Caroline Voaden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Mar 2025 · Green Spaces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I am honoured to rise to present my Bill to create an office for green spaces, a Government office that will promote access to green space across the UK. It will support the creation, maintenance, improvement and integration of green spaces, and in doing so will improve the health and wellbeing of the UK, add up to £3.8 billion to tax revenues, contribute to our net zero journey, and create tens of thousands of jobs. It is a win, and who could object to more people than ever being able to lie under a tree or feel the grass beneath their feet? Eighty-one per cent of British adults agree that gardens and green spaces benefit their physical health, and 85% of adults agree that gardens benefit their state of mind. Green spaces and gardens can provide real natural healthcare solutions. Urban vegetation removes harmful pollutants, and urban cooling from green and blue spaces is vital in a warming world—and estimated to be worth £27 billion, according to the Office for National Statistics. Under the Bill, green spaces include urban parks, neighbourhood areas, and significant natural landscapes. I believe that a co-ordinated, cross-Government approach is sorely needed. Green spaces must be a priority as our planning policy is developed, and the Liberal Democrats want to see more green spaces being covered in native trees and wild flowers. The previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and a House of Lords horticulture inquiry backed cross-governmental action. Last year the Committee said that both the quality and the quantity of green spaces were in decline, and urgent action was needed to reverse that. We are lucky to have Monty Don, Alan Titchmarsh and Charlie Dimmock to inspire us with our gardens, but the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. As the Member of Parliament for South Devon, I am very aware of how important and beneficial green spaces are—I feel it every weekend—but two in five adults spend less than an hour a day outdoors, while more than half have no access to a public park or common within walking distance. We need to do so much better. The UK’s gardens, parks and green corridors are not just nice-to-have amenities; they are essential infrastructure in an uncertain world. The office for green spaces would bring together planning, health, environment, and other departments to work together to deliver real growth in our green spaces. By establishing this dedicated Government office to oversee and champion these spaces, we can secure their future and unlock their full potential for people, communities, businesses and the public purse.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Ambulance Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this important debate. From the January 2024 figures, we can see that the South Western Ambulance Service consistently ranked near the bottom across all categories of ambulance response times. The mean response times were nearly all below NHS targets, and the longest category 4 response was over nine hours against a target of three. The geography of rural Devon, and particularly of my constituency of South Devon, is not conducive to speedy ambulance response times—I would challenge anyone to drive along our hedge-lined rural lanes at speed, even with a blue light flashing—so it is no wonder that figures might be lower than national NHS targets dictate, but while ambulances spend hours waiting at clogged A&E departments, they are not out on the road responding to patients. I will focus particularly on two areas. The first is the very worrying issue of the proposed relocation of out-of-hours emergency cardiac services from Torbay Hospital to Exeter, which is being proposed by Getting It Right First Time—a programme that claims to present “a data-driven evidence base to support change.” Patients in Torbay and South Devon currently face significant delays with ambulances already struggling to meet response time targets, but with the relocation of cardiology services, ambulances will have to travel an extra 20 miles to Exeter after collecting and stabilising a patient, and for those who live in the furthest southern part of my constituency—Dartmouth, for example—this is a significant extra travel time to add to what is already quite a long and slow journey. That extra travel time will delay critical interventions for heart attack patients. For every 30-minute delay to treatment, there is a 7.5% increase in mortality. In other words, that is 15 people out of every 200 who could lose their life because of an extra half-hour delay. Last week, a dozen cardiologists at Torbay hospital met me and other local MPs. They told us that they have been calling on the local ICB for a year not to go through with the change and that, crucially, no evidence has been presented in a case that would justify the move. They said that even 10 to 15 minutes can literally save a life. We know that quicker response times also mean a better chance of full recovery for patients who get to hospital in time to survive. Most worryingly, South Western Ambulance Service did not know anything about the proposed