Manuela Perteghella MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate on the urgency and duty for policymakers to tackle air pollution—the silent killer in our towns and cities. I also thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries, reaching our workplaces, homes, schools and other public spaces. As other hon. Members have done, I would like to pay tribute to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, mum to Ella Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella’s law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives. Ella was a happy, playful and bright child, and she lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which would see her cough and wheeze so much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She had suffered a fatal asthma attack. A landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time that air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK. Ella’s death was preventable. Among other measures, Ella’s law would enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the Government to meet stricter air quality standards based on the World Health Organisation guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down when turning our attention to this urgent problem, yet in the UK, an estimated 500 people die of disease related to air pollution each week. Air pollution is an invisible and insidious enemy. According to a recent report by the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution has been linked to 30,000 deaths and, as we have heard, it costs our economy more than £27 billion per year. Long-term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problem and increase the risk of a person developing cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body, settling in our lungs. Recent research has also pointed to an increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels. The public health burden is not shared equally: the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, those already facing deprivation, and babies and children are most at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that a growing evidence base links maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the introduction of a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issue is such that we need strong, independent oversight to tackle pollution at its source and protect public health. We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on the cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. The Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport to ensure that fares do not rise above inflation, restore the £2 bus fare cap, and improve the passenger experience so that it is cheaper and better to travel by public transport. We must electrify our railways, embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country. For those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially those in isolated rural areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and more affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs. Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of the issue. By increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions such as supporting healthier and better insulated housing, reducing traffic exposure and improving local planning. As some hon. Members have already stated, health experts recommend stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould. Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world. It is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases that we can work together to prevent. Most importantly of all, there is no effective advice to help people to avoid air pollution if they have only one route to work or school, if they live near a busy road, if their care home or school is near air pollutant sources or if their house is poorly insulated. We call on the Government to recognise, in law, the human right to breathe clean air and to legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits by 2030. We owe clean air to the baby born today, to the child coming out of school right now and to every child who will come after them.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Benefits System: Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met members of bereaved families in my constituency, including Joe. They told me about the distress of knowing, while they are grieving, that the bereavement support payment ends after just 18 months, and despite the rising cost of living since the payment was introduced in 2017, it has not been uprated for 2026-27. Will the Government commit to uprate the support payment in line with inflation and review the 18-month limit?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important and timely debate. I want to put on record that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism. In my constituency, pubs are a central part of our local economy and job creation. The rural pub is the beating heart of village life. Domestic and international tourists alike flock to our array of historical pubs and alehouses to drink a crisp pint in a picturesque setting, and it goes without saying that we locals like them very much too. I have many such pubs in my constituency—too many to name—all fantastic places to eat, drink and socialise. That reality is threatened, however, by the monumental challenges faced by all hospitality businesses in recent years. The local pub, once a staple of every town and village, is now an endangered species. In Stratford-on-Avon treasured, long-standing pubs are on the brink of closing. In rural, often isolated areas, the village pub is the only community infrastructure still standing after the school, the post office and the local shop have all closed. It is where quiz nights and coffee mornings are held, and where social life happens. Despite their social and economic value to the community, our rural pubs are firefighting on all fronts. One such pub is the Golden Cross in Ardens Grafton, a cherished 18th-century, family-run pub situated in the heart of the pretty south Warwickshire countryside, within easy reach of the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, and with views of the Vale of Evesham and the Cotswolds. A more perfect setting for a profitable pub could not be imagined but, almost with the feeling of inevitability, it closed its doors for the very last time earlier this month. That has been a heartbreaking decision for the owners, who did everything they could to avoid closure; but with rising operating costs, increased wage bills, higher national insurance contributions, escalating energy costs and supplier price increases, they simply had no other choice but to say goodbye to the business that supported the livelihoods of their families and community life. Elsewhere in my constituency it was only through the intervention of local residents and of the charity Plunkett UK that the Fox at Loxley was saved from the same fate and became a community-owned pub. When will the Government intervene to save our pubs and our wider hospitality industry? The Government’s policies should be providing the platform for our pubs and hospitality businesses to thrive. The emergency pub relief has been eaten up by cuts in relief and steep increases in rateable values from April 2026. Business rates must be reviewed and made fairer. For a Government who claim that their main objective is economic growth, it boggles the mind that they thought the way to achieve that was to increase employer national insurance contributions—a measure that disproportionately impacts hospitality, raising costs for part-time staff and hitting small and medium-sized businesses the hardest. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been calling on the Government to exempt hospitality small and medium-sized enterprises from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to cut the VAT on hospitality businesses by 5%. In other countries of Europe, the hospitality sector has 10% VAT, which means that it can grow and employ more people. Rural pubs are among the providers of first jobs for our young generations, forming the foundation of a working life where they learn so many skills each day. I do not know what evidence the Government need to see before they believe that our pubs are at crisis point and that another U-turn is necessary. I hope that the Minister will take the Golden Cross in my constituency as firm evidence that the current situation is entirely unsustainable for our pubs and that Government intervention is needed now to save our pubs from extinction.

