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.

• 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.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Tourism and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps her Department is taking to help support the tourism and leisure sectors.

• 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?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Affairs Committee heard about the pressure that the Foreign Office was under to move quickly on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Now, concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency surrounding the papers connected to that appointment. If the Government have nothing to hide, why are they changing the terms and scope of the Humble Address, and withholding and redacting documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will the Minster ensure that the UKSV summary document will be shared with the ISC?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  In a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting in November last year, I asked Sir Oliver Robbins whether the Foreign Office had a different view about who should be recommended for the posting of ambassador. Sir Oliver Robbins said to me that “the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.” Is it not the case that the Prime Minister was repeatedly warned before the appointment that Peter Mandelson carried reputational and political risk, including that due diligence was not exhaustive and vetting was not yet complete, yet he chose to proceed regardless, announcing the appointment, overriding civil service advice and putting our national security at risk?

• 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?

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

  More

  I will now turn to why we need consistency for headteachers, schools, parents and children, particularly in relation to a mobile phone ban. Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It is an amendment that could have been written in headteachers’ offices across my consistency. As we have heard, many schools already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistencies, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools, and when parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do. Since my election, I have met with headteachers from across Chester South and Eddisbury, and the amendment sets out exactly the kind of framework that they are asking for—one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do. I recognise that earlier this year the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools, but advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory: clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge, because without it, we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so. Ultimately, we have a duty to protect our children, and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change. This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments.

• 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.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The war in the middle east is having a real effect on my constituents. From fuel to fertiliser, prices are increasing, and action needs to be taken to alleviate the consequences. Although there are immediate steps that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should be taking, not least reversing the planned increase in fuel duty, the bigger picture involves reopening the strait of Hormuz. What thought has been given to the role that the UK can play in clearing the strait of mines? In particular, did the Prime Minister raise the potential deployment of our autonomous minesweeping capabilities, which are already in the region, during his discussions?

• 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 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  Like other hon. Members, I have had many constituents get in touch about poor mail service. One constituent in Kelsall reached out to Royal Mail after experiencing deliveries once per week at best, only to receive a reply stating that service levels in our area are good. The same constituent later received a hospital appointment letter after the appointment, which is certainly not good. Does the Minister share my concern that Royal Mail appears to be dismissing legitimate complaints, while failing to meet its universal service obligation, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  Since the last estimates day, the world has grown even more volatile: war continues in Europe, and the middle east is once again descending into crisis. Recent events have underscored that although hard power is indispensable, soft power remains vital to a serious and effective foreign policy, protecting British citizens at home and abroad while sustaining our global influence. It is therefore concerning that we have now seen Britain fall below the US, China and Japan in the global soft power index. We have heard from my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee today about the importance of the BBC World Service and the British Council to our soft power. In the brief time I have today, I want to focus my remarks on education, which is the essence of soft power; it is about supporting today’s young people and shaping the future. That is why I want to focus briefly on Foreign Office support for education in the middle east. Funding education abroad can help to create a more stable world and a more favourable environment for British interests and values. It is a long-term investment, but a vital one, because extremism taught in Palestinian schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency undoubtedly fuelled the hatred and terrorism seen on 7 October. In 2025, the Government pledged £101 million to the Palestinian Authority under a new memorandum of understanding, including £7 million to support its education reform agenda—and reform is necessary, because there are repeated examples of textbooks that promote violence and indoctrination. Students are shown examples of dead children and told that Israel had deliberately assassinated them; they are told that they will become martyrs at the hands of Israel through turning their bodies into fire to burn a Zionist tank. They are taught physics problems illustrated with slingshots, history framed around the rejection of peace, and literature portraying Israel solely as an aggressor. If British taxpayers are contributing millions of pounds to this reform, they will rightly expect to know that that money is driving genuine improvements. The Minister may say that changes to the curriculum are being introduced to different grades over time, but even grades 1 to 4 and grade 12, which both the Palestinian Authority and the European Union said were fully aligned with UNESCO standards of peace and tolerance, and from which antisemitic and violent material was supposed to have been removed last September, have been shown to remain virtually unchanged in classrooms today. The Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has said that it is for the Palestinian Authority to say which firm they have hired to audit the curriculum, but with Foreign Office funding being spent on this, surely the Government should know —and, in the interests of transparency, share—who is carrying out that review. Will the Minister therefore publish the methodology and scope of the audit? Will it examine all previously identified grades and materials, both new and existing? Crucially, what benchmark will be used to determine whether the content meets acceptable standards? If we want moderation to prevail over extremism and co-existence to prevail over perpetual grievance, education must be part of the answer. However, we must rightly ask whether British taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely and going towards genuine education reform.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that allocating NHS resources on a strictly per head basis disadvantages rural communities, particularly when nearly a quarter of rural residents are over the age of 65 and the rural population is ageing faster than in urban areas? Will he join me in encouraging the Minister to commit to reviewing the funding formula to reflect age profile, travel times and sparsity?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?

• 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 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s commitment to retaining the minimum network size of 11,500 post office branches. The Minister will know that I have campaigned extensively on this issue, not least because I do not have a single bank branch in my entire constituency. There is a particular need for post offices in rural areas where other service provision is limited. What support will be given to rural villages like Kelsall and Threapwood, where the post offices are closing? Despite every effort, there has been no possibility of reopening a branch in those villages.

• 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.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There are a number of new build housing developments in my constituency where developers have sold the properties and moved on without completing work on vital infrastructure such as roads and sewers. What consideration has the Minister given to allowing councils to refuse future planning permission to developers with a record of leaving developments incomplete?