5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
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.
As colleagues will understand, this is a three-hour debate and a remarkable number of Members wish to contribute, so Back Benchers will shortly be on a speaking limit of five minutes. First, I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Toby Perkins.
All Back Benchers will now be on a five-minute speaking limit, but first I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the horrific train crash, the attacks in Edinburgh and, of course, Armed Forces Week. I want to start by congratulating the Prime Minister: he is the other party leader who won a by-election last week, although I think I am much happier with my new MP than he is with his. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government were funding defence and that everything was under control. The very next day, the Defence Secretary resigned, saying the Prime Minister was “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to fund the defence of our country. What changed?
I think the Prime Minister forgot to mention that we got 50% of the vote in Aberdeen South. He says that he is funding defence; the truth is he would not be in this mess if his Chancellor had found money for the defence investment plan. The Prime Minister gave her the second most important job in Britain. She was the first female Chancellor. She lives next door to him, but would not even come out to stand by him during his resignation speech; she was too busy getting ready for a selfie with the new leader. Does the Prime Minister feel let down by his Chancellor?
Labour Members are cheering so loudly, but if it is all going so fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning? The fact is the Chancellor did let him down. She is the one who snatched the winter fuel payment and who announced a disastrous Budget that killed economic growth. Because of her, a Labour Prime Minister is once again leaving office with unemployment higher than when he came in. But the Chancellor is not the only person who let him down: the Energy Secretary is putting up bills and killing jobs. [Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] He is not here, is he? He was a failed Labour leader rejected by the electorate, brought back from the wilderness by this man, and when the going got tough, he jumped into bed with the Mayor of Manchester—it is not the first time he has betrayed someone close to him, is it? Does the Prime Minister think that this treachery should be rewarded by being appointed Chancellor?
Once again I have to ask: if it is all so fantastic, why is the Prime Minister resigning? It is very generous of him to stick by his Ministers, because they did not stick by him. He can say what he likes, but the people of Aberdeen gave their verdict—they gave their verdict on his Energy Secretary by voting Conservative. To be fair, the Cabinet are not all traitors and deserters; some of them have been loyal—loyal and incompetent. Hands up if you think that the Education Secretary is doing a good job—[Interruption.] Even she doesn’t think she’s doing a good job, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, someone did. For those who raised their hands—the two people who raised their hands—yesterday, a poll found that 0% of teachers think that the Education Secretary is doing a good job. She taxed private schools to pay for more teachers, but the number of teachers has gone down. It turns out that appointing a spiteful class warrior as Education Secretary was a disaster. Does the Prime Minister agree that he has been let down by her incompetence?
The fact is that if the Education Secretary knew so much about poor children, she would not have given them fewer teachers. Teacher numbers have gone down—[Interruption.] It is amazing; I have never seen this much excitement on the Labour Benches. They are cheering so loudly, while there are 400 knives stuck in the Prime Minister’s back. Shame on them. They don’t like it up them, but they know that what I am saying is true. There were times when the Prime Minister tried to do the right thing. He tried—he did try to cut welfare, and who stopped him? Those MPs behind him. In the words of the Welfare Secretary, his MPs only want to know who they can tax to fund more benefits. They are not Labour MPs, they are welfare MPs. Does the Prime Minister feel betrayed by the people he got into Parliament?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the one who is resigning because of his MPs. There is no point trying to distract from that. Let’s be honest: the Prime Minister has made many mistakes, otherwise he would not be going, but he has also been let down—I am only saying what his staff have been briefing. He has been let down by an Energy Secretary who is killing industry, let down by a Chancellor who is killing jobs, and let down by Back-Benchers who do not understand that government is about tough choices. He U-turned again and again and again to appease them, and now they have abandoned him. And for what? A pair of eyelashes and a black T-shirt. Is it not the truth that, whoever is in charge, the real problem is the Labour party?
Every farmer I speak to is angry and, at times, desperate. None of them thinks that anything has got any better over the last two years. Everyone thinks things are worse—whether it is the taxes, the grants or the allocation of non-farming lands. Members do not need to take my word for it: a recent poll showed that 0% of farmers would now vote for the Labour party. Has the Secretary of State genuinely reflected on why that may be the case?
