Category: Speeches

  • Richard Holden – 2026 Speech on Road Safety Strategy

    Richard Holden – 2026 Speech on Road Safety Strategy

    The speech made by Richard Holden, the Shadow Transport Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although obviously some of it was reported in The Times earlier this week. I welcome the fact that the Government have published the road safety strategy, and I welcome the broad ambition, shared right across the House, to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As a former Roads Minister and as a local MP, I too have met many grieving families torn apart by deaths on our roads. The fact that we have seen a 10% to 15% reduction since 2010 does not mean that we do not need to go further.

    In that spirit, I welcome the comprehensive look at motorcycle training that the Minister has announced, as well as the expansion of Project PRIME from Scotland on motorcycle safety. That will be a major improvement to our road safety. I also welcome stiffer fines and enforcement against bad faith drivers, particularly those on ghost plates, as has been mentioned, and against those trying to evade justice via the use of dodgy number plates and other things to conceal their identity. I also welcome the road safety investigation branch and the better use and collation of data and data sharing—those are incredibly important. I also welcome the inclusion of Sharlotte’s law, which will help to prevent people trying to evade justice by ensuring that timely blood testing can take place in the most serious of cases.

    It is clear that there will be concern about some of the new moves announced and whether they are wholly related to road safety, and I would like to look at a couple of those. In oral questions, the Minister appeared to suggest that part of the reason for the six-month delay after getting a theory test was to ensure that more driving tests are available. In reality, it will mean an even larger group of people waiting to book driving tests, so I fear that the Government have not fully thought through the consequences of that. I remember meeting a woman aged 60 who had just lost her husband of 40 years. She lived in a small village with no bus service. She had always relied on him to drive. Are we really telling her that she will have to take a theory test and then wait six months after passing it to take a driving test?

    I can think of women in similar circumstances—men take more driving tests than women at an earlier stage in life—who maybe only take a test when they move for jobs or after having children. We need to properly think through the consequences of some of what the Government are proposing. It is important that we look at this broadly to ensure that we are not restricting freedoms via legislation to fix problems that are the result of not sorting out driving tests.

    No one in this House disputes that drink-driving is totally unacceptable, but I hope that Ministers and the Secretary of State will reflect on the experiences in Scotland, where changes in this space have already been made, and on the concerns right across the hospitality sector that there is no clear evidence of improved road safety outcomes following those changes. In fact, it is extraordinary that the Department—to quote an answer to one of my written questions—

    “has not made an assessment of the impact on the economic viability of pubs in Scotland”

    as a result of the changes that have already happened up there. Changing the legal limit alone will not change behaviour, and any reform must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and impacts, not on attempts to look tough.

    Alongside alcohol, the House must not lose sight of drug-driving, and I welcome some of the measures announced today. However, the commitments to testing seem rather vague. It would be great to hear more from the Minister on that because the police are pushing for more roadside drug testing. Governments of all stripes have pushed for an emphasis on education and behavioural change. However, that sits uneasily with this Government cutting the budget for the THINK! road safety campaign by £1.2 million last year, particularly when lifelong learning and changes are so critical to many of the plans that the Government have announced today.

    That brings me to my final major point, which is around enforcement. This place can pass all the laws it wishes, but if they are not enforced, all that does is undermine faith in our democratic institutions. The House will be aware that police numbers under this Government are down by around 1,300 in the latest figures. Enforcement sits at the heart of any credible road safety policy, so are there are plans to ensure additional roads policing to ensure that enforcement happens?

    Finally, there are some omissions. Why still exclude vulnerable road users and motorcyclists from bus lanes in many areas? There is a real missed opportunity to improve safety and survival for those people. There is also a glaring absence when it comes to tackling the scourge of unlicensed and uninsured criminals driving with impunity. Measures such as requiring proof of identity to register a vehicle could have been included, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) might mention that in her remarks, too.

    Road safety is not delivered by strategies and consultations alone; it is delivered when the law is clear and evidence-based, enforcement is consistent and the Government are willing to confront difficult issues, rather than relying on process and pre-briefed headlines. While we welcome many of the measures, there are still many questions to be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Lilian Greenwood

    I welcome the support from the shadow Secretary of State for our measures to tackle road harm. I was slightly surprised by his comment about the coverage in the press because we did of course publish the strategy yesterday, giving him the opportunity to have a full 24 hours to read it. Nevertheless, I note his comments and welcome his support. I also note his comment about the reduction in those killed and seriously injured over the previous Government’s term. I welcome the fact that the numbers went down slightly, but they are nothing to the level of ambition that this Government are showing and the seriousness that this problem requires.