move. It feels appropriate, while we are discussing ambulance services, to say that that strikes me as wholly unacceptable for a body that wants to “get it right”. There is growing support for treating strokes as category 1 emergencies, on a par with conditions such as cardiac arrest, due to their time-sensitive nature, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton described. Quicker responses could significantly improve long-term outcomes, reducing the risk of permanent disability or death. The first three hours are critical for intervention as brain tissue continues to deteriorate after that. Faster treatment helps to prevent that damage. Although strokes are in category 2, evidence shows that response times often exceed the ideal timeframe. The average time it takes for an ambulance to arrive and provide care for category 2 calls is often well beyond the optimal window for effective stroke treatment. In the south-west, the mean time for an ambulance to respond to a cat 2 call was nearly 52 minutes, against an NHS target of just 18 minutes. The longest time was one hour and 53 minutes. Changing the categorisation of stroke could ensure that ambulances prioritise stroke victims as they would a cardiac arrest or a trauma case, which could improve response times and overall care. That would put yet more pressure on ambulance services but, after all the public education campaigns about recognising stroke symptoms—which are very welcome—ambulances are simply not arriving in time to provide the necessary treatment. Our paramedics and ambulance services have so much to offer, from providing lifesaving urgent medical care to delivering care in the community and driving welcome innovation for the NHS. Yet according to official NHS figures, in the winter of 2023-24 ambulances across England collectively spent a staggering total of 112 years waiting outside hospitals to hand patients over. It is an astonishing and dangerous waste of resources for ambulances to be stuck for hours waiting outside crammed A&Es. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton said, the crisis in our social care system goes a long way to exacerbating bed blocking in hospitals, which is having a direct impact on ambulance services. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to publish accessible, localised reports of ambulance response times and create an emergency fund to reverse closures of community ambulance stations—which are particularly vital in rural areas—and cancel planned closures where needed. We need a proper plan to fund this crucial part of our NHS, rather than last-minute emergency funding each year during repeated winter crises, which does not enable local trusts and ICBs to plan effectively and efficiently.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  In her letter resigning as Development Minister last week, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) wrote that “it will be impossible…given the depth of the cut” to maintain the Government’s support for all their development commitments. She explicitly cited aid to Gaza. At this point, I commend the Totnes Friends of Palestine for raising £10,000 to help those in Gaza. With hospitals destroyed, a lack of clean water, desperate food shortages and now more threats to power and water supplies, how will the Minister ensure that last week’s cuts to development spending will not worsen the humanitarian catastrophe happening in Gaza?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I recently surveyed all the farms in my constituency, and 85% of the people who responded said that they would be affected by this inheritance tax, mainly because of the cost of land in South Devon—practically all farms will be subject to it. When will the Government listen to the evidence that we are collecting from our farmers, which shows that their assessment that only 25% of farms will be affected is not correct?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has a large employer with several sites who is now looking at automation because of the impact of the NIC rise. It will add a quarter of a million pounds to his bottom line, so he is actively looking at how he can make redundancies to keep his business afloat. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not the way to improve the local economy and make people feel good about jobs and investment?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Dena, a constituent of mine who runs a small high street business, is seriously concerned about the possible removal of small business rate relief. Does the hon. Member agree that a commitment from the Government about the future of rate relief would give reassurance to high street business owners like Dena?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  In November 2024, research by Riverford Organic Farmers, based in my constituency of South Devon, showed that 61% of farmers are concerned that they will not be operating within the next year but only 25% of them believe the claims that the big six grocers support British farmers. Would my hon. Friend agree that the big six need to do more to support our farming sector?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Affordable Rural Housing · Hansard source

