Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Too many of our high streets are under immense pressure. Businesses face rising costs, declining confidence and falling footfall. That is a direct consequence of Labour’s policies. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that there is an existential threat to the future of the high street. I want to share one example from my constituency. In Tarporley, the Little Tap, a small independent bar, recently announced that it would be closing, alongside Terrarium, a popular restaurant across the road. They were much-loved local businesses owned and run by Myles, a local entrepreneur with real community support behind him. Following the closure, Myles said: “The past 18 months have been extremely difficult for small businesses, particularly in hospitality. Relentless increases in costs beyond my control, combined with current Government policies that have placed ever greater strain on independent businesses, have left me with no choice but to close. Despite pouring everything I had into keeping the business alive, the reality is that I can no longer make it work even though we have been busy. I am heartbroken. Little Tap & Terrarium has been my life for the past ten years, and I am incredibly proud of everything we achieved together.” I sincerely hope that the Minister has heard the impact of Labour’s policies. The reality is that businesses cannot be expected to thrive when they are being squeezed from every direction through rising business rates, increasing employment costs and growing regulatory burdens. That is not how we encourage growth. We need an alternative approach, which is why the Conservatives have committed to ending business rates for thousands of high street businesses. We should be ambitious for our high streets.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Animal Abusers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently, as he always does. I will come on to the case of his constituent and pay tribute to the work that she is doing in due course. Because of the widespread commitment to, and support for, reducing animal cruelty, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and it is right for us to cement our status as a global leader by continuing to raise the bar. It does not surprise me that the petition we are debating today has received over 230,000 signatures, because I know this is an issue that many of our constituents rightly feel strongly about. In my constituency, 328 people have added their names to it. Existing provisions ensure that all prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are stored on the police national computer. That information can be shared with appropriate organisations at the police’s discretion. However, there are some points that I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on. What assessment has he made of the arrangement under the 2006 Act? For example, is there consistency in decisions as to when data is shared? How regularly is data being shared? Where is it being shared? Importantly, is it helping to prevent incidents of abuse? I want to turn to the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, because, sadly, there is a link, and perpetrators of animal abuse too often also abuse people. That has been highlighted by cases such as the tragic murder of Holly Bramley, as we have heard, which has not only boosted awareness, but increased demand for a public register. I commend her mother Annette for turning an unimaginably difficult situation into a campaign that honours her daughter’s legacy and focuses on ensuring that the link between animal and domestic violence is properly recorded. The RSPA highlighted that 2.3 million adults experienced domestic abuse in 2024, and 71% of victims reported a threat to their pets. Figures such as that should give us serious cause for concern. What steps is the Minister taking to work with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure a cohesive approach to tackling the link between animal and domestic abuse? I want to recognise the important work being done by the veterinary profession to highlight that link—I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is married to a veterinary surgeon and as an owner of a veterinary business. The work of the Links Group, which is chaired by Dr Paula Boyden, former veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, is helping to inform vets on the frontline who may be exposed to cases that need action. I hope the Minister will join me in acknowledging the importance of that work and outline whether the Government are engaging with the veterinary profession, including the Links Group, the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders, to support that work. Pets are too often used as a means of coercion and control against those experiencing domestic abuse. That is why it is so important that anyone suffering at the hands of an abuser knows that support is available. Earlier this month, I attended the Cats Protection drop-in in Parliament where, among other things, it highlighted the work of charities that provide temporary foster care for pets when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. That support can make the difference between someone remaining in an abusive relationship for fear of leaving a beloved pet behind and having the confidence to escape to safety. Does the Minister agree that those are exactly the kinds of initiatives we should be championing to raise awareness of this issue? Will he outline what steps the Government are taking to improve public awareness of the links between animal abuse and domestic abuse, including the use of threats or harm to pets as a form of coercive and controlling behaviour? I am sure that all Members will encourage anyone who is experiencing domestic abuse or worried about animal abuse to come forward and seek help. Police forces, including Cheshire constabulary in my area, have safe ways for people to report abuse, and I want anyone listening to this debate to know that you do not have to face it alone; help is available and I urge you to reach out. If we raise awareness of the link between animal and domestic abuse, and improve the sharing and recording of information, I believe that we can identify abuse earlier, protect more victims and prevent further harm. Ultimately, that is what every one of us in this House wants to achieve. Although the Government have said in their written response to the petition that they will not introduce a public register, given the number of U-turns that have been made thus far, I am not certain whether that position can be relied on. However, what is certain is that anyone who is abusing animals or using the threat of animal abuse for manipulation must be prosecuted and face the consequences of their despicable actions.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Tourism and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  Tourism is vital to Chester South and Eddisbury’s economy. From Snugburys and the Ice Cream Farm to BeWILDerwood and Beeston castle, we are fortunate to have fantastic attractions, and I encourage the Minister to visit them. But as one business told me following the Government’s summer savings announcement: “It feels a bit like having £100 taken off you, then being given £30 back and being expected to be grateful”. The scheme is a drop in the ocean compared with the costs imposed by this Government’s damaging policies. Will the Minister tell those businesses what more she is doing to support the sector, not just for the summer but for the long term?