    The right hon. Member questioned why we are introducing a minimum learning period for new drivers. This is a safety measure. It is about saying that in order to set people up for a lifetime of safe driving, whenever they take their driving test and learn to drive, they need to get a range of pre-test practice in a variety of conditions. We want people to take the time to learn properly, to ensure they know how to cope with things like extreme weather, driving at night and driving on different sorts of roads. We think that that is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, it is, of course, subject to a consultation, and we will listen carefully to all the views expressed in that.

    When it comes to drink-driving, of course we do not want to stop people going out and enjoying our hospitality sector. What we are clearly saying is, “If you’re going to go out and have a drink, leave your car at home.” Reducing the drink-drive limit would simply bring England and Wales into line with Scotland and the rest of Europe. We are the only countries, except perhaps Malta, that have this higher drink-drive limit—

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)

    We are one of the safest.

    Lilian Greenwood

    We are no longer the safest. We have been dropping down the rankings, and progress has stalled compared with other countries across Europe. Sir Peter North’s review in 2010 estimated that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save an estimated 43 to 168 lives each year and avoid a very large number of serious injuries—a conservative estimate put it at 280. We are acting on the evidence.

    When it comes to drug-driving, we are looking at how we can make better use of testing. I know that too many people who have suffered as a result of someone drug-driving wait a long time for their case to come to court. It takes too long to process, which is why we are looking at things like roadside testing. Through our award-winning THINK! campaign, we continue to target publicity at those who cause the most danger: young men aged 17 to 24. At the end of last year, we did an anti-drug-driving campaign—the first in 10 years—using the sorts of media channels that get to those we are trying to target, including TikTok and Instagram.

    Finally, the shadow Secretary of State is right to speak about enforcement. That is why this Government are investing in additional police officers—an extra 3,000 police officers by March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are responding to the requirements of the police. We are giving them the legislation and the powers they need to crack down on those who cause danger on our roads. I am pleased to see that our strategy has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for roads policing, Jo Shiner. I welcome the right hon. Member’s other comments, and we look forward to reading the official Opposition’s comments in response to our consultations.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Road Safety Strategy

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Road Safety Strategy

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our new national road safety strategy.

    It is a sad truth that, by the time I finish speaking and we hear the Opposition’s response, it is likely someone will have died or been seriously injured on our roads. It is an even sadder truth that that would likely have been entirely preventable. Even though we have some of the safest roads in the world, more than 1,600 people died on our roads last year, and nearly 28,000 were seriously injured.

    Over the course of my lifetime, road safety has improved immeasurably—in no small part thanks to a titan of my party, Barbara Castle—but it is safe to say the last 10 years represent a lost decade. Death and serious injury numbers have plateaued despite improvements in vehicle safety. The UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings, and the human cost of too little action and too much complacency is clear: lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition, and lives grieved by the families left behind.

    If that was not enough, a decade without a comprehensive road safety strategy has meant that the country lost out on nearly £7 billion in economic output last year. That should not just give us pause; it should spur us to action. We would not tolerate that on our railways or in our airspace, and I am determined to ensure that we no longer tolerate it on our roads. That is why I am standing here today: to say quite simply that enough is enough.

    The targets that we are setting match the full measure of our ambition. We want to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. Our vision is clear: any road user—however they choose to travel—should be able to move safely on our roads. There are four main ways in which we will deliver that vision through the strategy.

    First, we will put all road users at the heart of the strategy. When it comes to protecting vulnerable road users, we will be guided by the evidence. We know, for example, that young drivers between 17 and 24 are at a higher risk of death or serious injury on our roads. They account for 6% of driving licences yet are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. That is why we will consult not just on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, but on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers. I would also recognise the important debate on young driver safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) secured last January.

    Another key area is the safety of older drivers. In 2024, about 24% of all car drivers killed were aged 70 or older. While driving is rightly seen as a vital form of independence in older age, it cannot come at the expense of safety, so we will consult on mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 and explore options for cognitive testing, recognising the risks of driving with conditions such as dementia.

    We also will not ignore the fact that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads compared with car drivers, so we will reform the motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime. That starts today with a consultation, including on removing the ability to ride on L-plates indefinitely.

