Pippa Heylings MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Potholes are not just an inconvenience for my constituents; they are a costly safety risk that causes distress and frustration. Years of underfunding and a policy of managed decline by the previous Conservative county council administration have left Cambridgeshire facing an estimated £800 million backlog in repairs, of which £169 million is for the greater Cambridge area, home to Europe’s largest biomedical and life sciences cluster. One would think that that would have stimulated investment, but the Government allocated just £12 million to address that backlog. To its credit, Cambridgeshire’s Liberal Democrat-run county council has more than doubled its investment in highways maintenance to £73 million. Results are starting to be seen in some areas, such as the recently resurfaced Granham’s Road. I drove along it last weekend, and it is smooth and safe—if the Government brought the money needed to local councils, that is what roads could be like. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister: will she commit to resolving the £800 million backlog in Cambridgeshire to allow for the proper road resurfacing that my constituents deserve?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Government finally taking action to protect households from soaring energy costs due to the middle east crisis, following calls from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and MPs of all parties. However, today’s intervention is a sticking-plaster solution, with too many households potentially falling through the cracks and not receiving support. We have heard that those families who must use oil for heating are the most exposed and defenceless, caught in the crossfire of Russia’s war in Ukraine and now the volatility in the middle east. The heating oil market needs regulating. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the immediate introduction of a three-month VAT holiday on heating oil, as well as a proper price cap, because these households deserve the same protection as those that use gas and electricity. The real way to protect households and businesses is not by parroting Trump’s “Drill, baby, drill” mantra and buckling in for more roller-coaster rides that burn a hole in people’s pockets but by accelerating the transition to secure, home-grown clean energy that we control and extending preferential treatment to the warm homes plan, to help those homes that use heating oil to electrify and get off volatile fuel that we do not control. Will the Government agree with the Liberal Democrats and set a price cap for heating oil to shield off-grid households? Also, if the Government want to provide targeted support, will they learn the lessons from the covid pandemic and the 2022 energy crisis and immediately enact a data-sharing scheme between Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions and the NHS, and devolve this to local authorities to enable them to deliver targeted support to those who need it the most through, right now, the crisis and resilience fund that they want to be adopted on 1 April?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have long called on the Government to reform and reconsider the UK’s renewables obligation contracts, which were replaced in 2017 by the contracts for difference scheme set up by the Liberal Democrats when we were in government. We all know that CfDs are a more effective and affordable way to create investment in our net zero economy, which continues to grow, and has to grow for us to be able to decouple the cost of electricity from gas. And it is growing, despite attempts from other parties to talk it down. Adjusting the inflation indexation from RPI to CPI, and therefore reducing the buy-out price for the contracts, will reduce the costs of this outdated scheme. That is always welcome news to households across the UK. However, as the Minister said, there are valid concerns from the renewable energy sector about midway changes to investment plans, particularly if the changes are piecemeal. RenewableUK and others were broadly against the change, and voiced that repeatedly in the Government’s consultation and beyond. The UK’s reputation as a safe and predictable place for investment in vital new renewable energy capacity has been hard won, and must be retained to keep costs as low as possible for bill payers. The way that policy changes matters. Having listened to the sector, the Liberal Democrats believe the Government are miscalculating by not going further to make wholesale changes to the renewables obligation scheme, as we have called for. By drawing out the changes, they are only adding uncertainty for investment, so I call on the Minister to seriously consider our calls to move 85% of renewables obligation contracts on to the CfD scheme, as part of a single, coherent package. That way, renewable energy projects can continue to produce the green energy that the UK desperately needs, while also ensuring that generators can benefit from a new long-term contract that is fair and equitable for generators and consumers alike. In times like this, when we see volatile oil and gas prices soar, consumers need and deserve to feel the benefits of the lower costs of renewable energy, rather than the unintended repercussions of the Government’s multiple fragmented changes.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  With tensions in the middle east pushing up global oil and gas prices again, households are understandably worried that yet another international crisis will mean higher energy bills and a higher cost of living at home. In my South Cambridgeshire constituency, like in others we have heard about today, many rural and semi-rural households have to use oil for heating, and they have seen prices double over the past week. I have heard that the Chancellor is considering measures to support them. Will she support the Liberal Democrats’ call to zero rate VAT on heating oil for three months for all those residential homes, and will she consider other measures to protect them from massive spikes in their bills?