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

  More

  For my constituency, the King’s Speech was underwhelming; a timid affair, not the radical bold change our country needs right now. In the previous parliamentary Session, my constituents were promised change and a Government focused on growth. Instead, we have the farm tax for those producing our food and a job tax for our local businesses that impedes the very same growth. In Stratford-on-Avon, one of the key industries is hospitality and tourism, which is why I have long called for better rail and bus connectivity for my constituency, and why I will continue to press for it today. Stratford-upon-Avon is still without a direct train to London and has no reliable or direct late-night rail service to Birmingham. We are also without adequate bus connections between our rural towns and villages. The Government claim that their top priority is growth, but how is our local economy supposed to grow without adequate public transport infrastructure to get people to their places of work, and to get young people to college and other places of learning or to their first job? Stratford is home to one of the finest theatre companies anywhere in the world, the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the home of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, yet it is difficult for people to visit us. This leaves local businesses to suffer. Our hospitality and nightlife industry is being starved, and it is young people who are paying the price most of all. Hospitality and tourism are young people’s industries. These are often the first jobs our young people take, the sector in which they build confidence, skills and careers. When those industries struggle, young people struggle with them. For constituencies such as Stratford-on-Avon, the creative industries are also central to our economy, our identity and our future. The Government see the sector as one of the eight growth-driving sectors in their industrial strategy, yet the reality is that the sector is already under immense pressure. For example, since our departure from the European Union, touring across Europe has become more difficult, more expensive and more bureaucratic than ever before for performers, musicians and arts and culture organisations, yet there has been little meaningful support from the Government for those industries or for the communities that depend on them. Brexit has made us all poorer. By clinging to red lines such as blocking a customs union and access to the single market, and dithering over a youth mobility scheme, the Government are locking Britain into higher prices and weaker growth, but most importantly they are letting our young people down. For that reason, I am again calling on the Government to: scrap the employer’s national insurance jobs tax; support local businesses by reforming the unfair business rate system; implement an emergency VAT cut for hospitality and leisure; and support our young people, our businesses and the creative sector with a bold, renewed EU-UK deal which includes a customs union, access to the single market and a youth mobility scheme. My constituents struggle with poor transport connectivity, but they also watch the condition of the Rivers Alne, Arrow, Avon and Stour deteriorate before their eyes. After recognising the failure of the Conservative Government to properly regulate water companies, this Government have quickly followed in their footsteps and allowed more than half a million sewage spills into rivers last year alone. My constituents have seen only rising water bills. They are paying through the nose to companies that do not respect the environment they live in. The clean water Bill will establish a new regulator. I call on the Government for that regulator to be a strong regulator with the power and determination to hold water companies properly to account and end the sewage scandal once and for all. The Government must also legislate to measure the volume, not just duration, of sewage spills, and strengthen powers for local authorities and communities to monitor river health. We need to place power in the hands of the people who most cherish the areas they are responsible for. People in Stratford-on-Avon deserve reliable transport, thriving businesses, opportunities for young people and a clean, protected natural environment. They deserve a Government willing to invest in rural communities, defend our waterways and stand up to failing companies where regulators have been asleep at the wheel. My constituents are tired of excuses, tired of sewage in their rivers, and tired of being treated as an afterthought. They want action and they deserve nothing less.

