Olivia Blake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and actions. If we achieve peace, as we all hope, the efforts to rebuild Ukraine cannot be only about infrastructure. They also have to focus on rebuilding people’s lives, from those who have been devastatingly injured or have lost loved ones, to civil society, which has been really tested. What will the UK Government do to ensure that funding and support is in place to allow not only the rebuilding of buildings, but the rebuilding of civil society?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his clear leadership, which is in stark contrast to the shadow Secretary of State. I was dismayed to hear her comments, which offered a complete dereliction of duty to future generations and followed others’ failures of leadership rather than showing leadership. I warmly welcome the role that the UK played under the Secretary of State’s leadership in championing the road map for fossil fuel phase out, but there is an elephant in the room. Will the Government continue that leadership by ruling out extraction at Rosebank?

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

  More

  I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents. More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years. I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome. For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard. The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Committee itself for the report, which I thought was very helpful and insightful. I share the concern that the Chair outlines about the gathering of evidence. I want to ask about media access into the Gaza strip. Is that an area that the Committee could look at in future, and does the Chair have a view on how it might help or hinder evidence gathering?

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate. I prepared a much longer speech, but I will keep it brief. We know the destabilising forces that scarcity of food can unleash, and what that can mean to communities around the globe, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). We are living in the Anthropocene, which means that humans are the dominant force in shaping the Earth’s environment. That could make us all terrified, thinking that there is nothing we can do, but actually it tells the opposite story. It shows us that we can influence the environment, whether that is by signing up to the declaration on food systems at the next COP, or through the great work of local groups that improve access to waste food, such as Food Works Sheffield or Regather, which produces food locally in Sheffield. There are great examples of people taking control of sustainable food issues, and that should be celebrated in this place. However, if we cannot get away from the elephant in the room—the fact that we do not do enough at COP, not just on food and sustainability, but around nature and climate change, and especially around oil, gas and coal—we are going to be in trouble. I make a heartfelt plea that the Government continue to stand firm with our manifesto commitments not to renew or grant any more licences. We must make it clear that no new oil and gas licences will take a single penny off bills or make us more energy secure; they will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis. I therefore call on the Government to reject the Rosebank proposals, because we cannot have a planet, food or community without adequate resources in our communities for people to survive and thrive. We will see massive global upheaval if people cannot access their basic needs. Food is fundamental to that, which is why I have also supported colleagues’ calls for a right to food. That is something we should talk about globally, not just in the UK.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnations of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack on the Heaton Park synagogue and the arson attack in Peacehaven. The Prime Minister emphasised the UK’s commitment to humanitarian support. While we all welcome the ceasefire, we know that the humanitarian crisis is still very much ongoing. Will the Prime Minister confirm what extra monitoring, new mechanisms and assurances he is seeking to ensure that parties on the ground are able to get essential aid to every single person who needs it within Gaza?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in the debate, and I thank the co-sponsors and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to happen on the Floor of the House today. I also thank everyone who has spoken so far and so bravely, whether that is sharing their own experience or that of their constituents. These debates have a true impact. This issue is of profound personal significance to me, as it is to so many families up and down the country. Alongside Tommy’s, many Members of this House, Myleene Klass MBE, Sands and the Miscarriage Association, I have been campaigning for five years for simple changes. First, I want to recognise those for whom this is not an abstract discussion but a reflection of one of the hardest chapters of their lives. To every parent who has experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby, I want to say, “Your loss matters, and your voice matters.” Time and again, investigations into maternity and neonatal care have revealed the same issues: poor communication, missed warning signs and families left to fight for answers. National standards of care are not being followed, and too often bereaved parents are left wondering whether lessons will ever truly be learned. That is why the forthcoming national investigation into maternity and neonatal services is so important. It must drive lasting change, and I urge the Secretary of State, who I am so pleased to see in his place, to ensure that there is clear national oversight of how any recommendations are implemented. The investigation must also take ambitious approaches to improving maternal heath and reducing baby loss. We need a focused national strategy that sets new maternity safety ambitions, tackles inequalities and ensures consistency across all services, and I want to briefly mention infertility services. I have decided that locally