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  The conflict in the middle east reminds us again how dangerously exposed the UK is to volatile global fossil fuel markets. Forecasts by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have shown that, just as happened after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, energy bills could go up dramatically, placing further pressure on families and businesses that are struggling, while energy companies make profits. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday to give a cast-iron guarantee that he would not let energy bills rise by £500 this year, but he did not. Will the Secretary of State give that guarantee? Why are we so exposed? Because of our heavy reliance on gas, limited storage capacity, dependence on imports, and falling domestic liquefied natural gas inventories. As recently as January, the Conservatives were arguing in favour of continued reliance on gas, due to the price falling at that time, but it has taken less than two months for them to be proven wrong. Meanwhile, given the instability in European energy markets caused by the ongoing conflicts, I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State has engaged with energy counterparts in the EU. I would like to hear more details of their analysis of the potential impact on supply, prices and regional energy security.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I commend, as we all do, the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this important debate—it could not be more timely. I start by asking the Minister why this Government refused to publish the full national security report on global biodiversity loss. The reason for that refusal is pertinent to today’s debate; it seems to be a refusal to be honest with the public about the inextricable links between nature, climate change and our national security, and how vulnerable it makes our country and society when we do not act on the evidence. That evidence states that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse have severe consequences for food and water insecurity, crop failures, fisheries collapse and intensified natural disasters. That is cause for alarm and action. Instead of responding with urgency, however, the Office for Environmental Protection has confirmed that not only do the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental commitments, but, worryingly, they have committed to “doing little that is new or different” to change that. The latest State of Nature data shows decline, with one in six species at risk of extinction. We have heard that just 14% of England’s rivers are in good ecological health. Action on nature loss and climate breakdown cannot be dealt with in silos. That is why the Liberal Democrats, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), have pushed for an annual climate and nature statement from Government. The Conservatives and Reform, meanwhile, refuse to accept that climate change is one of the greatest drivers of nature loss and propose the rolling back of climate legislation. There seems to be a similar siloed approach from this Labour Government—this time a nature-blind approach. While we commend the Government’s drive towards decarbonisation, the loss of nature is also accelerating climate change by disrupting habitats that capture and store carbon, such as peatlands and woodlands.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  More than 20 leading nature organisations, including the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and the RSPB, have warned that the changes my hon. Friend mentions would weaken environmental law by effectively allowing developers to pay to destroy protected wildlife. I would like the Minister to respond on proposed recommendations 11, 12 and 19 of the Fingleton nuclear regulatory review. We do not want any more of the damaging framing of nature as a blocker to growth, or any more actions such as the weakening of key biodiversity safeguards in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. As my hon. Friend said, the proposed exemptions to biodiversity net gain risk hollowing out one of the most important tools for nature recovery. That is not just the case with nuclear energy; the Prime Minister has said that he also wants environmental deregulation across the entire industrial strategy, which would risk breaching level playing field provisions in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. Liberal Democrats take a different view. We would accelerate environmental land management schemes with an extra £1 billion a year to support nature-friendly farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. We would halt and reverse nature’s decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. We would strengthen the Office for Environmental Protection, and properly fund Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have heard much about chalk streams, the jewel of our natural heritage, which is why I brought forward legislation with cross-party support to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as UNESCO natural world heritage sites. I hope the Minister will support that legislation. Nature is our joy and our pride, and it underpins our economy, our health, our food security and our safety.