Tim Farron MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister rightly referred in his statement to defence security and energy security, but he made no reference to food security. That feels like a glaring omission, given the impact of the doubling of the price of red diesel for the farmers who produce our food. I wonder if he is even aware that, outrageously, England is now the only country in the UK and in the whole of Europe that does not use its farm payment scheme to actively support its farmers to produce food. In these troubled times, does he agree that that is a glaring omission, and will he turn around and change that?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Against the backdrop of this illegal, counterproductive and reckless war, next month, Palestinians in the west bank and in parts of Gaza will take part in municipal elections, which include candidates who are committed to peaceful dialogue with Israel and who reject Iranian-backed terrorism. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the significance of those elections for building peace in the middle east, and will he and the Government do everything in their power to ensure the deployment of independent observers so that the elections are fair and safe?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Police Efficiency: Technology · Hansard source

  More

  Police efficiency is the argument being used to propose the merger of Lancashire and Cumbria police forces, something which I strongly oppose. Lancashire is a wonderful county, but it is a county that has many urban centres with larger populations. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real risk that the people of Cumbria will see our police officers being drawn down to those larger, more populous places in Lancashire and that it would be wise to call off the merger?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Publicly Owned Markets: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Only 55% of Britain’s food is produced in Britain, so food security should be a much bigger priority for this Government. Donald Trump’s war in the middle east, Putin’s war on Ukraine and all the other global shocks have not woken up the Government to this, yet England is now the only country in the UK, and the only country in Europe, that does not financially support farmers in producing food. Is that not recklessly foolish, and will the Minister not amend the farm payment scheme to change that?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That will be the case across my communities, too; many people will drive to Penrith, Oxenholme, Grange-over-Sands or Windermere to park and then catch the train to their place of work or study. These are significant costs. Of course, it is worth bearing in mind that these fuel costs will also have a significant impact on public transport providers down the line, and will make it hard for them to continue their current services. The hon. Gentleman’s point was well made and well delivered. We are talking about motor fuel costs rising, but there is also the impact, as has been mentioned already by hon. Members, on heating oil. The costs for people heating and running their homes have been immense and are causing real hardship already. In Cumbria, 46,000 homes are off-grid. About 35% of the homes in my constituency are off-grid, with people relying on heating oil; in Kirkby Stephen, Tebay and Brough, 74% of properties are off-grid, while in Hawksford, it is almost 80%. I asked my constituents—many of them did not need asking, I have to say—to give me their impressions and experiences of the past few weeks. It is clear that heating oil has literally doubled in price overnight, although I have heard reports of it trebling, too. Many of my constituents cannot afford to get any more heating oil until or unless the prices drop. It is important to remember that in a community like mine, 25% of our housing stock was built before the turn of the 20th century. This is true of many colleagues’ constituencies as well. Many properties are solid wall properties, which are very difficult or expensive to insulate—a problem that this and previous Governments have failed to deal with adequately. People are therefore spending a fortune heating their difficult-to-insulate homes, and are now in a situation where they are having to spend up to three times more just to keep their homes vaguely warm.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is a reminder that people’s experiences of increased prices are myriad in type. What those people have in common is a shared and sudden hardship that forces them to make incredibly difficult decisions—or, indeed, choices if they have choices to make.