Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) · Hansard source

  More

  The electricity generator levy is a windfall tax on UK electricity generation from nuclear, renewable and biomass sources, and it raised £0.7 billion in the last financial year. The EGL is a revenue-based tax that currently applies at a rate of 45% on exceptional generation receipts above a benchmark price of £77.94 per megawatt-hour, with an allowance of £10 million per company. In contrast, the energy profits levy applies to oil and gas production in the UK and the UK continental shelf, and raised £2.9 billion in the last financial year. We support the goal of seeking to fund cost of living support through emergency revenue measures during the gas price shock, but we also note that power wholesale prices are now around £90 per megawatt-hour, compared with a spike of £135 per megawatt-hour and a pre-Iran conflict price of £80 per megawatt-hour. How much is this measure likely to raise, given the move in prices? It feels like the horse may have already bolted, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. We recognise that this measure is a nudge to accelerate the shift of legacy renewable generators away from volatile wholesale prices and towards fixed contracts for difference, using a higher tax rate as leverage. If legacy renewable generators—those on the renewables obligation, not those already under CfDs—sign up to a wholesale contract for difference, they exchange their volatile wholesale revenues for a fixed strike price. That is obviously good news for consumers, who are insulated from future gas price spikes on that portion of generation because the generator is no longer passing through the wholesale prices, and the Government capture any upside via the Low Carbon Contracts Company when wholesale prices rise. The second motion will increase the mileage allowance. Again, this seems a logical step, and one that we are happy to support. I note that the 45p rate has been frozen since 2011, so it has been 15 years without an adjustment. Over that period, the costs of fuel, insurance, tyres and servicing have all risen materially, so while 55p is a meaningful correction, it is questionable whether it fully catches up with accumulated inflation. This change will have a positive impact overall, not least for people in professions such as care work, who do a lot of driving between appointments. I refer again to the Lib Dem proposal to cut fuel duty by 10%—if the Chancellor took that proposal on board, it would combine with the increase in mileage allowance to make a significant difference in the pockets of people who often have to drive for work. I also note that the cost of this change has not been set out, only that it is “subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility and will be set out at a future fiscal event.” Personally, I do not think that is good enough. The Treasury team should set out the cost of any change in the tax take, whether positive or negative, when it is proposed. Finally, the 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for HGVs is a sensible and welcome measure, and we will not oppose it. Our hauliers, such as Chris Hayter in Witney, are critical. They are the backbone of our economy, and I understand that the Minister knows them well. We need to be honest about what this change is and what it is not. Our haulage sector was already in crisis before the conflict in Iran. Insolvency rates in road freight have been running at record levels. Margins were being squeezed by rising insurance costs, driver shortages and the lingering disruption of years of post-Brexit paperwork. The Iran conflict has simply poured fuel—at £1.85 a litre—on to a fire that was already burning. The VED holiday saves a typical operator about £600 a vehicle. We welcome every penny of that, but against a fuel cost shock that is adding £1 billion a year to the industry’s cost base, it is by the Government’s own figures a quarter of the problem. Many operators will burn through that saving in a matter of weeks at the pump. What the sector needs alongside this is a serious long-term plan on fuel duty RPI indexation, which threatens to push costs higher again next April, on driver recruitment and retention, where the shortage remains acute, and on the transition to cleaner vehicles, where smaller operators have been left without a credible path to decarbonisation. We will support this measure through Parliament because the people driving these lorries deserve the relief now, not after another round of consultations.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  Well, there you are. It is a wonderful pub, and we need to keep it open. This is all doubly tough for rural pubs. City pubs have a much larger catchment of potential customers who are within walking distance and not car-dependent, which matters with drink driving. Rural pubs are likely to rely on oil, liquefied petroleum gas or electric heating rather than the gas grid, and they have a small labour pool from which to hire. On top of all those hurdles, pubs in the countryside are much more significant to their communities, as they are typically the only pub in the village and a key hub in village life, as so many Members have pointed out. In west Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse, we have fought really hard to enforce making pubs assets of community value, so that everyone understands that they cannot make a quick buck from buying a pub, turning it into a house and selling it—the cost to the community is far too great. But being a community asset alone does not pay the bills. We have to make those pubs into survivable businesses. The changes announced in last year’s autumn Budget—the business rates revaluation and the removal of reductions that dated from the covid pandemic—led to extreme distress for publicans. While I recognise that the Government have subsequently acknowledged the crisis facing Britain’s pubs, the package of support that they announced at the start of the year, including the 15% cut to pubs’ business rates bills from April and a two-year real-terms freeze, was only a partial U-turn, and it will still leave many pubs facing a business rates increase on top of the other cost pressures that I have listed.