Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Animal Abusers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This is an important debate, and I thank Bea for highlighting the issue through the petition. We have had many contributions. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) clearly set out the background to the petition and the challenges in identifying and enforcing convictions for animal abuse. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) highlighted the importance of and the care that we all feel for our pets and animals. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) discussed the need to think about prevention alongside punishment. We are all united in our shared belief that any case of animal cruelty is completely unacceptable. As an animal lover, I am deeply committed to doing what I can in this House to raise awareness, to legislate and to support efforts to prevent animal cruelty. I am therefore proud to be part of a Conservative party that has a strong record on animal welfare from our time in government. We passed legislation including the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which bans the export of live animals for slaughter, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. The last Government also introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022. I will mention one more piece of legislation, passed since the July 2024 election and introduced by a Conservative MP—me. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 shows our ongoing commitment to animal welfare. I was pleased to introduce that legislation to update the laws surrounding livestock worrying, by increasing the fine where dogs attack livestock and giving the police more powers to investigate instances of livestock worrying. I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House who supported the passage of that Act.

• 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?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are at a point where it is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, capture attention, and keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions, but for children and those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing, and who in their teenage years are naturally focused on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health as well as their physical health is prioritised. The harm is happening now; action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help, and as a mum I know how hard it is to set boundaries when a child says, “but everyone else has a phone” or “everyone else is on social media”. There are also serious safeguarding risks because, as we have heard, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. While many of us use social media and see some of its benefits, it is not all harmless fun. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography, and from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours, what young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing. The problem is that children do not even have to go looking for such content—it finds them. If it is content that we would not want to see as adults, we have to ask what it is doing to our children. That is why I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing and using social media platforms. This is not just a view held by Members on the Conservative Benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change. Crucially, so do young people themselves: they are the ones with first-hand experience of the influence of social media and, according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act decisively and put protections in place.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Red diesel prices have shot up by 60%, a third of the world’s fertiliser goes through the strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are skyrocketing. All that is creating challenges for farmers, and will ultimately affect the prices we pay for food in the shops. What is the Minister doing to work across Departments to reduce pressure on farmers, and to reassure them that, for once, the Government understand the challenges they face and their importance for UK food security?

• 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.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  23. What steps he is taking to reduce energy bills.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  A recent survey conducted by Censuswide shows that two thirds of households with heat pumps say that their heating costs have increased, driven by electricity prices that are four times higher than gas. With energy bills now £190 higher, despite this Government promising to cut them by £300, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his choices are making it harder for households to make the switch to greener heating options, and that, unlike the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, they are leaving households with higher bills?

• 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.

• 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?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  As we head towards winter, I am sure that, like me, many Members will have begun to receive emails from worried constituents asking how they will afford to heat their homes this winter. The reality is that they were promised by this Labour Government that their energy bills would fall by £300. Instead, they have risen by almost £200. Britain now faces some of the highest electricity prices in the world, affecting everyone from families to businesses and communities. This comes down to one simple truth: this Labour Government are putting ideology before the British people.

