Pippa Heylings MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local nature recovery. When the Government first introduced this Bill, they branded it a win-win. They said that we could build the homes and infrastructure that this country desperately needs and protect and restore nature. We have seen in my constituency—one of the fastest growing areas of the country, with a Liberal Democrat-run local planning authority—that it is indeed possible to demand from developers both ambitious house building and high environmental standards that restore nature. We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes homes that are energy-efficient and warm, not cold and damp; access to green space for mental and physical health; and infrastructure, including public transport, GPs and schools. When done well, nature is a partner to the healthy homes and green energy that our country needs. However, through this Bill, the Government risk taking a wrecking ball to good-quality development. Nature is not a blocker to development. We are pointing the figure at the wrong culprit, and this is cheap, false rhetoric. Nature is not to blame. The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has publicly warned that the Bill in its current form will be a regression from current environmental protections, rather than increasing the number of homes, helping nature and helping us to meet our binding climate and nature pledges. Instead it will remove vital safeguards and put protected sites and species at risk. Over 30 leading environmental organisations, including the RSPB, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have raised the alarm about part 3 of the Bill, with its very worrying plan to move to a “cash to trash” model for the nature restoration fund. I know the Minister has rejected that characterisation, but in the Environmental Audit Committee we heard robust evidence from expert witnesses that we could call it a “pay some amount later for something, somewhere” fund.

• 14 May 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We have to name the report “In Broad Daylight” from Sheffield Hallam University, which found that all solar industry-relevant polysilicon producers in the Uyghur region were either using state-sponsored labour transfers of Uyghurs or were sourcing from companies that were. As we speak, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subject to forced labour and political re-education camps. We cannot allow our green future to be built on the backs of enslaved people. My constituents in South Cambridgeshire do not expect their solar panels to be made by child labourers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or enslaved Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and I do not expect that Ministers do either—and they are right. I understand that the Government will not be supporting the amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which is about definitions. Definitions really matter. The definition of slavery and how it is interpreted needs to be clear. This amendment would make it clear that the definition of slavery includes forced labour, state-imposed forced labour, exploitative child labour, abuses of workers’ rights and dangerous working conditions. It would be good to hear from the Minister about how the working groups that he is already working on will ensure that there are no loopholes, no grey areas and no convenient ignorance. The amendment would incorporate and put into practice the International Labour Organisation’s definition. How will that ILO standard be put into practice? We have progress, but it is not the end; it is the beginning. Lord Alton said: “The Joint Committee on Human Rights is close to completing an inquiry which is likely to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1238.] This is the opportunity to look seriously at the model set by the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which introduces a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang are the product of forced labour, unless clear and convincing evidence can be shown to the contrary. Embedding a similar presumption into UK law would shift the burden of proof away from vulnerable victims and place it firmly on those who profit. It would close those loopholes that have allowed exploitation to flourish unchecked. As my colleague Earl Russell in the other House rightly noted, we also need international co-ordination. I urge the Minister to update this House on efforts to work with like-minded partners in Europe and elsewhere to eliminate slavery from all our supply chains—those not just of GB Energy, but of all energy companies. Great British Energy, as the Minister said, has a chance to lead by example not just on innovation and independence, but on moral integrity.

