Pippa Heylings MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I applaud her constant advocacy in Parliament on behalf of farmers. The second part of the debate is about the conference of the parties and how we can bring about legally binding obligations that translate into exactly the kind of measures my hon. Friend talked about. In just a few weeks, world leaders will come together at the global climate summit, COP30, which will be held in Belém, Brazil, in close proximity to the Amazon rainforest. It is being held there deliberately to symbolise the Amazon rainforest’s critical role in global climate stability. In the lead-up to COP30, I hope this debate today will allow us to consider why this summit is expected to finally be billed as the nature, food and climate COP, putting food systems at the heart of the climate agenda for the first time, and rightly so, because the way we grow, produce and consume food is one of the biggest drivers of the climate and nature crises and one of the most powerful levers we have to solve them. At the same time, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food production and national security. Why does COP matter? We have come a long way since the Kyoto negotiations in 1997. That was the first time that countries around the world agreed global governance arrangements to address the shared challenge of global warming. At the time, we were hurtling towards a catastrophic 4°C or even 5°C world, so what a feat it was, unknown in any other sector or on any other issue, to create a framework agreement between 198 parties—197 countries or states and the European Union—to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that could help to prevent dangerous human-induced disruption of the climate system. Through dialogue, negotiation and finance, the COP process has brought about legally binding agreements—the Kyoto protocol and then the Paris agreement in 2015—where we all agreed that we have a common and interdependent future, and that we need to do everything possible to keep global warming below 1.5°C. The Amazon rainforest has been called the lungs of the planet for its ability to capture and store carbon. Yet, right now, the rainforest is gasping for breath as we perilously approach the tipping point where the Brazilian rainforest switches from being a huge sponge, store and carbon sink to being a source of carbon emissions, due to massive deforestation and degradation through land use change. That is why, now more than ever, we need to ratchet up our collective ambition. I know that rainforest well, and I know what it means to the many indigenous and local communities that depend on it, having worked professionally on climate and nature negotiations for more than a decade in South America, in the countries that share the Amazon: Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil. I was part of the UK’s largest international climate policy programme in the region, and latterly I worked as the global team lead for the UK’s international £100 million climate and nature programme, the biodiverse landscapes fund. Since 2010, I have seen at first hand the internal workings, impacts, successes and failures of three relevant UN COP processes—the climate COP, the nature COP and the avoiding desertification COP—working alongside Governments and non-state actors such as businesses, scientists, local communities and local governments. I know how long people have argued for food systems to be a central pillar of the climate framework. Our own independent Climate Change Committee, in its seventh carbon budget, highlighted the importance of agriculture and land use change in meeting our climate targets. I therefore want to make three points today. First, the transformation of food systems is essential for climate action, food security and nature restoration. Secondly, this transition must be just, supporting our farmers and animal welfare as we change how food is produced. Thirdly, the UK must show renewed leadership at COP30 by leading from the front, with the Prime Minister, and by committing to sign a new global declaration on food systems. Why does food system transformation matter? The EAT-Lancet Commission announced that even if fossil fuels are phased out, the world will breach 1.5 °C because of emissions from food systems alone. Unsustainable food systems are driving deforestation, soil degradation, water pollution and marine biodiversity loss. Globally, agriculture and land use are responsible for almost 60% of biodiversity loss. Exeter University research revealed this week that we have now reached the first catastrophic tipping point, with warm water coral reefs facing irreversible decline, threatening nature, food security and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people—a moment many of us hoped we would not reach. Closer to home, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit recently found that wheat lost to storms and drought over the past five years could have produced more than 4 billion loaves of bread—the equivalent of an entire year’s supply for the UK. There has been a strong build-up to COP30 in Belém, which is expected to produce a declaration on food systems, building on discussions at the Bonn climate conference and the COP28 declaration on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems and climate action, which the UK signed.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I appreciate the chance to have this debate, which is of critical importance, both globally and in our country, where the hottest summer since records began is pushing our farmers to the brink. The harvest of 2025 was the second worst harvest on record, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That comes on the back of over £1 billion of lost income for our farmers, following the extremely wet winter last year. All of that threatens our food security and pushes up food prices.