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. The regulations update the electricity supplier payments for the contracts for difference, electrical capacity and nuclear regulated asset base model schemes, and they will allow for funding that covers the operational costs of those schemes. It was the Liberal Democrats who originally created the contracts for difference scheme while in government, which provided support for low carbon sources with fixed prices for the power that they produce. We must continue to support these clean energy schemes, which will bolster the UK’s energy security and price stabilisation. As we are seeing this week, geopolitical instability and the closure of the strait of Hormuz will have an extensive impact on the price of wholesale gas. Qatar’s decision to close the world’s largest gas terminal could have a direct impact on customers here in the UK. We are seeing some of the fastest spikes in wholesale gas prices, which are surging by more than 40%. Just this morning, we have seen prices spike by 30% for day ahead UK delivery. For month ahead contracts, the price was at 148p per therm this morning, which is a three year high. That is why we need urgently to turn to renewable energy sources, continue to develop the infrastructure and technology that will actually support an energy secure future, and move away from over dependence on volatile fossil fuel imports. Given that, it is important that electricity suppliers can recover sufficient funds to cover their expected operational costs. I fully recognise the need to support clean energy schemes that will actively boost our energy security and resilience for decades to come.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Greater Cambridge shared planning service, which covers both South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council, is an award-winning planning service that has one of the highest build-out rates in the country while maintaining high environmental standards, for which it is recognised by the Government’s Cambridge Growth Company. Yet right now, it faces a perilous situation, with unplanned speculative development, as a result of a ridiculous anomaly. Although the five-year housing land supply is a joint, shared target, the housing delivery test does not recognise the cross-boundary shared target, putting at risk that supply. I, together with all MPs for the area, wrote to the Housing Minister in January and we had a meeting in the first week of February. He assured us that he understood the urgency of the situation and offered us a swift resolution, but to date we have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House help us resolve this matter swiftly?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Chalk Streams (UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as a serial UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site. My Bill concerns a rare natural resource of universal value. We in the UK are custodians of 85% of the world’s chalk streams, our equivalent of the Great Barrier Reef. They are timeless jewels of our natural heritage, yet we are allowing them to be drained dry and to have raw sewage dumped on them by water companies that put profit before people and the planet. My Bill would ensure that we finally give chalk streams the same reverence and protections that we give to our greatest cathedrals or monuments. Our streams and rivers are just as much a part of our national identity and international significance. A number of these rare and beautiful ecosystems run through my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, including Hobson’s brook and the Rivers Cam, Granta, Shep, Rhee, Mel, Wilbraham and Orwell. They stretch far beyond my constituency, from east Devon through the North Wessex Downs and the Chilterns, up to the Norfolk coast, with a southern spur through the South Downs and into Kent, and a north-eastern block in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. There is nothing more British than standing beside a sparkling river with kids paddling and playing Pooh sticks. As the world around us changes, such scenes have brought joy to generations before us and should bring joy to many generations to come, but our responsibility is far greater still. Article 4 of the UNESCO convention places a duty on our Government to ensure the identification and protection for all humanity of our natural heritage, of which chalk streams are the national jewel. This is a huge opportunity for the Government to advance their Pride in Place programme—pride locally, nationally and internationally. We are here today in one of our world heritage sites, the Palace of Westminster. We are proud to have 32 world heritage sites in the UK, yet only four are natural world heritage sites. My Bill requires the Government to remedy that and to nominate the network of chalk streams as a serial natural world heritage site. The whole process necessarily takes a few years, but as I shall explain, the goal is clear, the justification is strong and the work must start now. To approve a site for natural world heritage status, UNESCO must be satisfied that it is of outstanding universal value. In David Attenborough’s words in his BBC series “Wild Isles”, they are “one of the rarest habitats on Earth”, supporting extraordinary richness and diversity of life, with more plant species than any other type of river in the UK, providing a critical habitat for rare species, such as water voles, white-clawed crayfish, brown trout and a unique chalk stream subspecies of the Atlantic salmon, alongside many specialised invertebrates. There are only 260 chalk streams worldwide. Their number is small due to the unique conditions and alchemy needed to form them. They exist only where water filters slowly through chalk aquifers and emerges at springs crystal clear, mineral rich and at a near constant temperature throughout the year. Or rather, that is what used to happen. Today, our chalk streams are in a perilous state. Climate change is one of the greatest threats to our nature and wildlife. Extreme droughts are exacerbating the damage already being done. We are letting our streams be drained dry because of untrammelled growth and allowing water companies and agricultural run-off to create a chemical cocktail of sewage and slurry. Wildlife is suffering. The chalk stream Atlantic salmon is close to extinction in some rivers and rising temperatures threaten the survival of trout. That is why this House should make a clear commitment to restoring and conserving these rivers. The Government have themselves recognised the value of chalk streams, and a Minister once observed that, “If our chalk streams were buildings, they would be UNESCO heritage sites.