Alistair Strathern MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the leadership she has shown on this issue, not just since taking up her role, but long before she came to this House—that is a powerful lesson at the heart of some of today’s debate. We have heard a lot from some Opposition Members about how inherently global this problem is, and that the UK decarbonising alone will not tackle climate change. They are obviously right—it is an inherently and intractably global problem that we cannot tackle alone—but they seem somehow to build from that to an argument that we will get other countries to go faster by going slower ourselves. The lesson that the Minister showed in a previous job by arguing for the Climate Change Act is that by showing global leadership, we can bring other countries along with us on this difficult journey. We brought in the Climate Change Act, and now 75% of the country’s GDP is covered by binding emissions targets. We know we need to go further, which is why the debate about how we meet those targets is so important—but it must be a debate about how we meet them. There has been a lot of loaded language about climate denialism, and I accept that Conservative Members are not denying the existence of climate change. However, by denying the real and existential consequences of not meeting the science-backed targets, they are engaging in a subtler, but no less pernicious form of denialism. That is betraying our constituents and their futures by failing to recognise the existential challenge of climate change, and by failing to engage with the real and important debate that we should all be having about how we meet those targets and the policy trade-offs needed.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is right to highlight that we need to do more to drive down the costs of energy and bring others with us on the journey of decarbonisation, but that is not the debate we are having today. We are having a debate about scientifically binding and informing climate targets that will have existential implications if we do not meet them. By not engaging with some of the deeper policy conversations about how we get there, the right hon. Member is letting us all down. There will absolutely be areas where we can go further, because we have already shown that we can. Whether that is by renewing some of the renewable energy auctions to get better value out of the outcomes for consumers, by evolving the way we are delinking gas from electricity markets to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment, or by reforming some of the planning costs that have been holding back the new nuclear and clean energy that we desperately need to get cracking with, we have already made progress. There will absolutely be areas where we need to go further, and many hon. Members have made good contributions to highlight some of them. That could be thinking about how we can do more to take policy costs off electricity to speed up the electrification journey, or how we can deregulate better some of the innovate start-up technologies that will make some outcomes possible in ways that we might not even be able to imagine today, or thinking carefully about how we manage the industrial costs and implications of the journey to net zero, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the fantastic industrial heartlands that our country has relied on for far too long, and which we should be preserving long into the future. Those are big important questions, but that is not the discussion and argument that has so often been thrown back from the Opposition Benches today. That argument has denied the implications of failing to meet the target, and it is deeply disappointing, because it lets down our constituents and all our collective futures.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Gareth Southgate’s documentary last month spotlighted some of the heartbreaking ways that we are failing too many young men growing up in Britain today, but it was heartening to see the inspiring work that Hitchin youth worker Dan Gaze was able to carry out with young men in my community who had found themselves in hard times. Both Dan and the boys at Hitchin boys’ school who were interviewed as part of the documentary were an absolute credit to my town, but how can we make sure that we are encouraging more men into teaching and youth work roles, so that every young man growing up in Britain today can benefit from positive role models across their community?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the moving way in which he is opening today’s debate. It has been really heartbreaking to hear from my constituent Hayley about the battles that her granddaughter Lily has had to go through to try to find effective treatments for her brain tumour. The Brain Tumour Charity has highlighted that fewer than 40% of patients with brain tumours are informed about clinical trials. Does my hon. Friend agree with its recommendation that the Government need to reflect on how every eligible patient can be informed about, and ideally have access to, clinical trials to ensure that the widest possible range of treatment options is available?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. New towns such as Tempsford should offer an opportunity to ease development pressures, not add to them, so I thank the Minister for listening to my representations, and ensuring that if Tempsford comes forward, it will be included in Central Bedfordshire council’s housing target, rather than being in addition to it. Across Central Beds, lots of developments have come forward without the right infrastructure. As we explore the vehicles required to bring forward new towns such as Tempsford, how can we ensure that we do everything possible to get infrastructure right from the outset?

• 19 May 2026 · Criminal Justice System: Support for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  The Anti-Slavery Commissioner recently called out the targeted online grooming of young men by county lines gangs. That is far from being an isolated case of such targeting. Young men growing up in Britain today are all too often targeted by those in the worst corners of the internet—from those in the manosphere to predatory gambling companies to get-rich-quick schemes. However, while Ofcom rightly has guidance for platforms about how to better protect women and girls from the specific harms that they can be exposed to, no such parallel guidance exists for young men and boys growing up in Britain. We are all worse off as a result. We recently convened over 60 MPs to write to Ofcom to urge it to put that right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join us today in calling on Ofcom to step up? It is in its gift to do so. Let us get this done.

• 19 May 2026 · Criminal Justice System: Support for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support men and boys through the criminal justice system.

