Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I speak in support of amendments 59, 35 and 36 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester. Those new clauses are constructive, and the Government should engage with them seriously. They seek to address the right question: how can we increase capacity, improve efficiency, preserve public trust and make better use of the system before cutting into long-standing criminal justice safeguards? The Opposition amendments would ensure that before clauses 1 to 7 are commenced, the Government must show that they have exhausted the practical alternatives, such as more sitting capacity, better use of buildings, fewer lost sitting days from late guilty pleas and prisoner transport delays, proper funding for sitting days and a serious examination of extended sitting hours. That is the right order of operations. The Government’s approach too often appears to be about restricting rights first and hoping that savings arrive later. Our approach is to build capacity and fix operational failures first and contemplate introducing legislation only then, and if truly necessary. Our approach is encapsulated perfectly in amendment 59 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. The amendment would prevent clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill from coming into force until reasonable steps have been taken “to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to— (a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and (b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays.” That is exactly the right approach, and it is at the heart of the argument we have made throughout proceedings. The Government say that the backlog is so bad that they must remove the right to elect a jury trial, create judge-alone trials, expand magistrates’ sentencing powers and restrict appeals. We say that before they do any of that, they should show us that they have used all the practical means already available to increase capacity and reduce wasted court time. We are seeking to draw attention to the tangible, everyday causes of courtroom delay, which, as the Minister well knows, is often about the case not being ready, defendants not arriving, late pleas, poor listing, lack of courtrooms or staff, or failure to use the estate properly. If those are the root causes of inefficiency, it is extraordinary to reach first for the curtailment of our ancient right to jury trial rather than for more mundane operational fixes. I would go as far as to suggest that the evidence that the Committee has received from the Bar Council could almost have been written in support of the amendment. It says that the current backlog was not caused by the availability of jury trials. It supports “opening all…courts so they can hear cases”, “intense court listing” and “proactive” CPS “case ownership”, “revising” the PECS contract so that “defendants are delivered to the dock on time”, “better use of technology” and “proper resourcing”. It also specifically identifies PECS as a problem, and warns that the Government’s impact assessment does not contain enough modelling on the changes needed to make prisoner transport work under the new system. Amendment 59 also references late guilty pleas. Late pleas waste enormous amounts of time. They consume preparation time, courtroom hours, witness time and judicial energy that is better spent elsewhere. If the Government can reduce late pleas by better case progression, better early engagement or stronger listing discipline, that should happen before constitutional rights are reduced. I am in danger of repeating myself, but this point is central to the Opposition’s position: it is far more sensible to make the existing system work properly than to redesign it around its current inefficiencies. Another question we should ask is whether every possible physical capacity option has been explored. Are there hearings that do not require cells and could be heard in other suitable buildings? Are there underused spaces in the existing estate? Are there ways to free Crown courtrooms by moving appropriate administrative or preliminary business elsewhere? Those are practical questions to which I have not seen a satisfactory answer. It seems logical that the Government should be required to answer them before commencing clauses 1 to 7. In essence, if the Government are minded to oppose this amendment, they are effectively saying that they are content to shred legal rights before making the effort to prove that they have exhausted all possible operational reform first. That is the wrong way around. That is also the crux of our case for amendment 35, which was also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. It would prevent clauses 1 to 7 from coming into force until three conditions have been met. First, the Lord Chancellor must have “provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act”. Secondly, HMCTS must have assessed that “the Crown court has, so far as possible, used that allocation of sitting days”. Thirdly, the Lord Chancellor must have “made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided…has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared with the start of the financial year.” Put as simply as possible, before the Government curtail fundamental safeguards in the criminal justice system, they should first fund and use the Crown court at maximum practical capacity. If that works, there is no need for clauses 1 to 7. If it does not, Ministers can come back to Parliament having at least proven that the obvious operational fix was seriously attempted. One of the persistent weaknesses in the Government’s case thus far has been the “do nothing” comparison. Too often, the Government present the Bill in the context of a binary choice: do nothing, or accept the package as it is. But that is a false choice; there are other options. One of the most obvious is to run the Crown court at full sitting capacity and see what happens. The Bar Council has welcomed the removal of the cap on sitting days and has long argued that courts should sit at maximum capacity. If increased sitting days are now being funded, those additional days should be allowed to take effect before Ministers demand more controversial, and likely irreversible, changes. The Institute for Government has also weighed in on this issue. It says: “There is a lot of uncertainty attached to the potential benefits of the government’s proposed reforms.” It also says that there is a serious risk that these reforms could backfire and actually cause a decline in court performance. It identifies productivity as central, noting that the assumptions behind the Government’s proposed savings are “uncertain”. If boosting productivity and increasing sitting capacity are critical, then amendment 35 is exactly the right kind of test. Let us see whether properly funded sitting days can reduce the backlog before proceeding with more radical measures. Amendment 35 is therefore one of the strongest amendments we are