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for bringing forward this debate. It is a really important one because the impact of fuel costs—both for motorists and for those having to heat their homes—is devastating. Over the past three weeks, people’s entire ability to budget to be able to afford to live, to buy food and to pay the rent or the mortgage has changed. It has been turned on its head. In every city, town and village in our country, everybody is affected one way or another. I do not mean to diminish the impact of fuel price increases in our cities, which has been huge; nevertheless, for people living in a city, the chances are that they work in the same city, and the chances are also that they can, if need be, leave their car at home, if they have one, and take advantage of public transport. I am very supportive of a cap on bus fares—I wish we still had a £2 cap, but the £3 cap is still a lot better than what we had in the past—but they are a fat lot of good if there is no bus to get on at all. In rural communities like mine, people on the most modest of incomes have to own a car in order to access our economy or any kind of life at all. Somone living in Kendal might work in Grange-over-Sands, or vice versa; someone living in Ambleside might work in Barrow, or vice versa; someone living in Kirkby Stephen might have to travel 60 miles every day to go and work in the hospitality and tourism industry in Windermere or Bowness. The impact of the fuel price rises over the past three weeks is utterly devastating for these people. Diesel in Cumbria is 160p a litre—up to 170p in some cases—and petrol is near to 140p a litre. Indeed, red diesel is passing the £1 mark for the first time.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Any effort that the Government make in supporting people and businesses through this process will have a medium to long-term positive impact on the Treasury: if we can keep businesses in business, making a profit and keeping people in work, those companies and employees will be paying tax and refunding much of that investment—so investment it truly is. Our amendment sets out some practical alternatives. It acknowledges the devastating impact of the Government’s decision to increase fuel duty from September, and it calls for that to be cancelled. It focuses also on the experiences of rural and other off-grid communities that have been left exposed by years of under-investment. It specifically calls on the Government to cancel the fuel duty rise, immediately to zero-rate VAT on heating oil, to develop a price cap mechanism for heating oil and other uses of energy, to expand rural fuel duty beyond the relatively small number of places in which it currently operates, and to invest in an emergency upgrade programme, so that we are not so exposed to these things in the future. I recognise—and welcome to a degree—the Government’s announcement this week on some support for homes and businesses that are reliant on heating oil. I have done my sums and it works out at £35 per household. That is an inadequate sticking plaster. It will not have much of an impact on household finances. What we need is an energy price cap for people who live in rural communities, otherwise they will continue to believe that this Government, and perhaps others before them, do not really care very much about them. They will focus on the energy bills of other people, but not on those of people in rural communities. Therefore, this announcement does not go remotely far enough, although we are happy that the Government have at least begun to talk about the matter. The impact of the massive price rises in energy costs—motor fuel, car fuel, heating oil and other forms of fuel—is absolutely local. It is house by house, family by family, community by community, business by business. It is bound to be observed that this has been triggered by the actions of one D. Trump in the White House. The war has entered the lives of people in Iran, and the lives of innocent people across the middle east and a range of different countries. It has also had a massive impact on the global economy. As has been said, it all comes down to who controls the strait of Hormuz, which Iran effectively does at the moment. As long as that is true, whatever the President of the United States says, Iran is effectively winning. In the meantime, fuel prices are rocketing. Quite simply, as the International Energy Agency has noted: “The war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.” That is quite something. It does not make me an enormous expert in international affairs to conclude that this was all utterly and totally predictable when Donald Trump began this war. As others have mentioned, this is about not just oil, but gas, fertilisers and petrochemicals—crucial inputs, Higher prices and increased scarcity will have a massive impact on our economy more broadly, and on the cost and availability of food production, with the result that, sadly, we can look forward to increased food prices in coming months. My community is the most visited place—outside London—in the United Kingdom. We are home to a huge tourism economy. Some 60,000 people in Cumbria earn their living in hospitality and tourism, which is already struggling because of the Government’s national insurance rise more than a year ago. We are an economy that very much relies on small businesses. One in four people in the workforce in my constituency works for themself. Smaller