    Let me move to advances in technology and data. We will consult on mandating 18 new vehicle safety technologies under the GB type approval scheme—a change that could prevent more than 14,000 deaths and serious injuries over 15 years. That includes autonomous emergency braking, a proven safety technology that Meera Naran has tirelessly campaigned for as Dev’s law, after the tragic loss of her son. I am delighted to see her in the Public Gallery; she has been an incredible campaigner on this issue.

    To learn from collisions and prevent future harm, we will establish a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain. It will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations. To give those involved in collisions the best chance of survival, we will ensure that police-recorded collision data and healthcare data are shared more effectively.

    The third theme is about infrastructure. Safer roads and effective speed management are essential pillars of the “safe system” approach that guides the strategy. That starts with investment. The Government are providing £24 billion between 2026 and 2030 to improve motorways and local roads, building on record funding for pothole repairs. We will also publish updated guidance on setting local speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras, supporting local authorities to make evidence-based decisions.

    Because rural roads remain among the most dangerous, with motorcyclists often navigating sharp bends, we will build on the success of Project PRIME—perceptual rider information for maximisation of enjoyment and expertise—in Scotland, which saw real safety improvements thanks to new road markings.

    Finally, let me talk about enforcement. We know that most drivers are safe, and we do not want to get in their way. However, they need to feel confident that the Government have their back, so my message to the minority of drivers who are unsafe and reckless is simple: if you drive dangerously, if you drive illegally or if you make our roads less safe, you will face the consequences.

    Take drink and drug-driving. We know that it was a contributory factor in 18% of road fatalities in 2023, so we will consult on lowering the drink-drive limit, which has not been changed in England and Wales since 1967. We will review penalties for drink and drug-driving offences and explore the use of alcohol interlock devices. New powers will be considered to suspend licences for those suspected of the most serious offences.

    We also propose tougher penalties for those who drive without insurance—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We will also look at penalty points for failing to wear a seatbelt and failing to ensure that child passengers are wearing theirs, too.

    Thanks to the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), we are tackling illegal number plates. We will increase penalties for using illegal plates and ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is empowered to carry out more robust checks on number plate suppliers.

    These rightly bold ambitions cannot be met by Government working alone. We call on the support of Members from all parts of the House and extend our hand in partnership to the devolved Governments, mayors, local authorities, the police and other stakeholders. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her support on behalf of the Transport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety for his advocacy on this important issue.

    I have sat with families torn apart by deaths and serious injuries on our roads—it is one of the hardest parts of my job. Even through intolerable pain, they campaign, fight and demand change so that others can be spared their sense of loss. This strategy is for those brave families. I truly believe that this is a turning point for road safety in this country, when we finally put victims at the heart of policymaking, see road safety as a shared responsibility and understand that, while driver or rider error is inevitable, fatalities and serious injury are not. A multilayered system, from safer speeds and vehicles to safer roads and robust enforcement, is how we protect every road user. That is how we ensure that people walk away from collisions rather than being carried and how we deliver safer roads for everyone who relies on them. I have laid copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Paul Dennett – 2026 Statement on Attack Destruction of Holocaust Memorial Bench in Salford

    Paul Dennett – 2026 Statement on Attack Destruction of Holocaust Memorial Bench in Salford

    The statement made by Paul Dennett, the Mayor of Salford, on 8 January 2026.

    We are deeply saddened and appalled by the mindless vandalism and destruction of the Holocaust Memorial bench in Clowes Park. The bench was a memorial to Holocaust survivor Mr Chaim Ferster and the work he has done over many years sharing his story and experiences, while also teaching & reminding us all about the horrors of the Holocaust.

    I have personally been in contact with Mr Chaim Ferster’s youngest son and community representatives to offer our sincerest condolences and full support at this time.

    I’d also like to thank Councillor Andrew Walters for escalating this matter to Greater Manchester Police (GMP), who are investigating the incident. The City Council and City Mayor’s Office will continue to work closely with GMP’s officers, our local Jewish community and Mr Chaim Ferster’s family in connection with this shocking incident. Our thoughts continue to be with all those who are affected by this hateful act at this time.

    Working with Mr Chaim Ferster’s family and our local Jewish community, the City Council will also seek to address concerns of safety and security within Clowes Park and restore and repair the Holocaust Memorial Bench, so it can be rightfully put back into place and serve, once again, as a place of peace and reflection.

