Toby Perkins MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Synthetic Chemicals · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We know that the firefighting industry is very much affected. In comparison to some industries, it has clearly made significant progress in finding alternatives to PFAS, but it has been a major polluter over the years. We also recognise, of course, that being able to put out fires is incredibly important. Firefighting is the kind of essential use where we would understand that there could be derogations, but when PFAS are being used in cosmetics and so on, I wonder whether we should not be aiming to be more ambitious in putting bans in place. I agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I thank him for that contribution.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Synthetic Chemicals · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In fact, his colleague, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), is a member of our Committee. He made the point strongly that because we have divergence from the EU in this area, it potentially causes major problems for the agricultural sector in Northern Ireland. Effectively, it will have different rules from the Republic, which creates a major issue. The Committee debated the impact on Northern Ireland at considerable length. It is an important point in our report, and one that we will be taking to the Government. We have not yet communicated with the Northern Ireland Assembly, but we would be happy to do so following this report.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Synthetic Chemicals · Hansard source

  More

  We look forward to working with the Minister. We will do everything we can to provide her with the support that she might need within the Department to get this issue taken as seriously as it should be. We recognise that there will always be people who push back. There are important reasons why we need to tread carefully, such as to support UK manufacturing, but we also need to recognise that this is a serious public health issue. We welcome the work she is doing and thank her for it.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Synthetic Chemicals · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased to present the Environmental Audit Committee’s ninth report of this Parliament, on addressing the risks from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as forever chemicals. The inquiry was launched last year, at a time when the acronym PFAS might have been familiar only to a few experts. One year on, there has been an ITV and ENDS Report documentary about PFAS, the first ever Government PFAS action plan, and much more public awareness and scrutiny of PFAS pollution and contamination. For the benefit of those watching who are unaware, I will briefly outline the PFAS issue before turning to the substance of our report. PFAS are a class of more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals that are used in a high variety of applications for their water resistance and resilience, from non-stick frying pans to making school uniforms more water-resistant and from firefighting foams to cosmetics. However, it is that same quality—their resistance to breaking down—that means they accumulate in the environment and in the human body over time. It is for this reason that they are known as forever chemicals. PFAS are now widely detected in UK rivers, soils and wildlife and in the blood of most people, and a growing body of evidence links high PFAS exposure to serious health and environmental risks, including certain cancers, immunity suppression, and fertility and developmental impacts. Addressing PFAS pollution is therefore essential to protecting public health, preventing long-term environmental harm and reducing future remediation costs. Acknowledging the growing issue of PFAS, the Government published in February a PFAS action plan—the first of its kind, and a very welcome step. The Committee is grateful to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), for engaging proactively and constructively with us throughout the process, allowing us the opportunity to examine the Government’s plan as part of our inquiry. The Committee’s inquiry found that the UK faces a growing legacy of PFAS pollution alongside continued emissions. Although the Government’s plan is a welcome starting point, it is short on the decisive action needed to prevent the harmful build-up of these chemicals in the environment. The plan focuses disproportionately on monitoring, rather than prevention and remediation. It also suggests voluntary action and industry self-regulation, which in our view will be insufficient to reduce PFAS emissions to the level we need to see. In the Committee’s view, tackling the scale of contamination requires a combined approach. First, we must prevent ongoing PFAS emissions at source; secondly, we must manage continued PFAS emissions; and thirdly, we must address remediation and disposal of PFAS. This must be supported by sustained research, funding, monitoring and public transparency. The longer action to address the risks of PFAS is delayed, the greater the health, economic and environmental burdens will become. I will briefly highlight some of the Committee’s recommendations to Government in those three areas. Right now, PFAS are still being manufactured, put into consumer products and released into the environment. The Committee made several recommendations to prevent PFAS pollution at source. We are calling for restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products, including food packaging, cookware, cosmetics and coatings on school uniforms. Where the use of PFAS is considered essential to protect the health, safety and functioning of society, exemptions could of course be granted. In phasing out PFAS, the regulatory system should shift from a substance-by-substance approach to group-based regulation, to prevent the replacement of banned PFAS with structurally similar and potentially harmful alternatives. We believe that without such a broad, group-based restriction on PFAS, the Government risk a whack-a-mole approach whereby new substances emerge faster than