businesses, which are much less likely to be able to withstand these shocks, are the backbone of our economy. I have talked about food prices, and I am bound to mention the impact on our farmers. Let us not forget that by December this year direct payments will be over. So many people in my area, particularly those farming in the uplands of Cumbria, are on incomes that are less than the minimum wage. They seek to look after our environment, our landscape, the backdrop to our tourism economy, and, even more importantly, to feed us. The cost of their production will rise as a consequence of all these events and there will potentially be an impact on our food prices. I mentioned the rural fuel subsidy earlier, which came about as a consequence of the Liberal Democrats’ time in government, when we were in coalition with our Conservative colleagues. Outrageously, though, it applies to only 21 places in the UK, not one of them in Wales and only one of them in Cumbria—a lovely place called Grizebeck. That means that the Government have a mechanism by which they could help rural communities, and we ask them, at the very least, to double the access and scope of the rural fuel duty subsidy right across the country—including, first and foremost, I am bound to say, in the lakes and dales of Cumbria. Everyone will be hurt by the impact on inflation—reduced demand, inequality and unfairness for those earning the least will potentially be huge. The Government’s fuel duty rise exacerbates a problem, which has, as I have said, been created in the White House. The United States needs to fix the problem that it created. It cannot be up to others to save it from its failures to think things through. Colin Powell, a person who is perhaps wiser—I think that is fair to say—than the current occupant of the White House, once said to George W Bush that, “if you break it, you own it”. That was said of the war in Iraq. Surely the same can be said now to the President of the United States. I gently point out that it applies also to those in the Conservative and Reform Front-Bench teams who egged the President on in the first place. NATO allies should not be joining Donald Trump in a war that he started without ever consulting his allies or explaining his war aims. He wants us to fall in line meekly, but we must not do so. Donald Trump still cannot articulate his endgame or what victory would look like. He went to war thinking that the Iranian regime would fall quickly—of course, it has not—and that Tehran would not attack the Gulf states or close the strait of Hormuz, which of course was always likely. Why would we align not just with such a moral outrage, but with such epic stupidity? Although I am grateful to the Conservatives for submitting a timely and important motion, we must remember that they are part of the reason that we are in this mess. [Interruption.] I will wrap up, Madam Deputy Speaker. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of that international situation of extreme danger, my constituent in Kirkby Stephen fills up with diesel that costs 25% more than it did three weeks ago. Her home is cold, because she cannot buy any more heating oil, as it has gone up threefold in the past three weeks. She travels to Windermere to earn the minimum wage, and at the end of the day it is barely worth the bother. Do not tell her that politics does not change things; it really does. Our amendment aims to change things for her for the better.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Westmorland and Furness council has seen its budget cut by 31%. We are England’s largest and most rural council. Yet the Government have decided to defund rural communities, which is juxtaposed with the fact that we have the biggest number of visitors to our communities of anywhere in the country apart from London: we have 20 million visitors a year, alongside all the cars that use our roads. We have 3,000 miles of roads, including the Kirkstone pass, which has been closed since November because of expensive work that needs to be done to connect the communities around England’s two biggest lakes, Windermere and Ullswater. We have 1,000 historical bridges, including Eamont Bridge, where Æthelstan created England in 927. We are proud to be the custodians of England’s Lake District national park, and we are appalled that our visitors, and more importantly our residents, are being thrown to the wolves by a Government who have decided to defund rural England.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Crown Court Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, Carlisle Crown court saw a reduction of 71 sitting days. Add to that the fact that Westmorland, our neck of the woods, lost our magistrates court in Kendal 10 years ago. Does that not remind us that backlogs are not because Britain has juries, but because we lack capacity in our judicial system? Will the Secretary of State restore those sitting days to Carlisle, and extend the number of sitting days in Lancaster, too? Will he also look at restoring magistrates courts to places like Westmorland?

