Rachel Gilmour MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2026 · Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to declare that I returned from Ukraine last week—I was part of a cross-party delegation—and my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect that. The newspapers and the television are this week full of pictures of people hunkering in bunkers in the middle east, but it is worth remembering that the people of Ukraine have been doing that for the past four years. The Foreign Secretary will of course be aware of the close relationship between Moscow and Tehran. Russia continues to deploy Iranian-manufactured Shahed drones to terrorise Ukraine’s population. With the crisis in the middle east intensifying, will she set out how the Government now assess the implications of these recent developments for Russia’s war in Ukraine?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate. I also thank my many constituents who, quite rightly, have grave concerns about this matter and have written to me about it. My party has made its dissatisfaction with the White Paper clear, and my colleagues are making the case strongly again today. We have been leading the charge in calling for a comprehensive approach to tackling what is nothing short of a crisis in the water sector. The Government made tackling this crisis an important pillar of their election campaign, so it is deeply disappointing that the reforms set out in the water White Paper fall far short of what the situation demands. The system is in dire straits and requires a complete overhaul, but instead the Government offer only the lightest of plans that fail to beef up regulations in a meaningful manner or provide funding provision for enforcement. Although the abolition of Ofwat is welcome, the uncertainty around its replacement is unhelpful. Farmers need proper support to tackle agricultural run-off, which accounts for around 40% of water pollution. As stewards of the land, they are inevitably stewards of our water as well. How can it be that we have allowed corporate greed to run rampant, and allowed these companies to have presided over the routine pumping of filth into the waterways of this land? It is quite remarkable. All the while, the good people of the west country have seen their bills soar, some by as much as threefold. The Government offer only the lightest of plans: weak regulation, no meaningful enforcement and no funding to ensure compliance. As my constituency straddles the Somerset-Devon border, we are in the unenviable position of having two water companies: Wessex Water and South West Water. I think it is fair to say that I have made my views on South West Water clear before, and I will once again direct my ire at South West Water, because its behaviour, inertia and refusal to acknowledge the gravity of situations of its own making has been pitiful. Just a week ago, I raised the matter of my poor constituents at Bawdens bakery in Bampton, who have been forced to close and sell up because their property has flooded so many times. I had a most unhelpful meeting with the director of South West Water, who showed only his complete complacence and, I have to say, arrogance, to such an extent that I had to ask him and his staff to leave. The public health implications are grave. I have heard horror stories from constituents whose children have fallen seriously ill after swimming in local rivers. The beaches at Dunster and Blue Anchor now carry the dreaded brown flag status. It is a shameful state of affairs. Is it really too much for the British public to expect clean water as a basic right? At the risk of being blunt and somewhat crude, suffice it to say that the Tiverton sewage works absolutely reek every time it rains—and anyone familiar with the west country will know how often that is. It is inexcusable and utterly foul. It is a stench and a situation more in character with the 12th century, certainly not the 21st. I could be more colourful with my description, but I will spare colleagues and preserve my own sanity.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am very proud to represent some fantastic small businesses in my rural constituency. Mr Barclay, the owner of CardByMeLove in Tiverton, has been left to shoulder an administrative burden that is not of his own making, chasing missing parcels and placating disgruntled customers. To make matters worse, he has faced an unresponsive Royal Mail. Does my hon. Friend agree that such instances of abject failure actively undermine the ability of small businesses to operate, and cause serious reputational damage in already trying circumstances?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Educational Outcomes: Disadvantaged Boys and Young Men · Hansard source

  More

  The west Somerset side of my constituency bears many of the hallmarks of a forgotten coastal community. In Somerset, 7.5% of young men aged 16 and 17 are not in education, employment or training, which is significantly above the national average in England. Does the hon. Member agree that when young people grow up without the educational infrastructure, networks and opportunities that others take for granted, it shapes their outlook profoundly? It is little wonder that that leaves them feeling neglected and undermines their sense of aspiration.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Members of the armed forces are the only uniformed service without a professional body to represent and support them. Will the Minister give assurances that the Armed Forces Bill will include provisions to establish such a body, ensuring that serving personnel and veterans have access to legal and welfare support when faced with vexatious, unmerited or unsubstantiated allegations from within the system or from external litigants working on behalf of other service personnel or third parties?

