Westminster Hall

Wednesday 24 June 2026

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Energy security is a matter that impacts all of us. It allows us to reliably meet daily demand without concern for supply disruption or price spiking. It ensures that families can heat their homes, that schools and hospitals can continue to serve the community, and that drivers can stay on the road.

Energy security is intertwined with everything we do. In a state of emergency, it guarantees a resilient power source, allowing essential service operations to continue unimpeded, and upholds our national security—indeed, energy security is national security. It should not be controversial to say that our energy security should be a high priority for the Government, yet here we are, turning our back on the North sea oil industry, all in the name of ideologically driven targets, irrespective of global context or the will of the British public.

Time and again, it has been highlighted that the UK emits less than 1% of the world’s global emissions, while the top three nations together emit over 50%. Rather than acknowledge that context, the Energy Secretary continues to push a deadline that is 10 years ahead of the largest emitter and that precedes the third by 20 years, before the second has even set an official target. Twenty years! That time could be spent on ensuring a balanced transition that does not push the UK into a scenario where energy demand exceeds supply capabilities.

Instead, the Energy Secretary insists on maintaining our weak bargaining position by pursuing his relentless targets, ignoring our preparedness levels and dismissing the genuine needs and wants of the nation. From the opportunistic solar farms being sprung up at the expense of our agricultural sector and rural communities, to reaching strike prices of £90 to £95 per megawatt hour in the latest wind auction, which far exceeds the wholesale gas price at £55 per megawatt hour, the sacrifices being made, including the interests of the British people, evidently know no bounds.

The argument is not about whether oil and gas will still be needed for years to come, because the Climate Change Committee and the Government themselves have already acknowledged that. Instead, it is a question of where our oil and gas come from. Believe it or not, a Government should support domestic production. A Government should be against deindustrialisation, especially at a time of rising political tension and subsequent volatility. Energy security and economic stability are two sides of the same coin.

I fully support more drilling in the North sea and the granting of more licences—I believe that is important for energy security—but I think it is important to be straight with the British people. As things currently stand, that would not lower their bills, because the oil and gas are sold on the international markets. Would it not be better to follow the example of Norway and put this under public control, which actually would lower people’s bills?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports continued activity in the North sea, and I will address that point later on in my remarks.

Increasing reliance on imports and blaming unstable global markets regardless of the product, when we have the ability to produce it domestically and help stabilise the market, is not just reckless; it is madness. That is not to mention the fact that offshoring our carbon emissions, such as importing from the US, does not help the planet; it simply allows the UK to portray lower emissions in national statistics, while facilitating the generation of three times higher emissions via this method of supply. We should be supporting any domestic production that reduces product cost, generates jobs and has the potential to add billions more into our economy.

It is no secret that households across the country are struggling with their energy bills. The UK currently has the highest industrial energy prices among developed nations and the second highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world. That stark fact is evident to anyone paying energy bills, and it is about to get worse. The Ofgem cap for July to September has risen by 13%, reaching £1,862, which is £294 more than when the Government came into office in July 2024. I am not sure where the Energy Secretary’s promise to decrease energy bills by £300 has gone, but it looks like he actually meant an increase. There is nothing complicated about these figures. The cost of energy is rising, and households and businesses across the country are feeling the impact.

A recent poll found that, although 60% of people across the UK support reducing emissions, 68% of those supporters believe that reducing energy bills should be the first priority. That result was echoed in another poll, which found that 71% of people who support reducing emissions do so on the condition that it does not increase their energy bills. The undeniable fact is that these inflexible targets are driving up energy bills.

As a democratically elected entity, the Government’s first priority should be to represent the nation and act in its best interests, but the public are being hung out to dry. It is not only the bill payers paying the brunt; thousands of oil and gas workers are also on the chopping block. Giving rising unemployment, it would be reasonable to presume that the Government would abandon any policy that compounds the issue further, but of course that is far too sensible a suggestion. They appear to prefer to allow 1,000 jobs a month to be lost from the oil and gas sector in places that rely on the industry such as Aberdeen, rather than admit they are on the wrong path.

I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to his place. He emphatically won a by election last week with almost 50% of the vote, which is a vindication of the fact that the public—particularly workers in places dependent on the oil and gas industry for employment—reject the pace and scale of the Government’s net zero agenda.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clear message that the people of Aberdeen sent last week was that they support the oil and gas sector and the jobs that come with it, and that it is much better that we produce oil and gas ourselves? It is much better for our jobs, our economy and the environment if we produce more in this country, rather than relying on imports.

I thank my hon. Friend for his first spoken contribution as an elected Member. He is already demonstrating his resoundingly strong voice on behalf of the people of Aberdeen South, many of whom are employed in the industry and terrified about what the scale and pace of what the Government are doing represent for their futures.

It appears that the Government would rather ignore warnings that their refusal to replace the energy profits levy is putting 200,000 jobs at growing risk than delay their ideology for even a few years. They would even rather ignore the Scottish Affairs Committee’s warnings that clean energy jobs are not keeping pace with oil and gas job losses, rather than give up on this net zero legacy.

I have one question for the Government: what do they say to the thousands of workers who risk losing their jobs or have already lost them? The Government will claim that clean energy is providing 100,000 jobs, but have they shared the detail on the quality of those jobs and the pay cuts that the workers are having to take? Why has that not happened? Because it means that the Government would have to take responsibility for a mess that they are compounding.

The bottom line is this: if we want to support those workers, we must support the North sea oil and gas industry. The ban on new oil and gas licences is leaving at least 2.9 billion barrels of oil in the ground—billions in monetary value that could be added to our economy, thousands of jobs that could be secured and millions of homes powered.

I predict what the rebuttal point will be: it does not matter how many barrels come from the North sea because it is all sold on an international market and therefore will have no impact on our energy prices, which are dictated by global pricing.

About 90% of the reserves in the North sea have already been extracted. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the analysis of how expensive it is to reach the rest of the reserves? One reason they are still there is that it is far more expensive to extract them. Has he seen whether there is an economic case for doing so?

Underpinning so many of the decisions taken by the Government is a fundamental lack of appreciation for how businesses take investment decisions. They are not incentivised to do so. Allow the market to operate by restricting regulation and financial pressure on it, and businesses will innovate. They will invest to extract resources that are viable because they can be sold on the international market. It is basic economics that the more product they have to meet demand, the more substantial the price reduction. Scarcity drives cost. The Labour party loves to argue that our North sea industry produces too little to have a significant impact on the global market, but less than 1% of global carbon emissions appears significant enough to dictate our national energy strategy. Why, then, is a 1.5% share of the global market considered too small to be worth pursuing? The answer is that it does not serve the “net zero by 2050 at any cost” narrative.

The fact that our energy security and our North sea industries are in a crisis is not new information. We all know it. Members across this House know it. Tony Blair knows it. Even the Energy Secretary himself knows it; he just will not admit it. It is time to put personal ambition and ideology aside. People need their bills reduced and jobs secured now. They are tired of being left to the whim of global market fluctuations, when the Government are not acting to stabilise the market by increasing supply and securing jobs. It is time to do what is best for our country and support the North sea industry that provides employment, helps to regulate global pricing and protects our national energy security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for introducing the debate and support his ambitions to take this issue forward. It is no surprise that the hon. Gentleman and his party have been at the fore in pressing it, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). I thank them and add my support to what they do.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He always has a quiet demeanour and a smile. He sometimes even gives the answers we wish to have, even though we may not entirely agree. We thank him for acting in a way that endears him to all of us—that is quite a talent, and he does it well.

I want to highlight our real concerns about the oil and gas industry and the fact that we are highly reliant on international supply at a time, as the Holy Bible says, “of wars and rumours of wars”.

That is clearly where we are now. The pastor at my church told us before Christmas that there are 67 wars in the world.

I speak for the hard working families of Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom. We face a defining choice for our energy future. The North sea is not just a great geographical basin, as some seem to think, but a cornerstone of our national security and an economic engine, protecting our people from foreign reliance. Yet we hear voices in the Chamber demanding a premature end to domestic drilling. They want to shut down our fields and leave our resources in the ground. With respect, that approach is reckless economic self harm.

I welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), whose campaign was clearly fought on this subject. His resounding victory in that by election indicates how people think, and we should take note. I say that with great respect to anyone else.

On the issue of what people think, does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people across the UK are keen to see us move towards net zero? What they are not keen to do is to pursue a net zero eco fanaticism that means we must have it today or tomorrow, rather than there being a gradual move towards it that does not impact on the household and business costs of everybody in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend and colleague brings forward the exact motivations of many people who speak to me. I endorse what he says, as I am sure others will.

When it comes to our national future, security must always come first. Global instability proves that we cannot simply rely on foreign regimes for our oil and gas. If we abandon the North sea, we hand total control of our energy bills over to unpredictable international markets. We must remember the workers; I say that as a non Labour man, but I mean it.

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for the domestic industry. Does he agree that, in this troubled period of world history, our refining capacity in the UK should also be maintained? As he will know, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency was recently closed, although some operations continue. Does he agree that we have to maintain capacity across the industry?

The hon. Gentleman underlines the issues. He is an assiduous and hard working MP; his constituents should be proud of what he does. Those problems are happening not just in his area but elsewhere. The by election result is an indication of that, for those who take note. Tens of thousands of highly skilled British jobs depend directly on this vital sector. Furthermore, we must confront the import myth: importing foreign fuel creates higher global emissions than extracting our own safely right here at home. The benefits cannot be ignored; that is an advantage of our own oil and our own drilling capacity.

We need to support a common sense transition that values realism over rhetoric. We must secure our baseload energy before transitioning to unproven new technologies. I am committed to protecting the Union; I know that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is as well, and I thank him for that. Protecting the Union means understanding that a strong, self reliant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requires utilising every single national resource available to us. Ultimately, domestic oil will fund the future, as the tax revenues generated from it are exactly what we need to finance our future green infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the fact that we are committed to net zero, but there has to be realism about how we approach that.

The Democratic Unionist party stands for energy independence. We stand for the British worker. We stand for a pragmatic, common sense strategy that keeps the lights on and the bills affordable.

The hon. Member says that the oil and gas belong to the Union, but it is Scotland’s oil and Scotland’s gas. Can he explain why Scottish bill payers are paying the highest bills in the UK when the oil and gas is being extracted from the North sea?

I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, but he is my friend and I take his intervention along those lines. We talk regularly about many things but we do not always agree, and we do not agree on this issue. The oil in the North sea belongs to everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just Scotland. It also belongs to Northern Ireland, Wales and England—it belongs to us. Why? Because we are part of the Union. What we produce in Northern Ireland is also for the benefit of those in Scotland. Sometimes those things are forgotten about. We will agree to disagree.

We must continue to support the North sea industry, secure our borders and protect our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need our Government to do the same. Families throughout the United Kingdom cannot afford the cost of living increases, many of which are due to energy prices being passed on to heat homes and to the rising cost of goods and services.

If we are ever to allow disposable income to rise, which lifts the local economy, we have to get on top of the energy issue. Although we should look to renewables and continue to work on those projects at speed, until they are ready to be of any use, we must be sensible, pragmatic and honest, and use the resources at our disposal. Our families—my constituents in Strangford and those across Northern Ireland—are calling out for help. Let us give them the help they need. With that in mind, I look forward to the reassurance that the Minister will give to me and many others in the Chamber.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.

I welcome this debate because it goes to the heart of two vital national priorities: tackling climate change and maintaining secure and affordable energy supplies. I support the transition to a low carbon economy. The science is clear and the need to decarbonise and adapt is urgent, but if we are serious about delivering a just transition—as is the case with the electric vehicle mandate, which I have spoken about at length—we must be equally serious about protecting the workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on the North sea.

Thousands of workers right across the UK are employed directly and indirectly in the oil and gas sector. When I talk to those workers, they are not opposed to change; they are asking a very reasonable question: what are the equivalent jobs, with equivalent pay, conditions and security, that are supposed to replace those that are being lost? At present, I do not hear a convincing answer, while, at the same time, the UK becomes more reliant on imported oil and gas. That uncertainty does not reduce demand; it simply exports jobs, economic activity and tax revenues.

In an increasingly unstable world, energy security matters. It is hugely important, and recent international events have shown just how vulnerable global energy markets can be. We should be cautious about increasing our dependence on imports from countries that may have lower environmental and labour standards. That is why projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw should be considered in the contexts of jobs, industrial capacity and energy resilience alongside our climate commitments.

The choice should not be between net zero and good jobs; the challenge for Government is to deliver on both of those things. That requires a clear industrial strategy, investment in new industries, a “North sea 2” vision, strong domestic supply chains and genuine job to job pathways for workers affected by the transition. A just transition cannot mean managed decline; it has to be planned, funded and delivered in partnership with workers and trade unions such as Unite and GMB, which have been doing great work representing their members. I urge the Government to ensure that energy security and decarbonisation go hand in hand and to demonstrate clearly how North sea workers and their communities can be protected as we make the transition to a cleaner energy future.

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.

The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.

Can the hon. Member confirm the SNP’s position on this issue? Does it unequivocally support new licences in the North sea?

The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime.

The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.

Draft 1 of the Scottish Government’s energy strategy was released over three years ago, with a presumption against new oil and gas. Does the hon. Member agree that that is damaging, and that it is time the SNP scrapped that policy?

The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.

Given the bombshell news the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to the Chamber—that we have a new energy strategy from the Scottish Government—when will that be published?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course.

Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition.

A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states: “That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.”

He goes on to say: “The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.”

What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition.

Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north east of Scotland.

The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on his recent win. Of course, his was not the only big win in Scotland in recent times. In Na h Eileanan an Iar—the Western Isles—the Labour candidate Donald MacKinnon won a historic victory after 19 years of SNP neglect and complacency. What we did in Na h Eileanan an Iar we did against the political tide: despite the polling and without the magic of Makerfield, we created a new king of the north. In short, we won because of Donald MacKinnon’s island credentials. Our local identity trumped the SNP’s artifice of a national identity. I know that we will be one Scotland tonight in Miami, but in reality, Scotland has many different communities and many different voices.

A large part of our island identity over the last two generations has been the North sea. The issues that anchored the by election in Aberdeen South were currents that ran through the Western Isles during our May election as well. The fortunes of the North sea have shaped my village in Lewis and many other communities on the west coast and in the north. It has sustained us for two generations now. It is not just the men who have made that contribution; women are effectively running single parent families because of the two weeks on, two weeks off or three weeks on, three weeks off pattern of the North sea.

The North sea has become part of our identity. Its shifts, weather and fortunes ripple through the Hebrides just as much as they do through the communities of our Doric cousins. It is not appreciated by many in this debate on the transition away from the North sea that our identity, a sense of belonging and who we are because of where we work are a big part of this.

The UK is undertaking one of the greatest economic and industrial transformations of our time, from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear power. I wish the SNP Scottish Government, although apparently they now have a new industrial strategy, would show some maturity on nuclear power and recognise that it has a role in our future as oil and gas diminish. We should be clear eyed about why we are moving out of the North sea. It is a mature and declining basin, and at the same time we face—as we do outside today—the undeniable reality of a warming planet. We have a responsibility to meet these challenges and a duty to those who will inherit the world after us to act.

The transition away from the North sea and into renewables is not the same as abandonment. This Labour Government are not, and must not be, in the business of switching off the North sea. We must not allow a justifiable drive to renewables to lead us into decisions that as a nation we may later regret. There remains lots of work to be undertaken, revenues to be generated and energy to be produced in this sector. As long as this country requires oil and particularly gas, and that can be produced and processed domestically, we should carry on working in the North sea. We should make more of tiebacks, and I would like to hear about Ministers doing so. The industry knows what that means—using existing infrastructure to explore and extract extra resources from the basin—but the public do not, and I call on Ministers to make more of tiebacks.

The hon. Gentleman comes to the crux of what we mean by a transition. The difficulty for the Government is that, on the current trajectory of development, we risk reducing at a speed that means we will lose the critical infrastructure and end up pushing the whole industry off a cliff. If we do that, we will have no just transition.

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I hear him and I hope Ministers hear him as well. In that transition, we on the west coast and he in the Northern Isles have a privileged vantage point. We look eastwards to the North sea and the jobs and fortunes that it has provided to our islands, and we look westwards into the Atlantic and see the wealth of wind, the promise of renewable energy and the next chapter of our country’s story.

The Minister knows that we in the Western Isles have the highest concentration of community owned renewables anywhere in the UK. I believe that communities should have a big share in that new industry and in the renewables fortune. The Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero, of which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is a member, recently recommended that community power schemes should have priority access to the grid.

Communities and councils should have the right—indeed, they already have the right; it is just that it has not been enacted—to take a 20% stake in any commercial renewables scheme in their area, onshore or offshore, and commercial wind farm companies ought to be incentivised through the planning system to see communities as partners, not just as peanut beneficiaries of their schemes. In that way, my community and those across Scotland that have earned a fortune for this country and for commercial companies in the North sea will have a share in the future and the fortune of renewable energy.

Let me be clear that I support a pragmatic transition in which we utilise domestic gas production rather than importing it, and support Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce into renewables and elsewhere. I accept that, as the hon. Member said, there may not be a like for like match between existing jobs and emerging jobs. The North sea is one of the most dangerous environments to work in anywhere in the world, and the pay reflects that.

But this is not just a question of pay. It is not just a question of economics, climate change or tax regimes, important as all those things are. It is just as much a question of who we are—a question of identity and belonging, and the relationship that we have with place and our place of work, which is a powerful political emotion that we should take note of. And as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, it is not an either/or. Our task is not to choose between the two, but to manage the transition from one to the other responsibly, pragmatically and in a way that protects the country’s energy security and, crucially, ensures that we enrich the communities that have already powered this nation for two generations.

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. In my contribution, I neglected to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular the donations that were made by Unite and GMB to my election campaign. I would like to put that on the record.

Thank you. I call Harriet Cross.

It is wonderful to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate, and I welcome my great friend—now my hon. Friend—the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to this place; he has been by my side pretty much from the day I joined the party, and it is fantastic to finally have him here alongside us, particularly in this debate.

I have spoken a lot about oil and gas, particularly North sea oil and gas—UK continental shelf oil and gas—in this place, because it is so important. We cannot overestimate just how important it is to Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and north east Scotland, and the by election result in Aberdeen South is a testament to that. We are not naive; we do not think that 50% of Aberdeen South voters suddenly have a huge love of the Conservative party—although I am sure they will eventually—but this was a referendum on oil and gas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South put the point across perfectly that we must protect the sector and its jobs, the tax and investment that it returns, and our energy security.

I have been knocking on doors in Aberdeen over the last four to five weeks, and the number of people I spoke to who have lost their job is tragic. They are very willing to talk about the job they had and the struggle they now have of finding a new one. Many of them are looking to move away because there is not a replacement job in Aberdeen. Many of them have young children, who will also have to move away. That is ruining friendships, it is ruining the future skills of Aberdeen, and it is changing the demographics of our region.

This does not have to happen. We do not have to run down the North sea as quickly as we are. The Government do not have to ban new licences—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep the energy profits levy—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep delaying on Rosebank and Jackdaw—that is also a choice, and it is a choice that they keep making the wrong decision on.

Once we get a new Prime Minister and undoubtedly, we hope, a new Energy Secretary, those choices will be different, because the public want the position to change: three quarters of the public support North sea drilling and North sea production if it means we will import less. The stats show that if we maximise production from the North sea, we could be using only 6% liquefied natural gas by the mid-2030s. On the current trajectory, we will be using 46% LNG. Again, that is a choice that this Government are making. LNG is more carbon intensive, so it is worse for reaching our climate goals; it costs a huge amount of money; and it is supporting foreign jobs, not UK jobs. Again, those are all choices that the Government are making. It is up to them to change direction. I am delighted by, and very grateful for, the number of Labour Back Benchers who are here today and who tell me in private that they want the Government to change their position, because they recognise that there is a pragmatic path and we need to be on it.

The impact is not only directly on jobs in the oil and gas sector. I have met hauliers and people who work in other industries in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, such as cafés and other hospitality businesses on the high street, who have seen footfall and trade decrease because of the decrease in the oil and gas sector. This impacts everybody, and not just in the north east of Scotland.

Yesterday we had the AGM of the all party parliamentary group for the British offshore energy industry, of which the hon. Lady is a member, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) will join us on it. Does she agree that the effect of these job losses is nationwide—not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, including the north east—and the people of Aberdeen have amplified how people feel across the country? Does she also agree that if the very biggest companies pull out of the North sea altogether, as they are looking at doing, that would have an even more devastating effect?

The hon. Member—I call her a friend—is a huge champion for this sector and her constituents, and she is completely correct: these job losses impact everybody and all our constituencies, so we should all care about what is happening to the sector.

This is not just about the big producers or operators; it is about the supply chain, too. Companies in the supply chain are UK wide, and they must be protected UK wide. They are also vital for the roll out of other renewable technologies and nuclear. Without the supply chain, our future energy security will be so much poorer —we will have less energy security.

Adura has submitted the additional information that is needed on Rosebank and Jackdaw. I appreciate that the Minister will probably say something about “quasi judicial”, but can he make the commitment that there will not be any unnecessary delay? The decision does not have to be delayed for a new Prime Minister or a new Energy Secretary. These companies and the industry need confidence; they need to know that the projects will go ahead as soon as possible.

The Government’s decision to write the ban on new licences into law via the energy independence Bill is an absolute kick for the sector. They had already said they would ban new licences, but the decision to put that ban into law drains any confidence that investors might have in the sector. Will the Minister think again and not include that awful policy in the Bill?