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important debate and I thank all my colleagues who gave such excellent speeches, which set out not only how much they love their pubs, but the struggles that they face. That is the important thing. I do not want to talk about how much those pubs matter to our communities or how much fun I have had in pubs over the years, because the thing that we must focus on is the big screaming problem. We need to take it seriously. Warm words go only so far right now. We have a huge problem that is hitting pubs every day, and we have to do something about it. I will set out how big the problem is. In the first half of last year, more than 200 pubs closed in six months. That is eight a week. A year on, things are even worse. The British Beer and Pub Association said that 161 pubs closed in the first three months of this year alone in England, Scotland and Wales. That is about 2,400 jobs. Those in rural and coastal constituencies have been among the hardest hit, and according to UKHospitality, running costs for pubs have risen by an estimated 43% since 2019. One third of hospitality businesses are operating at a loss, six in 10 have cut jobs and 63% have reduced staff hours. That is bad. Anyone knows that pubs are much more expensive than they used to be. That is hurting customers, as fewer people can afford an evening out. When a plate of fish and chips costs 15 quid, that is hardly surprising. It is obviously not because pubs are raking it in. Sadly, quite the opposite is true. Pubs are facing many of the same pressures that are hammering small local businesses across the board: spiralling food prices, high rents, sharp business rate increases, soaring energy bills, increased employer national insurance contributions and rising wages. As an entrepreneur who spent 24 years building a business, the overall situation scares the daylights out of me. I am not envious of them in that position. I am grateful to Nick at the Old Crown in Faringdon and Tommy and Mike at the Three Horseshoes in Witney, who sat me down and talked through just how tough it is to run these businesses. The Minister is smiling at me because he is a Witney boy, so he understands.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) points out from a sedentary position, I am not suggesting that we rejoin the European Union. Employer national insurance contributions are the single biggest nightmare. It is a tax before getting out of bed, before generating any revenue and before making any profit. It is a huge mistake by Labour, and a direct result of Labour Members straitjacketing themselves into foolish promises about not touching any of the big three taxes. It needs to be unwound. Equally, we have strongly opposed the Government’s changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and we have called on them to reverse the tax rise in full. We are also calling for a consultation on a new NICs band of £5,000 to £9,100, with a lower rate to better support part-time workers, on whom the hospitality industry heavily relies. I have already covered business rates, so I will not go into them further. On energy costs, the crisis in Iran has obviously made many costs, not least fuel prices, worse rather than better in the last few months. That is causing enormous pain. We would remove the main renewables levy from household energy bills, putting £270 back into people’s pockets over 18 months. That would be funded by a new windfall tax on big commercial banks, targeting the windfall interest payments they receive from the quantitative easing-related reserves they hold at the Bank of England.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I will finish by saying that we need to look in the round at the massive cost pressures and changing consumer habits, from lower footfall to falling discretionary spending power, which combine to put pressure on pubs. A one-off package of business rates support is one thing, but we need to get back into the single market, fix NICs, reform business rates properly, fix energy costs and give pubs and hospitality a 5% VAT break. If we do not do those things, pubs in my constituency—the land of your birth, Minister —will keep going bust. We want to avoid that.