Alistair Carmichael MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I too remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In Orkney and Shetland, the food and drink sector is an integral part of our local visitor economy, as is the hospitality sector, but neither is part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we were to bring food and drink and hospitality into the industrial strategy, we would not suffer the salami slicing of over-regulation that we are seeing, especially in Scotland, where the self-catering industry is now being hit with another round of regulatory burdens?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Under the £3 billion loan that Thames Water has negotiated, the first drawdown of £1.5 billion will be on 30 June, which is less than four weeks away. That is contingent on Thames Water having a lock-up agreement in respect of a recapitalisation transaction, but it now has no partner to provide that. It of course chose to proceed with just one option, which has now walked away. Who does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water will now turn to—it is not exactly going to be negotiating from a position of strength—and what are the Government going to do if it cannot meet that 30 June deadline?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs states that, at present, where there is 100% relief, valuations for BPR are done on the basis of the book value, which is, as my hon. Friend will know, often very different from an asset’s actual value. That being the case, I wonder how easy it would be for the Government to have reached any reasonable understanding of the actual value of the assets that they now seek to tax.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman flatters to deceive, I fear. He is right about the way grocery supermarkets go about their business, but much of the problem is the way they choose to go about it. I recently heard from a livestock farmer who bought in potatoes to feed stock. He expected to find them green, bruised or damaged, but when they arrived they were perfect; they just were not conformed to the particular specification that the supermarket demanded. That demand does not come from consumers, but directly from supermarkets. If he looks around Europe and elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman will find that supermarkets there behave very differently.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  The difficulty is that the review of a limited regulator is always going to bring up a limited answer. What we need is something much more holistic. Just to take one small example, the number of small abattoirs in the country is now down to the hundreds, from 2,500 some time ago. That is a direct consequence of the way in which the supermarkets bring pressure to bear in other parts of the supply chain, so what we need is something that looks at the whole process, from farm gate to supermarket shelf.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing time for this debate from the Backbench Business Committee. I find myself in the curious position of being in violent agreement not only with him, but with the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). That is a moment worth reflecting on. In advance of this debate, we have received some very useful briefings from the National Farmers Union and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union about food insecurity and workers’ rights; the hon. Lady has just touched on those issues. Curiously, the one organisation from which we have not heard a peep is the Groceries Code Adjudicator itself. That is quite significant, because this is not the first time that the House has debated the work of the adjudicator: my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) secured a debate on it in February, I myself presented a ten-minute rule Bill on it in March, and now we have this debate today. If the adjudicator had a good story to tell, we would expect to have heard something from it by now, given the criticism that has been levelled at it. But not a peep: it has maintained an omertà that would put the Mafia to shame. I do feel slightly conflicted. The adjudicator has a tiny office and, I think, a staff of seven or eight. Given its inability to process complaints at the moment, I do not know that I want it to spend that much time talking to MPs and policymakers. But if it has a story to tell, it needs to come out and tell it. Otherwise, we will be entitled to assume that there is not much that it can say. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke about the need for reform and the way in which that reform might take shape. I disagree with very little of what he said. What we need, as the hon. Member for Salford says, is a single regulator from the farm gate to the supermarket shelves. At the moment, too many unfairnesses are hardwired into the system, there are too many players in the market and it is just too easy for outcomes to fall between the gaps. Those who suffer are always the consumers, who are left with higher food prices, or the primary producers. At the moment, it is principally the primary producers who are losing out. The supermarkets are entering into a price war as they try to push down food price inflation. As a primary food producer myself, I declare a registered interest. There are wider issues around the behaviour of supermarkets. There has been widespread and justifiable outrage in the past few days about Asda selling Uruguayan beef. The way it is often done is instructive. The labelling on the top looks lovely. It says that the beef is 30-day matured rib-eye steak of “heritage breed origin”, whatever that means. A shopper has to turn it over and see the small print on the back or underside of the tray to find out that it is beef produced in Uruguay from cattle slaughtered in Uruguay. Even if we park for a moment the concern about animal welfare standards, the carbon consequences of shipping beef around the world in this way are utter madness, even though ironically it would help us to meet the targets set for us by the Climate Change Committee. That example illustrates that amid growing competition among supermarkets on price, if we continue to reduce our levels of livestock in this country the resulting gap will be filled by cheaper imports. That surely renders any definition of food security utterly meaningless. Once we lose our own producers, we will not get them back.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  The review describes responsibility for space policy within Government as “fragmented”, so its proposal for a “reinvigorated Cabinet sub-Committee” to set the strategic approach to space is to be welcomed. That will clearly have significant implications for the development of a vertical-launch satellite facility at SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland. Will the Secretary of State ensure that hardwired into that Sub-Committee is a process of engagement for the operators at SaxaVord and the communities that host them, so that both might be empowered to deliver on this most important strategic objective for the country as a whole?