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing a debate on such an important issue. I put it on record that I am the chair of the APPG on climate change.

Frustratingly, the British public once again find themselves at the mercy of the latest chapter of the geopolitical crisis. Our constituents are looking at their energy bills and wincing at yet another increase, as people up and down the country pay the price for an energy market that is exposed to global conflict. The fact remains that the hard earned money of British taxpayers and bill payers is lining the pockets of fossil fuel giants, which want us to believe that drilling oil is the only way forward. As long as the UK relies heavily on oil and gas, global conflicts and supply disruptions will continue to lead to price hikes. That is why we need to focus on cleaner energy sources. Those hikes are driving fuel poverty in every corner of our country, leaving less money in the pockets of workers and pensioners alike.

For too long—we have heard this in the debate—climate action has been pitched as a zero sum game in which economic activity will somehow be hampered, but it is not at odds with economic security or prosperity. There is a case for moving away from oil and gas and towards clean energy not only for our planet, but for British bill payers. Energy bills cannot and will not be brought down by North sea oil and gas. Our constituents are better protected from energy shocks by investment in renewables than by further exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.

The British taxpayer has been subsidising a hugely polluting industry for too long. Oil and gas companies enjoy an effective tax subsidy of £3 billion every year, when we should instead be investing in the industries of the future, such as renewable energy projects that deliver wealth back into our communities, building global leadership and growing global markets for clean energy technologies. I worked globally on such initiatives with nearly 100 countries in the United Nations. Countries are successfully shifting away from fossil fuel production. That is happening—it is a reality.

Something that has been missing from this debate is the opportunity we have to be the leading exponents of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, hybrid assets and energy connection. When I was a climate Minister, I held the international energy brief, and whether it was from talking to Azerbaijan about what it can do in the Caspian sea, to countries on the Black sea, to countries on the Baltic sea or to the governors of states on the west coast of America, I saw that everyone is interested in what we are doing and that there is huge potential. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

We are talking about communities that are dependent on this industry. As a proud member of the GMB, I absolutely understand why workers must be at the heart of this. North sea oil and gas reserves are in terminal decline. They cannot provide a secure future for workers, and there is no long term future in them. We have heard that just 10% is left to be extracted.

Much of what the hon. Lady says is correct, but she is setting oil and gas up in opposition to the development of renewables, when they absolutely are not. I do not believe there is a long term future for the oil and gas industry, but we will need oil and gas in the future. We are talking not just about the long term, but about the short to medium term. That is the whole point of a transition: it is about how we get from here to where we want to be. There is no way of getting to the renewables future without going through oil and gas first.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I cannot say that I agree with all of it, but we need all voices around the table.

Each time, the hon. Lady says, “Instead of that, it’s this.” It is not an either/or; it is an “as well”.

The oil industry and fossil fuel lobbyists want us to believe that we need to take them on the journey with us. The case for renewables is there. At the moment, however, the voices for the renewables industry and more sustainable energy sources are being drowned out by those who want us to preserve the system that we already have.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way; I will continue.

I am making the case for growing clean industries, ensuring that British workers are at the heart of the cutting edge change that every country is now facing, for the jobs of today and the future.

Workers need a credible transition plan, which means proactive planning, serious investment and putting their voices first. That is exactly what this Government are doing. This is about ensuring workers’ jobs and livelihoods so that they can pay their bills, rents and mortgages. These are the challenges that people are facing now. We are not talking about hypotheticals; people have bills to pay now, this month and next month. This is not a hypothetical scenario or an abstract discussion; we must take workers with us.

We cannot allow the pipe dreams peddled by those with vested interests in fossil fuels to blind us to the realities in front of us. This is an industry already in decline. We know what a botched industrial transition looks like.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way; I will continue.

We also know what success looks like. Countries in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, ranging from Denmark to Costa Rica, are committed to ending reliance on oil and gas, so this issue is already being discussed globally.

I find it interesting that Conservative Members here are passionately making the case for oil and gas today, because it was their Government that presided over an unmitigated collapse in jobs in the oil and gas industry. Half the jobs in the North sea disappeared in the last decade under a Conservative Government. We did not hear anything from the Conservatives at the time, so let us remember why so many of them are talking about oil and gas today. They are masking what they are saying as standing up for workers, but the truth is that they are fighting climate deniers on their own Benches and Reform’s climate sceptics on their right. They are using the industry as a tool in their own political fights here.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way; I will carry on.

The case that I am making is backed by science. We heard earlier that a 1% increase in global warming would be catastrophic. We are already seeing extreme temperatures. The news right now is that France has just hit 44°, we have sweltering temperatures in Britain, and people are pooh poohing the idea of a 1% rise in global temperatures. They continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis. Yes, this debate is about jobs, energy security and our future, but it is also about protecting the planet from the present and very real threat of climate devastation. The simple reality is that North sea production is not compatible with Britain’s climate commitments.

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

I will continue.

Rosebank could produce the equivalent of 70% of the UK’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide. That is not compatible with the UK’s international climate obligations; they are international agreements, but they are obligations. These are treaties that we have signed up to and they reflect the deeper moral case that every country has a part to play in ensuring that we meet the global call to action.

I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister to continue along the path that the Government are already on and do everything in their power to continue to limit the expansion of fossil fuel production. That includes ensuring that Rosebank does not happen.

We cannot abdicate responsibility at this vital moment. New oil and gas production in the North sea is not a solution. It will not bring down our constituents’ bills, it will not meaningfully diminish reliance on imported gas, and it is not delivering prosperity. However, it will risk further climate disruption, which is destruction that can never be undone.

The solution is not inaction. It is a plan for a future that backs British workers, believes in British industry and ingenuity, and backs a transition to renewable energy sources. That is everything that we should be focused on delivering.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate.

Let me say at the outset that we should not rewrite history. We know that under the Conservatives there were mass job losses in the oil and gas industry. It was also interesting to hear in the last 20 or 25 minutes that, after decades of not having a plan for the industry, the SNP now does have one. I look forward to hearing more about that in due course. Then, of course, there is Reform. Its Members just want to carry on regardless and to hell with the environmental consequences. Their absence from this debate shows their contempt for workers and working class communities.

But in all honesty, I do not care about any of those parties, because I am a Scottish Labour Member, and there is no doubt that right now our oil and gas policy has left voters incredibly worried. My congratulations go to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). It was an excellent victory last week, and I commend him and his party on it. That by election result in the north of Scotland really was telling for the Scottish Labour party. Even though we had an excellent candidate, we finished fourth. As a party, we often say the right things: that oil and gas will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, that we must detach ourselves from relying on the volatile fossil fuel market and, crucially, that we want to provide a just transition for the highly skilled workers of this industry. So far, however, all of that is just words. Scotland judged Scottish Labour in the Holyrood elections and in Aberdeen last week.

Put simply, if one set of jobs is lost and a new set of jobs is not available, that is the very definition of an unjust transition. That is clear and obvious. People want evidence of what a genuinely just transition would be and how we can provide it, but most importantly, what people really want is action. There has not been nearly enough of that. It was 16 months ago this week that the Prime Minister promised £200 million for Project Willow and a bold new industrial future to be homed at Grangemouth. So far, we have had the MiAlgae and the Celtic Renewables announcements, and I welcome them, but again, those jobs are for the future—they are not for the now. Workers need jobs.

An unjust transition means an exodus of skills and talent, with workers and their families having to leave the local area—the place they grew up in and call home. That means that communities then become poorer. I do not how many times I have asked the Minister this, but I will ask again, in the hope that he will give an answer: when will we see these new industries come to Grangemouth? When will my people in my community, who I am here to represent, see the change that they desperately need? They need jobs and reindustrialisation. Will the Government take at least some form of ownership of these new industries, which they will definitely need for decades—centuries—to come?

Finally, in a party political moment, I say to the Minister that the electorate in Scotland do not know what the Scottish Labour party is about any more. In providing a genuinely just transition for workers and communities, we have the chance to say exactly who we are and who we are for, and to re establish ourselves as the political voice for workers and communities. My constituency needs reindustrialisation, and so do the constituencies of many other hon. Members and right hon. Members. We have a blank canvas in Grangemouth. We could create something special that would transform my community and Scotland for generations. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has to shape up and deliver that, and it has to do it quickly.

I call the Minister. [Interruption.] Sorry, I call Pippa Heylings—I will learn how to do this one day; I blame it on the heat.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am sure that the whole country joins you in finding it difficult to deal with this heat and to perform to the best of one’s ability. I am thinking about those students who are sitting GCSE and A level exams this week.

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. We have heard how seriously we are considering our current and future jobs for oil and gas workers in the North sea and in the new renewable energy sector. Families across the country and businesses are struggling with skyrocketing energy bills. We are also seeing hits to our economy and avoidable deaths from a warming planet. This week, we have had the first red alert under our new UK Health Security Agency alert system, alerting us to the climate impacts of global warming.

Less than a month ago, families and households received the news that, once again, their energy bills are going up, this time by an average of 13.5% or £221 a year—what we could call a Trump tax. We know that rising energy bills are one of the biggest worries facing households and businesses. They bring stress, anxiety and uncertainty, and they are plunging more and more people into unaffordable debt. Right now, energy debt in the country is about £5 billion, and it is due to rise exponentially. Also, our businesses are seeing some of the highest industrial energy prices, making us as a country among the least competitive, which is hitting our economy. Families, too, will now be bracing themselves for the next price cap announcement and wondering how much they will have to pay through the colder winter months. The reason for these spikes in our energy bills is clear: our dependence on the rollercoaster of volatile global fossil fuel markets.

The energy crisis is an oil and gas crisis. Just as with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the middle east conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses exposed to shocks entirely beyond their control. That is not inevitable. In Spain, an increase in renewables has seen the Spanish electricity market go from the 10th most expensive in the EU to among the cheapest.

But as we have heard in this debate, a transition will not happen without a careful, concentrated and accelerated focus on the oil and gas we need today, on the renewables that we need to scale up, on the infrastructure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, on the jobs and, as the hon. Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned, on the culture and identity involved in this change.

We need a serious and honest debate about this transition. Even proponents of the “Drill, baby, drill” argument from the Conservatives and Reform have recognised that further expansion of oil and gas production in the North sea, a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93%, will do nothing to cut people’s energy bills. Any oil and gas extracted is sold on the international market to the highest bidder.

My hon. Friend has come to a point of some interest. We talk about oil and gas as if they are one commodity, but they are very different things, of course, and she will know that the gas that is to be extracted in the North sea and also to the west of Shetland is brought ashore and goes straight into the UK market. The point about a global market and a global price for oil is well made, but oil and gas are different.

I thank my right hon. Friend. We have many discussions about this issue, and he is absolutely right to point out that it is complex. We know that if we extract beyond what has already been licensed, the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of global supply, particularly of oil, even if new licences are given. It will not cut bills, and it will not shield us from global price shocks.

The next argument is about UK energy security. On that point, Members from across the House have admitted that most of the UK’s recoverable North sea oil and gas has already been extracted.

I am keen to emphasise the great breadth of agreement between myself and my hon. Friend on this matter. She is absolutely right about the future of jobs. She knows that I chair the all party parliamentary group on marine energy. Marine renewable technology is developing and will be able to provide jobs for my constituents and others in the future, but it is important that we keep the critical mass of the oil and gas industry, because if these people lose their jobs now, they are not going to sit on their hands and wait for AR9, AR10, AR11 or whenever it is that we can actually get commercially exploitable marine renewable energy.

Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend; I will be coming on to exactly that point.

For more than a decade, the previous Government had a policy of maximising North sea oil and gas extraction and of removing and reducing taxes on oil and gas companies. With the issuing of hundreds of new licences in a maturing basin, what we have seen produced after 14 years is little more than a month’s worth of gas to date.

Energy security is national security. We know, and have admitted in the debate, that we have to reduce our dependency on gas and come to a transition. The Liberal Democrats recognise not only that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but that the North sea’s most productive years are behind it. That is why we support a managed and just transition away from North sea oil and gas, with investment in renewables at its heart, and strong support for the workers and communities most affected.

Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on and have contributed enormously to our economy. They deserve our support through transition—not just words—and honesty about the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of a just transition commission and an acceleration of the clean energy jobs necessary. Under the Conservatives, jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000, and at that time we did not hear the cries that we hear now about what is happening or how those workers are being supported.

I grew up in Hull, a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transitions—from coal and from the cod fisheries—and through my father’s work as a GP, I saw the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. We cannot repeat those mistakes. No community should be left behind. In Hull today, when I go back, I see what success can look like: the manufacture of offshore wind turbines by Siemens; the Humber region pioneering the offshore wind industry; investment creating skilled, well paid jobs now and for the future. Confederation of British Industry economic data has shown that beyond Hull, across the country, the new green economy underpins the jobs of 1.1 million workers throughout the UK, generating £105 billion in gross value added. That is the model we should be scaling up towards, with our skilled oil and gas workers and the supply chains front and centre of the transition.

Finally, in this sweltering heat, with this first ever red health alert for danger to life from extreme heat, we must recognise the costs of failing to tackle climate change. This week has shown us the future we face if we do not act—lives lost to extreme heat, schools closed, fields parched, transport networks gridlocked and economic costs spiralling. Climate breakdown is a national security threat, driving instability, displacement and economic shocks. It is incumbent on us to do all we can to avoid worsening climate shocks, so we must find a way forward through electrification that balances cheaper energy bills and security of energy supply, and meets our climate commitments.

The future of the North sea plays a vital role in that endeavour of transitioning from being a net exporter of oil and gas in the past to becoming a net exporter of home grown green energy—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said—again trading in the EU internal electricity market and joining North sea countries in meeting joint offshore wind investment goals, while decarbonising the gas production we will still need for decades to come. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify whether he agrees with the Liberal Democrat proposal: a just transition commission, acceleration of clean energy jobs, and our essential energy guarantee, to ensure that all families have their basic energy needs met.

In addition, the hon. Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about the identity and culture of the communities that have to face this transition. That, too, is crucial. The sooner we embrace the transition and the sooner we can deliver a secure and affordable energy system, the sooner we can finally give families the lower, stable bills that they deserve.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—for securing this important and timely debate, although I think his call for personal ambition to be left aside at this time is a faint hope. Given what is happening on the Government Benches, this is surely a time for personal ambition to come to the fore, and I am sure we will see a lot more of it in the next few weeks.

In that regard, I take this opportunity to welcome the newest Conservative party Member of Parliament to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) secured an incredible majority in his constituency last week, in a referendum on the future of our oil and gas industry that was won by those of us who support its continuance, by those of us who support the jobs being maintained in this country, that city and that region, and by a real champion for that part of the world. I am sure that his voice, heard already in this Chamber this morning, will be heard loud and clear over the next few months and years as he continues to champion that great city and that great industry.

I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Na h Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), and the hon. Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for adding their voices to this debate. It was interesting that three of the four Labour Members spoke in favour of a change of policy on oil and gas.

Although I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow—indeed, I like her—I disagree considerably with her. She is a passionate advocate for what she believes, and she is right to stand up in this House and make those arguments about the UK contributing to the battle against climate change, but when she describes those of us who care passionately about the existing oil and gas industry as climate deniers, she is somewhat insulting the thousands of people in my constituency, and constituencies across the country, who rely on that industry for their income and have the very skills that will be relied upon by those developing the technologies of the future. It is supply chain industries based in Westhill, Portlethen, Banchory and Blackburn in my constituency, and in places around the country, including the north east of England, that will develop the offshore wind or floating solar technologies of the future, or whatever it might be. It is people in Na h Eileanan an Iar and across the United Kingdom that the hon. Lady will need and want to build more quickly.

The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, but let me correct him on what I said. I am not in any way accusing his wonderful constituents of being climate deniers; I am simply pointing out the case made by some of his colleagues. I absolutely agree that we need to bring communities with us, and I am sure the whole House shares that aim.

Absolutely—I could not agree more. We do need to bring communities with us.

While I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, I find it increasingly frustrating that we have to return to this House and platforms across the UK to make the same arguments. One of my constituents said just the other week, “It is like banging your head against a brick wall.” None of us understands what this Government need to see or hear from experts, trade unions, former leaders of the Labour party, leaders of Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK or the chairman of Great British Energy, which this Government established less than two years ago, who are all clamouring for a change of position on the UK’s oil and gas sector.

My constituents, and people across Scotland and the United Kingdom, just do not understand why the Government, at this time of constraint on our economy, are voluntarily giving up a potential £13 billion of additional revenue over the next decade. They do not understand why the Government insist—and, indeed, are about to legislate—on a ban on new licences in the North sea while increasing imports from Norway, which has just issued more licences in its sector of the North sea, adding to the burden on climate change and undermining our economy, with British jobs lost in the process.

People do not get why the Government say on one hand that they are passionately committed to tackling global climate change and want to be global leaders in ensuring that this world is a safer place for our children, and yet on the other hand are seemingly blind to the increased emissions produced by importing more of the oil and gas that we will need over the next 30 to 40 years from places such as Qatar and the USA. They do not get why the Government are seemingly treating workers in Aberdeen, the north east of Scotland, Fife, the Northern Isles, Na h Eileanan an Iar and the north east of England—everywhere that has been mentioned—with callous disregard, given that there is no transition evident.

There is a slow down in the deployment of renewables, which is being driven by the accelerated decline in the oil and gas industry. The Port of Aberdeen, which invested millions of pounds in developing South harbour to take advantage of what it expected to be the boom in floating offshore wind less than 10 years ago, is laying off workers because the boom has not arrived. Some 63% of the harbour’s profit is generated from the oil and gas sector, and less than 2% from renewables. The decline in oil and gas is being driven too fast, and the uptick in renewables is not there.

It is a cruel irony that we are having this debate at the very moment that Swire House, a multimillion pound global energy headquarters building, which opened a decade ago to great fanfare in the city of Aberdeen, is being demolished. That is symbolic of this Government’s approach to our energy industry, oil and gas industry, the city of Aberdeen, the north east of Scotland and those who worked proudly in the North sea, but are now looking overseas.

As much as the Government like to say that they will increase funding and expand the transition fund, those workers are skilled workers; some of them have spent decades honing their skills in a specific, global industry, an industry that, in every country bar this one, is booming. Those skills are in high demand in the middle east, Australia, the Gulf of America—or Gulf of Mexico; take your pick—South America and Canada; basically, in every country with an oil and gas industry that does not have the current UK Energy Secretary in charge of energy policy.

That is why those workers are taking the difficult decision to uproot their families, leave the communities where they have lived all their lives and go overseas, taking with them those vital skills needed by the technologies of the future and leaving the economy of the north east of Scotland and the United Kingdom weaker as a result. We need to see a change of policy; surely the result last week in Aberdeen South demonstrated that.

People are fed up and want change. Yes, they agree they want to get to net zero—overwhelmingly, people believe that we must tackle climate change—but this Government’s callous disregard for the industry and its workers speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. If last week did not demonstrate that, I do not know what will. I say to the Minister, “Please, please scrap the energy profits levy. Do not legislate to ban licences. Give the people of Aberdeen and north east Scotland, and all who work in the oil and gas industry, hope for the future that the Government understand, are listening, recognise and will invest in that industry.”

It is a pleasure to serve in this debate, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas); at least I know his constituency, even if the shadow Minister does not—so much for being an hon. Friend. I also thank those who have contributed to the debate; the shadow Minister reeled off all the constituencies, so I do not have to, and I am eternally grateful to him.

I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). I was also a by election MP and know what it feels like to arrive in this place without a cohort of 100 other new people. I wish him the best of luck finding his way around this building. I got on hugely well with his predecessor and appreciated his contributions—at the risk of misleading the House, I must say for the benefit of Hansard that that was sarcasm, but I welcome the hon. Member none the less. I also welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is ever charming and kind to us all. We could all do with a daily affirmation from him in our debates. I certainly appreciate it.

This debate has been helpful for a number of reasons. The shadow Minister and I know each other’s arguments well enough by now, so there was nothing hugely illuminating in his speech, and I suspect there will not be for him in what I have to say. It was illuminating to hear from Scottish National party that it now has an energy strategy, but it is being kept secret. I hope we will see that strategy published soon, because for three years we have not known the SNP’s policy on oil and gas and a whole range of other things.

That matters for the industry that the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) says—and I believe him—that he cares about. It will help the industry to have clarity on the SNP’s policies. On devolving energy policy, many of the things he calls for, including further investment in renewables, have been driven by the strength of being part of the United Kingdom, of pooling and sharing investment in those hugely successful projects in Scotland, which I suspect would not be possible—[Interruption.] He is about to intervene to tell me how it would be possible, if they were devolved, to fund all those renewable projects and a whole series of other things, and how the electricity market would work in an independent Scotland. I am sure he will briefly explain that to us.

That is not the reason for my intervention. If there is such a drive to get investment and renewables in Scotland—there is some, though it is not nearly fast enough—why did it take two years to make a decision about Ardersier? After two years, the rug was pulled from underneath that with a simple no. If that was the decision the Government were going to come to, surely it could have been made sooner, and the project could have moved on and had some investment. That has the potential for 1,500 jobs on site and a further 4,500 in the supply chain.

I have made my position very clear on that project. We were carrying out national security assessments, which should always rightly take priority. The First Minister of Scotland has been briefed on the security grounds for doing that. He is aware of why we reached the decision that we reached. I am obviously not going to comment further on that. Our national security always comes first.