considering today. It does not deny the reality of the backlog—the Opposition never have. Rather, it confronts it directly. It does not say, “Do nothing,” it says, “Do the obvious thing first—fund the Crown court, use the capacity, report back and only then consider whether more fundamental changes are genuinely necessary.” I also support amendment 36, also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. It would prevent the Lord Chancellor from “bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has…undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and…laid before Parliament a report on the outcome”. The consultation would have to consider “potential rates of fees and remuneration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours” and the availability of HMCTS staff. The amendment is a reasonable one. It simply requires the Government to consult and report before commencing clauses 1 to 7. Given the scale of the changes the Government are asking us to approve, that is not an excessive demand, in my view. The amendment also seeks to address one of the practical concerns around extended sitting hours. It recognises that extended hours may have benefits but also inherent costs. It explicitly requires consideration of remuneration and staff availability. We all understand that we cannot run a court system merely by wishing it to sit longer. Judges, advocates, court staff, legal professionals, witnesses and support services all have to be able to make the model work. If hours are to be extended, that must be properly resourced. That is precisely why a consultation is needed. The Government should not be able to say on the one hand that extended hours are too complicated to consider, while on the other hand pressing ahead with sweeping reforms to jury trial and appeal rights. If their position is that extended hours are impractical, Ministers should set out the evidence. If extended hours are practical in some settings, Ministers should explain where and how. If remuneration is the problem, the Government should consult on it. If staffing is the problem, they should say so. What the Government should not do is ignore the question altogether, as they seem to have done here. There is also a simple point of fairness. The Government are asking defendants, victims, witnesses, lawyers and the public to accept major changes to the criminal process. They should therefore be willing to accept a much smaller burden: to consult, report and explain why a less constitutionally disruptive capacity measure is or is not viable. Taken alongside amendments 59 and 35, amendment 36 offers a coherent and moderate alternative path forward: build capacity first, fund sitting days first, examine extended hours first, fix operational problems first and only then ask Parliament to consider whether the more drastic provisions in clauses 1 to 7 are necessary. That is a measured and responsible approach that the Government should consider accepting. I will speak briefly to new clauses 3, 4, 5, 13, 17 and 22, which would improve the Bill. They focus on delivering capacity, efficiency, transparency, public trust and practical reform in line with what the Opposition also seek to achieve. New clause 3 would allow certain Crown court locations or courtrooms to operate as extended-capacity courts, with a morning session from 9 am to 1 pm and an afternoon session from 2 pm to 6 pm. The purpose of that is to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on the same day. That is clearly a significant operational proposal, and while the principle is sound, it raises serious questions about the availability of judges, court staff, interpreters, security and CPS staff. It also raises questions about remuneration, because the criminal Bar, solicitors and court staff are already under enormous strain. A justice system running on exhausted people will not produce better justice simply because the building stays open for longer. We need to consider all those things at the same time. New clause 3 is aimed at the right problem: capacity. The Government are asking us to make very large changes to jury trials, allocation and appeals. Before they do that, they should be able to show that every realistic capacity option has been explored. If courtrooms can be used more intensively without compromising fairness, quality or the welfare of those involved, that should at least be examined. The Bar Council’s evidence is clear that the backlog has not been caused by jury trials but by under-investment, poor management of the estate, failures in prisoner transport, listing problems, technology issues and inadequate resourcing. New clause 3 seeks to address that; it asks how we increase throughput while keeping the basic architecture of justice intact. New clause 4 takes a more cautious approach, and for that reason, it may be the more attractive version of the idea. It would require an independent report into the feasibility of holding two trials a day in designated courtrooms, followed by a Government response and proposals for a pilot, if appropriate. That seems to be a serious and reasonable way to proceed. It does not assume that the model will work: it asks for independent work; evidence; consideration of the effect on defendants, victims, witnesses, judges, practitioners and staff; and an assessment of cost and resource implications. New clause 5 would require the Lord Chancellor to publish annual targets for reducing the Crown court backlog, both nationally and in each HMCTS region, and to report to Parliament on progress. Again, that appears useful and sensible. If backlog reduction is the central justification for the Bill, Ministers should be willing to define what success looks like and be judged against it. The regional element is especially important. We know that the backlog is not the same everywhere, and it is undeniable that some court centres have done better than others, sometimes because of stronger local leadership, better listing or more effective case progression. Others face particular estate, staffing or operational problems, and a national figure alone can hide those differences. If the Government are relying on predicted reductions of sittings days and caseload, Parliament should be able to see whether those predicted benefits are actually being delivered, and where they are and are not being delivered.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Energy Profits Levy · Hansard source

  More

  7. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Energy Profits Levy · Hansard source

  More