As a 16-year-old, Kate worked a summer at Harrods. In 2024, she told her story of being raped at work. Intimate medical examinations were carried out on women by senior Harrods staff and security. Hundreds of women’s attacks were silenced. How will the Justice for Fayed and Harrods Survivors be heard? I met some of those brave women this week. How will they get the whole truth, justice, and systemic change, if the Met police inquiry remains stalled, and if enablers—some of them women—are left at large? Incredibly, over 500 victims still need answers.
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for the domestic industry. Does he agree that, in this troubled period of world history, our refining capacity in the UK should also be maintained? As he will know, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency was recently closed, although some operations continue. Does he agree that we have to maintain capacity across the industry?
I have been relying on the BBC to deliver news since the days when Jack de Manio was presenting the “Today” programme and John Snagge was reading the news, and I still rely on the BBC to a considerable extend, but it does annoy me intensely at times, particularly recently, when cuts were announced. The programmes that it seems to be cutting are public service programmes, not ones delivered by the commercial sector. On top of that, we see the demise of news coverage on local radio. Will the Secretary of State assure me that she will convey those views to the BBC? Hopefully, it will have a rethink.
I am a little unclear on the implications of what the Minister just said. If, for example, Barratt Redrow and the Jockey Club submitted a planning application, under the new national planning policy framework, to flatten Kempton Park racecourse to build 2,000 homes on that land, would no one be able to consider what had happened in retrospect? Would they be allowed to consider only what happened under this Government’s current NPPF?
I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am also conscious of the Chair’s prohibition on stretching the envelope and referring only to the Minister’s own words. She said that the purpose of this whole procedure today was to make local government reorganisation easier for residents to understand and for a safe, orderly and effective transition. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for his expertise in this area. The Minister and I have privately discussed the powers of shadow unitary authorities and their ability to propose name changes: in my case to the “West Surrey”, and if I had my way, “and South Middlesex”, unitary authority. Would she like to put on record the fact that, if the newly elected shadow unitary authority makes a proposal with a majority for the renaming of that unitary authority, she would be bound to accept it?
I would be grateful to my hon. Friend if she reminded the House by what share of the vote our hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) was returned on a platform of increasing drilling.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The Government are bringing forward logical proposals to deal with new councils, but my concern is that I am not sure that this measure goes far enough. It talks about protecting new councils from existing councils’ decisions about their finances, but what we do not talk about in this—and what I think the Government need to consider—are existing councils that are going to be forced to merge. That is important because, if we look at my constituency, I have a council with money in the bank and a council without money in the bank. This legislation talks about protecting the new authority from financial decisions that the existing authorities have made—I completely support that, and I think the Government are taking a logical approach—but we need to explore whether it is fair for all the money to go into the same pot. Is it fair for people who have had good councils, with money in the bank, to see their taxpayers’ money spent elsewhere in the authority, where they will not see a benefit? We should explore what financial information, constraints or regulations we can give to new councils when they are created, rather than just putting all the money into the pot. The councils to be merged will not have the same financial footing. They will not have the same services or the same money in the bank. If we think that it is important to protect the new council from decisions that the existing authority has made, it is right that we look at protecting specific areas within new councils that have had good financial management over the short to medium term. As I said, there is an example in my constituency: Broxbourne council has about £50 million in the bank but East Herts council has none. What I do not want to see if we have to go through local government reorganisation is all that money going into the pot and then being spent on paying someone else’s debt. It is right for constituents that I represent in the borough of Broxbourne to say that there should be some guidance outlining that that money should at least be spent within the existing boundaries of that authority, even if it is under the new council.
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Vickers. This is an important piece of legislation that the Government are bringing forward. I wonder whether the Minister could explore some of the points that I have raised in this debate.
