Claire Young MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to help to ensure the effective prosecution of rural crime.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you and all in Parliament, Mr Speaker. What work is the Attorney General undertaking through their superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service and in collaboration with the Home Office to reduce delays in prosecutions for rural crime and to ensure that prosecutors are equipped to support effective enforcement in rural areas?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Historical Interim Development Orders · Hansard source

  More

  Residents of Pilning woke up one day to find piling work taking place on the edge of their village for a massive, stadium-sized warehouse, which they have dubbed the mega-shed. It now looms over their homes. Not only is it over 20 metres high, but the land on which it is built has been raised, making it even more imposing. It sits around 150 metres from the closest houses at Cranmoor Green in Pilning. It has robbed them of light, it impacts on visual amenity, and with the land raised and concreted over, it leaves them fearing that their homes will now be at greater risk of flooding. Residents worry about light and noise pollution, with the 24/7 nature of modern warehouse and distribution centres, refrigerated vehicles running while they unload, forklift trucks with warning bleepers, and HGVs arriving around the clock. They worry about the additional traffic that it will draw through the country roads that surround the site, which are already overwhelmed with heavy traffic. So far, so familiar—our modern lives have led to huge growth in large scale warehousing across the country. However, what makes this particular case all the harder for residents to take is that the developers did not have to make a full planning application, which would have allowed all the residents’ concerns to be taken into consideration and properly assessed. That is because the work has been undertaken under historical planning consents first granted nearly 70 years ago, and that only required a reserved matters application that could look at a very limited set of issues. It does not end with this warehouse, because those consents would allow many more such warehouses to be built near Pilning, Severn Beach and Easter Compton. As one resident put it: “It’s just so big and so impactful and affecting people’s lives. The issue is, it seems there’s nothing we can do about it.” In 1957 and 1958, planning permission was granted to Imperial Chemical Industries to facilitate the expansion of chemical, storage, and distribution industries on an area covering over 1,000 hectares alongside and out into the Severn estuary, in what is now my Thornbury and Yate constituency. At this point I must clarify that these were general development orders, not interim development orders, but I will be returning to the latter shortly, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the title of the debate. Those consents were effectively hybrid applications that allowed development without any further planning applications for a large part of the site, as happened with the building of a new Amazon warehouse, and they required a reserved matters application in the remaining parts of the site, including the land next to Pilning. That was part of a big post-war push to industrialise. The local area looked very different then. There was no M4, no M5, and no Severn bridges. Filton airfield was operating. There was an expectation of goods being brought in and out via the estuary, which was why the development area extended out into it. The lorries that would have moved goods about that were not being transported via the estuary were considerably smaller than modern HGVs. Pilning itself was smaller and Cranmoor Green did not exist. The permissions are very open, and lacking in conditions by modern standards. The area is loosely described, and the only red line drawn on a map is at such a scale that the thickness of the line represents 100 metres to 150 metres on the ground. On those parts of the site where reserved matters applications are required, the only things that can be considered are the layout, design, and external appearance of the buildings. Planners cannot consider access, parking, ecology, biodiversity net gain, residential amenity, flood risks—the list goes on. Also, the council cannot use a section 106 agreement or receive community infrastructure levy to mitigate the impacts of any development. The world has moved on in the last 70 years, but that planning consent remains extant, despite efforts to challenge it. I am afraid Madam Deputy Speaker that this is where we get into the driest of planning matters. A memorandum that the House of Commons Library found for me highlights that the 1957 and 1958 consents were granted without a time limit, and that although section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced time limits, those do not apply to permission granted by a development order. In any case, ICI had developed on a small proportion of the land, so implementation had been started. In 1992, AstraZeneca purchased the site from ICI. A planning committee report from 30 September 2011 says that South Gloucestershire council challenged the permission in 2000, but it was found sound and capable of implementation in its current form by the courts in 2003. There was a further Secretary of State decision in 2022, when Redrow appealed against the non-determination of an application, which also confirmed the permission extant and capable of implementation. In 2011, the Cresswell review was undertaken to see if the permission ran contrary to the environmental designations affecting the area. It identified that habitat loss would occur and identified potential sites for mitigation. The public authorities chose the two most impactful options and have implemented those at public expense, not the expense of the developer. In response to recent media coverage of the mega-shed, a Government spokesperson said: “Councils are ultimately responsible for reviewing old permissions if the development is no longer suitable and deciding whether action is necessary.” But what powers do councils actually have to do this? They have already tried the judicial review route and the consent was found to be extant. The local residents’ action group takes issue with the council’s interpretation of the case, but in many cases residents were unaware of the development until it was too late to mount a judicial review, and no other avenue is open to them. I believe that it will take Government action to resolve this situation and restore some control to the local planning authority. There is precedent, and this is where I finally come to interim development orders. IDO consents were permissions granted between 1943 and 1948 for mineral extraction. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 created a process through which old mining and mineral extraction permissions authorised by an IDO consent could be updated with modern conditions. The Act required holders of IDO consents as at 1991 to apply to the mineral planning authority to register that old permission, as it was granted before the modern planning system, and then to apply for determination of the conditions to which the permission was to be subject. The planning policy underpinning Act states: “The Government takes the view that this is an important opportunity to secure improved operating and environmental standards. Minerals are vital to the economy but it is essential that they are extracted in an environmentally acceptable away”. Similar statements could be made about warehousing and the modern economy. No compensation was paid to the holders of IDO consents. Although the legislation covered just about any condition, the Government guidance said that for working sites, a distinction should be drawn between environment and amenity aspects, where new conditions should not affect the asset value, and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. The latter should be done under mineral planning authority review. Separately, under the Environment Act 1995, there was a review of old mineral permissions: ROMPs. This is a separate procedure that effectively does the same thing—modernises old mineral planning consents—but for consents granted in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. That Act imposed a requirement on mineral planning authorities to periodically review the planning permissions of mines to ensure that they stay up to date to modern standards. This legislation said that if the new conditions would prejudice the asset value or viability “to an unreasonable degree” the applicant could claim compensation. The Labour Government issued revised minerals planning guidance MPG4 in August 1997, which provided guidance on the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) Regulations 1997, and section 198 of the Planning Act 2008 made changes to the process for appeals relating to old mining permission granted under IDOs. So through a series of legislation and planning guidance, we have a process in place for the pre-1948 mineral permissions—the IDO process—and one for the post-1948 mineral permissions. However, there is no process in place for other blanket consents that need modernising. I ask the Minister to review the Severnside consents and to consider creating a process analogous to those I have just described for reviewing historical blanket consents that have not been fully implemented. To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that most old consents be reviewed and modern conditions imposed—only those that have not been implemented on all the parcels of land to which the consent applies, such as the Severnside consents. I appreciate that there is no power to halt the existing construction of the mega-shed, much to the anger of my constituents affected by it, but that would provide a route to ensuring that all issues can be considered before permitting further development. Furthermore, I ask the Minister to consider taking steps to prevent this issue in the future. If most consents are not implemented within three years, the consent lapses, thanks to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The problem arises where consents cover a large area, such as this one, and they are considered to have been implemented as soon as the first thing is built, resulting in the whole consent being live indefinitely. If this Government want to speed up development in the pursuit of growth, they could put time limits on the completion of the implementation, so that if the consent is not fully implemented within that period, the consent for the remaining parcels of land lapses or can have its conditions reviewed. If no such measure is introduced, and Governments continue to let developers hang around for 70 years with no incentive to finish implementing permissions and no modernisation of conditions, it makes a mockery of the Government’s plans for growth and their stated commitment to do so sustainably. Let me highlight the particular concerns felt by residents and the parish council around flooding. I am meeting the Environment Agency tomorrow, and I would appreciate the Minister’s support for me to convene a meeting of the Environment Agency, the parish council and South Gloucestershire council to understand these concerns better and identify any action necessary to address them. This is a complex matter, which I have tried to explain in the time allowed and without the use of supporting diagrams. I would be grateful for an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss it in more depth and to see whether we can find a way to give hope to the residents of Pilning and the surrounding villages. Ultimately, they are the ones paying the price for a planning decision made years before many of them were even born.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Historical Interim Development Orders · Hansard source

  More

  “A monstrosity”, “the giant greenhouse”, “like living next to a large prison” and “like ‘War of the Worlds’, it just kept getting bigger and bigger”. Those are just a few of the words that my constituents in the village of Pilning have used to describe a gigantic new warehouse being built close to their homes. In a debate about historical planning consents, I will inevitably have to talk about some pretty dry planning matters, but I want to start by setting out the very real human impact that one such consent is having on the people of Pilning. Long time resident Sue said to the media: “How have they been allowed to build it so close to our properties? It’s made everything dark, the constant noise and dust… And what about the flood plain? Where is all the water going to go?” Simone said: “I feel so upset. We have never drawn our curtains. Now you feel like you have no privacy… When they started the piling work the whole house was shaking.”