  More

  In response to what the hon. Lady has just said, I would like to congratulate the Liberal Democrat-led South Hams district council, which has just contributed £623,000 to support a community housing project that will offer 39 new energy-efficient, 100% social rented homes for people with a local connection, including a community garden and orchard and a community building that will be delivered once the homes are complete. Does she agree that that is the kind of development that we need to see?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to Kim and the other petitioners for bringing the petition to the House. In the Government’s response to the petition, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology referred to “a systematic review by the UK Chief Medical Officers in 2019” that “does not show a causal link between screen-based activities and mental health problems, though some studies have found associations with increased anxiety or depression. Therefore, the government is focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action.” That review is six years old now, so how much evidence do the Government need? Things have changed radically in the past six years, and we live in a very different digital world from 2019. The evidence I read in preparation for the debate included a 65% rise in mental health admissions to hospital among under-18s, a staggering 638% increase in admissions for eating disorders among girls aged 11 to 15, a 50% rise in childhood myopia, a 56% increase in ADHD diagnosis since the widespread adoption of smartphones, a 27% increase in just the last two years in the number of children with speech and language challenges, and a rise in obesity that means that about a quarter of children leaving primary school are now judged to be overweight or clinically obese. The evidence comes from the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia—it is all there and is growing. As many other Members have said, we protect our children from smoking and alcohol. We do not allow them to buy those products because we know the damage they can do. Just because mental health damage is not as visible as a damaged lung or a damaged liver due to cirrhosis—just because we cannot see it, measure it and photograph it—that does not mean the evidence is not there. We can see it all around us. This morning I spent time talking to the mental health leads in Devon about children’s mental health. They talked about the difficulty in employing enough psychologists and psychiatrists to cope with the mental health crisis among children in Devon, because of the vacancies they have and the ever-increasing need for children’s mental health support—it just grows and grows. Although it is right to give children the mental health care that they need, which they and the parents ask for, we surely have to look at this the other way round and say, “We have to stop this rising trend and to look at the cause. We have to turn it on its head; we owe it to our children.” As the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) said, all the graphs show that the change started in 2012. For the sake of our teachers, who are trying to cope with the ever-increasing pressure of special educational needs, autism spectrum disorders and so on, the time has come for us to act and not look for more evidence. It is time we used the precautionary principle for smartphones. That enables decision makers to adopt precautionary measures when the scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain but the stakes are high—and we know the stakes are high for our children. Some may see that as unscientific and an obstacle to progress, but to me it is an approach that can—and, in this situation, must—be used to protect the health of our youngest humans. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said the Online Safety Act “puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety, with the strongest provisions in the Act for children.” Platforms “likely to be accessed by children will have a duty to take steps to prevent children from encountering the most harmful content”— such as— “pornography and content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders, or suicide.” We all know that we cannot trust the tech companies to do that. It is not in their interest. They have developed addictive apps to keep our children on them, using them hour after hour; it is not in their interest to do what is required to protect our children. Where, in the code, is a restriction of content that perpetuates the myth of the perfect body, that is not hardcore content like online pornography or suicide videos? The subtle stuff of social media—the addictiveness—is really dangerous. My concern is about the long hours that children spend on screens, and the time spent indoors instead of playing with friends and making real human connections. Although we are talking about teenage use, what is even worse is the fact that 25% of three to four-year-olds in the UK now own a smartphone. Tiny children are looking at a screen rather than interacting with other humans. Children are not learning to speak and communicate, because babies do not learn from a machine. They are captivated by the videos, but they are not learning how to communicate with other humans. Older children are not experiencing boredom. We all remember standing at bus stops, right? We did not have a mobile phone; we got bored. We looked at the sky, around us and at other people. It is part of the development of the human brain. Has anyone ever seen a teenager standing at a bus stop now getting bored? It just does not happen. I would like to leave the last word with John Gallacher, professor of cognitive health at the University of Oxford. He said that he found “a linear relationship between higher rates of anxiety and depression and time spent networking on social media sites…In the most extreme cases, we had young people reporting they were spending up to eight hours a day using these sites.” We must find a way to change that for our children. I do not believe in a ban on smartphones—that is not workable—but we must raise the minimum age for social media use. We must change the conversation and give parents the support they need, so that there is peer pressure not to have phones rather than to have them. We must support all the brave schools trying to eradicate this problem for their teenagers. I fully commend the petition and, cross party, we really need to do something about this.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks of the threats of the climate crisis and the need for us to meet our climate commitments, which is encouraging to hear. What steps are the Government taking right now to improve the energy efficiency of homes across the UK to help us reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency we did a survey of all the farmers to see whether the Government’s figures stood up. The Government claim that 73% of family farms will be unaffected by the change in tax relief, but 85% of the farmers who responded to our survey believed they would be affected, with an average inheritance tax bill of £637,000 because of the extortionate cost of land in South Devon. That is nearly £64,000 a year in tax every year for 10 years. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is unworkable, and will see the decimation of our family farms?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I rise to speak on behalf of the 477 people in South Devon who signed the petition, which is almost exactly the same as the number of farms in my constituency. It is clear from the number of people in this room and the number of people outside what the strength of feeling is about a tax that has caused severe distress across the farming community, yet is expected to raise only around £115 million a year, which is less than 0.01% of Government spending, or less than 0.3% of the tax rises announced in the Budget. Does the Minister think it is really worth all the pain for that amount of gain? We have talked a lot today about farmers. The rural economy is heavily dependent on farmers but goes much wider than just the farmers themselves. The impact of the change will be enormous in rural communities like mine. The knock-on effect will affect feed, equipment and machinery suppliers, agricultural engineers, the shops that stock high-quality local meat and vegetables, seasonal employment, and all those who benefit from the visitors who camp on farms or stay in farm-based holiday accommodation. I urge the Minister to think about that. Farmers are key to tackling climate change and the nature crisis and are crucial to our food security, so why do we want to place them under yet more pressure after all the challenges they have already faced in the last decade, including the damaging trade deals, the poorly managed transition to environmental land management schemes, a botched deal with the EU that has limited their ability to export, higher input and energy prices, and of course floods? This is a toxic mess for farmers, so we carried out a survey of all the farms in my South Devon constituency to find out exactly what the reality is on the ground in the face of this tax change. Of the farmers who responded to our survey, 85% believe they will be affected by the changes, and 90% of the farms are likely to be inherited by the direct descendants of the current owner. The average farm value is £4.15 million, with the highest being £15 million. The price of land in South Hams is among the highest in the country. Farmers did not cause those land prices to skyrocket. The influx of rich second home owners and the honeypot effect has done that, and farmers in my constituency are having to pay for it. The average bill in South Devon will be £637,000. That is nearly £64,000 in tax every year for 10 years. That tax will not only decimate the family farms of South Devon but have a major knock-on effect on food production. One farmer said: “The policy as it currently stands will halve food production in a generation.” I have hundreds of quotes that I cannot read out, but I will cite a family whose farm has been in their family since the Domesday Book. They said they will have to sell at least 25% of the farm assets, which could mean that their children are unable to inherit a farm that goes back to the Domesday Book.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and on behalf of my constituents I thank her for giving people the opportunity to vote and give their verdict on the failing Conservative-run Devon county council, which has been badly failing our most vulnerable children for the past decade. Devon is a huge rural area, and there are concerns that if it becomes a unitary it could end up devolving power away from people in a sparsely populated area, and moving the centre of power away from local communities, which does not feel like devolution. Will the Secretary of State clarify what size of unitary authority she will be looking for? Part of Torbay is in my constituency—it is one of the smallest unitaries in the country, with 139,000 people. Will it be allowed to continue as a unitary, or will it be required to be part of a greater whole?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Bereaved Parents: Birth Certificates · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty-two years ago, I became part of a club that no one wants to join: the young widows club. My husband Nick died of oesophageal cancer, and I was left with an 18-month-old baby and a toddler. Over the course of the next couple of years, I met dozens of young widows, including Beth, whose husband Simon had died of bowel cancer just two days before their beautiful baby daughter Elsa was born. Beth and I navigated this strange and unwelcome new reality together, spending time with our three little girls, who were all too young to understand the awfulness of what had happened. Beth was part of an even smaller, even more unlucky club than me: the one where you have to give birth alone, to a baby you have longed for, while at the same time grieving for the partner you have lost and the future you will never share. For many of those tragically unlucky women, it gets even worse. Every year in the UK, around 200 young bereaved women are drawn into a ridiculous, unnecessary and costly legal battle to have their baby’s father’s name registered on the birth certificate. Incredibly, in 2025, if a woman is pregnant when their partner dies but they are not married, the law says that they cannot automatically name the father on the birth certificate. If ever there was a case of adding insult to injury, that has to be it. The law seems to think that if a woman is legally married, there is no question but that her baby is her husband’s. But if she has been living in a committed relationship, perhaps for years on end, the fact that she does not have a ring on her finger means that the paternity of her child is in question. Having been through the unimaginable experience of losing her partner while carrying his child, and then giving birth alone, she is then expected to enter into a legal process to prove that he was indeed the father, so that the child does not grow up with a blank space on their birth certificate. This is out of date, out of touch and, frankly, quite traumatic for all those involved. Women have described it as demeaning, insulting and overwhelming. The reality is that more and more couples are choosing to live together without getting married. In 2022, the number of children born outside marriage in the UK surpassed the number of babies born to parents who were married or in a civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. It is high time the law was updated to remove this anachronistic insult to unmarried mothers. Not long after I was widowed, I became involved with a brilliant organisation called WAY—Widowed and Young. It is where I met Beth and made many other lifelong friends. WAY has been running the Blank Space campaign to try to change this out-of-date law, which penalises people for not being married. I commend WAY for its campaigning and am proud to bring this issue before the Minister so that the anomaly can be addressed. The women I will talk about are all members of WAY, and I thank them for sharing their stories. Nicola and her partner Stewart had been through a successful in vitro fertilisation journey, which was needed because he had had testicular cancer 10 years earlier. Six weeks after a