Gideon Amos MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is a truth universally acknowledged that an MP in possession of a majority, however big, must be in want of a debate, so I am full of admiration for the right hon. Gentleman staying tomorrow to debate Jane Austen in Westminster Hall. As for myself, I am hoping to get away before that, so this will be my last appearance before Christmas. I therefore take the opportunity to wish hon. Members, the House staff who look after us so amazingly well, the officials, yourself, Mr Twigg, and even the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) a very merry Christmas, although I know he would prefer that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) were here instead of me. I say with some hesitation that I am hoping to go home before that, because it has been something of a week for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not quite sure how the Minister is still standing—he is sitting down now, but must need a break. Knowing the Minister’s prodigious amount of activity this week, perhaps tomorrow we will have three Bills and two White Papers coming out and I will be brought back here, but hopefully not. Yesterday, we were debating quarrying and planning—it was a blast. I did not know that I would be getting up and sitting down so many times on MCHLG business this week, but one could say that the Chairman of Ways and Means shapes our destinies, rough-hew them as we may. I will move on to the more serious points of the debate about the cumulative impact of housing development. I fear that it is worse than the right hon. Member for East Hampshire surmises, because although I remember from my A-level economics that, in a perfect market, increasing supply should reduce price, we need to remember that in any locality in the country, we do not have a perfect market in house building. We have usually one supplier, maybe two, controlling the supply of homes to the market, drip-feeding them to sustain their prices. Any private house builder that went into business to reduce prices would rightly be punished by their shareholders. Putting private house builders in charge of reducing house prices is a bit like putting Herod in charge of childcare. As another seasonal reference, I am forced to consider what would be the cumulative impact of stables being used under permitted development for change of use to emergency temporary accommodation for young mothers. The point that I think the right hon. Gentleman is really getting to with cumulative impact is the prolific number of permissions that are coming about outside the plan-led process. The plan-led process is so important because it is where cumulative impacts can be properly gauged and established. Any development that is not in the local plan, unless it has an environmental impact assessment, is not going to carry out a cumulative impact assessment. That is why we are so concerned that the Government’s recent announcements will undermine that plan-led process, with so many loopholes. To take one example, there is the abolition of the town centre-first approach for retail development, but there are many others that will undermine that plan-led process. There is a particular need to look at the cumulative impact when it comes to flooding. The Environmental Audit Committee has recommended that the Government revise the guidance on the cumulative impact for flooding for this very reason. Many of the developments being discussed will not carry out cumulative impact assessments because they are outside the local plan or are sub-EIA development. I ask the Minister whether and to what extent the Government will carry out that review. Flooding is a massive issue for Rockwell Green and Hilly Head in my Taunton and Wellington constituency, which has been flooded twice in the last five to 10 years. We need to see a proper cumulative impact assessment of flood impact and flood risk.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a massively important point—absolutely, they should be statutory consultees. He gives me the opportunity to raise an even more serious concern. From careful reading of the Government’s snappily titled consultation on statutory consultees, alongside the ministerial statement of 10 March this year, it appears—I hope the Minister can put me right—that they are considering cancelling and withdrawing the direction that prevents councils from granting planning permission, against the advice of the Environment Agency, in flood risk areas. They are certainly consulting on that basis, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether that is the intended approach and how many homes in flood risk areas he expects will be permitted, against the advice of the Environment Agency, if they go ahead with that change. It is a very serious matter and could affect areas across the country—not only Rockwell Green in my constituency, but places far further afield. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made excellent points about the need for cumulative impact to be properly considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) felt that plan-led development in his constituency was in jeopardy. I agree: after yesterday’s announcement, I feel that plan-led development is in jeopardy everywhere. The Saunders Lane development in Woking is a classic example of where proper consideration of cumulative impact is required. The Liberal Democrats would pursue a different approach. Cognisant of the market conditions that exist in relation to private house building, we would focus on public investment in a programme of 150,000 social and council rent homes. In fact, we have never met the housing figure of 300,000 per year, except when we have had a big programme of council and social housing. With that element missing, private house building has bubbled along at more or less similar levels; third sector housing has increased somewhat. The big missing element has been council and publicly funded social homes. For the reasons that I have set out, without a massive injection of such homes, we cannot rely on private house builders to increase supply in any meaningful way, however many