Pippa Heylings MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Everyone now needs to know what will happen to the debt in 2028 when the Government centralise the funding, as they have announced that they will. If it is not absorbed or absolved by the Government, Cambridgeshire, like many other councils, could be approaching section 114 bankruptcy territory. That is what is keeping its councillors awake at night.

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

  More

  I have some key questions for the Minister about exactly that point. A stark reality keeps county councillors and their finance officers awake at night. Cambridgeshire’s overall dedicated schools grant deficit stood at £62.8 million at the end of 2025. Forecasts show that the high needs block deficit will rise to about £94 million by March 2026, and potentially to £200 million by April 2028. The council is now paying about £3 million a year to service the interest on the debt, which places the county in severe financial risk. I raised this question with Minister McGovern when we had a meeting about the local government financial settlement—

• 27 Jan 2026 · Public Order Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of Elisabeth Spain and the South Cambridgeshire Climate and Nature Group in my constituency. The petition states that peaceful environmental protesters are being criminalised through excessive charges, harsh sentencing and negative media treatment, and that the Public Order Act 2023 has introduced restrictive protest measures that deter people from exercising their right to peaceful protest, undermining the United Kingdom’s long-standing commitment to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and non-violent civil disobedience. The petition states: The petition of residents of South Cambridgeshire, Declares that peaceful environmental protestors are being treated as criminals, facing excessive charges, receiving prolonged sentences, and enduring unjust treatment in the media; further declares that the Public Order Act 2023 introduced anti-protest regulations that have proven intimidating to those who wish to continue to raise their voices peacefully; and further declares that the UK’s commitment to the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly, expression and non-violent civil disobedience should be reaffirmed. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce a bill to repeal the Public Order Act 2023. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003156]

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  We have been asking for the warm homes plan for Christmas for the past two years. It is better late than never, but we have mixed feelings in unwrapping it. The Liberal Democrats have long called for an emergency home energy upgrade scheme with free insulation and heat pumps, and we have recently submitted proposals for low-interest loan schemes, so we really welcome this significant investment by the Government in low-carbon heating. It is folly for anyone to think that we can rely on Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America for the gas to heat our homes, so it is right for the Government to help households make this shift. Every solar panel, heat pump and battery installed will protect families from volatile fossil fuel costs and make homes cheaper to both warm and cool, which is a key point. However, I share the concerns of the energy efficiency sector about the balance that is being struck between insulation and electrification. As the Secretary of State said, we have seen fuel poverty rise and rates of insulation fall over the last five years, and the UK has some of the least energy-efficient housing in Europe, leading to serious health problems and cold, damp, Dickensian home conditions. Despite our warnings, there is still no clarity in this plan about what will replace the ECO programme, leaving supply chains in limbo and skilled installers going bankrupt. The delay—I will call this out—could leave us without an operational national fuel poverty strategy over the coming winter. We hope that is not the case, and we will therefore hold the Government to account on this and other things that have been mentioned. The gas and electricity price reform has been postponed again, and efficiency standards for landlords have been weakened. Thank you so much for taking on board the rooftop revolution on the back of the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), but the future homes standard is still missing in action. We cannot afford more failures. We welcome this significant investment, and there is no time to waste.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This past week, we have all been speaking about the need to respect the rule of international law, yet transnational repression in which authoritarian regimes extend their jurisdiction beyond their borders and powers is worryingly present on UK soil. My constituent Shahzad Akbar, who is a former human rights lawyer, cabinet Minister and political dissident from Pakistan, has faced repeated and violent attacks against him and efforts to intimidate him. He has suffered an acid attack in his home in front of his four-year-old daughter. Just on Christmas eve, he had a physical assault against him, resulting in a broken nose and jaw, which again happened in front of his young family. Just before new year’s eve, he had a terrifying arson attack on his home. I have made the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary aware of those attacks, but does the Leader of the House agree that that cannot be allowed on British soil? Further measures are needed to protect political dissidents here in our country, and a debate on transnational repression and the Government’s measures to combat it is in the interests of democracy and this House.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Brexit excluded us from the EU’s internal energy market, costing the UK a huge £350 million annually. Will the Secretary of State confirm how he will accelerate progress towards the UK-EU internal electricity trading agreement to bring down costs and ensure energy security in these volatile times?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year. It is freezing outside and, tragically, more than 4,000 households in my constituency are living in fuel poverty. The Government’s decision to cut the energy company obligation, which was the key mechanism for delivering home insulation and energy efficiency, without any details about what will replace it, risks pushing more families into fuel poverty. The businesses and supply chains that have fulfilled ECO contracts for more than a decade have been left in limbo. Again, we have heard no date for the plan. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister finally say when it will be released, thus ending uncertainty for businesses and the suffering of households?