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

  More

  I will speak to amendment 8, which is similar to amendment 6. It would strengthen clause 3 by ensuring that sustainable development is properly defined within the Crown Estate’s framework document and that this definition explicitly includes a climate and nature duty. The Crown Estate plays a pivotal role in the management of our land, seas and natural resources. It is well known for its ambition around nature recovery. It is a key player in our offshore wind expansion, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management, but in areas in which there are multiple competing uses and values, including fishing, marine protected areas, and even highly protected marine areas. Therefore we need reassurances, as were obtained in the other House, that clause 3 does not just require commissioners to keep under review their impact on sustainable development without clearly defining what that means in practice. I must acknowledge where this amendment started in life, which is with Baroness Hayman’s work in the other House. After much debate, it was agreed that sustainable development must be kept under review by the commissioners, but with a reference to the framework document in which a definition would be provided. Baroness Hayman 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.] This amendment seeks to provide clarity and accountability for what was agreed verbally in the other House—that the definition would not be on the face of the Bill, but would be in the updated framework agreement. We need that to ensure there is a consistent benchmark against which decisions can be assessed, in line with the public duty to our climate and nature targets. As the definition within the framework agreement would specifically refer to, those are the climate targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the nature restoration goals under the Environment Act 2021. This would mean that the Crown Estate cannot simply pay lip service to sustainability; it must actively contribute to decarbonisation, biodiversity protection and the UK’s broader environmental goals. Climate change and nature loss are economic risks, as well as environmental ones. Embedding clear, enforceable sustainability duties in the Crown Estate’s framework, according to our existing legislation, will ensure that its investments and operations support long-term resilience and prosperity. This amendment strengthens the existing clause. It does not seek to define it on the face of the Bill, but assures us, as happened in the other House, that the definition is within the framework agreement.

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

  More

  Amendment 7 is similar to amendment 4, and is supportive of its essence. It is about introducing a sensible borrowing limit for the Crown Estate commissioners by capping their net debt-to-asset value ratio at 25%, with any change to that limit requiring parliamentary approval. As we have just heard, clause 1 as it stands grants the Crown Estate significant new powers to borrow and access financial assistance from the Treasury. Although investment in the Crown Estate’s portfolio—particularly in areas such as offshore wind—is welcome, it is vital that we ensure fiscal responsibility and protect the long-term value of these assets for the nation. Amendment 7 is about introducing proper safeguards. The Crown Estate manages over £16 billion in assets, and its revenues contribute directly to the Treasury and public finances. Without a clear borrowing limit, we could risk unchecked debt accumulation, which could ultimately undermine the Estate’s financial sustainability and reduce the returns it provides to the Exchequer. A 25% debt-to-asset ratio is a reasonable cap and allows for investment and growth, but prevents excessive leveraging that could put the Estate’s finances at risk. Crucially, the amendment also ensures parliamentary oversight. Any changes to the limit must be debated and approved by both Houses, rather than left solely to the discretion of the Treasury. This is not about preventing the Crown Estate from borrowing; it is about ensuring that borrowing is responsible, transparent and aligned with the long-term interests of the nation. Given the Crown Estate’s unique status and the importance of its revenues to the public purse, it is only right that Parliament retains a say over any significant increase in borrowing capacity. The amendment would only confirm assurances that were provided in the other House by Lord Livermore. In his work with Baroness Kramer, we were assured that there would be a cap on borrowing to 20% of the loan-to-value ratio in the updated framework agreement. Amendments 4 and 7 reflect those promises, and I urge the Government to support amendment 7 to safeguard the financial integrity of the Crown Estate and ensure that borrowing powers are used wisely and with proper oversight.

• 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.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unjustifiable to continue the sale of arms to Israel, especially now that there are concerns about its compliance with international humanitarian standards? The United Nations Relief and Works Agency cannot deliver desperately needed aid to Gaza because of the aggression of the Israel Defence Forces towards its aid workers, and we need to deal with that.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Georgia · Hansard source

  More

  I have met young Georgians here in the UK who are watching with desperation, fear and depression as legislation on foreign influence restricts their rights, the media and organisations dealing with all sorts of development rights. They are also seeing their colleagues brutally repressed on the streets as they try to have freedom of association and to keep what is enshrined in their constitution—movement towards EU accession—as it is being ripped away from them. What can the Minister say to those young people? Will she and the ambassador be open to meet them? They are in a terrible state of anxiety right now.