• 21 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. On Friday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its report on the Government’s vision for agriculture. The Committee agrees with the Government that land purchase being used to shelter wealth from inheritance tax is a problem that needs to be tackled. As a cross-party Committee with a Government majority, however, we took the unanimous view that the Government’s current proposals for inheritance tax reform will catch too many family farms that will simply not be able to pay the bill. We ask for the changes to be paused and reworked. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Select Committee and those on his own Benches who want to tackle tax evasion and support the farmers who keep producing food for the nation’s table?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that, where prima facie evidence of genocide exists, awaiting for the determination to be made formally by a court is not sufficient for us to meet the duty to prevent under the genocide convention?

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. I apologise, Mr Speaker; I had not realised that my name was on the Order Paper.

• 13 May 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing this quite exceptional but fitting tribute, which I am sure will give some comfort to Sir Roy’s wife Dawn and his children, Hannah and Elliott. It was my privilege to work with Sir Roy during the first three and a half years of the coalition Government. Coalition government had never been done in this country in modern peacetime. The coalition required service to not one party but two in government, and for Sir Roy, it was a time of change and challenges, but they were all challenges that he took impeccably in his stride. There are many anecdotes that I could tell you, Mr Speaker, but unfortunately, too many of those who were involved are still alive, and there are limits to how far one can push parliamentary privilege. The genius of Sir Roy Stone was that he never betrayed any personal political view. That was how he was able to serve Governments of all stripes. The dignity of Parliament and of the business of government really mattered to him. There was only one occasion when I saw Sir Roy’s mask slip. It was the early days of the coalition Government. The Liberal Democrat Whips Office was in the business of babysitting, and on this occasion it involved an actual baby; it was not the normal babysitting that the Whips Office is called on to do. Inevitably, as happens with babies, there was a need for a nappy to be changed. I took the baby—I think it was Jenny Willott’s son, Toby—into my office, and I had laid him on the sofa and was changing his nappy when Sir Roy Stone appeared in the doorway. One glimpse at his face told me that this scene realised his worst fears about having Liberal Democrats in government. Sir Roy cared about both Government and Parliament, and being able to serve both requires very distinctive and particular talents. It was a privilege to work with him and to have the benefit of those talents. For those who mourn him, especially his family, the recognition of those talents should be an enduring comfort.

• 6 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  For those of us who have Scotch whisky industry interests in our constituency, it is very welcome news that apparently globalisation is not dead after all. The Minister speaks about this being a deal that opens doors, but what assistance will be given to British companies, especially SMEs, to ensure that they are able to maximise the benefits they can derive from trading in this very important market?

• 1 May 2025 · Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries · Hansard source

  More

  When the previous Government looked at supporting energy-intensive industries, they included within the definition brewers, cider makers and wine makers, but not distillers, despite the fact that distillers use 17 kW per hour to make a litre of alcohol, compared with brewers which use just 0.5 kW per hour. As the Government consider what they will have to do to support energy-intensive industries such as distilling, will the Minister consider that the Scotch whisky industry in particular is critical to the maintenance of economic activity and good- quality jobs in some of the most remote and economically fragile communities in this country?