• 13 May 2026 · New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The situation that the hon. Member highlights is far too common across every part of the United Kingdom. It is really important that the Government drive forward an ambitious solution that tackles all the issues that he has set out. Homeowners on average pay £350 in maintenance fees. That is a significant sum of money, on top of their council tax bill, and fees often run to much more than that. I have had correspondence from residents who have been paying close to £1,000 in fees. That is exacerbated by the fact that the relationship with the management companies is often structured in a way that inflates the costs that have to be paid. We have heard examples of constituents having to pay up to £200 simply to have a lightbulb fixed on a street lamp, and some estates have been subdivided to the point where the biggest part of their bill each year is simply for having the accounts audited of a management company to which they do not want to be on the hook. They are being hit in the wallet, week in, week out, by fees that simply cannot be justified by the quality of the service that they are receiving. That is making them poorer not just in their wallet, but in their pride of place. This lack of accountability is not just inflating costs but leading to very poor service.

• 13 May 2026 · New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is spot on. We should not tolerate the shirking of any responsibility by developers, but sadly that happens all too often on developments throughout the country, including in her constituency, and if developers fall short, we need councils to step up, meet their obligations and drag developers into delivering the valued community assets that new communities are desperately crying out for. As well as there being poor service levels, important moments in homeowners’ lives can be put at jeopardy. A number of my constituents’ house sales have nearly fallen through—in one case the sale fell through completely —because of management companies’ failure to provide management packs in a timely fashion. That dragged out the process and made the already quite stressful buying of a new home even more difficult for far too many homeowners. We have to act. This is exactly the type of example of rip-off Britain—of unaccountable agencies and poor regulatory failures—that the Government have made it their mission to correct. I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that we deliver.

• 13 May 2026 · New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman brings me seamlessly to my next point, which is what we can do about the matter. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in the previous Session, and I am glad to see that the Government are now consulting on two really important parts of it. The first relates to bringing forward recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority’s 2024 report in respect of how we can stop estates becoming unadopted at source. It will not be easy to do—it is a thorny process—but it is imperative that as we build the homes that the country needs, we do not allow the problem to grow further, because it will always be harder to unpick retrospectively. Secondly, we need to make sure that as we bring forward important protections to protect leaseholders from rip-off management companies, we extend the same protections to those on freeholder estates. That will not guarantee magic service overnight, but it will mean that freeholders have much more recourse when things go wrong. Those two ideas are the subject of consultation, and I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that they are implemented as quickly and robustly as possible. There is more that we can do. In introducing my private Member’s Bill, I alluded to the imperative to think about how we could introduce a stronger right for freeholders to manage their estates. I know that many of them do not want to be the ultimate managers of their estate—they want their estate to be adopted, and we need to work towards mechanisms to deliver that—but, in the meantime, such a power would give them far greater agency in trying to drag the marketplace to a point of better performance. It would put them in the driving seat, so that they can far more easily kick out managing agents who are not performing, and ensure they have far greater control over what happens on their estate. As has been alluded to, we owe it to homeowners on legacy estates to start the thorny work of thinking about how we can best equip councils and developers, where needed, to fix the problems that remain on their estates so that they can progress towards adoption. It will not be easy. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, because, frustratingly, the legal agreements are so different from estate to estate. However, we owe it to those on estates that have been left abandoned for far too long by developers—and, at times, by local authorities—to work with them, to do that thorny legwork, and to think about what solutions could be possible. Alongside those issues of fleecehold estates more generally, I want to spend one minute talking about a road in my constituency that will be known to pretty much anyone who lives near it, because it exemplifies some of the problems of unadopted and ownerless assets. It is Old Bridge Way in Shefford, the town I live in. Old Bridge Way is a private road built through the middle of the town. It is the only route people can take to our main supermarket in the area, Morrisons. As the town has grown over time, with planning consent as planned out by Central Bedfordshire council, that road, far from being a slight, small private road for an industrial estate, has become a major thoroughfare through the town—the main access point, as I say, to the supermarket, and used by buses and residents alike. However, Old Bridge Way has never been adopted. As a result, despite collecting thousands and thousands of pounds in property fees from the adjoining properties, that landowner was not doing their duty to maintain it. Worse than that, the landowner got bored of doing their duty and decided to shirk it, instead transferring it to a separate company—with some similarly named directors, we might note—liquidating that company and evading that responsibility altogether, chucking it back to the Crown Estate to do what it could with it. That is the very definition of the lack of accountability that so many of my constituents are deeply fed up with—and without any mechanism for recourse, the problem will only get worse. I was delighted to be able to pull together nearly 100 residents for a protest, closing down Old Bridge Way last year, to highlight to Central Bedfordshire council that we need the council, as the highways authority, to step up and play its role in providing a solution. I hope to be able to work both with the Minister and with Ministers in the Department for Transport on the long-term solutions we can put in place to tackle such issues. I am aware that, as awful as that road is, my constituency is not the only one across the country to have been blighted by such a terrible evasion of responsibility.

