Toby Perkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  The 500 households in Chesterfield that were flooded during Storm Babet, almost all of which were in council tax bands A and B, will welcome the Government’s intention to make sure that this scheme remains sustainable. It is important to remember that flood victims are just that— victims. They are not the cause of their problems; they are victims of our global failure to take the requisite steps on climate change, and of previous Governments’ and the water industry’s under-investment in flood protection. The example that the Minister raised is obviously ridiculous, and there is a need for those at flood risk to take the action they can to protect their houses. What assessment have the Government made of how many households will see increases in their premiums as a result of the steps being taken? Can the Minister assure us that households will not be unable to get insured, leaving us in the position we were in before Flood Re existed?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Support for young people wanting access to the world of work has never been more crucial, but the success of youth hubs will depend on their ability to connect with, be useful to and understand the needs of employers. What steps will the youth hubs take to ensure that they are communicating with businesses and understanding their needs?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come to the zero emission vehicle mandate shortly. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that we need to be careful that we do not just offshore emissions, so I will come to some of the stuff that we need to do about energy-intensive industries. None the less, I think it is important that we give business the certainty that it requires. During the EAC’s inquiry into carbon budget 7, we heard time and again from business and investors that a long-term plan and policy certainty are needed. The forthcoming delivery plan and CB7 are exactly the sort of long-term planning that businesses need to have confidence about the UK’s direction of travel, in order to invest and innovate. As a world leader on clean energy, our approach puts Britain on the front foot in a globally competitive and quickly changing world. The setting of the seventh carbon budget today is not just a technical milestone but a statement of our long-term ambition to secure the UK’s economic future and our competitiveness on the global stage, alongside a greener and healthier future for our children. The EAC analysis confirms that the pathway to CB7 is both credible and achievable. It is clear that, although they accept the overall figure, the Government will not adopt all the approaches suggested by the CCC, and the delivery plan that the Government adopt is what will dictate the success or otherwise of CB7. That is why the shadow Secretary of State was unable to get answers to all the questions she was posing. This provides an overall framework but it is not the Government’s delivery plan. It is within the delivery plan that we might expect to get some of the answers to the shadow Secretary of State’s questions, which she would have known if she understood what the carbon budget order process was all about. The Climate Change Committee has said: “The slow pace of electrification is putting the UK’s climate targets at risk and is a missed opportunity to enhance UK energy security in the face of rising threats, leaving the UK exposed to geopolitical shocks…Following the recent increase in fossil fuel prices, bills have increased almost four times more for a typical household with a gas boiler and a petrol car, compared to a household with a heat pump and an EV.” People need to know how net zero will result in a stronger, more resilient economy, lower bills and greener and healthier places to live. The EAC’s report is tagged to the debate today, and I would like to place on record my thanks to Committee specialist Dawn Amey for her work on that really important report. Our report identifies several areas in which further action is needed to achieve the seventh carbon budget. I would like to highlight just three. First, the Committee identified that bringing down energy bills and making electrification attractive and affordable was fundamental to making the green transition work for businesses and people. This Government are accelerating the roll-out of renewables in Britain and investing in grid and network infrastructure, both of which will have the effect of bringing down bills, but more action is needed. We recommended removing further policy costs from energy bills and putting them on to general taxation. This will improve the cost differential for making cleaner choices for households and industry.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to do so. Is the right hon. Member aware of the evidence from the Climate Change Committee that says that the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than the cost of everything that is needed for net zero? When she attempts to stand in the way of the transition, what she is actually doing is attempting to pile up the costs on British business and consumers, and on the sustainability of our country. She should understand the impact of her policies, rather than attempting to row back on one of the few things the previous Government should have been proud of.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the draft Carbon Budget Order 2026, which sets the level of the seventh carbon budget on the way to our long-term and previously cross-party aim to balance the UK’s carbon emissions by 2050. I have to say that the speech we have just heard from the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) was quite remarkable because, at the most fundamental level, it failed to understand what we are doing today. The sixth carbon budget passed by the previous Government in 2020 only got its delivery plan in 2025. Today, we are debating our aim for 2038 to 2042. At this moment, it is not prescriptive about how we get there. That is why, at the most fundamental level, the shadow Secretary of State did not understand what she was debating, and why she failed to get answers to some of the questions that she thought should be answered. I am afraid that, at the most fundamental level, she was on the wrong path.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I think they might be laughing at him, but I do not think they are laughing at all of us. The hon. Member is talking about our climate leadership as though we should be ashamed of it, but the reality is that China installed more solar panels in 2024 than the entire world did in 2023. China is not ignoring the opportunity to transition; it is leading the way.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very good place to start, because the shadow Secretary of State suggested that the Climate Change Committee has attempted to silence her. It has not attempted to silence her. What it attempted to do, on a point of fact, was inform her of the basis on which her letter to the committee was wrong. This was not a matter of opinion; the Climate Change Committee was simply explaining to her where the cost of electricity comes from. My hon. Friend makes a good point. The shadow Secretary of State talked about transparency, which is interesting because the fact that we are having a debate on the seventh carbon budget is completely different from what happened on the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets. The sixth carbon budget, under the previous Government, was approved in 17 minutes in a Delegated Legislation Committee, far away from public scrutiny. These are crucial matters. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that they will have wide-ranging impacts on all of us, and they should be debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome that this Government, unlike the previous one, have brought this forward and reserved time to debate it. In debating this order, it is so disappointing that the political consensus that previously existed has evaporated. It lasted from the Labour Government’s seminal introduction of the Climate Change Act 2008, which was strengthened and updated in 2019 by the Conservative Government. With the introduction of the Climate Change Act and the pathway to net zero, Britain was world-leading in our ambition. The approach was so admired that, far from what the shadow Secretary of State said, it was copied by many other legislatures. How tragic that the Opposition should choose to jettison one of the greatest achievements in their 14 years in government in the face of a threat from the climate deniers in Reform. The approach pursued by successive Governments is working. Since 1990, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions have been cut by 54%. At the same time, the UK economy has grown.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will move straight on. Secondly, we heard again and again from businesses that long-term policy certainty and delivery across Government was crucial. Thirdly, we heard that fairness was key. The green transition is necessary and brings huge potential benefits, but it must be done in a way that brings people and businesses along. Decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation. Forcing production to relocate abroad weakens the UK’s industrial base and undermines support for decarbonisation while failing to reduce global emissions. In summary, the path laid out by this order is credible and achievable. The goal is a vital one—indeed, this is the fight of our age—but it must be done in a way that allows our economy and our people to thrive, and ensures that it is fairly distributed so that it is accessible to all. The prize is not just a more sustainable future but quite possibly the future of our race on this planet.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  What my hon. Friend has just revealed is absolutely shocking. Does that not show that even at a local authority level, Reform will put its ideology in the way of helping businesses and individuals to bring their bills down?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  There are many different things that impact energy prices. We have seen £150 taken off the price of bills. I think there is more that can be done to reduce electricity prices, and I will come to that. The reality is that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of a greater reliance on gas and oil. If anything is explained to us, it is that we have no control over energy prices while we are reliant on gas and oil. Everything that has happened since 2022— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman puts his head in his hands. I say to him that the amount that the Government spent in 2022 to cover the cost of the increase in energy prices caused by the start of the Ukraine war was greater than the cost of everything that we will do on net zero between now and 2050. That is the reality: £44 billion pounds was spent propping up people’s gas, electricity and fuel bills at the time of that crisis. That is why we need to get away from that dependence. As I was saying, since 1990, the UK economy has grown, partly powered by the green economy, which last year was found to be growing at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, providing jobs and growth across the country. The most recent CCC assessment found that the UK remains among the leading group of countries that demonstrate sustained emissions reductions. The transition is the pro-business choice. This year’s CBI and Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit report on the net zero economy found that green businesses and their supply chains generated £105 billion in gross value added for the UK economy, as well as supporting over 20,000 small businesses and a million jobs.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  First, I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks to Baroness Batters for this excellent report. She is also right to observe that Reform MPs have not bothered to turn up for this statement. She might also note that no Green MPs have bothered to turn up. They used to be interested in the environment, but sadly those days are long behind us. On the sustainable farming incentive, can the Secretary of State tell us any more about how she will make sure that its new iteration not only is spent and gets to where it is needed, but is available for a wide range of farmers, including the family farms we speak so much about, and is not all snaffled by the major farm companies?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not intend to detain the House for long. I welcome the motion to increase the electricity generator levy, which—alongside the Government’s plans to encourage participation at a competitive price in long-term fixed contracts for low-carbon generators—will weaken the link between electricity and gas prices, with the overall effect of bringing down energy bills for my constituents and consumers across the UK, as well as for British businesses. I also welcome the long-overdue increase in the approved mileage allowance for workers from 45p per mile to 55p. It is very noticeable that over the 14 years I was in Parliament under a Conservative Government, that rate stayed exactly the same, while the cost of petrol rose by around 33% and the cost of diesel by around 44%. Every single year, those workers were worse off than they had been the year before. The motion to temporarily reduce vehicle excise duty is also welcome. Right now, HGVs pay about £1,700 on average per vehicle; the motion would change that to £1 this year. Last month, I visited Spectrum Freight in Chesterfield, where we discussed the challenges the industry is facing. It and other businesses in the industry will very much welcome the Government’s sensible approach to supporting the sector at this difficult time.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Water customers are paying the price for the incompetent regulation that allowed Macquarie to saddle the company with eye-watering debts at the same time as its environmental performance was so disgraceful. That debt ultimately led to shareholders writing the equity value down to zero. Those who bought the debt are now making this proposal. I entirely understand why the Secretary of State would not want customers to receive a service that was failing in its environmental responsibilities while they paid higher bills, but what assessment has she made as to whether Thames Water is a viable business? We have been told that this is the final offer from the company. Is there a viable business there that will deliver long-term investment within a reasonable cost window for billpayers? If there is not, at what point does public administration become inevitable?