permissions above and beyond the 1.4 million homes that have planning permission already, but are not being built, are given out. That figure, as my hon. Friends have explained, so clearly and starkly demonstrates why the challenge is not the issuing of planning permissions, but how to get those permissions built out. We urge the Minister to use much stronger “use it or lose it” measures to tackle unbuilt permissions. I welcomed the statement that he made in the summer about taking forward such measures, but we have yet to see anything really happen in that regard. We need to remember those who cannot afford homes, and that however many private house builders provide more private homes, 99% of them will be out of reach of people who cannot afford a first home. That is why we need there to be social homes, but we also need a new generation of rent-to-own homes, so that people can get on the home ownership ladder at an early stage in life. With that, Mr Twigg, I once again wish you a merry Christmas.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM 10 or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across. Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries. HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard. As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM 2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM 10 and PM 2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts. We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed. None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport. Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other. A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods. While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year. I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition. Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line. The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed. Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system. We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Although I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, I fear that it represents an unprecedented removal of power from local people and local government by a Government who appear to have given up on sustainable development as a driving force behind decision making. The cost-benefit statement reads like it was written in the Treasury. It sees only the benefits of development, and none of the costs to communities or nature. Under the new framework, sustainable development is no longer the pre-eminent principle. The framework means widespread development in the greenbelt. The presumption has so many holes in it that buildings put up for any purpose, including under permitted development, will now be green-lighted for development across the open countryside. Lorry parks in green fields will be green-lighted. The framework rewrites and overrides the policies in local plans. For many authorities, the value and purpose of all the expense that they went to in writing a local plan will be called into question. I have only one minute, which is simply not enough time to debate the most significant rolling back of planning controls for decades, so will the Minister hold a debate on the framework in Government time, so that all hon. Members have the chance to debate it? The framework will have much more impact than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which recently went through Parliament. Will the Government upgrade the framework’s wishy-washy mention of chalk streams, and recognise them fully as irreplaceable habitats? Will the Minister reverse the abolition of BNG for 0.2 hectare sites, and go with the 0.1 hectare limit that environmental non-governmental organisations call for? Will the Government increase their target for social and council-rent homes from 18,000 per year to the 150,000 per year that we Liberal Democrats wish to see, or at least to the 90,000 per year that Shelter wishes to see? Finally, will the Government go further and ensure that the 1.5 million permissions for homes are subject to real “use it or lose it” powers before new homes are created?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and the promise to reform business rates made by the last Government needs to be delivered upon by this Government. As I was saying, as a result of quantitative easing funds, the big four banks alone will make £50 billion of profit this year. The boost that people and the high street need is both the cut to electricity bills and the 5% VAT cut that the Lib Dems propose, funded by a windfall tax on those bank profits. It is time the Government backed small businesses like those in Taunton and Wellington—part of the biggest and most important sector of the British economy—after the economic chaos under the Conservatives. It would be a boost to going out in the evening, a boost to our pubs and restaurants, and a positive boost to the economy. That is the kind of Budget we needed, and that is the kind of Budget the Liberal Democrats would have delivered.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In contrast to the Budget and its effects, so much about business in Taunton and Wellington is on the up thanks to the enterprise, community spirit and business nous of people there. In Wellington, the new community hub in the Kings Arms—with a café set to open in the new year—where I held my surgery last Friday, is a huge success thanks to volunteers such as Cliff and many others. New units are going up in Westpark, and new retail and food outlets are popping up all over the town. In Taunton, footfall has jumped by 2.1%—four times the national average increase of 0.5%. Lots of independent shops, such as Dosha Wellness and The Little Cheese Shop, have recently opened. We have great pubs and restaurants, too. In just the past few months, we have seen The Winchester open in Castle Green, Tap One in the independent quarter and The Chapel Tap in the town centre. I thank all those business people who are committing to Taunton and Wellington and opening businesses in our area. However, these hospitality and drinks businesses are not sharing the joy this Christmas from the Budget, and neither are our farmers. The