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

  More

  I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Local heating companies have also stopped delivering for consortia, which provided a way for villagers to work together and pay less for their oil by buying in bulk. That has now stopped. The Government support does not match the reality that people are facing. It works out at around £35 per household, and that is simply not enough. The Liberal Democrats have put forward a clear proposal that would provide meaningful support to households. A three-month zero VAT on heating oil would give immediate relief; it is simple, it is affordable and it would make a real difference to people right now. Big businesses are making immense profits from the middle east conflict and the surge in energy prices. The Government should implement a windfall tax on those mega-profits being made at the expense of families struggling to heat their homes. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering that? We have also called for a price cap on heating oil, because it cannot be right that households off the gas grid are left completely exposed, while others have some protection. However, if we carry on relying on expensive fossil fuels, that will keep happening and people will keep getting hit every time there is an oil price shock. That is why we need far more ambitious action to insulate homes and to roll out cheap, clean energy produced here in Britain that stays in Britain, rather than being shipped off to the highest bidder. Yes, we need to protect people now with measures such as a VAT cut, but that must be backed up by real investment in making homes warmer and cheaper to heat, especially in rural communities such as Stratford-on-Avon.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the central claim of this motion simply does not withstand scrutiny? Even if new fields are approved, the oil and gas will still be sold at international prices and will do nothing to shield British consumers from future shocks. The economic case is already clear that renewables are cheaper to generate.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  A large part of my constituency’s economy depends on hospitality, tourism and our independent high streets. Those who run pubs, cafés, arts venues, restaurants and hotels are telling me that they are being squeezed from every direction, by higher employer national insurance, rising energy bills, and uncertainty over business rates relief. Does the Chancellor understand the damage that this is doing to communities like mine, and will she commit today to proper business rates reform and targeted support for hospitality and leisure?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly proud to have been a councillor until last year, because local government is the foundation of so much that matters in people’s daily lives. It keeps our streets clean, supports vulnerable families, funds social care, maintains roads, protects our environment, ensures that our children can get to school safely, keeps our bins emptied and keeps our potholes filled, but not everywhere. When councils are stretched to breaking point, it is residents who feel the strain. I welcome the move to a multi-year settlement, which we have long argued for. Councils need certainty and to plan beyond a single financial year. That stability matters, but let us be clear: a longer settlement does not in itself fix a broken system. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that deficits could reach nearly £4 billion a year by 2027-28, and that is not sustainable. On top of that, we now have rising demand, inflationary pressures, increases in the national living wage and the hike in national insurance contributions, and councils are expected to absorb all of this. Further, making any material changes—for example in the assumptions about the level of business rates pooling and effectively reducing councils’ funding allocation between the provisional and final settlement—will cause serious challenges for many councils, including Stratford-on-Avon district council, which could see a big cut of 5% or more of its total spending power. If I heard correctly, the Secretary of State pledged to refund those councils affected by this material change, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to confirm that. Our constituents are the ones who are going to be impacted, and the provision of valuable local services will be affected. I am deeply concerned about the impact on rural areas like mine. The shift to a need-and-demand model risks overlooking the real costs of delivering services across large, sparsely populated areas. Rural councils often receive less grant funding yet face higher transport costs, greater recruitment challenges and weaker public transport networks. That reality must be properly recognised in any fair funding formula. In my constituency, I see the pressures on local government every day. Stratford-on-Avon district council, led by the Liberal Democrats, has shown what responsible local leadership looks like even in tough times. It has delivered the third highest recycling rate in England. It has rolled out natural flood management. It has installed solar panels on leisure centres to cut running costs and reduce emissions. It has allocated £600,000 to a cost of living mitigation fund to support our most vulnerable families. That is