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Business rates feel so unjust—so arbitrary and out of control, and appeals are virtually impossible. We all beg the Minister to put doing something about that at the top of his list, because they are so grossly unfair and really rip the heart out of running a business. We need to pick those problems apart and work out what can be done. As announced just an hour ago by our mighty Lib Dem leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), getting back inside the EU’s single market would help in a number of ways. Food costs would go down if we were back inside the single market, both in pubs and on supermarket shelves. That matters: it would allow food to be sold for less, making pubs more affordable and getting more people through the door. It would also help with recruitment, as we would not need to spend thousands and waste months on visas for key staff, many of whom are from outside the UK. Being back inside the European single market for electricity would reduce energy bills, because we would be able to buy and sell electricity when the UK or the EU had surplus energy. I am not pretending that the move would solve everything, but those outcomes would materially help. However, there are plenty more problems that we would still need to deal with.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the creditors’ consortium has material influence over Thames Water, as it is funding the company and bilaterally negotiating with the Government. Material influence means that the consortium meets the defined criteria of being an ultimate controller. Will the Secretary of State finally acknowledge that fact and work with Ofwat to enforce it?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Water, which serves my constituency, embodies the systemic failures of the sector. The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any investment grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by failing to inform Ofwat and the Government of the change of control at the company. The Government have stood by and let that happen. Now, their only plan is to hand the company over to the very same creditors who have pillaged, and continue to pillage, it. They must now change course, put Thames Water into special administration and bring it out as a business that is mutually owned and operated in the interests of its customers and the environment. I find the shadow Minister’s words extraordinary—he comes across as a corporate shill. I have provided him with information from Thames Water’s own independent expert that demonstrates that the cost to the Government will be zero in the medium term, but he has not responded. Will the Government please now put the company into special administration?

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for the interest, passion, desire and ideas that he brought to the debate—I think we all really appreciate that—and I thank my other hon. Friends for all their good ideas. I will give a particular shout-out to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his ideas about enforcement and dealing with illicit businesses on the high street—I think all our constituencies would benefit from those. It is clear that we have a serious problem. Local pubs, family-owned shops and restaurants matter—they make our communities tick—but up and down the country they are closing at an alarming rate. I want to quantify just what that means: according to figures from the British Beer and Pub Association, 161 pubs—nearly two per day—closed in the first three months of this year across England, Scotland and Wales, taking with them 2,400 jobs, and in 2024 the UK lost 37 shops per day, with almost 13,500 closing. Preliminary figures for 2025 indicate that last year was likely even worse and could surpass 2022, the previous record year for closures. Alarm bells are ringing. A successful high street is not just about shops; it is about community and connection. As almost everybody in the room has said, it is about bringing community together and giving people opportunity and fun. It is on us as politicians to do our best to make that happen and ensure that it survives. The Lib Dems have been calling consistently for a package of support that recognises the scale of the problem: cutting VAT for hospitality and attractions from 20% to 15%; reforming business rates to reward occupancy; and strengthening the town centre-first principle in planning policy to tackle vacancy rates. That requires applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres rather than edge-of-centre locations, which should be used only if suitable sites are not available in the town centre. I will give a special shout-out to Witney as an example of a place where decades of support from planning officers and councillors has kept the high street lively, as opposed to everything being dragged out of town. Well done to everybody for doing that over decades. Let me turn to the problems. I will start with the big stuff: at the top is the failure to get our economy moving. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) just mentioned, being back inside the European single market and customs union would not cost anything—it makes really good sense. Dealing with tax reform makes really good sense. Those measures would cut the cost of doing business by reducing the cost of food, addressing the chronic vacancy rate in hospitality, easing labour shortages and reducing the cost of energy. This is all doable. At the top of the charge sheet are national insurance contributions. As an ex-entrepreneur, I feel the horror of this daft tax on headcount. Before getting out of bed in the morning—before generating any revenue, let alone profit—businesses are being whacked, and they do not want to hire people. That is really bad news. Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the change and think it should be reversed in full. We are also calling for a consultation on a new NICs band from £5,000 to £9,100, with a lower rate to better support part-time workers, on whom the hospitality industry relies heavily. Then there is VAT—that is the 5% cut—and business rates. The numbers on business rates are terrifying. Statistics from the Valuation Office Agency show rateable values rising by an average of 30% in 2026 for pubs and restaurants in England, and by an average of 70% for pubs with accommodation—imagine if that was your business!—outstripping the still substantial average increase of 19.4% across England for all properties. Those increases are completely unsustainable, and I do not think the Government are doing nearly enough to address them. In my constituency we have fabulous high streets. We have the medieval wonders of Witney and Burford, which rightly attract visitors from around the world. We have much-loved and much-defended free parking, which matters a lot to people, and we are working hard to better our local transport, whether that is buses, walking or biking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, we need all those things, not to pit one against the other. Often-overlooked Carterton and Faringdon have tons of wonderful independent shops and need so much more support than we are currently giving them. I want to focus on a few examples. Lisa and Kirsty have been running Sassi, a clothing shop on Witney high street, for over 15 years. Their business rates bill has gone up by £1,200 this year. Clive, who runs The Flooring Centre in Witney, has seen his business rates increase by 15% this year. This is not being addressed as a problem. Given the dire economic circumstances, such big increases in rates are a disaster. Let me turn to solutions and return to the need for a 5% VAT cut, a reversal of the increase in employer NICs, and the proper and fair reform of the business rates system that businesses have long been promised. As an interim support measure, we have called for the Government to keep in place the existing 75% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure until the new system is in place. Our high streets and town centres are places that we all rely on and depend on, hang out in and have fun in, and they are going in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what we can do about it.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  We all agree that we urgently need to get the economy growing again. However, the Bills in the King’s Speech do not represent the big, bold economic change that the country needs. I will talk today about just two things that would create economic growth: trade, and balancing tax and spending through our fiscal framework. On trade, our country prospers when fair markets for goods, services, capital and labour operate effectively. Trade makes this country great. Raising barriers to trade makes it harder for the economy to grow and erodes the tax base on which our vital public services depend—and the cost of doing business skyrockets, whether for a small business person in my constituency or for a large financial institution here in London. The evidence of the damage that Brexit has done is in plain view. America’s National Bureau of Economic Research, which produces non-partisan economic research, estimates that by 2025, the Brexit process had reduced UK GDP per capita by 6% to 8%, investment by 12% to 18%, employment by 3% to 4%, and productivity by 3% to 4%. That comes at enormous human cost. The UK-EU reset has some good elements, but each element, which is being painfully negotiated, returns merely some of the benefits that we all used to have. Our young people may soon have the opportunity again to travel and work abroad. We may rejoin the EU’s energy market, cutting electricity costs and making both markets greener and more efficient. The Government have been working hard on an SPS agreement on food with the EU. That would hugely reduce costs and delays for our farmers, and the benefits would be felt in Oxfordshire and rural communities across the country. It would bring cheaper food to supermarket shelves, which is good news for all of us. But consider the logic: the Government are now fighting really hard to rejoin the EU’s single market in food products, while remaining resolutely against rejoining the single market for anything else. Where is the logic in that? Two things are painfully clear. We are expending enormous political capital to recover just a fraction of the benefits we once had, and even that goal is wholly insufficient, given the scale of the challenge that our economy faces. We need to be bolder and aim higher. I turn to the UK’s fiscal framework. Let us have a think about how well it has worked over the last quarter of a century. In the last 25 years—a period spanning at least eight different fiscal frameworks—we have not had a single year in which tax receipts have exceeded spending. The 2024-25 deficit was £153 billion, which was 5.2% of GDP. The consequences of this are severe: our national debt has ballooned to £2.9 trillion, equivalent to 94% of GDP. When I look at our fiscal rules, the words that come to me are, “Lie to me.” The tradition works something like this. The Government of the day assure the country that all targets will be hit—not now, when it actually matters, but at a completely unknowable forecast date, five years hence. That five-year target rolls forward and is never reached. Spending