Charlie Maynard MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello). I am going to move very quickly. I thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and all the campaigners in my constituency. I note that Blake primary school had to close on Friday because of sewage—the fourth time in the last two and a half months. Bills have gone up: we are paying 9.75% interest with Thames Water. I thank Alex Lipp and Jonny Dawe for putting together sewagemap.co.uk—a fantastic website that tracks what is going on and where. The “ultimate controller” definition is mentioned 16 times in the Independent Water Commission’s final report. I welcome the proposal in paragraph 700, which would allow an enforceable undertaking against ultimate controllers. However, that will work only if Ofwat is doing its job properly and recognising companies as ultimate controllers. As the Minister knows, the equity of Thames Water is now zero, with most of the investors having written down their equity investment in full, and some having taken away their board representation nearly two years ago. That leaves the debt holders—the class A creditors—holding the majority of the company’s debt. They have now set up the London & Valley Water consortium to co-ordinate their interests. The water sector is a regulated sector, with the ultimate controller designation being critical. To meet that definition, an entity only has to “materially influence the policy or affairs” of Thames Water. There is no limit on how many entities meet that criterion or whether there are equity or debt holders. Clearly, the consortium more than meets that definition as it is, in effect, the only significant party left standing across either Thames Water’s debt or equity structure. As per the regulation, Thames Water must inform Ofwat even of potential changes in its ultimate controllers. Ofwat then requires water companies to obtain legally enforceable undertakings from each of their ultimate controllers. That has not happened in the case of the class A creditors, and I believe this is a rig-up between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat, Thames Water and the class A creditors. That is not good enough. It is in contravention of our regulations. I have repeatedly asked Ministers to explain, in the main Chamber, in the Business and Trade Committee, in this Chamber and in the press, why they believe that the class A creditor consortium does not meet the ultimate controller test. I have received either no answer— most recently from the Minister three weeks ago, when she refused point-blank to give me an answer in the main Chamber—or obfuscation. Please, will the Minister now answer the question? Does she consider the London & Valley Water consortium to meet the ultimate controller test with regard to its material influence over Thames Water, and if not, why not?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  We have four minutes to go, including a wind-up speech. I wonder whether the Minister is going to get to my point.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  I really hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am. Moving beyond the numbers, I highlight the concerns of civil society groups, which many Members have mentioned, about clauses in the agreement on labour, the environment and human rights being characterised by a pattern of aspirational language and a lack of enforceability, with the result that they are not subject to the dispute settlement mechanism—cute words but no teeth. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a set of minimum standards to benchmark future trade agreements, which would include human rights, conflict and oppression and environmental, labour and safety standards, where they can be negotiated, based on a UK trade and human rights policy and a trade and development policy. I want to ask some question about India’s role in busting the trade sanctions that the UK has put on Russia. To recap: Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and both the UK and the EU banned direct imports of Russian oil and petroleum products in December 2022. However, a loophole stayed open that allowed derivative products including petrochemicals imported from third countries into the UK to continue using Russian-origin crude oil and gas. In July 2025, the EU amended its sanctions legislation to target imports of petrochemicals from third countries that used Russian-origin oil. This has now taken effect in the EU. The EU has blocked this loophole. In October 2025, the UK announced a further sanctions package targeting specific third-country entities that supported Russian fossil fuels. That included India’s Nayara Energy, which is part-owned by Russia’s state oil company Rosneft. On 2 December 2025, the Trade Minister told the Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member, “we want India to do less business with Russia because we want Russia’s machine to be debilitated. There are lots of things that I want to achieve in the world and not all of them can be achieved through FTAs.” The Trade Minister and the trade team fully understood, therefore, that India was, and is, selling Russia-originated petchems into the UK. We had leverage when we were negotiating the FTA, but instead the UK decided to turn a blind eye to India’s sanction-busting, helping Russia’s war effort. This continues right now, with the UK importing jet fuel and other petrochemicals from India that are manufactured with Russian oil and gas. The refining loophole is still there because His Majesty’s Government have not yet legislated to ban imports of derivatives from Russian crude. The Government say that they expect a ban to be enforced in spring 2026, whenever that is. Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air shows that between the ban on direct imports coming into force in 2022 and the end of 2025, the UK has imported £4 billion-worth of jet fuel and other oil products made at refineries in India and Turkey, which run partially on Russian crude, and that every month the UK delays banning oil products made from Russian crude, it is effectively writing the Kremlin a cheque for around £44 million. It gets worse. Four of the five largest oil refiners in India are majority-owned by the Indian Government, with Reliance being the fifth, so it is not just the Indian refiners that are helping Russia by selling us petchems; the state of India itself is right now selling jet fuel and other petrochemicals derived from Russian oil and gas into the UK. What have we done about it? We have signed a free trade agreement with India. To add insult to injury, the loophole to be closed, as far as I can tell, just covers oil derivatives, but petrochemicals are derived from natural gas, too. What is happening with those? I have five questions for the Minister. First, what is his justification for signing an FTA with a country that is helping Russia to breach its sanctions? Secondly, was this issue discussed in the FTA negotiations? Thirdly, does the planned ban cover petrochemicals imported from India and other third countries derived from either oil or gas? Fourthly, please will the Minister tell us the specific date on which the ban will come into force, what steps will be required to effect it and what the timeline is for each of those steps? Finally, what are the reasons for the delay in implementing the ban? Why have the Government not already closed the loophole?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly like the States. While we are making comparisons with Europe, I note that under the UK’s free trade agreement 92% of our exports to India will enter tariff-free. Under the EU’s deal, 96.6% of its exports can enter India tariff-free. Perhaps there is some logic, after all, to bigger trade blocs having more leverage. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) about national insurance contributions. I am also deeply concerned about that, as is my party. I also take the Minister’s point about visa fees and everything else, but by the time we add all those together, I think that UK Inc—whether in my constituency of Witney or across the UK—will still be at a major disadvantage. This risks undermining British labour—

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  It will take one second.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding the business that I founded in 1996, BDA partners, in which I still hold a stake but have no role or responsibility. Economically, this agreement offers some benefits. As per the Government’s impact assessment, and as the Minister stated, the UK’s gross domestic product is estimated to increase by 0.13% as a result of this FTA. That is equivalent to £4.8 billion. That is in the long run— 0.13% by 2040. Let us put that into context: the hit to our economy from Brexit is around 6% to 8% of GDP—in the region of £210 billion—so its impact is 44 times larger. That is now, compared with the 0.13% we get in 15 years’ time.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  The National Bureau of Economic Research, in the United States.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this really important debate. She has been excellent in driving forward this issue, and is so determined. She demonstrates how to go after an issue and pursue it relentlessly. That is great, but ultimately, as she points out, words are pointless. We have a real problem here, and our loved ones are being taken down far too effectively. My sister Georgie is alive, and I am very grateful for that. She was diagnosed with GBM two and three quarter years ago, and has had surgery, chemo and radio. The survival rates are not good. I resent the fact that we always have to churn out our own stories in this Chamber; that, it seems, is what counts. Yes, I am going to churn out my own story, but it is irritating that I have to. She has been brave as hell and utterly determined, and is up there with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. Like her, Georgie takes no prisoners. She has gathered people to her cause and has never taken no for an answer. That is obviously to her credit, but more importantly, it has made a difference to this debate. Well done, Georgie. I also give a shout-out to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), whose Rare Cancers Bill has made a real difference, and to Labour Front Benchers. I know that I am on the Opposition Benches, but I do not really care, because this issue is too important for us to mess around. I do not know about the Secretary of State, but I think he is interested. I do know about the Minister for cancer, who has her own story, and who stood up in front of a room of angry people. Those of us affected by brain cancer do anger quite effectively, and she has withheld it, despite having her own cross to bear. She has worked extremely hard in this area, and I am very grateful to her for that. I am not going to rehash all the points that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made so well, but we obviously have some very bad issues. Pinned in front of me in my office is a chart, with arrows going from left to right, which basically shows how survival rates for different cancers have changed over the last 40 years. Up at the top, there are testicular cancer and thyroid cancer, and down at the bottom left, with virtually no arrows, are pancreatic, brain, oesophagus and a number of other cancers. People do not believe that they will be able to change that situation; they are not spending any money on them, because they are really difficult. There is no point pretending that these cancers are not really difficult, and brain cancer is particularly difficult because of the blood-brain barrier. The body does everything it can to stop things getting into the brain, which is mostly good for us, but when it comes to treating a brain tumour, it is bad for us. I am grateful for the national cancer plan, but we need more, and