Tim Farron MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Jul 2025 · Qualifying Period for Settlement: Impact on NHS Staffing · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about concerns raised by the constituents of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). They are concerns created by this Government not valuing people from different parts of the world who serve in our national health service and social care system in Cumbria and elsewhere. Will the Minister be much clearer that this proposal will not be retrospective for people who underpin our health service in Cumbria and across the country? Will she be mindful of the impact on our health service if she goes ahead with a decision—which, at the moment, it looks like the Government are going to—that will hugely undermine the flow of workers who come here to support us and keep us all well?

• 2 Jul 2025 · ECO4 Scheme Redress · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One in six properties in Cumbria is more than 100 years old. Almost all of them will be single-walled properties, which are incredibly hard to insulate. Yet the award of grants through ECO4 always tends to favour large companies, not the smaller businesses that are better able to retrofit heritage buildings. Should the Government change that so that my constituents can have warmer homes that are also cheaper to heat?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Ms Butler. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for leading this debate so incredibly well. It is my great honour to stand here on behalf of the communities of Westmorland and Lonsdale, a huge chunk of the Lake district, much of the western part of the Yorkshire dales, beautiful parts of the Eden valley—Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and so on—that are not in the national park, and Grange and the Cartmel peninsula, which likewise are beautiful places not in a national park. The hospitality and tourism sector is the fourth biggest employer in the United Kingdom, but in Cumbria it is comfortably the biggest, with 29% of the entire workforce of our county earning their living through hospitality and tourism—some 60,000 people, with 46,000 full-time equivalents, and a value to the economy of £4.7 billion a year. Every single year, 20 million people visit the lakes and dales of Cumbria. We think that, after London, that makes us Britain’s biggest visitor destination. Before I talk specifically about hospitality and tourism, let me say a word about the backdrop to that industry. People come to the lakes and the dales not only because our hotels and our hospitality provision are awesome, but because the backdrop is quite awesome. The Lake district has world heritage site status. It is worth pointing out that when UNESCO granted that status, it gave as much credit to the farmers for creating that landscape over the last several hundred years as it did to the glaciers that gouged them out in the first place. Let me say a word to this Government and the Minister: we need to work tirelessly to protect family farmers, so that they maintain the backdrop to that stunning environment that underpins that important industry. We have a wonderful relationship with Cumbria Tourism, the representative body that speaks for our industry across the whole of the county. It speaks with great concern about the impact of inheritance tax changes not only on farmers, but on other small businesses. One in four people in the workforce in my constituency work for themselves, and small family businesses are the backbone of our economy. National insurance rises have negatively impacted 73% of Cumbrian tourism businesses. We have already heard about the impact of the business rates changes. In reality, we have seen businesses going from paying 25% of the business rate to 60%—more than a doubling in real terms. It is a reminder that this Government need to get their act together on business rates—and quickly—and rightly shift the burden on to the big online retailers, which pay next to nothing despite taking advantage of Britain’s public services.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. Given that time is running out, I will restrict my remaining remarks to the topic that my hon. Friend referred to. I have one last stat: 66% of hospitality tourism businesses in the Lake district are operating below capacity because they cannot find enough staff. The demand is there, but they are not meeting it. What a waste of potential growth. The staff are not available for a number of reasons. The first is that it is just not a very populated part of the world: 80% of the working-age population who live in the Lake district are already working in hospitality and tourism, so there is no great reservoir of staff. A lot of that is down to the collapse of the long-term private rented sector into Airbnbs and the absolute scourge of excessive second home ownership that runs through our communities. The Government have failed to tackle that issue. They had the opportunity to bring in a change of use for short-term lets and for second homes; they failed to do either, and that is shameful. They should do that right now. They should provide more affordable housing backed with more housing grant in communities such as ours and provide socially rented homes for local people, helping them to work in all the parts of our local industries, including hospitality and tourism. The other thing that the Government ought to do is to recognise that communities such as mine need migrant labour. They should get on with agreeing and delivering the youth mobility scheme visa, to help our young people to travel and to bring in the people who underpin our tourism economy. My final ask is simply this: the Minister should listen to the British tourism and hospitality industry. It has so much to contribute, yet it seems so rarely to be listened to.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree that we need to be really careful about piling extra costs, including the apprenticeship levy, on to businesses. I understand why the Government felt that they needed to make the national insurance rise, to increase the tax take to plug the hole that they inherited, whatever size it may be. But if economic activity is reduced, that reduces the tax yield. It is basic economics. Not only have the Government harmed our businesses in the lakes and the dales, and I am sure in Northern Ireland as well, but they have harmed the Exchequer’s take and damaged the economy in the process. The increased costs on our businesses are undoubtedly a major issue, as is the impact of a workforce that is too small for the job it needs to do in the lakes and the dales. Some 34% of Cumbrian tourism businesses say that their inability to recruit staff is undermining their viability.