practical, sensible, community-focused governance. That is what can be achieved when councils are run competently and with a clear sense of purpose. We can contrast that with the chaos we have seen at Warwickshire county council, now run by Reform. Last week, after a gruelling 10-hour meeting, the minority Reform administration failed to pass a budget. The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative that would have invested £20 million in tackling child poverty, protecting youth services, improving home to school transport, and investing in infrastructure for the future. For an extra 39p a week, we could have protected services for thousands of young people and vulnerable residents. Instead, Reform doubled down on cuts that would hit families hard, including changes that could leave children walking up to five miles to school, often along unlit rural roads. Reform and the Conservatives combined to block that investment, and then still could not agree a budget of their own, leaving the council in limbo. This Tory-Reform stitch up is costing residents in Stratford-on-Avon and across Warwickshire. As we look ahead to local reorganisation in Warwickshire, these choices matter even more.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the Reform Benches are empty, as we all can see and as the British public can see, and this is really important because, as I have said, local government is the foundation of our places. It gives us our civic pride in our areas and is on the frontline of delivering services, so this is really disappointing, and there is chaos in Warwickshire; we are still without a budget. Stratford-on-Avon district council has made a clear case for a south Warwickshire unitary authority that reflects the real communities and keeps decision making closer to residents. Reform is pushing for a single county-wide super-authority that would centralise power, moving it further away from local people. At a time when trust in politics is fragile, we should be strengthening local democracy, not weakening it. We must keep local government local. Local authorities are ready to play their part in delivering growth, tackling the climate emergency, insulating homes, improving air quality and building the infrastructure that our communities need, but they cannot do so if they are permanently firefighting. If we are serious about having strong communities and a strong economy, we must get local government finances right and not defund rural councils. We need to support them, so that they can deliver for their residents, rather than leaving them to pick up the pieces of national Government failure.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The two-child limit has punished children for circumstances entirely beyond their control. For nearly a decade, families have been denied support simply because a child happened to be born as a third or a fourth child. That was a cruel choice made by policymakers, not one made in children’s best interests, and it really shows that a Government can get it wrong. This was a particularly callous policy because it was designed to punish children, and because of the harm done to generations of young people, who are the future of our country. Today, 4.5 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. This policy has been a major driver of deep poverty, pushing working families further into hardship at a time when food, energy and housing costs remain painfully high. In Stratford-on-Avon, I hear from parents who are working hard, often juggling insecure hours or caring responsibilities, yet are still struggling to afford basics such as heating, healthy food, transport and even furniture. Many live in privately rented homes where costs keep rising, while support has been cut or frozen. These families are doing everything that is asked of them, yet the system has been stacked against them. I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that looking after five children as a single parent is a job—it is work. Raising a family is one of the most important jobs or contributions that a person can make to society. Research by the Social Market Foundation has made the wider point that when countries make it harder to have and raise children, birth rates tend to fall and populations age faster. That has real consequences for the long-term health of our economy and the public finances, because a smaller working-age population has to support a larger retired population, while demand, productivity and innovation can all suffer. The same analysis also underlines something we should be honest about in this debate: in the UK, being a parent is too often tied to financial pressure. Where families feel supported through affordable, high-quality childcare and a safety net that does not penalise children, outcomes are better for parents and for children alike, and the whole society benefits. If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we should stop designing policy that makes it harder for families to get by. Removing the two-child limit is the single most effective step this House can take to lift children out of poverty during this Parliament. It is backed by children’s charities, economists, educators and those working on the frontline. It will improve health, educational outcomes and life chances, while easing pressure on public services in the long term. A fair society does not balance its books by denying children support. It invests in them, protects them and gives every child the opportunity to thrive. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support the removal of the shameful two-child limit and why I am proud to back the Bill’s Second Reading.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I understand that recycling is now at 15% in this authority; given that there have been no weekly recycling collections for almost a year, it is a surprise that any recycling gets done. Perhaps it is the result of the good work of residents, who are doing their best to take rubbish to the tips, despite the failings of the council and the Government. Missed collections and overflowing communal bins for flats are all too common, waste to landfill has doubled and recycling rates have crashed. Sadly, I suspect that Birmingham might now be the worst-performing authority for recycling in the country. Fly-tipping is another recurring issue, not only in Birmingham but across the west midlands, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. Rubbish, furniture, electrical goods and all sorts of waste get dumped on the streets of our cities, on lay-bys and on farmland. That matters deeply to our constituents. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to commit to proper community policing, and to a rural crime strategy that includes fly-tipping. Will the Minister set out steps to help support local authorities and enforcement agencies to tackle that environmental crime? Back in Birmingham, the Liberal Democrat group leader on the council, Councillor Roger Harmer, informed me that there have been no negotiations since July 2025. The council and Unite are in deadlock, and Unite’s mandate for industrial action is active until at least March 2026. I say to my Labour colleagues that talks are needed urgently, as the alternative is the strike continuing into the summer, which would not benefit anyone. In two of the 10 constituencies in the council area, over half of children are living in poverty. The financial fallout of the bin strikes and the cumulative financial crises of the council are being felt in the hungry bellies of increasing numbers of children. I hope that the councillors, trade unionists and the Government keep those children and their parents in mind and make a renewed effort to end this crisis. The deadlock must end, and Birmingham’s Labour councillors need to get around the table to negotiate, or step aside to make space for those who will. Likewise, the Government must tackle the funding crisis in local government, and they must get a grip on adult and children’s social care, on provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and on the prevention of homelessness to help alleviate the financial burden on councils.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for introducing this important debate. I note with dismay that as Birmingham’s bin strike reaches its first anniversary, the people of Birmingham continue to pay the price. The fundamental cause of the current dispute, and the pay cuts and the reduction in pay progression, lies in the Labour council’s settlement of the 2017 bin strike. That caused the equal pay claims, which forced two section 114 notices on to the city council in 2023. But the Conservatives should check their own record. For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less. Since then, the people of Birmingham have had to suffer what Councillor Paul Tilsley referred to as the four horsemen of the apocalypse: council tax hikes, significant service reductions, the sale of important city assets, and hundred of staff redundancies. Last March, a major incident was declared due to the 17,000 tonnes of uncollected waste. Furthermore, there has been a revolving door of senior management for around a decade. As senior managers have left for jobs elsewhere, the residents of Birmingham have been left to foot the bill. As my Liberal Democrat colleague and Birmingham city councillor Deborah Harries said: “The very least a citizen can expect from their council, in return for paying their council tax, is for their bin to be collected.” That basic service has not been delivered in Birmingham for more than a year, despite residents’ being asked to pay a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, on the back of a 10% increase last year. Currently, agency crews are collecting residents’ general waste every week, but recycling and garden waste collections are suspended, leaving families with more rubbish than they can contend with.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the River Avon and its tributaries are central to our natural environment and to leisure and tourism—the visitor economy. It is a disgrace that our waterways are still being polluted. Does my hon. Friend agree that water management data must be transparent, and that the Government must introduce monitoring of the volume, not just the duration, of sewage overspills?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  President Trump has stated that he no longer feels an obligation to think “purely of Peace”. He has threatened a trade war with the UK and Europe, and he has refused to rule out military force against Greenland. This shows that President Trump and his Administration cannot be trusted. Will the Government therefore consider a review of the UK’s intelligence sharing with the US at this very dangerous and volatile time, and until Trump is no longer in power?