we should be taking steps to deal with that issue. The plan says: “Some rare cancers, such as brain and pancreatic cancer, have stubbornly low survival rates—and few treatment or diagnostic breakthroughs. We need new diagnostic tools, research into biomarkers, and targeted therapies to achieve any major changes to survival.” What we need on the back of the plan is a comprehensive, actionable strategy, with specific, measurable goals and targets, each with clear deadlines, so that we can ensure accountability in critical areas such as workforce recruitment and retention, infrastructure development, and incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for cancers on which so little progress has been made. I get that the Minister has just published a plan, but I look to him to take this further and set out as concrete a set of goals as possible, with a clear timeline. I will go through a few headings. On participation and research, the regulatory landscape is too restrictive. It often pushes families to seek treatment abroad, where clinicians have greater freedom to investigate novel therapies. A lack of accessible, up-to-date information is contributing to missed opportunities to partake in research. Although some registries exist, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s “Be Part of Research”, they are often difficult to navigate—there are over 120 types of brain tumour to search for—and they quickly become outdated. The cancer plan states: “We will make increasing research into rare cancers a priority for DHSC”— the Department of Health and Social Care— “and NIHR (with the support and oversight of our new national lead for rare cancers research).” I would welcome the Minister providing further details on how he and his team plan to effect that.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. I am going to talk out of two sides of my face here, because on the one side, the UK has a lot going for it, but on the other, it does not. Since Brexit, clinical trials in the UK are down 60%, which is really bad news. That is just business logic talking. Businesses say, “Why would I do my trial in the UK, when the market there is six times smaller than the EU’s? I’ll do it in the EU.” We are living this, and some of us are dying as a result. However, we just plough on, saying, “Never mind. That’s a bit of a mistake, but there we go.” It would be a delight to find a way through that, and to get our clinical trials up and running, exactly as my hon. Friend says. I do not have the answer to that one, apart from the obvious; I am really looking for that. I come to whole genomic sequencing. The Minister understands the issue better than me; I remember him mentioning it when I was having a coffee with him just after I joined the House. I really like what the team are doing, so well done to them. However, brain cancer patients lack the legal right to request whole genomic sequencing of their tumours. Instead, healthcare decisions on genomic testing are made solely by clinicians. As a result, many patients are systematically excluded from genomic testing, which significantly limits opportunities for tailored treatment options, and potentially affects their prognosis. The Government really need to rectify this injustice. We are after whole genomic sequencing for everybody who has brain cancer. Vaccine programmes do exist, and it is now time—I do not often do this—for me to be polite about the Conservative Government. They launched an ambitious initiative aimed at improving outcomes for all cancer patients: the NHS cancer vaccine launch pad, which is a great achievement. As the Minister has said, it is “speeding up access to clinical trials for cancer vaccines and immunotherapies”. However, brain cancer is not included on that platform, despite ongoing efforts to expand its scope to cover this disease. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the pharmaceutical industry is fully aware of the platform. My question is: why are brain cancer patients still left out of this programme? On workforce and infrastructure, the key to achieving the Government’s cancer plan is encouraging multidisciplinary teamwork among oncologists, neurosurgeons, artificial intelligence professionals, imaging experts and immunologists. The Government need to clarify how many—I am looking for numbers—new research, fellowship and training positions will be introduced across neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, neuropathology and radiography. What are the plans for setting up laboratories and trial facilities at major centres, and when are they expected to be up and running? On tumour tissue, we have a real mess, and I am looking to the Minister for help in sorting this out, because it is a real thicket of legal and medical complexity. Tumour tissue excised from the brain really matters, but how is it stored, what consents are used, and what control does the patient have over it, not only when they are alive, but after their death? What are the rules around tumour tissue, because we have a whole load of tumour tissue around the UK that is locked down and not accessible for research? I think many of the families would be absolutely delighted if that tumour tissue was used for research. I ask the Minister to have a look at that. What I am really asking is for the Secretary of State or the Minister to convene a series of meetings with all the key parties—the Human Tissue Authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the NHS and anybody else he thinks needs to be in the room—to work through that issue. We have made great progress on organ donation; the law changed a few years ago, and consent is now given by default. We have good laws on what happens to egg and sperm tissue, so can we try to get our laws for cancer tumour tissue up to date? I am wrapping up. Will the Minister give a commitment to improving public and patient awareness of consent, including for tissue use in research and treatments; ensure that clear, consistent national messaging is developed with experts, patients and carers about how consent works in cancer care; and ensure that there is support for the public giving advance, informed digital consent, rather than doing so at moments of crisis?