Lib Dems would not have levied the family farm tax—I voted against resolution 50. Instead of abolishing the penal anti-forestalling clause as many have called for, the confirmation of the transfer by the Government of the £1 million allowance between spouses and partners, though welcome, does not go anywhere near what was needed. Hospitality and drinks businesses are worried about increasing duty and business rates. Cider is worth £150 million to the south-west economy, but cider makers are struggling. One in my constituency has pointed out that orchards take 10 years to become mature, demanding contracts of 25 to 30 years. Cider plays a huge role in supporting our agriculture and maintaining the countryside, so it delivers a public good. However, the fact that it represents only 6% of the sector means that it is much more vulnerable to duty changes and price changes. What cider needed from this Budget was a 5% duty cut to put back the original differential with beer duty. Hospitality believed that its rates would go down—it believed the famous “permanently lower business rates” promise—but they have actually gone up. Philippe, a partner of The Little Wine Shop, which is a fantastic brasserie in my constituency, tells me that the Budget means “less hours for my staff, therefore less revenue for the treasury” as he is closing one day per week. He says: “we will stop employing young people (16 years old)” and “I have 3 members of staff leaving by mid-March, I will replace only one if I am still open by then! I AM FUMING!” What does the Minister say to Philippe in my constituency? We have discovered since the Budget that hospitality rateable values have increased, helping to cancel out the new multiplier. For another business owner, Mr Miles, although his valuation has actually gone down by 10%, his business rates bill has gone up by 12%. What does the Minister have to say to those at Mr Miles tea room as they work to keep the lights on in the high street? As the owner of the other great Winchester pub in my constituency, the Winchester Arms, has pointed out, pubs have to pay business rates according to their turnover. What other business is subjected to the disincentive that when they increase turnover, their property rates increase? The answer is none. What Taunton and Wellington residents and high streets needed from this Budget was a boost.

• 11 Dec 2025 · National Plan to End Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats also welcome this statement and the additional funding, although I still have some questions. For Liberals from Beveridge to Stephen Ross, who introduced the first homelessness legislation into this Chamber, tackling homelessness and poor housing has been central to allowing people to lead the fulfilled and free lives that we want to see them lead. I pay tribute to the Shared Health Foundation for highlighting the tragic numbers, as the Minister mentioned, of children and babies who have died with temporary accommodation mentioned on their death certificate as a contributory factor. It is a truly tragic situation. The 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, with 12,000 households on the waiting list in my Somerset council area, are far too many. Even one homeless house- hold is, of course, far too many. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised last week, there has been a 22% increase in the number of people homeless after being discharged from public institutions, which, as the Minister said, is a massively important aspect of this. Our Liberal Democrat manifesto called for an end to section 21 evictions and for a cross-Whitehall strategy on homelessness, and we welcome both of those things—it is excellent that they have happened. However, we urge the Government to go further, in particular by increasing the social housing target from 18,000 to 150,000 social homes per year, or at least to the 90,000 social homes per year that are required according to Shelter and the National Housing Federation. In welcoming the statement, I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the timeline is for completing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act provisions? Will the Government uprate the local housing allowance to represent the bottom third of rents and index-link that allowance to those rents, and when will housing benefit be effectively unfrozen by reviewing that local housing allowance? Finally, will the Government consider exempting homeless people from the shared accommodation rate, which both reduces the quantity and diminishes the quality of housing available to homeless people?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. The Liberal Democrats also support the establishment of the regulator under its own auspices as opposed to coming under the Health and Safety Executive. It is a welcome step in the right direction, but we agree that significant steps are needed to remedy the massive backlogs and delays that are holding up not just private housing but much-needed social housing in London and elsewhere. The 25 to 40-week wait for decisions is far in exceedance of the organisation’s 12-week target. Furthermore, many buildings with defective cladding and construction are excluded from the remedies under the Building Safety Act 2022 because of the PAS 9980 definition of building safety. We believe it is important that the Building Safety Act definition of safety should be accepted, rather than the PAS 9980 definition, which excludes a whole range of buildings from remediation in terms of their height, the number of storeys and other factors. Thousands of tenants across the country find that they are not protected and are not getting the remediation they need for building safety issues. We will support the move to the different structure, as set out in the statutory instrument, but too many people are waiting for the remediation of their properties, and the current system is not extensive enough. We recognise that addressing that would involve higher costs for the Government, but the building safety levy needs to be reformed to meet those costs, because thousands of people are currently excluded from the building safety regime.