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?

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

  More

  The Chapel in Cotford St Luke in my constituency is a fan favourite, but because of the decisions of this Government, it is dying. It has been hit exceptionally hard by VAT and the business rates regime, as is the case for many establishments in our part of the world, many of which rely heavily on tourism. Can the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on how we can better support the hospitality and tourism sector, and prevent much-loved businesses from closing their doors?

• 29 Jan 2026 · River Habitats: Protection and Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his kind words. I should start by declaring a couple of interests: before I came to Parliament I was head of strategy for the Environment Agency, specialising in water flooding and the water framework directive. Before that, I was the director of communications for the National Farmers’ Union—the first woman to sit on their board in 100 years. Despite my nerves about my first outing, I feel calmly confident that I have got a grip on things. I congratulate my colleague from the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), on securing the debate. I was particularly interested in his comments about the beavers on the Isle of Purbeck, because we have had similar issues in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). I was touched to hear the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talk about the rivers of this country being like veins in a body, echoed by the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The edifying and incisive observations in the debate show that this is clearly a matter close to all our hearts, whatever political party we come from—although it matters to a couple of us more than others. Across the country, we are witnessing storms of increasing frequency and ferocity, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the devastating flooding that has swept across my part of the world in the south- west in recent days. Events that were once expected every 300 years and then once every 100 years now seem to strike with alarming regularity. Our rivers, which are among Britain’s most precious wildlife habitats, are bearing the brunt of environmental decline. According to the Rivers Trust, and it is not the first time this has been mentioned, not a single English river is in “good chemical health” and only 15% are considered to be in good ecological condition. That is a sobering reality. Freshwater ecosystems are collapsing and this country now has some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe. The species that depend on the waterways, from fish to invertebrates to birds, are struggling to survive. Our rivers desperately need a reprieve. England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams: rare, crystal-clear, ecologically distinctive waterways found almost nowhere else on earth. Part of the challenge lies in the withdrawal of the Environment Agency from stewardship of many of our rivers. For years, maintenance of watercourses has been inadequate; now, with the EA stepping back for whatever reason in further parts of the country, including my own, the burden of looking after the waterways has become heavier still. We must recognise that farmers are on the frontline of environmental challenges and that the relationship between land and water has changed significantly and dramatically over the past century, encapsulated in the European water framework directive, which is not a complicated piece of legislation. That is why my party consistently emphasises the vital role of farmers as custodians of the natural world. They work tirelessly to reduce run-off and protect habitats, but they need support. Agricultural run-off, slurry, fertilisers and other such chemical cocktails continue to enter our waterways. That has patently been exacerbated, given the recent devastation caused by Storm Chandra in which huge swathes of the west country were submerged, washing pollutants into rivers and compounding the ecological damage. It will come as a surprise to no one that blame must be laid at the feet of water and sewage companies and their conduct. I had a meeting with South West Water on Monday, and it was obvious that their obscene greed and incompetence had inflicted immense harm on river habitats across the country and, indeed on my constituents in Bampton. Grotesque quantities of sewage have been allowed to spew into British waterways and there have been discharges on an industrial scale, with catastrophic consequences for aquatic life. It is an absolute insult; heads, I fear, must roll. The Liberal Democrats are sadly disappointed by the Government’s water White Paper, as it falls short of the promise to bring about fundamental regulatory reform. We believe that the current model of private ownership has utterly failed. Frankly, only a complete overhaul will do. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a system in which water companies are mutually owned by customers and run professionally in the public interest. We also call on the Government to finally end the scandalous sewage cover-up by forcing those crooked water companies to publish the volume of dumped sewage and not just the duration of spills. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Government’s plans—I am really sad about this because I am usually on side—do not cut the mustard. The decision to abolish Ofwat is welcome, but it is only the first step. We will continue to press the Government to establish a new, robust regulator, with real teeth and real accountability, as a matter of urgency. Turning to other causes of harm, water abstraction has risen sharply, reducing river flows and placing ecosystems under severe stress. Many rivers now run perilously low, especially during dry periods. Moreover, centuries of physical modification—straightening, damming, embanking, diverting and disconnecting—has fundamentally altered the natural character of our rivers. Those changes have inevitably disrupted fish migratory patterns, fragmented habitat connectivity and in turn diminished resilience to climate change. A river that cannot move, meander or naturally flood is a river that simply cannot thrive. Restoration efforts should focus on allowing our rivers to re-wiggle—I love that word, which means to return to their natural meanders—reconnecting them with flood plains, and rebuilding the diverse physical habitats that sustain life. In many cases, the best thing that we can do is to step back and let mother nature take her course—in essence, to rewild herself. That would include removing barriers such as weirs and small dams to aid fish passages, creating riffles, pools, wetlands and woody debris to enhance biodiversity, establishing nature-rich corridors along river banks and expanding natural flood management systems. Interventions such as these are not just environmentally beneficial; there is a major economic element to this. Healthy waterways provide essential services to all our systems. They are our lifeblood.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  I have thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, which is already very deprived. I cannot express how angry and disappointed they feel today. I am afraid that I will have to use strong language: this is simply gaslighting by this Labour Government. They know full well that it was not about whether the letters were sent earlier; it is about whether they were sent at all. Does the Secretary of State not need to accept that point?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. We have all watched with great sadness the recent shootings in the United States—scenes that should have shaken any civilised society. Thankfully, Britain is not a trigger-happy country, nor do we aspire to be. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not about restricting lawful firearm ownership. As a liberal, I am not in the business of banning things for the sake of it. As a rural MP, and having spent almost all my life in the west country, I am a creature of the countryside. I know that guns are part of rural life, but they are tools, not toys. Balancing responsible gun ownership with public safety is a delicate dance. Gun owners already undergo rigorous checks and we should avoid excessive bureaucracy, but the system is inconsistent and leaves gaps. Mandatory medical markers would close those gaps. Shooting organisations themselves recognise that: the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, among others, supports the use of medical markers because it reinforces what they know from experience, which is that licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly responsible and pose no risk to the public. That is precisely why their call for compulsory markers reflects a desire for a system that is robust, consistent and trusted by all. We must also consider the wider context. Mental health is a growing concern in rural communities such as mine. Farmers are among the most resilient people in the country, but resilience does not make anyone immune to pressure. Rural life can be hard and isolating; it involves long hours and financial uncertainty. That is not to pathologise farmers—quite the opposite—but acknowledging the pressures they face is important. The introduction of mandatory medical markers would be quite simply a win-win for gun owners, the public and the medical professionals who play such a vital role in the licensing process. It would strengthen trust, enhance safety and reinforce the responsible culture that already exists in our shooting communities.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, darling Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. As vice-chair of the Country Land and Business Association’s rural business and rural powerhouse APPG, I fully support the idea of a centralised licensing system. It is interesting that the chair of the APPG is a Liberal Democrat MP like me, so I am pretty confident that it is a sensible and practical idea and that it would prevent the awful sort of deaths that we had in Plymouth a few years ago. It is a very good idea, and the Chair of the PAC obviously agrees with me; I thank him for raising it.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intelligent and incisive comment. Mandatory medical markers help to support the rural community. They ensure that if someone is struggling, the licensing process is equipped to respond swiftly and sensitively. The public understand that. Some 70% of firearms licence holders support mandatory markers. Among the wider public, support shoots—pardon the pun—to 86%. Crucially, these markers are not a barrier to gun ownership. They do not make the process more difficult; they simply make it safer. I say to the Minister that it is common sense.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous. As the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead, I represent two water companies, Wessex Water—who are no angels—and South West Water—who I have been chasing for several months in order to get a meeting on behalf of a constituent whose bakery was flooded to such an extent that she has now had to shut up shop and go home. I am supposed to be meeting them on Monday, but it has taken at least four days to get a time out of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that these companies are able to literally stick their fingers in their ears when people raise concerns on behalf of their communities?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot pretend to understand the complexities of AI bots or the stuff that we have talked about this afternoon, but I do understand the impact that sexual abuse has on children and girls in my constituency. On Saturday, I was talking to a grandmother, who told me that her granddaughter had been groomed; as a consequence, she had become suicidal, was locked in her room and was unrecognisable from the young woman that she had been just three months ago. I live in a very rural part of the country. May I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that she will put as much money and as many facilities into rural parts of the country to prevent this disgusting habit as she will put into other parts?

