Pippa Heylings MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. In my South Cambridgeshire constituency alone, rivers and streams were polluted by sewage 728 times in 2024, lasting over 9,700 hours. That is the disgraceful legacy of the last Conservative Government. We need the protection that my hon. Friend mentions. We bemoan the fact that the Secretary of State and the Government got rid of the chalk stream recovery pack. That is distressing to all those who care for chalk streams, and it is why we need practical measures such as the blue flag status, and for rivers and chalk streams in a blue flag corridor and water catchments to have the protections they need. That would give the public confidence in water quality and would enable regular water testing, biodiversity checks and better community involvement, boosting transparency.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the point I am making. I have been talking with my constituents, particularly about the controversial new large-scale Kingsway solar farm in my constituency. We need a land use framework and a strategic spatial energy plan that tells us and informs local planning and decision making about the scale of solar energy that we need across the whole country, where it is best located, where it can fit in and feed in, and the energy mix. We need to consider that mix and the balance of food security, energy infrastructure, homes and nature recovery. Equally, we need genuinely significant community benefit schemes applied to large-scale generation schemes, similar to the community benefit approach applied in Scotland. We want to ensure that all national infrastructure projects and major energy generation infrastructure—not just transmission—provide minimum levels of community benefit, invested at ward and parish level into community benefit funds and determined by the local communities most affected. We must take communities with us and show that they are part of the energy transition, and that it is done with them, not to them. We have deep reservations about the Government’s approach overall to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which appears to be a power-grab, stripping away local voice and letting developers off the hook for their impacts on nature and wildlife. Nature is not a blocker; it is an enabler of good growth and wellbeing, and while we climate-proof our energy system, we must also ensure that nature is part of future-proofing our economy. We will always speak up for a climate and nature combined approach. Although we are supportive of the motion’s ambition to streamline planning for major projects such as onshore wind, we register our concern about the Government’s broader changes to NSIPs and planning, including the exemption of category 3 persons from compulsory purchase consultations, and the implementation of several Henry VIII clauses that hand sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and undermine local government and local voice. It is entirely possible to accelerate renewable energy deployment and uphold the community voice in planning decisions while protecting nature, and that is what we need to see.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The Great British Energy Bill gives a statutory steer that helps us have those long-term plans. The clean energy transition has to be done with communities, not to communities. I commend the Government for committing an additional £5 million to the community energy fund, bringing certainty at least to its short-term future. Lords amendment 1 also addresses community benefits, which are critical for taking people with us on this pathway to the energy transition. If communities are to host energy infrastructure, whether for onshore wind or large-scale solar farms, those benefits have to go beyond token gestures such as roofs for scout huts or some apprenticeships. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. This means that a controversial large-scale solar project in my constituency, such as the Kingsway solar farm, could provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it has to be the community that determines how and where that money is spent. Lords amendment 12 is also a vital addition to the Bill, requiring GB Energy to keep its impact on sustainable development under review. Credit is due to Baroness Hayman, who fought tirelessly in the other House to ensure that sustainability is embedded in our energy transition through that amendment. We welcome the assurances we have received that in the updated framework agreement, not only will the local economies of coastal communities be taken into consideration, but there will be an explicit climate and nature duty for GB Energy. GB Energy has to consider economic, environmental and social needs, ensuring that future generations can meet their needs. I would have liked to discuss amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and amendment (b), in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), both to Lords amendment 2. Modern slavery is a barbaric practice that should have been eradicated long ago. We look to the promise of our green energy transformation, but it cannot take place at the cost of human rights abuses across the world. Research from Sheffield Hallam University has directly linked China’s labour transfer programme to the global solar panel supply chain. China produces 40% of the world’s polysilicon and 80% of its solar panels, and right now, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subjected to state detention and forced labour. It is incomprehensible that the Government are seeking to vote down an amendment that would withdraw GB Energy investment from supply chains tainted by forced labour. GB Energy has to set the standard, not muddle along. There is nothing sufficiently robust in the Bill to ensure that there is no forced labour in this supply chain. The solar taskforce does not have the mandate to ensure that. As we have heard, the Procurement Act 2023 cannot address the issue. This should be an issue not just for the energy sector. The health sector has shown leadership by addressing the matter in the Health and Care Act 2022. The Great British Energy Bill is a key piece of legislation, and measures on forced labour should be part of it.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Alongside community groups across the country, including Power for People and Community Energy England, I am pleased to welcome the inclusion of community energy and benefits in the Bill through Lords amendment 1. It was possible after all, and I congratulate the Government on taking this step. We Liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that in this House and the other place, but there has been a lot of cross-party working to achieve it, and I am delighted that its inclusion is now enshrined in law. This is a victory for community voices, giving them a real stake in the energy transition through full or partial ownership of local power. Communities like mine in South Cambridgeshire, where many are off grid and struggling with volatile oil prices, want to generate and sell their own green energy locally. It is absurd that that is not possible.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington said: that is why we need tougher action on the water companies. We also need to take action on combined sewers and make improvements to the small sewage treatment works on many chalk streams, like in my constituency. However, today’s debate is about bathing site designation, which is one of the effective levers that can be used. We are talking about the proposed reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to bathing site designations. I would like to talk about the second core reform being proposed, which I am concerned would lead to a real reduction in the number of bathing sites being designated, rather than the increase that we should see, particularly for inland waters. The second core reform says that we should “Include the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least ‘sufficient’ as a criterion for final designation. This would avoid poor value for money, by limiting expenditure where water quality improvement is not feasible or proportionate.” To best demonstrate why that reform would not only fail but could also damage water quality in our rivers, it is worth sharing the story of Sheep’s Green in my constituency. For centuries, people have been enjoying Sheep’s Green—a popular spot on the River Cam. It was at Sheep’s Green that we worked to bring in a bathing site designation, because of the poor quality of the water. In October 2023, the Cam Valley Forum, a local voluntary organisation, submitted an application to DEFRA to grant Sheep’s Green designated bathing water status. That came after three years of hard work by local volunteers, which is truly commendable, and was based on the success of the River Wharfe. Sheep’s Green had been used for decades without official recognition, and the idea of getting it designated bathing status had widespread public support. Over the course of a 10-week consultation, the Cam Valley Forum received more than 500 responses, with an overwhelming 93% in favour of the designation. South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council also formally backed the proposal. Anglian Water, with whom I worked, also fully supported the designation application. Once designated, as predicted by local volunteers and citizen scientists, Sheep’s Green was classified as having poor water quality. That triggered a statutory obligation for improvements to clean up the source of the pollution—the Haslingfield sewage works in my constituency. For years, local citizen scientists had suspected it was the culprit. Now, finally, Anglian Water was legally required to act. Bathing water status also unlocked funding from Ofwat under the water industry national environment programme. Tens of millions of pounds vital for the infrastructure improvements needed to reduce the sewage discharges were made available for Haslingfield, with work expected to begin in the next two years. These improvements will not just benefit swimmers at Sheep’s Green, but have a wider impact on the ecological health of the River Cam. However, had core reform 2 been in place when the Cam Valley Forum began its journey in 2020, there would have been no bathing water designation for Sheep’s Green. Without that designation, there would have been no investigation by the Environment Agency, no identification of Haslingfield sewage works as the source of the pollution and no legal requirement for Anglian Water to take action. The WINEP funding would not have been available and we would have lost the opportunity for water improvements and nature restoration in South Cambridgeshire. In short, core reform 2 would have inadvertently blocked the clean-up of hundreds of rivers. Local organisations like the Cam Valley Forum are not just highlighting a problem with their concerns around core reform 2—they are demanding action. They are rightly pushing for bathing water status because it is a vital tool for driving cleaner, healthier rivers. We should be supporting these efforts, not hindering them.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I extend my thanks to colleagues in the other place, the Public Bill Office staff and those in this House who served on the Bill Committee. Their efforts have been invaluable in scrutinising and refining the Bill. I support the Bill. However, the Liberal Democrat amendments seek to ensure that it delivers for both people and the planet. While the Bill presents opportunities—it aims to enhance energy security, create new jobs and bring us closer to achieving our climate targets—we must not lose sight of the need for financial accountability, proportionate borrowing caps, the duty to protect nature in the marine environment and the necessity of taking communities with us and providing them with clear, tangible benefits. It is important to note that our discussion coincides with the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences not only for the Ukrainians suffering the war, but for families here in the UK with volatile, skyrocketing energy prices due to our reliance on fossil fuels from authoritarian regimes like Putin’s: a stark reminder of the need to secure the production of our energy here in the UK. The last Conservative Government set the UK back both in meeting our climate targets and in seizing the opportunity to be global leaders in green energy due to indecision and broken pledges. We have the chance to be global leaders in offshore floating wind, which is why the Bill is so important. I speak to amendment 2 to clause 3, which I hope we will vote on tonight. It would ensure that sustainable development was clearly defined in the Crown Estate’s framework agreement, explicitly including a reference to a climate and nature duty. The Crown Estate plays a crucial role in managing our land, seas and natural resources. It is central to offshore wind expansion, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land use. Given its influence, merely requiring its commissioners to “keep under review” their impact on sustainable development is insufficient without a clear definition and accountability of what that entails, as the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) mentioned. That is key to ensuring that there are social and economic considerations in all investments and that the costs and benefits—in particular to local communities and local economies—are taken into consideration. The amendment builds on Baroness Hayman’s concession in the other House. She said: “What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1448.] By clearly defining sustainable development in the Crown Estate’s framework agreement, the amendment would establish a benchmark for accountability in line with existing legislation. In contrast with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, this amendment mentions nature, too, and builds on the agreements in the other House. It seeks to enshrine the assurances given to the Lords, ensuring that the framework agreement would indeed include a climate and nature duty, aligning the Crown Estate’s responsibilities with the UK’s legally binding climate targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and nature restoration goals under the Environment Act 2021. It is about more than environmental stewardship; it is about future-proofing the Crown Estate’s decisions against the economic risks of climate change and nature loss. I strongly support new clause 3, which would ensure that the Bill brought local communities along with it. That is essential. We tabled the new clause to guarantee that coastal and rural communities would see real benefits from Crown Estate activities. It would require a proper assessment of community benefits before investment decisions are made, and mandate that at least 5% of net profits be reinvested in affected areas. Coastal communities need to see both jobs and a fair financial return from large-scale developments around them and off their shores. The Crown Estate generates billions from offshore wind, marine industries and land developments, yet local people often see little direct benefit. The new clause would redress that imbalance, ensuring that such communities impacted by change actively benefit from it. It is about fairness and economic regeneration. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they should back the new clause, which would ensure that the Crown Estate’s success was shared by all, not just a privileged few. We have other amendments, too—we were busy in Committee. New clause 2 focuses on marine spatial planning co-ordination and would ensure that the Crown Estate duly collaborated with the Marine Management Organisation, which has the mandate to make decisions about marine spatial planning, and that fishing communities were fully consulted. That aligns with work going on for years as Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks to resolve conflicts, determine priorities and improve co-ordination. With growing pressures from offshore wind, marine conservation, fishing and tourism, decision making must be joined up. Marine plans balance economic, environmental and social interests. The Crown Estate must work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ marine spatial prioritisation framework and the MMO’s expertise, as well as other relevant consultees such as heritage. The Government amendment requiring ministerial approval for seabed sales is an important and positive step, recognising its national importance. However, that highlights the broader need for transparency and oversight in marine planning. The new clause seeks to avoid potential conflicts of interest in prioritising and decision making arising from the Crown Estate’s new borrowing and investment powers. Members may have noticed a theme running through the Liberal Democrats’ amendments: that of ensuring that local communities both benefit from and have a real say in decisions that will affect them as a result of the Bill. That is why we have also tabled new clause 4. While the appointment of commissioners for Wales, England and Northern Ireland is a positive step, Wales still lacks the legal and financial control over the Crown Estate that Scotland enjoys. Welsh communities must also stand to benefit from the changes introduced by the Bill. I hope that the Government and the Opposition will join the Liberal Democrats in supporting amendment 2 to ensure that sustainable development within the Crown Estate’s framework agreement is clearly defined and includes a climate and nature duty. The Bill presents a trident of opportunity—it can enhance energy security, create jobs and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets—but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister might have pre-empted my speaking to the new clause. The new clause would ensure that local and coastal communities see real benefits from Crown Estate activities by requiring a proper assessment of community benefits before investment decisions are made and by mandating that at least 5% of net profits be transferred to impacted communities. For too long, communities, particularly coastal communities, have borne the impact of large-scale offshore developments without seeing a fair share of the financial benefits; we heard that earlier today. The Crown Estate generates billions in revenue from offshore wind farms, marine industries and land developments, yet too often local people see little direct return. The new clause seeks to redress that imbalance and would ensure that those communities benefit from our journey towards net zero, taking people with us. First, the new clause would ensure transparency and accountability by requiring that the Crown Estate formally assess community benefits before making investment decisions. That would mean that local communities would no longer be an afterthought. They must be considered from the outset in decisions affecting their livelihoods, identity, infrastructure and environment. Secondly, the new clause would establish a concrete financial commitment by mandating that at least 5% of the profits generated by the Crown Estate’s activities must be reinvested in local communities impacted. That is a fair and proportionate measure, recognising that those communities are often on the frontline of change, whether it be from offshore energy projects, tourism pressures or rural land use shifts. The kickbacks could be revolutionary for towns and villages across the UK and would be a real testament to how clean energy can level up communities. The new clause is about not just fairness, but economic regeneration. It would provide a direct funding stream to support local jobs, infrastructure, training and environmental projects, and ensure that prosperity generated from our shared natural resources is not centralised in Whitehall or in corporate boardrooms, but flows directly back to the people and places most affected. If the Government are serious about levelling up and supporting coastal and rural communities and economies, they should have no issue backing the new clause. It is practical, and it would enable us to manage the different developments. It does not seek to block development; it would ensure that development happens fairly and sustainably, with proper co-ordination.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clause 5 and to new clause 12 which calls for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales has been left without these powers, despite the fact that vast Crown Estate assets lie within its borders. It is time to correct that unbalance and bring Wales into line with Scotland. Devolving control of the Crown Estate would not only recognise Wales’s status as an equal nation, but deliver substantial economic benefits to communities across Wales. Under the current system, profits from the Crown Estate flow directly to the UK Government.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody is saying that this is easy, but it is possible, and it has happened with Scotland. As many Members have said to us, given that we have territorial devolution and powers over the land, why not the seabed as well? There are ways of managing this, so complexity should not get in the way of ensuring that we have fairness in the distribution of economic benefits. This funding is desperately needed, particularly given the historical underfunding of Wales on issues such as infrastructure. The success of devolution in Scotland speaks for itself; since 2017, when Scotland gained control of the Crown Estate, it has generated more than £103 million for public finances, so let us think what could happen for Wales if it was able to retain the profits generated by the Crown Estate within their borders. Wales is expected to generate at least £1 billion from offshore wind energy leases in the coming years alone. Keeping some of that money within Wales could add £50 million a year to the Welsh Government’s budget—funds that could be directly reinvested in public services and local communities. But this is not just about the financial gain; as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, devolving the Crown Estate would open up opportunities for greater investment in renewable energy projects. That is particularly important for coastal communities, which have long suffered from the decline of traditional industries. When they see direct benefits from renewable projects, they are far more likely to support them. That would create jobs, opportunities and sustainable development, delivering long-term economic stability, especially for the coastal regions of Wales that need it most. The devolution of the Crown Estate has widespread support across Wales, from the Liberal Democrats in this place and the Welsh Parliament to Plaid Cymru, a majority of local authorities in Wales and even to the Welsh Labour Government. There is clear and overwhelming backing. In addition, opinion polls consistently show that the majority of the Welsh public are in favour of seeing the Crown Estate devolved, and it is clear that the people of Wales want to see this change. We want to work together, and I urge the Government to support this new clause and allow Wales to benefit from the powers and financial resources that it so rightly deserves.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  While we eagerly await progress on bringing community energy into the Great British Energy Bill when it comes back to this House, will Ministers reassure community groups around the country that they will enlarge and expand the community energy fund of £10 million, which is so successful that it is currently oversubscribed?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. We know that early diagnosis is critical to effective SEND provision, but there is a national crisis in the number and availability of educational psychologists. Given that Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission are jointly investigating Cambridgeshire SEND services, will the Minister meet me and the council to discuss the outcome and actions from that?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Freya, who says: “I am 15 and I am afraid. I can do things in the community, but unless we have joined-up Government action, we have no hope”? We have various Ministers here as a result of this private Member’s Bill, which addresses the yawning gap between Departments.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. For more than 23 years, the listed places of worship grant scheme has been a lifeline for communities in South Cambridgeshire, enabling congregations to afford vital repairs to their historical buildings, which are quite often the beating heart of our communities. They provide youth groups, vaccine centres, and warm places in which to gather and bring people together. The loss of the scheme would put a lot of that in jeopardy. Places in South Cambridgeshire where there are listed places of worship include Cherry Hinton, Coton, Stapleford, Gamlingay, Bassingbourn, Hinxton, Ickleford, Harston, Duxford, Thriplow and Great Shelford. The scheme is set to expire in March 2025, which would place all that progress and the vital roles played by these buildings in our communities in jeopardy. Without a renewed commitment from the Government, congregations will struggle to afford the repairs needed to keep their places of worship open and functioning. The much-respected Reverend Karin Voth Harman of St Andrew’s church in Cherry Hinton explained to me that it will also impact on the congregation’s ability to access other grant funds. For example, they received a £250,000 grant from the heritage lottery fund, but they were able to receive and use those funds only because they had the exemption from the VAT scheme. If the scheme was taken away, they would not be able to do that, and that would affect many others. The list of affected communities is long, as it is in many other communities. Let me mention the plans that people have in place that would be put at risk, which they have come to tell me about. The restoration plans to move away from fossil fuel reliance at St Peter & St Paul Bassingbourn parish church would be put at risk. The steep costs of the restoration of the three medieval churches in Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Teversham mean that essential repairs would be put at risk. The community spaces in All Saints’ church at Harston, which were used during lockdown and which the church wants to keep expanding, would be put at risk. The small village church of St Mary and St John in Hinxton relies heavily on the exemption. St Peter’s church in Horningsea is being saved from disrepair with significant help from the VAT funds. The grade I listed parish church of St Mary the Virgin in Great Shelford relies on the VAT to afford essential repairs; without it, the church will not be able to maintain the structure and the historical Doom painting, which would be terrible. The 12th-century St George’s church in Thriplow wants, with the community, to level the nave floor, but it will not to be able to do that. Grade I listed St Mary’s in Whaddon would also be at risk. The scheme is critical. Please continue it and ensure that we can keep these congregations and their listed places of worship at the centre of our communities.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero, I am delighted to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson): the sunshine Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am beaming. South Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing constituencies in the country in terms of house building and lab space. People constantly say to me, “Why are all of these new homes without solar panels on their roofs?” or “Why do these new homes only have one or two solar panels or only on part of the roofs?” Sadly, in 2025, developers are still required only to meet—not exceed—the Merton rule’s inadequate 10% energy improvement standard. That is why Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency have been pushing hard to change this at the local level. In fact, in the five years since they took control of the council, South Cambridgeshire has rapidly become the district with the highest number of solar panels fitted and with the fastest increase in planning applications that include solar panels. It is the lack of ambition and political will at the national level that has held back the revolution in solar rooftops. That is why we are still building homes that are cold and damp and that have skyrocketing energy bills. The former Conservative Government disgracefully scrapped the zero carbon homes policy, and dithered and delayed on the future homes standard.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by extending my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly in the Lords on the Bill over the past seven months. I note in particular the way in which full transparency was offered and delivered by Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to requests for clarification and evidence. I hope that we can replicate such co-operation as the Bill passes through this House. The objectives of the Bill are to broaden the investment and borrowing powers of the Crown Estate and to strengthen its corporate governance, in order to help accelerate, among other things, the delivery of new renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. We are generally supportive of the Bill and would welcome further scrutiny on issues such as the cap on borrowing; accountability in the relationship with Great British Energy; managing the conflicts between competing interests and values of our seabed and coastline, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); community benefit; devolution in Wales; and our climate and nature duty. I will proceed to elucidate those issues. In the UK, we are off track in meeting our climate targets, following previous years when the Conservatives have dithered and rowed back on pledges. We need to increase investment in renewable energy in order to strengthen our energy security and to help families keep warm and lower their energy bills, particularly during this cost of living crisis. As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses have been left exposed to skyrocketing bills. For far too long we have been reliant on autocrats such as Putin to meet our energy needs. The Crown Estate oversees 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 km of coastline and a seabed area larger than the combined land mass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the owner and steward of the seabed, the Crown Estate leases plots to offshore wind developers and other infrastructure projects, playing a fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset and in the potential for securing our world-leading position on floating offshore wind development. For many years, however, the Crown Estate has been constrained in its ability to borrow through the Treasury, forcing it—as we understand it—to resort to selling off assets in order to fund its investments for the future. The changes proposed in the Bill, in partnership with Great British Energy, hold the potential to unlock investment in vital infrastructure across supply chains, ports and green energy sectors, and to accelerate progress by unblocking the huge delays in the delivery of new green energy, which is desperately needed following the slow progress made under the previous Government. It is reassuring to hear that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, assurances were given that there would be a borrowing cap of 20% of the loan-to-value ratio. We look forward to seeing that reflected in the updated framework agreement as we go into Committee. On the day the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, the Government announced the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore wind developments. Despite the significance of that relationship between the two, the original Bill did not provide clarification on or accountability in how it would work. Clause 4, which was introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, ensures important transparency through annual reports on activities within that relationship. However, we also share Energy UK’s concerns about how that relationship will work, particularly in relation to other private sector investment. We support its calls for annual schedules for offshore wind leasing that identify locations and target capacities. Such a road map would help developers and suppliers to plan investments, including necessary port upgrades, and would align with the offshore wind industrial growth plan.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, I read the report of the debate in the Lords, and there was a passionate request for the Crown Estate in Wales to be devolved to the Welsh Administration and for the benefits to be felt by Welsh communities. We look forward to discussing that in Committee. Another crucial area that has been mentioned is the mapping of the seabed around our coastline. The Crown Estate has already begun that work with award-winning geospatial techniques. That key contribution to spatial planning for our coastal and marine areas needs to balance economic development with environmental responsibility. For years, the Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks. Although the Government have committed to a land use framework, we remain far behind on marine spatial planning. We have heard today, in response to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, about the conflict of interest in the Crown Estate leading on determining priorities in our coastal and marine areas. It is on that point that we seek assurances. Statutory bodies such as the Maritime Management Organisation are responsible for prioritising and managing competing interests and values between users of our coastline, including in fishing, as has been mentioned, and in tourism, amenity use and shipping. All those things need to be managed, and that can be done through marine spatial management. We caution against the Crown Estate becoming the leader by default because it is the owner and steward of the seabed and has the capacity for mapping. We know that it is undertaking liaison work with fisheries, and that is good, but the MMO is the statutory body for managing those competing interests, and we seek assurances that that will be clarified in Committee. Raising the issue of devolution to Wales brings me to the key point of community benefits. We need to know how communities will benefit from the investment in infrastructure and renewable projects facilitated by this Bill. Local communities must not feel that this energy transformation is being done to them, but that it is empowering them to participate and benefit from it. While the new borrowing powers will enable investment in offshore wind, they will also facilitate property development across the 185,000 acres of the Crown Estate, so the Bill must do more to ensure that those developments do not ride roughshod over community concerns regarding planning, infrastructure and environmental standards, both on land and at sea. People must have a say in the decisions that affect them and, where infrastructure is concerned, they should also receive the benefits where appropriate. I was really pleased to see the inclusion of amendment 10, championed by Baroness Hayman. That amendment requires the commissioners to “review the impact of their activities” on sustainable development. As Liberal Democrats, we have long called for climate and nature duties to be a requirement of all public bodies. As Baroness Hayman wisely said, “What matters is the endgame and the results… What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1425.] During the debate in the Lords, an undertaking was given that the framework agreement would be updated to include a definition of the meaning of sustainable development as regards the Crown Estate, with explicit reference to part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008—the targets for 2050—as well as section 56 of that Act, and to sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 regarding nature recovery. I look forward to seeing an updated version of the framework agreement to reassure us that this definition of sustainable development has been included. This Bill presents a trident of opportunity. It can enhance energy security, reduce household bills and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, the need to devolve to Wales, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  These hikes in employer national insurance contributions are not just numbers on a spreadsheet, but will have real and damaging consequences and will strike at the heart of small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In my constituency in South Cambridgeshire, we have one of the highest densities of small and medium-sized enterprises, principally in the biotech and life sciences sector, which is a growth area for our economy. It is critical that we get this right, and I have heard from the sector that it is troubled by this legislation. More worryingly, the consequences will extend to our social and healthcare sectors, which are already under immense strain. GP surgeries and care homes across the UK are at risk of being severely impacted. Those are essential frontline services, which are essential to supporting the NHS and to fulfilling this Government’s mission of moving from treatment to prevention, and from hospital to community. How can we expect to tackle the backlog in routine operations, and how can we deal with the winter waiting lists at accident and emergency, and with so much pain and anguish, if the primary care providers that form the foundation of our healthcare system are being undermined by this tax increase?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Community Energy Projects · Hansard source

  More

  It is so good to hear the Minister affirm the need to bring the public onside, as well as private sector investment, to achieve the transformation towards green power and net zero. The Liberal Democrats support Great British Energy if community energy is at the centre of the Great British Energy Bill. Our colleagues in the Lords are debating amendments relating to direct participation in and benefit from community energy. Will the Minister agree to those proposals if they come to this House?

• 12 Dec 2024 · SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to address this critical issue that affects so many families and carers, not just in my constituency but across the country. I rise to speak up for all those who feel they are not being heard and to speak about the crisis in the provision of special educational needs and disability support, particularly for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This crisis is failing children and young people, their families and carers, the professionals who support them, and society as a whole. Before I proceed, I thank all the courageous parents and carers who have taken the time to tell me their stories. Some of them have come to Westminster today to be with us in the Gallery. I pay special tribute to the staff from schools in my constituency, including Bassingbourn, Melbourn and Hauxton primary schools, who have taken the time to attend this critically important debate and are with us in the Gallery. I was privileged to meet staff at Bassingbourn primary school, where I witnessed at first hand the inspiring work undertaken by dedicated and caring professionals, who are creating safe spaces, such as the hub. I saw for myself the calm and trusting relationships built with students, and heard about the difference that the hub makes for students. Rather than spiralling into disruptive behaviour or not even being able to make it through the door to registration some days, students are now seeking out the hub as a space to ready themselves for registration or to take time out before going back to class. The headteacher, staff and the SEND co-ordinators go above and beyond, often making miracles happen on very limited budgets. However, let me share the words of one dedicated professional from my constituency, so that the House can hear what the current crisis is leading to. She says: “On a daily basis I am setting up, delivering and helping other Teaching Assistants to deliver bespoke curriculums for children with SEND as they are mostly educated outside the classes of their peers. We do not have a special unit for them, we are just accommodating them as best we can in quieter areas of the school, including corridors, because they are not able to work in the noise and business of a primary classroom. The needs of these children vary though they all need 1:1 TAs to help them and others stay safe, regulated and learning throughout the day. At present we have two non-verbal children with an Autism diagnosis who, years ago, you would not have expected to see in a mainstream school. Up until this week I have believed that I was doing the right thing trying to make sure they are happy and secure and genuinely learning and making progress with us.” That professional is now questioning the very fundamentals of her profession as a result of the heartbreaking experience of those children when they are facing key transitions: starting school, primary to secondary, getting to 18, 18 to 25 and afterwards. One of the children she had been working with was excluded a few days after starting secondary school because their behaviour was not manageable. In her words: “It broke my heart to hear from her Mum what she had gone through in such a short time in mainstream Secondary and I knew at once that she must have been so frightened to have behaved as she did. The child was subsequently at home for most of the remaining school year receiving education from a tutor paid for by the Local Authority—after her parents fought hard and demanded it—and then was finally given a place at their local special school in the summer. What I now understand is that the broken system means that a child has to fail in a very distressing way before they are given the provision they need. I could not sit by and see another child I have known for many years go down the same path with all the knowledge of how damaging the experience will be for them without saying something about it!”