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 2269.] Exactly so. UNESCO designation will help to galvanize protection, public engagement and investment in their recovery. The nomination process will take time. Inclusion on the UK’s tentative list is the first step. For that, further research and monitoring, conservation planning and preparation of the case for nomination are needed. A fundamental requirement is the engagement of local government and stakeholders, and networking among them across the broad geographic span of the chalk streams. In fact, that work has already begun in many communities where they treasure the value of a healthy chalk stream for their physical and mental health and recreation. They are monitoring water quality, acting as stewards in cleaning and maintaining them, and fighting for their survival. These armies of volunteers and civil society groups are incredibly capable and connected, and include the Wildlife Trusts, the national Catchment Based Approach chalk stream restoration group, WildFish and River Action UK. In my constituency—here with us in the Gallery—there are the Cam Valley Forum, the Cam Catchment Partnership, the friends of the River Shep, the Granta and Fulbourn Fen, and the Cambridgeshire climate and nature forum. We need to see the Government step up and follow through on their assertions about their commitment to chalk stream conservation, because commitment to protection at the national level is an essential prerequisite for nominating a site for world heritage status. The UK has maintained certain legal protections. However, of the 200-plus chalk streams, only 11 are designated as sites of special scientific interest and only four as special areas for conservation. Much more needs to be done to ramp up the action to stop the sewage dumping and the abstraction that we have talked about. That is why I am joining many voices in calling for the listing of chalk streams, alongside ancient woodland, as irreplaceable habitat, which they certainly are, in the national planning policy framework, in line with the Government’s concession and promise during debate in this Chamber to “make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams.” —[ Official Report , 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 407.] We should also be ringfencing substantial financing from the water restoration fund. As a nation that prides itself on its love of nature and is preparing to celebrate the 100th birthday of nature’s greatest advocate, Sir David Attenborough, we have a responsibility to act. It is a global responsibility handed to us by the rocks beneath our feet. Let us embrace it and celebrate it. Let us be the global custodians of our very own equivalent of the Galapagos Islands, the Great Barrier Reef and the rainforest. This Bill would start the journey to secure UNESCO recognition for one of the rarest habitats on Earth. We hold 85% of the world’s chalk streams. With that privilege comes responsibility. Let us rise to it. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Pippa Heylings, Dr Roz Savage, Victoria Collins, Charlotte Cane, Liz Jarvis, Dr Danny Chambers, Vikki Slade, Alex Brewer, Olly Glover, Simon Hoare, Carla Denyer and Chris Hinchliff present the Bill. Pippa Heylings accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 387).

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this important debate. In South Cambridgeshire, the majority of constituents, 60.2%, voted to remain in the European Union. They did so from a clear understanding that our prosperity, freedoms and security depend on and benefit from co-operation with our closest neighbours, but the effects of the Brexit referendum deal have been stark and deeply damaging. Our young people have lost the freedoms that we as their parents once took for granted—the right to travel, work, study, live and love across the EU. Economically, Brexit has blown a £90 billion-a-year hole in the public finances, with around £250 million every single day in lost tax revenue, and an economy now between 6% and 8% smaller than if we had not left, which particularly hits our small and medium-sized businesses. There are wider issues of security, too. As Dr Paul Browne, chair of Cambridge for Europe, said, “the world of 2026 is not the world of 2016… Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine shows us that democracy, defence and economic security are one”. After a decade of working internationally with communities and economies devastated by climate change, I became much more politically active when I realised that Brexit would threaten our environment. Nature knows no borders. Wildlife mates and nests in one country while feeding in another, and the habitats and water framework directives were hugely effective in respecting that. However, we are now diverging from those protections of the nature and wildlife that we all hold so dear. The Institute for European Environmental Policy has found that since Brexit the EU has introduced 28 new or strengthened pieces of environmental legislation that the UK has not adopted. Meanwhile, we have weakened protections in areas such as habitats, pesticides, forever chemicals and fisheries. We must be bolder, rejoin, closer to the EU and—

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important point. On structural violence, women and young girls are the most vulnerable in the face of climate change and natural disasters, because they are exposed to violence and rape when they are displaced from their homes. As trade envoy, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor toured Gulf boardrooms, and met Shell executives and energy conglomerates. That was ermine royal access diplomacy. Just as he showed no conscience in his personal life towards the women and young girls who were victims and survivors of the convicted paedophile Epstein, he did not think in his role as trade envoy about those exposed to structural violence against women and young girls.