  The oil and gas sector is a vital industry, not just in Scotland but for the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State share the disappointment of the Conservatives that the Chancellor deterred a reported £17.5 billion of private investment into the oil and gas sector by choosing to retain the energy profits levy last month? That money would have supported thousands of Scottish jobs, and delivered growth and energy security for the UK.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we should look to roll out contactless to stations that do not have it, but I hope that the issues I am raising about pricing are taken into account. I hope it is useful for the hon. Gentleman to see the impact that the roll-out is having in Reigate. It would be good if we could iron out the difficulties before it is further expanded. We very much welcomed contactless and were excited to get it, but we did not anticipate the stealth price hikes and their impact. It was something that I really wanted to celebrate locally, but all of a sudden there were these downsides that we had not planned for because they had not been communicated properly. I hope it is helpful for the hon. Gentleman to learn from what has happened in Reigate, and hopefully the Minister will take that on board before rolling out contactless to other stations in Surrey. Sitting on top of all this, there is an unfortunate layer of confusion. I agree with the Government in their diagnosis that rail fares are too complex and that simplification is necessary. On one level, that is plainly true, so surely they did not intend that the contactless roll-out would leave informed local rail users having to spend time and energy working through the interplay between contactless singles, paper returns, travelcards, caps, discounts, peak times and station-specific exceptions. We have to ask ourselves whether the new system is actually simpler from the passenger’s point of view. Contactless undeniably offers much convenience, but I am concerned that it is not offering clarity or value for money for all. I gently say to the Minister that this roll-out appears to have been a rigid programme. The correspondence I have seen suggests that operators had only limited room to preserve sensible local arrangements, even where a clear passenger need has been identified. If that is correct, the Department should reflect on whether the roll-out has been too inflexible. National consistency has its place, but so does common sense. We were just discussing the broader roll-out in Surrey, which I hope we will see; there is lots that can be learned and improved on so that other areas in Surrey do not suffer the same surprise and detrimental impact as we have in Reigate. I would like to ask the Minister four things. First, what can be done for specific cases like Reigate where contactless has caused unexpected problems? Will he step in to help work towards restoring the long-standing off-peak position for the first morning journey, so that passengers are not simply forced on to a later train or a higher fare? Secondly, will the Minister review the impact of the contactless roll-out on passengers who depend on discounts, particularly railcard users and families travelling with children? It is difficult to argue that a system is fully fit for purpose when important categories of passenger are told that the purported benefit does not properly work for them. Thirdly, can the Department for Transport look into anomalies between geographically neighbouring stations and whether these are forcing passengers to alter their behaviour, including using cars to drive to a further away station to secure a better deal? We are seeing people drive to Redhill rather than get the train from Reigate, which they live closer to. Finally, will the Minister ensure that when these changes are rolled out in future, passengers get genuinely clear, station-specific guidance explaining what has changed, who benefits from contactless, who may be better off sticking with conventional tickets and how any new restrictions operate in practice? My constituents have very much regretted not having access to that information. As I hope I have made clear, I support simpler ticketing, modernisation and making rail travel more attractive. Contactless is a gateway to all that, but it must work for all passengers. Regrettably, at the moment we have a system that is leaving a sizeable minority disadvantaged and paying more for less flexibility than they enjoyed before. I hope the Minister will engage with these points in the practical and constructive spirit in which I have made them, and I would be delighted to work with him on finding workable solutions and taking the learnings for roll-out to other stations. Overall, it is a great thing: I very much welcome contactless coming to Reigate, but it would be really good if we could iron out some of the difficulties with ticket pricing.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made. We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example. Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women. Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today. We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity. Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production. If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it. Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered. Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses. In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow. A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly. The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world. The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable. We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future. In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly. Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge. Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing. Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites. Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the “current economic and policy environment”. I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible. The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships. Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk. The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable. What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions. Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports. Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer. The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation. What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success. The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that “we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”. —[ Official Report , 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.] Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities. This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly. Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund. In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said: “We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.” They continued: “The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.” In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund. One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards? I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding. I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027. Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.