5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

   Between 2017 and 2020, my daughter worked as a teacher in Shanghai. We visited her at Easter 2018, and I recall walking past the Catholic cathedral while the service was taking place on Easter morning, and it was overflowing. Later in the day, I attended a service at the church that my daughter went to, and there were 200 or 300 people there. There did not appear to be any repression of the services. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that it has got much worse over the last three or four years?

   Hansard source
2. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   Q I would like to talk about the 8 million people you reckon are not registered. Some of those people might choose not to register to vote, and the Government’s intention in the Bill is to bring in automatic voter registration. Do you see any issues with that if they are not all automatically registered for the same general election? For example, if four million are automatically registered before the next general election, and four million are not, you could argue that there are two different sets of electors, with one being easier to register and one being harder. Can you comment on that? Vijay Rangarajan: You are absolutely right. One of the risks we have with automatic voter registration across the UK is a significant divergence of systems. The Welsh Government have already carried out successful pilots and done a lot of work on this. As I understand it, they intend to proceed with automatic voter registration in Wales relatively soon—over the next year or so. The Scottish Government are also beginning to think about it. Obviously, the provisions are here in the Bill, but there is quite a long timescale for them. It is possible that we will end up with several different systems of automatic voter registration, and that they will act at different times. That would have real problems, and it does not feel to us like a good use of money. It would also be very complex indeed for an electoral registration officer to try to handle different registration systems in one area for different elections. Take, for example, a Welsh officer dealing with automatic voter registration for Welsh elections but not for UK-wide ones. We would welcome some rapid work to establish a UK-wide system of automatic voter registration soon.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   Q May I briefly follow that up? Is it your opinion, then, that if we are going to have automatic voter registration, everyone should be automatically registered for the same general election? Vijay Rangarajan: Yes; there should be some uniformity of registration across the UK and for other elections, or else a voter will be automatically registered for one election and have to manually register for another, which is a recipe for confusion and some nugatory work on their part. We would therefore like to see this in place soon. That does not mean that every voter will be on the register; they have the perfect right to refuse to be on it, and there are systems in place for that. In some countries, officers will write to a voter, mostly to check the address is correct and to ensure accuracy. If a voter says, “I don’t want to be registered,” or, “I have good reasons”—say, domestic violence reasons—“for not wanting to be on the open register,” they can make that clear. So there are a number of checks built into this; it is not quite as simple as everyone automatically being on the register. This would remove a major barrier to eligible voters being able to exercise their democratic rights.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   Q Karen, I have a question for you. You said that in Wales there have been four pilot areas of automatic voter registration. For my benefit and that of the Committee, could you tell us where they were? Were they for council elections? If they were, why did you decide to do them for council elections and not a Senedd election? Karen Jones: Just to clarify, they were not for an election event. They were exercises looking at the ability to add names accurately to the electoral registers. They were in Cardiff, Ceredigion, Wrexham and Powys.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   Q If you are going to take those recommendations forward and do automatic voter registration across Wales, it is your view that everyone should be done in the same Senedd election, rather than it being done in two halves, for example? Karen Jones: My understanding is that that is the plan in Wales. We will be working to a common timetable and will have a common approach to the way that automatic registration will be rolled out across the 22 local authority areas.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q I should declare that when I was a councillor, I did a number of things with Councillor Golds on similar committees at the Local Government Association. Harry, earlier you mentioned a percentage of people in your data who get turned away at polling stations. Was that all because they did not have the appropriate ID? I have seen people get turned away from polling stations simply because they have turned up to the wrong one. Do those people get included in your data, or is it just people who fail to bring the appropriate ID? Harry Busz: That figure is just for people who fail to bring ID. We do see people who are turned away because they may not be registered or they may be at the wrong polling station, but they are not included in those statistics.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q We have not touched on this with this group of witnesses: Richard, what are your views on automatic voter registration? In particular, what are your views on a situation where not everybody would be automatically enrolled at the same time for the same general election, potentially creating two groups of the electorate? Richard Mawrey: We have not really touched on automatic registration. I can see the thinking behind it. My view is that it is going to be almost impossible to achieve in practice, because you can only register people automatically if you are satisfied that they are entitled to vote. By the time that you have ascertained that they are entitled to vote, you have had to have carried out some form of inquiry—possibly even a house-to-house inquiry —on who is living where and whether they are entitled to vote. Assuming you have people living in a house, you go and knock on the door and say, “Do you live here? Are you entitled to vote?” If they say yes, do you then go further and say, “On what basis can you show that you are a relevant Commonwealth citizen?”, or whatever it happens to be. It may be a marvellous idea, but in practice, it will turn out to be unworkable. I suspect that it will also turn out to be an opportunity for gaming the system. People will be automatically registered who have no right to be, because the registration office has been in good faith, so to speak, set up by fraudsters to do that. By all means enact it, but I suspect that when push comes to shove, registration officers are going to start saying, “How do we do this?”, and they do not have the money, staff and resources. I think that it will turn out to be rather a damp squib. I am not saying it is a bad idea; I am just saying it is an idea that ain’t going to work.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026

