefore urge the Government to consider establishing a national reporting framework for healthy and treatable companion animals euthanised in the stray dog and shelter system. Such a measure would not seek to criticise local authorities, rescue organisations or veterinary professionals; rather, it would provide transparency, improve accountability and ensure that future policy decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption. The Government should also review whether the current seven-day holding period remains fit for purpose. Rescue organisations argue that seven days is often insufficient to locate an owner, complete necessary assessments or secure an appropriate rescue placement. Given the unprecedented pressures facing the rescue sector, it is reasonable to ask whether a framework established decades ago remains adequate for today’s circumstances. Although euthanasia is the issue we are debating today, it is not the root cause of the problem. The real question is why so many animals are entering the system in the first place. Time and again, rescue organisations tell us the same thing: there are simply more dogs than there are homes available for them. The reality demands action. First, we should examine whether it is appropriate to continue issuing large numbers of new breeding licences when shelters and rescue centres are already struggling to cope with existing demand. Responsible breeders have an important role to play, and this debate is not about penalising those who adhere to high welfare standards. However, when rescue organisations across the country report that they are full and that healthy animals are being put at risk due to lack of capacity, we must ask whether the current rate of licensed breeding is sustainable. The Government should therefore consider temporarily restricting or reducing the issuing of new breeding licences until pressure on shelters and rescue organisations has eased. Secondly, all animals rehomed through shelters and rescue organisations should, where medically appropriate, be compulsorily spayed or neutered and microchipped before adoption. Many reputable rescue organisations already operate in that way. Introducing a consistent national standard would help reduce unwanted litters, improve traceability and prevent future generations of animals from entering the shelter system unnecessarily. Thirdly, we should continue strengthening laws on animal cruelty and abandonment. Animals are sentient beings, not disposable commodities. The law must reflect that principle. Stronger enforcement with tougher penalties for serious cruelty offences, and greater support for prosecutions, would help deter neglect and abandonment while reinforcing the responsibilities that accompany pet ownership. Fourthly, the Government should establish a central national database for stray, abandoned and lost animals that is accessible to local authorities, shelters and authorised welfare organisations. At present, information is fragmented across multiple systems, charities and regions. A unified database would improve communication, reduce duplication, increase opportunities for reunification and significantly improve the efficiency of rescue efforts. Fifthly, every stray animal should be routinely scanned for a microchip upon entering a veterinary surgery, local authority facility, contracted kennel or rescue organisation. We desperately need a more unified approach here. Surprisingly, there is no single microchip database for those organisations to check. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the 11 databases of the Association of Microchip Database Operators to build a single point of search, but what happens with the 14 databases that are not AMDO members? Furthermore, although some databases are free of charge, some are now charging one-off amounts. Others are starting to charge subscription fees, which I am concerned will create a financial barrier to a legally mandated obligation on owners to microchip. I commend to the Minister the work of Vets Get Scanning, an organisation established by the late Sir Bruce Forsyth and his fabulous daughter Debbie Matthews, who has been campaigning for this for many years to stop pet theft and return animals to their rightful owners. I invited Sir Bruce Forsyth to the Houses of Parliament some years ago to promote this very cause. He met many Members of Parliament at that time, including Sir David Amess, to promote the importance of all veterinary surgeries scanning animals when they are brought in, to check who the real owner of the pet is and to ensure that stolen dogs are returned to their rightful owners. This recommendation carries a particular significance because of the tragic case of Tuk in 2017, which exposed serious shortcomings in the identification process and highlighted the devasting consequences that can occur when procedures fail. I must also pay tribute at this point to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed this cause. Routine and repeated microchip scanning would be a simple, practical and cost-effective safeguard that could prevent similar incidents in the future while increasing the likelihood of lost pets being reunited with their families. Taken together, these proposals would not require vast new expenditure. They are simple, preventive measures that address the causes of the crisis rather than merely responding to its consequences. By reducing the number of animals entering the system, improving traceability, strengthening accountability and supporting responsible ownership, we can reduce the circumstances in which euthanasia becomes necessary. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by rescue charities, volunteers, local authority officers, kennel staff and veterinary professionals. Those on the frontline of animal welfare frequently face heartbreaking decisions. They do not do so because they lack compassion, but because they are operating within a system and are under immense strain. This debate is not about assigning blame, but about identifying solutions. Sir David Amess often reminded us that animals cannot speak for themselves. It therefore falls to us as legislators to ensure that their welfare is properly protected. The measures I have outlined today would increase transparency, support rescue organisations, encourage responsible ownership and reduce the number of healthy animals at risk of unnecessary euthanasia. Most importantly, they would tackle the underlying causes of the crisis rather than merely its symptoms. In doing so, we would not only improve the lives of countless animals across the country, but honour the legacy of Sir David Amess, whose lifelong commitment to animal welfare inspired so many, and support the continuing efforts of Katie Amess and others who work tirelessly to ensure that vulnerable animals are given the protection, dignity and compassion that they deserve. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. The end of the Prime Minister’s premiership comes close on the heels of the end of Labour’s 100-year dominance in Wales. People simply did not feel that his party stood up for them, and it is irrefutable that that too is part of the Prime Minister’s legacy. I believe there is a tradition of leaving notes on desks for successors. Will the Prime Minister leave a useful note to the incoming Prime Minister, saying that respect and understanding go a very long way and that democratic choices, including those of devolution, cannot be dismissed?
- Hansard source
Farming: Financial Sustainability
Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer and a member of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. The costs of farming have spiralled over many years, particularly since Brexit. I want to concentrate on the cost of fertiliser and fuel, both of which have been affected by the war in Ukraine and, most recently, the war in Iran. Input prices affect profitability, and too often profitability is what forces decisions on whether farmers remain on the land, give up, move on or start over. Farming is a hard life, with long hours and hard graft—I can tell hon. Members that from personal experience. We need stability in the market on costs but also on farm-gate prices that farmers receive for their goods. Milk prices have crashed, leading many smaller dairy holdings to make the decision to leave the market. Sheep and beef prices have steadied but are now showing signs of decline, and horticultural producers also want a steady market for their produce. We need to seriously value food production. Since I have been in this House, I have heard hon. Members talk about food security time and again, but in all honesty the meaning of that phrase is often lost, I am sorry to say. My ask of the Minister is simple: will the UK Government commit to action to improve resilience across the food system and supply chains, so that we can invest, stabilise the industry and encourage growth?
- Hansard source
Media Green Paper
I thank the Secretary of State for her informed answers. The new media Green Paper highlights the importance of continued universal access to good-quality, trusted television. Part of maintaining that access is making the content in the first place. With the news that the BBC Cymru Wales will face £9 million in spending cuts by the end of 2027-28, it is inevitable that Welsh commissions, already on the decrease, will decline even further. How will the Secretary of State protect Welsh-language content from such sweeping cuts, especially considering that access is already limited for us?
- Hansard source
Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026
The Minister spoke about exceptional financial support. I was interested to hear her say that we do not wish EFS to be normalised. I suggest that we are in circumstances in which it is normalised, given that so many councils require it and so many of them expect to have to use it. A lot of councils are struggling to balance their annual budgets on that basis.
- Hansard source
Violence against Women and Girls
I recently hosted a roundtable with leading organisations in the VAWG sector to discuss the vile trend of men filming degrading videos of women enjoying a night out, and accompanying the videos with absolutely awful captions. Before she resigned, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), committed to meeting me to discuss solutions. I know that the political situation is a little fluid, but can the Minister ensure that her Department takes this very seriously, and will she meet me to discuss solutions?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
We should add that water shortages are a real cause of conflict. Many communities will be displaced. Anybody who is worried about migration now should be deeply worried about migration in the future, because people will simply be displaced—
- Hansard source
Climate Change
They will come, and you will shut the borders, but we will have wars over water shortages. We absolutely will. It sounds alarmist, but we can do something about it. We should not put our heads in the sand. Does my hon. Friend agree?
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.