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the strategy’s departure from decades of shared assumptions, will the Government revise the 2025 national security strategy, and if not, why?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered consumer-led flexibility for a just transition. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. We have a problem in this country—one that is hitting all our constituents in the pocket, while wasting electricity and pushing up carbon emissions. At the root of the problem is a mismatch between supply and demand. The places where it is cheapest to generate clean electricity are not the areas that consume the most, and our current grid does not have the capacity to move the electricity from one place to the other when demand is high. It was built to transmit power being produced by a limited number of large power stations, not the dispersed renewable energy that provides so much of our electricity today. As we make ever greater demands on the grid, as we electrify transport and move away from gas for heating, the problem grows, and those demands are not felt evenly throughout the day. In particular, there is a big peak in the evening as people return home from work and school, cook their evening meal, plug in their cars and turn on the heating. Those peak demand periods do not necessarily match the peak supply periods of intermittent weather-dependent forms of generation. Something has to be done to balance the grid, so how do we deal with the problem currently? We have the farcical situation whereby we all pay producers to turn off wind turbines in Scotland and pay others to turn on gas-powered fire stations in south-east England. Those constraint payments have already cost us nearly £1.3 billion this year, and it is predicted that that could rise to a massive £8 billion by 2030. All of us are paying those costs through our electricity bills. Paying producers to turn off clean power while paying others to burn fossil fuels sounds like madness, but it is the reality. What can we do to solve the problem? We could fix it by upgrading the grid infrastructure, which needs to happen, but that takes time, and time is not on our side. We could fix it by building new power generation capacity in the areas that need it most, but that cannot be done quickly either, and do we really want to locate renewable energy capacity in suboptimal locations simply to meet local demand? Fortunately there is an alternative: consumer-led flexibility—a way for households and businesses to flatten the demand, help to stabilise the grid, increase our nation’s energy security and cut everyone’s bills. Unlocking just 10 GW of consumer-led flexibility by 2030 would be the equivalent of a third of the UK’s entire gas power station capacity. It is more sophisticated than the old Economy 7 time-based approach. Smart technology can respond to signals from the grid and to users’ needs. Imagine someone arriving home from work in their electric car—they do not need to use it again until the next morning, but it is easiest to plug it in when they get home so they do not forget to charge it. Unfortunately, it is the peak period, so they are adding to the peak demand, but with electricity costing the home consumer the same throughout the day, where is the incentive to do otherwise? With a smart charger and tariff, and a car that can do vehicle to grid—giving power back to the grid from its battery—things could be different. Importantly, from the consumer’s point of view, little changes—they plug in when they get home as usual, and next morning, their car is charged and ready to go. But instead of charging straight away, a smart charger recognises that the car could give back some power now. That helps to boost supply at the time of peak demand, and that supply is being provided right where it is needed, not hundreds of miles away at the other end of an inadequate grid. Then the car is recharged later, when demand is lower. There are many other, similar scenarios involving battery storage, smart appliances, heat pumps and thermal storage in homes and workplaces, which are all ways to intelligently shift energy use to times when it is cheap, clean and abundant. The upsides are huge, not least because, by cutting constraint payments and reducing the investment needed in new and upgraded energy infrastructure, the potential is there to cut bills for everyone, not just those who can participate. The MCS Foundation estimates that consumer-led flexibility could cut £375 from the average household electricity bill by 2040. It can be deployed more quickly than building new infrastructure. It can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the need for gas. It can increase grid resilience, enhancing our energy security, and it can create jobs and growth, with UK companies exporting their know-how abroad.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and I am coming to those points. The Government have set out a clean flexibility road map, and E.ON has found that 84% of people want more control over energy, so what is the catch? It might be said that this is all well and good for affluent consumers, who can afford the smart technology—the electric cars, battery storage and heat pumps, and the washing machines and dishwashers with timers so that they do not have to get up in the middle of the night to switch them on. It is all right for those who are digitally literate and for those who have heard of smart tariffs—let alone got their head around how they work. What about those who do not fit into those privileged categories? How does consumer-led flexibility fit with a just transition? A report by the MCS Foundation in August found that 78% of people are unaware of schemes that reward households for reducing energy use at certain times and 41% are unlikely to switch to tariffs offering cheaper electricity outside peak times. If only a privileged few can access flexibility, will it deliver the potential benefits or simply place more of a burden on those already struggling to pay? It has the potential to lower all bills—as previously mentioned—by driving costs out of the system. That benefits even those who cannot participate. But we need to do more. To achieve the scale of change necessary, we need more action from the Government. About three in 10 homes still do not even have smart meters, and the Government concede that, in those that do, one in 10 is faulty, while others put the figure even higher. That does not bode well for the roll-out of more advanced smart technology. What about the digitally excluded? The Government should oblige energy suppliers to engage with digitally excluded groups and those on low incomes on the benefits of flexibility. Does it not make comparing tariffs more complicated? Potentially it does, so why not support a “try it and see” approach by requiring energy suppliers to offer risk-free trial periods for time-of-use tariffs? We have all seen, in other periods of rapid technological change, that some projects fail, so Ofgem needs to strengthen consumer protection, with clear redress powers if that happens. The Government’s own clean power action plan says that to reach clean power 2030, we need 12 GW of consumer-led flexibility—more than nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture combined. But flexibility gets none of the coverage that those technologies do. It is all very well having a road map. What are Ministers actually doing to change the fact that nearly four in five people do not even know that they can be rewarded for changing when they use electricity? The markets have been designed for the traditional fossil fuel generators, not for individuals and businesses that generate their own power or can offer storage. We need a presumption of openness in energy market design and rules to support them. If a rule from a market maker prevents a family with a battery, or a business with thermal storage, from participating in the market, it should be forced to justify why. The way that the network costs and final consumption levies work means that consumers cannot currently be paid to use excess renewable power when electricity prices go negative. That needs urgent reform. Imagine how much easier it would be to make the case for the clean energy transition if people could be paid for using clean, free power. If flexibility is to be delivered, there needs to be clear accountability, without room for buck passing between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator. The new flexibility commissioner needs to be given teeth, the ability to demand transparency and accountability from everybody involved, and the authority to call out failure. Have Ministers looked closely at the industry progress board that has been set up, and can the commissioner work with it? It is time to give people the chance to take control and be active participants in our energy system, rather than being at its mercy. The road map, the commissioner and the technology are all in place, and we know that the public want more control over their energy and their bills. Will the Government take the extra steps needed to make this happen, or will they allow the dinosaurs of the old system to stand in the way? Let us move beyond the map to make this a reality and slash bills for everyone.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I will not test everyone’s patience either. I thank everyone for their contributions. Between us, we have highlighted not just the potential for lowering bills but, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) explained, the benefits for local economies through the generation of good, clean energy jobs. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the benefits for those in rural, off-gas areas, which many of my constituents will appreciate, and the importance of making the technology affordable. I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), does not really want our constituents to continue paying for excessive fossil fuel generation when there is an alternative. It is important that consumer-led flexibility is about empowering our constituents, not forcing them to do things. It is also important that we support everyone who wants to participate, not just those for whom it is easiest. I thank the Minister for his response, which gives me some hope, but I will be keeping a close eye on this transition as it progresses. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered consumer-led flexibility for a just transition.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Some 4,497 of my constituents signed the petition, and I thank the many who took the time to write to me to explain their concerns. They believe that a mandatory digital ID threatens our right to privacy while doing nothing to address the Government’s stated aims of immigration enforcement. The huge response to the petition should give the Government pause for thought. It is not too late to listen to the concerns and to think again. We operate in a world in which ownership, control and manipulation of data is central to our lives. A real concern is that mission creep will lead to more and more online actions requiring a check, creating a digital treasure trove about each and every one of us that could be misused by the state and other actors. As one constituent put it: “Do we want every single thing we attempt to do to require a check that ‘yes, you are a British citizen, let me just link this to you as well’?” Many constituents pointed out that documentation is already required to work legally, but that is flouted by those operating in the dark economy. My constituents