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

  More

  But Ed Davey was the only person who—

• 14 Oct 2025 · Reducing Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Ministers to their place—I look forward to working with them—and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy on holding on to their posts, which we are glad to see. One of the best ways to bring down household bills is to help homeowners and small businesses make their properties cheaper to warm and to power. The Liberal Democrats have put forward a plan to do that by introducing a windfall tax on the big banks, which have seen billions of pounds in unexpected profits as a result of the quantitative easing programme by the Bank of England more than a decade ago. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Liberal Democrats that we should instead use those excess profits to fund green affordable loans of up to £20,000 for households and up to £50,000 for businesses and community groups, and cut people’s power bills for good?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Frighteningly, the Earth has already reached its first climate tipping point linked to global warming. We are now seeing warm water coral reefs going into irreversible decline, which is threatening nature and millions of people and their livelihoods. The climate crisis is a global emergency and needs leadership, and when Britain leads, others follow. Can the Secretary of State finally confirm that the Prime Minister will attend COP30 and lead from the front?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 September, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), now Minister of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, issued a written statement on the contingent liabilities from the funded decommissioning programme and Government support package for Sizewell C, which is due to be undertaken on 1 October. It is a liability to Government and taxpayers that could reach up to the tune of £12 billion. That is a significant contingent liability for the public purse, and due parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. Although the Minister stated reasons for not providing the required 14 days for scrutiny and withholding of approval, which is normally required for any contingent liability above £300,000, surely Parliament should have been presented with the results of the ongoing review of the liabilities during whatever time was available, and parliamentary time should have been scheduled to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise—

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and all who have successfully brought this petition forward. I rise today, as many others have, in support of the petition calling for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders to retain their indefinite leave to remain settlement. As we have heard, such visas are a lifeline; they are a moral commitment created in response to Beijing’s crackdown on human rights and democracies. Families made life-changing decisions, leaving their homes, relatives and friends on the understanding that if they worked hard, paid their way, built their lives here and contributed, they could settle permanently after five years. To move the goalposts retrospectively would not only cause distress, but be a betrayal of everything that they think we stand for and that we hope we stand for, namely that we keep our word. I have so many wonderful examples of Hongkongers in my constituency. For example, a constituent wrote to me about two people who had become invaluable to their community in Cherry Hinton. They help to run toddler groups and holiday clubs for more than 180 children, supporting families who speak little English. They are law-abiding, hard-working and deeply committed to their community, and yet they now live in fear that the rules will change midway, leaving their futures here uncertain. I see no reason why those who are already here and contributing should be thrown into that level of anxiety. To delay their right to settlement would upend carefully prepared plans, heap financial pressure on families who are already struggling with the cost of living, and deny children who have grown up here their right to home fee tuition at university.

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

  More

  The hon. Member makes a really important point. Delaying their settled status would leave many of these people unprotected when travelling abroad and raise the stakes in terms of their own and their families’ security. Many families are already financially stretched and, as we have heard, that is often exacerbated by the fact that BNO visa holders are blocked from accessing their pension savings with the mandatory provident fund. With settled status, that would no longer be the case. They have told me that that would be best for everyone because they would then be contributing—they do not want to be a burden on the public purse. We must never forget what is at stake, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has said. In Hong Kong, nearly 1,000 political prisoners remain behind bars for daring to exercise their democratic right. It is neither safe nor realistic for Hongkongers to return. The petition before us is clear and just. It calls on us to stand by the word we gave and allow those on BNO visas to settle after five years, not 10. I urge the Government and the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance, and to exempt from these reforms all who are already here on BNO visas.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Yet again, we are suffering record-breaking heatwaves and drought. That is worrying people in my constituency, which is both the fastest-growing and the most water-stressed area in the country. The proposed fens reservoir is important, but will provide water only for the already ambitious house building plans, not the thousands of new homes that the Government propose. Does the Prime Minister agree that the water crisis in Greater Cambridge is a deal-breaker for the Government’s growth plans, and will he, as a matter of urgency, help me to convene a ministerial roundtable with the Cambridge water scarcity group?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  We welcomed the joint agreement signed in May between the UK and the EU, in which small steps were taken to address the impacts of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal on energy costs and bills. What further steps will the Secretary of State take to forge energy co-operation through a recoupling of the UK and EU electricity markets and the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market, to boost trade, bring down renewable energy costs and reduce energy bills?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Across Europe, we have already seen 2,300 heatwave-related deaths—avoidable deaths—and the Met Office report says that things will just get worse. The Lib Dems and I have a really cool idea. Will the Secretary of State work with local authorities to open up public spaces with air conditioning, such as leisure centres and libraries, so that they can provide relief from extreme heat for the elderly and vulnerable?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Electricity Market Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his statement in advance. He is right: making the UK a clean energy superpower is the smartest and most strategic way to free ourselves from our dependence on expensive, volatile fossil fuels. However, as we have heard, accelerating the transition to renewables alone is not enough. The Government have to ensure that the clean power mission ultimately brings down customers’ bills and creates a fairer system for households and businesses. Energy bills in the UK are among the highest in Europe. Our high costs exacerbate cost of living pressures and increase fuel poverty. They also undermine our international competitiveness for industrial and commercial consumers and risk driving some businesses overseas. The Liberal Democrats have long called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale price of gas so that families in the UK are not left paying over the odds for clean, British-generated electricity just because of volatile global gas prices. We will be looking closely at the details of the Government’s plan following the review of electricity market arrangements. The Secretary of State outlined his three tests. To ensure that British consumers are not exposed to an unknown level of risk, will he publish his cost-benefit analysis and set out what impact the changes will have on customers’ bills? We will also be looking keenly for the much-needed joined-up approach between planning for renewable energy infrastructure through the strategic spatial energy plan, and the land use framework and local area energy plans, which, worryingly, are a bit out of sync. Renewable energy can be the cheapest, most secure source of power, but for many people, seeing—and feeling it in their pocket—is believing, and under the current system, many are struggling to see it. Alongside the changes announced today, I hope the Secretary of State will consider other Liberal Democrat proposals, just as they did when putting into practice our proposals for rooftop solar on all roofs. We would like to see free insulation and heat pumps for people on low incomes and the introduction of a social tariff for energy to protect the most vulnerable.