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Businesses: Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The cost of electricity is still too high, and, as we have heard, businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills. While the Government have offered help to the energy-intensive industries, it is the small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and around the country that still feel overlooked and forgotten. Liberal Democrat researchers have estimated that 3.1 million SMEs saw a total bill increase of £7.6 billion when the Conservative Government ended the energy bill relief scheme. When will this Government finally help SMEs—the small businesses, the backbone of our economy—to see off their crippling energy bills?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Local Power Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government recognising what communities across the country have been saying for years: community energy is one of the most powerful ways to cut bills, rebuild trust in the energy system, rebuild local resilience and take people with us on the journey to net zero. We campaigned hard to see community energy written into the Great British Energy Act 2025, alongside many people—although not everybody here today it seems—in this House and the other place, and alongside community groups such as the South Cambridgeshire Climate and Nature Group and other community organisations across the country. We believe in localism, empowerment and giving communities a real stake and ownership in our clean energy future. I thank the Minister for working with us to make sure that we did get that into the 2025 Act. As we rightly move away from volatile fossil fuel costs controlled by foreign powers, we must ensure that our new clean energy system puts communities first. It must mean giving people the power to generate, own, and, crucially, sell their own clean energy locally, with profits reinvested in the places where the energy is produced. We welcome the local power plan in principle, but the devil is in the detail. First, what happened to the Government’s pledge of £3.3 billion for community-owned energy, when today we are hearing about £1 billion of investment? We do not want to follow the Conservative Government’s retreat from ambition on local clean power. It is not the time to scale back ambition. Secondly, on the crucial issue of local empowerment, regulation is needed. Organisations such as Power for People constantly told us that there are, as the Secretary of State said, barriers to access fair local markets. They welcome this plan, too, echoing the Minister’s promise that the Government will establish local energy supply models. The local power plan—I have looked through it very quickly—talks about the regulatory changes necessary, but when will they come through? The energy transition has to happen not to communities, but with them—

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Trump’s national security report made it clear that he wanted to use America’s gas to project geopolitical power. We must not replace Putin’s gas with a reliance on Trump’s gas. That is why signing the Hamburg declaration was a step in the right direction, strengthening energy co-operation with our European neighbours. We need to go further, and we should host the next North sea summit, demonstrating UK leadership. Has the Secretary of State managed to get the Treasury to see sense and agree to hosting the next summit?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend, I got the devastating call about my brave and wonderful sister Dawn, loving mother and carer to Ella, who, after a dash to A&E, was diagnosed with late-stage pancreatic cancer and given just three to six months to live. What links less survivable cancers is their late diagnosis. Does the Minister agree with my amazing sister Dawn and me that we need to be more proactive about early diagnosis of less survivable cancers, such as through annual screening of those with a family history or high-risk genetic factors, to improve the ability to detect and remove tumours early and improve the five-year survival rates—sadly, hers is not—to over 50%?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate. Since 2018, there have been 1,506 casualties on our roads in South Cambridgeshire and 34 fatalities, which we all know is 34 too many. Road safety is often discussed in terms of behaviour, speed or enforcement—issues we have heard much about today—but for many of my constituents, the danger begins with the road surface itself. Potholes, worn carriageways and crumbling edges are not just a sign of successive Governments’ failure to invest in our roads and highways but a real safety risk, particularly for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and drivers forced to swerve to avoid damage. I hear regularly from constituents whose tyres have blown, wheels have cracked or bikes have been thrown off balance because of the unsafe roads beneath them. This is a recurring nightmare for all councils. I want to take this opportunity to place on record the work of Cambridgeshire county council, which, as the highways authority, is doing everything it reasonably can in very difficult circumstances. Just last night the chair of highways, Councillor Alex Beckett, was out checking the round-the-clock patching of potholes on Cambridge Road in Great Shelford village, following repeated calls from residents and local councillors highlighting just how dangerous this road had become. In the same village, Farhan Hussain, an award-winning curry takeaway owner for whom I recently presented an early-day motion, found a different way of raising awareness: he went viral with a video of himself placing the largest naan in East Anglia in a pothole. To be fair, the council did get it mended within the week. Under Liberal Democrat leadership, the council’s investment in capital maintenance has more than doubled, and it is delivering tens of thousands of pothole repairs every year. The council is also challenging contractors who do shoddy work, and work that does not meet the right standard is being redone at no extra cost to the taxpayer. However, even with that effort, this situation is untenable. Cambridgeshire’s roads were not designed for the volume of traffic they now carry, let alone the growth planned for the Greater Cambridge area. This is where the Government must take responsibility. Local councils are legally required to keep roads safe, but they cannot do so without fair, long-term funding. It is like an old pair of trousers—the limited funding given to councils is forcing them to patch the patches, rather than buy the new pair of trousers that is needed. I urge the Government to recognise that proper, scheduled resurfacing is safer, cheaper and longer lasting and will keep people safe on our roads.