    Hate has no place in our great diverse and vibrant City of Salford and we stand shoulder to shoulder with our all our residents & communities in the face of such adversity, showing the Spirit of Salford in all that we do.

  • Ed Davey – 2026 Comments on the Killing in Minneapolis

    Ed Davey – 2026 Comments on the Killing in Minneapolis

    The comments made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 8 January 2026.

    Horrifying to see an American woman shot dead by an ICE agent on a Minneapolis street, and Donald Trump’s ghoulish response is truly chilling.

    Britain mustn’t follow America down this dark path.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference

    The speech made by Emma Reynolds, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 8 January 2026.

    Good morning,

    It’s a real pleasure to be here at my first Oxford Farming Conference.

    This conference has a remarkable history – 90 years of new ideas being tested, challenges being confronted, and the future of British farming being shaped.

    Farmers are the custodians of 70% of England’s land and provide 65% of the food we eat.

    You are at the heart of our national life – for what you produce, the communities you sustain, and the landscapes and heritage you protect.

    I live in a rural area and I represent a rural constituency with 89 farms. So I came to this role with an understanding of the challenges you face – and the opportunities ahead.

    One of my first conversations as Secretary of State was with the NFU’s President, Tom Bradshaw. Since then, I’ve had frequent discussions with him and stakeholders from across the sector – hearing about your concerns, your frustrations, and your ambitions.

    And every one of those conversations has deepened my respect for what you do.

    For your resilience in the face of increasingly unpredictable weather and volatile markets.

    For your innovation in finding new ways to farm productively and sustainably in a changing climate.

    And for your determination to build businesses you can pass on to the next generation.

    Speaking of your determination, I also want to take this opportunity to thank farmers who have been out clearing roads and helping to protect their local communities in the recent snow.

    You step up when your communities need you and you are the heart of rural Britain.

    Today I’m going to cover a lot of ground, but there are 3 commitments that run throughout my speech.

    First, that this government is serious about partnership with your sector.

    Second, that we’re committed to giving you clarity and stability.

    Third, that we’re backing you to grow with confidence and resilience.

    Let me start with the announcement we made just before Christmas.

    Since starting this role in September, I’ve listened to farmers and stakeholders about your concerns on proposed changes to inheritance tax.

    You told me the threshold was too low. You told me it would hit small family farms – the very farms we want to protect.

    Farms that have been in families for generations. Farms you understandably want to pass on to your children.

    We have listened and we are making changes – increasing the inheritance tax threshold for Agricultural and Business Property Relief from £1 million to £2.5 million pounds.

    That means couples can pass on up to £5 million pounds without paying inheritance tax on their assets. That’s on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band.

    Around 85% of estates claiming APR, including those also claiming BPR, will pay no more inheritance tax.

    Good governments listen. And when they hear real concerns, they act.

    That’s exactly what we’ve done and now we can move forward together.

    That commitment to partnership is why we asked Baroness Minette Batters to lead an independent review into farming profitability.

    We are working through all of her recommendations and we will set out a more detailed response in our 25 year Farming Roadmap, built with you, later this year.

    However, we have issued our initial, high-level response.

    She underlined the need for government to work in close partnership with the agriculture and food industry.

    I completely agree.

    So we will set up a Farming and Food Partnership Board to bring together the whole agri-food system – farmers, food processors, retailers and finance.

    Because food security isn’t just about what happens on the farm. It’s about the whole chain – from farm to fork.

    I will chair this new Board with my excellent colleague, the Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, as my deputy.

    Farmers will have a seat at the table when policy is developed. And it is your voice that will shape what government does.

    It also means that government can ask things of you – and of the wider food system.

    When we open new export markets, we need the industry ready to seize them.

    When consumers want more British produce, we need retailers committed to stocking it.

    When there’s an opportunity to grow, we need the whole system pulling in the same direction.

    That’s what partnership means. Not just listening but acting together.

    And it won’t be a one-size-fits-all approach.

    Different parts of our food system face different challenges and opportunities.

    We will develop sector plans – initially with horticulture and then with poultry. This will be followed by other sectors – where there’s real scope to grow more of our own food.

    Because when British farming thrives, consumers benefit – with affordable, high-quality food on their tables.

    Alongside creating the partnership board and sector plans, we have also announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure.