Before entering this place, I worked in the energy efficiency industry. I know the potential that we have when we back our home-grown manufacturers across the United Kingdom, and I know how vital energy is to their success; but the Government’s policies on net zero are holding them back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) said during Prime Minister’s questions, the current Energy Secretary is “putting up bills and killing jobs.” I am proud that under her leadership, the Conservative Party is starting to be honest about net zero. As the Conservative leader of Broxbourne Council, I never joined in the hysteria of council after council declaring a climate emergency, then sitting back and feeling good about themselves. In Broxbourne we focused on action, not words—planting thousands of trees, installing electric car charging points, and getting developers to put solar panels on new houses. Putting net zero into law by 2050 was exactly the same: there was no serious plan to achieve it then, but now Labour have come up with a plan, and we are starting to see what the true costs to our economy and to ordinary people’s lives will be. Carbon budget 7 sets a target for reducing our emissions by 87%. According to the Climate Change Committee, to achieve that we must cut meat consumption by a quarter by 2040, and sheep and cattle numbers will have to fall by 38% by 2050. Some of these suggestions are completely unworkable. The Climate Change Committee has also said that people should be pushed away from driving to “alternative modes of travel”. That is simply not feasible in large parts of the United Kingdom, especially rural areas like parts of my constituency. It is very frustrating to turn up at a local meeting about sustainable transport—about trying to increase the number of buses and trains—and then find that the person who is lecturing everyone about how we should all walk everywhere has driven there in their car. We need to come up with practical solutions that enable us to take the public with us. What do I say to my constituents who tell me, “I have to take two kids to school, and they are at different schools, then I have to go to work and do the shopping, then pick them up and go home”? Such targets are unworkable. It is not feasible to say, “Well, that’s fine—everyone can just walk everywhere.” The targets have to be sensible, and we have to take the British public with us, or we will not go anywhere towards achieving some of the stuff that the Government want us to achieve. We are talking about an average overall cost of £11,157 per household. That is not a price that we should be willing to pay. We have made fantastic progress already, and we should always be committed to leaving a better environment for the next generation, but we also need to leave them a stronger economy and a stronger country, and that means, above all else, cheaper energy. Britain currently has some of the highest energy costs in the developed world. There is no way in which we can achieve the economic growth that people are crying out for throughout the United Kingdom if that remains the case, which is why we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of North sea oil. According to this Government, it is okay to get oil from Russia if it is done through a third country, but we cannot use our own resources in the North sea. Obviously, oil coming from the North sea will produce less carbon dioxide than oil that has had to travel halfway across the world. The Government need to set out a plan for delivery, and they really need to come up with common-sense approaches to deal with the impacts of climate change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said, the fact that we are scrutinising Government policy does not make us climate deniers.
When I was leader of my council, I went to a number of meetings in my constituency and spoke to a number of constituents. Experts on transport come to meetings and say that everyone should walk everywhere, which is completely impractical. Some of the solutions that the Government have put forward are completely unworkable. They should come up with some common-sense solutions, because this is a serious problem that we need to deal with. Saying that most people should walk everywhere is not a serious solution to the problem that we face. If the Government want us to reduce our carbon emissions even more, they should come up with serious, practical, common-sense solutions that allow us to take the British people with us and protect jobs in this country. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, there is no point putting taxes on business here and cutting carbon here if factories then open in China, where they use coal to produce their electricity rather than what we do in the United Kingdom. That is completely unserious. The Government need to come up with practical solutions to this problem, and I urge the Minister to do so.
Q12. May I start by wishing Scotland well in their match tonight against Brazil?Following the conviction of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell for embezzlement, serious questions about governance and oversight remain unanswered. The Scottish Government are refusing to establish an inquiry, despite clear public concern. The law does provide for UK inquiries into devolved matters when there is a wider public interest, so as the Prime Minister prepares to leave office, will he set up an inquiry with the powers needed so that we can uncover the truth?
I was at the Royal Highland Show last week and farmers from across the UK were in their usual high spirits, but there is a real concern about the profitability and the future of farming. The SPS agreement, the price of fuel, red tape, the family farm tax and fertiliser are all big concerns. What specifically are the Government doing to address those concerns?