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. As we have heard, British manufacturers face some of the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, so it is right that the Government recognise the pressure on sectors such as steel, chemicals and glass. I hope we will hear from the Minister that he is considering the plea from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for the inclusion of an exemption for ceramics. Energy-intensive industries often operate in highly competitive international markets. They cannot simply pass on costs. As the Minister says, without support we risk carbon leakage, the loss of investment and the erosion of the UK’s foundational manufacturing base. Measures that help to keep production and jobs in Great Britain are therefore welcome. Although the support will be a relief for large energy users, it highlights a persistent imbalance in how energy costs are treated across the wider economy. We must remember that businesses of all sizes are struggling with high and volatile energy prices, but it is small and medium-sized enterprises that feel them most acutely. Small businesses are at the heart of our economy and the heart of our local communities, yet many of them remain exposed to volatile energy costs as a result of our overdependence on volatile fossil fuel prices and the delay in electricity market reforms to stop energy bills being treated like a credit card for the whole transition. SMEs have been afforded limited protection. When the previous energy bill relief scheme ended in 2023, Liberal Democrats estimated that over 3 million SMEs saw their energy bills rise by a combined £7.6 billion. That pressure has not gone away, so we welcomed Ofgem’s move to extend access to the energy ombudsman to smaller SMEs, but many businesses remain without meaningful routes to challenging unfair or incorrect bills, especially if they have more than 50 employees. The energy transition is the right way forward. This morning, I visited the headquarters of the National Energy System Operator, where they literally keep the lights on. I have seen in real time the shift that has already happened in renewables and clean energy, which is critical for energy security in order to stop us being dependent on either Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America and ensure that we keep the lights on. The scheme is funded through a levy on suppliers, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, but we have some concerns. Although the Government state that households and small businesses will not see higher bills, the Government must stop the delay and bring forward the electricity market reforms so that we have assurances that higher prices will not fall on consumers. That would be giving with one hand while taking with the other. We recognise the case for supporting energy-intensive industries, but we remain concerned about the absence of comparable support for SMEs and about the potential cost to consumers.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear what has happened with that school, but I think we need to look, in the round, at what is happening to all schools and all school funding. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s mention of the statutory override, and I will come to it later in my speech.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and we have just heard agreement from across the Chamber about the importance of both the geographic distribution of funding and to which age groups it is distributed. The underfunding interacts directly with the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Funding has been historically low in our county, and it cannot meet the rising demand. While there has been a 72% increase in high needs block funding since 2017, the demand for education, health and care plans has risen by 91% in Cambridgeshire over that same period.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. What does this mean for our schools? It is no surprise that 37 primary schools across Cambridgeshire are operating in deficit. Schools do not have any headroom left; they cannot absorb further pressures without making damaging choices about staffing, class sizes and support. I have heard from the schools in my constituency, including Linton infant school, Linton Heights junior school, Trumpington Meadows primary school, Fulbourn primary school, Comberton primary school and Barrington primary school. They have all told me that they have more children on their SEND register than their funding will cover. They are spending their core budgets on this provision, because they care, and because they know that they have a statutory duty. Barrington primary school told me that staff are educating children in an area of rapid housing growth. The school is paying up front while waiting months for the funding to catch up. Schools are paying up front for education, health and care plans, and when the funding arrives, it falls well short of the true cost of full-time support. That makes responsible staffing and financial planning almost impossible, and I place on the record my thanks for the amazing work of all staff across all our schools. As the chair of the children and young people’s committee at Cambridgeshire county council, Councillor Edna Murphy, has said, it is essential that every child has a good education that addresses their needs and supports their wellbeing. Teachers are working hard, and many children have a good experience, but all schools must be able to support children locally. That requires staff and facilities, which only proper funding can provide. We cannot lose the support of the families and carers at the forefront of this