commissioned services are simply not good enough—they are not fit for purpose. In some places, you get nothing; in other places, you get three cycles of in vitro fertilisation, as NICE suggests. In other places, you have to pay thousands of pounds if you are LGBT. As shown by “Joy”, the Netflix story that was told so well, the same backward thoughts about infertility treatment still exist in local commissioning boards. That is no more so than in South Yorkshire, where the NHS trust is currently consulting on—I am quoting from the website—views on “how many cycles of IVF should be provided to people in South Yorkshire” and on “how much gluten-free…produce should be prescribed”. I have coeliacs in my family and understand the struggle, but to compare that to the loss of babies, which many couples who go through IVF will have suffered, is simply not good enough. The trust’s own numbers show that the saving from reducing two cycles to one would be only £280,000 a year. That would be less than 2p per person in the whole ICB area. Let us take that money centrally, so that no matter where you live in the UK, you have access to three chances to start a family. You might have suffered five miscarriages, three miscarriages, baby loss or stillbirth. You might be being told by your doctor not to try for a baby given the risk to your life, and only to get support through IVF. It is simply not good enough, and fertility services are also diagnostic. I know people who have had endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, blocked tubes, endometrial cancers, polyps or fibroids discovered not through going to a gynaecologist, but through going to a fertility doctor. We should value that and not just see it as an excess cost. I think fertility services should be taken back centrally and provided on that basis.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that it could seem counterintuitive to the public for new testing to be illegal and to require the Secretary of State’s intervention, and for testing in herds considered not to have TB to therefore not be possible, allowing undetected cows to be left in herds?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the argument so well. Badger culling has proved to be ineffective, unscientific and inhumane. Does she agree that we should not see an increase in culling or supplementary culls in no-risk areas, or the extension of any current licences?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that, as employers have told me, increasing the qualifying period will make the UK less attractive to international talent. That is particularly important for science and research in our universities.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill and commend the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for her leadership in bringing it forward. For too long, decisions about our communities have been made far from the people they affect. This Bill signals a profound shift, putting trust back into local leaders, strengthening councils and ensuring that communities have a real say in shaping their future. It provides the foundation for a new settlement for England that values local knowledge and unlocks local energy. The return of the supplementary vote system for mayoral elections—a key feature of this important Bill—is welcome, and I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) on the wider issues of proportional representation. The Bill places particular emphasis on neighbourhood working by recognising the importance of neighbourhoods and the grassroots organisations that sustain them. Equally important are the measures to strengthen community right to buy, which empowers residents to take ownership of the places that matter to them most, ensuring they can be preserved and improved for future generations. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for her clarity in purpose in driving these changes. She understands that local government is not an obstacle to progress, but the engine of it. Although the Bill is about empowerment, we must ensure that it does not undermine the principle of local choice, however inadvertently. Since the announcement of the Bill, I have had tens of emails and more than 100 letters on this subject. In May 2021, the people of Sheffield went to the polls in a city-wide referendum. They voted decisively—by 65%—to move to a modern committee system of government, replacing the old leader and cabinet model. That was a clear democratic decision. It was also guaranteed in law for at least 10 years, with the principle that any further change could be made only by referendum. The provisions currently in the Bill would overturn that choice, forcing Sheffield back into a governance model that its citizens have explicitly rejected. That cannot be right. It would break faith with local voters, undermine the spirit of empowerment that runs through the Bill and send the wrong message about how seriously we take democratic decisions. If this legislation is to achieve its full potential, councils that have already chosen to have a committee system via referendum should be allowed to retain that system, just as with mayoral models. I know that local leaders agree with me on this, and I appreciate that Ministers have been meeting local leaders. This is a bold Bill; it is one that we should be proud of and that I am proud to support. It rightly enshrines the central role of councils in shaping and delivering devolution. I just hope that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of allowing local councils to maintain their chosen model.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her action. Steel remains a key part of the South Yorkshire industrial and economic strategies. Can she reassure the House that workers’ wages and livelihoods will continue to be prioritised throughout the whole process, and will she join me in thanking our hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for their work to champion not just the sites in Stocksbridge and Rotherham, but the South Yorkshire steel corridor?