   If the Minister issued new oil and gas licences for the North sea we could produce more of our oil and gas here at home. That would mitigate some of the problems that he has just raised about being over-reliant on oil states.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

   Student Loans

   I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to set the interest rate on Plan 2 student loans at a level which ensures that balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation; further calls on the Government to stop the freeze on repayment thresholds; and also calls on the Government to create more apprenticeships for 18-21 year olds, funded by controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers. In June 2023, the then shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), proclaimed, “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Well, it turns out that that was not true; under Labour, graduates are paying more. So far, under this Government tuition fees have gone up twice. This is a long way from the abolition of tuition fees offered up by a fresh-faced candidate for the Labour leadership just a few years ago—I wonder what happened to him. It is no wonder that students feel misled by this Government. Not content with hiking tuition fees when they said they would not, this Government also froze the thresholds for repayments, making loans even more expensive for graduates. As with everything this Chancellor touches, she makes it worse. Her choice to freeze the repayment thresholds has left young people paying more and sooner. What did the Chancellor say when challenged about the threshold freeze in January? She said that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”. To be clear, this was the stance—that the student loan system and the threshold freeze were “fair and reasonable”—of the Labour Government as recently as January. Tell that to the graduate forced to pay an extra £24,000 because of the Chancellor’s changes. The Chancellor is wrong: it is not fair or reasonable.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    The hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that Labour has made it worse. Even now, the Chancellor has changed her tune—no surprise given the track record of this Government. She now says that the system is “broken”, but young people are apparently not at the “front of the queue”. I did not see that on the front of the Labour manifesto. We on the Opposition Benches think that young people should be at the front of the queue, because thanks to Labour, Britain’s youth unemployment rate has topped the eurozone for the first time ever. Graduates coming out of university cannot get jobs. Graduates in work are seeing their student debt mounting up.

    Hansard source
11. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a chance today to create a new deal for young people. I hope that some Government Members vote for it.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    If the hon. Lady thinks the system is broken, I invite her to vote for our motion. Every metric for young people has got worse since this Government came in. It is crystal clear that for young people, as for the rest of the country, Labour is not working.

    Hansard source
13. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    My right hon. Friend is quite right: not only did Labour mislead the public, but it then made things worse. Now, Labour Members will not vote to fix it. That is Labour all over. We need a plan to fix the problem, but it is not enough to fiddle with one part of the problem. We need comprehensive change, and that is exactly what we Conservatives have come up with: a new deal for young people. The plan, which could be implemented today, would reverse the threshold freeze, make interest rates for plan 2 loans inflation-only, stop dead-end degrees, and boost apprenticeships so that young people have real choice when they leave school, not a future weighed down by debt.

    Hansard source
14. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    No, the plan would massively widen choice. At the moment, the number of young people who want to start apprenticeships is much smaller than the number of apprenticeships available—we need to change that and the system. It is not good enough for the Government to table an amendment to our motion stating that they will make the system fairer and financially sustainable, when they are making it less fair and less financially sustainable. At the moment, the system is punishing aspiration, and that is demoralising for young people. They leave university having done everything that was asked of them. They work hard and get a promotion, and then the interest on their loan goes up. They pay back far more than they ever borrowed. A typical plan 2 graduate needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep pace with the interest. Young people should not be punished for doing the right thing.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    The Chancellor said that the system was fair and reasonable—what a joke! The Government do not recognise the scale of the problem, but we do, and we have come up with a plan to fix it. What is their plan? It does not exist.