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Chancellor accept that cancer is a major driver of poverty? That is not only because people who are ill cannot work during their treatment, but because sometimes people who are happily cured find that they have collateral damage that means they cannot work at a full level throughout the rest of their life. Does she recognise that radiotherapy plays a huge part in making sure that people are cured and then able to be productive in society? Given that the international average for people with cancer having radiotherapy is 53%, while in the UK it is only 36%, will she look at the economic advantages of investing in radiotherapy?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance again this afternoon, Ms Butler, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a stunning and impressive speech on a matter he clearly cares about, as do I. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, for the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum, Migration and Policy Project for a part-time member of staff in my office. I take that support because I care passionately about this issue. To give the Government some credit, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, they are repealing the legislative ban imposed by the previous Government on people applying for and gaining citizenship if they arrived irregularly. I commend the use of the word “irregular” rather than “illegal”. No one is an illegal asylum seeker; they have a right to do it. Although I commend the Government for that, that is as far as I can get. The guidance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which was issued in February, creates a situation where we change the good character requirement, so that someone who arrives here irregularly “will typically be refused citizenship regardless of the time elapsed since entry.” That is wrong; the guidance contains no clear exception for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children. It applies retrospectively, to people who arrived in the United Kingdom before the change was introduced. The Government say that people can apply for citizenship; indeed, they are encouraged to test to see whether the policy applies to them. However, for a family of four there is a non-refundable charge of £5,898 for that test—a rather expensive, cruel and prohibitive one. I can think of one man I met in Barrow not long ago who was being processed—he had been an interpreter for UK and US forces in Afghanistan. We had left him behind. He found his way, by hook or by crook and through appalling personal experiences, to this country by an irregular route. He would not be allowed now: he would not get through. He could test whether the rules or guidance applied to him, but it is extremely unlikely that it would. He would be left outside. I can think of so many other people, as other hon. Members could as well, whose lives will be affected by this deeply and unjustly. It is not a deterrent, either. The possibility of being denied citizenship and maintained on indefinite leave to remain is hardly a calculation that a 17-year-old young man in Eritrea makes when deciding to flee in the middle of the night, knowing that within the next 48 hours he will otherwise be conscripted to murder his own people. That is not the kind of calculation anyone would make—it is a far-off, future consideration. It will not be any kind of deterrent, but instead will simply be a penalty based on the means by which someone got here. There would be a case for this—maybe, just maybe—if the Government allowed safe routes for these people, but in real terms there are no safe routes for people from Iran, Eritrea or Sudan. People will do dangerous things in order to escape despicable, awful experiences. I would say that competence is the best deterrent. I commend this Government for doing better than their predecessor when it comes to removing people who have not been successful through the asylum process, but the people we are talking about here have been successful. This Government have decided that they are refugees, so why are we denying them the ability to settle here as full citizens? This is all part of, and a consequence of, an awful, toxic debate. It feels like this Government are not the generators of that toxicity, but are scared of it, and cannot stand up to those who would demonise people who have fled from persecution, in fear of their lives. We know that 85% of refugees stay in the place next door to the one from which they fled. We know that, if we were to be put back into the European Union—if we were, we would be able to control our borders a whole lot better—we would be the 17th out of 28 in the league table of countries taking refugees. It is a dishonest debate we are having nationally, and in this place we should be honest. We should not be scared of being vaguely humane and decent. This guidance works against integration and creates a divided society. Encouraging citizenship is a good thing, because it creates stability, a sense of belonging and inclusion. It offers hope to those who come to us for sanctuary. It is a decent thing for us to do—we should do it. This guidance should be scrapped.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I spoke to a resident—a friend—in my constituency over the weekend. She is a wheelchair user since a failed back operation some years ago. She currently gets PIP. She gets three points for dressing and undressing and two points for washing and bathing. She needs help with both, yet she fears, as do I, that anybody with her exact needs applying after next November will be left without help. We are right, are we not, to be concerned and to fear that? That is unjust and uncaring, isn’t it?