• 16 Mar 2026 · GP Contract · Hansard source

  More

  The beautiful and vibrant yet very isolated community of Coniston has had a GP practice for the last 200 years or so, but it runs the risk of losing it this year. Its GPs, who were wonderful, retired last summer and a caretaker service is being provided. Bids have been invited and there has been much interest, but no bid has been made. The reason is that the finances are really marginal at such a small surgery where people cannot go anywhere else. There is an answer, and I want to ask the Minister whether he might intervene and talk to the ICB to help us to get there. If the dispensing contract were to be let jointly with the GP contract, that would make it viable, and I know of GPs who would be interested if that were to happen. Will he talk to the ICB to ensure that that flexibility is applied so that we can save the surgery in Coniston for the next 200 years?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who made a fantastic speech. Some 70% of our land mass in this country is agricultural land. We are achieving nothing for biodiversity if we do not work with the people who work that land. The most damaging thing the Government have done on this issue over the last 12 months—it was indeed 12 months ago—was to close the sustainable farming incentive with no notice whatsoever. We are pleased that the Secretary of State has announced the reopening of SFI in June, but it is worth bearing in mind that that will only be for up to two months and there is no guarantee, even in the Department’s statement on the issue, that it will last two months. If the money runs out before then, people will be excluded from applying. That means that we are back to first come, first served. Those farmers who are wealthier, who have more time on their hands and who have staff will be able to get in, and smaller farmers, particularly in the uplands areas, will not be able to do so. That will be damaging for biodiversity. The limitations on the scheme are deeply concerning. They are meant to incentivise farmers to have part of their farm for environmental protection and part of their farm for food production. This is the error that we have been making for the last 40 years—the idea that we either produce food or care for the environment. We absolutely must do both; that is what farmers want to do. I fear that this scheme is wrong-headed. Some 55% of the food we eat in this country is produced in this country. That is dangerously low given the international situation; this is something we already knew. We need to support farmers not just to care for the environment, but to feed us. The Government limit the June window to farms up to 50 hectares, which excludes upland farmers on less than minimum wage who farm the commons at the top of mountains. That is foolish. I ask the Minister to rethink. My final word is this: the greenest thing we can do is to keep Britain’s farmers farming to care for our environment.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Israel, where these actions were being anticipated, largely with some dread. The great sense I got from talking to both groups of people was of deep national trauma, caused in no small part by the actions of Iranian-backed terrorists. What does the Prime Minister know about the ultimate intentions of either the Israeli or the American Government? What is their exit strategy? What are their objectives? There can be no probability of regime change coming from all this, so how does it make the lives of the Iranian people any better, and the lives of those in the wider middle east any more secure?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of the provision of speech and language therapy for students with special educational needs, Westmorland and Furness council, in my area, was not one of the councils in financial difficulty—until last month, when the Government decided, for the crime of it being the most rural district in the country, to cut 31% of its budget over three years. What confidence can children with special educational needs and their parents in my community have that they are not going to be hit massively by these cuts, and what can the Minister do to put the cuts right?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Access to Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what the Minister has just said, but we start a long way behind. In OECD countries, the average proportion of people with cancer with access to radiotherapy is 53%. In England the proportion is 36%, and in Lancashire and South Cumbria it is the worst in the country, at just 29%. There is no doubt in our communities in South Cumbria that that is because patients must take three-hour round trips every day to obtain treatment in Preston. Will the Minister support our new plans to bring a satellite radiotherapy unit to Kendal, so that people in our communities can experience shorter journeys and longer lives?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Jeremy. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate so far, which has been interesting and thoughtful, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing another really important debate on this broad issue. As a party, we made this issue the centrepiece of our campaign in the 2024 general election, so all of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that we are here with a mandate to fight for change. It is a joy and a pleasure to work alongside others from all parties in trying to achieve that. It was an honour to meet and present evidence to Sir Jon Cunliffe as he put together his report, and to work with the Minister and others, whom I enjoyed spending time with on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee—I suspect a sequel to come, and we all look forward to it. We all agree that—as the Independent Water Commission’s final report correctly identifies—the