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a tax on passive wealth, but that it punitively, cynically targets productive enterprise? The Government expect to raise roughly £1.4 billion from the inheritance tax changes, but analysis by Family Business UK suggests that behavioural responses could produce a net fiscal loss of £1.9 billion by the end of the decade. Are these measures not anti-growth, and directly at odds with the supposed messaging of this Government?

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is also a near neighbour of mine in Devon. Does he agree that the changes to agricultural property relief feels like a double taxation that burdens farming families in their old age? One can reasonably reach only one conclusion: this Government neither understand nor value this country’s farming communities —talk about biting the hand that literally feeds us. It is for this reason, amid a host of others adumbrated by colleagues across the Opposition Benches, that I will vote against the Bill this evening.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Just one Network Rail station, Tiverton Parkway, lies in my very large constituency. Like many other rural parts of the country, we are dogged by totally insufficient transport. Does the hon. Member share my view that if proper, predictable timetabling in rural areas is a lever for social mobility, unpredictability is very much a barrier?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I have three nuclear facilities in my constituency: Hinkley A, B and C. David Peattie, the chief executive officer of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, has referred to the horrible incident at Shap, because the NDA runs nuclear waste on trains on that rail line. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been nuclear waste on that train, the situation would have been even worse?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My Tiverton and Minehead constituency in west Somerset has the lowest social mobility in the whole country. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that mandatory digital ID will give a better quality of life to any of my constituents?