issue. Alicia and Harry Watson are the parents of Penelope and Flora. Penelope is an autistic 10-year-old with pathological demand avoidance traits, severe anxiety, and complex sensory and eating difficulties, and she has been on the waiting list for an EHCP for over two years. Alicia and Harry are facing the horror that many parents in my constituency have had to face. They are navigating adversarial tribunal processes, exhausting all channels and doing the right things. Alicia says: “Throughout this process, we have felt completely out of sight and out of mind. Passed between services. Told to wait. Told thresholds were not met. Told funding was not available. Told support was being ‘explored’ while months went by and nothing changed”. Importantly, Alicia has had to give up her NHS career as a care co-ordinator—work that she loved and was proud to do in the public sector. She did not leave by choice; she says: “I left because my children needed me to step in where the system would not”. The system is affecting productivity and economic growth. It is emotionally devastating, inefficient and expensive. That would be avoidable if funding were aligned with need earlier. As the Government look to unveil SEND reforms through the schools White Paper, we urge them to ensure that sufficient extra funding is in place, and to reform the funding formula. I ask the Minister for clarity and certainty. When will the Government publish the overdue schools White Paper? Do they intend to review and rebalance the proportion of funding that is for the high needs block, so that funding is fairer between different areas? How will fast-growing counties—or unitaries, under the local government reorganisation—such as Cambridgeshire be funded proportionately and fairly, so that schools, councils and communities are not penalised for growth? Finally, when the statutory override ends in 2028, will the Government take over responsibility, or will they leave local authorities facing bankruptcy and carrying historical SEND debt, which is in no one’s interests, and definitely not in the interests of the children and young people whose education we are all striving to improve.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  That goes to the heart of it. All children, no matter where they live, deserve the right to, and the opportunity of, the best education they can have. Let me return to the issue of the debt, and the deficit that the council is holding as a result of the statutory override. Independent analysis suggests that by 2028, the national dedicated schools grant deficit could lie somewhere between £5.9 billion and £13 billion.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  I could not have put it better myself. That issue is symptomatic of and a causal factor in the problems. We are seeing the gap between funding and spend widening year after year. In my area, that is compounded by rapid population growth. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are forecast to grow by a further nearly 17% between 2023 and 2041. Schools are expanding quickly to meet demand, yet funding lags behind reality. Growth funding is limited and tightly constrained. Section 106 funding supports buildings, not staffing or ongoing SEND provision. While Cambridgeshire growth is seen as the golden goose for the national economy, local families, schools and councils are being penalised for that growth.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the distribution of education funding, because it goes to the heart of what kind of education system we want. As Liberal Democrats, we want every child to be provided with the opportunity to succeed and reach their full potential. However, I am sure that the Government and MPs from across the Chamber would agree that the current system is not working as well as it should. Now is the time to tackle the historical unfair distribution of education funding. Every child should have access to the same resources and opportunities, regardless of where they live or their level of need. That unfairness in funding across local authority areas shapes what local schools can offer and how quickly children receive support, and ultimately affects whether families experience education as a source of opportunity or a source of constant struggle. That is wrong. The national funding formula and the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant were intended to bring fairness and transparency to school funding, but historical proxy factors remain embedded within them. Those factors lock in funding patterns from decades ago, protecting some areas—regardless of how they have changed—while capping others, even as pupil numbers rise and needs become more complex.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Education Funding: Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member. It is exactly why we need this debate at the national level. I recognise the work undertaken by the f40 fairer funding campaign, which has provided comparative historical data for the whole country, exposing the huge variations in funding allocations per pupil by local authority. Nowhere is that unfair disparity more clear than in my constituency. Cambridgeshire remains in the bottom quartile nationally for the dedicated schools grant and for high needs block funding per pupil. We rank 133rd out of 151 local authorities in 2025-26. That ranking has been the same for more than a decade, despite the unprecedented growth in Cambridgeshire. The consequences are stark. If Cambridgeshire schools were funded to the same level as Lincolnshire—a shire county funded close to the national median—they would receive an additional £23.8 million every single year. That equates to roughly £118,000 a year for a typical primary school—think of that. Equally, if Cambridgeshire were funded to the same level as neighbouring Peterborough, schools would receive around £33 million more annually. That is the scale of the gap we are talking about, and it is impossible to justify. This chronic underfunding interacts directly with the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision.