Claire Young MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.