Sam Carling MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point well. I will touch on EU regulations later. Our Labour Government have a stellar record on this issue so far. In negotiations with India, we refused to lower protections on goods such as pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we have secured new commitments on animal welfare, stronger than any it has signed up to in any previous trade agreement. The next step is to equalise all our import standards, rather than just the standards for new agreements. We cannot go back to full alignment with the EU, either. The EU still allows sow stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve-out in its sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK-EU negotiations. That would ensure we retained the ability to restrict imports that do not meet British welfare standards. Let me address any arguments about the impact on food prices that changes could have. Over the past few years, food inflation has hit households across the country, and we all want prices to be more affordable, but I think we can all agree that that should not come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers will lessen our food security, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas, and as the Government have repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means that we must defend our farmers from a flood of low-quality imports.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to have a couple of minutes to wind up after what has been an incredibly valuable debate that has covered a whole range of topics. I start, of course, with the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who, I think, agrees with me—there were various bits of discussion there. I referred exclusively to sow stalls in my speech; he importantly raised the issue of farrowing crates, which also remain an issue in the UK. He spoke of wanting to ensure that our farmers are not undermined, and that is the whole point of this, right? It is about ensuring that we expect at least the same standards of imports coming from overseas so that our farmers are not undercut in that way. So, yes—we agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made some excellent points around the enforcement of standards and honest labelling. All Members present will know just how many emails we get from constituents on the practice of farm washing, where products that have been imported from overseas mistakenly—and, in many cases, misleadingly —try to imply that they meet British standards when they do not, with big Union Jack flags and everything, as my hon. Friend said. We need to get on top of that. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about how we need to ensure that more of the public sector prioritises buying British, which I think is really important and something the Government have commented on. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) referred to Baroness Batters, who makes explicit and positive reference to this issue in her profitability review. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) reinforced some of the points I made on the undercutting of farmers and spoke of how much that impacts his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) also spoke about the importance of buying British and the critical link to the hospitality industry, including the various pubs in his constituency, the names of which he treated us to. The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), on the Australian trade deal were particularly useful. They also relate to what was said by the shadow Minister who spent some time talking about the Conservatives’ record. There was some good stuff in there. I will just read him this quote from Michael Gove, a former DEFRA Secretary, speaking at Conservative party conference about the previous Government: “we negotiated poorly with Australia, and New Zealand, but particularly with Australia in defence of our farmers. In the anxiety to secure trade deals, we did not think about the long term.” I would just encourage Opposition Members to reflect a bit on that. I had a comment to make if I got an intervention from a Reform Member, but none have turned up, so that did not happen. If they had tried to attack us on this, I would have mentioned that the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), went to America recently to call for economic sanctions against the UK—far from lowering tariffs for British beef exporters as we have done in our landmark economic deal with the US. I am grateful to the Minister for speaking about the need to ensure that our farmers can export too—that is a really important part of this. She is right that there is a balance to be struck. I thank her for detailing some more of the Government’s examples of success in this area. I did not mention Ukraine specifically with regard to eggs, as I am very conscious of the issues she raises, but I am grateful to her for referring to the positive measures in terms of making some progress over there. To reiterate, this Government have been clear that worsening our animal welfare standards and allowing imports of low-welfare goods is a red line for us. We are not going to do it, and that is positive. However, that raises a question: why do we not legislate to make sure of that? I trust this Government, but I cannot say I trust future Governments, and I do not trust the trade deals that sadly are already in place. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I remember doing that scheme myself last year. It was incredibly valuable, and I encourage other colleagues to do it. The NFU is doing a brilliant job. Polls show that consumers do not want low-welfare imports either; nine in 10 people support banning them. That may be unsurprising—we are a nation of animal lovers, after all—but that level of cross-societal support on an issue is rare and should be celebrated. Some 81% of my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire is agricultural land, which means I spend a lot of time talking to farmers about what they need to thrive, and this issue comes up all the time. Members do not have to take my word on that; they can take the words of Lloyd and Mat, two farmers I know from Lodes End farm in Ramsey in my constituency: “We grow high quality produce, to high standards. Sometimes, for little and often no profit. To see imported produce coming into our country that doesn’t meet the same standards that we have to achieve seems wrong. We want a level playing field and to feel that we are valued. So much effort, time, passion and pride goes into everything we grow on the farm. We not only grow quality produce but also do this while improving habitats for wildlife and reducing our environmental impact. Farmers do so much more than just produce the food we eat—we are an integral part of the communities we are proud to call home. We need to back British farming.” Who could disagree with Lloyd and Mat on that? It is certainly not easy to be a farmer. Long, difficult work is set against razor-thin profit margins, unpredictable weather variability made worse by climate change, and distinct unfairness in the supply chain. So what is the ask here? If we are doing so well as a Government on new trade deals, what change am I advocating for? We need legislative change to tackle the flaws in previous trade deals, which are damaging farmers like Lloyd and Mat. I am glad that the Government are backing farmers, and are allocating a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this Parliament, but tackling the unfairness of low-welfare imports would make a real difference to farmers in my constituency and across the country. Indeed, just on Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence on how important a fair approach on imports is to farm profitability. This is not just about welfare standards; it is about environmental standards, too. Crops that have been treated with damaging pesticides are being sold in the UK, despite those pesticides being banned here. That is not good news for the environment. Imidacloprid— I hope I pronounced that correctly—a neonicotinoid highly toxic to bees, has been banned in the UK since 2018, yet it has been found in the UK on potatoes, peas and grapes imported from several countries. As with lower-welfare imports, the UK will face pressure to weaken our domestic pesticide standards to secure new trade deals. Pesticide Action Network has highlighted potential pitfalls of the India trade deal, particularly as India allows the use of 62% more pesticides that are classed as highly hazardous than the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is being kept under review. We know what happens when we compromise our standards for trade; I am afraid the Conservatives did it often. The previous Government’s flawed Australia agreement increased sheepmeat imports by 162%, despite many Australian lambs being subjected to live skin cuttings without anaesthetic in a painful process known as mulesing, which was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government. Our sheep farmers certainly did not thank the Conservatives for the impact that trade deal had, and is still having, on their livelihoods. With the US reportedly demanding that the UK adopt lower standards in trade talks, I am glad that we have been clear in response that our food standards are a red line, and that we have committed to high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in any deal. That is exactly the approach we need, but we must be consistent about it. Change has support across the board, notably from the NFU and animal welfare bodies like Animal Policy International, both of which I thank for their ongoing work in this area. It also has strong support across the political divide, with massive majorities of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters supporting banning imports of animal products produced by farming methods that are banned in the UK. What does change look like in practice? All campaigners and the public want is consistency—to ensure that all agricultural products sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, adhere to British welfare and quality standards. If it is not good enough to be produced in Britain, it should not be sold here, either. Legally, there is precedent in several areas. Slaughter standards are consistent; certification is required to ensure that imports are slaughtered to standards that are at least equivalent to UK standards. Shark fin imports and exports are completely banned; the Ivory Act 2018 bans the import of ivory products; and we ban the import and sale of cat and dog fur. There are numerous precedents that can be applied here, and it makes sense to do so across the board. World Trade Organisation case law says that the UK can apply its animal welfare standards to imports, and the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission has confirmed that the UK’s free trade agreements do not prevent us from implementing stricter import regulations based on welfare standards. Will the Minister consider legislation to require imported animal products to meet British welfare standards, as is already the case for slaughter standards? Aligning imports with our domestic standards is backed by farmers and consumers, backed across the political spectrum, and backed by rural, environmental and animal welfare organisations. We have strong legislative precedent, and we have legal clarity. We know that the impact on prices would be negligible, and that our economy would benefit. We would have confidence in the welfare of our animal products, and in the quality of fruit and vegetables on shop shelves. These are big, tangible benefits. Taking action would do so much for Lloyd and Mat in my constituency, and for thousands of others like them across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This Government have shown promising signs so far. Let us build on that and take the next crucial step.