• 7 Jul 2025 · British National Overseas Visas: Settlement Rules · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister clear up, once and for all, the further confusion over the proposed changes to the settlement period from five to 10 years? Will she clarify for the BNO visa holders living in my constituency whether the changes will be applied retrospectively or only prospectively, and will she confirm that those who are already building their lives in the UK and working in important sectors in my constituency will not see their pathway to settlement unfairly changed mid-journey?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing the debate and on her fantastic laying out of the situation. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy: they are 99% of UK businesses and over 5.5 million strong. My constituency has one of the highest concentrations of SMEs in the country. They really matter. They are essential to our communities and our growth. Almost 45% of nearly 1,300 businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses at the end of 2024 reported increased costs due to a rise in utility costs. Our small businesses are really struggling and they are being failed by an energy system that lacks due fairness, transparency and accountability. SMEs have been left behind. When the energy bill relief scheme was replaced, support was slashed by 85%, and then it was removed altogether by March 2024. Liberal Democrat analysis estimates that 3.1 million SMEs saw bills rise by £7.6 billion. Today, the average small business electricity bill stands at £240 a month and 92% of SMEs plan to raise their prices due to energy volatility. That is unsustainable. Domestic customers are protected to some extent by the energy price cap, and larger energy-intensive firms benefit from the brand-new British industrial competitiveness scheme. Is the Minister considering bringing in caps on energy costs for small businesses? In the meantime, owners of SMEs are encouraged to do it alone—independently explore the market and switch to a better deal. Yet we know, and we have heard today, that many small businesses do not have the capacity to undertake the work necessary to find the best energy deal and are vulnerable to exploitation, increasing, rather than decreasing, overall costs. That is where regulation of the energy market for small businesses is so important. This debate is timely, but this is not a new issue. A 2023 report by Octopus revealed a disturbing picture of the impact on small businesses of a lack of regulation, unscrupulous practices and unfairness in the energy market. Some 3.2 million had had a negative experience with energy brokers and 78% of small businesses demanded that broker commissions be made clearer. That same year, thousands of small businesses—manufacturers, high street stores, pubs, community organisations, faith groups and charities—joined a £2 billion class action lawsuit to seek compensation for having overpaid for tariffs with energy giants brokered by third-party brokers. That showed that undisclosed broker commissions were being added to the unit cost of gas and electricity, falsely inflating energy prices for up to 2 million businesses and organisations in the UK. Ofgem’s own data showed that around 37% of non-domestic energy consumers had contracted such third-party intermediaries, and there was evidence of unscrupulous practice by some of those TPIs. We therefore welcomed Ofgem’s December 2024 move to allow microbusinesses with up to 50 employees to access the Energy Ombudsman for alternative dispute resolution, but that left small businesses over the threshold locked out of that recourse to redress and recompense. Ofgem later expanded that offer to small businesses and required the energy giants to be transparent about commissions they were paying to brokers and where they were adding the cost on to consumers’ bills. However, Ofgem still does not have direct regulatory powers over third-party intermediaries. A consultation on regulation closed nine months ago, so will the Minister set out what the Government will do to introduce a mandatory authorisation regime with standards, registration and enforcement, and when? Businesses deserve transparency and protection. It was encouraging to hear of the kitemarking system that the hon. Member for Tamworth is championing, together with businesses. That shows that there are third-party brokers that are doing this well and want to help businesses, and we need to celebrate that where it is happening. There are also systemic problems that need to be addressed. They include overcharging, about which we have heard distressing stories from all hon. Members. In May, Ofgem confirmed that 10 suppliers paid out more than £7 million in compensation for overcharging errors. That alone should be cause for alarm. Ofgem data shows that 23% of claims from non-domestic consumers were about billing, and nearly half of all complaints were unresolved. They include incorrect meter readings, inflated charges and poor customer service. Ofgem has now extended its standards of conduct to all business customers, not just microbusinesses. That is welcome, but guidance is not enough, as has been said. We need enforcement and a cultural shift among suppliers. They treat businesses as easy revenue sources, not valued customers. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is currently reviewing Ofgem’s powers, remit and effectiveness, and rightly so. The Department has a big hill to climb, because trust in the energy sector is really low. The non-domestic market in particular has long been the wild west of energy regulation. Ofgem must be equipped not only to set standards but to enforce them, to act swiftly against abuses and to be accountable for the outcome it delivers. I therefore ask the Minister again to tell us about the response to the review. Businesses deserve more than warm words; they need action.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  In conclusion, many thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Minister for advance notice of the statement today. Our thoughts are with the workers at the Prax Lindsey refinery who have heard this last-minute, shocking news today, which has put their futures and jobs on hold. We understand that this is just one refinery within the Prax Group, but the threatened closure will send shockwaves across its wider operations, with its newly acquired oilfields to the west of Shetland and roughly 200 petrol stations in the UK under the Breeze and Harvest Energy brands. While those facilities are outside the insolvency process as things stand, workers in those upstream businesses and the wider community will understandably be worried about the impact of the insolvency on their jobs. There are questions to be asked of the company bosses in both State Oil and the Prax Group, and it is good to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement of an investigation into how the company bosses have let workers down. We welcome the Minister’s words that the company should bear some responsibility and accountability for jobs and skills for those workers, if it turns out that the company closes. We welcome the Government’s proposals to consider adding refineries to the network charging compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries. Once again, as we have heard, we see UK industry buckling under soaring energy costs—some of the highest in Europe—with workers left to pay the price. Many in this House will feel a troubling sense of déjà vu following the Grangemouth job losses. We have heard from the Minister about the state of the refining industry and how the industry had not met the Government for 13 years. Such situations make it yet clearer that the Government must set out a comprehensive and strategic plan for workers in the oil and gas industry to support the redeployment of skills and training as part of a just transition. A recent report by Robert Gordon University warned that the UK risks losing tens of thousands of offshore energy jobs by 2030 unless urgent and co-ordinated action is taken immediately. Rather than the irresponsible and reckless race backwards to volatile fossil fuel dependency that the Conservatives have put forward today, the report calls for honest dialogue to settle on a common UK policy framework—