system is very badly broken, not only in the performance of water companies but in the basic, deep injustice of a water industry that seems to be self-serving, not serving the community. In 2024, 3.6 million hours of sewage dumping took place in our lakes, rivers and seas. At the same time, Ofwat failed to enforce a single fine over a four-year period. Water companies are getting collective bonuses worth £20 million in the last full year of data, and yet those are not rewards for success, because only 14% of our rivers are meeting a healthy standard, with more than half a million sewage spills into our waterways just last year. Bills are rising and yet, as we have heard from others, in so many cases a massive chunk of those bills—11% if people live in the United Utilities area in the north-west of England, in my constituency—is going to pay off service debt. In the Thames region, people pay more than 30% of their bill just to service the debt. While the Government have often taken action to try to ban bonuses, the water companies shamelessly shimmy their way around that. We have heard a couple of examples today already: Southern Water’s chief executive had his pay double to £1.4 million, largely through a two-year, long-term incentive plan; and we heard the outrageous story of the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, paid £1.3 million through the company’s holding company. That is breaking the ban in spirit, and surely in reality, too—certainly in the eyes of our constituents. In my communities of Westmorland, water matters massively. We are home to Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston, Grasmere and Rydal Water, and to many rivers, but from the Eea to the Eden, from the Crake to the Kent, last year alone we had 5,000 sewage discharge incidents and 55,000 hours of raw sewage pumped into our rivers, lakes and coastal areas. The commission has mostly been on the money, so to speak, when it has assessed the problem. This is an industry that performs appallingly on the pollution of our waterways, and it behaves appallingly in response to its own failure. We agree with much of what is in the final report. We agree with having a single regulator, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for years. We should merge Ofwat, the regulatory parts of the Environment Agency, and others to create a powerful regulator that the water companies will actually be afraid of, and that the public respect. We would call it the clean water authority. We hope that the Government will copy our homework further. Some failures and submissions, however, we are deeply concerned about. The Government fail to grasp that while stronger regulation is really important, ownership is also important. The failure of Thames Water, a cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) champions—as do many others—is an outrage, but it is also a massive opportunity for the Government to use the special administration regime and move that company into a mutual form of ownership, so that it is owned by its customers. That could create a new model of ownership for the whole industry—one that leverages capital investment to ensure that environmental and social concerns, and clean water, are absolutely at the pinnacle of the purpose of those companies, not rapacious profiteering. Such a model would provide the opportunity for water campaigners and environmental groups to find their way on to those boards. In my community, there is the Save Windermere campaign, the Clean River Kent campaign, the Eden Rivers Trust and the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, but citizens, societies and volunteers across all of our constituencies would have a part to play in those new, mutually-owned water companies. That would make a difference. The Government have made no attempt, either in the White Paper or through the report, to look at the problem with volume that we are all concerned about. We often talk about the number of hours of discharge into our lakes, rivers and seas, and that is an important measurement, but the reason we mention that and not volume is because we are not allowed to know the volume. The Liberal Democrats believe passionately that volume should also be measured, but the water companies do not want that, which is a reason to ensure that we force it to happen. On bathing waters, the Government should have a mandate to end the sewage dumping in bathing sites by 2030, and we should be testing them throughout the year and more regularly—not just the often inaccurate snapshots that we have at the moment. On bonuses, we call for the law to be strengthened further, so that water company bosses cannot carry on dodging losing their bonuses via the back door. The commission’s final report rightly identifies many of the problems that our constituents believe are serious and need to be addressed. However, while it contains many worthwhile proposals, such as a united regulator, it does not face up to the desperate and obvious need for a transformation of the ownership model, for deeper and stronger regulations, and for a bonus ban that actually bans bonuses. When Water UK, the industry body that represents the water companies, comes out as it did to endorse the Government’s approach to water reform, that is all the proof we need that this Government’s approach continues to be, I am afraid, a bit wet. We need a plan for a radical transformation of the water industry, but so far, I am sad to say, this is not it.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Electricity Distribution Network: Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  There are two things that the Government could do to improve energy resilience, particularly in communities like mine in Cumbria. First, they could support Electricity North West by ensuring that it buries its cables where possible to protect them against wild weather, which, as the Minister knows, we have from time to time. Secondly, they could accelerate local energy markets so that in places like Coniston, which the Minister and I discussed in our meeting yesterday, they are able to provide energy for the community they are embedded within, thereby enhancing the resilience of the network. Will the Minister do those things?