they can be evaluated and banned. In the EU, more decisive action has been taken and chemicals are banned as a group, with firms having to seek a derogation from the law if the compound is either vital or irreplaceable. Lacking the same kind of action brings risks to our trade and economy, too; unnecessary regulatory divergence from the EU creates trade barriers in the UK—between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between the UK and the EU—which impacts UK manufacturing competitiveness. To research this issue, the Committee visited Angus Fire in Bentham in North Yorkshire and met directors of the firm, campaigners and villagers. It also visited Lyon and the French Parliament to learn about the regulatory actions in France, and about the state of the campaign and public opinion there. The Committee argues that clear limits on the acceptable level of PFAS must be set to enable enforcement and remediation. The Government rightly mandated the guidelines for the level of PFAS allowed in drinking water; we would like to see statutory limits on PFAS in food and soils, and monitoring and enforcement by the Environment Agency to match. Protecting public health also requires long-term investment in biomonitoring and epidemiological research. The Committee recommended enhanced health screening for people with potentially high PFAS exposure. While monitoring and research are vital, they must not be used to delay action. Finally, there is an important set of questions around existing and historic PFAS contamination: how should it be cleaned up, and who should pay for it? Where the Government were not clear, the Committee was. Based on the “polluter pays” principle, those who released PFAS into the environment should be expected to pay for it to be remediated. We of course recognise that in some cases, the Government and the manufacturing industry will need to work together to ensure that costs associated with the clean-up of the past do not endanger the future of these companies. We also recognise that in some cases, the companies that polluted in the past no longer exist, so the cost of the clean-up will fall on the Government. However, we want to see the Government starting from the perspective that the polluter should pay and the taxpayer should not be expected to foot the bill. The Committee recommended that the Government should explore the implications of an emissions levy for PFAS on the UK REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—candidate list, to deter ongoing environmental contamination and hold polluters responsible. In cases where the PFAS contamination is not attributable, central Government must provide dedicated funding for local authorities to clean it up and provide clear guidance on remediation and destruction methodologies. The Committee’s investigation of PFAS pollution was complex and at times technical, but our conclusions are not: forever chemicals are still being emitted, they are building up in our bodies and in the environment, and we know that they are harmful. Waiting will only make the problem worse; now is the time to act. In conclusion, I wish to place on record several thanks. I thank all the members of the Committee for their contributions and their thoughtful engagement with this inquiry; the community members, regulators and industry representatives in Bentham who took the time to meet the Committee to discuss this sensitive and important topic with great transparency and candour; and the staff of the Environmental Audit Committee, particularly Dr Misha Patel, Dr William Brittain, Jonathan Wright and Jacob Moreton, for their work and expertise in co-ordinating the inquiry, the visits, the communications and the report. With that, I place our report before the House.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State has been speaking a bit tonight about parental choice. That is, until this amendment, where she does not believe parents are able to decide what their children should do. In fact, she believes that she is far better placed, as are many Members in the House of Lords who do not know how to take a photo on their phone, to tell people how to parent their children. Does she acknowledge that many parents recognise that their children have positive experiences on social media? Is it not sensible to have a consultation, as the Government have already announced, to hear from experts, from children and from all the people who have opinions on this issue, rather than legislating at great haste and making a huge difference to many young people’s lives?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to expose the utter folly of responding to the situation that faces us by saying, “We need to stop with renewables and invest more in oil and gas.” It would be utter madness to learn that lesson. When we had the huge price spike as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fact that oil and gas was coming from the UK made no difference to the amount that our consumers paid, because it was all on the global market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the marginal pricing system, which was set up at a time when 80% or 90% of energy was being generated by fossil fuels, is far less robust at a time when the figure for gas is down to 40% and shrinking the entire time, and more than 50% of our energy comes from renewable sources? Because renewables are cheaper, should we not look to benefit from that, rather than having a system that allows gas to set the price, even if it accounts for only 1% of our energy?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend will hear a lot from politicians today—although it appears not from Reform Members, because they have all gone—but does she agree that the most important people to listen to are not those making the sound and fury in this room but those who lend money to the Government? They believe that her proposals are worth lending money against, and for that reason, the amount we will be spending on debt interest is falling. Unlike the Conservative party, they think the UK is a good credit risk in comparison with other G7 nations. Will she say more about how she can bring electricity prices down to support the growth that she is all about?