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Orgreave Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear that we are finally getting the inquiry that has long been campaigned for by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the NUM and many in my community and across South Yorkshire. They are simply asking for the truth. The shadow Minister has just said that the inquiry should not be politicised, but does the Minister agree that Orgreave is political? It is one of the most political things that has ever happened to South Yorkshire, and it is incredibly important that the inquiry is put on a statutory footing so that it can compel people to give evidence and get to the truth of something that many in our communities still bear the scars of.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe that the Bill will help address some of the difficult challenges that our country faces. I know many in this House are motivated by a genuine desire to improve lives and ensure that our welfare system is fair, sustainable and fit for purpose, but I have to say, with the deepest respect and regret, that on this occasion, I think we have got this wrong. Yes, the Labour Government have inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and, yes, we need reform, but we must be clear that reform cannot mean pushing disabled people further into poverty. It cannot mean referring to cuts as modernisation. Poverty has a price tag, and the cost-shunting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration. I support amendment 37 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which highlights the lack of value for money in the contracts for assessment. There are so many successful reassessments and appeals; it is clear that we are not getting value for money from these contracts, and that this is an expensive and ineffective model that Ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward, and that is reflected in many of the amendments that I am supporting. New clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would ensure that any changes to PIP must be brought forward in primary legislation. I strongly agree with that. Given the lack of time we have had to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down until the recommendations are brought back to us, so that we can have good-quality debate, and put better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility for those who are already struggling or at risk of poverty. New clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) calls for any review of PIP to be grounded in the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In a sense, I am disappointed that such a clause might be needed, but it points to the fact that we need more transparency, independent oversight and, crucially, co-production with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us, and I hope the Government are listening on that new clause. Amendment 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), acknowledges the fluctuating nature of some medical conditions that can be unpredictable and debilitating. The amendment would ensure that people with those conditions are not left vulnerable, and that the process is responsive and serves its purpose of being a safety blanket to those who need it most. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise concerns. People with conditions including multiple sclerosis, Huntingdon’s, cancer and schizophrenia are concerned about how the changes will impact on them. Their voices must be heard in this place. The amendments do not block reform; I think they strengthen it. They will ensure that the Bill is evidence-led and rooted in fairness. New clause 12 seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal credit. Although it is not a shock that the Opposition will use any debate as an excuse to have a game of migrant-bashing, I am disappointed that those ideas have made their way into this proposal. What they will not tell the public is that most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and universal credit because they have no recourse to public funds. That restriction acts as a blanket ban on access to the social security system for 3.6 million migrants. Is it really acceptable to deny access to PIP or other social security to those who have spent years living and working in the UK—paying taxes and astronomical visa fees, and finally securing indefinite leave to remain—based on their nationality rather than on their disability? The new clause threatens the fundamental principle of our immigration system—that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to many of the same rights as British citizens. There are better choices we can make, and better ways to find the money that we are told we need to find. We can scrap the outdated marriage tax allowance, a gimmick of the Cameron Government that still costs us £590 million a year. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes, such as the carried interest loophole used by private equity bosses, which would raise half a billion pounds. We can apply national insurance to investment income, raising over £10 billion. A modest 2% adjustment to the £207 billion handed out in non-structural annual tax reliefs would raise £4 billion alone each and every year. Let us talk about those reliefs. There are roughly 1,180 tax reliefs in the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has no idea what benefit 815 of them bring to the public. This is about choices—we hear all the time about “tough choices”—so why are we not choosing not to properly examine that £200 billion of public spending while we tighten support for disabled people, who are just trying to live? We can and should reform the system.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to pull up the shadow Minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years and thus there is a backlog of women now accessing their right to benefits relating to ADHD? Many women like me were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders instead of ADHD.