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for today’s Adjournment debate on the proposed carbon capture and storage project Peak Cluster, and the implications it could have for communities, landowners, farmers and the countryside across Cheshire and neighbouring counties. The proposed pipeline route cuts through my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, and so directly impacts constituents in the wards of Christleton and Huntington, Bunbury, Tattenhall and Tarporley. I have been inundated with correspondence from local people raising significant concerns. I have launched a local survey to gather views, and have received hundreds of responses, which are overwhelmingly in opposition to the project. I will share those concerns to ensure that the voices of people in Chester South and Eddisbury are heard, and will set out why I oppose the Peak Cluster pipeline project. Let me take a moment to explain what this debate is not about. I am not opposed to reducing emissions, investing in and developing new technology to decarbonise and protect our environment, or making British industry and energy-intensive sectors such as cement and lime production more carbon efficient. However, there is a right and a wrong way to do that, and this must not be done to the detriment of communities across Cheshire, the British taxpayer, who will ultimately foot the bill, or our countryside and rural landscape, which are central to Cheshire’s identity. Nor should it be to the detriment of the sectors, particularly agriculture, that we rely on in our local economy. I will touch on these matters in explaining why the project is the wrong choice for Cheshire. First, it would be useful for me to lay out some of the facts and figures around the project, so that the House better understands what we are talking about. The Peak Cluster project is a proposed carbon capture and storage scheme that is designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from cement and lime works across Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Carbon dioxide would be captured at industrial sites, compressed, and transported through around 200 km of pipeline running through parts of Cheshire and neighbouring counties, before being sent offshore for permanent storage in depleted gas fields beneath the Irish sea. On a very simple level, that is what this project is about, and theoretically it sounds positive. Carbon capture and storage will have a part to play in the decarbonisation of industries. Some argue that the project will save the cement and lime production industry, and ultimately help to make the UK greener. Those are noble causes with which I can agree in principle. However, for too long, we have taken a theoretical, hypothetical and ideological approach to reducing emissions, at the cost of energy security, economic growth and the bills that people pay. Through this debate, I will demonstrate that the costs of the project significantly outweigh the benefits. A project on such an enormous scale and of such consequence must not move forward while fundamental questions remain unanswered. Let me turn to the economics of the project. Peak Cluster was established several years ago and became a limited company following significant investment in 2025. We are told that around £60 million has already been committed to bringing the project to its current stage, including substantial support from the National Wealth Fund, contributions from cement and lime producers, and investment from overseas infrastructure interests; yet we are also told that delivering the project could ultimately require investment in the region of £5 billion. That is a seriously significant amount of capital. As we know from previous national infrastructure projects, that will almost certainly not be the final total bill. It will grow. The cost will spiral, and ultimately the timeline will extend—and who will pay for this? It will be the taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill. At a time when every area of public expenditure is rightly subject to scrutiny, when energy bills are already soaring, and when public finances remain under pressure, we should be asking hard questions about whether this represents the best and most effective route to decarbonisation. I would argue that it does not. The business model appears heavily dependent on carbon pricing mechanisms and Government policy. Indeed, the fundamental incentive for producers to pay for carbon capture and storage rests upon the existence of carbon costs, which make emitting carbon dioxide increasingly expensive. That raises a number of important questions that I hope the Minister can help with in his remarks. What assumptions have been made about future carbon prices? Is the project economically viable at today’s carbon price, or does it depend upon the hope that the price will rise significantly over time? What assessment has been made of the risks, should future Governments alter or repeal elements of the emissions trading framework? Perhaps most importantly, what is the total potential expenditure for taxpayers? My constituents deserve a clear and straightforward answer on that point because, ultimately, what does Cheshire gain from this project? The carbon dioxide is not being captured in Cheshire; the cement and lime works are not located in Cheshire; and the principal industrial benefits are not accruing to Cheshire. No jobs will be created and no industry will be brought to Cheshire, yet Cheshire’s communities, farmers, landowners and countryside are expected to accommodate a substantial amount of infrastructure required to make the project possible. That understandably raises questions about fairness and whether the balance between costs and benefits has been properly considered. It will be for the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make the final decision on this project, and I hope that when he does, he will consider closely the impacts for Cheshire. Peak Cluster’s supporters argue that the project will help preserve the UK’s cement and lime industries, safeguard industrial jobs and contribute towards our net zero ambitions. Those are serious objectives and deserve to be taken as such. Of course, Cheshire is a patriotic county, and we would not be selfishly against the national interest; however, I do not think the project is clearly in the national interest. There is a broader strategic question: even if we accept the need to decarbonise cement production, and I do, are we investing in the right solution?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way. As a fellow Cheshire MP, he will understand how important this is to all our constituents. Their views must be heard loud and clear. I am holding a public meeting with Peak Cluster this Friday, so that its representatives can hear directly my constituents’ concerns. I want to recognise the fact that Peak Cluster has engaged with me and local stakeholders. While people have strong views on this issue, I was disappointed to hear concerns shared by the company relating to some abrasive behaviour directed towards its staff. That is clearly unacceptable, and I urge people to engage in respectful debate. I believe that there is a strong case for greater public engagement before any final decisions are taken. Confidence in this project will come not from technical documents, but from meaningful dialogue with the residents, farmers and landowners who are most affected. Turning to the environmental and agricultural concerns, Peak Cluster has emphasised that the project aims to deliver biodiversity net gain. Representatives have explained that more trees would be planted than removed, and that habitats would be restored following construction. Those commitments are welcome. However, the reality is that the project will leave a negative footprint on Cheshire, no matter what efforts are made to mitigate it. Ancient and historic woodland cannot be recreated overnight. The hedgerows that have lined Cheshire’s fields for generations cannot be replaced overnight. Prime agricultural land used for grazing or arable farming will be affected. Many responses to my survey have questioned whether sufficient weight is being given to the environmental value of the countryside through which the proposed route may pass. It seems to me that tearing up the Cheshire countryside is not an environmentally sound response to an environmental problem. Alongside concerns about the natural environment, many constituents have also raised questions about safety. They have pointed to incidents involving carbon dioxide pipelines overseas, and asked what lessons have been learned from those experiences. I recognise that the United Kingdom operates under a robust regulatory framework, and that direct comparisons with incidents elsewhere are not always appropriate. Nevertheless, these concerns are understandable. In a letter to me, the Minister said that the Health and Safety Executive has carried out a public consultation on proposals to extend major hazard legislation to that sector, to strengthen further the regulatory framework. Can he provide more detail on that? I now wish to focus on farmers and landowners. Cheshire relies heavily on the agricultural sector for its economy, and if this project is to go ahead, it is essential that it listens to the voices of farmers. I have spoken to the National Farmers’ Union, and drawing on those conversations, and well as its consultation, it is clear that serious concerns remain unanswered. For example, consideration must be given to the lifespan of the project, and to whether its benefits truly justify the potential damage to productive agricultural land. Farmers have asked for firm assurances