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the biosecurity aspect of this issue. My farmers, too, have been significantly impacted by foot and mouth disease in the past, and I know how important an issue that is. She puts her point on the record. I was talking about potential arguments around food prices. Research from Animal Policy International shows that were we to act on this issue, the cost to consumers would actually be very small. Banning battery cage egg imports, for example, would cost just 2p to 4p per person per year. Since all major supermarkets have already committed to phasing out caged eggs, most consumers would feel zero impact, with battery cage imports going to independent retailers and food service as it stands. The boost to domestic farmers, by contrast, would be huge. UK egg farmers could gain up to £15 million annually if battery cage imports were banned. There would also be price stabilisation if we removed imports that undercut UK eggs by up to 20p per dozen. That does not cost the Exchequer; it would be quite a significant benefit to the Exchequer.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can unify our import standards with our domestic standards, that problem disappears in many ways? The standards will be the same and therefore we will not have labelling that might undermine our farmers.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector. I am delighted to have secured today’s debate. I am very grateful to all colleagues who signed my application, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time. I am happy to take interventions during my speech. This debate is about the imbalance between our high domestic farming standards, which rightly prioritise animal welfare and the environment, and our imports, which often fall short. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published just before Christmas, shows our ambition to protect all animals from needless cruelty and suffering. It is the biggest and most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation. It includes measures to phase out the use of cages in farming, move away from using carbon dioxide to gas pigs, and introduce standards for the humane killing of fish. That is real progress and reflects overwhelming public support for safeguarding animal welfare, but when we improve domestic animal welfare standards, we have to be careful that we are not just exporting cruelty overseas. British and Northern Irish farmers want animals to be treated well and to have good lives, but UK farmers are undermined by low-welfare imports. Many countries that we import animal products from do not share our standards, so those products are cheaper to produce and sell. Our farmers find themselves in an impossible situation, often unable to compete. Sow stalls, for example, are banned in the UK, but 95% of pork imports come from countries where they remain legal. British shoppers buying bacon have no way of knowing whether the pig that produced it spent its pregnancy in a cage so narrow that it could not turn around. It is the same for hens. Battery cages are already banned here. It is brilliant that we are committed to phasing out cages altogether—the Government should be congratulated on that—but long term, as a next step, we need to think about imports, too. The animal welfare strategy states that we will “protect our most sensitive sectors and uphold animal welfare standards where we consider overseas produce has an unfair advantage.” The Government recognise the issue. Now is the time to put that intention into practice. Brexit has resulted in a massive increase in non-EU imports over the last few years. Although most EU imports are from countries with similar standards to the UK, that is often not the case for imports from non-EU countries. Ninety-five per cent of countries with access to our markets have lower welfare standards than we do. In just four years, from 2020 through to 2024, non-EU beef imports increased by 31%, poultry by 60%, pork by 81% and eggs by a staggering 228%. New trade deals for the UK are welcome, but we need them to uphold our high standards on both animal welfare and pesticides on crops. The price of a good deal cannot be access to the UK food market on more favourable terms than those available to our domestic farmers.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. In September, a National Secular Society report highlighted alarming numbers of extremist religious organisations in the UK from various faith traditions expressing hideous views about women, including promoting female genital mutilation and denying the existence of marital rape. Many of these are registered as charities, and are therefore eligible for various tax exemptions, as well as thousands or even millions of pounds in public money through gift aid. Will the Prime Minister, as part of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, support my campaign for a review of charity law and regulations, so that we can make sure the UK taxpayer is not funding extremism and hate?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that the strategy will have a focus on tackling the root causes of misogyny and radicalisation in young men. Those roots are often laid in early childhood, so what consideration has the Minister given to how social and emotional learning programmes in early years settings could be part of the prevention strategy? Would she be willing to meet Think Equal—an organisation that delivers such programmes? It started a trial in Greater Manchester and has funding to expand nationally. It just needs Government backing.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I hugely welcome the appointment today of the chair and panel members, all of whom are brilliant appointments and who will do a thorough job. I am also pleased to see religion referred to in the terms of reference. IICSA unveiled serious problems in religious groups of many different faiths, many of which also operate as charities. Will the Secretary of State outline what progress the Government have already made on implementing recommendations from that inquiry? Will she also ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss strengthening charity regulations so that any religious organisations operating as charities that are found to have played a part in this can face action?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case · Hansard source