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. That is my plea to the Treasury Benchers: There is still time to withdraw the Bill and come back with something better. These issues should be tackled head-on. It is unjust that, because of the way we have built society, each and every disabled person faces £1,000 in extra costs on average per month. None of that is optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was not designed with disabled people in mind. There is a whole host of reasons for that spending; they are the non-negotiable realities of having a disability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help, so listen to us.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting at that point, because I have two suggestions that I think would be good for growth. The first is to ask the British Investment Bank to support disabled people in setting up their own business, as it does women and those setting up a minority-led business. I know many ADHDers who would make great entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, sometimes they end up going down the path of criminality. We should consider how we can ensure that their innovation is enhanced and used properly. The second suggestion is that we make our economy much more inclusive. There could be a national insurance contribution discount for taking on someone with a disability, who may be in receipt of PIP and may have been out of work for more than six months. I am sure that, through a more inclusive society, we can encourage growth, not discourage it. I have taken up far too much time, so I will end with this. Disabled people know what is best for us. We should be investing in people’s independence, not leaving them on the sidelines or pushing them into poverty. That is a matter of justice, but in the end, it saves money as well. More than that, it gives people the dignity and freedom to live well. That, surely, should be our purpose.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Member remind me which Government brought in a partial ban on peatland burning?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting, because what we get depends on who we speak to, which shows there is space for more research. I have spoken to ecologists and specialists who say there is no further risk with the leggy kind of heather than without it, and that the damage done by so-called cold burns is significant, so that is a complicated issue. We have to think about it in the round. We need to communicate to people not to use barbecues or throw away cigarettes when they go on walks—all those simple things. We will face more wildfires as a result of climate change, so we cannot see this issue separately. It is not only nature that suffers. The economic case made by those who defend grouse shooting simply does not stand up to scrutiny. While a handful of large estates and private shooting syndicates profit, rural communities would benefit far more from land uses that serve not just a privileged few but the wider community, such as nature-based tourism, habitat restoration, sustainable farming and community-led projects. Our uplands belong to us and should work in the public interest. At the heart of this debate is the question of land, power and inequality. Just 1% of the population owns over half the land in England, and nowhere is that feudal pattern more evident than in our uplands, where vast moorlands remain in the hands of a privileged minority, often propped up by many taxpayer subsidies. That is why I want to see the House back a new community right to buy when it comes to nature. In Sheffield, a large campaign—which includes the great Bob Berzins, an expert in this area—has sprung up to tackle these issues. Giving local people and communities the power to take poorly managed land into collective ownership would be a transformative step. It would restore landscapes for nature, climate and people while creating jobs and opportunities rooted in sustainability and fairness. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 legislated for a community right to buy, setting an example that this House can follow, or at least consider. I have been involved in community-led rewilding projects to plant sphagnum moss. I see the transformation they have made and, compared with other such projects I have seen, those communities are the real pioneers of getting the work done, seeing what works and learning from it. We could be doing much more to engage with the communities that are getting on with the work of restoring our moorlands. The public appetite for reform is growing. Conservation charities, environmental scientists, rural communities and tens of thousands of campaigners are calling on this destructive, outdated industry to halt. Scotland has already taken decisive steps to regulate grouse moor management; England cannot afford to fall behind. We have before us a rare opportunity to reimagine our uplands as thriving, biodiverse landscapes; to restore carbon-rich peatlands, reduce flood risks and create rural jobs rooted in sustainability and nature recovery, not ecological harm; and to make these places not private playgrounds but shared natural treasures for the benefit of all. Driven grouse shooting is a relic of a bygone age. Its environmental damage, ethical failures and economic myths are indefensible in the 21st century. It is time for the House to show leadership, listen to the evidence and empower communities to put our climate, our wildlife and our rural economies first, and consign this practice to history.