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

  More

  I start by thanking the Minister for how constructively he has worked with me, and by thanking the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for his words just now. I also thank all the colleagues who have sat on the Great British Energy Bill Committee. It is encouraging that this legislation has been given a prime spot at the beginning of this Parliament, and I thank the Clerks and the Speaker’s Office for their diligent work in administering the Bill thus far, as well as all the Members who have taken the opportunity to represent their constituents’ aspirations and concerns regarding the Bill. As many Members know, this is my first Bill as spokesperson for energy security and net zero, and I have appreciated all the support I have been given. I also acknowledge colleagues from across the House who have lent their support to the amendments to which I am going to speak, and have also tabled their own. In particular, I recognise the contribution made by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), whose amendment promotes a nature recovery duty. He will know that nature recovery is close to my heart, and that I raised that topic in Committee. Last week, I had the privilege of attending the UN conference on biodiversity in Cali, Colombia—a poignant reminder of how it is impossible to address climate change and energy security without tackling the nature emergency. National energy infrastructure must therefore be nature-positive and aligned with the obligations in the Environment Act 2021. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill in principle, because we want a nationwide energy system that will bring down energy bills and provide clean, green energy. Amendment 3, which stands in my name, would guarantee that Great British Energy is established within six months of the Bill becoming law. We all know that as a result of the Conservative Government’s delay and dither, we are not on track to meet our ambitious targets.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 10, clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert— “(e) an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and (f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.” This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology . As I understand it, the Bill’s scope has changed, enabling us also to consider the customers in all of this and the benefits to customers from the creation of Great British Energy. For that reason, the issue of home insulation should be considered. The need for Great British Energy and the demand for the energy that is being created is also generated by the amount of energy that leaks from cold, draughty homes. We are approaching winter now. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire and, I am sure, in constituencies across the country, including those represented by Members of this Committee, a large number of people, many of them vulnerable, are in cold, damp homes. Although those people may be able, through their local authority, to have some renewable energy features and insulation added to their home, a proper emergency home insulation programme—not just for this winter but for the long term—is not being considered. As we know from the Climate Change Committee, the calculation of the demand for energy generation changes when we look at the amount of energy lost through heating homes. We would need to generate less energy if we managed our home insulation programme. I therefore think that it is within scope to show not only the price of people’s bills but the standards under which they are living in their homes, and the amount of energy being lost without a home insulation programme. I know that the Government have their warm homes plan, which we will see in the spring, but we should consider home insulation within energy efficiency, given the importance of GB Energy to the consumer.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Keeping vulnerable people warm and lowering their energy bills is, I am sure, something we can all agree on across the House. Insulating homes is a key part of that puzzle. We welcome the news that we will see the warm homes plan in spring. However, does the Minister agree that ahead of this winter we need an emergency home insulation plan, particularly for the vulnerable, along with allocated funding? Does she have any idea of the amount and allocation of funding in this Parliament that there will be for insulating homes?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Healthcare Provision: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we are witnessing the tragic consequences of an outdated funding formula. It is entrenching deep inequality across the region and the country, but it is particularly deep in Cambridgeshire, which is the most impacted of all 42 healthcare systems in the country. We receive the lowest healthcare funding per person for primary healthcare. This is just wrong. A distressing example of this is happening right now in South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest-growing places in the country. GPs—we have talked about productivity—are treating more patients than ever before, but cannot keep up with the demands of a growing population. This is particularly so because of the funding formula. During the election campaign, I ran a survey that showed that 60% of respondents were struggling to access a GP appointment. We have heard that this is happening across the region and the country. It has come to a head this week, with four much-respected family GPs tragically handing back their contracts because it is financially impossible for them to continue. They are devastated by this decision. I have spoken with the integrated care board, which has been unable to stop this happening, and my constituents in Fulbourn, Fen Ditton, Marleigh and Cherry Hinton are hugely concerned. This has occurred as a direct consequence of the Carr-Hill funding formula—an outdated funding formula that does not take into account deprivation in an area. The practices that are dealing with deprivation find themselves dealing with more patients than others and more complex needs than others, but the funding formula does not take this into account. The practice has tried to deal with this over the years, but this is the tragic consequence in the end. Will the Minister join the Royal College of General Practitioners, the NHS confederation of primary care networks, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough integrated care board and me in calling for a radical review of the outdated Carr-Hill funding formula, so that we can enable GPs to do their job sufficiently and well?