• 13 May 2026 · New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities · Hansard source

  More

  I know that pulses have been racing all day in Westminster, but the moment is finally here: we come to tonight’s Adjournment debate on unadopted housing estates. The House may not be quite as packed as the other House was for the speech His Majesty gave earlier, but I think we have some of the best of the bunch of hon. Members from right across the Chamber here, including my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). Protocol prevents him from intervening today, but I know that he has been dealing with a lot of these issues in his constituency, too. I am very proud to be standing here as a member of a party that is committed to taking on so many of the big structural housing challenges facing communities right across the UK. We are committed to tackling the undersupply of homes, breaking down the barriers to better protection for renters, and doing more to liberate leaseholders from the feudal system that they are trapped in. It is really important that we meet the mark on unadopted estates—the topic of this debate—even if the issue does not always catch the same headlines as those other issues. The problem has been growing and growing. It arises when housing developers and local authorities fail to ensure that adequate measures are taken to adopt the roads and public amenities on new-build estates, which are being built across the country and have been over recent decades. It used to be typical that 5% to 10% of housing stock would be subject to this issue, having perhaps been marketed as a premium product, but recent research from the Home Builders Federation shows that over the last three years, 90% of estates were not adopted. What had been a marginal part of the system has, as a result of local authority cuts and developers sometimes looking to profiteer off the back of their new homeowners, become a much more endemic problem. That is an issue for so many reasons. First and foremost, it means that those new homeowners—90% of new homeowners on estates built over the least three years—are essentially paying a new-home stealth tax. They are on the hook to estate management companies. They often pay hundreds of pounds in maintenance fees for services that other residents would receive by paying their council tax alone.

• 13 May 2026 · New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is spot on in highlighting that Gleeson and many other developers right across the country are not fulfilling their crucial obligations, and new homeowners are being failed as a result. We owe them a duty of action over the coming years. Alongside the big challenges on quality of service, I have seen estates where the public realm has fallen into complete disrepair, roads are riddled with potholes, and playgrounds are unsafe and very poorly maintained.