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with the things I welcome in the Bill and in what the Government are doing on railways. After increasing rail fares by almost 5% last year, it is very welcome that the Government have frozen fares—something that Liberal Democrats have been asking for for seven years. That is really positive, as is the Government’s investment in the new station at Wellington in my constituency—they deserve credit for that investment. It is important that the DFT is involved in that project, and I might write to the Minister after this debate to pursue this issue, because it is one of only a small number of new stations being built in the country, and it is really important that the project is seen through. There needs to be a recognition that the year of delay has increased costs. I also want to say some words about the importance of open access rail providers. I am concerned about the provisions in the Bill that potentially make open access a lot more difficult. Go-op rail wants to open a route from Taunton through to Wiltshire, which would be very important. We also want to see opportunities for future investment in railways, including reopening lines. There is a heritage line from Taunton to Minehead that should ultimately be provided with a proper rail service. If it were, the West Somerset Railway would become an open access railway on the same line. What is important to most of my constituents is not just seeing a new station like Wellington, but seeing a reduction in fares and an improvement in reliability. The number of services from Taunton has recently been cut in half, which means that people cannot get on the trains. What is needed is the form of investment that I have described, and moving the rail institutions over from the private to the public sector will not necessarily deliver the improvements that we need. I therefore remain to be convinced about the Bill.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if bad employers are not prevented from taking people on without national insurance numbers or passports, they will not stop at taking someone on without digital ID?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Bill was presented to the House, the Liberal Democrats outlined three main concerns: accountability to Parliament, accountability to communities and accountability for our environment. Lords amendment 33 would address—to an extent—accountability to local communities and the importance of their role in planning, but it does not go as far as we would like. We are disappointed with the thrust of the legislation, which takes powers away from planning committees and gives them to the Secretary of State. We continue to oppose that measure, but we welcome the Government’s compromise in the form of amendment (a), which gives Parliament some say over those regulations. We will not oppose it. Planning committees are important to all the key aspects of planning, including national policy statements for the biggest projects in the country, and I recognise that the Minister has reached agreement with the Chairs of the Select Committees on how national policy statements will be drafted. Planning Committees are also important to nature. Local people know their natural and local environment best and are best placed to understand it and make decisions about it. Lords amendment 33 would therefore be particularly important. The Liberal Democrats are bitterly disappointed that the Conservatives did not support our efforts and amendments to include in the Bill statutory protection for chalk streams. I urge the Minister to follow up on his commitment to ensure that chalk streams appear in the national planning policy framework, and in its glossary, as an irreplaceable habitat. It is really important that these vital habitats, which we must protect, are established as an irreplaceable habitat. The UK has 85% of the world’s unique chalk streams. As I said, local communities know their environment best, and they are best placed to help deliver on the environmental delivery plans. We are concerned that the environmental delivery plans are being given to Natural England, which will act as a decision maker, fee taker, and judge, jury and executioner—without necessarily leaving a role for some small companies such as those in my constituency that have been delivering phosphate credits successfully and enabling development to go forward. I hope that the Minister and the Government will enable a continuing role for small and medium-sized enterprises in this field. It is vital that it is not just left to the monolith of Natural England to deal with that—in part because it is not very good at it. In 2022, it committed to releasing 40,000 homes with phosphate credits in the first year of its activity, but so far it has delivered only 4,000 homes under that programme. It is not necessarily most practical to assume that Natural England will dig us out of this crisis. The Liberal Democrats want to work constructively with the Government. We want environmental delivery plans to succeed, and to deal robustly with nutrient neutrality and phosphate pollution. We want to see the pollution in the Somerset levels and moors special protection area dealt with successfully through an EDP, but that must involve local communities and local companies and businesses, which are already doing really strong work in this field. This is not the Bill that we would have introduced. We believe that what is needed to build the homes the country needs is a massive council home and social home building programme. We propose 150,000 homes per year, with that being the focus of delivery, without watering down the planning process or the planning system, or removing the rights of communities as the Bill sadly does. However, we will work constructively with the Government on the Bill’s implementation. We are pleased to have won, through my noble Friend Baroness Parminter in the other place, an amendment to the Bill, via the Government, on the mitigation hierarchy so that nature is placed at the top of the tree in such decisions. We welcome the changes to the Bill so far and will not seek to divide the House on the motion.