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Last week, I spent half an hour talking to a constituent in Windermere who owns a small hotel. Over the past four years, his energy bills have doubled. He does not draw any salary any more and can only afford to keep going because he has drawn down his pension. He carries on because he loves what he does, but it is not sustainable—and he is not alone. What will the Secretary of State do to help people like my constituent?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an important speech on behalf of his most vulnerable constituents. Does he agree that rural and sparsely populated authorities can deliver good-quality children’s services only if special educational needs provision, health integration and transportation are treated as national responsibilities and not afterthoughts, as they so often are? On the funding piece, Westmorland and Furness council is receiving funding of £535 per head this year. In three years’ time, it will be £380 per head—a 29% cut in three years. Does he share my fear that that puts the safety of our children, particularly our most vulnerable ones, at risk?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Government-backed Loans: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Minister assessed what proportion of British Business Bank grant funding goes to the smallest of businesses? One in four people in my constituency works for themselves or for very small businesses. To what extent is she working to ensure that smaller businesses—those employing 10 people or fewer, which are the very bedrock of our economy in the lakes and dales in Cumbria—know about the availability of those loans and are talked through the difficult process of applying for and receiving them, so that we can invest in rural communities like mine?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a really important speech, and I commend him for the survey he conducted. In Cumbria, many communities and homes that are within the scope of Project Gigabit are still going to be excluded from it because they are deemed too difficult to reach. The majority of those places will be upland farms, where the people are on less than minimum wage. Does the hon. Member agree that the people who produce our food and tend our beautiful landscapes have as much right to be connected to the internet as the rest of us?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  May I encourage the brilliant team at Kendal jobcentre, who already do a fantastic job reaching out to young people across the Westmorland area, but also congratulate the Secretary of State on what is a very positive initiative? Will he bear in mind, however, that in communities like mine where the distances to travel are enormous, we—and he—should be looking at having youth hubs outside the main towns such Kendal and Penrith, and look at Kirkby Stephen, Appleby, Grange and Windermere, so they are closer to the people who need those services? Will he also pay attention to, and discuss with his Cabinet colleagues, the fact that awful bus services in rural areas like ours mean that young people cannot get to appointments?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Animal Welfare Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to all the speakers, including those who have come here with much to say but have not managed to get in in this debate. I feel for them— I have been there. I offer a massive thank you to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) who led the debate with real distinction and great passion. She made an important series of points, many of them followed up with her own examples. How we treat animals is an indicator of whether we can even call ourselves a civilised or humane society. Overall in the UK I think we treat animals relatively well. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is what we call ourselves and mostly that is true. Some 84% of us, for example, consider animal welfare when we act as consumers and buy food. Animals are sentient, but they do not have agency, although I can neither confirm nor deny that the size of our majority in Westmorland is down to the fact that we extended the franchise to certain woolly residents. Herdwicks are, after all, rugged individualists and are thus part of the core Liberal vote. But animals do not get to decide how humane we are. That is for us to choose. We can choose to protect the culture and practices of how we care for wildlife, pets and livestock and not, for example, undermine those practices by undercutting our ethical British farmers with products from overseas produced in less than humane conditions. The Government are doing some things right—it is important to acknowledge that. They are choosing to ban cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs by 2032, but the strategy fails to adequately consider domestic food security and competitiveness, which are crucial to maintaining and extending our strong animal welfare culture in the UK. If the Government propose raising domestic animal welfare standards further, which they rightly do, they must also take steps to ensure consumers are protected from imported food products that can be produced to lower standards. British farmers should not be asked to compete with imports produced at those lower standards, which would be illegal if they were produced here in the UK, and yet they are being asked to do so.