• 1 May 2025 · US Trade Negotiations: Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State in DEFRA recently appointed Baroness Batters to lead a profitability review in farming and has set up a farm profitability unit in the Department. Those are welcome and necessary steps, but it is not entirely unknown for the efforts of one Government Department to undermine those of another, so before the Secretary of State signs any trade deal with America, will he check in with DEFRA and run the rule over what it is doing on farm incomes so that he does not undermine its efforts?

• 1 May 2025 · US Trade Negotiations: Farming · Hansard source

  More

  7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the potential impact of his trade negotiations with the US on the farming sector.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a significant speech on something that should concern us all. Does he agree that wherever these abuses are found, whether in Gaza, Sudan or any other theatre, they do not happen by accident? They happen because forces such as the Israeli Defence Forces, for example, are effectively given licence to do this by their Government. That is why, on a Government-to-Government basis, there is something that this country can actively do to make it clear to the Governments responsible for this treatment that it is not acceptable, and that we will take action to highlight their abuse and remove support from them.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit · Hansard source

  More

  If our Prime Minister can meet the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and if the United Kingdom Government can enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Palestinian Authority, what barriers can remain to the United Kingdom recognising the state of Palestine as a matter of logic?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Press reports earlier this week indicated that negotiations with the EU around security and defence were to be linked to the review of the trade and co-operation agreement, in particular in relation to access to fisheries. May I invite the Paymaster General to confirm to the House that those reports are not true and that there will be no linkage between those two important negotiations?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Ukraine War: London Talks · Hansard source

  More

  I have nothing new to say about this, but since I was one of those included yesterday in the list of those who were no longer welcome in the Kremlin—not that I had thought I ever would be—I feel compelled to place on record that my determination to oppose and expose the brutality and illegality of Vladimir Putin and his Government is greater today than it was yesterday. Can the Minister do what he can to make sure that our resolve in this House is heard in the Kremlin and also, if necessary, in the White House?

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. I have given up days of my life to helping to free up fish exporters from Shetland from red tape, but the truth is that although we have put friction into those exports, the standards are still broadly the same. It would not be that difficult, at this point in history, to get the necessary alignment, especially through a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, for example. We are looking at a market that is important to us and in which we have similar standards—unlike across the Atlantic, where there are very different standards for food products.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  Where a post office branch that is currently directly managed is not staying in its current premises, will there be a proper formal scheme of community engagement to give the community some control over ensuring that what is provided in its place will be at least as good? Communities simply do not trust the Post Office at the moment to make that judgment for itself.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Farmers: Tax Reliefs · Hansard source