    Stepping up action on supply chain fairness.

    Bringing together farmers and financial institutions to tackle barriers to private investment.

    And dedicated trade missions to showcase British food and drink overseas.

    However, it’s not just the relationship between government and farmers that matters – it’s farmers’ relationships with one another.

    The Batters review highlights that collaboration between farmers and indeed with experts will be key to closing the productivity gap and improving farm profitability.

    So today I’m pleased to announce our new Farmer Collaboration Fund of £30 million pounds, over 3 years.

    We want to make it easier for farmers to share knowledge with each other. To make best practice common practice.

    Across the country, farmers are already coming together – sharing that best practice, managing rivers that cross boundaries, and accessing private investment that would otherwise be out of reach.

    We want to support these existing networks and help get new ones off the ground.

    Our vision is to help farmers improve their productivity and profitability; and to collaborate on delivering positive environmental change together.

    After all, the best ideas in farming don’t come from Whitehall. They come from farmers. You know your industry better than anyone else.

    There’s no such thing as a typical farm.

    A dairy farm faces different challenges to a horticultural business. A hill farmer in Cumbria operates differently to an arable farmer in East Anglia.

    Our approach must recognise this diversity.

    And nowhere is that more important than in our uplands.

    They provide over 70% of our drinking water, support rural livelihoods and are home to precious wildlife and beautiful landscapes.

    And they produce food in some of the most challenging conditions anywhere in the country.

    For too long, upland communities have faced a perfect storm. Economic fragility. Social isolation. Environmental pressures.

    We want to change that.

    Over the last year, we’ve started working with social entrepreneur Dr Hilary Cottam on a new approach.

    An approach where we get out on the ground and talk directly to upland communities.

    So today, I’m announcing that Dr Cottam and Defra will start a long-term partnership with communities in Dartmoor, then Cumbria.

    The overall vision is to develop a place-based approach for what these communities need; co-designing solutions to specific problems.

    By developing a common understanding of how land can be best used for food production and the public good.

    It’s vital we build governance that reflects the local challenges and opportunities of these areas.

    Together we will look at pooling public, private and third sector resources. Laying the foundations for new income streams. And creating the skills and networks that let communities lead their own transformation.

    That’s the most important thing here, that communities lead change from the ground up.

    During our time with upland communities, we also heard how much farmers value our Farming in Protected Landscapes programme.

    Today I’m pleased to announce we’re extending the programme for another three years – with £30 million pounds in funding next year.

    The programme has partnership at its core. It brings farmers, protected landscape organisations and communities together to deliver change at a scale no single holding could achieve alone.

    This extension means more farmers can deliver for wildlife, climate and their communities in England’s National Parks and National Landscapes.

    Productive farms at the heart of thriving rural areas.

    And that partnership approach continues with the new SFI offer launching this year.

    You’ve told me, loud and clear, that you need clarity, stability and predictability.

    I have a background in business. So I know how important margins, risk, and long-term investment are to you. Running a farm means balancing immediate pressures with decisions that will play out over decades.

    To make those decisions, you need to know where you stand.

    Protecting the environmental foundations of farming isn’t separate from profitability. It’s essential to it.

    Because without healthy land, there is no food. And without profitable farms, there are no farmers to produce it.

    Healthy soil. Clean water. Thriving pollinators. These aren’t nice to haves. They’re business fundamentals, environmental necessities and the foundations of our food security.

    And with more than 50,000 farm businesses already in environmental land management schemes, many of you clearly agree.

    But I’ve heard your frustrations. The SFI scheme became too complex. The unexpected closure last year damaged trust and confidence. And too much of the available funding was being absorbed by bigger farms.

    So we’re making three changes to fix that.

    First: we’re making it simpler and more focused.

    90% of spending currently goes on fewer than 40 of the 102 actions available.

    So we’re streamlining it. Fewer actions. Less complexity. Easier to apply.

    You’ll still have plenty of choice – but this government recognises SFI must work alongside food production not displace it.

    So we will limit how much land can be put into certain actions and review payment rates for others.

    These changes will make funding go further, allowing more people to benefit from agreements.

    Second: we’re improving fairness and accessibility.

    Right now, a quarter of the money goes to just 4% of farms.

    How can that be fair?

    We want to see farmers helping nature thrive everywhere, not just in a few places.