that the pipeline will carry only carbon dioxide, with no future shift to other gases such as hydrogen. They have asked how the agreed 1.2-metre pipe depth will be monitored over time to ensure that it does not rise and compromise farming operations or safety. They have asked for clarity on how biodiversity net gain will be delivered, including whether any additional land required will be secured voluntarily through fair negotiation with landowners. Can the Minister guarantee today that there will be no compulsory purchase of land to deliver this project? Ultimately, at a time when our farmers and rural businesses are under significant pressure, there must be measures to protect their livelihoods and not add further strain, safeguarding day-to-day operations and addressing practical realities such as the movement of cattle between grazing and milking. Those questions need to be answered, as do many more regarding environmental, ecological and agricultural concerns. It is not just farmers who will be affected, but angling clubs, fisheries and many others. If the Secretary of State is to have the final decision on this project, it is important that the Minister can assure my constituents that a fair hearing will be given to their concerns, because too often the rural voice is ignored. We can all agree across the House that reducing carbon emissions is a noble cause, but at what expense? A £5 billion price tag that will no doubt increase, huge disruption across Cheshire, economic cost with no benefit for our communities, and our landscape, beautiful countryside and prime agricultural land damaged and depleted from its original state. The arguments, in my opinion and that of my constituents, and people across Cheshire, speak clearly that this project is not suitable, practical, cost-effective or forward thinking, and I firmly oppose it. No one disputes the need to reduce emissions, or the importance of supporting British industry. No one disputes the need to find practical ways to decarbonise sectors such as cement and lime production. But surely we have a duty to ask whether a £5 billion project requiring hundreds of kilometres of pipeline across our countryside, backed by significant public support and carrying profound implications for farmers, landowners and local communities, is truly the most effective route available. My constituents are not asking for special treatment, and they are not rejecting innovation or opposing environmental progress; they are asking for evidence that the project represents the best option. They are asking for transparency about the costs and risks, and for honesty about the impact on our countryside and rural economy. They are asking whether sufficient consideration has been given to emerging alternatives that may reduce emissions at source, rather than requiring the construction of major carbon transport infrastructure. Above all, they are asking that decisions that could affect their communities for generations are not taken before those questions have been properly answered. I therefore urge the Minister to address the concerns I have raised, and to provide reassurances not only to my constituents, but to all communities across Cheshire who feel that their voices must be heard.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  The point that I am getting to in my speech is that, yes, there are things that are in the national interest, but is this really the best use of investment to get the most effective outcome? The question is whether spending £5 billion on a pipeline really is the best way to safeguard the future of this industry and to improve the environment. Peak Cluster’s central proposition is that we should continue producing cement broadly as we do today, and then capture, compress, transport and store the resulting emissions. That requires capture facilities, compression stations, hundreds of kilometres of pipeline, offshore storage infrastructure and—by the project’s own admission—significant public and private investment. Yet across the United Kingdom and internationally, alternative low-carbon cement technologies are advancing rapidly. One notable example can be found just a short distance from my constituency in Wrexham, where Material Evolution has developed an ultra-low carbon cement manufacturing process, which uses industrial by-products and innovative production techniques to avoid many of the emissions associated with traditional cement production. The company states that its process can reduce emissions by up to 85%, compared with conventional Portland cement processes. Importantly, this is not simply a laboratory experiment, but a commercial-scale operation already supplying the construction industry. Some supporters of Peak Cluster make a fair point when they argue that some emerging technologies remain limited in scale and cannot yet meet all future demand. That may well be true today, but the issue for the Minister, and for us in this House, is not simply what works today, but what will work over the next 20, 30 and 40 years. Carbon capture seeks to manage emissions after they have been produced. These emerging technologies seek to avoid producing the emissions in the first place. That distinction matters. We should not be rushing to a solution, because surely prevention is better than cure. That means supporting emerging low-carbon cement technologies, building on the expertise of local engineering firms that can look for innovative solutions, and expanding access to reliable, low-carbon energy through technologies such as small modular reactors. We should be encouraging a range of solutions that can deliver lower emissions, stronger industry and greater energy resilience for the future. Before committing to a project of this scale, the Government should demonstrate that they have properly assessed alternative low-carbon cement technologies, and have compared their costs and benefits with those of the carbon capture and storage infrastructure proposed by Peak Cluster. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. Another theme that emerges time and again in correspondence with residents is their frustration, not simply with the project but with the process surrounding it. Many constituents feel that decisions are being made before local communities have had a meaningful opportunity to engage. Infrastructure projects on this scale can succeed only when communities have confidence that they are being listened to, and that their concerns have the potential to influence outcomes. Consultation is not just about informing; it is about listening and taking on board what is said.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Cost of Fertiliser · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. I regularly hear from farmers in my constituency. The shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), is today at the Royal Cornwall Show 2026, where he will no doubt hear about the challenges that farmers face as a direct result of this Government’s damaging policies. Add to that soaring energy and fertiliser costs, and it is no wonder that food prices continue to rise under this Government. Will the Minister demonstrate that she understands the urgency of this issue for farmers and consumers and urge the Chancellor to follow the Conservative plan to scrap the fertiliser tax—the carbon border adjustment mechanism—so that we can keep food affordable and back British farmers?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  Although I welcome some of the measures announced today, the reality is that instability in the middle east is having a direct impact on the UK economy and on the price paid by British households. Can the Chancellor therefore outline what steps her Department is taking to work across Government to ensure a stable region, including by boosting our defence spending? Will she finally commit to spending 3% of GDP in this Parliament and to working collaboratively towards reopening the strait of Hormuz?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. A local employer—himself a former apprentice—tells me that his industry is now in crisis, with his firm’s apprentice intake falling from 60 to just 20 this year due to this Government’s decisions. Meanwhile, Reaseheath College is having to turn students away and restrict courses in agricultural engineering and construction due to a lack of funding. With nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, does the Minister accept that this Government are failing young people, and will she instead back the Conservatives’ plan to create 100,000 more apprenticeships by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 per apprentice?