    Hansard source
16. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is nothing progressive about letting a young person take a university degree that has negative returns for them. That is not fair or right, and we should fix it. The problem is not just the loans, but a system that funnels young people into university courses that do not get them jobs and do not allow them to repay their loans. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that 30% of university degrees have negative returns for those who study them. It is not just that they do not help, but that they have negative returns. It is worse for those students to go to university—that is not progressive. Some 75% of the value of loans for creative arts courses is not paid back. Creative arts is an engine of the UK economy, but too many courses just do not deliver jobs in the industry that they purport to serve. It is a mis-selling scandal where brochures promise a glittering career, but the courses deliver nothing but debt and a dead end. That is not right. Of course, creative arts courses that actually lead to jobs should continue, but those who are selling a lie do not have any place being taxpayer funded. The consequences of this broken system are already becoming clear. According to the Centre for Social Justice, more than 700,000 graduates are currently out of work and claiming benefits. That should concern every Member of this House.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    My hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. Opportunity should be created for young people here, not in other countries, and that is what we want to create.

    Hansard source
18. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    It seems like the hon. Gentleman was at university only yesterday. If we are asking young people to take on a mountain of debt, it is important for them to know that they will get a job and have prospects afterwards. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition, and it is one that I will argue for.

    Hansard source
19. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    My hon. Friend is spot on. It is not well known that apprenticeship degrees are more oversubscribed than Oxford and Cambridge. These are things that young people want to do, and that is why we are trying to expand them. Instead of celebrating the expansion of low-value degrees, the Government should ask whether it is right to continue pushing young people down a path that leaves them with debt but no clear prospects.

    Hansard source
20. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I covered that point. The whole point is that those degrees do not lead to jobs in the creative arts industry. It is a mis-selling scandal. They promise a glittering career in the creative arts and do not actually deliver it. I think that is a problem, and I am sad that the hon. Gentleman does not think that. What are students receiving in return for these enormous fees?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    I will not. When the hon. Gentleman tried to intervene on me recently, he accused me of jumping on a bandwagon about rape gangs, so he will forgive me for not taking another intervention from him. Too often, students are receiving minimal face-to-face teaching, limited supervision and a university experience that falls far short of what was promised. This is not a fair system and it is not a sustainable one either.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I totally agree with him that it is something that needs to be looked into and fixed. As I have mentioned, we know that 10 times as many young people want an apprenticeship at 18 as there are places available. The demand is there, but the places are not. To me, it makes complete sense to move from funding dead-end courses at universities to giving young people the opportunity to do an apprenticeship that will get them into a job, and they will emerge from that apprenticeship with no debt. We want fundamental change to the system so that at 18, young people have a choice between a high-quality university place, an apprenticeship or going into work. That is a Conservative choice. What is Labour’s response to that proposal? Last weekend, the Government announced that they will compensate for some of the mess that they created in the form of youth unemployment when they hiked up employer national insurance contributions, but they are robbing Peter to pay Paul—exactly the sort of economic thinking that we have come to expect. They are punishing employers with a jobs tax, which one of the Cabinet finally admitted this week has caused a huge spike in unemployment, and they are giving back £3,000, but only to those who have been on universal credit for six months. Fiddling with a system that needs fundamental reform and clearing up the mess of the Chancellor’s Budget is almost a full-time job for this Government. The Conservatives are the only party putting forward a serious plan to help young people, whether by abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers or through our new deal.

    Hansard source
23. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and I look forward to his bringing it up with the Chancellor at questions.