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Harris, and I thank all the Members who have spoken in the debate so far. It is fair to say that I will take a slightly different approach on this issue. I am very proud to have a very active community when it comes to people contacting me, particularly about nature. Six hundred and thirty-five of my constituents signed this petition, which is the highest number of signatories for any constituency in the country. That stems from a deep concern about management practices that affect our community, where we have several grouse moors that are managed. Grouse shooting has a profound environmental and ecological significance. It is a pastime rooted in privilege and exclusion, which inflicts immense harms on our uplands, our wildlife and our communities. It is hard to imagine that it has any place in a modern, fair and environmentally responsible Britain. I saw on one website that £7,000 a day is how much some estates charge for this excursion. I have been out and about with gamekeepers in my constituency. They have put to me all these arguments and after many hours of debate, we agreed to disagree. I understand some of the points that colleagues have been making, but I will set out exactly why I think grouse shooting is harmful and requires more regulation. I am really concerned that grouse shooting is seen as a harmless countryside tradition or a nostalgic relic of rural life. It is a highly commercialised industry in which vast tracts of our uplands are intensively managed not for biodiversity or for the public good, but to produce unnaturally large numbers of one bird species, the red grouse, for the gun. In Scotland, there are vicarious responsibilities and a licensing scheme, and I wonder whether the Minister has a view on those. To achieve such an unnatural level of grouse, landowners routinely undertake practices that are environmentally destructive and ecologically reckless. They include the widespread burning of heather in moorlands, as we have heard; the draining of some peatlands; and—I am sure no responsible landowner or land manager allows it—the illegal persecution of birds of prey, including many protected species, such as the hen harrier, for which I am the species champion, the golden eagle, the buzzard and the peregrine falcon. According to the RSPB, the majority of confirmed illegal killings of birds of prey in the past 10 years were linked to land managed for pheasant, partridge or grouse shooting, and RSPB figures show that at least one bird of prey is illegally killed or injured every four days in the UK. Given how precious these species are to our biodiversity, that is a shocking statistic. The petition was signed by 635 of my constituents. The Moorland Association’s website states that just 700 people are directly employed in grouse moor management. I recognise that, as others have said, there are spin-out commercial opportunities. However, given how vast the contribution is—I think somebody mentioned £52 million earlier—if I were a beater, I might be unionising to take more of that profit home to my family. The environmental consequences are well documented and grave. Burning heather damages fragile peat bogs, which are among the most vital carbon stores in the country. This degradation means that, instead of being locked away, carbon cannot be stored effectively, which accelerates climate change. The poor condition of our peat was recognised by the last Government. They brought in the peatlands strategy, which I welcomed but felt did not go far enough. Burning heather heightens flood risks for downstream communities by stripping the land of its natural ability to hold water. I invite anyone to go to a moorland, pick up some sphagnum moss and give it good old squeeze—the water drips out of it, showing how much of a sponge it is. It stores water in our uplands, which is so important. I am very privileged to represent a city with so many hills and rivers, and downstream flooding in our region is very important. We want our peatlands to be restored so that that water is held upland, and this practice is holding that back. We also want to ensure that our landscapes are not impoverished, stripped of biodiversity and managed for a single commercial interest.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  I just feel that the hon. Gentleman is putting his head in the sand. Yes, there are more fledglings, but does he know what happened to them?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  Those are very good questions, and there are a number of private resources that we could attend to. The Environmental Audit Committee did work on nature capital in the last Parliament, and I think it will this year be publishing a report on it, which am excited to see. For restoration practices, carbon credits are another option. There are also some great landowners who are doing the right thing, whether we are talking about water companies that lease land to grouse moors, which is the case in some places; our national trusts and similar bodies; or the RSPB itself. Smaller-scale land parcels are now even being bought up by organisations such as the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, which are trying to put nature at their heart. The Government have been open and quick to the game on heather burning, and I welcome their recent consultation on the current ban on deep peat burning, which I get a lot of correspondence about. When the burning is happening, because of the direction of the wind, it comes down the valleys into my constituency. There are moorlands in my constituency, but the majority of people live downwind. It is causing real discomfort for my constituents who have health problems, whether asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer. All those people have contacted me about the challenges they face with their breathing.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate. It is clear from some of my colleagues’ comments and from some of the discourse on this topic that many politicians do not understand the lives of disabled people. In the UK, disabled people face an extra average cost of nearly £1,000 a month. That is not optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was never built with disabled people in mind. A persistent and damaging myth is that the personal independence payment is a benefit for those out of work. It is not a benefit. PIP is not income replacement; it exists to help to cover the extra costs of disability, whether someone is in employment or not. In fact, many recipients rely on it to stay in work, using it to overcome the additional barriers that working life presents. There are significant and deeply concerning disparities between disabled and non-disabled people in employment opportunities and fair pay—17%, according to the TUC. That is really unfortunate, but I fear that we are focusing on the wrong things. This system should not be about punitive measures; it should be about encouraging employers to do the right thing, including making reasonable adjustments.