As a former journalist, I salute the Secretary of State’s ambition to leave no one behind, but as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out, the death of terrestrial television risks leaving a lot of people in remote and rural Scotland behind. My constituency has a lot of notspots, and terrestrial television is a key source of news and entertainment. Can I ask the Secretary of State to use her influence in the forthcoming northern powerhouse Cabinet to get broadband rolled out properly across this country?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will support the regulations. Giving people the chance to access education and training flexibly throughout their working lives supports social mobility and personal aspiration, and helps employers to secure the skills that they need. That is why we Conservatives are proud that the previous Government supported the independent Augar review recommendations and introduced the primary legislation necessary to create a single lifelong learning loan allowance that learners can use to upskill and retrain flexibly over their working lives. We therefore support the principle behind the lifelong learning entitlement and the move to a credit-based system for calculating tuition fee limits. I would like to press the Minister on the importance of face-to-face teaching time. If we want to tackle low-quality provision and ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes, we must ensure that learners receive the highest-quality teaching possible. Too often, students receive limited face-to-face teaching time, limited supervision and a higher education experience that falls short of what they were promised. Learners who enrol in the modular courses and training that will become available from January next year will reasonably expect to be able to ask their teacher a question, and to interact with their fellow students, in person. Just as we must stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face-to-face teaching, in return for huge debt and little prospect of employment at the end, we must ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities deliver the highest-quality provision possible. I would therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister is doing to encourage and raise the bar for face-to-face teaching time across the higher education sector, whether for degree courses, modules or training. I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, how does the Department intend to monitor the impact of the new credit-based tuition fee limit system on providers and on learners? Secondly, given that providers will occur familiarisation and administrative costs as the changes are implemented, and in the light of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector, what support will be available to help minimise those burdens? The Opposition support the regulations. We all hope that introducing tuition fee limits for modular learning will encourage more people to pursue higher-quality training and upskilling opportunities throughout their working lives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Q5. The first duty of His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Prime Minister’s first duty, is the defence of the realm. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the worsening geopolitical situation, but he is responsible for this country’s reaction to it. It is imperative that at the Ankara NATO summit early next month, we can outline to our allies how we will meet that situation. There were reports yesterday that the Prime Minister was being pushed to delay the defence investment plan again by the outriders of the new right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). Will he confirm to this House that he will push ahead with its publication and that it is fully funded to the level the Chief of the Defence Staff said is required—not to the level his former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), resigned over—and in doing so, fulfil his first duty to defend the realm?
Can the hon. Member confirm the SNP’s position on this issue? Does it unequivocally support new licences in the North sea?
It is wonderful to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate, and I welcome my great friend—now my hon. Friend—the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to this place; he has been by my side pretty much from the day I joined the party, and it is fantastic to finally have him here alongside us, particularly in this debate. I have spoken a lot about oil and gas, particularly North sea oil and gas—UK continental shelf oil and gas—in this place, because it is so important. We cannot overestimate just how important it is to Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and north-east Scotland, and the by-election result in Aberdeen South is a testament to that. We are not naive; we do not think that 50% of Aberdeen South voters suddenly have a huge love of the Conservative party—although I am sure they will eventually—but this was a referendum on oil and gas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South put the point across perfectly that we must protect the sector and its jobs, the tax and investment that it returns, and our energy security. I have been knocking on doors in Aberdeen over the last four to five weeks, and the number of people I spoke to who have lost their job is tragic. They are very willing to talk about the job they had and the struggle they now have of finding a new one. Many of them are looking to move away because there is not a replacement job in Aberdeen. Many of them have young children, who will also have to move away. That is ruining friendships, it is ruining the future skills of Aberdeen, and it is changing the demographics of our region. This does not have to happen. We do not have to run down the North sea as quickly as we are. The Government do not have to ban new licences—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep the energy profits levy—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep delaying on Rosebank and Jackdaw—that is also a choice, and it is a choice that they keep making the wrong decision on. Once we get a new Prime Minister and undoubtedly, we hope, a new Energy Secretary, those choices will be different, because the public want the position to change: three quarters of the public support North sea drilling and North sea production if it means we will import less. The stats show that if we maximise production from the North sea, we could be using only 6% liquefied natural gas by the mid-2030s. On the current trajectory, we will be using 46% LNG. Again, that is a choice that this Government are making. LNG is more carbon-intensive, so it is worse for reaching our climate goals; it costs a huge amount of money; and it is supporting foreign jobs, not UK jobs. Again, those are all choices that the Government are making. It is up to them to change direction. I am delighted by, and very grateful for, the number of Labour Back Benchers who are here today and who tell me in private that they want the Government to change their position, because they recognise that there is a pragmatic path and we need to be on it. The impact is not only directly on jobs in the oil and gas sector. I have met hauliers and people who work in other industries in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, such as cafés and other hospitality businesses on the high street, who have seen footfall and trade decrease because of the decrease in the oil and gas sector. This impacts everybody, and not just in the north-east of Scotland.