    Hansard source
24. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Student Loans

    Exactly. The Chancellor gave it all away when she said that young people are at the back of the queue—that tells us all that we need to know about this Government. The Government amendment is the usual mishmash of nothingness, and I suspect many Labour Members are disappointed. The amendment welcomes “the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”, even though the only thing that the Government have done so far, which is the threshold freeze, has made the system less fair and less sustainable for young people. But don’t worry, there is more. Labour Members are today going to welcome a “target”—not any action lines, but a target—even though it is a target that the Government are currently missing, as the share and volume of under-25s starting apprenticeships in the last academic year have fallen. What a mess! We need a different approach. The Conservatives believe that the system needs fundamental change. We believe that students should not be mis-sold degrees that promise the earth and deliver nothing but debt, that the freeze on thresholds is wrong, that students on plan 2 loans should only pay interest at inflation, and that young people deserve a new deal. That is what we are asking the Government to vote for today, so that young people will be put not to the back of the queue but to the front of it.

    Hansard source
25. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Fuel Duty

    My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech as usual. Is she aware of analysis from the Taxpayers’ Alliance that says the average household will pay £40,000 in fuel duty over a lifetime under the Chancellor’s plans? That is several thousand pounds more than the median disposable income for a household. Does she feel, as I do, that this is an unsustainable burden on people who are already struggling to get by?

    Hansard source
26. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Fuel Duty

    It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who eloquently championed his local area and covered every point that we could possibly raise—I shall follow humbly on his coat-tails. Fuel duty is a war on the motorist. It is an attack on hard-working families who have scrimped and saved to drive their child to that special holiday or even to do the school run each day. This tax is regressive. It will hurt normal, hard-working families across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. It will also hurt small and medium-sized enterprises, care workers and all the key workers who have to drive from outside Buckinghamshire to work in the area. We have care workers who come from other counties to work in Bourne End, Wooburn and Marlow because the cost of living is so high. That extra driving, that extra cost on their transport, will be devastating to our local care-working community and to those who provide vital services, such as our firefighters and police officers, who often have to drive to the fire station or police station where they are based. That extra cost is the difference between a family making it each month and slightly going under. That is who we are speaking for today: the people who are paying their taxes, working hard and wanting to do the right thing but are being punished by this fuel duty increase. My constituency is also impacted by rises in off-grid heating oil prices. I myself have off-grid heating oil, and many of my constituents in Dorney, Wooburn, Bourne End, Flackwell Heath and Iver are impacted by price increases. Although we are near London, we are actually very rural. I have more pensioners per capita than pretty much anywhere else—you might be the No. 1 winner, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would come second. This extra cost will push my pensioners into poverty. They are barely making ends meet right now. They are humbly going about their business, but they all need transport as well. We have poor transport links so people need to use their cars, and my pensioners will be adversely affected by this fuel duty increase. It is incredibly unfair that the increase is coming in now given that world events are causing oil prices to increase anyway, so families, workers and the taxpayer will be further punished. It would be hard to have this debate without mentioning my right hon. Friend the former Member for Harlow, Robert Halfon, who led the charge on fuel duty. For years, he was the passionate voice making this point clear across the House: high fuel duty taxes are regressive because they affect working people the most. They are a brake on economic growth. We all saw the golden moment on Sunday morning when the harsh inconvenience of the facts hit the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero: that 38% of the cost of petrol is down to fuel duty, a tax entirely in the hands of the Government. This Secretary of State, who could power the entire country with hot air, seemed to get the message slowly but surely, and there is no problem to which the answer is not a faster and more ruinous race to net zero, putting ideology ahead of working families. To govern is to choose, and this Government always choose the most damaging economic pathway for families.

    Hansard source
27. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Fuel Duty

    It is a shocking burden and one that many people and hard-working families will not be able to bear. I am often told by the London elite that people need to switch to electric cars and do all these other things, but many people cannot afford an electric car or the cost of electricity, or even to put fuel in their petrol car. Families will be at breaking point, and they have no alternative to taking their child to school or the doctor. That extra burden can push a family completely over the edge. We need to make our economy competitive again. We need to look at ways to make energy and fuel affordable for everyone. Working people are being saddled with higher costs and taxes while more money is being pumped into benefits Britain because of the weakness of a Prime Minister without a backbone. It is time to put working people first. It is time for another Government U-turn.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Fuel Duty