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

  More

  I am grateful to all hon. Members who attended today’s debate to support their constituents. The people we have talked about today ask not for special treatment, but for fair and equitable treatment. They paid in and followed the rules, but when the crisis came, they were left behind, with heartbreaking consequences. I hope that the Minister will meet the APPG in the near future. In conclusion, if we are serious about learning the lessons of the pandemic, recognition, redress, accountability and change must follow. Otherwise, the next time a crisis strikes, we risk repeating the same injustice. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. Business of the House Ordered, That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time. —(Nesil Caliskan.)

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

  More

  Absolutely; I fully agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that is one of our asks, so that we do not make the same mistake again. My constituent Victoria, who is in the Gallery, ran an events business hosting exhibitions and award ceremonies. She was ineligible for any scheme. A bounce back loan was taken out simply for the business to survive. Five years on, the debt remains, the recovery never fully came, and the business is now closing. Another constituent of mine moved roles, and was informed that he would not be furloughed by his new employer, as the cut-off for furlough through payroll had passed. There was little consideration of people in that position. Another constituent was a director of a small education consultancy. They were told that income as dividends could not be distinguished from unearned income, despite verified accounts and professional oversight. The effects of that decision did not end when lockdowns lifted. The financial impact of exclusion was severe, but the human cost was greater still. Campaign groups have documented widespread mental distress across those excluded from support, including cases of suicide linked to financial hardship during the pandemic. There were people who felt hopeless, abandoned and unseen. The mental health consequences of exclusion are still being felt, and they should weigh heavily on this House. The excluded have three requests of this Government: an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned; parity of support; and an acknowledgment of the loss of earnings and consequential losses. I ask the Minister to meet the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in covid-19 financial support, so that he can hear directly from those affected. At the same time when millions of taxpayers were excluded from support, vast sums of public money were spent on dodgy personal protective equipment. The National Audit Office has confirmed that billions were lost through error and fraud across covid-19 schemes. The PPE MedPro case starkly illustrates that imbalance: a company fast-tracked through the Government VIP lane was paid £122 million for surgical gowns that were later ruled unfit for use, and has since been ordered to repay £148 million to the public purse. This debate is not just about reflecting on what went wrong; it is about recognising and acknowledging the injustice, starting with an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned under the Conservative Government. We also must prepare properly for the future. Public health experts have been clear that we should be talking about not if, but when, there is a future pandemic or national emergency. When the moment comes, this House will have a responsibility to ensure that no one slips through the gaps again. Emergency support schemes must be designed around the reality of how people work in this country. Millions of people do not fit neatly into a single employment category. They combine PAYE work with self-employment, run a small limited company, take time out for caring responsibilities or build new businesses from scratch. That diversity is a strength of our economy, not a problem to be designed out of eligibility. The state already holds vast amounts of information through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and other bodies. The lesson of covid is that the issue was not a lack of data, but a lack of willingness to use it flexibly and fairly.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to debate this important issue. I also thank colleagues across the House for their tremendous support when I applied for this debate and, in particular, my friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in covid-19 financial support, of which I am an officer. I place on record my thanks to Excluded UK for its tireless and formidable campaigning. Without its work, many of these stories would never have been heard, and many people would have been left to suffer in silence. Its staff have shown persistence, compassion, and a commitment to justice. This debate is about a national scandal during the covid-19 pandemic, which impacted millions of individuals and families, including mine; my spouse could only apply for a bounce back loan when everything stopped. I want to speak about three things today: first, why I am campaigning on this issue; secondly, the people behind the statistics, including my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon who contacted me in desperation, and who still feel the horrendous impact of a policy decision by the then Government to exclude them from any kind of financial support; and thirdly, what needs to change. When covid struck, the message from the Government was clear: “Help will be there, and no one will be left behind.” The Chancellor at the time, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), vowed that “no one will be left without hope.” For many, that was true, but for millions of others, the promise rang hollow. They paid in, they followed the rules, and when they needed support, they were told that they did not qualify. People lost their income overnight. They lost their savings and their home, and some lost their life.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, and I will get to that point. In Stratford-on-Avon and up and down the country, business owners ask a simple question: why were they excluded when they had paid tax for years? These were people running events businesses, training services or consultancies, freelancers in the arts, music or creative sectors, and small companies that formed the backbone of our local economy. That is the injustice that this debate seeks to address. It is important to say at the outset that we do not deny the scale or urgency of the Government’s response in March 2020. The coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme were introduced at a speed and on a scale never seen before. According to the House of Commons Library, the overall cost of covid-19 business support ran into tens of billions of pounds, and for many people and businesses it prevented immediate hardship and business collapse. That context matters, because it shows that the Government were capable of acting decisively, and that the state was capable of dealing with a suite of diverse and complex scenarios. The question is why, alongside that intervention, millions of people were left with nothing at all and simply abandoned. Around 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from meaningful financial support during the pandemic—a figure supported by analysis from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Audit Office and research cited by the Library. They included company directors paid through dividends, newly self-employed people, new businesses, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, new starters, and those on maternity, adoption or parental leave or on carer’s allowance, whose circumstances placed them just outside rigid eligibility rules. They were a substantial part of the British workforce. The Government support schemes worked well for many, but excluded millions by design. The problem was not the absence of data, but the choice made about how that data would be used. Company directors paid through dividends were told that their income could not be verified, despite their submitting annual self-assessments, corporation tax returns and company accounts to Companies House. New businesses were excluded simply because they had not traded for long enough. Mixed-income workers were penalised for having diversified their earnings. These people were not invisible to the tax system, but they were invisible to the support schemes. The decision to exclude them was not an administrative necessity; it was a policy decision, and for that alone, the 3.8 million people left out must have an apology. These decisions are now rightly being examined by the UK covid-19 inquiry. Module 9, which focuses on the economic response, is considering how eligibility criteria were set, how fraud risk was assessed and how trade-offs were made between speed and fairness. That scrutiny is essential, because the consequences of exclusion were not abstract; they were human, financial and, in many cases, long-lasting. The inquiry must not simply catalogue what happened, but confront what it meant for those left outside the system.

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

  More

  I welcome the revised threshold change; it is a first step in the right direction. I thank the local farming community in South Warwickshire and the National Farmer’s Union in Warwickshire for their tireless campaigning. However, farmers across my constituency tell me that the changes to agricultural property relief have created many months of uncertainty, freezing investment and growth and affecting succession planning. Why did the Chancellor and her team announce changes to the agricultural property relief last year without meaningful consultation with family farmers first?