positive pregnancy test, they found out that Stewart’s cancer had returned, and he died seven months into Nicola’s pregnancy, so he never got the chance to meet the son he had so desperately fought for. Nicola booked an appointment with the registrar, knowing that she would be going alone, but she took as much paperwork as possible to show that Stewart was the father. She had a range of hospital documents signed by him, which not only proved that he was the father but detailed his documented wishes for their embryos if he were to die. However, the registrar explained to Nicola that because she and Stewart were not married, he had to be physically present to be named on the birth certificate. Her evidence did not count, and she was sent away with a birth certificate that had a blank space where Stewart’s name should have been. Nicola says: “We had made this baby together, literally and scientifically, and for him not to be recognised at all was devastating.” It took a year and over £1,000 to get to court. Stewart’s father went along to attend the hearing with Nicola, and it took just a few minutes for the court to discuss and approve the change, and to add Stewart’s name to the birth certificate. It was almost as if the court could not believe that she had had to go through the process in the first place. Given the overwhelming evidence and the support of blood relatives, it was the obvious decision. She says: “To have to go through this whilst bringing up a newborn on my own and grieving was utterly humiliating and exhausting.” I can attest to the fact that no young widow who is learning to be a mum and grieving at the same time should ever have to fight to have their partner listed on a birth certificate, and many of them cannot afford to do so, even if they wanted to. Paula was 18 weeks pregnant when her partner was killed while cycling to work. Despite having his DNA and a proven 99.9% match, it took three and a half years for her to get a birth certificate with his name on it, and the process cost nearly £3,000. Eleanor’s partner Robin was killed in a road traffic accident 18 days before his baby daughter was born. Eleanor says: “If you haven’t been through this situation, you may not understand how demeaning this rule is. It made me feel like I wasn’t to be trusted, as if an unmarried woman has no rights or voice. My partner and I lived together and planned to have a child—we just weren’t married. It wasn’t a one-night stand, and simple tax records would have proven that. While I shouldn’t have had to prove anything beyond my word, I would have willingly provided documentation and statements from both our families to confirm our relationship.” In the end, the complexity and expense of having to fight the system proved too much for Eleanor, so her daughter’s birth certificate was never changed and the blank space remains. These examples show just how difficult and cruel this situation is, and they also show that the process can be very different depending on where a woman lives, which court she applies to, and who hears the application. Like so many other things, it can become a bit of a postcode lottery. Under UK law, a birth needs to be registered within 42 days. If the parents are unmarried, they both have to be present to be named on the birth certificate—one parent cannot add the other. If a parent has died, the surviving parent can amend the birth certificate at a future date to include the deceased parent’s name, but they have to apply first to the family court for a declaration of parentage. This involves a form and a court fee of £365, and the court application takes three to four months to be processed. Then, at an initial court hearing, a senior family judge will consider the application. Many judges have never come across this process, and I have read stories of young widows not only having to go through the process themselves, but having to explain it to judges and court administrators while doing so. There may be a second hearing some months later, and in between there will be requests for DNA, evidence and witness statements. If the court approves, it will issue a document confirming that the deceased person was the child’s parent, and it then makes a declaration at a court hearing. This will then be sent to the registrar of births, deaths and marriages, and it can then take several more weeks for the re-registering of the birth to be completed. I am sure I do not need to tell Members that this is a tortuous process—one of those bits of bureaucracy that seems ridiculous when we spell out the whole process, as I have done here. At the best of times it would be frustrating and slow. At the worst of times, it can simply be too much to cope with. The paperwork of death is long, frustrating and sometimes complicated. I remember being told by one organisation that it had to have written confirmation from my husband to close an account, even though I had written to it to say that he had died. I would like to think that things have moved on in the last 23 years, but we seem to have created a system that overcomplicates everything. Clearly, it would not be right for someone to be able to put someone else’s name down on a birth certificate as the father without reasonable proof; what WAY is campaigning for is a way to resolve this issue so that women whose partners have died during pregnancy can follow a clear and simple process to register their partner on their child’s birth certificate. It should not cost thousands of pounds, and it should not be so complicated that some women just give up through frustration. In Switzerland, France and Germany, unmarried fathers can declare their parentage early in the pregnancy to protect their rights. We have parental responsibility agreements here for unmarried fathers, so perhaps one answer would be to bring that forward into pregnancy so that if the worst, most unimaginable tragedy happened during pregnancy, there would be one less thing for newly widowed mums to have to worry about. Doctors could make a record of who the father is when the pregnancy is first entered into medical records, and this could be used as a legal document. Advice could be given at antenatal appointments, bringing people’s attention to the issues that can arise for parents who are not married, so that they could be more aware. The executor could be called in as a witness to confirm paternity. There are ways around this if we are creative and clever. In honour of Nicola, Paula, Elanor and their children, I look forward to hearing how the Minister will take this dilemma forward and hopefully find an answer. When you are widowed young, you lose so much. You lose the partner you love, you lose the life you had built together and you lose the future you had planned. Your children lose their father—or sometimes their mother—their family is never the same again, and their lives will be shaped in many ways by the loss, however young they are when it happened. Being widowed when pregnant is all this and more. The trauma of birthing and grieving at the same time runs deep and lasts a lifetime. I really hope that the Government will move swiftly to make some changes so that one tiny little bit of this awful journey is made easier for those who have to navigate it.