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to highlight the choices that people living in rural constituencies such as mine are making. In Coldstream, the price of diesel per litre has gone up from £1.41 to £1.69 over the past few days. That is a huge increase, but because of the prospective tax rise that is coming down the line from the Labour Government, constituents tell me that they are looking at jobs and considering their alternatives, because they have to drive to get to work. A constituent who has been offered a new job that is further away, and who will have to drive further to get to it, is thinking about turning it down because once the 5p fuel duty increase comes in, he will not be able to get to his job.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Fuel Duty

    To pick up the hon. Member’s point about fairness, he will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted that Scottish taxpayers are £710 on average worse off compared with taxpayers in England as a result of the Scottish Government’s higher rates of income tax. Does he think that is fair?

    Hansard source
30. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Fuel Duty

    My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically well-informed speech. Might she reflect on the cost of moving around by car for the Prime Minister in his Holborn and St Pancras constituency and the necessity to move around by car for his constituents compared with mine in the Isle of Wight and hers in Gordon and Buchan?

    Hansard source
31. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Fuel Duty

    My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are only two Labour Members of Parliament sitting on the Government Benches for this debate on the increase in fuel duty. Does he think that the other 400 Labour MPs are right now in a huddle, in a darkened room with the Chancellor, lobbying her to reduce that tax and to freeze fuel duties, or does he think that they might have gone home?

    Hansard source
32. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Student Loans

    Labour is failing young people. Youth unemployment is up since Labour took office—it is now higher than in the eurozone. There are more people not in education, employment or training since Labour took office—now nearly 1 million. There is a midlife crisis in our economy, too. More than 2 million people aged between 50 and 64 are on out-of-work benefits. The deal for young people is bad, and it has been made worse by this Chancellor. Too many young people are coming out of university with excessive debt, and they do not know what the future terms of their borrowing will be. If a private provider were to provide loans in this way, where someone did not know when they signed up what the interest rates, repayment deal or income threshold would be, that provider would be unable to enforce it—it would be unlawful. When it comes to this Government and the Chancellor freezing the threshold, for some reason those on the Government Benches think that is okay. We have heard from Government Members who said that they joined the Labour party to fight for a better deal. We heard from the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who said that she is here to fight for her generation—generation Z. Is she not bitterly disappointed at the limp response from her Government now that they have power and can do something about intergenerational justice as she sees it? Instead, Labour Members come into this House to defend their Government increasing debt for students and freezing the earnings threshold at which those young people have to start repaying.

    Hansard source
33. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Student Loans

    Let me ask the hon. Member a question, because his party is in government, he has power and he can change things. Does he think the system is fair? No, he does not, because he has already told this House that it is not. Is he not bitterly disappointed that his own Government have not got a plan to change it? If he does not like the system that existed before July 2024, why are his Government not changing it? The Opposition have brought forward a plan, which we are debating today. It would mean that those on plan 2 student loans will not end up paying more and more above RPI, so the Government will not be making money out of them having a loan. That is a meaningful change. The Government can go further because they are in power. I hope that our party, by the time of the next election, will be able to offer more, but we have already announced that we would abolish stamp duty, helping young people. We have already announced that we would scrap bad courses that offer no real additional employment prospects for people who do them, other than leaving them saddled with debt. It would seem that most Labour Members have history degrees, given the amount of time they have spent speaking about the last decade, but we are talking about the system that exists now. When I went to university, I accepted the principle that young people who went to university did not contribute enough to the education that they received. Under the Blair Government, undergraduates were asked to contribute more. Clearly there is a benefit for society in having an educated and graduate workforce to take up jobs as teachers and doctors, for instance, but there is also a great benefit for those who take up those jobs, because of the higher earnings involved. That is a principle I supported. It is a principle most people supported, and I still support it. However, we have plainly reached a tipping point for too many students. The personal debt is so high that they have no real prospect of ever paying it back. Some have degrees that give them no real opportunity ever to earn more than they would have earned had they been in a good apprenticeship—a good apprenticeship that the last Government gave them the opportunity to enter into.