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a joy to serve under your guidance this evening, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister very much for his introductory remarks. I support the draft regulations, which will provide the Government with a power to introduce “not for EU” labelling across Great Britain should it be needed to protect the UK internal market and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. They make it clear that the Secretary of State can decide to apply such labelling only where there is evidence that the supply of the product is seriously adversely affected by business operators withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market. I am pleased to observe that small businesses will not be expected to adhere to this measure and that Northern Irish goods will not need to be labelled to be placed on the market in Great Britain. Food for special medical purposes will also be exempted. Over the past several years, Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the approach being taken to this issue. More recently, we have raised concerns about the risk that other British businesses will lose out on trade with Northern Ireland as a result of the additional burdens associated with labelling. Despite that, we appreciate that the Government have taken a more workable and phased-out approach than the blanket label system that the previous Government proposed. The draft regulations will ensure that the requirements are applied in a more limited and intelligent way, rather than in the comprehensive way that would have done unnecessary damage economically not just to farmers and producers in Northern Ireland, but right across the island of Britain. This instrument takes a more sensible approach: it will allow discretion, limit damage to business and minimise red tape, bureaucracy and unnecessary business costs. Of course, it will not end such costs altogether. That is a reminder that the deal cooked up in early 2020 has a lasting, damaging impact on the UK economy and on our farmers, and that non-tariff trade barriers with Europe create real friction and cause real harm to farmers right across the United Kingdom and to food producers of every kind. It is worth remembering that 17,000 businesses since January 2020 have stopped trading with the European Union, fundamentally because of non-tariff barriers to trade such as this, so I echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest: I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the extent to which the EU reset will affect the requirements of this agreement and whether there will be any easing in trade friction. This is not an issue that can be considered on its own. The impact on food producers on both sides of the Irish sea is significant. That comes alongside the impact on farmers’ confidence and business planning as a result of the inheritance tax changes; the 76% cut in basic payments for farmers this financial year; the £100 million reduction in like-for-like farm funding announced in the spending review last week; the enduring impact on British farmers of the unfair and unbalanced trade deals negotiated by the previous Government; and the trade friction caused by the separation of our farmers and food producers from their biggest external market, which is of course the European Union. We believe that food security must be treated as a public good, which is why I was pleased that the Farming Minister has agreed to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in the coming weeks to discuss food security; I will be delighted to take advantage of that offer. Nevertheless, the draft regulations are a significant improvement on what came before. It is right that discretion is being allowed. It is right that it is being done in a limited way, with small businesses exempted. The damage that will be done, both in Northern Ireland and on the island of Great Britain, will be mitigated by the draft regulations, but of course they will not entirely eradicate the damage that we have done by severing ourselves from our biggest market and our biggest international trading partner.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Probably the largest single driver of child poverty in my communities is the enormous cost of housing. The average house price in my community is up to 13 times average household incomes. That drives grinding poverty, particularly among children. Will the Secretary of State have a word with her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that a disproportionate amount of housing grant goes to rural communities such as mine, in particular with the Windermere Gateway scheme?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 19 Jun 2025 · UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Chief Secretary’s comments on maintenance. He may be aware that a huge maintenance project is about to begin on the most beautiful stretch of motorway in the country, the M6 at Lune Gorge. Eight bridges under and over that motorway will need replacing in the coming years. Will he have a look at the resource that is being made available to mitigate the impact on the local community? The plan is to close the northbound exit and the southbound exit consecutively for three years, and to close the A685 bridge connecting Kendal to Tebay. Will he make sure that there is resource to ensure that there are temporary slip roads, so that local communities are not cut off?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Lord Don Curry’s recent report on a sustainable farming model for the future was sent to the Secretary of State earlier this month. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister read it yet? Do they agree with me and Lord Curry that the UK is in a dangerously precarious position, given that we produce domestically only 55% of the food we need, and that we are therefore not food secure and need an urgent plan for food security? Will he meet me and the noble Lord to examine this industry-wide report, and start the process of putting Britain on the path to food security?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Services: Staffing in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps his Department plans to take to ensure mental health services are fully staffed in rural areas.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Services: Staffing in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his reply, but this month the Care Quality Commission found high levels of staff vacancies in the already understaffed psychiatric intensive care units and acute mental health wards in South Cumbria, concluding that this is putting patient safety “at risk”. Yet, worryingly, the ICB in South Cumbria is making additional cuts of £142 million this year, with North Cumbria also making cuts. In the light of that, what is his plan to intervene to ensure that mental health staffing in Cumbria is increased to safe levels?