• 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.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. It has no navy and only nine coastguard vessels; it is not able to protect those waters. Even if illegal fishing were controlled, the Mauritian Fisheries Minister has already spoken of wanting to issue fishing licences around the Chagos Islands. The agreement provides no guarantees; the extent of future protections will be decided only after the Bill has passed. New clauses 3 and 4 are essential to ensure parliamentary oversight of any future agreement and regular reporting on coral health, fish stocks and biodiversity. As it stands, the Bill would hand billions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, with no guarantees of protection of the marine environment, no provisions to safeguard the rights of British Chagossians, and no mechanism for Britain to monitor whether the safeguards around the strategic military base on Diego Garcia are effective. The Conservative amendments offer a chance for the Government to be transparent, publish the legal advice on which they surrendered the Chagos Islands, and give the House a vote on the payment of £35 billion to Mauritius. The treaty is damaging in so many ways, but let us not make the damage worse by waving it through unchecked.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The treaty that the Bill will implement is shocking for so many reasons: the security implications, the staggering costs, and the voices that it has ignored—the voices of British Chagossians. Their views and concerns are many and varied. I had the privilege of meeting members of the community when they came to Parliament, while the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), met British Chagossians only once, and that was on the very day that the treaty was signed—far too late for their voices to have any influence. They are rightly frustrated that they have been excluded from negotiations and denied meaningful engagement. It is painfully clear that their voices were not considered; if they had been, the treaty might have placed their rights at its very centre. Instead, article 6 gives Mauritius the freedom to resettle Chagossians, but not the duty to do so. After half a century of waiting for it, their right of return is left entirely at the discretion of a foreign Government. Under article 11, despite the billions of pounds that the Bill will transfer to Mauritius, only a fraction—in the form of a trust fund—is intended for Chagossians. Even then, it will be administered solely by Mauritius, with no guarantee that British Chagossians will have any say in how it is spent. The treaty says that the UK and Mauritius want to “recognise the wrongs of the past”, but how can we recognise a wrong if we refuse to listen to those who suffered it? New clause 7, tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is vital because it would require the Government to listen to and consult the Chagossian community here in the UK, and to report back on how their rights are being upheld. That would give British Chagossians the voice that they have been denied again and again. Another vital issue is the risk that the Bill poses to one of the most precious marine environments on earth. The waters around the Chagos Islands form one of the world’s largest and most pristine marine protected areas. As we have heard, it is a haven of biodiversity, untouched by industrial fishing since 2010. Yet the treaty places that fragile ecosystem in jeopardy. Mauritius has promised to establish a new marine protected area, but it lacks the capacity to enforce it. It has no navy, and its coastguard of nine vessels is already stretched by patrolling waters thousands of miles away. By contrast, the UK has spent over £1.2 million since 2022 on monitoring and protecting those seas, developing world-leading expertise in remote enforcement through ships, sensors and satellite imagery. Illegal fishing is already rife across the Indian ocean. China’s distant-water fleet is the largest in the world and the worst global offender for illegal fishing, according to the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing index. What confidence can we have that Mauritius—a close ally of China—will be able or willing to resist such pressure and protect these fragile waters?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Condition of Roads: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his point, and I will go on to say that it is not just an issue of funding, as there are serious issues about how that strategic approach is taken. As I was saying, this is a crisis. Whether from knocking on doors or through people contacting my office, I have dealt with hundreds of cases relating to road maintenance, from potholes to overgrown hedges, poor road signage and other highways issues. To really understand the impact on people locally, I want to take a few moments to share some personal stories from those affected by the poor state of the roads in Chester South and Eddisbury. David Doyle runs a taxi company just outside Tarporley, and he came to see me at one of my mobile advice surgeries to share his growing concerns about the state of our roads. As someone who drives across Cheshire all day, every day, for a living, he sees the problem daily. We all know how frustrating, and at times dangerous, it is to dodge potholes, or that moment when we wince because we have hit one and we feel the jolt through the car. But for David, the issue is not just about inconvenience or even the rising cost of repairs, for new tyres or suspension; it is also about lost income. If his car is damaged, he cannot work—he may even have to cancel bookings or leave passengers stranded—so someone’s livelihood is being put at risk by the failure to maintain our roads properly. It is not just motorists who are affected by poor road conditions. Paul Kerr, a keen cyclist, came to see me recently at a surgery in Huxley. He cycles over 1,000 km a month across the UK, and he told me that the worst roads he has ridden are in Cheshire. Potholes are inconvenient and sometimes dangerous for drivers, but they pose a serious safety risk for cyclists. The issue is often made worse because repairs tend to be done with motorists in mind. Potholes near the edge of the carriageway may be ignored or dismissed as too shallow to bother with, yet for cyclists, who are more exposed and ride closer to the verge, even a small defect can be hazardous. Of course, when drivers instinctively swerve to avoid a damaged section of road, they can unintentionally put cyclists at greater risk. We must do more to recognise cyclists’ right to safe, well-maintained roads, especially in Cheshire, where cycling is not only good for our health and the environment, but one of the best ways to enjoy our beautiful countryside. Those two examples come from constituents living in the Cheshire West and Chester part of my constituency, but the roads are no better in Cheshire East. I recently went with Councillor Janet Clowes, our excellent councillor for Wybunbury ward, to see the state of the Newcastle Road, leading up to the roundabout serving the Wychwood Village and Wychwood Park estates. Councillor Clowes described the inaction of Cheshire East council to fix the deteriorating road surface and intermittent potholes, where the speed limit on Newcastle Road is 60 miles per hour. Traffic weaving in and out of this pothole slalom on the approach to the roundabout has led to multiple accidents. Despite repeated requests over a two-year period for the road to be top-dressed, or at least to have sections of level 2 patching to make this section safer, her requests have been denied, with funds being channelled to more urban areas elsewhere in Cheshire East. Herein lies another issue: some £53 million has been allocated to Cheshire East’s highways department this year, but not a penny is being spent in the Wybunbury ward in my constituency.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Supporting Scottish Agriculture · Hansard source

  More

  5. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on supporting Scottish agriculture.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Supporting Scottish Agriculture · Hansard source

  More

  Like farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, farmers in Scotland feel let down by this Government’s disregard for agriculture and the countryside. We have seen Labour look the other way as the Scottish Government have delivered real-terms cuts to the agriculture budget. The Scottish Conservatives have set out a clear, multi-year plan to give farmers the certainty they need. Will the Secretary of State urge the First Minister to back that plan, which has strong support from the farming community, and help reverse the damage done to Scottish agriculture and our food security?