    Hansard source
34. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Student Loans

    I am sure that the hon. Lady’s son’s degree is an excellent degree and that, hopefully, he will gain an excellent job, but that is not the case for every student. Too many students in this country are saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. They do not know their repayment terms because they change, and some of them have degrees that will give them no additional prospect of a job to allow them to repay their debt. I hope that most of us can agree on that principle. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to ask this question: should we be putting an end to some of these institutions and courses when they are doing nothing for the young people involved? This is not a deregulated market. In order to be able to offer a degree, an institution has to be licensed. There is no groundbreaking idea behind saying that certain courses are not of degree quality, and that the public should not be subsidising those courses. Governments already make decisions about that. It is the Conservative party that is proposing—for some reason the Labour Government do not want to do it—that young people who are sold a future that simply does not exist should not be saddled with debt, and the taxpayer should not subsidise them.

    Hansard source
35. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Fuel Duty

    Madam Deputy Speaker, “In these difficult circumstances, while the cost of living remains high and with a backdrop of global uncertainty, increasing fuel duty next year would be the wrong choice”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 817.] Those are not my words, as it happens, but I agree with them. In fact, that was what the Chancellor said in her first Budget. Having increased taxes by £40 billion in that Budget, people might have thought that that would be the end of the talk of fuel tax hikes. However, this Government’s approach is all about higher spending, taxation and borrowing, so it was not that surprising when, in her second Budget, the Chancellor set out plans to scrap the 5p a litre cut introduced by the Conservative Government in 2022—a cut, remember, introduced in the wake of price increases after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced that cut to recognise that, for rural communities such as mine in North West Norfolk, a car or van is a lifeline, not a luxury. They connect farmers to markets and help children get to school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. They allow people to get to work or to health appointments, and they keep rural enterprises in business. Every penny added to the cost of fuel has a bigger impact in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer. This would be the first fuel duty rise for 15 years, taking £3.6 billion from hard-pressed motorists. Unless Labour Members support our motion, that tax increase will take effect from September this year, and the average family will pay £150 more a year. The Road Haulage Association estimates that the increase would add £2,300 a year to the operating costs of an HGV. It is little wonder that it described the measures as a “hammer blow” for many small businesses. It gets worse. Labour Members often like to talk about the past 14 years of Conservative Government, but one thing we did over those 14 years was to freeze fuel duty. From next April, this Government will end that freeze, and inflation-linked rises will follow, making the end of support for motorists that is calculated to have been worth £120 billion over the period of Conservative government. Through this debate, the Conservatives are once again speaking up for the British people. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister about fuel duty increases last week, but he wanted to talk about anything but that topic—as he did again this week. Under pressure, he is beginning to shift his position. He has said that the increase is now under review. Where is his leadership? It is utterly lacking. And where are Labour Members? No Labour Back Bencher is prepared to stand up and speak in this debate. Even the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is notable by his absence. They will be whipped today to vote against our motion, as they were on the family farm tax, the winter fuel payment cuts, a national inquiry on grooming gangs, and more. Given their absence, I suspect that they sense another U-turn is coming. The Minister will once again have to defend a policy that he knows will probably be changed again, like the family farm tax, and the 3,000% increase in the landfill tax, which the Government also ditched under pressure. The Prime Minister is too weak to make a decision. Now he wants to go up to his study and read more papers alone, ponder it and think about what he should do. People increasingly feel that they are working harder and getting less, and that too many people are signed off on sickness benefits. The Government are making their life harder. On Labour’s watch, inflation has increased and unemployment is rising month after month. Labour Members’ constituents will see that, when the Government had the opportunity to stand up for families who rely on their cars, for the white van man, and for people in rural communities, they utterly failed to do so. When the Chancellor was asked whether she would reverse this fuel tax hike, she said something very revealing: “I’m very loath to spend Government money on something that the market should be doing”. Government money? There is no such thing. That is taxpayers’ money. This Government think that everyone’s money belongs to the state, and people should be thankful to keep some of it. That attitude explains Labour’s £66 billion of tax increases to fund higher welfare spending, it explains the Government’s failure to control spending and live within our means, and it explains why the tax burden is at a record high and will only increase. The impact is evident in the latest British social attitudes survey. Support for higher spending and taxation is falling, while support for lower taxes and lower spending is growing. That is the approach that the Conservative party has set out. We would make £47 billion of savings in public spending, including £23 billion in welfare—the Minister can have those ideas for free. We would use half that sum to reduce the deficit, and the other half to get the economy growing by scrapping stamp duty, and scrapping business rates for 250,000 leisure, retail and hospitality businesses. The Government are putting up tax and making prices rise at a time of growing uncertainty. That is the wrong choice. That is why I will vote to ease the burden on British motorists and against Labour’s fuel duty hike.