• 23 Jun 2025 · Geo-engineering and the Environment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. It is important to set the debate and the e-petition in the context of the last couple of weeks. Last weekend saw another hottest day of the year on record, triggering an official heatwave and accompanied by an amber heat health warning, which means that because of high temperatures significant impacts are likely across health and social care services, including a rise in deaths, particularly among those aged 65 and over and people with health conditions. The Met Office puts the chance of us seeing another 40° weather event at 50:50, with a 45° day on the cards in the current climate. That is like an average summer day in Death Valley. I cannot imagine how the people and the natural environment in my constituency or the rest of the UK could cope with that. As well as record-breaking temperatures, the weekend brought an increase in the threat of greater destabilisation in the middle east, with escalating conflict between Israel and the US and Iran. Unsurprisingly, on Sunday night oil prices soared to their highest since President Trump’s return to office, as the energy markets digested the news of the attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran. We do not yet know whether the situation in the middle east will lead to an oil supply shock. The Iranian Parliament has threatened to close the strait of Hormuz, which would choke the flow of oil from the region. Ordinary people will once again face volatile prices, hitting their pockets, as energy becomes more expensive and the cost of living is exacerbated. Over just one weekend, we have seen our vulnerability to extreme weather conditions as a result of our failure to tackle climate change, and our vulnerability as a result of our dependence on global fossil fuels supply and prices. That underlines, once again, our need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and reduce our polluting emissions by accelerating investment in renewables and clean, green energy. Our emissions are not falling fast enough, and we are not on track to meet our legally binding climate targets. The world is set to surpass 1.5° of warming in the next decade. That is the context in which the petition was brought forward. We need to address the root causes of climate breakdown, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said. The Climate Change Committee was clear last year that only a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve the country’s climate targets are currently covered by credible plans. Although it is true that our emissions are now less than half the levels they were in 1990, largely due to the phase-out of coal and the ramping up of renewables, we will now need ambitious action not just in the energy sector but across transport, buildings, industry and agriculture. The plans left by the previous Government did not deliver enough action, so we must do more. Nevertheless, even with aggressive investment in renewables and actions to decarbonise key sectors, we will still have to deal with residual emissions from heavy industries, particularly aviation, shipping and steel. The balanced pathway, developed in the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget, tries to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy as far as credibly possible, in line with cost effectiveness and feasibility constraints, minimising the use of engineered removals. However, even the committee recognises that we need to go beyond cutting emissions and to start work on the engineered removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. That is why removals are part of the Government’s net zero strategy. As we have heard, geo-engineering refers to deliberate, large-scale projects to reduce carbon and cool the Earth’s climate system to address climate change. In greenhouse gas removal terms, that also includes direct air carbon capture and storage and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, some of which we are already using. We have seen sizeable investments from the Government into carbon capture storage. That could accommodate large-scale BECCS and DACCS, which clearly will be dependent on carbon capture and storage, but that is a measure of last resort for those hard-to-decarbonise sectors. Living in South Cambridgeshire, I am close to the border with Cambridge. Since 2019, under climate expert Professor Sir David King, the University of Cambridge has been undertaking some important research into greenhouse gases at the Centre for Climate Repair. Among other things, it has been looking at something that brings climate and nature approaches together into balance again, such as marine biomass regeneration, which aims to restore whale populations, and ocean biomass to boost nutrient recycling and phytoplankton growth, because healthier oceans can naturally absorb more carbon dioxide and support global climate goals. The centre has also been looking at the role of giant kelp, which grows rapidly and captures large amounts of carbon dioxide. When it sinks to the ocean floor, it stores carbon for the long term, offering a powerful, nature-based carbon removal method. Those are just two of the types of approaches that are being investigated. Quite rightly, the Government funded an independent review of greenhouse gas removal approaches, led by former MP Dr Alan Whitehead, covering nature-based solutions and engineered removals, such as direct air capture. We saw in the Government’s response to the e-petition that they are currently working with the British Standards Institution to develop greenhouse gas removal methodologies, some of which may use sustainable biomass and require coming up with biomass sustainability criteria. There are some ways in which we could see greenhouse gas removal as a kind of guardrail for helping to decarbonise