The hon. Member—I call her a friend—is a huge champion for this sector and her constituents, and she is completely correct: these job losses impact everybody and all our constituencies, so we should all care about what is happening to the sector. This is not just about the big producers or operators; it is about the supply chain, too. Companies in the supply chain are UK-wide, and they must be protected UK-wide. They are also vital for the roll-out of other renewable technologies and nuclear. Without the supply chain, our future energy security will be so much poorer —we will have less energy security. Adura has submitted the additional information that is needed on Rosebank and Jackdaw. I appreciate that the Minister will probably say something about “quasi-judicial”, but can he make the commitment that there will not be any unnecessary delay? The decision does not have to be delayed for a new Prime Minister or a new Energy Secretary. These companies and the industry need confidence; they need to know that the projects will go ahead as soon as possible. The Government’s decision to write the ban on new licences into law via the energy independence Bill is an absolute kick for the sector. They had already said they would ban new licences, but the decision to put that ban into law drains any confidence that investors might have in the sector. Will the Minister think again and not include that awful policy in the Bill?
On that basis, why do the Government feel it necessary to ban new licences? The Minister says that production is declining, so why do they need to ban them?
This is incredibly frustrating. Scrutiny is not the same as climate change denial. Asking questions on behalf of our constituents, industries, households and businesses that will front the costs of this measure is not climate change denial. Will the hon. Member and the rest of the Labour Members here recognise that?
I will use my time to draw attention to parts of the impact assessment, because we are, after all, debating the carbon budget. First, this budget allows for 37% of our energy consumption by 2040 still to come from oil and gas. The Climate Change Committee itself is allowing for oil and gas to be included in our energy mix into the years to come. On that basis, why are the Government still committed to banning new licences in the North sea? Why are they still committed to the energy profits levy? Why are they still stopping the permitting of Rosebank and Jackdaw? All that will do is increase our imports of more carbon-intensive oil and gas, which is not good for the climate, economy or jobs in the UK. That point can also be found in the impact assessment. Secondly, reaching the carbon budget will require an “electrification of industry”. That means a reduction in our industrial capacity. The electrification of steel means a move away from blast furnaces, which will mean we lose our virgin steel capacity. Virgin steel is used for other industries as well, such as defence and civil nuclear, so we are going to hinder our civil nuclear capacity by reducing our virgin steel capacity. Thirdly, the impact assessment—I hope Members have read it, but I am not so sure—says that “a faster transition to renewables will not eliminate global supply chain risks.” It is not true, no matter how often it is said, that reducing our reliance on oil and gas and upscaling renewables makes us less vulnerable to global pressures. It does not. This impact assessment says it does not. We must recognise that everything has a cost and a risk, including renewables. I will bring my remarks to an end shortly, because I do not want to speak for too long. We must be realistic and pragmatic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) pointed out, this carbon budget assumes that we will reduce our meat and dairy consumption by 25%. It assumes that we will put a cost on households of thousands of pounds, which far exceeds any £300 saving on energy bills, were this Government to achieve it. China is not putting these costs on businesses or households, and it is not closing down its domestic industries. China is opening 50 to 70 GW of new coal every year. It has almost 1,200 coal-fired power stations, which it is using to export its renewables technology to us—it does not make sense. China is responsible for over a third of global emissions, and we are responsible for 1%. We are not making a difference to global climate change by impoverishing our businesses, industries and households. We said that we wanted to lead, but there is no point in leading if nobody is following. The key players are not following.