• 16 Jun 2025 · School Estate · Hansard source

  More

  Small rural schools in Cumbria have some of the oldest buildings that are most in need of repair, but also some of the most pressured budgets. Will the Minister consider setting out a special budget aimed at making sure we tackle repair backlogs in small rural schools, such as those in my constituency?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be the only person in this place who has lost someone they loved to suicide. In listening to what has been said recently by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which is not opposed to the Bill in principle, the penny dropped for many of us that many people given a terminal diagnosis will have mental health issues that come with that. How does the hon. Member think we can distinguish between a person who chooses to end their own life because of a mental health issue caused by despair from having a terminal illness and somebody who wants to end their life because of despair caused by something else? Does that not blur our approach to the importance and sanctity of life and to preventing suicide in every circumstance?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, evidence from exit interviews shows that 35% of people choosing an assisted death in Canada and 47% in Oregon listed as their reason for doing so that they felt they were a burden to their family.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I want to support her in what she is saying. We are going through a process, as we consider the appalling situation of coercive control in domestic abuse cases, where a person who is a victim may not realise they have been a victim until years later. Obviously, a person who has gone through an assisted death will have no years later. Is the amendment not a way of making sure that we guard against the evil of coercive control?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  My communities in Westmorland will be outraged by a 17% reduction in farm funding. We are perplexed, because we were told to expect a decision today on the vital scheme to dual the A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner. That is crucial to east-west connectivity, to the northern economy and to saving lives. There was no mention in the statement or in the accompanying documents at all. Will the Chancellor confirm that the A66 upgrade will take place?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  That is a great suggestion. I will happily take the other intervention.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree; I will say more about that in a moment. Building on the benefits of outdoor education for the rest of the curriculum, the rapport built between teachers and students during a week-long residential where both are immersed—often literally—in the glory of nature means that when life returns to normal the next Monday in the classroom, those students are much more likely to engage, listen and learn. Outdoor education is a wonderful investment with guaranteed returns for the individual, for society and, indeed, for the Exchequer.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one more intervention.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered outdoor education. It is an absolute joy to serve under your guidance, Dr Huq. I am happy to take some interventions, but I shall do my best to leave at least 10 minutes for the Minister at the end. It is my privilege to chair the all-party parliamentary group on outdoor learning. It is also my privilege to be the Member of Parliament for many outdoor education centres in the lakes and dales of Westmorland and Lonsdale: the Bendrigg Trust at Old Hutton, which supports young people with disabilities; Brathay, near Ambleside, which develops young people from challenging backgrounds; the Outward Bound Trust on Ullswater; Patterdale outdoor education centre; the Field Studies Council centres at Blencathra and Lindale; the YMCA at Lakeside; and countless others, including the many university, local authority, charity and privately owned centres; as well as all the freelance specialists who use the outdoors to infuse our young people with joy, resilience, physical and mental health, and new skills and perspectives.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That builds on what I am saying. When it comes to poor mental health, it feels like we are figuratively fishing struggling people out of water, when perhaps what we really need to do is build their resilience so that they do not fall in in the first place. Ironically, of course, we do that in part by pushing people into the water—after an entirely appropriate risk assessment, of course. Education and policy of successive Governments has failed to prioritise outdoor education to the extent that it has become for many a nice luxury at best, rather than the essential that it ought to be.