    So, we’re considering ways to address this such as an agreement value cap.

    This will help us meet our ambitious Environmental Improvement Plan target to double the number of farms delivering for wildlife.

    I’ve heard you say that you need planning certainty.

    I know many of you will have Environmental Land Management agreements expiring later this year.

    So I can confirm today, that we will open two SFI application windows this year.

    An initial window from June for small farms, and also those without existing Environmental Land Management agreements.

    Then a further window from September for all farms.

    Third: we’re going to provide certainty and transparency.

    From day one, I’ve heard loud and clear how important it is for you to plan for the future.

    I recognise that mistakes were made in the past, and that’s why I acted quickly – extending Countryside Stewardship Mid-Tier agreements and opening applications for the new and improved Higher-Tier offer.

    I am determined to provide you with that same stability going forward.

    So we will publish full scheme details before the first window opens and set clear budgets for each window – just like with the Capital Grants offer last year.

    There will be no more sudden unexpected closures.

    We’ll give you regular updates so you know when a window is close to being fully subscribed.

    Together, we will work with you to get the detail of these three changes right to deliver an SFI that is simpler, fairer, and more stable.

    An SFI shaped with you, that works for you.

    Once these changes are in place, the main design of SFI will be stabilised for the rest of this Parliament. So you know what to expect in the years to come.

    Because growth in farming depends upon solid environmental foundations.

    And British farming is a key growth sector – one we are backing for the long term.

    I’ve met farmers who want to build. Farmers who want to export. Farmers who want to invest in new technology.

    Too often, you’ve been held back by bureaucracy. Our government is changing that.

    I’ve heard from many of you that the planning system has stopped you building the vital infrastructure you need.

    That’s why last month, we launched a consultation on planning changes to make it easier to build on-farm reservoirs, greenhouses, polytunnels, and farm shops – so you are free to diversify, adapt and grow.

    Planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.

    But your ambitions don’t stop at the farm gate. Many of you want to reach new customers – not just here, but abroad.

    We’re opening doors to new markets by promoting British agriculture in trade deals with India, the US and Korea.

    Our deal with the EU on food standards will slash red tape and costs, improving access to the EU market.

    And our network of global agri-food attachés has unlocked export deals worth over £125 million pounds in the last year alone.

    We’re also backing the technology that will define the next generation of British farming – precision agriculture, new breeding techniques, and smarter use of data.

    And as this year’s OFC report rightly states, “farming has always evolved” and your “ability to innovate, adapt and be resilient remains your greatest asset”.

    And we will support you with that resilience.

    You know better than anyone how quickly extreme weather and disease can overturn months of work.

    That’s why we’re investing a record £10.5 billion pounds in flood defences and transforming our animal disease prevention capability through a new National Biosecurity Centre.

    The growth opportunities for British farming are significant. And we are backing you to seize them.

    So let me finish where I began.

    Partnership. We will work with you, not impose on you. Through our new Farming and Food Partnership Board. Through peer-to-peer networks. Through community-led change. And through engagement on the detailed changes to SFI.

    Clarity and stability. You will have the certainty you need to plan. Clear budgets. Clear timelines. And a clear Farming Roadmap for the future.

    Growth built on strong foundations. Trade deals that open new markets. Planning reforms that cut through barriers. Investment that backs your ambition.

    And most importantly, profitable farming and a thriving environment – not as a trade-off, but as two sides of the same coin.

    These are my commitments to you.

    The foundation for the bright future we are building together.

    That’s what modern British agriculture looks like.

    Productive. Profitable. Sustainable.

    Thank you.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Parking on Pavements

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Parking on Pavements

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    This statement provides the House with an update on steps the government is taking to tackle pavement parking. In short, we are giving local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking more effectively, while ensuring consistency, clarity and fairness for all road users.

    I am today announcing the publication of the government’s response to the 2020 public consultation Pavement parking: options for change. The response demonstrates our commitment to improve transport users’ experience, ensuring that our roads and pavements are safe, reliable and inclusive.

    The government is taking forward a new, devolved approach to pavement parking, reflecting our commitment to decisions being made closer to the communities they affect. Local leaders know their communities best, so they are in the strongest position to meet local needs effectively. Our overarching objective to make pavements accessible and safe remains unchanged, but rather than introducing a ‘one size fits all’ national prohibition, which was one of the consultation options, we will instead enable local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking across their areas at the next legislative opportunity. 

    In strategic authority (SA) areas outside London, the power will be vested in the SA as the local transport authority (LTA). In non-SA areas the power will be vested in the LTA, which is either the unitary authority or county council. This will support more responsive and inclusive transport planning in the interests of local communities.

    In the meantime, secondary legislation will be introduced in 2026 to enable local authorities to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement. This provides a practical and proportionate interim solution, allowing councils to act where pavement parking is observed by uniformed civil enforcement officers. This power will sit alongside existing traffic regulation order making powers, enabling councils to enforce pavement parking restrictions both where TROs are in place and in other areas where obstruction occurs. The department will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in using this power.

    Taken together, these steps will give local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking effectively and fairly in their areas, and I commend the government’s response to the House.

  • Chris Philp – 2026 Comments on Shamima Begum

    Chris Philp – 2026 Comments on Shamima Begum

    The comments made by Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 5 January 2026.

    Shamima Begum chose to go and support the violent Islamist extremists of Daesh, who murdered opponents, raped thousands of women and girls and threw people off buildings for being gay

    She has no place in the UK.

  • Ian Murray – 2026 Statement on the Government Cyber Action Plan

    Ian Murray – 2026 Statement on the Government Cyber Action Plan

    The statement made by Ian Murray, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, in the House of Commons on 6 January 2026.

    Today I am publishing the Government cyber action plan, which sets out how we will transform cyber-security and resilience across Government and the public sector.

    Public incidents demonstrate the devastating real-world consequences of inadequate cyber resilience. The recent incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency compromised personal data and impacted the organisation’s ability to digitally process legal aid applications and bills.

    Similarly, the attack on Synnovis—a supplier of pathology services to the NHS—caused delays to over 11,000 outpatient and elective procedure appointments and, tragically, contributed to the death of a patient.

    This reality underscores the fact that cyber-security is not a luxury; it is a fundamental component of business continuity, and all organisations should take steps to defend themselves.

    Digitisation offers substantial opportunities to transform lives, deliver better public services, and drive economic growth and digital government. By investing in secure and resilient foundations, we do more than protect and transform public services; we drive innovation and growth within the UK’s cyber-security sector.

    This Government have taken important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risk across Government and the public sector. The Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre, also known as GC3, enables us to respond as one Government to cyber incidents, threats and vulnerabilities. Our secure-by-design approach enables us to “fix forward”, ensuring future digital services are designed to achieve cyber-security resilience outcomes. GovAssure, our cyber assurance process now entering its third year of operations, offers an unprecedented picture of current resilience levels and the fundamental blockers to progress.

    However, the evidence is clear: we must do far more to address the persistent threat. We must move from a model where individual organisations act alone to one where the Government truly defend as one.Toggle showing location ofColumn 8WS

    Today’s Government cyber action plan sets out a radically new model for how Government will operate differently to deliver this necessary transformation. It is backed by investment of over £210 million, led by the Government cyber unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The unit is taking decisive action to rapidly address the recommendations from both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee by holding Departments to account for their cyber-security and resilience risks, as well as providing them with more direct support and services, and co-ordinating response to fast-moving incidents.

  • Michael Shanks – 2026 Statement on Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

    Michael Shanks – 2026 Statement on Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

    The statement made by Michael Shanks, the Minister for Energy, in the House of Commons on 6 January 2026.

    On 30 June 2025, I made an oral statement regarding the deeply disappointing news that Prax Lindsey oil refinery had entered insolvency, and I made a written ministerial statement on 1 July 2025. I also made a written ministerial statement on 22 July 2025 providing further information on the insolvency process led by the official receiver. Today, I am updating the House on the sale of the site and the assets.

    The insolvency process at PLOR is led by the court-appointed official receiver, who must act in accordance with his statutory duties and independently of Government.

    After a thorough process to identify a buyer for the site, the official receiver has determined Phillips 66 Ltd is the most credible bidder that can provide a viable future for this site. The sale is expected to complete in the first half of 2026.

    Phillips 66 is an experienced and credible operator, and this sale allows it to quickly expand operations at its neighbouring Humber refinery, with all remaining 250 staff guaranteed employment until the end of March 2026.

    Phillips 66 plans to integrate key assets into its Humber refinery operations. This will expand Phillips 66’s ability to supply fuel to UK customers from the Humber refinery, boosting domestic energy security, securing jobs including hundreds of new construction jobs over the next five years, and driving future growth opportunities for renewable and traditional fuels.

    This agreement marks the next step in securing an industrial future for the site and the workers, who were badly let down by their former owners.

    The former owners left the company in a poor state and gave the Government very little time to act. That is why the Energy Secretary immediately demanded the Insolvency Service launch an investigation into their conduct and the circumstances surrounding insolvency. That investigation is ongoing.

  • Charlie Maynard – 2026 Speech on Tissue Freezing for Advanced Brain Cancer Treatment

    Charlie Maynard – 2026 Speech on Tissue Freezing for Advanced Brain Cancer Treatment

    The statement made by Charlie Maynard, the Liberal Democrat MP for Witney, in Westminster Hall on 7 January 2026.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for securing the debate, and I thank Ellie for all her work, as well as Hugh and the others who are pushing very hard on this issue—many thanks indeed.

    I want to try to make this debate a bit broader in two directions. My sister, Georgie, also has a glioblastoma. She was diagnosed two and a half years ago and has been incredibly brave and determined, working with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and Ellie to try to get more brain cancer justice, and driving that debate. That also applies to many people in my constituency of Witney who have brain tumours but also tumours of all sorts of cancers.

    We ought to be considering two things. First, I ask the Minister to consider making tumour tissue freezing standard for all cancerous tumour tissues, not just brain. However close the issue is to my heart, I think it is inequitable to just focus on brain tumours. We have to try to get all tumour tissues frozen as standard, and the economies of scale mean that makes sense.

    The other thing is how we have equitable and public health-oriented access to that tissue once it is stored, which we as a country are massively failing on. I ask the Minister to consider reforming the Human Tissue Act 2004, which could be broadened in terms of what is legally permitted in research contexts. That would create explicit legal pathways for retrospective clinical samples.

    First, clinical tissue, such as biopsies and diagnostic archives, could be routinely made available for public health research under clear safeguards, without requiring separate project-by-project consent. Secondly, requirements for de-identified tissue could be simplified, clarifying that truly anonymised, non-identifiable samples can be used without consent or an HTA licence for a wider range of research, rather than just narrowly defined exceptions.

    Thirdly, licences could be converted to broader authorisations. Instead of a licence for each tissue bank, accredited biobanks could be allowed to supply samples under nationally recognised frameworks. Fourthly, DNA analysis rules could be reworked. Barriers to genomic public health research could be reduced by redefining or narrowing the offence of having tissue for DNA analysis, provided that strong data protection is ensured. That is one big chunk.

    The second big chunk I am asking for—there are only two—is that we reform the Human Tissue Act 2004 to apply a default system similar to the one we now use nationally for organ donation to tumour tissue data. To do so, Parliament would need to amend the HTA to introduce a deemed consent regime for residual tumour tissue and derived data. That would be limited to public interest cancer research, with a statutory and simple opt-out, strict purpose limits and enhanced oversight by the Human Tissue Authority.

    The model would mirror the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019, but apply just to data derived primarily from tumour tissue. In plain English, that means that we have something that works for organ donations and saves lives day in, day out. If any of us die, our organs are taken and our next of kin can opt out if they choose. The great majority of people do not opt out. That has meant that many more organs have been available, which has saved lives. Somebody may want to dispose of their tumour tissue, but the great majority of us do not; we would want it used for public health and science, so having it as an automatic—

    Monica Harding

    I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend mid flow, because that is a really interesting concept. I draw his attention to a BBC article from today about using centuries-old samples of tumours from bowel cancer to work out why there is such a massive increase in bowel cancer among young people. I do not understand the science of it, but surely that is a step forward for our research as well.

    Charlie Maynard

    My hon. Friend speaks to the point. Of course, those people have been dead for many centuries, but we believe it is worth being able to access that information, and at the moment it is not accessible in most cases. That is something we really want to change.

    I look to Denmark’s registry-first legal architecture, with mandatory health registries covering cancer diagnoses, pathology, genomics, and treatment and outcomes. The Danish cancer registry automatically records tumour data, covers the entire population and is used for research, oversight and quality improvement. Participation is automatic, with opt-outs rather than being consent-based. Our Government are seeking to rapidly expand our national genomics capabilities, and I applaud them for that, but without far better and more sensible access to the base tissue, with appropriate safeguards, there is no genomics-based, population-wide health service.