Something that I have always said in this role is that our domestic production in the UK does matter. It sustains jobs and it delivers tax receipts and the gas that flows into our pipes every single day. We are not a Government that are for turning off the taps, and we never have been. But we are for recognising that a transition is under way and that investing in what comes next is critical. I am afraid that that is at the heart of the problem with the argument put forward by the Opposition, because they say that we need to build up the jobs that come next, but then oppose all the decisions that drive forward that investment. They criticise that there are not enough jobs coming from renewables but then say that we should not invest in the renewables projects that create those jobs. That is not a coherent argument to have.

The Minister knows that I am a fierce champion for the new clean power jobs that we are getting on Teesside. We are seeing some of those opportunities scaling up now, but we cannot see mass unemployment in the offshore industry while those opportunities are still nascent. What assurance can the Minister give that every worker will have the opportunity for a genuinely just transition?

My hon. Friend is right on that point, and I will come to it in a moment because it is the main thrust of my speech.

I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said and also welcome Donald MacKinnon into his place. I know he will be a strong advocate for the western isles. My hon. Friend rightly recognised that this is about a sense of identity. Yes, it is about a job and a pay packet at the end of the month, but it is also about a sense of belonging to an industry that many people have worked on in incredibly difficult circumstances for a long time.

Since I came into this job as Energy Minister two years ago, and as a Scottish MP and someone who has friends and family working offshore right now, I have always said that getting the transition right for those workers is central. We have seen too many failed economic transitions in the past, so we have to learn the lessons from that. As hon. Members have made very clear today, we must also see the huge potential that comes from the projects that we need in the future, not least in the supply chain that will build many of the projects that we need as part of our transition to clean energy. That will come from those very workers, so it is hugely important that we put them at the centre of all of this.

We also have to recognise that this did not somehow just start happening in July 2024. We have been in a period of transition for decades now. A third of jobs in the industry have been lost in the past 10 years, and we cannot accept that failed status quo any more. Burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the realities of the need for us to fund this transition properly will not protect a single job, nor will it create a new one. Nor will abandoning the sector entirely and turning off the taps as others would seek to do. I notice that this is yet another energy debate where no Green MPs—who have the most extreme positions on this issue—have bothered to turn up.

It must never become a binary conversation. The North Sea Future Board, which I chair, has just produced a statement on what we are seeking to do to drive forward this transition. That says that, at the heart of it, that transition is not about one industry being pitted against another. It is about stewarding the future of the North sea through collaboration and through managing all the opportunities that come, as well as an obligation to work together. There is always rightly a lot of heat in these debates, but I honestly believe that underneath it all there is a lot more consensus about the need, not for one or the other, but for all the energy that we can get and for all the jobs that come from it.

I will briefly say what our position is on the North sea. Gas has been flowing into this country for more than 60 years and is continuing to flow into this country 24/7. I was pleased to be at Bacton gas terminal a few weeks ago to see the skilled work that they do to manage up to a third of this country’s gas. It will continue to be a vital resource for decades to come, but it is also a basin that has been in decline. The most accessible oil and gas has been extracted. Production has been in decline for a quarter of a century, and it reduced by approximately 75% between 1999 and 2024. That did not begin in July 2024.

On that basis, why do the Government feel it necessary to ban new licences? The Minister says that production is declining, so why do they need to ban them?

Because we want to steward the future of the basin and have a strategic plan that industry can get behind. Very few of the licences that have been issued in the past few years have come to production, so they are not the route to that, but the process had so far not had clarity from the Government. That is why we said what we said on licences.

The second part of our manifesto commitment, which is often ignored in this conversation, is that we will continue to manage existing fields over their lifetime. We are not rescinding any licences—we are not saying that new production could not come forward in existing licensed fields—or rescinding any projects that currently exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar made a point about the importance of tiebacks. This is the pragmatic approach that industry has called for, recognising that the most economically viable route to sustaining the fields is to have a tieback to an existing field that produces new oil and gas. That maintains the critical infrastructure and supply chains, as well as prolonging jobs. That is what industry called for, and that is the pragmatic approach we took in the North sea future plan.

How confident is the Minister that he can maintain the infrastructure in the North sea and to the west of Shetland, so that oil and gas can be brought onshore, as well as through floating production storage and offloading units, without new licences?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about what the stewardship of the basin has to look like, and he made another important point earlier about not conflating oil and gas. Equally, the story we tell about the North sea is often what the North sea looked like 30 or 40 years ago. It has changed significantly; the operators in the basin have changed, but so too has the structure of many of the operations. The North Sea Transition Authority has a role in planning the future of the basin and identifying issues relating to sustainability and infrastructure. It also has a role in looking at how we can do more around, for example, the electrification of platforms, so that we can reduce emissions from the platforms wherever possible and tie into offshore wind projects where possible.

Let me turn to the critical issue of the workforce. Under the North sea future plan, we will introduce a statutory objective for the North Sea Transition Authority to consider workers, communities and supply chains in its decisions. The NSTA has been looking at how it can support the transition for a long time, but this gives it a statutory objective to do so. This is not just about production and infrastructure. It is about people and places; it is about the workers who built the North sea success story, and with it the success of the British economy, the communities that supported it and, crucially, the supply chains that go with it.

We will also extend employment rights and protections to offshore renewables workers, and I hope that everyone in this House will support that. Coming to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), we recognise that the clean energy workforce of the future has to have strong and fair protections, be trade unionised and have good, well paid jobs. That is partly why, for offshore wind, we have driven forward the fair work charter as part of the clean industry bonus, so that rights are at the heart of these jobs and that, wherever possible, workers can transition from oil and gas into these jobs with good terms and conditions. That was opposed by some Conservative Members when we took it through Parliament recently, but I hope that they will rethink, because it is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove made a point about energy security, which is absolutely right. Our energy security is our national security. It is perhaps more important now than in recent years that we recognise that, in an uncertain world, our energy security is a hugely important part of how we build much more security at home. The point made about refinery capacity was right. We lost two refineries in this country, and I regret hugely that we did not do more to prevent those closures in the years leading up to them. We have now to protect our four refineries, which are hugely important sovereign capacity. In a global fuel crisis, those refineries have been key to ensuring that Britain has not suffered fuel shortages. We have to continue to support them.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), we committed to invest £200 million in the future of Grangemouth, and other projects are coming through. I gently say to him that we had to pick it up with no planning done in advance, and I am afraid it is not possible for us to get projects off the shelf, invest money in them and get them built immediately. We need business and industry to come forward with propositions, and the Government have an open door to engage with them directly on how we can deploy that money to Grangemouth. I meet them regularly to make sure that is happening, and we will continue to do that.

Again, I thank the hon. Members who have participated. It is hugely important that we talk about these issues. I hope we can also find a way, at some point, of reaching some consensus on how we can have an all energy approach to the future of the North sea. I recognise that needs a pragmatic position on our side, but it also needs a pragmatic position from those who, in recent years, seem to have become anti the very investment that will drive forward the future of the North sea.

It is not possible for us to secure the long term future of the North sea purely by calling for new licences in oil and gas. Anyone who believes that is the long term answer is ignoring the reality in front of us. Oil and gas is hugely important, but the transition works only if we also invest and build up what comes next. We need both of them. A fair, managed and prosperous transition means investing in all of that—in offshore wind, carbon capture, long duration energy storage in Scotland and elsewhere, and in supply chains so that we are building energy in Britain again, not towing it in from somewhere else and offshoring the jobs. That is the opportunity in front of us.

None of this will be easy. We will have to wrestle with some real challenges, but if we move fast to invest in the future and take a pragmatic position, I believe the North sea has a strong future ahead of it. I do not pretend that it is straightforward or that that will somehow give comfort to the workers who are facing it just now, but I am absolutely committed to making this work, and so are the Government. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, and I thank everyone who participated.

I thank all hon. Members from all parties across the House for participating. There is clearly lots of passion and enthusiasm for this topic, as well as much concern. The debate was conducted in a very pragmatic fashion, which recognises that there is no climate denial across the House. Members recognise that there needs to be a fair transition that supports existing oil and gas jobs, and does what it can to strengthen those jobs and to ensure that the UK maintains an energy security position where we are able to tap into natural resources while focusing on the jobs of the future.

I was pleased to hear jobs, taxation and the importance of prosperity in Scotland emphasised in the debate, given the role that the region plays in our national security. I was pleased to hear the emphasis on refining. I implore the Minister to reflect on his words about the opportunities that have been missed in the past to strengthen the refining sector.

I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said across the House today as they think about the role that North sea oil and gas can play going into the future. There was an emphasis on ensuring that drilling can continue, abandoning the energy profits levy, and doing whatever the Government can to work with industry and workers who currently have those jobs, so that we do not have a moment of regret in the future and wish that we had done more now to prevent job losses and a further reduction of our energy resilience.

I thank everyone for a very respectful debate. It was important that it happened as it did.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters.

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of deep concern to animal welfare organisations, rescue centres, veterinary professionals and millions of animal lovers across the United Kingdom: the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters, and the wider challenges facing animal welfare across this country.

Before I begin, I pay tribute to my dear late friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was one of Parliament’s most passionate champions of animal welfare. Throughout his distinguished parliamentary career, he consistently spoke up for animals—God’s creatures—who could not speak for themselves. Whether campaigning for stronger welfare protections, raising welfare concerns in Parliament or supporting charities working on the frontline, his compassion for animals was unwavering, and I am determined that his legacy on animal welfare will live on, hence this debate today.

I would also like to recognise the work of his daughter, Katie Amess, who has continued that commitment with great determination and dignity. Through her engagement with rescue organisations, campaigners and welfare charities, she has ensured that these issues remain firmly in the public consciousness. Those working tirelessly to improve animal welfare across our country are grateful for her continued advocacy.

Sir David understood a simple truth: the way a society treats its animals says much about the values it upholds. It is in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House. The issue before us is not simply one of euthanasia; it is about transparency, accountability, responsible ownership, animal welfare and whether our current systems are equipped to cope with the pressures they now face.

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I spoke to him beforehand, to make him aware of my intervention. He will not be aware—indeed, nobody will be—that my wife has been a volunteer in animal shelters for a great many years, so we have had the cats and dogs that could not be homed living in our home, and they became, as they often do, family members. Does he agree that we must implement strict, legally binding regulations that mandate compassion, force transparency and ensure that destruction is only ever a last medical resort?

The hon. Member is, of course, absolutely correct. The laws in this area are completely inadequate, and as I will go on to say later, this is something that people across the British Isles care deeply about. We are a nation of animal lovers, and there is no greater animal lover than the hon. Member. He speaks very passionately for the people of Northern Ireland, and I thank him for his intervention.

Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, rescue organisations report that they are overwhelmed. Shelters are full, waiting lists are growing and charities are being forced to make impossible decisions as increasing numbers of dogs and other animals are abandoned, surrendered or left as strays. The RSPCA has reported significant increases in abandonment in some areas, and rescue organisations throughout the country consistently warn that they are operating beyond capacity. The consequences of the cost of living crisis, combined with irresponsible breeding practices and impulse pet purchases have created what many in the sector now describe as a genuine animal welfare crisis.

When shelters are full and rescue spaces cannot be found, local authorities and contracted kennels face a difficult decision. Under existing legislation, once a stray dog has completed the statutory holding period and remains unclaimed, authorities may rehome the dog, transfer it to an appropriate establishment or euthanise it. The law therefore clearly provides alternatives to euthanasia, but campaigners, rescue organisations and those working directly with council pounds have serious concerns about how the system operates in practice.

Many local authorities no longer operate their own pounds. Instead, they contract the service to private kennels or commercial providers. Those facilities often have limited space and resources and significant operational pressures. As a result, many do not conduct the full behavioural assessments and adoption processes required for direct public rehoming. The practical reality described by many rescue organisations is that once the seven day statutory holding period expires, the race begins to find a rescue space before a healthy dog loses its life. Volunteer groups known as pound pullers spend countless hours attempting to find rescue placements for dogs facing euthanasia. Rescue organisations report that they are frequently contacted to take dogs from council pounds, but many are already operating at full capacity.

One of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that we do not actually know the true scale of it. There are no centralised systems recording how many healthy or treatable animals are euthanised by local authorities, contracted kennels or veterinary practices. Freedom of information requests often produce inconsistent results, records vary significantly between local authorities, and veterinary practices are not required to report such figures centrally. There is no direct knowledge of what is really happening on the ground.

The absence of data is a serious problem. Good public policy demands that evidence is provided, and depends upon it, yet there is a remarkable lack of transparency in this area. We cannot properly assess the scale of the issue, identify trends or develop effective interventions if the information is not collected. I therefore urge the Government to consider establishing a national reporting framework for healthy and treatable companion animals euthanised in the stray dog and shelter system. Such a measure would not seek to criticise local authorities, rescue organisations or veterinary professionals; rather, it would provide transparency, improve accountability and ensure that future policy decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption.

The Government should also review whether the current seven day holding period remains fit for purpose. Rescue organisations argue that seven days is often insufficient to locate an owner, complete necessary assessments or secure an appropriate rescue placement. Given the unprecedented pressures facing the rescue sector, it is reasonable to ask whether a framework established decades ago remains adequate for today’s circumstances.

Although euthanasia is the issue we are debating today, it is not the root cause of the problem. The real question is why so many animals are entering the system in the first place. Time and again, rescue organisations tell us the same thing: there are simply more dogs than there are homes available for them. The reality demands action.

First, we should examine whether it is appropriate to continue issuing large numbers of new breeding licences when shelters and rescue centres are already struggling to cope with existing demand. Responsible breeders have an important role to play, and this debate is not about penalising those who adhere to high welfare standards. However, when rescue organisations across the country report that they are full and that healthy animals are being put at risk due to lack of capacity, we must ask whether the current rate of licensed breeding is sustainable. The Government should therefore consider temporarily restricting or reducing the issuing of new breeding licences until pressure on shelters and rescue organisations has eased.

Secondly, all animals rehomed through shelters and rescue organisations should, where medically appropriate, be compulsorily spayed or neutered and microchipped before adoption. Many reputable rescue organisations already operate in that way. Introducing a consistent national standard would help reduce unwanted litters, improve traceability and prevent future generations of animals from entering the shelter system unnecessarily.

Thirdly, we should continue strengthening laws on animal cruelty and abandonment. Animals are sentient beings, not disposable commodities. The law must reflect that principle. Stronger enforcement with tougher penalties for serious cruelty offences, and greater support for prosecutions, would help deter neglect and abandonment while reinforcing the responsibilities that accompany pet ownership.

Fourthly, the Government should establish a central national database for stray, abandoned and lost animals that is accessible to local authorities, shelters and authorised welfare organisations. At present, information is fragmented across multiple systems, charities and regions. A unified database would improve communication, reduce duplication, increase opportunities for reunification and significantly improve the efficiency of rescue efforts.

Fifthly, every stray animal should be routinely scanned for a microchip upon entering a veterinary surgery, local authority facility, contracted kennel or rescue organisation. We desperately need a more unified approach here. Surprisingly, there is no single microchip database for those organisations to check. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the 11 databases of the Association of Microchip Database Operators to build a single point of search, but what happens with the 14 databases that are not AMDO members? Furthermore, although some databases are free of charge, some are now charging one off amounts. Others are starting to charge subscription fees, which I am concerned will create a financial barrier to a legally mandated obligation on owners to microchip.

I commend to the Minister the work of Vets Get Scanning, an organisation established by the late Sir Bruce Forsyth and his fabulous daughter Debbie Matthews, who has been campaigning for this for many years to stop pet theft and return animals to their rightful owners. I invited Sir Bruce Forsyth to the Houses of Parliament some years ago to promote this very cause. He met many Members of Parliament at that time, including Sir David Amess, to promote the importance of all veterinary surgeries scanning animals when they are brought in, to check who the real owner of the pet is and to ensure that stolen dogs are returned to their rightful owners.

This recommendation carries a particular significance because of the tragic case of Tuk in 2017, which exposed serious shortcomings in the identification process and highlighted the devasting consequences that can occur when procedures fail. I must also pay tribute at this point to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed this cause.

Routine and repeated microchip scanning would be a simple, practical and cost effective safeguard that could prevent similar incidents in the future while increasing the likelihood of lost pets being reunited with their families. Taken together, these proposals would not require vast new expenditure. They are simple, preventive measures that address the causes of the crisis rather than merely responding to its consequences. By reducing the number of animals entering the system, improving traceability, strengthening accountability and supporting responsible ownership, we can reduce the circumstances in which euthanasia becomes necessary.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by rescue charities, volunteers, local authority officers, kennel staff and veterinary professionals. Those on the frontline of animal welfare frequently face heartbreaking decisions. They do not do so because they lack compassion, but because they are operating within a system and are under immense strain.

This debate is not about assigning blame, but about identifying solutions. Sir David Amess often reminded us that animals cannot speak for themselves. It therefore falls to us as legislators to ensure that their welfare is properly protected. The measures I have outlined today would increase transparency, support rescue organisations, encourage responsible ownership and reduce the number of healthy animals at risk of unnecessary euthanasia. Most importantly, they would tackle the underlying causes of the crisis rather than merely its symptoms. In doing so, we would not only improve the lives of countless animals across the country, but honour the legacy of Sir David Amess, whose lifelong commitment to animal welfare inspired so many, and support the continuing efforts of Katie Amess and others who work tirelessly to ensure that vulnerable animals are given the protection, dignity and compassion that they deserve. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this important debate. He has championed animal welfare for many years in this place. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention.

I pay tribute to Katie Amess, who has campaigned strongly on this issue, as we have already heard, and to her late father, Sir David, who was such a passionate advocate for animal welfare. He is sadly missed in this place. I would also like to pass on my appreciation to the array of animal rights and welfare charities that do so much to support our nation’s well loved animals and pets.

This has been a good debate on an important and sensitive subject, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the work the Government are doing to address many of the issues that have been highlighted. Let me state from the outset that the Government believe that every stray dog deserves care, dignity and proper consideration for its welfare. Our focus is on reducing the number of dogs entering the system in the first place, improving reunification and rehoming outcomes, and ensuring that euthanasia is only ever used as a genuine last resort.

Local authorities play a central role in the system, and we are backing them to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Councils have a legal duty to deal with stray dogs, whether they are lost, stolen or abandoned. Each year, they handle tens of thousands of cases. They collect dogs quickly, check for injury or neglect, and make every effort to identify the owner through microchips and tags. If an owner cannot immediately be found, dogs must be held for at least seven days to give people the chance to come forward. After that point, authorities work to reunite, rehome or transfer dogs to rescue organisations wherever possible. The outcomes data shows that this system does work for the majority of cases: most dogs are either reunited with their owners or passed on to rehoming centres.

But we know that much more needs to be done, particularly as rescue organisations face growing pressures, as the hon. Member for Romford identified. The cost of living and the legacy of the pandemic have led to increased abandonment and stretched capacity. That is why the Government are actively working with the sector, through our animal welfare strategy, to understand the pressures and support high welfare standards, and we are preparing to consult on proportionate steps to strengthen the system further.

We are also taking practical action to improve the rates of reunifying pets with their owners. Microchipping has been mandatory for a decade. Although uptake is high across the general dog population, it remains too low among stray dogs and too many records are out of date. We are working directly with database operators and welfare organisations to drive up compliance, improve data accuracy and give local authorities faster, easier access to the information they need. This is about getting more dogs home quickly and reducing the need for further intervention.

Alongside that, we are updating the Government’s guidance on stray dogs. It will set a much clearer expectation that euthanasia should only ever be considered in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. That principle will be at the heart of the revised guidance that we will develop with councils and animal welfare groups.

We must also tackle the root cause. Too many dogs enter shelters because of preventable issues, including irresponsible ownership, lack of training, and poor breeding practices that result in serious health problems. That is why we are now taking forward the recommendations of the responsible dog ownership taskforce to strengthen enforcement, improve education and support better behaviour and training. At the same time, we are acting on low welfare breeding, with plans to consult on tighter standards, better genetic health monitoring and measures to reduce the harmful practices that leave dogs and owners struggling.

Finally, I want to address the issue of euthanasia directly. It is of course a deeply sensitive matter. There will be cases in which an animal is suffering from severe illness, trauma or behavioural distress and euthanasia may, with clear veterinary advice, be the most humane option, but these decisions are never taken lightly. They will weigh heavily on the professionals involved and must never become routine or default practice. The Government are taking a clear and active approach. We are strengthening guidance, improving systems, supporting the sector and acting to prevent dogs from entering shelters in the first place. Our aim is simple: more dogs reunited, more dogs rehomed, and far fewer dogs reaching the point where euthanasia is even considered.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Romford and for Strangford for raising these issues, which I will certainly take back to the Department and raise with the Minister responsible, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford for the specific points he raised in his speech. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues across the House and with partners outside it to drive forward improvements in animal welfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

On a housekeeping matter, I should say that it is terribly hot in Parliament today, so Members and officials are very welcome to remove their jackets.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of first past the post in general and local elections.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to be in an environment with such great air conditioning.

“I am committed to proportional representation…I think it would change the political culture. I don’t see how first past the post and the point scoring inherent within it lifts Britain out of the doom loop it is in.”

Those words could have been spoken by any Liberal Democrat Member, in this Chamber or beyond, but they were not: it is a direct quote from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is believed to be the Prime Minister elect.