    Hansard source
36. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Fuel Duty

    My right hon. Friend is making a great speech, as we always expect from him. Does he remember that, for the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor stood there and said that increasing fuel duty would be the wrong choice for working people? She said then that that was because of uncertain global events, and that the cost of living remained high. Does my right hon. Friend remember anything changing between 2024 and now? I do not think that the position has got any better—does he?

    Hansard source
37. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Fuel Duty

    Yesterday, the Chancellor said it was great that Norway and Canada were increasing their production of oil and gas, and congratulated them doing so. And who could disagree with that—other than, seemingly, herself and the Cabinet? Does the Minister agree that, along the same lines, we should be increasing our production from the North sea and lifting the ban on North sea licences?

    Hansard source
38. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Fuel Duty

    It is great to be able to speak today in this important debate. I am glad that this is one of the topics that the official Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, have brought to the House, because fuel duty impacts everybody. It impacts every family, every household, every business, hauliers—everywhere we go, everything that we see is impacted by fuel duty, and that is no more obvious than in rural areas. People in our rural communities rely on cars more than anywhere else. We cannot rely on buses, because they are not reliable. We cannot rely on trains, because half of the time they are not there. We cannot rely on tubes, because we do not have any near us. Cars are the lifeblood of rural communities. We would be stuck without them, and therefore they are vital. The majority of the public know that too. There are 36 million petrol and diesel vehicles in the UK, and every single one of them will be taxed when fuel duty goes up. Fuel duty is a tax on every single vehicle, and all those vehicles are driven by somebody, so this is a tax on everybody. Rural communities will feel this change so much more because they are so much larger. The best way to demonstrate that is to compare the size of constituencies. My constituency in Aberdeenshire in north-east Scotland is large; it is nowhere near the largest Scottish constituency, but it covers 2,076 sq km. That is larger than the combined total of the constituencies of Treasury and Transport Ministers multiplied by three. Indeed, if the large constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), is removed from that equation, the total combined constituency area of the Treasury and Transport ministerial teams is 380 sq km. I assume, therefore, that it is no coincidence that they do not appreciate how important cars are for getting around large constituencies and how much increasing fuel duty will impact rural constituents. While distance is important, price is also vital. The “Fuel Finder” tool that has been created is helpful, not least because it tells me that in my constituency fuel is on average 147p per litre, compared with 139p per litre in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We are already paying more in rural constituencies, and we already have to drive our cars further, so we are filling up our cars more often and at a higher price. Fuel duty rises impact us more than those living in urban areas. This is a point I keep coming back to, but rural communities do not have a choice—we have to drive. We have to drive to get to work, to get children to school, to go to doctors appointments. To use an example, my constituency has seen many bank closures, meaning that constituents in Ellon have to drive to Inverurie in order to bank. That is a 28-mile round trip—just to bank. That distance is further than the breadth of many Members’ constituencies, east to west or north to south. It is not just fuel duty that the Government are targeting. At the Budget they announced their new 3p per mile charge for electric vehicles. Constituents of mine who live in Huntly and commute to Aberdeen to work, often in the oil and gas sector, travel 17,800 miles a year—based on their working five days a week, 46 weeks a year—just to get to work. The pay-per-mile system that the Government have brought in will mean that those constituents pay £535 a year just to get to work in their electric car. Perhaps Treasury Ministers cannot imagine having to do a 77-mile round trip to get to work, but that is what my constituents do and they are being penalised for it. When the Treasury Front Bencher winds up, I would be grateful for confirmation that pay-per-mile for electric vehicles will not be a gateway to pay-per-mile for petrol and diesel vehicles. That would cripple rural communities, rural families, and rural businesses. It is a slippery slope that the Government have started on with EVs, and if the system progresses to cover petrol and diesel vehicles, it will be a hell of a lot worse for a lot of people. We all know that supply is just as important as price, if not more important; we have been talking about it a huge amount since the events in Iran. People panic when they get to the pumps because they see the price going up, but they will panic more if they get to the pumps and there is no supply at all. I am not saying that we are there at the moment, but we need to consider how important supply is.