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

  More

  It is not only the VAT; the proposed hike in alcohol duty is yet another blow to pubs and breweries in my constituency. They include the Three Hills in Bartlow, which is reeling from a business rate increase of 123% as a result of the business rate valuation changes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor is failing to protect our pubs and breweries with these measures?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Water Scarcity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. Along with many others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. Only last week here in Westminster Hall, I was highlighting the issue of water scarcity in my constituency in the context of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. If we do not get this right, all those ambitious development plans will be dead in the water—or rather, dead in the lack of water. Our precious chalk streams, which the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning constantly to protect and are prioritised in the new environmental improvement plan, are already being degraded due to over-abstraction from the aquifers that sustain them. Far too many of them in my constituency now depend on artificial augmentation, which is when water is pumped from the boreholes into the headstreams just so that there is enough flow to sustain the wildlife within them. The fact that there is any flow at all is false. Sustainable water management must be the core principle that underpins growth across our region—as was said, it should be the backbone of our growth. How are we doing? The Cambridge Water and Anglian Water plans say that they can meet existing and future demand, but last year, the Environment Agency did not accept that. It withdrew its support for already approved development plans for 9,000 homes and the cancer hospital, pausing construction and lodging an objection because it said there is not enough water. Never mind existing water; these plans do not include the additional thousands of homes being proposed as part of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. For example, the Fens reservoir, which we celebrate, will meet the already ambitious local plan for Greater Cambridge, but the thousands of homes planned by the Cambridge Growth Company are not included. We need to end the doublethink; growth plans and water-resource plans must be aligned from the start. That requires projected demand—how many additional houses are we actually talking about?—as well as handling both sides of the equation. First, we need to increase supply, potentially through more new reservoirs or infrastructure—the existing and planned reservoirs are not enough—and no more water should be abstracted from our chalk aquifers. Secondly, we should reduce demand by cutting leakage. As we have heard, in England, leakage stands at almost 50 litres per person a day. That dwarfs the potential savings from household behaviour change or efficiency measures in new builds. Alongside tackling leakage, as my hon. Friend said, we need changes to the permitted development rights to enable farmers to invest in farm reservoirs on their land. My central question to the Minister is this: who will be responsible for ensuring that plans for growth and plans for water resources are properly aligned in South Cambridgeshire and across the UK, and that action to increase supply and reduce demand is delivered? The current governance for water is fragmented, with multiple institutions producing plans that do not include new growth ambitions, and that is a failing of the regulator. People no longer trust water companies to act in the public interest. We Lib Dems welcome the intention to abolish Ofwat, but we continue to call for a truly independent water authority. Therefore, will the Minister join my calls for the Cambridge water scarcity group to be reconvened urgently, together with Lord Vallance and the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor team, to honestly address the mismatch between plans for growth and the measures needed to eliminate the water deficit, and for the water scarcity group—which brings together all the actors: the water companies, Ofwat, the Environment Agency, the planning services and the growth company—to continue to play a role, even if a development corporation comes forward?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the Government for confirming and recommitting to those new reservoirs. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the new fens reservoir is enough only for the existing ambitions within the emerging local plan, not for the additional thousands of homes that are being considered by the new development corporation? We need to get the water scarcity group working together now to think about other options. Otherwise, water is a deal breaker.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for securing this important debate. Over the last 20 years our region has experienced unprecedented change and growth. According to the latest Office for National Statistics census analysis, the population of my constituency alone has risen by 21.6% since 2011—one of the fastest increases of any area outside of London. In what used to be a semi-rural constituency, schools, GP practices, hospitals, utilities and roads built for a much smaller population are now supporting tens of thousands more people than they were designed for and delivering well beyond their capacity—and the growth is not stopping. Local projections show that South Cambridgeshire’s numbers will increase the most out of all of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, expected to rise by 22.1% by 2031 and as much as 37.2% by 2041.