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate. This morning I met a constituent, Petra, who has been in the country for three and a half years. She works in the care sector. She works extremely long hours, which are not in her control; sometimes she is loaded with work six days straight from 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 o’clock at night, and sometimes she gets no work at all. When she talks to her employers, they say, “Well, you and the rest of your team are on visas, and if you report us and we go out of business then you’re all going to be leaving the UK.” We are creating this enormous class of indentured servitude.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The situation I described is obviously cruel, and this moving of the goalposts will make it miles crueller. To the point made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I really hope that the Minister is reading the room, because the country is up in arms about the proposed change, and we should not allow it to be made. I ask him to reconsider.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the White Paper and thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work. I am keen to understand how it will work in practice. As the Secretary of State will know, Thames Water’s largest equity shareholder wrote down its shareholding to zero in May 2024, so the equity is widely regarded as worthless. That leaves the debt, three quarters of which is held by the London & Valley consortium, the class A creditor. Does she agree that, given that the equity is worthless, leaving only the debt, the consortium obviously has material influence over the company?

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree—well said. The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run. Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response: “At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will let it pass from here. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My chief concern with this Bill is that, like a lot of the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, it looks like it may be a route to some medium-term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer-term consequences. That will help the Chancellor meet her fiscal rules, but I say “may” because the Bill does not kick in this year, next year, the year after or the year after that; rather conveniently, it will kick in during the election year of 2029-30. That is pretty useful if you are fighting an election and want to meet your fiscal rules, but it is not very useful if you are trying to be fiscally prudent, so that leads to some scepticism about what is actually going on here. Given the pressures on the state pension and the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save more towards their retirement. Let us look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses that rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state: “Higher National Insurance costs and operational disruption would make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth, or plan effectively.” We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this Bill, they were battling the sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills, supplies, business rates, the costs of Brexit and so on, and they also have to adjust to the changes in their NICs bills that the Chancellor announced a year ago. One can imagine how that must feel for small business owners—the additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable. This Bill is a double whammy on last year’s national insurance hikes—the NICs burden went up last year due to the rate increase, and now this measure is raising their NICs bills for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on businesses, and on small businesses in particular. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the Government to publish full assessments of the impact of the Bill on the recruitment and retention and the tax liabilities of businesses. Let us now consider the potential damage that this choice will do further down the road by disincentivising saving. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK are not on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, which is a 4% increase since 2023. Research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year, but projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace, given the rising cost of living.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Lib Dems welcome the U-turn by the Government in December raising the allowance to £2.5 million and welcome the change announced in the Budget permitting the allowance to be transferable between spouses and civil partners. But as the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, put it, “These changes make the policy better, but that is not the same as saying that they make it good.” —[ Official Report , 5 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 30.] We ask the Government to think again in the following areas. The Treasury estimates that the tax will now raise £300 million by 2029-30, down from £520 million. If the same pro rata reductions applied, less than £100 million will be raised in 2026-27—minuscule against the estimated total tax receipts this year of £1.23 trillion. Professional bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, has expressed concern at how administratively burdensome it will be to value assets and calculate potential liabilities, even if there is no tax to pay. How does the revenue forecast to be raised compare with the cost of administering this new policy? When the Government originally announced the planned changes to APR last year, the Chartered Institute of Taxation also suggested introducing transitional gifting rules to support older farmers who have done the logical thing of hanging on to their land, but who are now faced with penalties for doing so. Can Ministers please look at ways of alleviating some of that burden for older farmers who have not been able to plan ahead for this change? We will be voting against clause 62 because we as a party have consistently voted against the family farm tax and want it scrapped in its entirety.