the atmosphere. The e-petition also makes reference to solar radiation modification, which is an area that causes more concern. The Government have announced that they are not in favour of using SRM and have no plans for its full deployment. That position was made clear by the Minister in January, who said that the ongoing SRM research is for modelling only. The Government’s views on SRM are in accordance with those of the Liberal Democrats; we think it should not go to full deployment. We also think that the money invested in SRM research could have been better allocated to other measures for dealing with nature-based removal. I agree with Professor Mike Hulme that the cost of the research is an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money to invest in speculative technology. He is right to say, as I have already said, that the money could be better spent on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Geo-engineering is not a silver bullet. It must never be used as an excuse to delay decarbonisation through embracing and investing in renewables. We must remember that the first stop in our fight against climate change and securing energy security is investment in the transition to renewable and clean energy. Any amount of greenhouse gas removal will ultimately compromise the fight against climate change. As Dr Vaughan from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change said: “SRM methods do not address the causes of climate change”. However, a blanket ban on geo-engineering, as the motion proposes, would be short-sighted and self-defeating as we explore the other methods that I have discussed. Let us therefore champion governance built on transparency for any kind of research and standards in geo-engineering and climate action, which is ambitious and grounded in our transition to home-grown clean, green energy.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Future of the Gas Grid · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am pleased to speak in this important and timely debate on the future of the gas grid. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this increasingly urgent debate and for his expertise on the matter, and I wish him many happy returns. Gas has long been the backbone of how we heat our homes and power our economy. However, times are changing, and so must our approach to energy. The Liberal Democrats fully support a transition away from fossil fuels towards clean, home-grown renewable energy to deal with the energy trilemma that needs to be balanced in energy policy: cutting polluting emissions, protecting people, households and businesses from future price shocks, and strengthening our energy and national security through reliable home-grown clean energy supplies. The future of our gas grid is a real challenge. It must be defined by clarity, urgency and care, addressing the challenges we have heard today with affordability, the promotion of alternatives—whether dominant or not—their costs, and the resilience and flexibility of our grid. We have heard about the importance of securing multi-vector energy systems throughout this transition, and that is key. Gas remains the largest source of energy in the UK, accounting for more than half of our carbon emissions and providing 39% of the energy used across electricity, heating and industry. Although it is strategically important to our economy and to people’s lives, that dependency is also a strategic vulnerability. Around half of the UK’s gas is imported, and that reliance is our Achilles’ heel. In times of geopolitical instability, we are dangerously exposed. The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin and the resulting spike in global energy prices highlighted just how risky it is to depend on imported gas. The Climate Change Committee, in its seventh carbon budget, made clear that if we transition away from gas, and there were to be another spike in gas prices due to an incident like the invasion of Ukraine, then by 2040 the average household would be 15 times less sensitive to those price shocks and skyrocketing energy costs. Not proceeding with the transition does not just undermine our national security; it hits people in their wallets. That damages our businesses and economic growth. Energy has never been so costly, and that matters particularly in a cost of living crisis. Today, 11% of households in England live in fuel poverty, including nearly 9% in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire. That means many people have to choose between eating and heating their homes every winter. That is the lived reality of our dependence on the gas grid, tied to volatile international markets. We must remember that in 2022 prices peaked at more than 20 times the 2020 average. It is clear that ending our overreliance on gas must be a national priority if we are to strengthen energy security, unlock low-carbon alternatives and bring prices down. We need resilience and flexibility in the grid, which is currently provided by gas. The Climate Change Committee and the National Grid have confirmed that, to meet our net zero targets, the UK’s natural gas use must fall by a staggering 90% by 2050, accounting for just 6% of our energy mix—and even then, only if emissions are captured through carbon capture and storage. There is no escaping the scale of the challenge. With over 85% of UK homes still connected to the gas grid, we face having to overhaul our national infrastructure. Our gas pipeline network spans more than 284,000 km, or nearly seven times around the Earth, so simply abandoning the infrastructure is not an option. We are talking about a massive repurposing challenge. As we have already heard today, that repurposing also needs to cover green hydrogen, low-carbon hydrogen, biomethane, district heating and many other options. Additionally, policy needs to look at demand, including for new homes and house building. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that no new homes should be connected to the gas grid after 2026, yet we have had dither and delay since 2016. Under the Conservatives, we ditched the zero-carbon homes policy and since then we have been building homes without proper energy efficiency and without the connections through solar panels to the grid that we should have had. We are also still waiting for the future homes standard and other standards to be brought forward. Those actions were short-sighted, which is why it is fantastic that we have seen the Government take on board the private Member’s Bill promoted my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). It is “the sunshine Bill”, mandating that there will be solar panels on every roof. That Bill will come forward with the future homes standard, which is fantastic. In addition, the future homes standard is committing to low-carbon heating. Today, we have asked whether that mandates how we get to that low-carbon heating with dominant technologies, or whether it should be left to the market to come up with innovations. I will be interested to hear from people with much more expertise than me on that. However, given the time that has already been lost, we must move forward. Let me pick up on the comments from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about rural communities. While we are considering the cost of decarbonising heating through solar panels, heat pumps and induction hobs, we also have to consider the many people in rural communities who live off-grid. These households also need certainty and direction from the Government about how they can decarbonise their heating. The situation in South Cambridgeshire is similar to the situation in Hexham, with one in five communities living off-grid and relying on heating oil. They are among 4 million people and 250,000 businesses in this situation across the UK, which are often served by small, rural, family-owned firms. In addition, off-grid homes are some of the most difficult and expensive to decarbonise because of their age, rural location and construction methods. The National Grid’s “Future Energy Scenarios” report estimates that 1 million UK homes will require alternatives to electrified heating because of the high cost of local grid upgrades. Renewable liquid fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil offer a drop-in replacement for heating oil. These fuels have already been trialled in rural communities, and the Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland have embraced them as part of their decarbonisation strategies. We now need a comprehensive UK-wide plan and I hope the Minister will confirm that the forthcoming warm homes plan and future homes standard will also acknowledge and address the specific needs of rural off-grid consumers. However, although we are hearing about the challenges and barriers, within this transition lies opportunity. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a just transition plan to protect jobs, retain skills and support communities whose economies are still built around oil and gas. That means a national retraining programme to help workers to enter the green economy, incentives for oil and gas firms to pivot towards clean technologies, ending the red tape that frustrates climate tech start-ups, many of which are in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, and finally—as many Members have already said—investment in hydrogen innovation, where the UK can lead with world-class research in its industrial base. We have heard today about hydrogen blending, which could make hydrogen 20% of the natural gas supply, helping to reduce the carbon intensity of gas and meeting the gas demand in the medium term while we adapt our infrastructure. We are also looking at having a resilient and flexible energy system that could be supported by green hydrogen, with storage and flexible power. We welcome the Government’s recent announcement of investment in hydrogen, but we would like to see that investment being part of a comprehensive plan to support low-carbon technology across the board. We felt that such a plan was absent from the Chancellor’s most recent spending review, so, as we have already heard today, it would be good to get clarity about the role of hydrogen and the level of investment in it. Like other Members, I have recently had a heat pump installed, and we are now completely off gas—off the grid—with an induction hob. As many have said, it is not easy, and it can be costly up front. We have to recognise that we need a 10-year emergency insulation programme, with free upgrades for low-income households and those for whom such decarbonisation of heating is not a possibility, which is what the Liberal Democrats have called for. All new homes must be built to the future homes standard, as zero carbon-ready from day one. We need investment in heat pumps and alternatives, with full cost coverage for the most vulnerable, and investment in low-carbon, green and wild hydrogen to provide greater flexibility in the grid. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase for bringing forward this debate.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The North sea’s future lies in clean energy, but despite the UK’s billing as a wind superpower, we still import most of our wind turbine components while communities around the North sea are losing jobs. Trade unions and industry are united in calling for £1.1 billion a year to build up domestic renewables manufacturing, but the Chancellor has committed barely half that. Will the Secretary of State work with his Cabinet colleagues to secure the investment that is needed to realise the job-creating potential of the green just transition?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Energy Efficiency · Hansard source