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I was in Ukraine in September with colleagues from the Labour Benches—I was the lone Liberal in a Government delegation. Against what seemed to be mountainous odds, the Ukrainians have defied a superpower that has unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction. In war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl, but Ukraine and Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival. Some wish to muddy the waters on this matter. As if it was not clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are, the Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine’s future—its children—who have been swallowed up into re-education camps, where they face psychological torment and indoctrination. It is a process of de-Ukrainianisation, and some estimates say that up to 40,000 children have suffered that fate. This is rancid and wicked; it is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people. Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight—a glance at any 20th century history book tells us that—but we in the west could have gone harder and faster. Western Governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what weapons systems could be sent; all the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling. Weapons systems that were deemed too provocative and escalation-inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The frontline is a horrifying meat grinder—a graveyard on the very edge of our continent. It was Churchill who said: “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” Today, Ukraine is on the frontline not by choice, but by the accident of geography. I do not believe Putin will stop at Ukraine; it is Ukraine today, and it will be somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched on our television screens the Russian tanks roll through Georgia. Ask the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; ask the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, both of whom departed from their long-standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask the Poles, who have ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming, and are not prepared to take any chances. This has all come in response to the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre-rattling; anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine’s independence as a provocation—some act of NATO encroachment, or poking the Russian bear. There is a very simple reason for ex-eastern bloc countries tilting west: it is because we are free. We are not societies in which those who criticise the regime go missing—where dissent ends in disappearance. While many hailed Trump’s return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table, any hints of Russian overtures have thus far been vanishingly hollow. During the furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed, the noises coming out of the White House were particularly troubling; it truly felt as though the President of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery. Branding Ukraine’s elected wartime leader a “dictator” was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of absurdity, and as Washington’s stance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said: “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. The problem is that although Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, his stick—or other such euphemistic accoutrement—seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest memorandum, and I remind the Administration in the White House that the United States was also a signatory to that agreement. Among other things, it represented a commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. To rewrite history, or to conveniently forget it, would be to bend to despotism. Let us not overlook the broader picture, either. Other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience and ability to respond decisively and in a co-ordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts—a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China’s assertiveness around Taiwan or the way it has behaved with Hong Kong has no correlation whatsoever with the war in Ukraine? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy, very close to home indeed—a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital that could serve as a base for nefarious activities on British soil, including espionage, sabotage and coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans. The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march, and the international order established after 1945 hangs in the balance.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I have a charming elderly constituent who, after a series of major medical interventions, has been left in excruciating, uncontrolled pain after her opioids were withdrawn, pushing her to suicidal ideations. Can the Prime Minister shed light on what plans His Majesty’s Government have to help people manage pain in order to live a happier and more comfortable life? Please can I have a meeting with the appropriate Minister?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate. We have Shelter’s vicious cycle: “No home? No address. No address? No bank account. No bank account? No job. No job? No home.” Rural homelessness is a unique challenge. In a way, it is unlike homelessness in urban centres; it is less visible, which makes it harder to tackle. I suppose people always imagine quaint villages and rolling hills, so the association with homelessness does not necessarily fit, which perhaps makes it easier to overlook. There are many people in my constituency who sofa surf, staying temporarily with family and friends, and therefore are not classified as statutorily homeless. There is a hidden homelessness crisis. If hon. Members came to visit the Hope Centre in Minehead with me, they would see the excellent volunteers from the Baptist church support the many people who are sofa surfing in Minehead and west Somerset. In 2024-25, 30% of people in mid Devon became homeless because friends or family were either no longer able or willing to provide accommodation. That figure is about the same in Somerset. Homelessness in rural areas has increased every year since 2018, with the most recent statistics indicating there are around 28,000 homeless people in rural parts of the country. They are most highly represented in the south-west. At the end of 2023, homelessness in the countryside had jumped by 40%—nearly half. An English Rural report found that rural areas receive 65% less funding for homelessness per capita compared with urban areas. We need more social housing. I had a look at what the CPRE said about rural homelessness following the Government’s publishing of the housing figures in June. In the south-west, almost 65,000 people are on waiting lists for social housing. Figures from 2023 showed that just 8% of homes in rural areas were affordable, whereas that figure is 17% in urban areas. Without building the homes, people will continue to face destitution and homelessness. The Liberal Democrat manifesto last year included a commitment to build 150,000 social houses. I am proud to say that in Minehead, Somerset council has built social housing for the first time in a generation. The Liberal Democrat Mid Devon council is making good headway. Given the comments from the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), I will make sure that he gets an update from Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council. I always tell people there is no point in talking about affordable housing if someone earns only £20,000 a year. What we need is social housing, not affordable housing, and we need it in Tiverton and Minehead first and foremost.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak in favour of new clause 38, which I tabled. It seeks to introduce measures to prevent developers from using their own surveyors who have a vested interest in downgrading agricultural land in order to secure planning permission—particularly for solar farms—to build all over our countryside, taking farmers’ land and livelihoods. The new clause was born out of a specific issue that was raised with me in my constituency. In Washford, a farmer called Mr Dibble—no kidding—has a farm in his family’s name. They have been there for generations. Some time ago, developers came to see him with a plan for development on the farm, and he refused. His lease is guaranteed for another generation, but the solar farm developers did not seem to care. He reached out to me because of the unfairness of the situation. I was shocked to find out that the developers had organised a surveyor to visit his property, who had deemed it sub-par agricultural land. Anyone with eyes can see that that is not the case. Farmer Dibble would not have been able to grow the crops that he has on that land had it been of the quality that the developers claimed it was. His land is grade 1 or 2 at the very least, yet surveyors are coming in, paid for by the developers, to say that—surprise, surprise—it is grade 3 at best. At present, local authorities’ hands are tied. They have no powers to order independent assessments of land quality, nor the ability to pass judgment on the assessments made by others. My new clause seeks to give them that power. It also seeks to enshrine the employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions. Along with many others in this place, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear the results of the land use framework consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I hope that it follows the principles set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). If a development is proposed for agricultural land that falls outside the land use framework and there are competing assessments of the agricultural grade of that land, then new clause 38 would give local authorities the power to demand that a new, independent assessment of land quality be undertaken. That would stop the railroading of farmers and help to preserve good agricultural land, rather than seeing it built over. Our farmers are our future. I call on hon. Members to back new clause 38 and new clause 17, which has been tabled in the name of my party.