  More

  This awful case underlines how important it is that we implement the recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, the Home Office has set out plans not to implement the recommendation on mandatory reporting in full. I spoke on Report of the Crime and Policing Bill to set out why that will leave children vulnerable. Will the Secretary of State ask the relevant Minister from her Department to meet me to discuss these concerns in more detail and to find a solution?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this debate. As she said, there is a lot of support for this scheme across the political spectrum, and it has been on the books for a very long time—as a good indication, the number of years she just mentioned is longer than I have been alive. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise the huge growth that the scheme could unlock not only in my region of Cambridgeshire, but more broadly across the country, and that we therefore want to bring it forward as soon as the financial situation will allow?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Angiolini Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that after the statement, we will all go away and check whether our police forces are in that 26% who still do not have those basic policies in place and, if that is the case, seek to address it. The statistics on young women as victims of these crimes are particularly shocking. Will the Minister outline more about what we will do about that specifically, and say whether the upcoming strategy will include measures to combat the rise in misogyny among young men?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  That is very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak about a Budget that builds on what this Government started last year and takes the necessary decisions to grow the economy and protect working people. With a focus on reducing the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and reducing the national debt, this is a Labour Budget with Labour values. We have already taken measures to cut the cost of living. We have been improving our energy security, which will bring down energy bills permanently and protect us from the thrall of international markets. We have started rolling out free breakfast clubs in schools, so that parents can get to work on time and kids can start the day ready to learn. We have expanded free school meals and raised the minimum wage, bringing a pay rise to millions of workers. I am delighted that we are moving forward with further measures. Energy bills are being brought down for households by an average of £150 from April. We are introducing measures to tackle child poverty, which will make this Government the biggest reducers of child poverty since records began. We are lifting over 450,000 children out of poverty and benefiting around 3,200 children in my constituency, according to analysis in the Daily Mirror. As with last year’s Budget, we see a significant boost to pay for those on the lowest incomes. When the Conservatives, among other parties, decry that by saying that it will impact on inflation, they need to look at the numbers. The OBR forecast shows that Government policy, particularly the energy bills package and the fuel duty freeze, will reduce inflation by 0.4 percentage points in the next financial year. Gilt yields shot down on Wednesday as the Chancellor delivered the Budget. The markets have confidence in our handling of the economy. On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase announced that it will build a new centre at Canary Wharf that will provide 12,000 jobs and boost our economy by £10 billion. That is not the kind of decision that a major player with global reach makes if it does not trust the Government’s handling of the economy. It is a huge vote of trust and mark of confidence in what we are doing. This is a hugely progressive Budget, as was last year’s. On average, households in the lowest income deciles will benefit most from the decisions taken by this Government from the 2024 Budget onwards. Indeed, by percentage of income, all but the richest 10% of households will benefit from overall policy decisions in 2028-29. When it comes to slashing the cost of living, this Government are backing up their words with real action, reversing the damage done by our predecessors. [ Interruption. ] Conservative Members are chuntering at me, but I think they need to remember that the last Parliament was pretty much the only one on record in which living standards fell. People in Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire are really going to feel the benefits locally. I am delighted that the Chancellor announced £20 million for the new Peterborough sports quarter during her speech. That includes funding for a new Peterborough pool, after the Conservatives closed our regional pool when they ran the council. [ Interruption. ] Again, I am being chuntered at. The Conservatives closed the pool we had when they ran the council. These are the measures of a Government who are making a difference. By comparison, under our predecessors, living standards were hammered, wage growth was stagnant, and millions more experienced food insecurity. Labour built the NHS, and we have always been its best custodians. We have proved that in our time in office so far. We promised 2 million extra appointments in our first year, but thanks to massive investment from our first Budget, we hit that target seven months early, and have delivered 5.2 million extra appointments since July 2024. Waiting lists are falling for the first time in 15 years.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has made his point. As we heard from the Chancellor, all NHS efficiencies will be reinvested in its budget, and I welcome that. My constituents rarely raise with me the specific way in which their healthcare is being delivered. What they want to know is why they cannot get a GP appointment and why they cannot get to hospital on time. What we are doing will deliver changes. We must also talk about our national debt. Reducing the debt is a necessary and moral issue. Of every £10 we spend, £1 is spent on Government debt interest. Imagine what we could achieve if we had that money available to invest in our local communities. I am therefore delighted that due to the measures that the Chancellor has announced, combined with the action we took last year, debt as a share of GDP will fall consistently. We will achieve a Budget surplus of £22 billion in 2029-30, which would be the largest surplus for over 20 years. Let us not forget that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year, and both the IMF and the OECD forecast that for 2025 as a whole the UK will have better growth than the eurozone, Canada, Japan, France, Italy and Germany. So while Reform and the Conservatives scream doom and gloom, the Government are quietly getting on with the job. The Budget builds on everything we achieved last year, and I know that we will see the cost of living slashed, debt reduced and NHS waiting lists brought down.