  More

  6. If she will meet farming representatives to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers. [R]

• 8 Apr 2025 · Farmers: Tax Reliefs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor’s human shield for that answer, but the fact that the Chancellor—who is sitting on the Front Bench—was not prepared to stand up and answer for herself demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for farmers, bordering on contempt. Will she not meet the farming unions, the banks, the professional organisations, and even the supermarkets themselves to hear why they all think her calculations are wrong? If the Minister wants to ask her before he stands up, I am sure we will all allow him a second or two.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Radio Teleswitch Service Switch-off: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government preparations for the radio teleswitch service switch-off in Scotland. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Minister to her place. It is a truth universally acknowledged that when things go wrong, Governments get the blame—whether it is their fault or not. That is just one of the unfairnesses of politics with which we all have to live. In opening my remarks, therefore, I will say something very unusual—I struggle to think of another occasion when I have said this in almost 24 years as a Member of Parliament—if the radio teleswitch service switch-off goes badly, it will not be the Minister’s fault. In the relatively short period that the Minister has been in the job, she has demonstrated a willingness to take hold of the issue and to make things happen in a way that I wish we had seen two or three years ago, because we all knew that the switch-off would be a problem. It is only now, when we are just over two months away from the final switch-off, that people who should have been alive to it long ago are finally waking up to the reality. I genuinely welcome the Minister’s engagement, and I hope that her energy will drive a less bad outcome than we might have had otherwise. It might still be possible to rescue the situation, even at this late stage—who knows? The basic facts of the challenge with the radio teleswitch service are well rehearsed—this is not the first time that the Minister has been in one of these debates. RTS is a technology that allowed for automatic tariff switching for customers and enabled tariffs such as “total heating with total control”, which have been valuable to households in rural communities, particularly those that are off the gas grid. That includes most of the highlands and islands, and certainly the entirety of Orkney and Shetland. RTS is planned to be switched off on 30 June this year, less than three months from now. A number of extensions have been made to the deadline previously, but the switch-off cannot be delayed indefinitely due to the system being obsolete and increasingly unreliable—quite apart from the fact that it relies on the BBC to commission it. It would be helpful if the Minister in her response could offer some explanation for the exact reasons for the hard deadline that we now face. Despite being aware of the need to move away from RTS meters for years, Ofgem and the energy companies have not done enough to prepare—candidly, they have been asleep at the wheel. At some future date, we might want to revisit that to look at what should have been done earlier and why it was not but, frankly, for today’s purposes, that is an unhelpful distraction. I just put the energy companies, Energy UK and Ofgem on notice that they may yet have to account for something that visits a serious impact on my constituents and constituents who rely on RTS throughout the whole United Kingdom. The first challenge is to get as many RTS meters as possible replaced with smart meters before 30 June. Across the United Kingdom, hundreds of thousands of RTS meters remain; perhaps the Minister can give us an update on the exact figure. I know from my frequent engagement with her that the numbers are going in the right direction, but not as fast as she would want. A disproportionate number are in rural communities in Scotland, such as my own in the isles. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how the Government propose to drive faster meter replacement in places such as Orkney and Shetland. I have heard that some energy suppliers intend to make a concerted push to replace meters first in Orkney and then in Shetland in the coming weeks. I would be grateful if she could clarify whether the spring sprint, as we are hearing it called, is being driven from the centre and whether all companies are going to be part of that surge effort. In Orkney and Shetland, customers were historically served by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or the hydro board as it was called. That then became Scottish and Southern Energy, which then hived off its retail business to OVO Energy. I would therefore guess that OVO is still the dominant supplier in the local market, but in this age of switching, there are several other companies as well. Will everybody be expected to put their shoulder to the wheel in the spring sprint? If there is a co-ordinated surge plan for our communities, the more information we can receive on that plan and how it will work on the ground, the better. I do not believe that many people are still unaware of the RTS switch-off, at least not in Orkney and Shetland, but we can still build momentum and maximise the number of people who replace their meters if people are fully aware of when and how they can get a replacement. Simply put, if we make this surge work in Orkney and Shetland, we have the opportunity to build momentum for work in other island rural communities, and indeed for those on the mainland. Getting it right for us is an opportunity for everyone. The second critical issue is customers’ right to be no worse off under their replacement meter tariff. The Minister held a roundtable with me, other MPs and Ofgem on the state of play at the start of February. That meeting clearly had some effect as, a week later, Ofgem announced its consultation on new rules to protect customers. I note in passing that the consultation has since closed, and we are awaiting the results. Although that is not the only lever that can be pulled to drive progress, I hope we might soon have word on the results of that consultation, as we are not exactly flush with time. That would be a welcome practical signal from Ofgem—not just what its representatives say when they are sitting in the Minister’s office—that it has genuinely woken up to the need to approach this issue with greater urgency. Central to Ofgem’s proposals under consultation was a commitment that energy suppliers must give consumers tariffs that leave them no worse off than their existing tariff arrangement when their meter is replaced. That promise is critical and it has to be delivered, both as a matter of fairness and for the practical success of the project. We need to give families the confidence that they can replace their meter in the knowledge that they will not be left worse off. I have some concerns about how that proposal is being interpreted by energy suppliers in practice. I have been contacted by constituents who, having been offered a meter replacement by EDF, for example, have been told that they are not allowed to have an Economy 10 tariff but must take a more expensive and inferior Economy 7 tariff instead. That would leave them worse off than they were on the RTS tariff, which seems to be a prima facie breach of Ofgem’s rule and undertaking. It also suggests that EDF, perhaps because it is not the biggest player in some of those markets, has not fully appreciated the scale of what will be required of it. When I publicised in the local media that this debate was going to take place, I was contacted by another constituent, who said: “On Saturday 5th April, my old RTS meter was replaced. I am with OVO and was with SSE before”— a fairly classic Orkney and Shetland customer— “I previously paid around £5 per day on average...In just over two days since the new meter was installed I have spent almost exactly £30 on electricity. Quite an increase, I’m sure you will agree.” I certainly do agree and if such stories continue to appear, they will make a mockery of the rule that people will be no worse off. As the energy companies are among those who have to push hard and play catch-up here, it would assist everybody—including them—if they demonstrated a better understanding of the no detriment rule that Ofgem is seeking to enforce. As the regulator, Ofgem is responsible for judging whether such a breach has occurred and what sort of penalty or remedy must be applied if it has, but I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with that assessment, and to hear the Government’s view on what seems to be a basic matter of fairness. That matters because I have heard other such cases from constituents. In such communities, it does not take much for a narrative to set in that Ofgem’s rule—or guidance or whatever it will be called—does not hold water. There are also concerns about the consequences for people who, for whatever reason, are not upgraded by the end of June. Ofgem has stated that there will be no interruption of the electricity supply to homes as a result of the switch-off. That is essential, because, apart from anything else, our communities are entirely off the gas grid. It would also be helpful for my constituents if they received clarification from the Minister about the exact process of the switch-off in June and what it will mean for individual customers. One of the defining features of RTS is the use of “total heating with total control”, which turns heating on and off automatically according to the radio signal. If heating is stuck on at the point of signal shutdown, that will be a significant problem for households, which will incur significant costs. It could even be dangerous for older and more vulnerable people. We should remember that we are talking about what might be euphemistically called some of the most windswept and interesting parts of Scotland; RTS being switched off in June is no guarantee that people will not still have their heating going. If the Minister has any answers about what is being done to avoid such issues, that information would again be welcome for my constituents. Beyond these specific technical questions, my worry is that safety nets for the remaining customers will be weakened once the numbers start to come down. Bluntly, Ofgem and the electricity companies have shown little interest in or concern about our communities thus far. They may be coming to the table now, when there is political and public pressure on them, but once the numbers are down to the hard core of hard-to-shift cases, I worry that their interest may wane again. There is a natural risk that isolated homes, and isolated and vulnerable people, will make up a disproportionate number of the remaining cases. Even if they are small in number, each one of them matters and no one should be left behind. There are also specific challenges around connectivity for rural and island communities in Scotland. Smart meters may be the solution for most people who are replacing their RTS meter, but many areas in the isles do not have the signal required for smart meters—indeed, they likely never will. I understand through correspondence with energy suppliers that technical solutions are being sought for those cases. Again, however, I remind the House that there are just weeks to go. If the Minister can give further updates about what the energy companies intend for those hard-to-reach cases, that would again be a source of useful information and reassurance for my constituents. I suggest that such challenges further reinforce why Ofgem’s commitment that tariffs must be no worse than they were under RTS must be delivered, so that there is no backsliding to inferior meters and tariffs. Hitherto, the overall communication and consistency from Ofgem and energy suppliers have been pitiful. Constituents continue to be given poor or conflicting advice about their appointments, their eligibility for smart meters and much more besides. Even now, some constituents find themselves unable to book any appointment, regardless of date. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was offered an appointment in April, only for that appointment to be cancelled and replaced with one in August. Taken individually, those may be minor issues, but each one risks adding to the sense of confusion or suspicion about the way that suppliers are going about their business, precisely when we really need confidence. This is a matter that we have been fighting on for years. I am afraid it illustrates on the part of the big corporates and regulators such as Ofgem a shameful indifference to the fact that they need to provide a different service to people in the highlands and islands, and in island and rural communities such as mine. It has left our communities in a place where, frankly, they should not be. We are grateful to the Minister for that understanding and for doing what she can to push them on, but sometime in the future I think we will have to return to this matter and see why we have been left swinging in the wind in the way that we have been.