• 3 Feb 2025 · School Accountability and Intervention · Hansard source

  More

  Headteachers in my constituency of South Devon have expressed some disappointment today at the reform in the Ofsted regime; they said it offered the opportunity for fundamental reform but they do not see that. For example, there are no details on how inclusion will be measured, which we know is absolutely crucial for addressing the SEND crisis. As this is such a key part of the new inspection process, can the Minister assure the House that details of how inclusion will be measured will be made available while there is still time for meaningful consultation?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Youth Mobility Scheme: EU · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Sir Jeremy. The Government are saying that they want to increase trade with the European Union. Could the Minister comment on how helpful he thinks it is when suggestions are put forward by the European Union? Last week, for example, we had a suggestion of a pan-European Mediterranean customs agreement, which could benefit the just-in-time supply trade and complex manufacturing in this country, but was instantly dismissed by the Government. Would the Minister like to comment on how helpful he thinks that is?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Youth Mobility Scheme: EU · Hansard source

  More

  The Government talk a lot about growth being crucial for restoring the public finances. Does my hon. Friend agree that sectors such as hospitality—it is important in my constituency of South Devon—are struggling from lack of staff? If we could restore a youth movement deal, we would have lots of enthusiastic European youngsters coming to the UK to learn English and help to boost productivity in that sector.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Youth Mobility Scheme: EU · Hansard source

  More

  Since the election, I have seen and heard lots of evidence of more conversations happening between the UK and the EU than did over the previous few years, so I accept what you are saying about a rapprochement and a more positive engagement. You say that the Government are keen to increase trade—

• 29 Jan 2025 · Youth Mobility Scheme: EU · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  Given the hugely contradictory evidence on whether expanding airport capacity will boost GDP growth, will the Minister explain how the Government can justify prioritising airport expansion over much-needed substantial investment in green travel and public transport, which would benefit the economy in the long term and benefit a far wider group of people in this country than the very small group of wealthy frequent flyers who will benefit from airport expansion?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Extremism Review · Hansard source

  More

  The horrendous events in Southport show that people who do not fit the profile of Islamist or far-right extremism can still present serious risk. Does the Minister agree that there is a real danger in the promotion of misogyny and opposition to feminism online and that to combat the scourge of violence against women and girls, which sees one woman murdered almost every three days in the UK, the Government must take misogyny seriously as a form of extremism?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Devon, only 4.9% of EHCPs are received within 20 weeks. Conservative-run Devon county council has been utterly failing our children for the past 10 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more we can do to support the council and turn things around for families, like that of my constituent James, who has had to wait two and a half years for the test that he needs to get an EHCP?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just last week, a report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries—we know that by their very nature, actuaries are cautious people—stated that if we continue on our current path, a plausible worst case is that global GDP will collapse by 50% between 2070 and 2090, and that 4 billion lives could be lost by 2050. That is an unimaginable future. Does the shadow Minister agree that the cost of doing nothing will be way more than the cost of acting now?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the zero carbon homes standard was scrapped by the Conservative Government in 2015, a Government report said that scrapping that standard was designed to reduce regulations on house builders. Many people said that the Conservative party had been put under considerable pressure by house builders who were very generous to that party. Will the shadow Minister reassure me that if this Bill reaches Committee, he will be in favour of putting pressure on the house builders to comply?