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The contributions to the debate from right hon. and hon. Members have been a powerful reminder of the unity that exists across the House and, indeed, throughout our country, in steadfast support of the Ukrainian people. In April 2025, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine, alongside fellow members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and seeing at first hand the courage and determination of Ukraine’s leadership, armed forces and citizens has stuck with me. It has reinforced the importance of our continuing to stand by Ukraine, and made me even more grateful for our armed forces, who every day stand ready to protect all of us. When we think of war, our minds often turn first to the battlefield. Yet war’s cruelty extends far beyond the frontline and its impacts can reach into homes and families. One example of that is the horrific impact of the conflict on Ukrainian children, whose treatment by Russian forces has been abhorrent, reflecting the same brutality and disregard for humanity that has characterised the invasion from the outset. Children have been killed, injured and displaced by the war, and at the same time, as other Members have noted, Russia has deported at least, but likely far more than, 20,000 Ukrainian children to Russia. Every day, Ukrainian parents face the unthinkable reality of their children being taken from them. Although the exact numbers are disputed, we know that the true figure is likely far higher than reported, and that alone should concern us all. I pay tribute to Save Ukraine, representatives of which I met during my visit, and the other organisations that are working tirelessly to locate and rescue the children abducted by Russian forces. They have brought hundreds home and deserve our deepest admiration and thanks. But for every child returned, many more remain missing. We must confront the grim reality that many of those children are subjected to indoctrination, and pressured to abandon their identity, their culture, and even their own families. Addressing the crisis demands determined international support, and the UK must stand ready to play its part. While the war is being fought on the battlefield in Ukraine, there are lessons that we here in the UK must learn from the conflict. The war has shown us that although high-intensity, attritional conflict has not gone away, the character of war is changing. Four years on, it is a grinding struggle of endurance, fought not only with artillery and armour but with technology that is reshaping how force is applied. One lesson is unmistakeable: the rise of drones and autonomous systems. These unmanned systems are now central to the battlefield. They are relatively cheap, widely available and capable of inflicting serious damage. They have lowered the barrier to air power and given small units unprecedented reach. Future wars will almost certainly feature drones as a core component of operations, so we must ask whether we are adapting quickly enough. We need to learn not only how to use the systems, but how to defend against them, as illustrated starkly by recent reporting on exercises in Estonia. A small team operating unmanned systems was reportedly able to destroy multiple armoured vehicles in a matter of hours. That is the reality of modern warfare: low cost and high impact. We must ensure that our armed forces are prepared for that reality—equipped, trained and funded to meet it. Thankfully, Ukraine has adapted with remarkable speed and courage. The use of drones and semi-autonomous systems, integrated cyber and electronic operations, and flexible, resilient supply chains have all been decisive. At the same time, the war has reminded us that some fundamentals never change. Logistics matter, supply lines matter and endurance matters. Armies still need ammunition, equipment and the ability to sustain operations over time. Ukrainian forces have shown how innovation, rapid decision making and co-ordination across land, sea, air and cyber can offset the abilities of a larger opponent. They have taken the fight to Russian forces in ways that few predicted at the start of the invasion. The lesson is clear: modern warfare is not just about numbers. It is about adaptability, resilience and the ability to evolve faster than an adversary. As we rightly admire Ukraine’s heroism, we must ask ourselves a serious question. Are our own armed forces equipped, organised and funded to meet that same test? Adaptation requires investment, and that is a conversation that must involve not only the Ministry of Defence but the Treasury. I want to talk briefly about one more aspect of the war in Ukraine and the lessons that we can take from it. From the moment that Russian tanks illegally crossed the border from Crimea into Ukraine, Britain and His Majesty’s Government have stood four-square behind our friends in Kyiv. We have provided financial support, trained Ukrainian troops, and convened international partners. We ought to be proud of the support that we—both the previous and current Government—have given to Ukraine. As this war marks its fourth year since the full-scale invasion, we must not let our unity and support be worn down by Russia. A lasting and just peace must be the aim, and I support efforts to end the war as quickly as possible, but as President Zelensky has said, we know that appeasement is not the answer, and that Putin is an irrational actor who will see only weakness if the west was to give in to his demands. We learned that lesson before, and we must remember it today. We must continue to strengthen the international coalition in support of Ukraine, and we must not allow it to be worn down. As we stand resolute in our support, alongside our partners, I urge the Government to continue to work with allies, in particular the United States, and reiterate how valuable they are to the collective stance that we are taking against tyranny in the form of Putin. Ukraine’s courage has shown us both the brutality of aggression and the strength of a nation determined to defend its freedom. Our duty is now clear. We must continue to stand firm with Ukraine, resist the temptation of complacency and ensure that Britain is fully prepared for the realities of modern conflict. That means sustained support for Kyiv, renewed resolve among our allies, and serious investment in our armed forces. It is not enough to be the coalition of the willing. We must be the coalition of the prepared—prepared to deter, prepared to defend, and prepared to lead.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare an interest: I have two children at university who both have student loans. I am proud to represent part of the city of Chester, home to the University of Chester, which is a fantastic asset to our city and region. Young people are today’s innovators and tomorrow’s entrepreneurs—our future high-skilled workforce, our teachers, doctors and nurses—and the foundations that we set today, and the start that we give them, are an investment in the future of our country and economy. That is why the student finance system matters so much. Many young people in Chester South and Eddisbury are struggling under the weight of student finance. I cannot go into all the emails I have received, but one young constituent from a low-income family told me that she had no choice but to take out a loan to pursue her dream of working in education. She does not expect to clear that loan in her lifetime, and she says that because of the threshold freeze, she will simply pay more each month without ever making a meaningful dent in it. By freezing the plan 2 repayment threshold until 2027, the Chancellor has chosen to increase the burden on young graduates at a time when the economic odds are already stacked against them. That is why we need a new deal for young people, as the Conservatives have set out: reducing interest rates on plan 2 loans so that balances never rise faster than RPI, ensuring that students and taxpayers are not burdened by low-value courses, and increasing apprenticeship funding to expand high-quality vocational routes, such as those offered at the excellent Reaseheath college in my constituency. If we are serious about growth, opportunity and intergenerational fairness, we must ensure that the system designed to invest in young people does not instead hold them back.