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in what the hon. Member has had to say on amendment 6. She spoke specifically with regard to steel making. Has she also had representations about the impact of these tariffs on UK manufacturers who make things out of steel, as well as on steel stockholders? Is it her intention through the amendment to get further information on that, or is that not its purpose?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was just about to finish, but if my hon. Friend thinks that it cannot wait, I will happily bring him in.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady is in the same place as the Government, in that they want to see an excellent private sector partner at the earliest opportunity. The point I was trying to make is that she would be compelling the Government, in new clause 9, to seek this provider, and we have seen what has sometimes happened previously. Is she saying that, ultimately, we must do whatever the market decides, or is she basically supporting the Government’s position that this sovereign capability must remain in the UK and that we will work with other partners, but they will not be able to shut down British steelmaking as they have done in the past? Will there be any provisos in the new clause?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He makes an important point, once again raising the importance of this whole area of legislation to the defence industry and to sovereign capability. The reality is that our defence industry is crucial economically, for jobs and for our national protection, but also for exports. We should absolutely welcome those British manufacturers making things here and selling them across the world. If we inadvertently cause them to be less competitive, we will rue the day, so we need to tread carefully. But his point about ore and those amendments is well made. I will sit down now, but I tell the Government that they have my absolute support on this approach to the nationalisation of British Steel, and I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have made.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Chair—that was a pleasant surprise. I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s steps in the Bill, which build on the steps that we took with the emergency legislation that ensured a future for Scunthorpe. We all recognise that steelmaking is part of our national security. Without steel capability, we are simply unable to be truly independent in military terms or in many other terms. The commitment of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensuring a future for British Steel is not only sensible and ambitious, but a welcome change from the policies that were pursued by previous Prime Ministers over too many years to mention. At a time when there has been such huge pressure on the public finances, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are stepping forward with £2.5 billion to boost the steel industry, along with the important measures relating to those with expertise in the industry, which is a complicated sector. It is therefore very welcome that the Government’s efforts in these areas are being led by those with such expertise in the sector.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I had the opportunity last night to predict that he would be the leader of Reform by the time we went into the general election, and I stand by that. We would normally expect to see a party leader in the House of Commons. We never see the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in the House of Commons, which is why I predicted that it would be the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—but I am getting distracted and will return to his question. I am absolutely committed to doing everything we can to decarbonise, but in certain sectors doing so would be to deindustrialise. There is no sense in allowing blast furnaces only for imported products and not looking after that ourselves. I welcome the Government’s drive and direction, but I absolutely want to see that future for Scunthorpe. We should look at ways that we can use greener gases rather than pursue anything against that.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a very important and interesting point. In the steel industry over recent years, we have seen foreign companies buying British firms, then closing them down and leaving us without this capability. Would anything in new clause 9 prevent that from happening again? Having forced the Government to seek this buyer, is there anything in it to stop that buyer coming in and just closing the business down, meaning we lose that sovereign capability?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When I asked the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about this point, it was instructive that we heard her resort to saying, “It is just about being kept in touch.” The new clauses say that the private sector is always the way to go, but we know from our long history with the steel industry that that idea has often led to private companies coming in, mismanaging or indeed closing British steelmaking companies, and us seeing sovereign capability disappear overseas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the Government can always act in the national interest by rejecting the new clauses?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100% about the importance of protecting skills, which has been a huge priority of mine throughout my time in this House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that skills have been lost from the sector, as we tragically and foolishly allowed the steel industry to be stripped away, as he rightly pointed out, by the Conservative party. That has been tremendously damaging to our national security, our economy, our industry and, as he rightly says, the skills base in this country. I am very supportive of what the Government are doing in this Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to speak, as I did a moment ago, to a question raised with me that is somewhat parallel to the narrow terms of the Bill, but is relevant to amendment 6 and to amendment 5, which has not been selected. We are—absolutely sensibly—taking measures on the tariffs to prevent the dominance of the Chinese steel industry, which sells steel at ludicrously cheap prices and is attempting to get all other countries to lose their steel industries so that we will then all be dependent on China. However, we have to be careful that we do not cause unintended consequences for British manufacturers that use steel and for our international competitiveness. We do not want to end up in the position of, for example, rolled bar, where we do not have reliable and strong provision of that here in the UK. We need to tread carefully with this. I know the Minister is on this, but I take this opportunity to come back to that point. I have already written to the Secretary of State about a manufacturer in my constituency that makes transport ramps out of steel, and three other companies in the constituency are more directly involved in steel stockholding and have products manufactured out of steel, and they are all deeply concerned about where we currently are on this. I know we have the current plan for 1 July—that is not far away at all. If we do not get this right, the consequences could be extraordinarily serious. I know that is on the Minister’s list and that it is prominent in his mind, but I add my call to all those others who say that we need to tread extremely carefully. With that, it remains only to say well done to the Minister and the Government for their continued backing of steel, and I look forward to seeing this—