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

  More

  As a result of the Bill, in places like Stratford-on-Avon, pubs on high streets and in villages face bill increases many times higher than those faced by the larger distribution warehouses linked to online retail. Does my hon. Friend agree that this raises serious questions about whether the tax system is really supporting communities and local economies?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Village Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I will talk shortly about what happens if such schools close down—what happens to the wider community and how that reverberates. Parents tell me that the nearest village school is not merely a preference; it is the only school that they can safely and realistically access. When councils start consultation on closures without engaging properly with those who rely on these services, the consequences are serious. With proper, meaningful support rather than a managed decline, village schools with fluctuating numbers would thrive once again. These concerns are closely linked to road safety. I frequently receive letters from schools, teachers, parents and pupils across Stratford-on-Avon raising concerns that the roads around their communities and schools are not safe enough. Only last month I visited Mappleborough Green Church of England primary school, where the children explained how cars are failing to stop at their pedestrian lights, how they have seen fast-moving traffic and overtaking near the crossing, and how these near misses make them feel anxious on their journeys to school along a busy road. I say directly to those pupils that they made their voices heard, and I have written to Warwickshire county council to ask for urgent action on the measures that the children have proposed. When children tell us that they do not feel safe crossing the road outside their school, we must listen. Government and local highway authorities need to be far more responsive to the needs of communities. Safety is not optional. It is basic, it is every day, and it must be delivered. When a village school closes, the impact is immediate. Children face more difficult and dangerous journeys to the next school. Parents absorb new costs that they cannot manage. The delicate social fabric of villages begins to fray. Any policy decisions about the future of rural schools must take account of these realities. They cannot be reduced to administrative convenience. Decisions are being made in a way that is detached from rural life and the people who will feel the consequences first. For the Liberal Democrats, education is the best investment that a country can make in its future. Years of underfunding have left schools trying to manage rising costs, delayed repairs, and stretched staff resources, as we have heard from Members across the House. I welcome the steps the Government have taken to increase the school budget, expand free school meals for the poorest families, and strengthen the pupil premium. These are positive measures, but they will not, by themselves, guarantee the stability that rural schools need. Rural schools cannot be left behind. We believe that school and college funding must rise above inflation each year, that the backlog of repairs must finally be addressed, and that every school should have a dedicated mental health professional, so that families can seek help early where they are. These improvements matter across the system, and rural schools have a really important community-hub role in isolated and remote areas. Village schools also have a broader economic and social value. They keep younger families in the area, and contribute to a diverse age mix in villages, so that villages thrive. Services remain in villages, and they support local early years provision and help maintain a balanced community. When a school disappears, the village becomes a different place. Fewer families settle there; services decline; buses get reduced because they are no longer commercially viable; and community resilience weakens—long-term consequences follow from short-term decisions. As a member of the Education Committee, I see the national picture as well as the local one. It is clear that we need a more coherent approach to rural education, one that recognises the pressures that schools face and supports their long-term sustainability. Closure should never be the default option; it should come only after every possible alternative has been explored. Village schools support families and strengthen community. They deserve real support, and not to be subject to managed decline, as in many cases. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. When people get terminal illnesses, it is a time full of grief and stress, so new clause 3 aims to address the bureaucratic barriers those people face in accessing compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme. At a moment when time is precious and stress is already immense, too many people are forced to navigate repeated administrative hurdles simply to demonstrate what another arm of the state has already accepted. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out a clear, fair and straightforward process for demonstrating terminal illness—one that places the least possible administrative burden on the individual. Critically, where the Department for Work and Pensions already holds a valid SR1 form confirming a terminal diagnosis, that form must be shared with the PPF or the FAS; the person should not have to start again from scratch and provide several forms or applications again. Once the necessary information has been received, the PPF and the FAS should be required to make payments within a defined timeframe. These are not abstract procedural improvements: they would materially affect the quality of the precious time a terminally ill person has left. New clause 3 reflects the explanatory statement’s intent to allow a valid SR1 form to serve as sufficient proof of terminal illness for these purposes, reducing duplication and speeding up support. It is a modest, humane and pragmatic change, and I hope the Minister will consider it in his concluding remarks. I turn now to new clause 19, which deals with fossil fuels and climate risk. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations that would require specific schemes to exit investments in firms that are significantly exposed to thermal coal, and thereafter to review whether that restriction should extend to oil and gas expansion. This is a financial risk measure as much as it is a climate one. Despite the welcome climate reporting requirements in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, schemes remain heavily invested in the most damaging fossil fuels. These investments are doubly harmful. They risk becoming stranded as technology and policy move on, and they depress returns across the rest of the portfolio by contributing to climate damage that ultimately, as we have already heard, drags down the entire global economy.