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. From Tilston to Tattenhall and from Acton to Audlem, poor mobile connectivity is all too common across Chester South and Eddisbury, but the House need not take my word for it. Earlier this year, I launched a mobile connectivity survey, and I take this opportunity to thank the 544 residents who took the time to complete it. It is vital to get the real experiences of people living and working in Chester South and Eddisbury, because, as we have heard from other Members today, the level of coverage that Ofcom and the mobile network operators claim, all too often does not reflect reality. Ofcom gives statistics based on modelling, not on-the-ground evidence. It does not differentiate between 4G and 5G coverage and, crucially, it does not test network capacity. In my mobile survey, I asked constituents on a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent—to rate different aspects of their mobile service. The average score for both the signal to make and receive calls, and the average reliability for calls was just 3 out of 10. The ability to stream or download larger files scored even lower, and many shared their experiences of poor levels of signal and data making it impossible to even download messages or emails. I asked whether constituents could get a usable phone signal in the main areas of their home. Of the 544 respondents, almost 300 said they could not. It is worth pausing to reflect on that. More than half my constituents surveyed cannot get a usable mobile phone signal in their own home. That is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Britain, and the consequences are very real. We know that since the pandemic, more people are working from home, making reliable connectivity vital. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 10 million people in the UK are hybrid workers, with a further 5 million working exclusively from home. It is now a fundamental part of our modern economy. If the Government are serious about economic growth, addressing poor mobile connectivity, particularly in rural areas, must be part of that plan. The impact is not only economic, but social. Digital isolation compounds physical isolation. Not being able to rely on a mobile connection to contact friends, family or support services can have serious negative impacts on mental health. There is also a safety dimension to this issue. As more services become digital by default, rural residents are increasingly disadvantaged, unable to reliably take calls from doctors, carers or other essential providers. Constituents have raised concerns about being unable to make calls in emergencies, particularly in more remote rural areas. That is not simply inconvenient; it is dangerous. What my constituents need is meaningful action. I urge the Minister to consider the views of people across Chester South and Eddisbury who completed my mobile survey, and to share in the Government’s response what steps are currently being taken to work with providers, particularly in the rural context, to address the unacceptable gaps in coverage. We need reliable mobile connectivity for work, for school, to make doctor’s appointments and to connect with friends. I will continue to push the Government, so that all villages—including Audlem, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tilston, Farndon, Christleton and so many more—get the connection that they rightly expect and deserve.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  With World Book Day coming up on Thursday 5 March, I have launched a short story competition for primary school pupils across Chester South and Eddisbury, encouraging them to go all-in and use their imagination through reading and creative writing. At a time when children are spending more and more time on phones and screens, fostering a love of books, storytelling and creativity is more important than ever, so will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging children across Chester South and Eddisbury to take part in that competition and in encouraging everyone to get involved in celebrating World Book Day?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate and clearly setting out the key benefits for us all of our woodlands, in both rural and urban areas. We have had a good debate, and all of the many contributions were about the strength of support for our vital woodlands. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of his own experience planting trees—he is clearly a man of many talents. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted the importance of young trees and the need for trees to thrive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is a fantastic local champion, and put forward strong arguments for expanding the forest of Marston Vale. We heard about the opportunities for tree planting and the areas for greater focus to protect and grow our woodlands. I am grateful to all hon. Members who shared the special and vital woodland areas in their constituencies. There has been welcome cross-party consensus about the benefits that woodlands bring to communities and our environment. As the Member of Parliament for Chester South and Eddisbury, I see those benefits at first hand: I have the privilege of having Delamere forest in my constituency. It is 927 hectares of woodland—the largest woodland area in the county of Cheshire—and a wonderful example of one of our most diverse natural ecosystems and habitats. Beyond removing and storing carbon, woodlands such as Delamere provide a home for thousands of species of mammals, birds, invertebrates, plants and fungi. Oak trees alone can support more than 2,300 species, and 326 are entirely dependent on oak for their survival. Delamere forest also supports our local economy through its appeal to visitors and tourists, and is home to a wide range of species, including beavers, which have been reintroduced into a nature reserve on the edge of the forest—demonstrating the vital role woodland plays for nature, climate and local communities alike. The previous Government recognised the importance of woodland, publishing their England trees action plan, which set out a blueprint for how to protect, enhance and restore nature. The nature for climate fund was backed by £750 million to support peat restoration and woodland creation and management. The current Government have committed to establishing three new national forests in England, planting millions of trees and creating new woodland. What we need to see now is their delivery. It is estimated that the global demand for wood products will treble by 2050, while supply is set to drop in the next 20 to 30 years, increasing pressure on supply chains. As hon. Members pointed out, the UK imports 80% of its timber, making it the second largest net importer, with only China importing more. The Forestry Commission is clear that that situation must be improved. With that in mind, what action is the Minister taking to increase the percentage of productive species, as requested by the Forestry Commission and Natural England, to protect rural employment and reduce import reliance? Wood can also act as a substitute for more carbon-intensive materials, such as concrete and steel, making timber equally vital for decarbonising the construction industry, which contributes 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. How does the Minister envisage timber helping to reduce emissions when the UK is so reliant on importing it? Does she agree that bolstering domestic supply should be a priority, bringing benefits for the environment and our economy? The Government tell us that they are pursuing an economic growth agenda, although I have to say we have seen little evidence of that ambition coming to fruition—in fact, quite the opposite. One reason for that is the Government’s persistent tendency to fall back on bureaucracy and red tape—or, in this case, green tape—which stifles ambition and actively disincentivises woodland creation. In the light of that, what assessment has the Minister made of enabling planting on lower-value uplands? Has she given any consideration to revising planning policies to enable such planting, or to reviewing the weighting given to archaeology when determining or refusing forestry consents? With the benefits that forestry brings, such as timber, habitat and amenity, landowners should be incentivised to plant and grow trees, and advantageous tax benefits are a key method of encouraging forestry. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look to incentives for tree planting as part of the future SFI scheme, when it reopens, as the previous Conservative Government did? His Majesty’s official Opposition are clear: the family farm tax and the family business tax should be scrapped in their entirety. The Government’s partial U-turn does not go far enough, so what assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of withdrawing the family farm and business taxes on tree planting? Finally, some have shared their concerns that the voluntary woodland carbon code does not provide businesses with a sufficient financial incentive to plant more trees. Including trees in the emissions trading scheme can see the price of an individual credit rise by up to 67%. I understand that that has the potential to remove and store up to 19 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our atmosphere. As I understand it, the Government have acknowledged that they hope to include nature-based carbon removals, which I hope will include woodland creation, by 2028. I ask the Minister to prioritise that work to avoid any delays. It is in all our interests to create a more resilient, productive and nature-rich landscape, and securing a diverse range of forests and woodlands will help to achieve that aim. Woodlands and forests have always been part of our country’s landscape. They have inspired writers and composers, supported our economy, and been playgrounds for our children and places where we can all connect with nature. They are part of the fabric of our community and the fabric of our country, and with that in mind I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are alive to the threats facing woodlands.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sustainable Drainage Systems · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He spoke passionately about this issue, the impact of heavy rainfall and flooding in his constituency, and the consequences for residents when developments do not adequately address the need for sustainable drainage and for SuDS to be maintained. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made some important points, particularly about the need for more skilled professionals in this area. The previous Government’s plan for water, published in 2023, recognised that sustainable drainage systems are an effective means of reducing surface water flooding, and committed to their use in all new developments. The current Government are continuing that approach through the publication of national standards for sustainable drainage systems. As I understand it, although the Government are yet to make a final decision, they are pursuing a planning policy-based approach to SuDS, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act, which would require all developments to include SuDS in order for planning approval to be granted. If schedule 3 is implemented, developers will be required not only to include SuDS in new developments, but to ensure that designs are approved before construction begins. As the Government’s national standards are non-statutory, the Minister will be aware that questions have been raised about enforceability. There is a concern that developers may seek to identify ways to evade the guidance. Is the Minister therefore concerned that, however well-intentioned, the non-statutory guidance may not achieve its intended purpose? I note that although there are calls for clarity on the adoption of multi-property developments by an appropriate authority, there is no clarity about which authority that should be. Is the Minister’s Department looking at that, or would it be willing to clarify that? I turn briefly to developments that have been built but have not yet been adopted. The Minister may be aware that research from the Home Builders Federation, published in October 2025, found that in developments of 10 or more homes built in the past three years, 97% of new sewers and 98% of SuDS remain unadopted. The research also found significant inconsistencies across local authorities. As the Minister knows, local authorities are reluctant to adopt roads until sewers are formally adopted. I want to briefly mention two examples from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency that illustrate the issues all too clearly. Saighton Camp, which is just outside the city of Chester, and the Wychwood estate in Wybunbury both have unadopted incomplete infrastructure. Residents have been left in limbo, with developers moving on, the water company refusing to adopt the sewerage system until the developers complete the work and the local authority refusing to adopt the road until the sewers are formally adopted. Alongside this, there are frequent issues with the swales, which are meant to provide sustainable drainage yet are ineffective. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the issue being a procedural one? Does she believe there is scope to make the adopting process more consistent to provide clarity for residents? The Government have set a target to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but given their current performance, no one really believes they can possibly achieve that. The Government’s own figures show that in their first year in power the net number of new additional dwellings and the number of new homes built both went down. Can the Minister provide assurances that the Government will not abandon their approach to SuDS, and will recognise them as a continuing priority that will not be traded off for other land uses in pursuit of their top-down housing targets? When businesses are facing increased financial pressure and costs as a result of the Government’s disastrous economic policy, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect of those policies on SuDS, which may add further costs to new homes? On the topic of development, it would be remiss not to mention the role that farming can play in water management and sustainable drainage. Nearly 300,000 homes have been built on prime farmland, with an extra 1,400 hectares used for renewable energy projects, despite more than enough previously developed brownfield land waiting for regeneration. Under the previous Conservative Government, through the countryside stewardship scheme and sustainable farming incentives, farmers were encouraged to implement practices that would mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding. Can the Minister provide assurances that water management grants will be part of the SFI scheme when it finally reopens? Internal drainage boards do a fantastic job of managing water levels and reducing the risk from flooding within their districts. Their work involves maintenance and improvement, and they currently play a significant part in advising on planning applications regarding SuDS. Can the Minister provide assurances that IDBs will continue to have a prominent role in the planning process? Furthermore, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has called for, have the Government considered the merits of bringing flexibility to the relationship between the Environment Agency, IDBs and land managers? In 2024, the previous Government provided IDBs with £75 million to modernise and upgrade resilience assets for farms and rural communities. Is the Minister working closely with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to monitor the consequences of the recent storms and the related funding of IDBs? I know that all Members here today, and Members from across the country, will have constituents who are affected by flooding. We know how damaging and disruptive it can be. It is therefore important that the Government set out a clear approach as to whether SuDS are viewed as best practice or a standard approach. Clarity is needed so that the industry knows where it stands, and our constituents can have confidence in the legislation and guidance that is provided to developers. Part of that will involve ensuring a prominent role for local risk management authorities, such as IDBs, so that the best possible sustainable approaches can be implemented to mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost. British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians? The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion. Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point. That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Post Offices: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  The Post Office is a critical part of our national infrastructure. I do not believe that to be an exaggeration. In the time available to me this afternoon, I hope to demonstrate to the House, and to the Minister, why I, many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches and, most importantly, my constituents, feel so strongly about the need to safeguard the future of the post office in Cheshire and across the country. By way of introduction, it is worth briefly setting out where the post office network stands today. In November 2010, the Conservative-led Government introduced a mandate requiring the Post Office to maintain a national network of at least 11,500 branches, alongside access criteria ensuring that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office. That mandate has provided an essential degree of certainty and stability for post offices over the past decade. I will set out why each post office plays a vital role in our communities and ask the Minister to commit today to there still being at least 11,500 post office branches at the end of this Parliament. At a time when other high street services are steadily reducing their physical footprint, including banks and, with them, access to cash—a point to which I will return—it is more important than ever that we protect the physical presence of post offices in our communities. For many people, particularly the elderly, those without reliable transport and those who are digitally excluded, the local post office is not just a convenience but a necessity. The economic case for the post office is also compelling. Independent research estimates that for every £1 spent through the Post Office, a further £1.51 is generated across the wider economy. In total, the Post Office contributes more than £4.7 billion in economic benefit to the UK each year, underlining the vital role it plays in supporting business and trade, particularly small and microbusinesses that rely on local services to operate efficiently. The Government often speak of their ambition to deliver a high-growth economy—even if their actions and policy decisions too often act as a hindrance to that goal. I urge the Minister not to underestimate the contribution of the Post Office to economic growth and local prosperity. As an organisation, the Post Office has also demonstrated a clear commitment to rural communities, something that is particularly relevant to me as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, and for our county of Cheshire more broadly, where, alongside our towns and cities, we have many rural villages. Some 43% of the post office network is located in rural areas, which reflects not only the opportunities presented by rural economies but the unique challenges those communities face. It reinforces the importance of maintaining reliable, accessible, face-to-face services where alternatives are often limited. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Post Office Horizon scandal and to pay tribute to the sub-postmasters in Cheshire who were so wronged. When the future of the post office is under threat, it is vital that we do not deter people from entering the sector; if we want to see a robust post office network in the future, we must ensure that staff have confidence in the systems that they operate. Before turning specifically to Cheshire and my constituency, I want to briefly acknowledge some of the challenges facing post offices today. More and more of us are going online for shopping and to access services and, as a result, customer visits to post offices have fallen by nearly a third since 2008. Alongside that, the range of Government services delivered through post offices has declined since 2010. While there is a responsibility on Government to operate efficiently and deliver value for money, we cannot ignore the cumulative impact that this shift has had on the post office network and on the digitally excluded. Perhaps the most pressing challenge, however, is the broader economic context. Rising operating costs, including rent, utilities, energy costs, increases in employer national insurance contributions and the increases in business rates introduced by this Government, have all placed further pressure on already stretched post office operators. Back in March last year, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Post Office’s plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030 and includes a commitment to boost annual postmaster incomes by £250 million by the end of the decade. However, local postmasters have raised concerns with me that, of the £120 million expected in this financial year, the Post Office has confirmed that only £89 million would be delivered by the end of March. What discussions has the Minister had with the Post Office about this reduction, and what steps will the Government take to address the resulting uncertainty for the postmaster network? The financial challenges that post offices face are real. They are acute, and they must be properly understood by the Government. With that context established, I want to turn to Cheshire, in particular my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury. There are 21 post office branches across my constituency. I want to highlight a small number of examples that demonstrate both the immense value that those post offices provide and the very real consequences when services are lost or reduced. I begin with the village of Kelsall, where a post office once operated at the heart of the community, serving residents and local businesses alike. Last year, that post office was forced to close after the Co-op, which hosted the branch, withdrew from operating it, citing challenging economic circumstances. That decision reflects the wider pressures facing retailers and is a direct consequence of rising costs. Following the closure, I received a significant volume of correspondence from concerned constituents, anxious about the loss of their post office and the impact it would have on their daily lives. In response, I launched a petition to save Kelsall post office and demonstrate clearly the value that the community places on the service. I am grateful to the 337 residents who signed that petition. For some, the closure affected business continuity—being able to deposit cash takings or send goods—while for others it was about access to cash itself. Many relied on the post office for help in navigating complex digital processes, particularly older residents. In every sense, Kelsall post office was a vital community asset. While we have not yet been able to secure a new site, I want to reassure my constituents that I will continue to work with local stakeholders and the Post Office to make the strongest possible case for a community post office in Kelsall. Current access requirements state that everyone must live within 3 miles of a post office branch, and while Kelsall residents do have an alternative branch just within the distance under that criterion, some rural roads have no safe walking routes, offering little comfort to those who cannot drive, have limited mobility or lack decent public transport options. For many, the impact of the closure is therefore still keenly felt. Each of the 21 post offices in my constituency is highly valued, and the closure of any additional branches would have a significant impact. In rural areas in particular, where public transport is limited or non-existent and digital connectivity has suffered from long-standing under-investment, the local post office plays a vital role in meeting the needs of the community. The reality is that Kelsall is not the only rural village to have had a post office closure. There will be many, many more across the country. Audlem, another village in my constituency, has been without a post office for two years. Then last year, the Labour-led council significantly cut the bus frequency further, reducing residents’ access to vital services. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to help rural villages and areas not only save their post offices but regain the Post Office services that they have lost? I turn now to the village of Malpas to highlight the issue of access to cash and banking services. In July 2024, the village lost its final bank branch. Thankfully, Malpas post office stepped in to provide some of the services previously offered by the bank. However, in recent months the post office closed without warning, and when it initially reopened there was no access to cash. This situation has caused significant anxiety for residents and local businesses. I am pleased that the service has become more reliable under new management, but this case clearly illustrates the fragile state of high street provision. There is now not a single bank branch anywhere in my constituency. The services provided by the Post Office are vital. The risk that the situation experienced in Malpas could be replicated across many villages has serious consequences for residents, businesses and the local economy, so will the Minister commit to considering access to cash and vital banking services in any future sustainable model for rural post offices? I pay tribute to all those working incredibly hard in post offices across Chester South and Eddisbury. I highlight in particular Sandra and Tony, who do a brilliant job running Tarporley post office, which is one of our four main post offices in Chester South and Eddisbury, alongside Sandiway, Westminster Park and Lime Avenue post office in Weaverham. Of those four, Tarporley is the most rural and, as a result, is absolutely critical to the community it serves. Other branches in my constituency are classified as outreach post offices, which means that they might be part-time services hosted in village halls, for example, or where post office services are an add-on to a shop, providing a more limited service offering. As a main post office, Tarporley provides services that others do not. It is consistently open, reliably serving customers, offering local businesses a place to deposit takings, providing access to cash and acting as a vital hub for the wider village and surrounding area.