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I guess we will have to check our social media accounts.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Farmers up and down the country should be really proud of the campaign that has forced the Government to rethink the completely short-sighted and ill-thought-out policy that has threatened the future of family farms up and down the country. I congratulate them on the result that they have secured. I think everyone in this House would acknowledge that they have spent an enormous amount of time, energy, anxiety and stress getting to the position that we are now in, and that it would have been a lot better if they had never had to do that in the first place. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to come out against these tax changes, and I pay tribute to my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who, along with other Lib Dem MPs, have challenged the Government on this at every opportunity and stood in solidarity with the farming community each step of the way.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very good question, but £100 million is 0.1% of £1.23 trillion. In materiality, it is important to think of it in that range. I do not think this is the way of going about it. I ask the Government to consider voting in favour of amendment 3, which would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to APR and BPR and delay the implementation date so that changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027, and of our new clause 7, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish an assessment of annually uprating the relief allowance for APR by the change in the value of agricultural land. While awareness of the APR changes is very high among the farming community, I am concerned that awareness of the changes to BPR may not be as high among business owners in many sectors. Do the Government have any plans to raise awareness so that people know what is headed their way?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Ms Ghani.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend. [ Interruption. ] Would you like to intervene?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) for securing this important debate and everybody who has spoken in it. There is a very strong message coming through about how much rural communities need this relief and how much they suffer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned, rural life is more expensive, and that is because of the friction of distance and the scale of distance. This relief goes a long way to offsetting that expense, and it has been a huge help to communities, but it is becoming less and less of a help because it has not gone up with inflation or anything else, and that sits on top of all the additional pressures that our communities are under that are really stretching household budgets and causing a lot of trouble. That is the root cause, so we ask the Minister, in responding to this debate, to address whether the Government will consider uprating the scheme in line with inflation. Secondly, if we look at the state of public transport infrastructure in this country after years of under-investment by the last Conservative Government, it is quite clear that there are many more areas, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, where people have no real alternative but to use cars for day-to-day journeys. That is far more widespread than just the 21 areas that currently benefit from the scheme. Research published by the County Councils Network in 2024 found that the frequency of rural bus services in England had reached a historic low, with more than a quarter of rural routes having been lost in the preceding decade. In remote areas of Scotland, some of which benefit from the rural fuel duty relief scheme, low connectivity is having a clear negative impact on the population, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) mentioned earlier today in this debate and in the Chamber. National Records of Scotland’s “Population estimates by urban rural classification”, which covered 2001 to 2021, showed a population decrease by 1% between 2011 and 2020, compared with increases of 3.1% nationwide and 8.4% in accessible rural areas. The population of rural small towns decreased by 3.6% over the same period. The implication is that the lack of connectivity and affordable transport is hollowing out those communities, and the reduction in real-terms value of the relief scheme is playing a part in that. The Government’s Bus Services Act 2025 will make some positive change, and I support the aim of revitalising rural bus services, but with the best will in the world we cannot turn this situation around overnight. New transport infrastructure takes months and years to create—my colleagues and I are trying to bring back a rail link in west Oxfordshire—and rural drivers up and down the country are struggling with this problem now. To address the problem, the Liberal Democrats have called for the number of areas covered by the scheme to be doubled, so an additional 21 areas across the UK would benefit from the relief. That expansion should be supported by a clear consultation and evidence base to determine the areas that could receive the new relief: perhaps Devon, Cornwall, Cumbria, East Anglia, Yorkshire and Shropshire could benefit, alongside rural Wales, more of rural Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland.