Pippa Heylings MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend often brings that issue up in the Chamber and in the Select Committee. We have to fix the broken system whereby households and businesses do not feel the benefits of cheaper renewable energy from solar and wind. Finally, the Liberal Democrats believe that building public confidence in the transition to net zero requires people to see the benefits in their own communities. That means empowering those best placed to deliver change on the ground. Local authorities, community organisations and local leaders understand the needs of their areas, can bring people with them and are uniquely placed to turn national ambition into practical action. We need regulatory change so that community energy projects can sell energy locally, but those bodies can also take action on better public transport, warmer homes, nature restoration or street-by-street electrification. Too often local climate action remains fragmented, underpowered and dependent on short-term funding. Critically, local authorities still have no statutory responsibility for delivering net zero for climate and nature duty. Such responsibility has been voted down every single time it has been introduced in devolution legislation. Will the Minister look at placing local authorities at the centre of delivery of the seventh carbon budget by legislating for a clear climate and nature statutory duty for local authorities, and by ensuring that they have the funding and powers needed to unlock these opportunities? Many Liberal Democrat Members have been local councillors and we know that local authorities can do that, together with local people. Climate change will not wait and neither should we—the time is now.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend; I will be coming on to exactly that point. For more than a decade, the previous Government had a policy of maximising North sea oil and gas extraction and of removing and reducing taxes on oil and gas companies. With the issuing of hundreds of new licences in a maturing basin, what we have seen produced after 14 years is little more than a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security. We know, and have admitted in the debate, that we have to reduce our dependency on gas and come to a transition. The Liberal Democrats recognise not only that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but that the North sea’s most productive years are behind it. That is why we support a managed and just transition away from North sea oil and gas, with investment in renewables at its heart, and strong support for the workers and communities most affected. Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on and have contributed enormously to our economy. They deserve our support through transition—not just words—and honesty about the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of a just transition commission and an acceleration of the clean energy jobs necessary. Under the Conservatives, jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000, and at that time we did not hear the cries that we hear now about what is happening or how those workers are being supported. I grew up in Hull, a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transitions—from coal and from the cod fisheries—and through my father’s work as a GP, I saw the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. We cannot repeat those mistakes. No community should be left behind. In Hull today, when I go back, I see what success can look like: the manufacture of offshore wind turbines by Siemens; the Humber region pioneering the offshore wind industry; investment creating skilled, well-paid jobs now and for the future. Confederation of British Industry economic data has shown that beyond Hull, across the country, the new green economy underpins the jobs of 1.1 million workers throughout the UK, generating £105 billion in gross value added. That is the model we should be scaling up towards, with our skilled oil and gas workers and the supply chains front and centre of the transition. Finally, in this sweltering heat, with this first ever red health alert for danger to life from extreme heat, we must recognise the costs of failing to tackle climate change. This week has shown us the future we face if we do not act—lives lost to extreme heat, schools closed, fields parched, transport networks gridlocked and economic costs spiralling. Climate breakdown is a national security threat, driving instability, displacement and economic shocks. It is incumbent on us to do all we can to avoid worsening climate shocks, so we must find a way forward through electrification that balances cheaper energy bills and security of energy supply, and meets our climate commitments. The future of the North sea plays a vital role in that endeavour of transitioning from being a net exporter of oil and gas in the past to becoming a net exporter of home-grown green energy—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said—again trading in the EU internal electricity market and joining North sea countries in meeting joint offshore wind investment goals, while decarbonising the gas production we will still need for decades to come. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify whether he agrees with the Liberal Democrat proposal: a just transition commission, acceleration of clean energy jobs, and our essential energy guarantee, to ensure that all families have their basic energy needs met. In addition, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about the identity and culture of the communities that have to face this transition. That, too, is crucial. The sooner we embrace the transition and the sooner we can deliver a secure and affordable energy system, the sooner we can finally give families the lower, stable bills that they deserve.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I definitely welcome that; as the hon. Gentleman will hear later in my speech, we want to go even further. As we know, it is Liberal Democrats who fix people’s church roofs and put the solar panels on them. For too long, the pace of change has been too slow. It has left people and businesses trapped, at the mercy of a broken energy system that they are literally paying the price for. It is time to take back control of our energy future, and that starts with our communities. In the last Session of Parliament, I welcomed the Government agreeing with our calls to include community energy and community benefits in the Great British Energy Act 2025. Now communities must be given the right to sell and buy energy locally, and we must mandate community benefit requirements where communities host renewable infrastructure. The transition must be done with those communities, not to them. I also welcomed the adoption of the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill, or sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which requires solar panels on all new homes—but why wait until 2027, and why not go further? We Liberal Democrats want to see solar on new warehouses and car parks, turning rooftops across the country into sources of clean, affordable power. We also want to see solar panels on schools and hospitals. Since 2019, energy bills for schools and the NHS have more than doubled, forcing impossible choices between heating and healthcare or between bills and books. The current Government investment reaches less than 1% of schools. Liberal Democrats would go further and faster, helping to protect frontline budgets for our schools and hospitals. Families, too, want to do the right thing; there has been a record increase in sales of solar panels and heat pumps since the start of the war in Iran. We must build on that momentum and help households and small businesses to take back control of their bills, giving them access to zero-interest or low-interest loans for upgrading properties by establishing an energy security bank to support electrification. At the same time we need to fix the broken energy market. It remains absurd that electricity is still priced so highly compared with gas, meaning that people are often not rewarded for electrifying their homes and businesses. It is also crazy that consumers are paying billions to switch off our wind turbines when the grid cannot cope with surplus renewable generation. That is why I welcomed the recent steps taken to begin breaking the link between gas and electricity prices, a reform that the Liberal Democrats have long called for. However, we urge the Government to go further and faster in their Bill: moving unfair policy levies off electricity bills, providing a progressive social energy tariff for those unable to absorb repeated bill shocks, upgrading grid infrastructure and ensuring that customers benefit directly from cheaper renewable power through flexibility when there is surplus renewable generation. Yes, we need energy independence, but that does not mean isolation. The UK and the EU have deeply interconnected energy systems, but the damaging Brexit deal has meant a huge increase in energy costs. Our future lies in ever closer energy ties to our nearest neighbours, and this Government need to drop their red lines on Europe. Rejoining the EU’s internal electricity market and linking our emissions trading schemes will reduce costs and strengthen resilience. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was right to say that “it is simply fantasy and fabrication for some in this House to pretend that there is a solution in the North sea” —[ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 31.] to people’s high energy bills. Even when North sea production was at its peak nearly 30 years ago, the UK was still exposed to global price shocks, because we have been price takers. Nor is the answer fracking, which some are calling for; it destroys our countryside and pollutes our waterways. We will push for a complete ban on fracking and complete clarity on closing all the loopholes. We need a secure energy mix, and that includes nuclear; we believe that small modular reactors have great potential to strengthen energy security alongside renewables. Oil and gas will also be part of that energy mix for decades to come, but we must recognise the need for a fair and managed energy transition, given that our remaining reserves are in decline. Communities cannot be left behind. We urge the Government to establish a just transition commission, to future-proof supply chain jobs, and to enable the retention of our brilliant, skilled oil and gas workers in high-quality jobs in renewables and other sectors.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. As many have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this hugely subscribed and important debate and for representing rural constituencies across the country. As we have heard, people in rural areas already face higher living costs, higher levels of fuel poverty and poorer energy efficiency compared to urban homes, and those areas also have many vulnerable elderly people. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that, once again, we are debating urgent support to rural, off-grid households facing immediate and unaffordable cost increases who are uniquely exposed to volatile global fossil fuel markets. Clearly, we have not learnt the lessons from the very recent past. In the current energy crisis resulting from Trump’s dangerous, reckless and illegal war in Iran, heating oil is not covered by Ofgem’s price cap, just as during Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it was not covered by the energy price guarantee. We must not allow rural households to be left behind again. As the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association points out, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that the price of imported jet fuel is the largest component in the retail price of a litre of heating oil, and it is far more volatile than Brent crude oil. The association has reported prices jumping from 44p per litre in January to 100p litre this week and, as we have heard, the final price landing on consumers is way above that. In my constituency, 2,954 households—35%—are reliant on heating oil. That is much higher than any other Cambridgeshire constituency. As soon as the conflict began, I heard directly from constituents in the villages of Fowlmere, Barrington, Litlington, Weston Colville, the Abingtons and Heydon, who, despite having agreed a price, were being told that neither that price, nor even the date of delivery, could any longer be guaranteed. One vulnerable elderly resident had only two days of heating oil left in their home. Some bought heating oil from a different provider at double the price because they could not wait. It is questionable that the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association justifies that kind of action as acceptable and appropriate because it is approved by the Competition and Markets Authority. I was the first to demand directly of the Chancellor, when I talked to her in the Chamber, that she not leave households exposed once again, as they were in 2022. Her response was that public money would not be spent and that she would focus exclusively on price gouging and complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority. As Liberal Democrats, while we welcomed the Government’s U-turn to channel £53 million of funding through the newly launched crisis and resilience fund through county councils—Cambridgeshire county council was one of the first councils to get that up and running—we have heard that it is not enough. As other Members have said, it is averaging around £30 to £35 per household, and I have already been told that many struggling households are now complaining that they do not meet the criteria from the fund. As I have mentioned repeatedly to Ministers—and as highlighted by research from Energy UK—improved data sharing from Government Departments—that goes beyond the Department for Work and Pensions—is critical for the funds to be fair and effectively target and reach those who really need them. We need to look closely at price gouging and at whether this unregulated market for heating oil is fit for purpose in serving and protecting rural households. Will the Minister respond to our Liberal Democrat proposal for a three-month zero rating of VAT on heating oil; for a better regulated sector, with a proper price cap that shields households not only on heating oil but on LPG; and for improved consumer protection? Will he also look at the regulation we probably need on improved data sharing, so we can ensure that this help reaches those who need it most? As many have said today, the long-term solution is not to leave rural households on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels. We need to increase the transition to home-grown clean energy, insulate homes and ensure that the warm homes plan works for rural and off-grid homes.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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).