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Post Offices: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point and mentions the sub-postmasters in his constituency. I echo what he has said and pay tribute to those who work so hard in my constituency. Although I sincerely hope there will be no future branch closures, if the Government intend to make changes to the network, will special consideration be given to branches classified as main post offices, particularly those serving large and predominantly rural geographical areas? The final example I will highlight is Wybunbury Village post office, which demonstrates the wider community role that these facilities provide. Wybunbury is a very rural village with just two amenities: the local pub and the post office, which also operates as a convenience store. At a time when our hospitality sector is under immense pressure from rising costs and business rates, the loss of either would be deeply felt. Currently, approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop on the high street. That is both a sad reality and a wake-up call to Government about the need to protect what we have left. Again, I say this with respect to the Minister, but the Government have demonstrated, in policy after policy, that they do not understand the countryside and do not see it as a priority. Will he assure me today that rural branches will not be seen as low-hanging fruit and closed, only to be replaced by urban branches? The social and economic impact would be significant, as I know would be the case in Wybunbury, as just one example. The post office in Wybunbury is a true community hub, brilliantly run by Kirsty and Daniel. The affection in which it is held was demonstrated clearly when, as part of my recent small business competition, nearly 100 residents nominated it for an award. I was delighted to visit just before Christmas to present the team with a certificate, and I place on record my thanks to them for their continued service to the community. I have used this Adjournment debate to highlight the vital importance of post offices to Cheshire, to my constituents and to our country as a whole. The campaign to protect the post office network has been championed by Conservatives, and I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for her leadership in securing 165,000 signatures for our petition, which was delivered to the Prime Minister. As the Minister considers the response to the Government’s consultation on the future of the Post Office, I urge him to listen carefully to the voices of my constituents, to recognise the unique role that post offices play in rural communities and to commit to maintaining the network at its current level.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have heard from these Benches time and again about the impact the family farm tax has had on food security and the risk to countryside stewardship and our environment and the economic viability of farms, but also, crucially, about the impact on farmers’ mental health. My question to the Minister is simple: on behalf of farmers across Chester South and Eddisbury, why did this decision take so long?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I, too, wish you, Mr Speaker, your team and Members across the House a very merry Christmas? Given the significant demand for new homes, my constituency has seen a large number of developments in recent years. However, some developers are building and selling homes, then moving on without completing the work, leaving residents in limbo, with roads unadopted and water companies unable to take on sewerage systems. Yet these developers continue to profit from building further on our green spaces. Developers such as Vistry Group, who do not attend meetings and rarely reply to correspondence, are failing residents in areas such as Saighton Camp and Wrenbury. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this issue, so that Members across the House can consider mechanisms to hold those developers to account?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with the fact that introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award will make the UK an international outlier, when many of our international competitors have clear limits. If she is comfortable with that, what assessment has she made of the impact on UK jobs and inward investment to the UK, particularly in business sectors that are internationally mobile?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Just last week, I visited one of the many fantastic cafés in my constituency. The hard-working owner told me that she had chosen not to take on a young Saturday worker as a direct result of the increase in business rates. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this Government’s policies are directly affecting employment for young people in Chester South and Eddisbury, and across the country?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue because of time. For those who doubt this, let me set out the cost of the Secretary of State’s policies, with statistics sourced from his own Department. The UK now faces the world’s second-highest domestic electricity prices: four times higher than those in the US, with 12.1 million households struggling to pay bills and 43% spending over 10% of their income on energy. At a time when energy security is crucial, the Government are closing our North sea oil and gas sector—an illogical move that in reality will cost us jobs and billions in lost economic value, all while not actually delivering the environmental benefit that many people understandably want to see. Shutting down domestic production does not reduce demand. It just means importing more from abroad, often with a far higher carbon footprint. Why do this Government persist with an ideologically driven approach when even the chair of Great British Energy and the Scottish renewables sector have both called for continued drilling in the North sea? The Conservatives have set out a clear and credible plan for cheaper energy. Of course I want a clean and healthy environment for this generation and future generations, but we also need to recognise the wider context. If we make wise and prudent decisions today to support our economy, and if we utilise the resources we have and encourage investment and growth, we will have a springboard to pursue a greener future. My concern is that we are making decisions influenced by the Climate Change Act. By only counting domestic emissions, one could, for example, close industries in the UK and shift production overseas, resulting in lost jobs, revenue and growth. Yes, it would meet the requirements of the Act, but all the while resulting in increasing global emissions. Good intentions are not matching the reality for families or for the environment. I support our plan to cancel the carbon tax on electricity generation, saving every household £75 a year, and to end outdated renewable subsidies, saving families a further £90 annually. Labour promised a £300 reduction in bills, but bills have risen by £200. That is the price of putting ideology over delivery and pragmatism. I urge Members to back the Opposition motion and back our cheap power plan.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry; I need to make progress. That policy would support around 250,000 businesses nationwide. As the Chancellor prepares her Budget for later this month, I say to her and her Ministers: “Step outside Westminster this Friday. Walk down your local high street. Speak to the shopkeepers, the publicans, the hairdressers and the café owners. Listen to their concerns, and put them at the centre of your Budget.” They should support this Conservative motion, which will deliver for our communities and our high streets.