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Animal Welfare Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. What is the point in having these standards if we give them away to those who put us under extreme pressure? I completely agree with my hon. Friend and urge the Government to take the same position. We are seeing the UK outsourcing its egg and pig production abroad, to lower standards—it has already begun. In 2024, the UK imported 109,644 tonnes of eggs, equivalent to the output of approximately 8.5 million layer hens. The previous Labour Government banned sow stalls in 1999, and this Government are now proposing to phase out farrowing crates, yet in the last year the UK imported just shy of 600,000 tonnes of pork—6.4 million pigs—mostly from countries where these practices remain, and are likely to remain for some time, utterly legal. More than 90% of UK citizens believe that UK animal welfare standards should apply to imports, and so do I. The UK needs to protect those high welfare standards, for ethical reasons of protecting animal welfare but also to ensure that we do not harm our domestic agriculture industry and therefore reduce our food security even further. Farmers in Cumbria and across the whole United Kingdom are vital to food security. It is time we listened to them and made Government a help, not a hindrance. It is not right to put them in a position where they are forced to compete with cheaper, less ethically produced imported food. I am a free trade liberal, but free trade is not free if it is not fair. We need a level playing field, especially on animal welfare practices. It is right that we celebrate Britain’s high animal welfare standards, but we should do more than just celebrate them—we should put our public money where our public mouths are. Public sector procurement policy should ensure that the majority of food we purchase comes from the UK, because buying British is not just patriotic; it is the surest way we can know that the food we eat will be ethically farmed. Across the 1,600 farms in Westmorland and Lonsdale, farmers take great pride in the high animal welfare standards they implement. The Government need to recognise and reward that. The Liberal Democrats will not punish farmers by importing animal products with low welfare standards. Sadly, the Government continue to do that. On 9 January, the Government lifted reinforced import controls on consignments of beef, poultry meat, meat products and meat preparations exported from Brazil to Great Britain. That change means that Brazilian shipments will no longer be subject to the additional checks that were previously imposed, reducing inspection intensity. That is clearly a backwards step. The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for how we would tackle these issues more broadly. Trade deals must never undercut UK animal welfare. We will sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, restoring co-operation and alignment on food and welfare standards. We will ban the import of food produced with antibiotic growth promoters and ensure that no product illegal to produce in Britain can be sold here, and we will support farmers directly to help them lead the world in high standards of animal husbandry. Because animal welfare matters to us, we would ensure that the regulatory and economic levers that Government can pull will be used to not just protect Britain’s high welfare standards but advance them further. The animal welfare strategy, welcome though it is, must be far more comprehensive in scope, recognising that our approach to trade, public procurement and our domestic economy can have huge impacts on improving or worsening the collective welfare of animals. I urge the Government to be fully aware of those impacts and learn from the failure of the last Government, whose rush for politically convenient trade deals led them to throw our farmers and our animal welfare standards under the bus.

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

  More

  It is as privilege to serve under your guidance, Dr Allin-Khan. I say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and leading it so ably. I also make a little apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for clearing my throat while he was speaking. I was not doing so to make him shut up and sit down—I am not the Speaker. I genuinely had a frog in my throat. I remember the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 well. I genuinely enjoyed being on the Bill Committee with Members here and others. There are lots of good things in it, but overall the Liberal Democrat view was that it felt like incremental change when more radical reform was needed. All the same, it included some real positives, including provision to ban bonuses for the senior executives of failing water companies. Yet, as we have heard from multiple sources, water companies are now making a mockery of that legislation. We have heard about some of those already, but let me run through some examples. Southern Water’s chief exec’s pay has doubled to £1.4 million via a “two-year long-term incentive plan”. Wessex Water’s chief exec and chief financial officer both got an extra £50,000 undisclosed from its parent company. As we have heard, Thames Water tried it on—21 senior managers were set to be paid a total of £2.46 million in retention payments. In perhaps the most explicit example, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the chief executive of Yorkshire Water received £1.3 million from the holding company, Kelda Holdings. Those are clear and obvious examples of water companies trying to perhaps abide by the letter of the law, if they can get away with it, while completely and utterly flouting the spirit of it. It is totally predictable. Outrageously, Ofwat have either signed off many of these cases or just shimmied and said, “None of our business. We’ve got no powers to do it”—a reminder that it is high time it was abolished and replaced with a more powerful regulator.