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will continue, if that is all right. Across Cambridgeshire almost 50,000 additional homes are forecast by 2041. The reason for this growth is that greater Cambridge, which constitutes the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge and mine of South Cambridgeshire, is one of the most economically dynamic regions of the country, with an annual turnover of £30 billion, employing more than 110,000 people. Although Cambridge is the brand, my constituency includes the largest biomedical campus in Europe. It is home to the global headquarters for AstraZeneca, the Addenbrooke’s, Rosie and Royal Papworth hospitals, and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, whose researchers have won 12 Nobel prizes. We have the Wellcome Genome Campus, one of the world’s largest concentrations of genomics and biodata, and the Babraham Institute and Granta Park, home to the European headquarters of Illumina—I am just saying that a very small rural constituency is a great partner within the corridor. But with that, as we have heard, comes chronic underfunding, and under successive Governments growth has not kept pace with infrastructure. Take healthcare: the A&E department of Addenbrooke’s hospital was built to serve only a quarter of the patients it now sees, and the Cambridge University hospitals trust operates with a deficit of around 162 acute beds. The new acute strategy has been developed as a design, but there has not yet been any decision on a new A&E hospital. Transport tells the same story, as Members from across the Chamber have said. The appalling public transport options currently available and the commuting gridlock damages the quality of life of all residents. I join the east of England all-party parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) in calling for the Ely and Haughley junction to be improved to manage freight, to get lorries off the road and to enable more passenger trains. East West Rail purports to have resolved some of the transport connectivity issues across the corridor, but in my constituency it has been dogged by problems from the very start. There has been really poor community engagement, and nothing has been offered except huge infrastructure going through it. I repeat my invitation to the Rail Minister to come to my constituency to answer the questions of my constituents. The proposed Cambridge east station is in my constituency, not in Cambridge, so it would be very good to have the Minister there. This cannot just be about house building. The Greater Cambridge shared planning service has just won an award for being one of the best planning authorities in the country, because it does strategic planning and community engagement. Let us keep water and nature—the deal breakers in this—sustainable. Would the Minister convene with Lord Vallance to deliver joined-up infrastructure, together with all the relevant authorities?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Two weeks ago, when I asked the Government whether they had had discussions with the Cambridgeshire integrated care board on the 16,000-strong petition to save beds at the Arthur Rank hospice, I was informed that it would not be possible to provide a response within the usual time period. I have a simpler request today: will the Minister meet me and the new Central East integrated care board to discuss how to identify need and strategically commission beds?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  COP30 was the first climate summit since the world experienced a full year of global warming above 1.5°C. That is a stark reminder of the urgency we collectively face. At home, due to extreme weather, our farmers faced their worst harvest on record and lost billions in income from arable crops, while we saw devastating wildfires, doubling records, that wiped out national parks and local environments that are precious to everyone. These are the costs of inaction and climate breakdown here in the UK. I was proud to be part of a cross-party group of MPs who attended this COP and to carry with me the hopes of young people in South Cambridgeshire who sent me pictures, videos and poems. Freya, aged 11, wrote: “I don’t want to just inherit my future. I want to be able to shape the decisions and actions that others are taking on my behalf, because I am afraid.” I want to commend Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive, despite relentless attacks from climate denialism, delay and deception. The multilateral system is far from perfect, but it is the best alternative we have for global co-operation on climate change. There were positives: the pledges to cut methane; the recognition of the links between climate, nature and public health; the commitment to triple adaptation finance, which we know from Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica is absolutely critical; and the demonstration by business that the transition is an economic imperative and opportunity. The global climate action agenda is just so inspiring and has a massive impact, but we know that hope was not matched by delivery: there is still no credible plan to reduce the gap between current national commitments and the reductions needed to stay below 1.5°C; the refusal to reference fossil fuels and the transition away in the final text, despite it being the root cause of the crisis, was a staggering failure; and the Prime Minister’s unexpected and inexplicable decision not to support the Tropical Forests Forever Facility was really, really disturbing. This was what Brazil launched: an innovative investment facility to save tropical forests and give them a value while standing.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I am here to speak up for the individuals and families in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire and across the country who arrived here in moments of crisis, conflict and persecution in search of safety, dignity and a chance to rebuild their lives through safe and legal humanitarian routes. My constituents from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong arrived here via those routes, making huge life-changing decisions, fulfilling all the established requirements and believing that the UK would stand by its words, yet they now fear that those promises and the rules-based order is being ripped up from beneath them. To tell them, years after arrival—with many of them just one year away from fulfilling the five-year eligibility requirement for indefinite leave to remain—that the rules are changing is not only unjust; it undermines the very principle of humanitarian protection.