    Hansard source
39. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Fuel Duty

    Absolutely; I think a lot of us can relate to the fact that in some constituencies people have no choice but to use their car. They will use their car and keep using it, because they have to, and if they are using their car, they need to fill it. Therefore, they need petrol and diesel at affordable prices, and increasing fuel duty is making that less affordable. Fuel duty makes up 38% of the cost of a litre of petrol. The wholesale price is 33%, which feeds into it, so any increase in fuel duty makes prices more and more expensive. The decision to do that is completely under the control of this Government. Refining is a vital part of the production of petrol and diesel for our vehicles. The UK has a very good record on refining, as we are net exporters of petrol from our refineries, but in the last two years alone, two refineries—a third of the UK’s refineries—have been lost, and our capacity is going down. That is not least because of the carbon tax, which has nearly doubled under this Government. It has made refining in the UK more difficult, putting industries under pressure and ensuring that the de-industrialisation of the UK under this Labour Government continues. Members need not look any further than the oil and gas sector, particularly in north-east Scotland, to see the de-industrialisation of the UK in action. The coherence of this Government’s oil and gas policy is non-existent. They know that we need oil and gas for years to come, and they say that we need oil and gas for years to come, yet they do not want British oil and gas for years to come. We have the largest tax on any mature basin, which this Government extended and increased in their first Budget. They have banned new licences, meaning that reserves will be left under the North sea. Norway will then drill those reserves, and we will import from Norway. There is no coherence in their strategy. As a result of the ban on new licences, we are also exporting jobs. The skilled workers in the oil and gas sector who produce our oil and gas and contribute to our fuel security will move abroad. They have the skills and are valued workers, yet other countries value them more than we do in this country. The Government’s policies show that. One thousand jobs a month are being lost, and billions in tax revenue is being lost. Billions in investment is being lost, which I know the Treasury Front-Bench team know very well following their recent meetings with the sector. The Government—either because of their own ideology or the one being imposed on them by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—do not want to use our own natural resources. They would prefer to import, at huge financial and environmental cost and at the cost of work and jobs, in order to satisfy themselves that they are reaching a target that they imposed on themselves. Some 70% of the UK’s energy still comes from oil and gas, and it will do so for many years to come. Electricity, which is the power that the Government refer to in their 2030 target, makes up only 20% of our energy. In reality, the vast majority of the energy that keeps this country going and powers the UK comes from oil and gas. Some 50% of the gas that we use every day comes from the North sea. Shutting down the North sea impacts our fuel security instantly and into the future, and it will keep doing so. There are enough reserves in the North sea with the correct fiscal and regulatory conditions to support British energy security, but this Government have decided that they do not want them and would prefer to source oil and gas from elsewhere. We heard that yesterday from the Chancellor herself, who was delighted that Norway and Canada have increased production. Why would we not do the same? We can do the same. Why are we still waiting for Rosebank and Jackdaw to be approved? Why are we sitting on those applications? It makes no sense. All of these decisions affect our fuel security and the cost of living for households. They affect the amount of supply we have for all the things that we use energy for, yet this Government are happy to forgo that just for their headline. I am delighted that we are discussing fuel duty for our rural communities and businesses, but this debate also shines a light on the vital importance of our oil and gas supply into our refineries and our cars and vehicles. That is why I am delighted to support the Opposition’s motion today.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Fuel Duty

    I thank my constituency neighbour—almost—for giving way. Although my constituency might not be the biggest, it is definitely the prettiest.

    Hansard source