is front-loaded in years one, two and three, and tax rises are backloaded in years four and five—ideally, the other side of a general election. Traditionally, voters have been lied to because the alternative means politicians confronting and explaining a financial situation that nobody wants to face. Is this failure inevitable? No, it is not. Other countries have moved in the other direction and cut their debt-to-GDP ratios. Sweden had a financial crisis in the 1990s, with a debt to GDP ratio of above 80%. Its response was the 1996 Budget Act, one of the most rigorous fiscal frameworks in Europe, which fundamentally reshaped how taxation and parliamentary scrutiny interact. Most importantly for our situation today, the principles of this framework continue to command very strong cross-party support. That does not mean that there is agreement on specific spending or tax decisions—these remain contested—but the framework rules themselves are treated as largely above partisan dispute. That is precisely why the Swedish model is so frequently cited internationally. I am asking everyone in this Chamber and everyone listening to think seriously about whether we could do something similar here. After all, we are far better off addressing this very large problem now, before a financial crisis forces our hand later.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. We have all received casework on this issue from so many residents who are so worried and have been impacted by what has happened as a result of Trump’s war in Iran. The cost of heating oil doubled in just one week at the beginning of March, and that has had a huge impact on so many people. A constituent in her 70s wrote to me whose husband is in palliative care. The cost of filling her tank has gone from £320 to £750 and she just does not know what to do. She has asked what help the Government have given, and has received no help so far. Another constituent wrote to say that he had agreed a price back in February, but the company repeatedly delayed and ultimately cancelled his order, telling him he would have to reorder at the new price, which had more than doubled in the meantime. The Government have announced the £53 million package but, as so many Members have said, that is clearly insufficient to support the scale of affected households: more than 3.5 million people across the country depend on heating oil. So far, the Government have refused to cap the cost of heating oil, when we have caps on other energy sectors such as gas and electricity. That feels completely inconsistent and unjust. We would really like to see that changed. I echo the calls of my Liberal Democrat colleagues for the Government to act now to protect constituents who rely on heating oil by enacting a three-month zero-rating of VAT on heating oil for all residential homes, and by developing a price cap to shield them from sudden increases in the price of heating oil. I would also welcome an update and more details from the Minister about the progress on the promised new consumer protections in the heating oil market.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate so well and with such balance—I really appreciate it. I am proud and relieved that we live in a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Obviously a painful history that got us to that point, but it is something we are fortunate to have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned, there are many places that have much worse laws than we do. In December, emails began flooding in to my inbox on this issue. For some reason, one Saturday morning at about 5.30 am I found myself awake and wanting to dig into the issue on the internet. I dug into the murders that had happened, how they had happened and what had gone on. Obviously there was a mix; I grew up with shotguns and I am still a shotgun owner and certificate holder, but not a firearm holder, and I had not understood in detail section 1 versus section 2. As I looked into that, my thought was, “Holy smokes, this is going to change rural life enormously if it goes through.” That gave me the heebie-jeebies—it led to two hours of internet research and an email to my spokesperson to say, “Let’s get on top of this fast, if we’re not already.” The consequences of this proposal will be enormous and very damaging. Various Members have come to the debate with a great deal of knowledge, and some have attacked the stats on the number of people who have been killed. Every death is one too many—I get that—but we must also highlight where the licensing is or is not working, as well as the changes that came in last August. What happened in August 2025? New checks were brought in and changes were made to the references system. For example, the number of referees required increased from one to two, anyone connected with domestic abuse or violence can no longer be licensed and other medical checks were introduced. Those new changes are only six months old, so it is important that we see how they land and their impact—hopefully a very positive impact—before we take further steps. As many Members have said, the firearms licensing system, with the 43 licensing authorities, is a mess. It is an excellent candidate to be consolidated and run as one unified, well-resourced, digitised system that allows people to get recertified quickly and effectively. I recommend that we head in that direction as quickly as possible, rather than in the direction of the proposal