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

  More

  I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense. Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities. That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely. At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector. Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best. New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly. To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.

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

  More

  I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes. I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards. Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems. First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere. Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that cross-border licensing is causing huge enforcement problems, because authorities that are miles away cannot properly investigate such issues?

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

  More

  I am glad that those governance arrangements work, but they sound like a nightmare based on hearing that information. Would the hon. Member not agree again that under one unitary council, there can be much more strategic oversight of such a situation? If local residents are not happy with the way that is being managed, they can elect different councillors. It should be a simplification, not causing problems like that.

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

  More

  I used to be a councillor in an authority that had area committees, and we ended up scrapping them because they were not really doing a good job. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that mandating particular governance arrangements of that sort and at that level within councils in legislation undermines the principle of devolution and that actually we need to let councils do what is best for their areas?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the length of time people have been lobbying for this power. I felt that when I was a councillor. Does he agree that the right to request in this Bill will help mayors to identify these issues, and provide a pathway for them to request such powers much more quickly?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Chancellor has spent a lot of time in his speech talking about what people have said and done. I wonder if I could remind him that just a month ago he said that if he were in the Chancellor’s position, he would raise income tax. How does he square that with the speech he is currently giving?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  Must Farm is just outside my constituency, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who I am very pleased to see here. It provides great support for people in Stanground in my area. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming its contribution to the broader area and exploring how we can encourage more people to visit it?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate. HMOs can work for some people, such as students. With the average house price now more than 7.5 times the average salary, compared with the ’80s when it was three times, HMOs are increasingly becoming the default living arrangement for young professionals. After university or college, the last thing young people want is another year—or many years—sharing a space with others they do not know very well. It also does not mean that these people have significantly lower housing costs because, while cheaper than a full home, many of these places are still exorbitant. While HMOs have their place, their proliferation points to a bad housing market, one in which people are forced to share with strangers because other options are too expensive. As we know, by default, a family home can be converted to a small HMO without needing an application for planning permission, meaning that an awful lot of HMOs, which put an awful lot of pressure on local services, are being created without planning oversight. Peterborough city council’s article 4 directions mandate developers to apply for full permission in parts of Fletton, Woodston and Hampton in my constituency, which is welcome, but that varies by council and area, meaning that HMOs can still build up in one place. That inevitably strains public services; it means difficulties for waste collection, oversubscription to local GPs and—this is one of the most visible issues—not having anywhere to park. I join others today in calling for a simpler, stronger process for councils to issue article 4 directions. We need stronger regulation alongside a drive to build more appropriate housing, to increase supply and counter demand. We also need to have a real conversation about the housing mix that we are building. There are more and more single-person households now, who have nowhere to go other than the most expensive types of housing. Let us provide for them and slash the need for HMOs.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the first responders, the police and everyone on the train who put their lives at risk to protect others? So many people from the communities I represent in both Peterborough and Huntingdonshire have written to me today in absolute fear, shock and confusion at how this could have happened so close to home, particularly after we found out this morning that the charged individual is from my constituency. Constituents have also been worried and alarmed about reports over the last few hours that the offender may have been involved in further incidents in Peterborough and London. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for community cohesion following this incident, and ensure that a full investigation takes place into those possible other offences?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, I raised the case of my constituents in ex-Ministry of Defence housing in Wittering, who face huge backdated gas bills because their supplier will not take them off a Ministry of Defence contract. Things have escalated; TotalEnergies will not engage, and sends only stock replies, telling residents to fill in a transfer form. When they do, they are sent further debt collection notices, demanding that they cough up a sum of up to £8,000 or be disconnected within a week. Will the Leader of the House advise on how the House can hold such private energy companies to account for making our constituents’ lives a misery?