• 12 Dec 2024 · SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to what I think is a postcode lottery. We see regional disparities in the care and provision given, so I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. For many, the wait to get assessments for education, health and care plans can be months, if not years. Lord Darzi’s investigation of the NHS in England notes, “Waiting lists for community services and mental health have surged.” The report also mentions how “Demand for assessments for ADHD and Autism have grown exponentially in recent years”, with children disproportionately represented among them. Recent research found that 200,000 children in England are struggling to get an education, health and care plan. That is 200,000 families left in uncertainty, desperate for help and struggling without the support they need. Cambridgeshire currently has 8,033 students with EHCPs—a 51% increase in the last five years—and of those, 2,593 plans primarily address autism spectrum disorder. Indeed, I was told by the chief executive of Cambridgeshire county council that there has been an increase of 270% in the number of children presenting with autism. Requests for education, health and care needs assessments have risen faster than the national average. Why? We think that is driven by greater awareness of SEND and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities, the impact of the covid pandemic and the overall increase in mental health issues for children, even at a very young age. Those numbers help to underline the scale of the issue, but we should not get drawn purely into statistics and figures, because behind every number and every percentage there is a child, a family or a sibling being failed every single day. I come to the issue of disparity that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) mentioned. Families who can afford to seek private neurodevelopmental assessments tend to receive help much faster than those who are reliant on public services. For the rest, it is a postcode lottery. NHS England data reveals stark regional disparities in waiting times for diagnosis. For example, the north-west region has the longest average wait of three years and four months, from referral to diagnosis. We therefore have a health inequality element to this too, as certain groups of children are less likely to have their needs identified or met, punished just because of where they live. For some children, mainstream schools are simply not suitable, and parents and carers bear the brunt of that reality, managing reduced timetables, enduring repeated exclusions and watching their children receive only a few hours of education each day.

• 12 Dec 2024 · SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Carers Trust has provided us with these stories and pointed out that we really need to collect this evidence. It would be easy to point the finger at local councils and say that this is their failure, but, as we have said, they are stretched to their limits by a chronic lack of funding. We have heard that f40, the cross-party local authority campaign group, has estimated that an additional £4.6 billion of annual SEND revenue is required to meet the current need, yet most of our county councils face a black hole in their budgets. One issue is the training and retention of educational psychologists, because they and council workers are overwhelmed. Turnover rates are high and burnout is common, which leads to an exacerbation of those waiting lists.

• 12 Dec 2024 · SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member. My constituency of South Cambridgeshire also has among the lowest per-pupil funding, which exacerbates the fact that, even though we have EHCPs, most of them are not funded to the amount that is required for each of those students. That compounds the situation that our amazing schools are trying to deal with. Let me return to educational psychologists. Cambridgeshire county council has 17.5 budgeted educational psychologist roles, but 6.4 remain vacant due to a national shortage and the fact that psychologists can get better pay in other jobs and other places. We are seeing an inability to fill those roles and to support psychologists. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a national body for SEND to end the postcode lottery faced by families of children with the highest needs. That would include looking at immediate Government action to prioritise early diagnosis and support for children with SEND, and to increase funding for diagnostic services.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The US President-elect, Donald Trump, has repeatedly called climate change “a hoax”. I share the concerns of young people in South Cambridgeshire that these views represent a threat to our efforts to tackle climate change. The global community is meeting right now at the international climate summit in Azerbaijan—COP29. Does the Minister believe and share with me the view that the UK must rebuild its leadership by getting back on track with our climate and nature targets?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And community energy groups.