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his support in Committee. We know that two-tier governments —district councils in the shires in particular—will be abolished, and town and parish councils will have to take on more assets and deliver even more services. However, as I said in Committee, the voice of town and parish councils is completely absent from the Bill. At present, decision making at regional level often feels remote from the communities it serves. Given the significant powers that mayors hold over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are consistently engaged rather than consulted only at a mayor’s discretion. Fundamentally, this measure reflects the very purpose of devolution: to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected. It is a simple, practical step that would not require additional funding or alter existing powers but would deliver better communication, co-ordination and community engagement. This also links to wider concerns about governance and geography. In Warwickshire, there is a strong case for two new unitaries for the north and south of the county, rather than one large super-unitary. Analysis has shown that the two-unitary model performs better in Warwickshire than a single county-wide authority, and public support is clear, with 73% of residents of south Warwickshire favouring two councils. Several Liberal Democrat amendments on today’s paper, including those I have tabled, would work to safeguard proper local engagement in any future devolution arrangements. The Bill empowers local and strategic authorities to encourage visitors, yet it contains no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in this process. My amendment 27 goes to the heart of the need for our strategic authorities to work with places they represent. Tourism is not a side issue for Stratford-on-Avon; it is central to our local economy, our cultural life and our international reputation. Stratford town council plays a leading role in major events such as the Shakespeare birthday celebrations, which bring visitors from across the world, demonstrating the vital contribution of town councils to cultural exchange and soft power, yet the Bill includes no duty for any new strategic authority to engage town and parish councils when shaping tourism plans. That is a real risk for a place such as Stratford, which has so much to offer but depends on constructive partnership to keep thriving. Amendment 27 would put that duty in law and require a published record of engagement, so that towns in my constituency are not overlooked in regional strategies. Taken together, these measures give local communities a genuine voice in tourism planning. Town and parish councils know their areas best: the attractions, the infrastructure needs and the opportunities for growth. This amendment also promotes inclusive planning. Too often, small towns, villages and rural areas are overlooked in broader strategies despite their vital contribution to the economy. By embedding their perspectives, we will support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. In short, these amendments are practical, transparent and community focused. They would strengthen devolution by ensuring that local voices were heard, respected and reflected in tourism policy, thereby delivering strategies that are both effective and rooted in the communities they serve. Briefly, new clause 74, submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), would be an important addition to the Bill to give local areas the ability to limit and regulate junk food advertising in their communities. The new clause would make a positive impact on health, especially that of our young people. If the Government truly want devolution to succeed, they should accept these proposals, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Video Games: Consumer Law · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents has written to me about feeling misled when the industry uses the word “buy” for video games that can later disappear from their digital library. Does the hon. Member agree that we need transparency, so that consumers know exactly what they are paying for at the point of purchase? We need clarity that “buy” means “buy”, and not “borrow until it is revoked”.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The new clause would place a legal duty on mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to be transparent about how public money is spent. It is a simple but powerful measure designed to build public trust in the devolved government that the Bill creates. The mayor would have a legal duty to ensure that their financial information is not just published, but accessible, clear and understandable to the public. The new clause would also require mayors to publish a policy explaining how their authority will engage with local communities on spending priorities and major financial decisions, and to review the policy regularly. That engagement could include citizens budget forums, public consultations, participatory budgeting sessions or even budget roadshows travelling around the authority area. Lack of transparency in local finance can erode public trust and allow serious problems to build up unnoticed. In recent years, several councils and combined authorities have faced financial distress or even bankruptcy. Across the country, there is a sense that combined authorities are powerful but distant. They make big spending decisions, yet few people understand how the decisions are made. Transparency is the foundation of public confidence in local leadership. The new clause also aligns with the wider principle of good public finance management by supporting the work of all the committees and local auditors who depend on accessible financial information, while enforcing public sector accountability and ensuring that mayors and chief executives know that they must communicate clearly. Some may argue that the new clause would place another duty on already busy mayors and combined authorities, but this is not about extra bureaucracy; it is about basic democratic accountability. Frankly, if a mayor’s office can manage hundreds of millions of pounds in its budgets, it can surely manage to explain where the money goes. Devolution should bring power closer to the people, and that must include the power to see, question and understand how public money is being used.