• 13 May 2026 · New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; this is a stealth tax, but the issue is far wider than that, as I will explain. I look forward to the Government’s work to address it in a root-and-branch manner.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents are rightly appalled that someone who betrayed not just our country but every single victim of Jeffrey Epstein was able to serve in such a prestigious position. Whatever the judgment in the security vetting file, that decision to appoint him was wrong, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s owning of, and apology for, that moment. However, many of my constituents are also rightly concerned to learn that not a single democratically elected official in Government was informed about the decision. Given this, what conversations is the Prime Minister instigating right across Government to ensure that, in future, our democratic decision-makers are given the full picture of these crucial judgments?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Rail users at Hitchin and Arlesey stations in my constituency have to put up with services that simply are not reliable enough. I am glad that, after pushing the operator, Ministers and officials, we have been able to drive up driver recruitment and secure crucial investment to upgrade the back-up signalling capacity that has caused a lot of disruption over the past 12 months. With the operator coming back into public ownership later this year, what further steps can we take to finally give my constituents the rail service they deserve?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a topic that, like him, I must confess I had not heard much about until I spoke to two of my constituents about it. Having heard from Sarah and Mark, who both suffer from craniocervical instability, I know that it is impossible for those suffering from it not to be left devastated by its impact. It not only limits and narrows their lives and what they can do, but crushes their family finances, as they are forced to seek expensive private treatment due to inadequate access to treatment via the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important to put that right and that we should start to consider what a better clinical pathway for this condition might look like, so that everyone suffering from it can access the treatment they deserve in their community?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the wind farm that the hon. Gentleman is talking about would generate about a quarter of a million houses’ worth of energy every year. Given that his party is currently saying that the failure to approve an oil site, which would deliver power for 1.5 million homes throughout the entirety of its lifespan, is an existential risk for this country’s energy security, can he not see the slight inconsistency in the argument he is advancing?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the broad themes of the topics that we are discussing today are very important. How do we drive down bills at a time when all our constituents will be worried about the cost of living? How do we provide energy security for our country at a time when the volatility of oil and gas around the world is driving real concerns—not just for our communities, but for some of the big businesses and industrial bases on which we have relied for generations? And, crucially, how do we ensure that when we go back to our constituencies and look not just the current generations but future generations in the eye, we know we have done everything we can to finally take the existential threat of climate change seriously, having done far too little over the last decade to ensure that we are on the right track when it comes to living up to our environmental commitments? It is against that backdrop that I am disappointed by our focus on such a distracting topic today. There are big, big questions to be asked about how we can drive forward the energy transition in the best and most just way possible, but I am afraid that focusing on immaterial discussions about very small—fractional—differences in the amount of oil and gas that we end up extracting from the North sea is a wrongheaded and at best distracting way in which to lead this debate. However, I understand why such a distraction is attractive to the Opposition.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party is also proposing a big tax cut for oil and gas companies in the removal of the EPL. He will have seen research from Oxford University suggesting that even if every new licence were taxed and that revenue was invested straight into energy subsidies, it could reduce bills by as little as £16 a year for households. Is that really the Tories’ ambition at the moment?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress. I can see, though, why distractions are so attractive to the Conservatives, because facing up to reality would mean facing up to the failure to deliver more on renewables, which we know would have reduced prices by about a third last year.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his confirmation that his party used to believe in the future once, but when it comes to clean energy, I think the fact that we have been able to make so much further progress so quickly shows that there clearly were things that the last Government could have done but did not. Whether we are talking about a failure to crack on with new nuclear at speed and remove those regulatory barriers, about a failure to consider the levy reforms that we have already introduced to deliver tangible reductions in people’s bills this April, or about a failure to think about creative ways in which we can drive down energy demand for households across the UK through a proper warm homes plan rather than exploitative rip-offs delivered by con merchants under their eco-schemes, I think we have far better answers of which we can be proud. It is disappointing that we have not had a more sincere debate on this issue today, because I think there are important questions, which are worthy of challenge, about how we can deliver this transition in a way that truly delivers on our climate and energy communities and for all those who paying bills at the moment. The Fingleton review points to some important principles showing how we can do far better when it comes to big energy projects. I would welcome further scrutiny from the Opposition on that, and on how we can deliver it at pace to make really impactful changes in a nuclear landscape that was left stalled and in stasis under their policies. As we look to drive forward the green transition, it is right that, over time, we remove the role of gas in setting the price of power, and there are regulatory reforms that we could be making now to try and improve the position. There is some interesting analysis from Stonehaven showing how bringing gas power plants into the regulated asset base could do a far better job of stabilising prices, and would produce a better result for consumers and, crucially, businesses and industrial users. There is also more work to be done to continue the Secretary of State’s leadership on auction innovation. In the last auction, innovations that we introduced after years of lack of reform meant that we were able to lean in at an opportune moment to expand the amount of power that we were able to purchase when prices were lower than market expectations. I know the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, thinks that that insurance policy was not valid, which I think is a particularly challenging position to take at a time when we are seeing the cost of inaction shooting up under oil and gas. [Interruption.] I would welcome further challenges from the right hon. Lady about how we could innovate further. I know that the last Government’s record did not do a very good job of bringing out the best value when it came to auction design, but this is exactly the type of area in which cross-party challenge should be welcomed to ensure we can continue to do better. Instead, we are focusing on distractions that will do nothing for our constituents and that, sadly, do not prompt the very important questions, such as those posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), on how we can better ensure that where we need to continue to rely on gas power, we direct it towards sectors that this country has long depended on. It is a sad truth that this debate has not lived up to the importance of the topic that we are discussing today. The Conservatives used to believe in the future. It is sad that they do not any more.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Not at all. I think that that is why the last Government’s shameful failure to invest in the transition—their failure, in fact, to do much to create a better offer for the 50% of North sea oil and gas workers who lost their jobs over the last decade—is so shocking. It is why we have to do better; it is why investing in the reshoring of manufacturing around green energy supply chains is so important; it is about thinking creatively about how we can be more activist as a state in shaping the job opportunities of the future; and, yes, it is about ensuring that support packages are in place at the right times. But if we are talking about a just transition for North sea oil and gas, I do not think the record of the hon. Gentleman’s Government is anything that we should be looking to learn from.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The events in the middle east have shown how exposed we remain to polluting and volatile oil and gas markets. Moving on to clean, domestically secure power is the long-term solution, but in the short term we should not allow gas producers to profiteer while they still far too often set the market price. Analysis by Greenpeace and Stonehaven suggests that we could save millions for households and businesses across the UK by moving gas-powered stations into a regulated asset base. May we have a statement from the Energy Secretary on how we can drive through such important market reforms, so that consumers and businesses across the UK can get much-needed money off their energy bills?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the breadth of issues that underline why it is so important that we act on climate change. It is often seen as a future issue, but my farmers are feeling the effects of volatile weather right now, just as some of my households felt the effects of rare flooding just last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the land use framework published yesterday will be a really important document for ensuring we get adaptation and mitigation strategies right when it comes to protecting nature, as well as delivering the carbon reduction goals that are vital to ensuring we get our climate change action back on track?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Doubters of the net zero agenda often suggest that, because it is an international problem, we should go slower. Does he find it utterly bizarre that some suggest we can get other countries to go faster by going slower and engaging less ourselves? Actually, we need to be leading the way in the best traditions of Britain.