• 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—

• 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.

• 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 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

  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—

• 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?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Investment in the life science sector in the rural economy is critical, and that is why we are concerned that this motion comes at a time when our life science sector is in crisis—and, frankly, I am not hearing yet from the Minister that the Government are grasping the scale of the crisis. I have heard consistent concerns from the life science sector about this, with Novartis saying that the UK is becoming “largely uninvestable”. We have seen signs of this, and heard of it today, with the loss of planned investment by Merck MSD in life science and vaccination manufacturing facilities to the tune of £1 billion and also £450 million-worth of investment by AstraZeneca. That comes on top of AstraZeneca pausing the planned £200 million expansion of its research centre in my constituency. This is obviously ringing alarm bells across the Chamber. Additionally, in a report by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, “Delivering a voluntary scheme for health and growth”, life science leaders are warning that the Government growth plan will not succeed unless Ministers commit to fixing a scheme known as VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—which unexpectedly now requires companies to pay record clawback rates of up to a quarter or even a third of their revenue from sales of branded medicines to the NHS. The Liberal Democrats would commit to raising R&D spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2034, a decade-long commitment that gives businesses the certainty they are asking for. We would introduce proof of concept funding to help researchers develop their early-stage ideas and empower local authorities to develop regional spin-out ecosystems so innovation can drive growth and high paying jobs right across the country, as well as where I am in my constituency in the golden triangle. I therefore ask the Minister to set out, in addition to this much-awaited manufacturing fund, the status of the last-minute negotiations with companies and their investments, such as AstraZeneca and Merck MSD, and also what the Government are doing particularly on VPAG to restore confidence to pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place, attractive to investment, that values research, development and manufacturing.

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

  More

  I will perhaps come back to that a little later, but I agree completely about the importance of the SPF, as well as the sustainable farming incentive. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we have public land—council land—working on regenerative agriculture with farmers, to provide the food we need. We need the stability and certainty of the SFI for our farmers. The priorities it is anticipated will be negotiated at COP30 include deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming, support for family farms and sustainable fisheries. This transformation has to be just, and that is as important here at home as it is globally. Farmers have always been on the frontline of climate change, as stewards of our countryside and producers of our food, and because they are struggling with the unavoidable impacts we now face. They must be at the heart of our solution. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the transition to sustainable farming cannot be done to farmers; it must be done with them. However, progress has been slow, and the uncertainty surrounding the sustainable farming incentive risks undermining the confidence and stability that farmers need if they are to continue to invest in regenerative agriculture, local food networks and diversified protein crops, as proposed by the National Farmers Union. Improving soil health, supporting pollinators and keeping farm businesses viable makes business sense too. As Martin Lines—the chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who farms in Cambridgeshire—says, nature-friendly farming plays a “vital role” in building resilience to weather extremes. He says: “Practices like improving soil health, using cover crops, and integrating habitats into fields are helping farmers stay productive while cutting back on inputs.” We also call for a just transition in food and farming, as does World Animal Protection. At home, we must match words with action. The Liberal Democrats would accelerate the delivery of the long-promised land use framework, aligning food, farming and biodiversity policy. We would protect and strengthen the sustainable farming incentive and deliver it now. We would support a just transition for farmers and animals, reduce food waste across the supply chain and champion local, sustainable food production to boost rural economies and resilience.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Reducing Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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