The quote not only highlights the need for proportional representation but underscores the limitations of first past the post, which the new right hon. Member for Makerfield identifies as causing political instability. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party before us have called for fair votes for a century, and I am delighted that the advocacy for change has a new voice in Parliament in the newly elected right hon. Member for Makerfield. The view should not be controversial among his colleagues, either: more than two thirds of the Labour party membership have voted in favour of adopting a system of proportional representation for UK elections. I look forward immensely to prospective new leadership in the Labour party representing the views of its members and finally ensuring fair votes for all.

Of course, support for change is not confined to the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but shared across the House. In December 2024, my ten minute rule Bill sought to introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary and local government elections. It passed in the main Chamber with cross party support, including from 59 Labour MPs. It was a historic moment in the House, as it was the first time that the Commons had voted in favour of reforming our electoral system to bring in a fairer and more representative process. However, my Bill spent a year and a half awaiting its Second Reading before ultimately falling, because the Government failed to make time for it in the previous parliamentary Session.

Concerns are often raised to me that a change of electoral system will benefit Reform UK and other right wing parties. Ironically, of the four Reform MPs who voted on my Bill, one voted against change while Reform’s leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), abstained. In an era of multi party politics, many parties are likely to benefit from a more proportional system. However, the Liberal Democrats are perhaps perfectly placed to neutrally make an argument in favour of the principles of proportional representation, as we received an almost exact proportion of votes to seats at the last general election. At last month’s local elections, the Liberal Democrats won every single seat on my local Richmond upon Thames council, but we won only 51.5% of the vote share. While the councillors will take every step possible to ensure that all residents are represented, the voting system produced results that disregarded 48.5% of voters in the borough. To repeat: the Liberal Democrats want electoral change on principle.

To address the increasing lack of public trust in politics, it is essential that the electorate know that their voices matter equally, wherever they are in the country. First past the post has not been fit for purpose for decades, but it has perhaps never been more outdated than it is now. The growth of the multi party system in our politics means that some constituency seats are being seriously contested by five, six or even seven different parties. A system that encourages competition from just two parties leads only to tactical voting: more than ever before, people are voting against a party that they do not want to win rather than for their first preference. With a fairer electoral system and more democratic institutions, politicians and parties will have to be more focused on the things that really matter to people. We will have better public services and a fairer society as a result, and people will feel more engaged with politics if they feel that their voices are being heard and represented.

One of the leading arguments in favour of first past the post used to be that it produced stable Governments—I think that argument has fallen by the wayside. I could poke fun at former Conservative Governments, or even the current Labour Government, but it is important to highlight that the first past the post system has proven to contribute to instability. This Government won 411 seats at the last general election with just 33.7% of the vote. The consequence of that has been clear: two thirds of people did not vote for a Labour Government, and, although the Government have made decisions that have not helped them, public opinion was against them from the start.

It is obvious that our electoral system needs to change. The man we believe will be Prime Minister is in favour of proportional representation and the Labour party is in favour of proportional representation. The House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, and the last decade of governance has done nothing to convince me or the general public that first past the post produces stable governance. Our politics is not fit for purpose, and reform can begin with changing how we elect Members of Parliament to ensure that UK residents’ views are fairly represented in this place.

I understand that the Minister cannot commit to changing our electoral system, but I ask her whether that could be considered by a future Labour Government, or even the one set to continue under new leadership.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and congratulate the Richmond Liberal Democrats on their universal victory in last month’s Richmond upon Thames council elections. I declare an interest as a member of the all party parliamentary group for fair elections.

Increasing political participation in a democracy is not just a nice thing to have; it is an imperative that all of us must focus on in the service of our constituents. In the years to come, I genuinely believe that it will be the difference between a politics that serves and engages all and one that continues to obscure decision making from communities, fuels rather than addresses discontent, and pushes reasonable people in the United Kingdom to lose faith in democracy and seek increasingly radical solutions.

Progress has been made to increase structural participation, with the Government bringing forward votes at 16 in the Representation of the People Bill, finally aligning the voter age in general elections to that of Scottish local and devolved elections. Among other measures, the Government are taking steps in the Bill to strengthen our democracy. However, I believe that there is an omission in it: an acknowledgement that serious questions are now being asked about how we elect people to this place.

Look at the general election results: turnout is decreasing. I may have won my mandate to this place by trebling my vote share in Falkirk, but that was possible only because my second place opponent halved their vote share. The diminishing threshold for electing MPs and Governments demands a more pluralistic politics, or at least one that gives a greater number of people something to vote for instead of against.

First past the post structurally embeds negative political campaigning into how we participate in democracy; it enables parties, the media and the public to crystallise in our subconscious pretty early on that only two people have the chance to be the victor in a majority of seats in the country.

Like my hon. Friend, I have constituents who use proportional representation to elect people to local government or the Scottish Parliament. Does he agree that we have to learn lessons from both the positive and the negative elements in those electoral systems?

I completely agree that there is a wider point about the culture of politics, especially in how we should drive everybody in this place and local government to work together collaboratively, rather than pursuing the most populist option or blaming every problem on previous Governments. That has to be broader than simply reforming how we elect people to places, but I believe—I will bear this out later in my speech—that that is an essential first step.

In preparing this speech, I recalled bemused family members handing me SNP leaflet after SNP leaflet, desperately shoved through their letterbox, that warned them to vote SNP to avoid electing a Tory MP. I believe that even the most optimistic Scottish Conservative in Falkirk would have found that a pretty remote possibility in 2024, or at any other time. But when normal people who do not spend all their time obsessing about politics read that, it tends to turn them off a wee bit.

If we spend our entire time campaigning in general elections against a proposition and defining ourselves against a particular political party or perspective, we fail to lead our campaigns with our solutions to the problems the public face and want us to address. We diminish the opportunity for genuine scrutiny of our propositions, out of fear that the party or person we are running against will use it against us. It tends to encourage us to hide from debate, to reduce the utility and quality of public discussion and to disengage those people do not vote in our elections from that discussion.

It is irrelevant how those of us with the privilege of sitting here as Members of Parliament may personally view the politics of certain political parties; when they are voted for by millions of people and they see only a sliver of representation in Parliament, it closes people off from this place, and it feeds into toxic populist narratives that can be weaponised by those parties against those of us who sit as MPs. They are able to pit us as for the system and pit those excluded from it as outside of the system. It also allows them to avoid a proportionate level of scrutiny that reflects the amount of support they have in the country. A system that enables voters to see their views, and the views of those with similar political allegiances, proportionately reflected in this place will go a long way to addressing many of those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) touched on the more pluralistic electoral system used in local elections in Scotland and how it works to reflect views more broadly. Councillors of different political parties are often elected to serve the same people. Although that should culturally compel people to work together more effectively in communities, that is still a political challenge that we must address in tandem while we seek to replace the first past the post system.

Populist opposition for opposition’s sake is still rife. The relentless assignation of a problem’s cause to a sole person or political party in a particular office at a particular time creates a reductive and inadequate political debate that would be better spent evaluating multiple proposed solutions to the problems that people rely on democratic structures to resolve—especially because, out there in the real world, there is a substantially greater consensus on what problems we face as a country than would be suggested by the tone of conversation in this place, in council chambers and in devolved assemblies when they are evaluating the solutions.

Whether the debate is on immigration, taxation or the defence of the realm in the House of Commons, or schools, bins or housing in Falkirk council chamber, a proportional system gives us a better chance to compel political parties to use their privileged elected positions to put forward competing solutions consistently. Our desire to strengthen democracy should lead us to create a crucible that enables multiple proposals to compete and for us to come to the best resolution. Our constituents would be better served by a voting system that empowers us all to do better than lazily harass from the sidelines those who happen to be in a particular office at any particular time.

A cultural change is clearly needed, which cannot be achieved by simply replacing the electoral system, but replacing first past the post is an essential step. However, and this could be a point of contention, if we are to replace first past the post, we have to acknowledge that there is not currently an elected mandate to do so. There is also no consensus on which system should replace it, but we can see in the country that the current system is no longer commanding adequate participation to sustain a healthy democracy. That is why I and the members of the all party parliamentary group support a national commission on electoral reform to be set up by the Government. I encourage the Minister to put that in the Representation of the People Bill when it returns to the House.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for setting out so clearly that this is not an issue that sits on party lines. It is about the fundamental quality of our democracy and the fundamental question: are voters being adequately represented by our system? It is clear that the first past the post system is broken. We have a problem with political trust in this country, and the voting system is part of that.

Why is first past the post broken? It is clearly fundamentally unfair. In general elections, it has generated a two thirds majority on just one third of the vote; in some local elections, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out, it can generate a 100% majority on just half of the vote. That clearly leaves far too many voters unrepresented, in the sense that their voices are not heard by the people who are elected to hold power and who have influence. That is something we can and must fix, because what principle could be more basic in a democracy than the principle that everybody’s vote counts equally? If we believe in that fundamental principle, we have to recognise the urgency of moving to proportional representation.

First past the post is not just unfair because it leads to completely skewed results; it is also unpopular. According to the latest British social attitudes survey, only just over a third of voters now want to retain the system. Why is that? It is because they perceive how the system is poisoning our politics—how this binary, polarised, winner takes all politics means that we do not have the politics that people want.

Time after time voters say to me on the doorstep that they do not want the bear pit politics they see at Prime Minister’s questions. They want a politics in which people with differing ideas sit around a table, have a decent, grown up conversation, put all the good ideas into the pot and work out what is best for the country—a politics in which policies are motivated by the public interest, not by party political interests, and certainly not by the choices that so many seem to be forced into in our current system, in which policies are put forward on the basis that they will appeal to a certain small proportion of voters in a certain small proportion of seats at the next general election.

Such short termism poisons and undermines our politics, which is why voters themselves recognise that it is time for change. A majority of people who support every single one of the five main parties in the UK now say that it is time to shift to proportional representation. A majority across all five parties is a degree of political consensus that we as politicians should listen to.

The next reason why first past the post does not work is that it does not work on its own terms. Back in the day, decades ago, it was argued that first past the post leads to stable government and stability in policy making, but that is completely belied by the experience of our politics, which we have seen year after year, week after week, day after day—indeed, this week. We must recognise that first past the post does not work in a multi party political system. And we are in a multi party political system: we are no longer in the old two party system, and there is no going back to that. We need to recognise that, respond to what voters and the public want, and move forward.

All that is why proportional representation offers the solution. It is the antithesis to first past the post. Where first past the post is unfair, proportional representation is fair, because every vote counts equally. Where first past the post is unpopular, proportional representation is popular, because people recognise that it will ensure that their voices are heard. And it is effective, which is why it has been adopted across the vast majority of OECD countries. This country is an outlier in sticking with tired, old and broken first past the post.

Proportional representation yields politics, a political culture and governance that require people to talk to and listen to each other, and that require us to seek the common ground. Just last week, the House was celebrating the memory of Jo Cox. Her words—that there is more that unites us than divides us—should be a lodestar for all of us in politics, reminding us that we need to work to seek the common ground, emphasise where we can work together, and not be constantly putting ourselves in binary opposition to one another, creating polarisation and deepening our difficulties.

We can change our political culture by adopting proportional representation. It is not a silver bullet to transform every part of our politics, but it will certainly make a key difference.

The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech, and she is certainly right that we have to change our political culture, but I would slightly challenge her. We have a slightly more proportional system in Scotland, but it has not led to a different culture in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government get elected on 30-odd per cent of the vote and pretend they speak for the entire nation, unilaterally. Does the hon. Lady agree that although proportional representation could be part of how we resolve the issue, a wider change in culture is required as well?

Order. Interventions need to be a bit shorter. Thank you.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that changing the voting system will not in itself transform our political culture. We need to do many other things, including get big money and disinformation out of politics, but changing our voting system is a key plank of that.

I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned, the Labour party does not feel that it currently has a manifesto mandate to implement proportional representation—I am deeply saddened by that—but it has a manifesto mandate to take strong action to tackle the breakdown of trust in our politics. As a Green, I would like there to be no more elections under first past the post in the UK, but it would be hugely dangerous to go into the next general election under that system, because we face the very real prospect of a Government being elected with a huge majority of MPs and a small minority of votes. That should concentrate the minds of everyone in this Chamber.

This is quite a serious point. There are people arguing for PR to be introduced before the next general election, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined, but she must accept, as a democrat, that we cannot change the electoral system because we are worried about a certain outcome. We have to look at the bigger picture, take our time and do it right.

All the arguments I have made in the last five minutes have been about the systemic, principled reasons for change; they are not views about one particular party. I will be absolutely clear that I hugely fear the prospect of a Reform Government, and I will do everything I can to stop that. It would be hugely dangerous for this country. But the argument for proportional representation is about the representation of everybody, including people with whose views I completely disagree. If they have a degree of support in the country, they should be represented in proportion to that. The point is that under a proportional system, those of us who want to work together for the common good of the country would be able to do so.

The principle of proportional representation is core to the Green party’s DNA. I have campaigned for it for many years, and I welcome the fact that so many in Labour and other parties campaign for it, too. But there are specific things that this Government can do right now. There is a cross party call for a national commission on electoral reform, which the Government could take forward today. That would enable us to have a national conversation about how to make our democracy genuinely work for everybody, involving citizens’ voices and the voices of those with expertise, who can bring ideas from international counterparts.

We must have that conversation. We cannot stay asleep at the wheel, drifting into ever more polarised politics, ever less representation and ever poorer electoral systems that do not serve the fundamental principle of democracy that we should all hold dear: every vote should count equally.

Order. I am going to impose an informal five minute limit on speeches.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I apologise for giving you late notice of my intention to speak. I start by acknowledging that although I am not a fan of PR, it is right that all of us MPs do a great job representing every one of our constituents, whether they voted for us or not.

In Scotland, we have three elections over each five year period. Two of them use PR and one, the general election, uses first past the post. I want to talk about the single transferable vote system that we use for local authority elections in Scotland, and my lived experience of it as a councillor. I was elected via the STV system back in 2017. I came second out of three councillors who were elected, and was elected thanks to transfers from Green voters. Even though some transfers also came from elsewhere, it was the Green voters who got me across the line, so I always felt an obligation to make sure that those few people were very well represented.

I worked alongside two Conservatives in the ward over that three year period. The council had 63 councillors in total. An SNP led administration was formed, supported by Labour in a coalition, but it tended to be Green votes that got things across the line, so those three parties tended to work together. I have to say that the Greens back then were a bit more sensible than they sometimes are today. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) is not offended by that.

I must pay tribute to my ward colleague Jason Rust, who is still a councillor in the Colinton, Oxgangs and Fairmilehead ward. He has been there for a long time and he is a fantastic, hard working councillor—despite being a Tory.

In 2022, I stood for re election, and on that occasion I managed to come first under the STV system, which was a huge privilege and honour. The SNP managed to take one of the Conservative seats. The SNP candidates’ tricky strategy was that they went around looking for people who were voting for me and asked whether they would give them their second votes. I thought that was quite sneaky, but it got the party across the line. That is evidence that PR leads to a different way of campaigning, in that people look for alignment between parties during the election, not just afterwards.

The formation of the council was a bit trickier in 2022: 63 councillors were elected, and only 13 were Labour councillors. However, Labour managed to run the city, and is still running it, as a minority administration—if my memory serves me right, there are now 12 Labour councillors out of 63—largely because, given the tensions among the other parties, they find ways to support us from time to time. Again, that is a different kind of politics.

I convened the transport committee from ’22 up until I was unexpectedly elected as an MP. On my committee were two Labour, two Green, two Tory, two Lib Dem and three SNP councillors, all elected via the STV system. Each report we had to pass meant creating an individual coalition of votes. By and large, that meant that the other parties, if they were to support my proposals to the committee, wanted something added or taken away.

Reflecting on that after two years, I would say that every deal I did with the other parties made what we were proposing better. Ultimately, I was elected only by a minority of people, even in the STV system; the other councillors were elected by people as well, and it was important that their views were taken on board. The outcome was fairer, and it created a better kind of politics in the council. I am not saying that there were not disagreements—if I am honest, there was sometimes was quite bad behaviour from councillors—but PR works in Scotland.

The results in England show the brutal way in which first past the post treats council elections—it looked like cavemen trying to start politics up and get democracy working. Some of the results were anomalous, and we have to reflect on that.

PR for general elections would have to come via a manifesto commitment and a referendum—a manifesto commitment would not be enough. I support the call for a national commission, but I do not think there is any appetite among the public for another referendum on anything. The APPG for fair elections recently had a meeting with John Curtice. He said there was a consensus that the only way to move the UK to PR in a general election would be if a coalition was formed and one of the partners demanded PR in return for the stability of the coalition. Of course, we saw that in the past, in the alternative vote referendum, which I think it is fair to say was disastrous. We heard the other day that the Lib Dems held up the submarine building programme. The failure to deliver PR back then is a real issue, and we should reflect on it.

Although there is a huge hurdle to installing PR for general elections, we could move much faster on council elections in England. We could consult and then deliver. I have two final points—

Order. Quickly, if you do not mind. We have an informal five minute limit.

I apologise; I have not been looking at the clock.

First, we are the only country in Europe that uses first past the post, and we should reflect on why that is. Secondly, in Scotland we use the d’Hondt—or Jefferson—system for PR for the second votes. Nobody really understands how that works, and we have to be careful about that. We have to be able to communicate how the result has been reached. I apologise for overrunning, Mr Turner.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).

I will shed some light from a constituency that operates PR for local government and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The hon. Lady—I spoke to her already—and I will have slightly different opinions on this matter, but I respect her greatly. Indeed, I respect all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] And on the Government Benches, by the way—sorry, but I corrected myself quickly. We may have differences of opinion, but there are many more things that we agree on.

I will put forward the point of view from Northern Ireland. I say gently and respectfully to the House that the DUP and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland speak on this matter with a unique form of authority. We are not better than anybody else; it is just that we have done this for a great number of years. We do not just look at alternative voting systems in theory or on academic balance sheets. Through the single transferable vote, we live it, operate within it and contest it in every single local government mandate and Northern Ireland Assembly election. STV is the law of the land.

First, I want to look at the undisputed champion of stability—forgive me, those close to me who may not agree with this—the first past the post system used for our UK general elections. First past the post delivers what the British public value above almost all else in Governments: clarity, accountability and a direct, inseverable link between a Member of Parliament and their constituents. When the voters of Strangford sent me here, they knew exactly who was responsible for standing up for local schools, roads, hospitals and many other issues—farming, fishing and immigration. There is no hiding behind a party list. There is no passing the buck to three or four regional members. The buck stops with the constituency MP.

For the record, whenever I have been elected as an MP—that has been five times—I have always said in my election speech that I thank everybody who voted for me and those who did not vote for me, because I am still their MP and I will work for everybody to the fullest of my ability. I fought seven council elections and five Assembly elections, including for the Forum for Political Dialogue. This is my 41st year as an elected representative; it has been a long time. I started with hair and now I have none, so maybe that is the reason—I do not know.

First past the post provides a clear outcome. It allows the electorate to decisively choose a Government or throw one out. I believe that it prevents the sort of backroom political horse trading we see perpetuated across Europe, where coalitions are cobbled together weeks after an election has finished, rendering the manifestos that parties fought on and the public voted for completely meaningless. I point Members towards the Republic of Ireland, where partnership or coalition Governments are cobbled together each and every time. In doing so, parties have to water down what they set out to the electorate in their manifestos.

Let us contrast first past the post with our experience back home in Northern Ireland. We use PR via STV for councils and the Assembly. Although STV was introduced as a tool to ensure cross community representation in a deeply divided society, let us be honest about its practical realities. First, it is complex. Sometimes it is confusing. Every election shows that many people, no matter how many times they are told how the PR system works, still spoil their votes by marking six or seven Xs, or by writing one, two, three, four, five and six in different columns. Someone might put ones, twos or even threes for everybody; the PR system is confusing for them.

STV also fundamentally dilutes the democratic mandate. Counting goes on for days. Fractional transfers of votes decide who wins the final seats. Candidates with a minuscule share of first preference votes can end up being elected on the 10th or 11th count, not because they were anybody’s first choice but because they were the least disliked one. A candidate someone disliked the most could still be elected, even though they did not want them to be.

I am very conscious of time. First past the post has preserved the integrity of this Parliament for centuries. It ensures that Governments are robust and that the Union remains anchored by a strong, understandable and decisive democratic process. We must never trade a system of proven stability and direct accountability for one of permanent compromise, fractured local representation and endless coalition haggling. I strongly urge the House to reject this proposal—although, of course, we will not vote on it—and to maintain the strength of first past the post, the best system there is. Let us continue with it.

Thank you, Mr Shannon—nearly bang on time.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate. Some months ago, I was in this room on the International Day of Democracy, and the concerns I raised then matter now more than ever. I have not seen a political discourse that is so polarised as it is today. Tensions have risen, divisions are deepening, and the public is losing faith in our democracy.

I am proud that my constituency is a diverse community, bustling with local campaign groups and organisations. I love my work with those groups, building strong relations across all faiths, ages, ethnic groups and with people from all political backgrounds. However, I am not blind to the fact that more people voted for other candidates in the last general election than voted for me.

The first past the post system is a brutal way to determine the future of our country. It often creates a situation where winning candidates need only a small section of a community to back them, leaving many votes pointlessly cast and making some constituencies more important for determining the direction of our country than others. First past the post distorts our democracy leaving many unrepresented, unheard and disillusioned. It creates a winner takes all system that incentivises parties to work against each other and encourages those who want to divide our communities rather than unite them.

We are at a crucial moment where progress can be made and where we can build a stronger, cohesive community. We have to make the right choice; we have to make proportional representation the default. We must strengthen our democracy and make people feel seen and heard. We must empower local people to shape their societies and build a politics that works for them. We must encourage politicians to work in collaboration. There will always be disagreements—that needs to be encouraged—but finding common ground and moving forward is the only way we can solve the huge questions that our country faces.

The other option is to do nothing and carry on as we are, watching our politics become even more fractured and polarised. We could carry on with a system where parties chase the votes that will make them the winner and the others the losers, and where bad faith actors are encouraged to divide our communities in an effort to secure the win. I hope that all Members in this room know which option is the right one and what the right path for our country is.

We need proportional representation for a healthier, engaged and united society. This Government have made progress, but more needs to be done. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 was an opportunity for the Government to enact true electoral reform for local elections, but they chose not to do that. We must choose proportional representation as our default electoral system. I ask that the Minister reflects on the arguments made today and makes the right choice.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important and urgent debate.

We have a crisis of trust in our democracy. Under first past the post, 70% of votes do not actually count. In a safe seat any extra votes cast for the winning candidate are effectively pointless, as are any votes cast for the other candidates. It is no wonder that so much of the electorate feel that they have no real voice or influence. We may be told that electoral reform is not a doorstep issue, but I wonder how many colleagues here have heard constituents say, “I am so pleased that I finally voted for somebody who won. I feel like I now personally have a representative in Westminster.”

At the last general election, the current Government got 30% of the vote, 60% of the seats and they now have 100% of the power. How can that be fair? In effect, that means that 70% of votes have no power. As a Lib Dem who regularly traipses through the opposite voting Lobby to the Government, I know how that feels.

Looking forward, I am even more worried about the next general election. The system that we have now was essentially designed for a two party system and we now have seats being fought by five, six or even more viable parties. If we combine that with declining voter turnout, the results of the next general election could look like a random number generator. I cannot see that that will do anything to enhance trust in our democratic system.

First past the post encourages parties to focus their policies on core marginal seats that they want to influence. That means the kind of policies they present and whether they suit a constituency will depend largely on the postcode and political history of that constituency. As other colleagues have mentioned, the winner takes all system creates a similar adversarial tone in our politics. We only have to look at today’s Prime Minister’s questions where there seemed to be a special amount of nastiness from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, not in connection with that, reminded us generally that the way we conduct ourselves here sets the tone for public discourse across the whole of the country. We lead by example, and at the moment that example is not good.

There is a deeper argument to be made about power and agency. We hear from so many parts of the country that communities feel left behind, voiceless and unrepresented. That voicelessness—that powerlessness—is creating fertile ground for people and parties who come along promising to give back control, whether or not they actually mean it. That, frankly, terrifies me, but I want to keep this a clean discussion about voting systems. We are not trying to create a system that favours one party or another; we want a genuinely democratic system.

On the systems used in different elections, it was welcome that the Government reintroduced supplementary vote for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. It corrected a deliberate act of Conservative vandalism in the Elections Act 2022, but it is still not proportional representation. I wish the Government had gone further and introduced alternative vote for those single position elections.

The proof is in the result. In last year’s mayoral elections, the Mayor of the West of England won with just 25% of the vote. That is clearly not democracy. If first past the post is not fit for purpose in mayoral elections, the Government should be honest and admit that it is not fit for purpose anywhere.

I have some specific asks. We should move from first past the post to a form of PR, and I would love that to happen in a rigorous, transparent and democratic way, starting as we mean to go on, with a citizens’ assembly, fully selected by sortition, and the national commission on electoral reform serving as its secretariat. It should be fully livestreamed and available to anybody who wants to watch it. That would help hit the reset button on our democracy and restore faith that the Government truly represent the will of the people.

Order. Before I move on to the next speaker, can I just say something about housekeeping? If a right hon. or hon. Member intends to mention another Member of this House—specifically, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—they should inform that Member. I am sure it was done inadvertently, but I say that just in case other Members wish to make mention of it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate.

Our politics is not fit for purpose and is not working for people up and down the country. It is becoming increasingly adversarial and divisive. The first past the post system actively encourages parties not to work together, which allows the Government to avoid accountability and ignore the voices of the people who put them into Parliament. I have heard from so many of my constituents in Wokingham who are sick of feeling ignored by politics in Westminster and feel that the system—and, therefore, the Government—does not work for them. People in Wokingham and across the country want to know that they will be represented in Parliament by somebody they have an affinity with, and they want their vote to have counted.

As a very young teenager, still at school and unable to vote, I witnessed the general election of February 1974. I wanted the Liberals to win. They increased their vote to 18%, and their seats in the House of Commons increased from eight to 14. If the result had been proportional, they should have had 110 Members, and it would have been a properly balanced Parliament, which I am sure would have dealt with the issues of the day better than the Wilson and Callaghan Governments. I saw that as a massive injustice, and it helped to drive my interest in politics.

My Lib Dem colleagues and I have long called for fair votes through proportional representation. As a party, we have spearheaded the campaign for electoral reform in Parliament. Electoral reform is by no means a panacea for this country’s problems, but a much better, more democratic electoral system is a fundamental step towards politicians representing the country properly. That is why this Government must replace the first past the post system with proportional representation for both general and local elections in England.

Democracy can be revived by strengthening our democratic institutions and by taking the big money out of politics. The Government need to cap donations to political parties and stop foreign oligarchs and crypto billionaires interfering in our democracy. How can anyone think that a £5 million gift with no strings attached, or whatever the reason for the gift is, can be nothing to do with anyone except the recipient? These attitudes in our politics are very dangerous.

Politicians should represent and be accountable to their constituents first and foremost—not some millionaire, or even billionaire, who may or may not pay UK taxes. Politicians cannot afford to take voters for granted as successive Labour and Conservative Governments have. We need to repair the damage of years of sleaze, cronyism and rule breaking and end the era of neglect. We need a political system with fair representation that makes politics work for all our constituents again.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate. The House of Commons Library has called the 2024 general election the least proportional election in British history. Labour won 411 seats out of 650—almost two thirds of the Commons—on a third of the vote. The problem is not that a party can win power; the problem is that first past the post inflates that power beyond what the public voted for. A system that turns one third of the votes into two thirds of the power and a massive majority is not representing the public’s choice; it is warping it. As we have all seen, it allows wildly unpopular policies to be forced through with little pushback.

I may not agree with Reform, but they came third on vote share with around 14% and won just five seats. The Greens won roughly 7% and returned only four seats. The truth is that my own party, the Liberal Democrats, took 72 seats on around 12% of the vote. The system rewarded us where our support was concentrated. That means that under first past the post, where you live decides whether or not your vote counts. We have all been told that this gives us a strong and stable Government. Clearly, that is not true. A system that hands enormous power to one party on a minority of the vote does not produce consistency; it produces lurches. One Government builds solutions; the next tears them down and creates their own.

I represent the Scottish seat of Mid Dunbartonshire. Scotland shows both how far reform can take us and why it must go further. The Scottish Parliament has used a form of proportional representation since its creation in 1999. Of its 129 Members, 73 are elected to represent 73 constituencies and 56 from regional lists using the D’Hondt system. That is a complicated system of proportional representation that very few voters fully understand. Last month at the Scottish elections, the SNP won 58 seats and was the party with the highest number of seats. Following a deal with the Scottish Green party, which had 15 seats, the Scottish Government are calling for the UK Government to agree to a second independence referendum. However, taken together, pro independence parties now hold 73 of the 129 seats on around 43% of the vote.

Does the hon. Member that if we are to move to an alternative system in Westminster, parties should agree not to game the system, as the Scottish Greens do when they fail to stand in constituencies such as Strathkelvin and Bearsden or Falkirk West and focus their campaigning on the regional seats, which leads to the iniquitous outcome of the 2026 Scottish parliamentary elections that I think she is suggesting?

What we need to aim for is a system where our constituents feel properly represented and that their vote counts.

The parties that want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom won a majority of the votes at 56.7%, but a minority of the seats. As a litmus test, that result shows little change from the result of the 2014 independence referendum, which rejected independence by 55% to 44%. The votes cast in the 2026 Scottish election are not a mandate for a second independence referendum, despite what the First Minister might have us believe. That clearly demonstrates why it is so important that our democracy reflects voter intention. Instead, the case for independence has been thrust back to the centre of Scottish politics, taking attention away from the real issues such as our broken schools and hospitals.

In 2022, Labour’s own conference voted for a proportional system. Its own national policy forum has recognised that the flaws in the current voting system contribute to the distrust and alienation that we see in politics, and it is widely acknowledged that we need to restore trust in politics. I ask the Government, at the very least, to agree to examine the system seriously, including how we elect Members and how a fairer system could be introduced. People should be able to use their vote to vote for something, not against something. Evey vote should carry the same weight, wherever it is cast and whoever it is cast for, and the only way we can achieve that is proportional representation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, for her passionate opening remarks and for her courage and nobility in potentially being willing to sacrifice the North Korean esque majorities that our party achieved in the recent local elections.

I fear that, given the heat, there would be frayed tempers if I made my speech about the relative merits or otherwise of alternatives to first past the post. Instead, I shall make the case for how change could make a major contribution to fixing our politics, because so much of what is holding our country back is one party or another—it does not really matter which one—having undiluted power, and not having other parties in government to be the voice of conscience, alternative ideas and challenge.

That is one of the reasons why we have yet to make progress on social care, despite innumerable reviews and commissions on how we should resolve that very challenging issue. As other hon. Members have said, first past the post has not succeeded in delivering political stability over the last decade, because we have had seven Prime Ministers in 10 years. We also see the phenomenon manifesting in other ways: stop start decisions on transport or various Governments enthusiastically advocating for different devolution models, rather than as many of us as possible uniting on one.

When researching for this debate, I wondered what fuels our apparent fear of moving away from first past the post. Nearly all the other countries in the world that have that voting system are former parts of the British empire. That shows a positive thing about Britain in the sense that the empire and its legacy have helped to introduce democracy, or at least forms of it, to large parts of the world. However, some former members of the empire have found themselves able to make progress and move on. Australia and New Zealand are two countries that we greatly admire, and they have decided to ditch first past the post in favour of something else.

In the meantime, we have to ask ourselves whether proportional representation is really so bad. We seem to think it is not in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so what is it about introducing a proportional voting system that has England trembling in fear and terror at the very idea? It is almost as if we think civilisation would end if England were to embrace some of these concepts. We are already seeing how parties can work together when there are fractured election results, as recent English council elections have shown that we have the capability to have multi party negotiations and multi party local governments. We should embrace that maturity and hope to have it in this place one day as well.

The current Prime Minister’s love of first past the post was shown in a remarkably clear answer when I asked him recently whether he thought it can still deliver strong and stable government. He gave me a three word answer: “Yes, I do.” I suppose it remains to be seen whether the next Prime Minister, whoever they may be, will agree with him.

Looking to the future, as well as the prospect of a new Prime Minister and perhaps a new way of thinking on these topics, we do not need to debate which voting system to choose to replace first past the post. That is not the next best step; a national commission for electoral reform could properly look at the pros and cons of the options and think through the matter. We saw the support for that in the 143 signatories to an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel): 81 Labour signatures, 48 from the Liberal Democrats and the rest from many other parties, though interestingly none from Reform UK, despite its past commitment to proportional representation. That might be another issue where it finds itself embracing establishment thinking, despite telling us that it is the radical saviour of our future.

For now, it is over to the Labour party, which is commanding a remarkable 18% support in opinion polls, to determine our future. [Interruption.] That is the polling average, I say to the hon. Gentleman speaking from a sedentary position. We should only look at polling averages, never individual ones. I conclude with a direct appeal to whoever is the next Prime Minister. There seems to be a lot of reporting on who that is likely to be but, as I have not notified that individual, I shall avoid naming them.

Let us hope that the expectation and hype around the possible next Prime Minister are justified, because this is about changing our politics for the better and for good. It is about embracing the most meaningful change for transforming our political culture: proportional representation. We need that for social care, political stability and empowering our region.

Thank you for the entertaining contribution, Mr Morrison.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this vital debate. Like many colleagues, we have both been vocal, proud advocates for political reform. This debate builds on the important work of my hon. Friend in the previous session, when she won a vote on the Second Reading of her Bill to bring PR to elections for national and local government in England. That was a clear sign that the demand for reform exists across the House and continues to grow.

In her excellent opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned the newly re elected right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) whom I have told I would mention. He is not alone in his support for proportional representation. The right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the deputy leader of the Labour party, has said that she has always supported electoral reform. From a different side of the political spectrum, the Conservative London Assembly member Emma Best has said her party should start thinking seriously about proportional representation. She speaks compellingly, making a strong Conservative argument for PR.

When voices across the political spectrum are saying the same, the Government should listen. I am proud to sit as vice chair for the all party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the largest APPG and shows clear cross party support for replacing first past the post with a proportional system. It is good to see several members of the APPG here today. We have heard from a number of them, so I will reflect on some of their comments. My fellow vice chair, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), reminded us that PR is fair. We are in a multi party political system and first past the post, which was set up for two parties, is no longer fit for purpose.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) talked in detail about his experience on the city council, and how PR in Scotland works. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), said that despite being elected on a minority of votes, he represents well his whole community. That is an urgent issue, to ensure that people have trust in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) talked about how the voting system shapes the way we campaign, focusing on a core number of marginal seats and a group of voters in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) reminded us that PR is not a panacea—he is absolutely right to do so—but it is a fundamental step in the right direction towards a fairer, better system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) reminded us how PR shapes how we campaign and what we choose to do and not do with our resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)—while doing an impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—gave us examples from overseas and of parties working together in local government. He also reminded us that sorting out the voting system would better enable us to sort out our country.

I know that objections are made to reform. We are told that PR means weaker coalitions, constant instability or Members who answer to a party list rather than the people they serve. To those who have those concerns, I point to the weakness, instability and chaos, frankly, that we have seen over the past decade. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made his case, as he often does; he had a very good go at making arguments that I disagree with, but I am sorry to say that he failed to convince me on this occasion. Seven Prime Ministers in 10 years is not what a well functioning system looks like.

Our current system is failing, and we have such a great opportunity to push forwards and make positive reforms. Some may look at each change of Prime Minister as a story about one person, one party or one bad week in Westminster, but that just does not cut it. When a pattern repeats again and again, it stops being about individual issues, personalities or failures and starts reflecting the system that produces them. First past the post manufactures large majorities out of modest vote shares, and those majorities are built on such shallow foundations that they can collapse as quickly as they were built. Instability is not a glitch in our multi party system; it is a feature of it.

There are various forms of PR. I will not try your patience, Mr Turner, by ranking them in order of my preference—I will save that for the Lib Dem conference—but, suffice to say, the Liberal Democrats support the single transferrable vote. It keeps a strong direct link between Members and the place they represent. Constituents have local MPs to turn to, but they would have a real hand in choosing them. That is the price of different voting systems.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as she is my friend on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a really important statement on Nottingham maternity services in the main Chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, even if some commission came forward and said that STV was absolutely the way to go and that we should adopt it in future, this country should adopt it only if the electorate validates that through a general election where a majority of the parties making that promise win a majority in Parliament, or through a referendum?

I am not personally a fan of a referendum. They can be quite divisive and they return one of two answers, so I would not support one. The Liberal Democrats have had a fairer voting system in our manifesto since the foundation of our party. I believe that the current Government, whose party the hon. Member is a member of, have put forward some other suggestions that were not in their manifesto in 2024, so it is possible for situations to change. It is possible for the world to move on, and for people of good will to work together for the betterment of our country.

Single transferrable votes for the House and for local councillors in England would mean that communities would not be written off because they were a safe seat, and nobody would feel that their vote was wasted. We could also introduce more nuance into a debate than can be delivered via the medium of bar chart. Consider the previous general election: the Labour party won about two thirds of the seats in the House on roughly one third of the vote. A system that can hand near total control of the Commons to a party that two in three voters did not vote for cannot honestly claim to speak for the country.

The Liberal Democrats have argued for fair votes for decades, because a democracy in which every vote counts is a better democracy. I do not want to spend my time today just listing what is broken, because the more important point is that we have in front of us a genuine opportunity to put it right. The appetite for reform is no longer confined to the Liberal Democrat Benches; it is growing across the House and across the country. We need to fix our politics so that we can fix our country. An amended Representation of the People Bill could be the vehicle to deliver it and to give this country a voting system worthy of the people it serves. I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are ready to take that chance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on our voting system. She and I do not always agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we more often than not disagree vocally, although in good spirit, I hope. Although I do not share her views on electoral reform, I recognise and respect the sincerity with which she holds them. Her persistence in bringing the issue before the House reflects her commitment to the causes that she champions. She beat me in another forum on Times Radio’s “It’s a Constituency Knockout” for the good people of Richmond Park. And I lost a battle on her private Member’s Bill, but we will see about round three.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is my only ally in this debate, barring what the Minister might say. I am happy to have him as an ally, because he is one of the most respectful Members of this House. He is a braver man than me, as he is surrounded by my old Bill Committee adversaries.

We can all agree on one thing, though: electoral systems shape our politics. It is important that the method we use for catapulting representatives into high office is robust and secure, easily understood by voters, and provides strong local accountability. I believe, as my party has always believed, that the first past the post system achieves that better than any other.

I do not often pay compliments to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so they are in for a shock this afternoon, but one of their skills is mobilising voters to go to the polls. I have seen that myself on my home patch, much to my and my councillors’ annoyance. One of the clearest criticisms of first past the post is the impact that it has on eroding voter confidence in the electoral system and therefore suppressing turnout. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Voter turnout has been on the decline for generations, but not consistently. It is fair to say that we are unlikely to see the levels of the 80% turnouts of the 1940s and 1950s. Growing voter apathy is a problem, but I do not think that the electoral system is to blame per se. The blame is with us as politicians—all of us. I sincerely believe that if we inspire, we make others aspire. We can all raise our game in this House and as political parties.

I find it slightly bizarre to keep revisiting a debate that the British public have made clear they do not support. First past the post has proven to be the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance—I will come back to that—and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. We want a system that forms a single alternative Government rather than the more fragmented alternative often seen under proportional representation systems. I think that is not just a theoretical point.

In countries where proportional representation is used, we can see the consequences of fragmentation very clearly. For example, in Belgium, proportional representation has contributed to fragmented Parliaments and lengthy coalition negotiations where no single party is able to present itself clearly as a Government in waiting. Clarity of outcome is an important feature in our democratic system.

As Members of Parliament, first and foremost our roles are to represent our constituents and our constituencies here in Parliament. First past the post creates a clear and direct link between Members of Parliament and the people we represent. It provides the voter with clarity over who represents them, whose surgery they can go to, who they can hold to account and, importantly, who they can remove at a general election. Such clarity is a democratic strength and a crucial part of maintaining voter trust.

Why would we adopt a system that weakens the direct link between voters and their representatives? Proportional voting systems where members are elected from long party lists make that relationship less direct and less clear. That direct constituency link is not only a practical strength of the system, but part of a much longer tradition in our parliamentary democracy. I think many advocates for an alternative voting system overlook the historical significance of first past the post. It has been in place since medieval England, and it is the bedrock of our democracy. Changing the way we elect Members of this House is not a minor administrative matter. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly, nor should it be driven by dissatisfaction with a particular electoral outcome.

Given the hon. Gentleman’s faith in the first past the post system, does he have any theories as to why turnout in our elections tends to be significantly lower than in comparable western European countries?

I believe I have already addressed that point: it is because of us, as politicians. I absolutely agree with many of the comments that Members across the House have made today about trust in politicians and the level of discourse, but we need to improve our game. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between the voting system and turnouts at general elections; I genuinely think that it is normally about whether a voter feels good or not. If the hon. Gentleman’s only issue is voter turnouts and he wants to have a conversation about compulsory voting, then I am up for that debate, but I do not believe that we should move to another system without looking at whether voting should be compulsory or by choice.

It is worth recalling, as I lightly touched on, that the British public have previously been asked whether they wish to move away from the existing voting system for Westminster elections. That was in 2011, and it was a condition of the Liberal Democrats being in government from 2010 to 2015. A clear majority voted to retain first past the post rather than adopt an alternative system. In fact, only 2% of local counting areas wanted rid of first past the post.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the alternative vote is a preferential voting system, not a proportional system?

Absolutely, and we can talk about that, but that was the system that the Liberal Democrats proposed in that referendum, and they lost the argument when they were in government. When they were last in government, they put a question on reforming the voting system to the country and it was resoundingly rejected. I agree with the hon. Lady; I am not in favour of referendums a lot of the time. But I believe that we have put the issue of reforming our voting system to bed for the foreseeable future—that is, unless a Government come in with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system, in which case we can have that discussion, even though my party would still oppose it.

It is worth saying that 2% of local counting areas voted against the last referendum. I struggle to see why we would reopen a question on which the public have already expressed a clear preference. That, in my view, is the crux of the matter. This debate is not fundamentally about voter understanding or participation; it is about dissatisfaction with how support for certain parties translates into seats under the current system.

Many Members make the case that we should switch to a proportional representation system in order to follow the example of other major democratic nations. I do not accept that. This country has consistently delivered stable Governments—which is slightly ironic, given the last week or so. I also remind Members of the comments made in previous contributions: we vote for Members of Parliament, not for Prime Ministers. That is the key point about the system in our country. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been spoken of as the Prime Minister elect. We do not have that. We elect Members of Parliament, and the party that has the most MPs forms a Government. If they do not have a majority, they try to form a coalition—that has happened in recent history. We do not vote for Prime Ministers. That is why I do not think that argument pushes the case forward for proportional representation.

This country has consistently delivered stable Governments, in contrast to a number of European systems, which rely on complex coalition arrangements. That is not to suggest that we need to compare systems like that to justify our own, but it is clear that first past the post prevents smaller and more extreme parties from having undue influence, which is a respected element of the UK’s democracy. I refer Members to some of the parties elected to the Israeli Parliament, which has a proportional representational system.

In conclusion, first past the post is not a perfect system, but it is a proven one. It delivers a clear link between constituents and their representatives. It provides voters with identifiable accountability, and it ensures that Governments are formed with a clear mandate from the electorate. I utterly respect the case made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I utterly respect the fact that we are likely to see calls for electoral reform in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto, but I dearly hope the voters reject that option. For the reasons I have set out, I believe first past the post is the system to form strong and stable Governments in the United Kingdom.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for calling the debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed to it. The Government recognise the strength of feeling expressed today regarding our voting system, which after all sits at the heart of our democracy. We welcome open and constructive debate on the voting systems we use and their effectiveness, whether by long standing Members or more recently elected Members. As set out in our manifesto and our strategy for modern and secure elections, the Government believe that strengthening our democracy, upholding the integrity of elections and encouraging voter participation are key priorities and fundamental responsibilities for Government.

Our Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains a range of measures that will deliver on those commitments. As the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned, that includes protecting elections against foreign interference. It also means moving towards more automated voter registration, strengthening the resilience of our electoral processes and opening up democratic participation for the next generation by removing barriers to increased participation. Those are substantial electoral reforms, and the Bill represents the boldest and most ambitious change to our democracy for decades. It will help to keep our elections secure, build public trust and encourage more people across society to engage and participate.

Turning to the specific matter of this debate, the Government recognise that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections. We believe that the first past the post system works where people are elected to a body, such as a council or Parliament, where there is a mix of representatives from different parties and platforms. Although it is not perfect, the first past the post system provides a robust, efficient and secure way of electing those representatives. It provides for strong and clear local accountability, ensuring a direct link between elected representatives and local constituents, as so ably demonstrated—and dare I say, embodied—by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The first past the post system is also well understood by voters, and as such we do not want to make any changes just for the sake of it. At present, therefore, the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections or local council elections in England.

For single person executive positions, such as mayors or police and crime commissioners, the same reasoning does not apply, as they exercise their powers as individuals. We therefore believe it is appropriate to use a different voting system—the supplementary vote system—which allows voters to express a first and second preference, and which requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of the votes counted.

In this place, we have recently changed the voting system for metropolitan mayors. Can the Minister comment on whether the voting system for the London Mayor will be changed before the 2028 London mayoral election?

I will write to the hon. Member on that point, but I would say that the supplementary voting system ensures that mayors have a broader base of support from the people they represent.

SV was the system used when the roles of mayors and PCCs were first established, and it was changed to first past the post following the Elections Act 2022. The Government have been consistently clear about our intention to revert the system back to SV. I refer the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) to the fact that we have already passed the necessary legislation to change it back in some cases. The change for other mayoral systems and police and crime commissioners will occur in due course, once the relevant measures in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 are commenced.

The forthcoming mayoral election in Greater Manchester will therefore take place under SV, which we have always been clear is the most appropriate system for electing mayors. However, the electoral system we use is just one part of ensuring trust in our democracy. We are also strengthening the postal and proxy voting system to make it more resilient and responsive. We are introducing tougher political finance rules that will give electors more confidence in how political parties are funded and protect UK politics from foreign interference. And we recently launched a democratic engagement fund to provide £2.5 million to increase democratic participation.

Turning to the points raised by other hon. Members, trust in our elections is important to everyone in this House, as referenced by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). That is central to what we are trying to do in the Representation of the People Bill. The Government recognise that our voting system is of fundamental importance in ensuring trust between elected representatives and the public. Although the first past the post system is not perfect, it is a way of ensuring that elected representatives have a strong connection with their constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about disengagement from voting. I would gently suggest that that was not borne out by the recent by election in Makerfield, which saw high levels of participation. In reference to his remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) regarding the devolved Governments, we work closely with them; indeed, I met Ministers from Scotland and Wales yesterday to discuss our proposals for legislation and bringing them forward, so that we can learn and work together across our country.

I think I have covered the comments about trust and involvement. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire, and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West and for Falkirk—asked about a national commission on electoral reform. We have no plans to set up such a commission and do not believe that doing so is appropriate or necessary at this time. The important reforms we plan to introduce as part of the Representation of the People Bill will ensure that our democracy remains secure and robust in elections going forward.

To summarise, the Government are content that first past the post is the appropriate system for use in UK parliamentary elections and local council elections in England, and that the supplementary vote system should be used for single executive positions. We currently have no plans to make any further changes to that approach. Although I appreciate that that is disappointing news for many hon. Members in the room, we will continue to welcome discussion and feedback on this important topic. In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed.

Thank you for your chairing the debate, Mr Turner. It is interesting that the majority of voices in the room have argued against first past the post, when all of us are here because we were elected under that system. That shows how even those of us who have—dare I say—benefited from the system recognise its flaws and are here to make the case for change. That is because we operate in the system that first past the post has built, and we all recognise that it forces us to behave in ways we do not feel comfortable with and creates obstacles to achieving the change we want.

I want to pick up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). First, I thank him for reminding me that I demonstrably have a better constituency than he does. He made a point about turnout. He was trying to make the case—I am not sure how well it landed—that it is all our fault that turnout is not better because we need to be better politicians. I put it to him that we behave in the way we do because our voting system forces us to do.

I want to particularly mention the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), who made the case really powerfully in his speech. I thank all other hon. Members who contributed, but particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). They all made excellent speeches.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) taught us all a great deal more about Edinburgh council than I think we were aware we needed to know, but I am grateful for it. The Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) commented on the “bearpit” of PMQs and how badly that actually goes down with our constituents, and that point was also picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds.

This is a topic to which the Liberal Democrats certainly intend to return. I thank the Minister for her comments and hope we will meet again.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the use of first past the post in general and local elections.

Sitting suspended.

I will call Tom Hayes to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of public libraries in Bournemouth East constituency.

It is an honour to speak under your chairpersonship, Mr Turner. This debate is the third that I have called since my election. My first was on playgrounds all over our country; my second was on playgrounds all over my constituency. Sadly, today is not the third playgrounds debate, but just like “Back to the Future”, that trilogy will conclude.

Playgrounds are a lot like libraries. They take us back to the future. They are two sides of the same coin of a healthy and happy childhood. In my constituency, many families visit Springbourne library and the play area beside it, bringing a packed lunch in the summer. That is so important for our families.

Since 2008, playgrounds have been debated four times in Parliament. I have doubled the number of those debates. This is just the fifth Commons debate on libraries since 2008. When I banged the drum for playgrounds in this place, we began to make progress, with smoke free playgrounds enshrined in law, protected playgrounds codified in planning policy and the first dedicated funds since 2008. In two years, this Labour Government have made better half the number of playgrounds made worse by Conservative Governments over 14 years. I know the positive steps that can arise when I bring my constituents’ hopes to Parliament, and I hope for the same for libraries.

I wish to begin, here in Westminster, with Charminster. Charminster library, which opened on 7 January 1932 and closed on 22 December 2025, has now been padlocked for six months. I am fighting alongside Labour councillor Sharon Carr Brown, Louise Norman, who is the secretary of the Friends of Charminster Library, and our community to reopen that library. There was a successful and packed demo there recently. In February, Labour’s plan to put £500,000 into Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole libraries was put to the administration. Every party but Labour voted against it. Now, those parties campaign to reopen Charminster library without saying how they would make the money available, although there is now £5 million in extra council tax flexibility for BCP council because of the Government’s support.

Often, a fight for something entails a fight against something, but I want to be clear to my constituents that in fighting for Charminster library, fighting for library users and fighting for Bournemouth East, I am not fighting BCP council, I am not fighting the Liberal Democrats and I am not fighting their independent allies. Charminster library’s closure lies in 14 years of austerity that cannot be reversed in five minutes. The neglect that ensued was exacerbated by Conservative council leaders burning through £90 million of reserves on vanity projects.

In our politics, there is so much to feel angry, feel upset and feel let down by, all at once. That is made worse by a technological revolution that puts the world’s information in the palm of our hand and simultaneously spreads fear, fake news, bile and hate. Rarely have we needed libraries, temples of reason and sanctuaries from menace like today.

Another bug of modern politics is the rarely resisted urge to think only of the place, the building, the resources and the books. As any librarian or library user knows, those are but the building blocks. What matters most and is mentioned least is the people—the life force of people joining together, the hope and happiness that springs from spontaneous meetings of strangers often enough in the same shared space to form friendships and create connections.

Charminster library created the space for these things to happen all at once, nearly every day: the toddler who falls in love with words before they read them aloud; the child with no computer at home who masters the technical means and enjoys a warm place to do the homework that they would otherwise have nowhere to complete; the jobseeker—in truth, the seeker of dignity and purpose—who gets on, because of the online connection, to complete their applications; the widowed pensioner living alone, with few reasons to leave the house, who will have a conversation, read a newspaper, hear laughter they would not hear at home and have a community to belong to and feel part of; the tired and nervous mum who never knew how much she needed a way to meet other new parents and learn everything that nobody teaches you when they hand you a newborn.

So what is the solution? I have set countless council budgets and taken tough choices, as a councillor and deputy leader for a decade. I respect the creative councils that worked around Tory austerity rather than passively accepting the cuts, so I ask BCP council to show some vision, to grow our local economy by seeking investment and to develop the homes we need by setting out a local plan. That would not merely create the good that Bournemouth needs, but generate income so that the council can do more, rather than just protest in a passive state. That is what I did when I secured tens of millions of pounds in investment in green infrastructure and, with it, significant council developer contributions. I call on BCP council to just fight for our community.

I thank my constituents who have taken the time and care to stand up for Charminster library. I want to put some of their views on the official parliamentary record. For new parents, it was clear that the library was a social lifeline. I think of Roxanne of Ashling Close, Harriet of Charminster Avenue and Helen of Mortimer Road. Helen says: “I made lifelong friends at Wriggle and Rhyme, and I was so grateful for these sessions as an isolated single mum.”

I think of Victoria of Portland Road, Sarah of Richmond Wood Road and Wendy of Beatty Road. Wendy speaks for many when she says that the library “has been the hub of the local community for at least fifty years.”

Carl of Brackendale Road, Iris of Meon Road and Mark of Strouden Avenue spoke about the importance of ending isolation and loneliness. Carl says: “There is too much social isolation, and losing this much loved library will only add to it.”

Stuart of Hambledon Road and Catherine of Charminster Avenue called the library “a godsend to the elderly and children”

and “a place where older people get patient, free help to get online.”

Charminster library is one of the last places that people can spend time without spending a penny. That was true for Vanessa of Mallard Close, Anne of Bartlett Drive, Glynis of Uplands Road and Rebecca of Chatsworth Road. Vanessa tells me: “The library services literally keep our family functional and bringing in an income. We cannot afford other types of paid childcare.”

In a cost of living crisis that we seek to abate in the face of another energy price shock unleashed by President Trump’s recklessness, we need more libraries as a solution, not fewer.

Charminster library sits within walking distance of six schools and hundreds of children. Denisa of Parkway Drive, Amy of Feversham Avenue and Emma of Pine Road have all written with concerns about their children. Of her daughter, Emma says: “The routine of popping in to borrow books, take part in activities and meet friends has been completely taken away. She is devastated.”

Pamela of West Way, a special educational needs teacher, and George of Court Road agree.

We need to think about the voices of children. A voice that I need to bring to this place is that of the schoolchild Sabong of Queen’s Park Avenue: “It is not just about books. It is also a quiet place where I can do my homework and meet my friends. We need the library back.”

I was pleased to receive a letter from Lily and James of Strouden Park, who wrote to raise their concerns and say that they just want their library reopened. When a child writes to their Member of Parliament to ask for their library back, we adults need to do one thing: sit up and listen.

We rightly worry about children lost to their screens. Kenelm and Amy of Bradpole Road see the library as a solution to that problem because of the role of books. Constituents also see the library as an answer to another—indeed, the opposite—problem, which is summed up by Adil of Charminster Road, who says of his childhood at the library: “I didn’t have any access to the internet or computers at home. Charminster Library let me have free internet access, borrow books, and join the reading challenge.”

Olivia and Angela of Branders Lane remind us of the scale of the challenges that libraries help to overcome. Angela says that “a third of the nation are not online because of poverty, age, disability or ill health.”

In all our libraries in Bournemouth, volunteer tech buddies support customers with learning how to use a computer, set up emails to apply for jobs and help with applications for a blue badge or universal credit. So many council services are now digital by default, but libraries offer a human being—a person who can support and refer citizens on. We cannot say that we will end digital exclusion and then let the buildings that fight it stay closed.

A phrase ran through the letters I read: libraries matter because they offer a vital “community hub”. That much was true for Jenny of Homeside Road, Christine of the Grove, Andrew of Chatsworth Road and Gerard, who all said the same. For Christine, the library is “a children’s meeting place, an information centre, a landmark, and a treasured asset to the town.”

On the theme of the beauty of the building, with which I strongly agree, David of Brackendale Road, Richard of Queen’s Park Avenue, Erik and Joanna all cared about this treasured asset. Richard describes the library as “an oasis of calm, with high ceilings and amazing light.”

Nicola and Laura of Mavis Road and Bernadette of Beatty Road are among the many to celebrate the most important part of the library: the librarians. As Bernadette tells me, the staff ran four book clubs, and “whenever I visited the library, it was always well attended.”

When I visited, I always had a very warm welcome. As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I say clearly and proudly that the library is a community space that is brought to life only by the people who use the services and the people who work there, who committed years of service and who cared about each other and about their community. They deserve our thanks.

I have worked closely with Councillor Sharon Carr Brown and Louise Norman, and a plan is starting to form. A first phase of work is under way to remove the significant asbestos found in the roof space, and the hope is that with the first phase drawing to a close, we can begin to move towards the second phase. However, that does not guarantee the reopening of the library. This debate is therefore significant in keeping the pressure on and ensuring that local people feel heard.

With Charminster library now closed, five libraries are open in my constituency. They have undoubtedly suffered from the worst hardships of austerity, and more than most. On the latest figures, the average total open hours per week for the six libraries was 26 hours, compared with 35 hours in England.

Unsurprisingly, the most consistent issue raised in a survey that I launched after I secured the debate was limited and inconvenient opening hours, which were highlighted by Jonathan of Saint Mary’s Road, Kathy of Webster Road, Clare of Leaphill Road and Sarah of Broughton Avenue—the list went on. Elaine in Springbourne calls for more evening and weekend opening, so that working people can access services, while Lorraine of Petersfield Road and Jenny of Percy Road say clearly that opening hours do not reflect the needs of our modern society. Adjusted for inflation, spending on BCP libraries has fallen more than in England overall: by 52% since 2010, compared with 47% nationwide.

Despite the challenges facing the libraries, they are strongly praised by hundreds of my constituents. Seren of Parkwood Road describes Boscombe library as “somewhere we all wanted to go and hang out.”

Annette on Seafield Road highlights the same in relation to Pokesdown and Southbourne library, while Julie of Sunnylands Avenue reflects that Tuckton library is brilliant but could become even more of a community hub. Jenny on Leeson Road describes Springbourne library as a true community hub, while Isabelle on Seagrim Road highlights Castlepoint’s support and advice services.

Children’s development and free family activities emerge as significant priorities. Emma of Uplands Gardens values Castlepoint library for “helping children enjoy reading and learning.”

Fay of Southwood Avenue describes Pokesdown and Southbourne library as nothing less than a “lifeline” for children without access to resources at home. Tom of Bennett Road sees Springbourne library as a “warm, safe community space”, while Cathryn of Gloucester Road highlights the importance of children’s activities, alongside social connection, at Boscombe library. Emilia of Heathcote Road stresses that libraries are especially important for children and families. Alice of Seagrim Road links children’s learning directly to safe community spaces, while Victoria of Twynham Road makes the case that schools should actively encourage library use.

Libraries give people access to digital inclusion and services that they would get nowhere else. Lucynda of Gladstone Road West and Jake of Boscombe Grove Road both emphasise the importance of Boscombe library’s free internet, computers and digital support, and Julie of Sunnylands Avenue highlights the role that libraries play in helping people to access training, benefits and local services. Alex of Knole Road and Jennifer of Boveridge Gardens point to the importance of libraries as places where people access practical support and information.

More broadly, libraries across my constituency are seen for what they are: non profit third spaces. Michelle lives near Castlepoint library and sees it as “a lifeline…a second home”.

Catherine lives on Castlemain Avenue calls the wonderful Tuckton library “safe, welcoming, warm and free”.

Emma on Gloucester Road described Pokesdown and Southbourne library as a “safe and supportive” space “for children and adults”. Emilia on Heathcote Road speaks of “free, accessible community spaces”, while Averil on Norwood Place describes her library as a peaceful centre for learning and advice.

Castlepoint library will be especially busy at the moment, as it is exam season. It is an especially important space for children, particularly on Saturdays and in the summer, with there being three secondary schools, at least six primary schools, hundreds of children and many homes nearby. The Saturday morning Lego club is popular, with many families becoming friends as a side benefit of play and creativity.

Emma on Uplands Gardens, Nathalie on Cecil Road and Lorraine on Petersfield Road are clear: they want more of this, and they want their libraries to reflect how communities live today. Jake on Boscombe Grove Road points to the need for play, as well as digital education services, while Tamzine on Southbourne Overcliff Drive and Katarzyna on Castle Lane West highlight an appetite for cafés, longer hours and more welcoming multi purpose spaces.

Throughout my consultation, constituents said that they want books to remain at the heart of our libraries. Rosemary on Rolls Drive says that “physical books should always be at the core”.

Mary on Hengistbury Road calls for “more books and faster reservations”, while Fiona on Sparkford Close highlights the need for up to date fiction and bestsellers at Castlepoint library. Jill on Leydene Close similarly points to the importance of strong and varied book collections.

Each library offers something different, based on the needs of the local community it serves. Boscombe library, for instance, has a large collection of books in Polish that were donated by the community. Books offer escapism, spark imagination and inspire empathy, as we jump into someone else’s world and experience it as they do. The ability to step into other people’s shoes is so critical in today’s politics, and it comes from the changing displays every month in the libraries, which highlight awareness months such as Pride Month.

Sadly, the books at Charminster library are gathering dust in the year of reading. Clearly, that is unacceptable. I have named so many of my constituents who feel so disempowered, so powerless and in some cases so hopeless, because I want them to know that their fight is not in vain and that they are on the official parliamentary record for evermore. I want them to know that when they raise their voices, they will be heard by their representatives, and I want them to know that I and the Government are doing all we can to bring Charminster library back into use and to support all our libraries across Bournemouth East after 14 terrible years of austerity.

On that note, I have some asks of the Minister. First, will he take back this point back to the Department and confirm that the duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 does indeed still bind BCP council? The Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to superintend the service and to make sure that councils discharge their duties, and where there is concern that a council is failing, the Secretary of State has the power to hold a local inquiry on a complaint or on the Department’s own initiative. Charminster library is a beautiful and historic building, but it has been closed for six months, because of neglect after years of poor maintenance, with the current administration voting down Labour’s library rescue plan to allocate just 10% of the extra £5 million secured from this Government in council tax flexibility on visible improvements such as upgrading our libraries.

I have another request: will officials from the Department meet me and a delegation of Charminster library users to look at what an intervention could achieve? Lastly, will the new national libraries strategy directly cover buildings such as Charminster library and the gap between a council’s legal duty and the closure of libraries?

I end where I began. As a new MP in 2024 without a parliamentary office in the constituency, I went into almost every library to hold my surgeries. Ever since, I have seen the work of librarians and libraries. They are absolutely fundamental to our democracy and indispensable to a thriving society. We need Charminster library to open once again. We need the lights to be turned back on and the librarians to be back doing their essential work of enriching and gluing together our community. This is my vision of the future of libraries in Bournemouth East. This is a future worth fighting for. I ask the Minister and the Government to support this vision and to back this future for the libraries of Bournemouth East and the constituents whom I am so proud to represent.

It is a joy to serve when you are chairing, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this debate. He reminds us of his campaign for playgrounds, and I am sure that he will continue to be equally committed to the campaign that he is on with libraries. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister responsible for libraries, my noble Friend Baroness Twycross.

My Newtownards library has been allocated funding by the relevant Minister. Understanding that a warm library is a place of knowledge, friendship and community, does the Minister also agree that the benefit to communities is more than the ability to borrow a book and is in fact the ability to connect, and that that needs to be supported by all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

I absolutely agree. The hon. Member points out and underlines the richness, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East drew attention, of the role that libraries play in their communities.

My hon. Friend talked about libraries in his constituency, especially Charminster library. I want to take this opportunity to strongly agree with those of his constituents who have sung the praises of public libraries, the value of which he so ably demonstrated in his speech. It is rare to find someone who does not believe that libraries are important to their communities. It is more than 175 years since the first Public Libraries Act, in 1850, and it is fair to say that libraries look a bit different from those originally established, but I like to think that even where the technology and style of delivery have changed, an 1850s library user from “Back to the Future” would recognise the core of what libraries do—they would recognise the shelves full of books and the knowledgeable library staff. Public libraries open up opportunity by democratising access to information and knowledge. They level the playing field by providing spaces for study and reflection.

rose—

I remind Members that interventions must be short.

Thank you, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time. Just to add to his words on this issue, many local councils are doing the right thing. I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new Central library in Reading, in great contrast to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in his town.

My hon. Friend is right. A local library is a very special place. It is a place of potential in every sense of the word by introducing children to the world of reading, shaping young minds through Baby Rhyme Time and giving agency and choice to young readers—no book is the wrong book—but also by helping people of all ages to develop wider skills and, in particular, digital skills, supporting people to access the huge expanse of the digital world we now live in. Libraries provide inspiration, education and entertainment for many thousands of people every week. In particular, the act of reading expands our minds, opens up our thinking and makes us more tolerant. In a diverse country like the UK, every child should be able to see themselves represented in our literature and to read and learn about other children who are not like them.

My hon. Friend the Minister is being very generous with taking interventions. Does he agree that SNP run Glasgow city council’s decision to cut school librarians was a mistake and has a detrimental impact on kids’ education?

Certainly. It is always a negative thing when libraries’ time is cut, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East demonstrated in his speech. It is important that we remember that the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires all local authorities in England to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service. I can confirm that that is binding on all library authorities, including Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

Public libraries are funded through the local government finance settlement. Each local authority is responsible for assessing the needs of its local communities and designing library services to meet those needs within its available resources. We recognise the financial pressures facing local authorities after 14 years of Conservative cuts. This Government are committed to restoring the stability of council funding, but there cannot be cuts of that scale over that period without a significant impact on services, including public library provision.

The most recent local government finance settlement is our most significant step yet towards making English local government more sustainable. We are making good progress on long overdue promises to fundamentally update the way that we fund local authorities. We are delivering fair funding, targeting money where it is needed most. We are delivering the first multi year settlement in a decade, simplifying an unprecedented 38 revenue funding streams worth almost £57 billion over three years. That should provide greater stability, certainty and flexibility for local authorities.

It is important to note that the majority of funding in the local government finance settlement is not ringfenced for a reason. Local leaders are best placed to identify local priorities. It is for them to determine how funds are used to finance their activities to best meet local needs. For BCP, the settlement will make up to £499 million available in core spending power by 2028-29—an increase of 24.2% since 2024-25. The people of Charminster are clear about how they feel about their local library, and they want their council to make quicker progress to find a long term solution to its closure. We hope the council hears that passion and the value that its residents place on the library, and weighs that in the balance as it make the necessary decisions.

My hon. Friend also specifically asked about the Government’s superintendence responsibilities. It is for the local council to determine how it will meet its statutory duty to deliver a comprehensive, efficient library service. The Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has the statutory duty to superintend that provision in England, but we expect any council to be able to justify its decisions and to be clear about how local need has shaped the service in order to comply with the duty.

Our guidance on libraries as a statutory service provides local authorities with clarity on their statutory responsibility. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport encourages local authorities that are considering making changes to their service to inform it about their proposals before public engagement or consultation. Between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, DCMS directly engaged with 40 local authorities, which involved 62 conversations either in person or virtually. None of those conversations took place with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has a statutory power to intervene by way of local inquiry if she considers that a local authority is not providing a comprehensive, efficient library service. She takes that role seriously, and should a complaint be made, Ministers will challenge the local council and carefully consider evidence before deciding if a local inquiry is needed.

I can certainly take my hon. Friend’s request for the Libraries Minister to meet him and a delegation of Charminster library users back to the Department. My hon. Friend is right to say that the library is a vital community hub; we have heard other Members underline that point. Many people may be aware that on 2 March, the Government announced their intention to publish a new strategy for public libraries later this year. It will aim to restore their position at the heart of communities. We want libraries to be well run, well used and well connected. More than anything, we want them to have an impact in their communities. That work is ongoing; we hope to publish the strategy shortly and we appreciate the views and feedback that we have received, which helped to shape it.

This debate questions the future of public libraries in Bournemouth East in particular. My hon. Friend has spoken with passion about the value of libraries in Bournemouth East, using the voices of the people who live there and their lived experiences. I have heard how much the people of Bournemouth East value their libraries and their anxiety about the future of the much loved Charminster library. I hope that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council will carefully consider the options available to it.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the financial sustainability of the farming sector.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. In a shameless effort to garner sympathy, I thank you for allowing me to sit down if I need to; I have a bad back today. Members can feel free to be sympathetic in their interventions.

It is a great pleasure to be here for this debate on the financial sustainability of the farming sector. The best beef in the world is reared in my constituency of North Northumberland. There may be some competition there, but let me assure the Chamber that that is true. However, farmers are not taking home the best cuts in terms of profitability. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—the FFCC—found that in 2023-24, an average cereals farm in England took in a quarter of a million pounds from selling crops such as wheat and barley, but after costs, it made a loss. For profit, it relied on subsidies, diversification and environmental schemes. Those are all good things, but they come with an underlying challenge.

As the party of labour, we should be alarmed when any worker receives a poor return for their work. I know that alarm is shared by my colleagues in the Labour rural research group, many of whom are present, and by the Minister, whom I welcome to his new role and to this debate. In her profitability review, Minette Batters was very clear that “there is no silver bullet to achieve farming profitability.”

Today, by genuinely happy coincidence, the Government have published their 25-year farming road map, with a focus on profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience. I look forward to digesting the road map, which I have with me, and I trust that many of the points raised in the debate will chime with its contents. I hope that the Batters review, the farming road map and the LRRG’s upcoming report on farming profitability can help the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government to tackle the wide range of reasons why farming often does not pay.

I want to focus on three elements: protecting our farms from the global markets as part of a drive for food security, regulating the marketplace so that produce receives a fair price, and cutting costs and boosting innovation so that farmers have more at the end of their work. On food security, one farmer recently told me that “covid and the current conflict in the Gulf have shown that globalised supply chains do not have the resilience of a strong indigenous industry.”

He is right, and I am glad that the Government share that view in the road map, but our industry is not strong enough. Our farmers earn a lower share of food chain gross value added than farmers in Germany, France or the Netherlands. Just 9% of farms produce 62% of our food, and high production costs mean that high quality British produce struggles to compete with the international market on price.

I thank the hon. Member for securing a very good debate. On food security, in south Shropshire, just outside Onibury, there is a campaign to stop over 130 acres of solar panels going on good agricultural land. The plans would make it harder to be resilient and to provide food security as a country. Does he agree that no solar panels should go across good agricultural land?

Order. I remind Members that there are lots of people who want to speak. Interventions really do need to be short.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will see this in the road map and in the Government’s approach. There needs to be the right balance between environmental approach, renewables and food production. I agree that the decision about where solar farms go is key.

We need to help British farming to develop greater financial resilience and shield it from external pressures. That starts with ensuring that imported food products meet the same high standards as home grown produce. I ask the Minister to offer some thoughts on what guarantees he can make so that alignment with the EU and other trade deals will maintain a level playing field on quality. That subject was not heavily touched on in the road map.

Stability is also vital for our farms. Although agri environmental schemes should not be the difference between the black and the red, they have a role to play in farm budgets. They can cover a bad year or provide extra on top, but take up, delivery and financial sustainability demand stability. The withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive last year dented farming confidence; I encourage the Minister to pay very close attention to roll out of that, which we expect imminently.

Devolved economies have a role to play in developing food security, too. Farming should be part of a tightly bound regional ecosystem in which regional investment banks, devolved funding pots and local authorities work together to match up funding, skills and procurement pathways. In our manifesto, we promised that half of all food purchased across the public sector would be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards—a great ambition. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards that, and on what work he is undertaking to create a public record of how much of public institutions’ food is sourced from the UK? We can create a virtuous circle in that way.

The hon. Member is right to say that we need to produce more food in this country but, at the moment, farmers are telling me that they are not putting crops in the ground because they cannot afford the fertiliser to sustain them because of the situation in the Gulf. What does the hon. Member think the Government should do to support farmers right now?

If the right hon. Member bears with me, I will get to exactly that point.

The second area of concern is the marketplace. The FFCC reports that farming productivity increased by 60% from the ’70s to the 2020s, but that farming incomes have not increased in line with that. The size of and competition between supermarkets have forced farmers to accept bargain basement farm gate prices at times, and the middle men have consolidated too. The National Farmers’ Union reports that, in the ’70s, there were 2,500 abattoirs across the UK; there are now just 200. The reality for the fragmented farming sector has been bleak: its increased productivity still ends in lower prices.

One of the best responses to this high cost, low price trap is to create a new labelling and welfare system based on the Made in Australia approach, which the LRRG has advocated for. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for his work on that. Every food product in supermarkets, wholesalers and catering should clearly tell consumers how much of it was made in the UK, ideally in which region and to what welfare standard. Indeed, regional identity systems should be supported and verified. Instead of superb Northumberland beef being thrown into the same mincer as low cost, low welfare imports, packaging can help consumers choose between different quality products at different price points and different welfare standards. The farmers who invest more in their produce can then negotiate for more at the farm gate.

The Government have to develop tighter rules on what can and cannot be claimed as “farmer supported”, “grown in Britain” or other heartwarming slogans that do not reward the hard graft of British farmers. I welcome the fact that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has already been taken into DEFRA following the Batters review.

We should help farmers consider how to develop better collective bargaining power. My understanding is that the Agriculture Act 2020 provides a framework for producer organisations to form co operatives. We should give that our full support. At the end of the day, we the Labour party are a party of mutuals and co operatives.

The third and final string of the bow is innovation. There have been some major steps in this direction under Labour. I am really pleased that the road map is so committed to innovation, and that £123 million has been committed to investing in innovation this year alone. The NFU has urged the Government to implement the national policy planning framework as soon as possible, which would really help.

We need to look at how we can cut inputs and free up capital for farmers to reinvest in their farms. Energy prices are too high. The recent red diesel fuel duty cut was an incredibly welcome step and has been well received by my farmers. I am now interested to see what options are open to help farmers install renewable energy supplies on their estates via GB Energy. I support the NFU’s ask of the Government to help farmers cut electricity prices by opening a standard industrial classification subdivision for energy intensive farming.

Fertiliser prices are too high. There is massive unease about the incoming carbon border adjustment mechanism regime and its effect on fertiliser prices, which is already one of the biggest costs for farmers. We can transform the fertiliser conversation altogether by restarting ammonia production in this country. Sadly, the last plant to produce virgin fertiliser in this country was allowed to wind down by the previous Government in 2023. I know that the Minister for Industry has been working hard in this area already, and I hope that the shadow farming Minister can look at this.

All that strategic support would cut input costs, thus freeing up capital for farmers to use on developing new technologies that help them produce more for less. The Government’s farming innovation fund will have £200 million up to 2030. That is an excellent example of state backed innovation. Farmers in North Northumberland are already experimenting with using soil and sampling and targeted purchases to cut their fertiliser bills. The Government need to find those farmers and invest in their work.

A local farmer told me recently: “As a farming family we often accept that we are privileged to work in the profession that we do…but it is often somewhat demoralising (and distracting) to consider what little relative financial reward we receive for the work we do.”

Other industries grow and shrink as conditions change, but we will always need food, and we will always need much of our food to be grown here in the UK. The issue is that what we pay for food today is also what we are paying for our food tomorrow. While farmers remain stuck at the wrong end of the low price, high cost cycle, our national food security is also at risk.

It is the role of Labour, not a laissez faire Conservative party or a rootless Reform UK party, to dignify the work of farmers by ensuring that they receive proper reward for what they do. All workers should be supported by the Labour party, whether they are blue, white or green collar workers. By developing more resilient British farming as part of our national security, regulating the marketplace so that quality produce gets a fair price, and opening up opportunities for farmers to innovate and increase their margins, we can make sure that farming is sustainable for years to come, and we can keep North Northumberland beef on the menu.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate. Given the number of Members wanting to take part, I have to impose a formal time limit of one minute and 30 seconds—90 seconds. I call Olly Glover.

Thank you, Mr Turner—I am in a state of astonishment at being called first. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for his articulate opening speech. Most of what I am going to say follows a recent farm visit and farmers’ roundtable. I thank the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association for arranging that, the 20 attendees who gave their time, and Robert Clayton for having us at Mill Farm in West Hendred.

Three key challenges face farmers in my constituency and across the country. The first is the question of regulation and costs, with the impact of the Iran war a major concern on top of existing Brexit related challenges, with red diesel and fertiliser subject to major inflation, and electricity standing charges for farmers having risen by 44% to 91%. Secondly, prices incentives and food culture need to change. We need to strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is welcome to finally see a Government response to the Minette Batters profitability review today, but fundamentally what farmers raise is a lack of Government understanding and listening to farmers about the challenges that they face.

Thirdly, we need more investment and funding for our farmers. Food security should be thought of in the same way as wider national and defence security. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for investing £1 billion extra in environment land management schemes, so that we can properly support our farmers and make sure they contribute to a resilient food supply chain.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. As I frantically go through the speech that I wrote before the statement today, I might end up saying a load of things that have been covered already, so I will snip it really short, mindful of the short amount of time that we have.

I want to raise awareness of something I have already written to the Secretary of State about: the recent introduction of crippling electricity standing charges in the farming sector. I also want to put back on the agenda using the sustainable farming incentive to fund increased uptake of leguminous protein crops, and recognising the value of those crops as nitrogen fixing tools in arable rotation. That would allow growers to optimise the efficient use of artificial fertiliser alongside strategically and environmentally beneficial crop production methods that also support domestic food production.

I am mindful, as always, of the need to support our farmers—now more than ever. We need to show our farmers that we care by taking action to support and celebrate them. I very much look forward to reading in full this report in my hand. I could not be in the Chamber for the statement, but I look forward to watching that back and to listening to everybody else’s questions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I will be brief.

It is wonderful that we are having this debate, and indeed that we had today’s statement, although sadly I was not able to be in the Chamber to hear it. We need to recognise that farmers are central to our health, wellbeing and security as a nation, for three reasons. The first is good food: we need to produce as much of our food as possible as locally as possible. The second is good land: we need to care for our land; after all, it is the soil on which everything that farmers produce depends. The third is good livelihoods: rural farming communities, such as mine in North Herefordshire, are entirely interlinked with health, wellbeing, and financial and ecological sustainability.

It is disappointing that the Government sadly got off on the wrong foot with farmers, but I hope today marks something of a turning point. We need two things from the Government. First, we need regulation that works for farmers, with a level playing field. That means consistently applied regulation across the country and internationally. We cannot have our farmers undercut by imports produced to lower standards. Secondly, we need investment in farming, to enable farmers to transition to more nature friendly and river friendly methods, and to support the security and sustainability of farming in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. It was in this Chamber, on 28 January 2025, that I was the only Labour MP to speak out against the Government’s proposed changes to agricultural property relief. I did so in the knowledge that such changes would have been damaging to the livelihoods of huge swathes of my constituents.

There is no industry more important than the food industry. The food sector employs 17% of Wales’s total workforce, and at the heart of that sector lie our farmers. A sustainable farming sector requires fairness and transparency throughout its supply chain. An industry built on long term planning, fair returns and transparency will make for a more resilient industry in the face of current challenges than one based on short term decision making.

As most farmers do not sell directly to retailers, the NFU has long campaigned for the Government to extend the code to include more retailers, food service businesses and manufacturers in order to oversee the trading relationship between farmers and their intermediaries, ensuring that farmers get the best possible deal. We must also recognise the importance of trading with the European Union, on which Wales relies heavily for 75% of our food and drink exports. A commitment to strengthen our relationship with the EU would create valuable opportunities for Welsh producers and support growth across the sector.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Let me start by inviting the new Minister—I welcome him to his place—to visit Dartmoor over the summer to meet farmers, commoners, the Dartmoor hill pony organisations and, importantly, the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group. I invite him to bring Natural England, too, because it is at the centre of quite a lot of what has been said about Dartmoor in the past few weeks.

Previous meetings with Ministers and officials since the Government came into office do not seem to have made a difference and have not delivered a plan for sustainable farming on the moors. In 2023, the previous Government launched the Fursdon review on the future of Dartmoor. Its report includes a recommendation —No. 27, or paragraph 23.2 according to gov.uk—to ensure that ponies remain on the moors, but it also reports, in paragraphs 23.1 and 23.3, that cattle and sheep in significantly deliverable numbers are an intrinsic part of delivering that and the land management needed for Dartmoor; otherwise, farms on Dartmoor are not sustainable.

The Dartmoor Land Use Management Group was set up following the Fursdon review to assess how farming and environmental land management can co exist. It has yet to report back, which is why it is so disappointing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England are pushing ahead with livestock stocking numbers that risk the sustainability of farms right across Dartmoor and, with them, the ponies themselves. A petition to adopt recommendation 27 has more than 200,000 signatures. Ponies, cattle and sheep are intrinsically linked on the moors. In a visit over the summer, the Minister could be assured of a friendly welcome and hear directly from those involved.

Newcastle under Lyme is home to many brilliant farmers who work relentlessly to supply our shops, pubs and restaurants and to tend to our green and pleasant land. When I was elected I promised my farmers and their families that I would fight their corner every single day. We need a fairer deal for our farmers and the supply chain. Our farmers are the price takers, not the price makers. They are feeling the squeeze from our supermarkets. We must deliver and enforce fair contracts across all sectors.

Our farmers also need long term certainty. Although I welcome the new 25-year farming road map, our farmers need more from us. They need a sustainable framework that lets them plan for the next decade, not just the next season.

Our farmers in Newcastle under Lyme and across our United Kingdom are the backbone of our country. We must go further and do more to give them the power to earn a fair return and to give them and us the certainty to plan for the future. I gently encourage the Minister to look for the letter I sent him last week. I congratulate him on his appointment and look forward to welcoming him to Newcastle under Lyme before too long.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I rarely miss an opportunity to speak about farming in this place. It was a privilege last October to be elected by Government MPs as the co chair of the all party parliamentary group on farming.

I suspect that there is too often a perception in Whitehall that farmers do rather well. Land rich? Perhaps. Cash rich? Rarely. It is too rarely acknowledged that many farmers earn little more than £20,000 a year. My region, the south west, has the lowest average farming business income of anywhere in the country, at just £35,100 per farm. My farmers are not landed gentry. They are people who work with their hands. They are up before dawn, toiling through the winter. As I said in the House yesterday, the Brexit deal we ended up with has strangled trade in food, farming and fishing. We need a comprehensive sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the Europeans as soon as possible. It would reduce trade friction and lower costs for farmers directly.

The effects of getting things wrong in this area spread far beyond the farm gate. As farms fall, so do butchers, delivery drivers, packagers, suppliers, labourers and contractors. The elephant in the room is that food security is national security. There is simply no substitute for a farmer. Without them, we all go hungry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner.

About 55% of my Carlisle constituency is agricultural land. Farming remains vital to our local economy, our identity and our communities. However, more than half of the farmland in our county—some 54%—is classified as “less favoured area”. As a result, farmers in my area require substantially more land to support their livestock and maintain viable businesses than is the case in other areas. That is why it is important to recognise the distinction between a farm’s physical size and its economic size. A holding may cover a large number of hectares but that does not mean it generates a proportionally large income or profit.

Against that backdrop, in February I wrote to the then Minister of State with concerns about the first round of SFI allocations because SFI funding was open only to farms under 50 hectares. My concern is not with the principle of supporting smaller farms but rather that an approach that focuses solely on physical size does not always reflect the realities of farming across different parts of the country. Farmers in my constituency with holdings of more than 50 hectares will have to go into the next round of SFI and compete with farms that are genuinely large in terms of productive output, with farms that are much larger, and often with land agents.

I therefore have two questions for the Minister. Will he please consider how future schemes will consider the impact of LFA land? Will he also confirm that common land farmers will be eligible to apply for the SFI?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

The farming sector is vital. I know that because 88% of my constituency is agricultural land. Farms are a unique sort of business because they not only have to make our food and protect our countryside but, like all businesses, have to make a profit. We must respect and understand that. I appreciate that the Government have published their farming road map, and I am grateful that they have finally recognised that farming needs long term planning but, ultimately, actions speak louder than words.

The NFU has highlighted many issues that we need to focus on but, given the limited time available, I am going to focus purely on energy. The Food and Drink Federation told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that food inflation will reach 9% by the end of this year and that energy prices are at the heart of that inflation. The Government have put in place help for energy intensive industries, but subsections of farming are not recognised under that scheme and are therefore excluded. I raised that point with the Chancellor. I urge the Minister to go back to her and consider whether the Government can include farming and food producers in those schemes to allow them to get support. While he is doing so, perhaps he will ask again if she will scrap the family farm tax in order to give farmers the support they ultimately need.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing the debate. I have been applying for a debate on this subject for many months, so it is great that we are having one. I warmly welcome the new farming Minister to his place, too.

I recently had a catch up with farmers in Cannock Chase and heard about various challenges that they are facing. We are living in highly uncertain times. The new series of “Clarkson’s Farm” is shining a light on how financially tough farming can be, but also on the many ways that technology can improve that picture environmentally and financially. The Government’s investment of £123 million to help farmers boost their productivity is therefore very welcome.

I am also very pleased that the farming road map is now out. As chair of the APPG on UK food security, I was particularly pleased to see the restated commitment to maintaining our food production at at least current levels. I am also keen on making sure that supply chains are fair for our farmers—something that we often could not have said in recent years. Over the last couple of weeks, the EFRA Committee has had the privilege of visiting New Zealand, where I was struck by the prevalence and power of agricultural co operatives and the power that they give Kiwi farmers. I would love to see more of that here, because it would go a long way to redressing the imbalance that we all too often see in our supply chains here in Britain. I look forward to working with the Minister on that and many other issues that colleagues have raised, but in the interests of time I will leave it there.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who set the scene incredibly well. I have four points of 30 seconds each. When we talk about farming in Northern Ireland, we are talking about family farms. Over 27,000 farming families across Northern Ireland work the land day in and day out. Financial sustainability requires three things from this Government: certainty, equity and protection. We need an increased multiannual farm support budget that is fully inflation proofed. If there are no farmers, there is no food. That cannot be right.

Financial sustainability is impossible if farmers are forced to sell their top quality, world leading produce at or below the cost of production. The Government must use their powers to enforce fair dealing and transparency right across the agrifood network, and they must protect the family farm structure from punitive taxation. Recent proposals and changes threatening agricultural property relief and business property relief strike at the very heart of generational sustainability. Forcing a grieving family to sell off parcels of land just to pay an inheritance tax bill destroys the viability of enterprise overnight. It is a tax on food security and the Democratic Unionist party will stand four square against it.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this timely debate and welcome the Minister to his place.

I asked local farmers in Ribble Valley what they would like to highlight in this debate about profitability. As hon. Members would expect, the responses included the increasing tax on fertiliser, energy prices, the short sighted farming vision, the public’s understanding of where our food comes from and its value and quality, seasonal staff and many other things, so I am really grateful that the Government today outlined their farming vision to 2050.

In the interests of time, I want to highlight a broader question about who we what to be as British society. We could choose just to import most of our food, but to me, farming is core to our Britishness. We value our local farm cheese brands, we value our rolling green hills, and we value the role farmers play in maintaining our walkways and gritting our paths in winter.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. It is not just about identity; we also cannot be reliant on food imports if we are going to be food secure as a nation.

I completely agree. The main point I want to make, alongside all the powerful financial and security arguments that have been made, is that we need farming to be financially sustainable because we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be part of what we prioritise as this country. A More In Common poll found that, after the NHS, our British countryside is what British people value most about this country, so please, let’s not take it for granted. With no farmers, the countryside is not sustainable either.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. My constituency is built on the backs of family farms that I have visited, many of them run by the same family for generations. I have had the privilege of sitting around kitchen tables with farmers and the NFU, and I hear the same thing time and again: making a profit from growing food in this country is almost impossible. However, North Somerset farmers do not do this job for the money; they do it as a way of life, and with the hope—often a distant one—that one day prices will allow them, or their children, to make a decent living from this land.

I warmly welcome the long term farming road map published today and the Government’s response to the Baroness Batters review. I also welcome the action on supply chain fairness and the transfer of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to DEFRA. That matters because farmers need a fair price. As a member of the Labour rural research group, I asked the Minister, as this road map is delivered, to keep welfare labelling firmly in view. It could put an extra £60 million into farmers’ pockets. LRRG research suggests British farmers are losing out by as much as half a billion pounds, undercut by lower welfare imports. A mandatory tiered labelling system would build on the excellent foundations laid today.

Farmers in North Somerset have waited a long time for a Government willing to back them with a genuine plan. Today, they have one.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer and a member of the Farmers’ Union of Wales.

The costs of farming have spiralled over many years, particularly since Brexit. I want to concentrate on the cost of fertiliser and fuel, both of which have been affected by the war in Ukraine and, most recently, the war in Iran. Input prices affect profitability, and too often profitability is what forces decisions on whether farmers remain on the land, give up, move on or start over.

Farming is a hard life, with long hours and hard graft—I can tell hon. Members that from personal experience. We need stability in the market on costs but also on farm gate prices that farmers receive for their goods. Milk prices have crashed, leading many smaller dairy holdings to make the decision to leave the market. Sheep and beef prices have steadied but are now showing signs of decline, and horticultural producers also want a steady market for their produce.

We need to seriously value food production. Since I have been in this House, I have heard hon. Members talk about food security time and again, but in all honesty the meaning of that phrase is often lost, I am sorry to say. My ask of the Minister is simple: will the UK Government commit to action to improve resilience across the food system and supply chains, so that we can invest, stabilise the industry and encourage growth?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate, which I know resonates deeply with many farming families living and working in my constituency.

Farming is more than a job: it is a lifestyle, a history and an identity that has defined rural communities for the entirety of this country’s history. Last week in my constituency, I spent time with members of my local NFU—a quiet and shy bunch. We spoke about the challenges they face, the concerns they have and the support they need from Government. They told me about pressures from rising fertiliser costs, driven in part by the conflict in Iran, and about how so called equivalent standards are giving favourability to imported foods over home grown produce. I have also heard from local farmers who say that outdated and underfunded rural infrastructure is preventing them from scaling up and delivering growth.

It is clear from those conversations that food production must be a priority in planning for growth and in ensuring that the UK is resilient in the face of global instability. That also means creating a level playing field that does not restrict farmers with complex regulation, and that supports them with predictable funding streams. The financial sustainability of the farming sector depends on forward thinking and informed planning. I am grateful this key sector is the focus of today’s debate, and I hope meaningful conversations continue.

I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. I am the vice chair of the APPG on food security. Agriculture makes up 20% of businesses in North Shropshire, with well over 1,000 agricultural holdings, so it is a huge part of our local economy.

In the short time I have, I will focus on two issues. For the roughly 130 dairy farmers in North Shropshire the huge pressures of climate change, increased input costs, rising energy and fertiliser prices, and hostile trade deals have come at a time when milk prices are simply not keeping up with the cost of production, as we have heard.

One farmer in Market Drayton reports being down £25,000 a month on his milk price, while a family farming in Maesbrook told me that they have been selling off livestock just to keep their heads above water. On top of that, several farmers in the area have reported being unable to reach their milk buyer for information about pricing, meaning that they are unable to plan ahead. Farmers suffer time and again for their lack of power in the supply chain. Will the Government outline the action they will take to bolster the role and effectiveness of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and to enshrine its golden rules in law so that producers are properly protected, as recommended by the EFRA Committee and the Batters review?

Farmers in my constituency are particularly concerned about the proposed changes to water abstraction licences due in 2028, which could have a huge impact on the viability of many farms in my area. Water security is central to food security, so I would appreciate the Department outlining what those changes will mean in real terms for our farmers.

I will be honest: I had quite a different speech prepared for today, but I have scrapped a lot of it following today’s statement.

When it comes to farming, we have heard all sorts of fantastic slogans, promises and tributes but, when I meet farmers or hold my farming forum in Yeovil, it is clear to me that farmers have had enough of that. They have had enough of words, enough of this place and enough of this Government, and they want some clear action. With the publication of today’s farming road map, we are starting to go in the right direction, even if it has taken two years to get here. The road map sets out a vision for the future direction of farming, and I think that DEFRA has actually gone out and listened, which is a big change from the family farm tax and the sudden cut to SFI.

However, there is no long term funding to go with it. I expect that that is because of the Treasury, which I feel just does not understand rural communities and the farming sector, and I am sorry, but that is not good enough. Farmers like Nick from South Petherton are telling me that they have to take so many more costs on the chin. He and others across Yeovil and Somerset are paying thousands of pounds extra a week for diesel and fertiliser. I had so much more to say today but, given the time limit, I will stop there.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing this important debate.

Farmers are the foundation of communities across the country, but British farming is in crisis—not a crisis of effort or ambition, but a crisis of confidence that successive Governments have chosen to ignore. Chris, a farmer in Babcary, has spent his whole life in agriculture, building a business worth passing on to his son, but Chris has terminal prostate cancer. For 18 long months, what caused him the greatest anxiety was not his health, but the tax bill his son would soon face following the Government’s cut to agricultural property relief, should he not survive seven years. I know how he feels, as I had very similar painful conversations with my mother. Like many farmers across the country, I was relieved when the Chancellor has moved the threshold to £2.5 million, but the family farm tax should be axed altogether.

Somerset farmers are struggling because successive Governments have let them down. The Conservatives gave farmers a kick in the teeth with their £358 million underspend on the farming budget, and Labour has delivered more of the same: a family farm tax with no consultation, a real terms DEFRA budget cut of 2.3% a year, a farming budget slashed by more than £100 million and the closure of the SFI last year without notice. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, and we will keep opposing every policy that treats our farmers with disdain rather than lifting them up, because they are critical to our national security.

Jonathan, who farms in Little Weston, looked to the Rural England Prosperity Fund, only to find that DEFRA excludes farmers who want to diversify into food and drink. It is a fund for rural businesses to apply to, but it excludes adding value to the very products that farms produce. DEFRA also promised uplifted stewardship payment rates in April, but that promise has not been fulfilled, and there is no clear route from old schemes to new ones. The Government are asking farmers to transition and then shutting the door in their face.

British farmers are the best in the world, and the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion a year into the farming budget so that they can continue to produce high quality food for our tables while protecting and enhancing our natural environment. We would set payments over 10-year periods and ensure that every farmer has a route from old schemes into new ones.

In February I visited Andrew Moon, a third generation pig farmer based in Baltonsborough who has more than 400 sows. His business is fighting for survival. Without warning, processors demanded a 30% cut in production, but Andrew asked a question that I could not answer: if farmers are forced to cut herds by 30%, where will the pork come from? Perhaps the Minister can help me answer that question.

Producers are being squeezed out of their own supply chains, with no commitment from retailers and no consultation—just an immediate demand to produce less. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a strengthened Groceries Code Adjudicator, with real teeth, to protect producers like Andrew, as well as public procurement that supports high standard food and a guarantee that future trade deals will never undercut British farmers.

Yesterday marked 10 years since the Brexit vote, and it would be remiss of me not to address the impact that it has had on British farming. The botched deal has strangled trade across our food, farming and fishing industries. Every border check, every lorry held at port and every delayed consignment is a cost absorbed somewhere in the supply chain, and it is rarely the supermarkets that suffer. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to sign a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, so that Somerset’s pork, cider and cheese reach European shelves without the paper eating into their profit.

We are sleepwalking into dependency on fragile global supply chains and into a crisis of empty fields and empty plates at home. The Government must treat farming as critical infrastructure, because Britain is not secure unless food supply is secure. That means providing long term financial security for our farmers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate.

I welcome the Minister to his place. His natural passion and enthusiasm for this vital sector is evident in the zero parliamentary mentions he made of farming prior to his appointment, despite his having been elected in 2017. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best. For the good of the sector, I hope that he gets out and engages with the farming community more than his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).

This debate is about financial sustainability for the farming sector. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have continually pulled the rug out from under our farmers. We have had the sudden and unannounced closure of the SFI scheme, the rapid acceleration of delinked payments, the introduction of the family farm and family business tax, the jobs tax and, soon, the fertiliser tax. The result? Record farm closures under this Labour Government, and greater food insecurity than we have seen before.

Our farmers are fed up, worried and increasingly concerned about the future of their farming businesses and their livelihoods. I know that because, unlike the Government, the shadow DEFRA team and I have been out and about, travelling up and down the country, attending agricultural shows and speaking to farmers across the United Kingdom. We have been to the Royal Highland Show, the Royal Cornwall Show, the Royal Cheshire Show, the Lincolnshire Show, the Essex Country Show, the Balmoral Show in Belfast, and Cereals—just to name a few. The locations may vary, but the same theme comes out again and again: devastating cash flow challenges as a result of the fiscal decisions made by this Labour Government.

Unlike in other professions, income from agriculture can be volatile. Farm businesses are price takers, and the determinants of the prices they receive are out of their control. By the time the crops or livestock reach the market, prices may have dropped, but goods must be sold anyway. Income schemes such as the SFI are so important—but not in the Government’s eyes, with their chop and change approach. Under this Government, the schemes are not providing any reassurance or support to the majority of farmers. Last year, the Government closed applications for the SFI scheme with no warning, and yet again they have announced a budget that does not meet farmers’ requirements.

Would my hon. Friend agree that another uncertainty is coming down the path? The Climate Change Committee is asking farmers to reduce livestock numbers by up to 40%. That would devastate and make unviable so many farms—complete madness.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On the day when the farming roadmap has been announced, this just shows the direction that the Government want to take: to destock and produce food less. The key question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Secretary of State did not answer in the Chamber was: if that is the ambition of the Government, where is our food coming from?

The £100,000 cap for the SFI will be a disaster, resulting in lower environmental roll outs. The changes to delinked payments that went through as a statutory instrument just a couple of weeks ago had no costed impact assessment associated with them. It is an absolute disgrace that Labour MPs all voted to drastically reduce the payments despite no impact assessment having been done.

The Conservative party has been clear that we will reverse the family farm and family business taxes. We will reinstall the 100% relief on agricultural and business property because we know the huge negative implications that is having on family businesses needing to mitigate any inheritance tax liability and on the investment they are able to put into their businesses. That is impacting not only our primary producers but the wider supply chain. I say to those Labour MPs that they should be ashamed of themselves for continuously voting that through.

Then we come to the challenges associated with input costs, including the fertiliser tax. If we want to increase or stabilise domestic self sufficiency at 63%, why on earth are the Government coming through with the fertiliser tax? It has been raised as a concern, but the Government seem unwilling to tackle the challenge. The Conservatives will scrap that tax. [Interruption.]

Order. There has been a lot of chuntering while the shadow Minister has been on his feet. If you wish to try to intervene on the shadow Minister, please do—he may give way. However, do not chunter constantly when people are trying to make a speech.

I thank you, Mr Turner, for your advice to colleagues. If they wish to intervene, they are more than welcome to do so.

Red diesel has been a huge challenge: its price rose dramatically from 67p a litre to about £1.35p a litre at its peak. However, the Government’s rebate or reduction applies only to this year. If someone is growing crops or producing livestock, they need greater certainty beyond this calendar year. I call on the Minister to reinstate a level of reassurance that goes beyond the end of this calendar year.

We then have the EU reset. Pushed by EU members, the Government have put back the date beyond 22 July. However, CropLife UK has rightly estimated that the EU reset deal, as it is being promoted at the moment, could drain £810 million from UK farmers and sacrifice almost 9,000 jobs. What reassurance can the Minister provide to our arable sectors, which are suffering and struggling right now?

Today we had the announcement about the farming roadmap for the next 25 years. Where is the reassurance that cross sector Government Departments have bought into that? Labour’s record on this is not good. It does not matter what food strategy the Secretary of State for DEFRA comes out with: if a Chancellor comes out with fiscal decisions like those under the last two years of this Labour Government, that will blow any food strategy out of the water.

Order. I suspect that the shadow Minister is going to bring his remarks to an end very soon.

Absolutely, Mr Turner.

The financial sustainability and profitability of the farming sector is vital. Through the choices that the Government have made and voted on, they have demonstrated that when the revolving door of farming Ministers say that food security is national security, that is just warm words.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing this important debate and thank all those who have made contributions this afternoon.

I am delighted to see the excellent Labour rural research group here in force. Their speaking with such insight and passion is a reminder to me of the real champions for rural affairs issues who we have on our Benches. What a shame that so few Conservatives are here! Maybe that is a reminder of their disastrous election result in 2024.

I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for her hard work and dedication to the role. Her ambition for farming and food security will make her a tough act to follow. I have already had the opportunity to meet a range of stakeholders from across the sector and visit a range of farms and farmers across the country, which has reinforced to me the importance of farming. It matters to our country, supports rural jobs and communities, provides the food we rely on and underpins our national resilience.

As I mentioned earlier, today we published our farming road map, which sets out our plan for farming up to 2050. The road map sets out a clear direction towards a future for farming. It will give businesses in the sector confidence to invest, grow, plan for the future and secure farms for the next generation. The road map will help our food and farming system to become more resilient to global crises, adopt nature friendly methods that support profitable food production in the long term and shore up food supplies. It sets a direction for agriculture that involves clearer, fairer routes to market, with better access to the tools, technology, skills and supply chains that farmers need to run sustainable businesses.

Alongside the road map, today we published our full response to Baroness Minette Batters’s independent farming profitability review. The vast majority of her recommendations are either already under way or are being implemented soon, including the formulation of the farming and food partnership board, which has already met twice. Today, we announced that we will be taking a number of additional actions to create an environment for profitable farm businesses to thrive. That includes an additional £53 million investment for the farming innovation programme to help farmers to harness new technology that improves productivity, reduces reliance on inputs and improves long term resilience. It also includes investment in the skills and people that the sector needs. By supporting training and new entrants, farmers’ hard earned knowledge will be passed down to the next generation.

I also want to recognise the pressures that many farm businesses face—a theme that has come out very clearly in the debate. Input costs rise quickly, and global markets can shift overnight; that uncertainty makes it harder to plan, invest and employ. That is why I want to reiterate this Government’s long term and practical approach to farming, our commitment to stable funding, and our simpler and fairer funding schemes, which are designed to make farming more resilient and sustainable for the future.

The Minister may well know that it was only a few years ago that the UK met 40% of its own nitrogen and fertiliser needs. Would he commit to working with the Minister for Industry to look at how we can get our domestic production to grow once again, given that under the Conservative party it disappeared altogether?

I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder of the Conservative party’s record of failing rural Britain. I am very happy to take away the action he suggested. If we are to deliver our road map successfully, it will require lots of cross Government working, and I am very committed to making that happen.

Let me address the fertiliser issue; I appreciate that major input costs are real source of worry for farmers. We are very conscious of the increases in fertiliser prices that have occurred because of the middle east conflict, and we are working actively to monitor the impacts on the agricultural supply chains. We have regular communication with domestic fertiliser suppliers, commodity traders and farming stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union, and we have been clear that we are committed to ensuring that markets function fairly.

We continue actively to monitor developments in the middle east, as well as other impacts on our food and farming sectors, including through ongoing engagement with industry leaders. My Department is aware that there are signs of some pressures easing but that prices still are above pre conflict levels.

We recognise that these costs continue to be a significant issue for farmers; that issue was raised with me on my first day in this role, when I met with the NFU. The pressures that it is imposing are absolutely worth considering further. Whether through more effective use of technology or the adoption of more sustainable farming practices, we can better equip our farmers and growers to produce good food in a more resilient way, and this Government stand ready to help farmers to do that.

Does the Minister accept that it is a choice made by this Government—maybe not by DEFRA, but by the Treasury—to bring in the carbon tax from 1 January? The Government cannot change events in the middle east, but they could choose to delay or scrap that tax.

I remind Members that we currently have a good supply of fertiliser and are keen to support domestic production. The Government are live to the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raises; I will take them back to the Department, and am happy to write to him on his concerns.

The Government are also sharing information and guidance to support farmers to diversify sources of nutrients to reduce reliance on artificial fertilisers and strengthen long term resilience by managing more effectively. DEFRA’s new nutrient management planning tool is already supporting our farmers by matching nutrients to crop and soil needs. That enables farmers to make the most of nutrient sources and to reduce their reliance on artificial fertilisers. More than 500 farms have used the tool since it was launched.

DEFRA has launched a consultation and call for evidence to inform how the Government modernise fertiliser production and the regulations around it, which will further improve future fertiliser supply options. We will continue to work with farmers to ensure that they become more resilient, through our innovation funds and equipment grants or our continued shift from area based subsidy to environmental land management schemes.

Another issue raised in today’s debate was about fuel. Farmers have told the Government how important manageable fuel prices are to the financial sustainability of the farming sector and food security, and we have listened. While the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), worries about his selfies for social media, we are focused on taking decisive action to support farmers by slashing the fuel duty rate on red diesel from 10.18p to 6.48p per litre—its lowest rate in 20 years. That means that red diesel now benefits from an 88% tax discount, saving farmers more than £300 million a year.

We have also extended the 5p fuel duty cut until the end of this year, keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120. My Department will continue to work actively with others to monitor developments in the middle east, including their impact on the supply and price of red diesel. We are committed to ensuring that the market functions fairly, and will continue our discussions with industry leaders, including the NFU and farming stakeholders.

There are real, recent issues that need to be addressed; I have heard from the stakeholders I have already met that additional pressures are affecting farmers. The Government are well aware of the impact of climate change -related extreme weather on the financial sustainability of farms in recent years—this week’s heatwave is a reminder of that. We are committed to working with farmers to deliver long term solutions to the risks associated with extreme wet or dry weather, and to increase profitability, because farmers being able to run profitable businesses is good for the whole economy and vital for food security. That is why we are investing in farming schemes and grants to make farming more resilient to economic and environmental shocks, and to safeguard our long term food security.

We have allocated a record £11.8 billion over this Parliament to sustainable farming and food production. Overall, farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year through our farming and countryside programme.

On that point specifically, I raised Dartmoor and invited the Minister to visit my constituency. He has about 30 seconds left to speak, but could he respond to that point?

I am happy to write formally to the hon. Lady to respond to her questions.

The message I leave with Members is simple: this Government believe that food security is national security. We are standing alongside farmers through global uncertainty, and supporting them by equipping them to manage volatility more effectively. We have already responded to the real pressures around fertilisers and fuel that farmers face and are backing British farming with record investment, improving schemes to make them simpler and fairer and supporting productivity and innovation. We are proud to work with British farmers as we grow the future of farming together.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive speech, and especially for touching on the issue of fertiliser. That issue is significant for all hon. Members here, and we will follow up on it.

The discussion has, for the most part, been cross party. If the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would like to see the level of conversation and the in depth relationships that Labour MPs have with our farmers, I encourage him to go on social media to look at all our different listening exercises. He should also look at just how many—there are more than 100—rural Labour MPs sit in this House.

I could say many things, as some fantastic points were raised, but I finish with the idea of identity in our countryside and way of life. We need to secure that, and we will not do so unless we make farming financially sustainable.

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).