under discussion. I am still relatively new to this House, but one of the reasons we are all here is to serve our constituents well. We want to keep the temperature of debate low, because situations such as this, where people have died, matter. If we ramp up the temperature, I do not think we are serving ourselves or our communities well. These are serious issues, and they deserve a serious debate. However, our rural communities are certainly wary, and measures such as the family farm tax and the sustainable farming incentive have really hurt them, so I urge the Government to go very carefully. I want to avoid any narratives of this elite or that elite pushing things down on people; that does not do us any good. We all need to stay away from such a narrative, and taking this issue on its merits would really serve us all well.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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

  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?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for Thames Water. We have the Thames itself, the Evenlode and the Windrush. West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in going after Thames Water. We have WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—and we, as a team, have also gone after Thames Water through the High Court and the Court of Appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. I thank the legal team that fought pro bono with us last year on behalf of the 16 million Thames Water customers who are being royally stiffed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned, the bills people are paying are completely outrageous. I have had constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%. Somebody got a 93% increase through the post. It is outrageous.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  We have interest costs of 9.75% being paid. We have massive advisory fees coming out of the company. All the class A creditors’ legal fees—£15 million a month, give or take—were being paid for by Thames Water. To say that this is not all hitting the customers is not true. Who else is paying for this, if it is not ultimately the customers?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree—well said. What is so depressing is that the Labour Government have embraced the Conservative’s mistakes over Thames Water, and our water sector more broadly, and then doubled down on them. The Government have been and continue to be hoodwinked by a bunch of hedge-funds whispering about financial Armageddon into ears of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Ofwat. They need to follow through on their regulatory obligations, because we need regulators that have teeth and backbone and will actually deliver. Instead, we have hedge-funds making vast fees with outrageous interest expenses, at the cost of us as consumers. It is not fair. It is a great shame, and it is also unnecessary, because the company’s financial and environmental positions are completely unsustainable. With every day that passes, this becomes more Labour’s problem. We now need to cut the rope and put the company into special administration, on account of its many breaches of its licence obligations, so that its debt can be written down to around three times cash flow and it can come out of the special administration regime mutually owned by 16 million customers, and run on behalf of them and the environment, and with Government-guaranteed funding mechanisms in place to fund the investment required over the next three, five and 15 years. Will the Government please answer my letter to the Minister responsible for sewage and flooding, sent at the start of October? I asked whether the Minister believes that Thames Water’s ad hoc group of class A creditors now exerts material influence over it, thereby meeting the “ultimate controller” criteria. I would really like an answer on that. Last February, a High Court judge found that they have material influence over the company, and it would be great to have a straight answer from the Secretary of State or the Minister on that point. I would not like the Government to give Thames Water, or any other water company, a free pass on paying environmental fines in full. When there are breaches, we need regulators that enforce the fines that are in place. Similarly, given the extreme precarity of the company’s finances, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the Government should not entrust it with delivering a huge and costly infrastructure project in Oxfordshire in the form of the south-east strategic reservoir option, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke in detail. Given all our constituents’ low level of faith in Thames Water, the future of which is precarious, to put it extremely mildly, it is no wonder that this is causing such alarm to residents in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends. Please do not be bamboozled by the hedge funds; instead, show some backbone—and do not own the Tories’ mistakes. That is the key thing, because this Government still have a chance to leave it with them. Please do so and put the company into a special administration regime.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I concur with those views from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), but can the Minister confirm that those discussions with class A creditors will not involve forgiving the company for its fines?