• 4 Jul 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. It is a pleasure to reach this milestone in the Bill’s journey through the House of Commons. As we know, livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers. In Committee, I and other Committee members shared the experiences that had resonated with us of farmers having suffered attacks to their livestock. The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically often fatal. There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and their young leading to hypothermia or starvation. I have seen pictures from farmers in my constituency of the aftermath of attacks that have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive. The consequences of an attack, no matter the scale, are profound, and attacks are sadly all too common. The data from the recent National Sheep Association survey speaks for itself: 96% of respondents had experienced incidents in the last 12 months, and 98% agreed that there is an urgent need for additional police powers. The responses highlight that livestock worrying remains a huge problem for the sector and show just how important it is to deliver the Bill.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave the House, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the majority of her remarks? Of course, we disagree about the Conservative record on animal welfare, but I thank her for her personal support and that of the Government for the Bill. I would like to thank to a number of people who have contributed to this legislation. The Bill commenced its journey in the last Parliament as a private Member’s Bill under the sponsorship of Baroness Coffey, and it is fitting that she has expressed her intent to take the Bill through the other place. I am grateful for her support and wish to put on the record my sincere thanks. I thank again all Members who have been involved in and spoken during the passage of the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues, and I am incredibly grateful for their involvement. I also want to acknowledge the contributions made today that rightly emphasise that the Bill is not about targeting dog owners. I am a dog lover myself, and I know that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible and care deeply about animal welfare, whether it is dogs, sheep or, indeed, alpacas. The Bill is about ensuring that we can all enjoy the countryside responsibly. I thank the team in the Public Bill Office and at DEFRA who have worked so hard to progress the Bill. I also thank my brilliant, very hard-working team for all their help, and particularly Joel Hetherington for his invaluable support. Finally, I thank the farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury who have shared their experiences with me. Their insights into the devastating impact of attacks and the difficulties of securing prosecutions under the current law have been invaluable in shaping the legislation. It really has been a team effort, and the difference we can make as a result of this Bill will be felt across farming communities. It is for them that we have brought this legislation forward, and I could not be prouder to have played my part in delivering it. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his insights as a vet, and for emphasising what so many people across the House know: these changes are vital. May I also say how grateful I am to the hon. Members who took the time to serve on the Bill Committee? I am truly grateful for their support and contributions, and for the conversations I have had with many of them about the Bill. As we heard in Committee, the Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring that it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. The Bill strengthens police powers, so that they can do their job more effectively. Specifically, it gives the police powers of entry, and allows them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence—changes that farmers in my constituency have specifically told me are necessary. The Bill will also increase the penalty—and we hope, in turn, the deterrent against livestock worrying. The fine is currently capped at a maximum of £1,000; that will go up to an unlimited amount, to reflect the severity of livestock worrying from an animal welfare standpoint, as well as the economic toll an attack can have on farming. Farming has diversified, and therefore the scope of livestock requiring protection has increased. I am delighted that camelids such as alpacas and llamas will now be protected under the Bill. Anyone who has driven down country roads, such as those in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, will know that farmers move livestock. In recognition of that, the Bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place; that will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. As I said in Committee, the legislation puts animal welfare and farmers right at its heart. Today marks exactly one year since the general election. I am deeply proud and grateful that in my first year as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, I have been able to introduce a Bill in my name that will make a genuine difference both for animal welfare and farmers. This is precisely why I stood for election, and it is testament to the strength of this Parliament that an Opposition Back Bencher can help deliver meaningful change in the law that will have a real and lasting impact. We should all be able to enjoy the countryside, and there is no finer countryside than in Chester South and Eddisbury. However, that enjoyment comes with a responsibility to preserve and protect it, and to support those who care for it every day: our farming community. The Bill gives us the opportunity to act to protect our countryside, support our farmers and strengthen animal welfare. I hope that Members from all sides of the House will join me in backing it, just as they did in Committee.