• 4 Dec 2025 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  From the first ever charts by Captain Cook to real-time digital mapping, the UK Hydrographic Office enables and keeps our Royal Navy safe at sea—operating quite literally under the radar. Will the Minister pay tribute to the hundreds of people in my constituency who work at the office, and will he support a cross-sector approach to energy cables, telecommunication cables and their security, bringing in the University of Plymouth, University Centre Somerset and the Hydrographic Office in my constituency?

• 4 Dec 2025 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps he is taking to improve national resilience.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in return for those extra controls, the Government or the Bill should offer some kind of support to home educating families?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. All the concerns that lead me to oppose digital ID cards also lead me to oppose a digital ID for all our children. As the campaigners behind the petition have stated: “Once children’s data is out there it cannot be controlled nor put back in the box.” I could not agree more. According to the Government’s own reports, 58 critical Government IT systems have significant gaps in cyber-security. Is that the kind of system into which we wish to put all our children’s details? Is that the kind of system that anyone wishes the data of their children and grandchildren to be put into? I do not think so. The Metropolitan police lost the details of 47,000 of its own officers. Let us take that as an example of how the public sector handles data, and consider whether we really want to provide the power to share data about our children across all public bodies: councils, social services departments, health authorities, schools, academies and all the rest of them. As I said earlier, it is often held to be the case that home educating families are unsafe environments, but the evidence shows the opposite. Only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home educating families result in a child protection order being put in place, and such families are proportionally subject to far more child protection inquiries than non-home educating families, so they are massively over-represented within that cohort. The figures for children who are at school show that not 11% but 26% of inquiries result in child protection orders. Bearing in mind that a greater proportion of home educating families are investigated than families with children at school, a far greater proportion—more than double—of investigations of families with children at school result in a child protection order. The facts are evident: it is not appropriate to stigmatise home educating families. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for proposing an amendment to the Bill so that home educating families would not have to pay examination fees to take exams. There is zero support for home educating families. The Bill brings in even more stigma against those families. The amendment was defeated. There is nothing in the Bill that will support home educating families, many of whom, as we have heard, are families with disabled children. A much higher proportion of disabled children are represented in the home educating community than in the school community, for the reasons we have heard—because special provision is not there and SEND provision cannot be obtained where it is needed, so many families give up on the school system. Some families need to keep their children safe so provide education at home. The vast majority of those families do so safely, putting incredible hard work into the education of their children. Instead of the stigma put forward in the Bill, there should be support for home educating families, more work locally, more positive relationships between home educating families and local authorities, more positive work towards improving the education offer for those children and more support for those families at a difficult stage in the education of their children, many of whom will go back to school or college later on in life.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this really important debate. My feelings are very much aligned with the around 300 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the heart of this debate is a fallacy: that children are more at risk in home educating families than they are at school. In fact, the figures show the exact opposite. I will come back to that point in detail. My concerns are about not only home educating families but rural schools and rural environments, where the limited resources mean that the Bill’s more onerous requirements on schools could drive some smaller rural schools out of the system and lead to them being closed. Rural areas have fewer and smaller schools, and rural schools have fewer administrative resources to deal with the new administrative burdens such as supporting staff to meet the new qualified teacher status requirements, dealing with increased monitoring, handling fluctuating pupil numbers and budgets, and so on. There are significant risks to small rural schools that may well lead to even more pupils ending up in home education settings as a result of the lack of choice and lack of diversity of supply in rural environments. If pupils do end up in home educating families, they will find the environment is even harsher and the support from the Government is even more non-existent than it was before, and that the general environment is less and less helpful. We have to take concerns about safeguarding seriously, as every hon. Member across this Chamber would agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has done serious work on that issue. I am happy to accept some of the Bill’s provisions, but there are real concerns about its more onerous requirements. I have significant concerns about the single unique identifier in particular. Let us remember that it gives any public body the ability to share any information, whether or not it is right, correct and accurate, without the knowledge or consent of parents. Anyone who thinks the public sector is good at looking after our data, and getting it accurate, has probably been living on the moon.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On health facilities, does the hon. Lady share my concern that the only thing with more leaks than the Budget run-up period is the roof of Musgrove Park hospital in my constituency? Does she agree that hospitals across the country in the second and third waves of the new hospital rebuild programme need interim funding to keep them going in the meantime?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes smaller decisions away from councillors. Last week’s direction, announced in a ministerial statement, will take big decisions involving over 150 homes, such as the decision on Oldway Road in Wellington, out of the hands of local councillors. Do the Government no longer trust local people to shape communities and deliver the housing that we need?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, especially as I missed the first few words of his speech—he can only imagine my disappointment. While promoting higher-density development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense, can he explain why subsection (3) of the proposed new section would require mayors to issue blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas and, in some places, residential gardens? He has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils, but this would take away their planning permission powers and mean issuing blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I first heard of the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign and the enormous work Tom Curry has been doing to campaign for an award for those injured in service from constituents of mine. One of the constituents was a police officer who served for 27 years and suffered spinal injuries on two occasions. On the second occasion, he had spinal dislocation and was paralysed, but in a year’s time, he went back to work. Shortly afterwards, he had to attend a fatal air crash and then had to retire due to further injuries sustained as a result of attending that incident. People like him deserve recognition and an injury in service medal. Another constituent who has come to me about this is my colleague and councillor, Simon Coles, the Liberal Democrat chair of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority. He said: “Gallant firefighters risk their lives daily in the service of their communities. When you’re having the worst day of your life, it is a normal day at work for our firefighters. They deserve the recognition these awards would confer on them. All our communities would approve of such recognition.” I urge the Minister and the House to make sure that this long overdue campaign reaches a triumphal conclusion and that those who are injured in service are properly recognised with the medal that they deserve.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on shining light on a really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally. Specialist manufacturing is critical to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. I could talk about a range of companies, including Pearsalls, which is part of the Corza Medical group and has been spinning its looms in the same building since the 18th century. Today, it is the world leader in manufacturing sutures and surgical stitching materials, which it ships around the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned the Agratas factory that is being constructed just across the border from my Taunton and Wellington constituency. As she said, it will employ around 4,000 people and have a huge impact on not only our two constituencies but the whole south-west economy. Many of my constituents work there already, and many local suppliers will be involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be greatly affected in a positive way. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right. The University Centre Somerset College Group, which is based not only in my Taunton and Wellington constituency but across Somerset, is the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. It has partnered with Agratas to develop new training pathways, including apprenticeships for upskilling and reskilling, to deliver the skills the new facility needs. It is not just another training programme: UCS has to develop a first-of-its-kind programme to meet the demand, which barely existed just a couple of years ago. It is not an easy task, but it is exactly the kind of innovation required to build a skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors we need, such as battery production. UCS has done all that at its own risk, and without Government support. It is developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry, with a lack of up-front funding. It will receive funding from the Government or other sources only once the course starts. As a further education college, it cannot borrow against potential future funding. The current FE model does not support the up-front investment that is required, and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Such investment is desperately needed and the current system has to change. There is another way in which UCS skills investment is being held back. Colleges are no longer allowed to borrow in order to invest in the student accommodation they need as they used to be able to. The community of Taunton and Wellington, as well as the college itself, desperately want to see such investment. However, the college cannot facilitate that, because it is no longer allowed to borrow to invest. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of these initiatives while the Government take the credit for positive outcomes without having supported them in the first place. This issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills; sites such as the Agratas site require an enormous amount of construction skills and labour. During peak construction years, the construction of the site will generate a total of £540 million for the region. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build such facilities and work in them. Agratas shows what is possible. The investment appetite is there. Battery manufacturing could be a brilliant new green growth opportunity for the UK. However, we need the Government to match that ambition with support for skills in both specialist manufacturing and construction. That means properly funding institutions such as UCS and ensuring that Skills England invests up front in these partnerships that deliver, rather than just producing consultation papers that plan. For Taunton and Wellington, and indeed for the south-west as a whole, the opportunity is in front of us. The Government need to grab it with both hands and provide the support and the certainty to turn it into a success.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that veterans who served in Northern Ireland and were then pursued by the IRA to Germany and attacked there deserve more reassurance than the words that duplication will not occur unless “the duplication is essential”?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Settlement: British National Overseas Route · Hansard source

  More

  The case for legal migration and for those genuinely seeking asylum is undermined by evidence that businesses in Station Road in my constituency are using and exploiting migrants to carry out illegal trading. Local businesses are shocked and frustrated that when the police raid those premises, they remain open and continue trading. Will the Government consider bringing forward legislation to provide for the immediate closure of illegally trading shops?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Ah, over there.