Claire Young MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When the Government announced the local authority bus grant allocations, the use of the money was subject to conditions, particularly around social need, and the criteria were “to follow”. In the absence of those, the West of England combined authority has extended contracts only until July, leaving my Thornbury and Yate constituents fearing what will happen then. Can the Leader of the House ask his Department for Transport colleagues to publish the criteria as soon as possible, or to come to the House to explain the delay?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s consultation on alternative heating that ends today does not cover installation costs, yet that is what is stopping many of my constituents in off-gas areas from switching away from oil. With National Energy Action warning of an £18 billion funding gap to meet fuel poverty targets, what action will the Government take to ensure that those least able to afford alternative forms of heating are not left dependent on fossil fuels and paying sky-high bills?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps he is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  I have not, but there is still time. This issue is about more than the failures and corruption revealed in the Nathan Gill case; it is about a system that has long been unfit for purpose and establishments that want to keep things the way they are because that suits their interests. Foreign states are now looking to exploit the situation, with potentially catastrophic outcomes. There is a danger that citizens will stop believing that their vote matters at all. We should use the situation to drive the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that all our constituents deserve. I urge the Minister to announce an inquiry today. The threat to British democracy from foreign interference is clear and present, and must be addressed urgently.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for setting out the issues so clearly. Protecting democracy must be a national security priority for all of us in this place. Many of us across the country recognised that by signing the petition, including 208 from my Thornbury and Yate constituency. Over recent years, these concerned citizens have watched Russian interference in democracies across the world—in the United States, across Europe, and here in the United Kingdom—and now they are demanding answers. The petition calls for an inquiry into the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence in our country. Although in December last year the Government launched an independent review of foreign interference, led by Philip Rycroft, that is not enough. I welcome any scrutiny of foreign interference, but the review falls short on the transparency and information that the public deserve. We need a thorough and independent inquiry to understand fully the extent of foreign interference in the UK’s political system. Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy previously warned that the UK has faced a sustained pattern of attempted interference from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. That assessment was reinforced by the Government’s 2025 strategic defence review, which concluded that the UK is subject to daily hostile activity, ranging from espionage and cyber-attacks to manipulation of information. The review called Russia an immediate and pressing threat. Despite that recognition of Russian influence in the UK, successive Governments have failed to act decisively to protect our democratic process. The threats are real and documented: Russian money has flowed into UK politics; foreign oligarchs have bought property and influence; Chinese surveillance operations target our institutions; and, as has been mentioned repeatedly, Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was jailed for accepting bribes from a pro-Kremlin operative to make pro-Russian speeches and statements. That is utterly shocking. That is why, following Gill’s conviction, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are calling on the Intelligence and Security Committee to launch a new probe to investigate Russian interference in British politics. The investigation should look into potential ties between other members of Reform UK and Russia, which has been a recurring concern in the debate. The Reform UK leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), was paid to appear on “Russia Today” until it was banned in the UK, and he once declared that Putin was the world leader he admired the most. We must move with urgency. The inquiry should be completed and laid before Parliament before the next general election, avoiding a repeat of the last Russia report, which the Conservative party shamefully suppressed until after the country went to the polls. Voters deserve to know about threats to our democracy before they cast their ballots, not after. This is not about one bad apple; it is about systematic failures and how we protect our democracy, given how successive Administrations have failed to address fundamental weaknesses. We hope that we will soon have the opportunity to tackle these weaknesses through an elections Bill. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill must include a comprehensive ban on cryptocurrency donations to political parties, building on the policy paper that the Government published last year, which proposed tighter rules on political donations. Crypto creates the perfect vehicle for hostile states and foreign oligarchs to funnel money into British politics while evading scrutiny. Transparency International UK has warned that the anonymity that can come with these donations provides a “backdoor for foreign interference”. Analysis from Spotlight on Corruption shows that only three parties have indicated that they will accept cryptocurrency donations: Reform UK, the Homeland party and the Other party. Reform UK even has a dedicated page for cryptocurrency donations. The elections Bill must cap political donations to stop foreign oligarchs from interfering. It must also ensure transparency in political advertising and prevent foreign and dark money from influencing UK elections. Past loopholes have allowed opaque and corrupt funding of political parties, enabling foreign money to distort British politics. Transparency International has said that a foreign interference review is “welcome”, but that donation caps are “the only way to break the stranglehold of big money over British politics”.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is extremely concerning, and that is why we would ban cryptocurrency donations. Alongside the new elections Bill, we must address the issues that the previous Conservative Government created and restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, as it had pre-2022. We must also ensure that the commission has real enforcement powers and the resources it needs to deploy them. As others have mentioned, we must also reform our electoral system. We must take a robust stance towards hostile states, such as China and Russia, and recommit to international partnerships that promote democracy and stability, including working with European and other democratic allies to co-ordinate our response to Russian interference. The Government hold a substantial majority in the House, so they can push through legislation rapidly when they choose to. Few things can be more urgent than protecting our democracy. We call for a wide-ranging and properly funded public inquiry into potential Russian interference, including in the 2016 EU referendum, with the report to be published as soon as possible. A public inquiry with the power to compel witnesses to appear and documents to be released is the only way to get to the bottom of these serious allegations. Transparency must be prioritised.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Flood Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Protecting homes from flooding is vital in communities such as Pilning, Severn Beach, Yate and Chipping Sodbury, yet the CIRIA C790 code of practice for property flood resilience seems to be a well-kept secret. Will the Minister work with the construction and insurance sectors to raise public awareness of the code, and will she consider formalising it through legislation, ensuring that my constituents have the protection and the lower insurance premiums that they deserve?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Flood Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to support flood preparedness projects.

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister indicated that Mandelson assured the Prime Minister that his relationship with Epstein was of a different nature. Can he explain what sort of relationship with a convicted paedophile would be acceptable in that role? Will the Prime Minister come back to the House to make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Mandelson’s conduct?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  When I visited The Play Shed in Yate last year, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief was already costing it £12,000, even before the more recent changes. This package is welcome for pubs and music venues, but what will the Government do to help other leisure businesses in my constituency that are struggling with business rates?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents trapped in fleecehold schemes—freeholders on privately managed estates—will still be exposed to escalating, unregulated service charges and have no way of ensuring that the work they are paying for is actually done. The Minister has talked about the consultation and promised that help is on the way, but can he promise protection from this exploitation for my constituents in this Parliament?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When I make inquiries on behalf of constituents about delays at the Child Maintenance Service, I, too, often face a long wait—a wait for a response—despite chasing. The longest delay is currently four months and 20 days. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this issue, so the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions can hear about the harm this is doing?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  In their response to the report, the Government said that in the clean flexibility road map, they have committed “to develop measures focussed on barriers to the participation of low-income and vulnerable consumers in using energy flexibly.” Given what we heard yesterday about the importance of heat pumps and heat storage in participating in flexibility, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that one important measure could be to make heat pumps and heat storage more affordable?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Youth Activities · Hansard source

  More

  Last July, I wrote jointly with other Members to the Government to seek support for Gympanzees to open the UK’s first fully accessible exercise, play and social centre for disabled children and young people. I have had no response. Will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives of the charity to discuss how her Department can support this innovative project?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  A 2021 University of Bristol report stated that women in their 40s with dependent children were disproportionately represented among the excluded. That raises concerns about child poverty, mental ill health and compounding the effects of the gender pay gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that research is needed into those and other longer- term impacts, so that they can be addressed?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents who write to me about their battles with Government Departments overwhelmingly complain about delays, such as the typical 15-week wait for mandatory reconsideration. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Minister spoke of talking to people first. Does the Minister not think that if the Government really believed in that, he would not be standing there defending their 13th U-turn?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is important that my constituents can feel the effect in their pockets. Does he accept that the biggest reason why people are not benefiting from cheap renewables is that electricity prices are still set by gas most of the time, and what steps is he taking to break that link, beyond simply building more renewables?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to improve railway services for passengers.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  The west of England growth strategy identifies the Severn estuary growth zone as having the potential to create more than 15,000 jobs. It is important that the half-hourly rail services on the Severn Beach line are maintained to support them. Similarly, the half-hourly trains serving Yate support both jobs and access to college, and will enable hourly services at the new Charfield station, when it opens. Will the Minister give an early commitment to extending those half-hourly rail services to support growth and remove uncertainty for students before the exam season?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  The UK remains one of the chief facilitators of the export of Russian gas, with UK-owned or UK-insured vessels having enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas since the start of the war. Will the Secretary of State finally agree to ban the provision of all UK maritime services for the transport and insurance of Russian gas exports?

• 5 Jan 2026 · HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are concerned that high-risk violent prisoners are increasingly being placed in Leyhill open prison, putting local residents at risk when they abscond. Will the Minister review the process for assessing prisoners prior to a move? With new rapid deployment cells expected to be online at Leyhill by the summer, will she also meet me to discuss what steps the Government are taking to ensure that those cells will not be used for high-risk prisoners, and to increase security to prevent escapes?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Looking at farm sizes and land values locally, I fear that family farms will still be paying the family farm tax. What evidence is there that £2.5 million realistically reflects the value of a typical family farm in a constituency with higher land values, such as Thornbury and Yate?

• 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.