do not believe that a new ID system will solve the issue. They see it as a distraction or a diversion of money and effort from the real solution, which is better investment in enforcement. I agree: an ID scheme would cost billions, which is money that could be better spent on processing centres to clear the asylum backlog. That would do far more to restore public trust in the immigration system, if that is the issue, and still leave money to fix the public services so damaged by the previous Conservative Government. My constituents are also concerned about the safety of our data, especially with a rushed implementation. If we create a platform that stores millions of people’s personal ID, we create a target for those who would illegally access and misuse that data. One constituent urged me to vote against digital IDs until the Government can “show that the data of its citizens, who it claims to represent, will be safe”. I doubt that any such guarantee will be forthcoming. Many were concerned that the work would be outsourced to a third-party company. When we interact with a commercial service, we make a choice; mandatory ID would give up that choice. With more time, I could talk about the worries for the digitally excluded, who already face higher costs for commercial services. Will they now also miss out on Government support and services? Digital tools should empower individuals, not give Government more control. A mandatory ID scheme in which people have no choice is totally at odds with Britain’s long history as a liberal democracy.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In a letter to me from 2 October, a Work and Pensions Minister stated that the Department was undertaking a review of the child maintenance calculation, and that it would be published “late this year”. Given that it is almost December, could the Leader of the House confirm whether that is still the timeline, and if it is, when the proposals will be published?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The theme of today’s debate is fairer choices, so I want to look at whether the choices made yesterday really were fairer. On energy bills, I welcome the removal of the main green levies from electricity bills. They created a perverse disincentive to switching away from gas, at a time when we need people to do so to decarbonise heating. That causes particular hardship in a rural constituency like mine, where a significant number of households are off-gas. However, I note that it is only a temporary move, with the Resolution Foundation saying that £55 is set to be added back to energy bills in 2029-30. I urge the Chancellor to look carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposals to reduce energy bills by half by 2035. I also flag to the Chancellor that constituents in off-gas areas have raised concerns about what they see as the unfair tax treatment of lower carbon fuels, which they see as a more realistic option for reducing their carbon emissions in the short term. Is the Budget fairer for businesses? Businesses across my constituency are struggling, as they face a dangerous mix of higher costs and lower consumer spending. Before the Budget, the Liberal Democrats called for an emergency 5p cut to VAT for hospitality, accommodation and attractions to help those businesses stay afloat, and also to help people to afford the occasional treat to enjoy. It is something that businesses across my constituency have called for recently, and it would have helped attractions as varied as Bristol Zoo Project, The Wave and Dyrham Park, as well as hotels, pubs and restaurants across the constituency. However, the Chancellor ignored our calls while also failing to introduce a fair reform of business rates to ensure that those businesses can continue to grow and thrive long into the future. Is the Budget fairer for children with special educational needs and disabilities? The last Conservative Government left councils facing huge pressures. The best way to fix that is to address the black hole caused by the crises in social care and SEND provision, but what the Chancellor announced yesterday failed to give the clarity that is desperately needed on the existing SEND deficit. My own council of South Gloucestershire, of which I was the leader until I was elected to this place, has long grappled with historic underfunding and rising demand for SEND support. It is one of the f40 group of the lowest-funded authorities and one of those that entered into safety valve agreements because of those rising deficits. We need clarity on what will happen to those historic deficits after the Government take this in-house. Were the choices in the Budget fairer for my constituency and the wider south-west? While the Chancellor did remember that the south-west exists this year, the Budget did little more than that. Where is the support for our rural transport? Where is the support for our farmers, who travelled to Westminster yesterday to plead for the Chancellor’s support? For the last year, I have been helping their campaign to reverse the damaging change to farmers’ inheritance tax. Where is the support for our communities facing river and surface water flooding? This is an issue I have raised repeatedly here in Parliament, including in last year’s Budget debate. At least £13 billion will go to mayoral strategic authorities, but not to the West of England. We were also excluded from the new £912 million local growth fund. The decision to extend business rates retention was a small crumb of comfort for authorities such as South Gloucestershire, but extending it does not mean that councils can rely on existing funding for the scheme continuing, thanks to re-baselining. To conclude, I urge the Chancellor to talk to MPs of all parties in the south-west and to give our region the support we deserve.

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister referred to Putin’s barbaric attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. What discussions has he had with his G20 counterparts about learning from Ukraine’s experience to protect energy supplies and infrastructure from hostile Russian action?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Increasing the sustainability of agriculture is a vital part of action on climate change, and it was particularly relevant at a COP held in the rainforest, which is under pressure from farming. Can the Secretary of State outline the discussions he had at COP on agriculture, and will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reverse this Government’s mistakes and provide UK farmers with the financial support they need to play their part?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents will be disappointed that small modular reactors will be going to Wylfa, not Oldbury, and disappointed too by the Government’s shambolic handling of the announcement. The news was leaked on Tuesday. The promised calls to me—first from the Minister, then from No. 10—failed to materialise yesterday, and the announcement was in the media this morning. There was no opportunity for this House to question Ministers. My constituents deserve to know more about the future of Oldbury, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this process, in which a degree of contempt has been shown to my constituents?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. A 2022 victim survey found that only 10% of victims believed that the criminal justice system was effective. What steps are the Government taking to support victims of violence against women and girls, and will they ensure that all police and prosecutors receive training in understanding the impact of trauma on survivors?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State acknowledged in her statement the progress gap for children with SEND. How will the Government support flexibility in the delivery of the curriculum, including for those children who are unable to access a traditional school setting?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument. We have long called for measures, including the introduction of a fuel finder scheme, to allow drivers to directly compare fuel prices, to protect from rip-off prices and improve competition between petrol stations. Far from it being a burden in rural areas, we think those living in such areas, where there is a greater reliance on cars—like my Thornberry and Yate constituency—will welcome this change. It is disappointing it has taken so long to enact this scheme. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said, I do not think things were moving in a particularly speedy manner under the Conservatives, but it is now nearly two years since that Government first launched their consultation on the design of a fuel finder, back in January 2024. Given the figures quoted by the Minister in his opening statement, it is clear that motorists will have lost a great deal of money in that time. We will, however, support this statutory instrument.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents in Pilning are outraged that a stadium-sized warehouse is being built next to the village under a 1957 consent, which means that modern conditions are avoided. Another warehouse is planned that is twice the size. Will the Leader of the House enable a debate in Government time on tackling outdated interim development order consents that lack modern conditions?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency have told me about the impact that Trump’s trade war is having on their ability to export to the United States. What is the Secretary of State doing to support these vital job creators and ensure that British goods can continue to be sold worldwide?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Workforce Skills · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to ensure that skills provision meets the needs of employers.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Workforce Skills · Hansard source

  More

  At a recent roundtable meeting in my Thornbury and Yate constituency, small businesses told me about the particular challenges they face in delivering apprenticeships. Given that the Secretary of State’s Department is now responsible for this important policy area, what is he doing to reform apprenticeships to make them easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver, and what support will he provide so that more can do so?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, Billington Structures, one of the UK’s leading structural steelwork contractors, announced proposals to close its Yate site, with 81 jobs at risk. Businesses of all shapes and sizes are struggling due to the increase in national insurance contributions and rising energy costs. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on what needs to be included in the upcoming autumn Budget to avert further job losses?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Time and again in my constituency surgeries, I hear stories of children’s needs going unrecognised and unsupported for years. Given the aim of increasing mainstream inclusion, what are the Government doing to ensure that all teachers receive comprehensive SEND training?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding the decision to drop this case, it is clear that China is trying to undermine our democracy. Will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I visited Christ the King school in Thornbury for the great school lunch, which raises awareness of the benefits of healthy and nutritious school meals. There is real concern that the funding for both school lunches and breakfast clubs is not enough to cover the cost of providing them, putting pressure on school budgets, particularly in constituencies such as mine where schools are among the lowest funded in the country. Will the Leader of the House agree to raise this issue with the Chancellor ahead of the autumn Budget, to ensure that underfunded schools are not left behind?