I am sure the hon. Lady has a gotcha for me on that one. I believe it has either not set a target or it is 20 years, but I could not tell her which.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) was returned on 50% of the vote because of the people who actually feel this. The jobs of the residents of Aberdeen South and north-east Scotland are being lost, daily and monthly, because of the rundown of the oil and gas sector and because of the eco-zealotry of this Government, who want to hit their net zero target faster than anyone else. That is the reality, and it is costing jobs and livelihoods. I have knocked on hundreds, probably thousands, of doors in Aberdeen South in the last month. I have met so many people in their 30s and early 40s, with young children, who lost their job because of this Government’s anti-North sea oil and gas policies. I do not call them anti-oil and gas policies, because the Government will happily take it from abroad. They will happily import liquefied natural gas and Russian-derived oil and gas products; they just do not want oil and gas products from the UK. Until we get over the obsession with running down our own industries, and with meeting a target that no one else is aiming for, the UK will suffer. Our industries, skilled workers and future economy will suffer. No other country will follow us if we do that. No other country is looking at the UK as an example. They are looking at the UK as an opportunity to export more of their refined goods and their manufacturing, because they know we are running down our industries here, but they will not copy our lead on reducing emissions because they can see the impact it is having on our economy and our energy bills. We are missing so many opportunities. Who is going to invest in AI and data centres here when we have four times the electricity costs of the US? They just will not, as there is no incentive. Driving down our agriculture to hit a net zero target is madness. We need food, which I hope is not controversial, but all we will do is import more. All that driving down the amount of our agriculture will do is free up more land for the Government to put solar panels on, which might help them with their target, but it is not going to help with our food production, and nor will it help our rural communities. I will happily vote against these measures today. I have happily read the impact assessment, and I do not believe that this is best for my constituents, best for the country or best for the economy.
Would my hon. Friend agree that another uncertainty is coming down the path? The Climate Change Committee is asking farmers to reduce livestock numbers by up to 40%. That would devastate and make unviable so many farms—complete madness.
Does the Minister accept that it is a choice made by this Government—maybe not by DEFRA, but by the Treasury—to bring in the carbon tax from 1 January? The Government cannot change events in the middle east, but they could choose to delay or scrap that tax.
I add my voice to those concerned about the transfer to TV over IP. Technology moves very fast, and I accept at face value the Secretary of State’s commitment that no one will be left behind. However, we have had 20 years of change, from fibre to cabinet and now fibre to premises, yet some of my constituents are still on copper to premises, surviving on download speeds of 2 or 3 megabits per second, which is not capable of getting television into their homes, whether the switchover is in 2034 or later. Can I urge the Secretary of State, before any decision is made, to work very closely with DSIT? No matter what the core statistics say about how many homes have fibre to premises, people will still be left behind, particularly in rural communities. Added to that, in many villages where there is only one fibre provider and no competition, there is fibre and there is fibre, and not all of it is as reliable as it looks.
Farmers have been innovating since the dawn of time, and they really do not need a word salad document to tell them that it might be a good idea. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s answers on fertiliser, both in terms of the current price shock and the impending additional shock, made by this Government, of carbon taxes on fertiliser. Surely, while there is lofty ambition for long-term innovation, there needs to be a direct answer and relief now on the shock that is going to come in January.
Many of my constituents in Epping Forest are very worried about proposals to stop terrestrial TV broadcasts from 2034. Like local radio, for many people in both urban and rural areas, and for older and more vulnerable people, terrestrial TV is a lifeline in their daily lives. Will the Government have a strong rethink about this?
The hon. Member is right to say that we need to produce more food in this country but, at the moment, farmers are telling me that they are not putting crops in the ground because they cannot afford the fertiliser to sustain them because of the situation in the Gulf. What does the hon. Member think the Government should do to support farmers right now?
Wiltshire farmers listened to Ministers at the Oxford farming conference and heard the Government’s pledge to support farmers during difficult harvests and supply shocks. They now find that they are in the middle of a supply shock, with many considering whether to plant their fields right now because of the price of fertiliser, about a third of which comes through the strait of Hormuz. If the pledge was more than rhetorical, is the Secretary of State able to say what practical measures the Government will be executing right now to assist the people I have just described?