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the leadership that the Government are taking on this important industry. How much sustainable aviation fuel does my hon. Friend anticipate that the UK will be able to provide, and after his amendments have gone through, is it still likely that we will depend on imports of sustainable aviation fuel, alongside the stocks we have in the UK?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—it is definitely something worth considering. The Government have given an important commitment to meet their climate change and environmental targets at the same time as expanding airports and growing the economy, and I welcome that commitment. It is a hugely important promise, but it is also a huge challenge. Sustainable aviation fuel can deliver emissions savings compared with traditional kerosene fuel. Increasing its use is a vital piece of the puzzle in decarbonising aviation. The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill will provide the minimum price guarantee for producers of SAF in the UK, so whoever was responsible for it, I welcome these amendments. The price certainty will encourage investor confidence in bringing commercial-scale SAF plans to the UK and bringing SAF production and jobs. Alongside that revenue certainty mechanism, the Government have introduced a SAF mandate: a legal obligation on fuel suppliers to the UK to provide an increasing proportion of SAF to airlines. That policy is also essential to driving the uptake of SAF. What assessment has the Minister made of when these SAF mandates will be achieved? Does he think that they will be achieved in the next year? If not, at what point does he expect those mandates to be met? The Government do not believe that we need to follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and see demand management alongside a suite of other measures as one of the approaches. Instead, they believe that we can get greater amounts of sustainable aviation fuel. Will my hon. Friend tell me how important it is to see the industry achieving these early mandates if we want to give confidence that they will be achieved in much greater numbers in the future? Despite these welcome policies, the Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence—I think the Minister confirmed that today—that the UK would not be able to provide sufficient SAF to service the level that the Government expect the industry to use. We know that imported SAF is not currently recognised in UK carbon budgets as being a genuine reduction in emissions. Although I understand the Government have plans to include international aviation emissions within their carbon calculations, the UK has yet to formally legislate to include those emissions within the carbon budgets, despite both this and the previous Government agreeing to do so. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within the UK carbon budgets? The Environmental Audit Committee also heard evidence from the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge University that, while moving to 25% of fuel usage to SAF would offer substantial emissions reductions, the reductions become much less certain beyond that point, because moving towards SAF could push up its price when compared with other sectors. That could lead to the potential of reduced availability of feedstocks for other sectors and a move beyond utilising waste products towards having to grow and cut down crops purely to serve the aviation sector. Therefore, if we go beyond 25% and start aiming for 50%, 60% and 70%, the certainty of this being an environmental and carbon reduction becomes much less certain. I wonder what assessment my hon. Friend has made of that research and whether he has visited the Whittle Laboratory. I also had the opportunity to listen to its modelling on this, so I wonder what he made of it. Finally, will the Minister reassure me that he will not allow SAF production from feedstocks, potentially undermining the environmental sustainability and the emissions savings of SAF? Has he had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero around the likely needs for the very same stock as part of our energy production in the future, particularly given the potential growth of data centres? Does the Government have a collective approach on the need for both sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels servicing our energy sector? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I wish him a happy birthday. I am interested in what he has to say. I think the Government have to be given some credit for bringing forward this signal that pushes the industry, in terms of both support for it to produce here in the UK and the mandate. Will he clarify whether he supports the SAF mandate as currently legislated for, or is he saying that he supports only it if it will not lead to any additional cost?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene on his birthday.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman says. Frankly, I am not certain about that—he may well be right. I was not seeking to create great division on this, although I do think my general point remains. None the less, as I say, I thank him for what he has said and for his support for the Bill. We have plenty of things to argue about; let us not dance on the head of a pin in this area where we are all agreed. The Government are clearly committed to greater aviation expansion. The recent work of my Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve the Government’s ambitions to have that growth while protecting nature and the environment. However, the Committee has also demonstrated that that is not by any means inevitable, and that sustainable aviation fuel is one aspect that must play a growing role alongside a suite of other measures if the Government are to reduce carbon emissions from aviation while driving that passenger and economic growth. It is absolutely crucial that the Government take action not just on sustainable aviation fuel, but on the many other elements that will be necessary both to keep the Government’s promise and to keep them out of the courts and from being judicially reviewed. It is important that this is one of a number of measures.