  More

  Warm wishes for your birthday, Mr Speaker—and I am going to talk about warmth, as you might expect. Over the last decade, we have seen so many households living in Dickensian conditions, with dark, damp and cold homes, and having to choose between heating and eating. With the warm homes plan widely recognised as the most cost-effective way of making homes warmer, healthier and cheaper to heat, can the Secretary of State confirm exactly how many homes will be covered? Is the current scale of the plan truly sufficient to meet the challenge we face?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Government’s renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue, after years of dither and delay from successive Conservative Governments. It has been 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009, and now, seven Prime Ministers later, we are finally seeing real movement. That is not a success story but a warning. Short-term thinking, poor delivery and exorbitant costs—

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member let me continue?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot help but wonder whether the Secretary of State imagined when he stood at his Dispatch Box back in 2009 that he would be back in 2025 still announcing funding for the same project. We support investment in clean, home-grown energy. Small modular nuclear reactors have real potential to reduce our dependence on foreign gas—from tyrants like Putin—and help bring down bills, so we welcome the Government’s backing of the nascent technology of small modular reactors and their choice of Rolls-Royce, which is recognised as a first mover across all of Europe. That is where the focus should be—not on large-scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades and so often go over budget. We have to ensure that this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is very real. The Government must be transparent about how this will be paid for, because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets. The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security is to invest in home-grown renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, and to upgrade our national grid to deliver that clean power. We look forward to seeing more detail on the long-overdue reform of the outdated first come, first served grid connection system, which is holding back renewable energy projects and could even delay the roll-out of new SMRs. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but the real test is in the delivery of cheaper bills, stronger energy security and a modern energy grid fit for the future.