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  If the shadow Secretary of State is going to call for the Secretary of State to resign, he should make sure that he has more than four people sat behind him; that would make him seem more credible. I appreciate what the Secretary of State is saying about the importance of elections and how rarely these things should be cancelled. We in Derbyshire have a proposal and expectation to move to unitary authorities in 2027. Does he agree that it is not illogical not to have elections to authorities that very soon will not exist? Can he tell us what lessons have been learned and what this will mean for authorities that are likely to be moving down this path in 2027?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the extra funding, but even with that there will never be enough money to go round. Does she agree that getting decisions made by experts closer to our children in their communities will not only improve services, but ensure that we use those precious resources more wisely?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks. The Prime Minister’s commitment to 1.5 million more homes will require 48,000 new entrants to the construction industry every year. In Chesterfield we are doing our bit: our construction skills hub brought 70 new entrants into the construction sector. We saw a welcome increase in numbers across the country last year, but we need a step change and we need numbers to double. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to get more people to commit to construction industry careers and get those numbers up where we need them to be to deliver on his housing ambitions?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Bill, whose introduction last year involved a happy coincidence in fulfilling one of the Government’s commitments and satisfying one of the Committee’s recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the Government’s “Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss”, published last week, set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing, and the resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict and political instability are highly likely to threaten UK national security and prosperity. It is vital for the UK to take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss and climate change. I welcome this Government’s commitment to multilateral co-operation on ocean governance and I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which will enable the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It is true to say that the initial indication of Government support for the agreement came from the last Government, although it was disappointing that over the 18 months or so that followed that commitment we never got the legislation back here. I am therefore pleased that the present Government have proceeded with this important measure. The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, a third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. To date, however, there has been limited indication of the Government’s next steps regarding the five-year international climate finance budget that is due to commence in April. They have also failed so far to invest in the tropical forests forever facility and to leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, thus protecting forests in perpetuity. Although the Minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international co-operation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK’s hard- earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action? Can she confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including funds for nature projects, in the next funding round? I welcome this important Bill. This Government have acted where previous Governments merely talked about such action, and I look forward to them continuing in the same positive direction in respect of the other matters to which I have referred.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The Defence Secretary is absolutely right to spell out the strength of our commitment but there is increasing concern about the extent to which China is propping up both the economic and military capabilities of Mr Putin and his barbaric regime, so can the Secretary of State tell me what his latest assessment is of China’s contribution to Putin’s war machine and what steps we are taking to ensure the international community remains united?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, the Office for Environmental Protection announced its annual report to Parliament. It found that the country remains off track for the 2030 targets. It also found that this Government were making good progress in some areas, but colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appear to wish to hide their light under a bushel, because we did not get a statement in the House on that, or on the environmental improvement plan. Will the Leader of the House have a word with DEFRA colleagues about ensuring that these important landmarks get a statement? In the absence of that, can we have a debate in Government time on the OEP report and the important environmental improvement plan?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Personal Independence Payment Review · Hansard source

  More

  12. What recent progress his Department has made on the Timms review of personal independence payment.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Personal Independence Payment Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the number of people with conditions that make them eligible for personal independence payment support has in recent years expanded far beyond what was initially intended, and that reform is needed. It is also clear from conversations with my constituents that many disabled people desperately need that support. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give us that, after his review, we will have a system that considers the individual, rather than the check-box approach that has brought the personal independence payment regime into such disrepute?