Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has made the case extremely well. I think I have heard unanimous opinion around the Chamber that we should not only do this, but do it now with some urgency. Flexibility first is the way to go. I will go one level further than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who called this a “win-win”: I would call this a win-win-win. We can shave £1.3 billion off infrastructure costs through actions like this, which will be reflected in every single person’s bill. That is a massive win. It is also a win for producers because it is easier to balance production and consumption, and it is a win for individual consumers who will reduce their individual prices. It is three wins in one. Why would we not want to do that?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel)—we should have done this yesterday. The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago; the second best time is now. We are at the point of the second best time, but let us use this time and make sure that it happens. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate in pushing the Government to take action urgently.

When preparing for this debate, I remembered a geography school trip I went on where we looked at last-century solutions for balancing the grid. We went to visit Dinorwig, which is a pumped storage system—or was; I am not sure it is still going—in the hills in Wales. During the night, it pumps the water from the lake at the bottom of the hill up into a corrie at the top—aptly, as it turns out. As was quoted in the ad break in the middle of “Coronation Street”, when people switched on their kettles and created a power surge, that system could switch on in 30 seconds and provide significant amounts of power into the grid. It was a very good solution, but it is last century’s solution. What we need is an information-based solution, an individually empowering solution, such as we are talking about here, with consumer flexibility coming first.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes a point about a modern solution. I have felt for some time that our supermarkets, with the installation of bi-directional chargers, could offer consumers the opportunity to bring their mobile energy source—their EV—as a power supply during peak times for supermarkets; in return, consumers could be offered a discount on their shopping for that hour. When the Minister makes his comments, I would welcome his thoughts on whether we need to go further with bi-directional chargers in supermarkets.

[Martin Wrigley]

That had not occurred to me, but it is an amazing idea; people taking their mobile power source with them—fantastic.

That brings me on to other solutions that we should be looking at, particularly community energy generation, community networks and community power consortia, as well as business inclusion—businesses that can generate more electricity during the day than they are using. We should be encouraging those things to happen, moving away from the centralised model of the past and towards the distributed and inclusive model of the future.

While flexibility is an excellent step, it will obviously not solve all the issues. We still need to fundamentally change energy generation contracts to de-link the cost of electricity from the price of gas. That will need to be done as well, but all these things are largely contractual issues, not technical ones. We do not need to reinvent something humongously different; we simply need to get the contracts right and change the energy market. I say “simply”—I understand that these changes have their complexities, but they are achievable. We know what we need to do.

The other massive energy issue is home insulation, which must not be forgotten. It is the single most important thing we need to do to reduce our fuel usage. The district council that I led demonstrated that very well—I draw hon. Members attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which notes that I am still a councillor on Teignbridge district council—when it started building council houses for the first time in 30 years. The first pair of semi-detached houses that we built are well insulated, with solar panels on the roof and air source heat pumps. At the height of the gas price crisis, the power bill for that home was just £500. We can do that with modern insulation and modern efficiencies.

Flexibility is one extra piece that we need to further reduce the cost. It is all part of a journey, and we are going in the right direction. I urge the Government to take faster action and to do everything they can to make it happen. As we have heard, industry is already looking for it. Let us make it happen.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As ever, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Opposition have a deep and growing concern about the direction in which Ministers of this Government are taking our energy system. It is a direction that depends increasingly on the weather, and I do not believe that anyone in this House should pretend that such dependence makes our country more secure. I have battled with this in my own constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, where large-scale solar development projects threaten to consume vast areas of productive farmland and countryside while adding yet more intermittent generation to an already fragile system.

Expanding weather-dependent capacity without addressing firm power needs not only strains local communities, but further undermines the resilience of our national grid. We are also moving towards a system in which electricity supply must follow the wind rather than meeting the needs of households and businesses. This is being presented as modern, progressive and resilient. In truth, it is none of those things. It is a system built on hope rather than reliability, which is not what this country needs.

The National Energy System Operator has already set out that the future system will require a very large amount of what it calls flexible demand to prevent power shortages and to keep the lights on. “Flexible demand” is a polite phrase. What it means is encouraging or requiring people to use electricity at times when they might not want to use it. It means shifting everyday life around the weather to accommodate low output from wind power. That is not energy security; it is energy insecurity by design.

As the economist Sir Dieter Helm has put it, such arrangements amount to voluntary power cuts, because they rely on people reducing their demand whenever renewable output falls. Sir Dieter has also warned that wind and solar do not provide firm power and that without enough firm capacity, the system simply cannot function reliably.

The facts support Sir Dieter. A recent study of wind patterns found that extended periods of very low wind are surprisingly common and can last a week or more. These wind lulls occur at times, and for durations that exceed the capability of storage and interconnectors to compensate. In those conditions, families, hospitals and industry cannot simply wait for the breeze to return, yet that is exactly what the current strategy risks requiring them to do.

Consumers are already paying the price for an energy system that prioritises intermittency over reliability. According to the Nuclear Industry Association, balancing costs, which are the payments needed to bring dispatchable power online when renewable output is too low, reached £2.1 billion between January and September this year. That represents a 25% increase on the previous year. These costs add nothing to the strength of the system; they simply mask its weakness and push bills upwards.

NESO’s winter outlook for 2025-26 forecasts an operational margin of 6.1 GW. Although this is the highest margin since 2019, the operator warns that there will still be tighter periods, when further interventions may be needed. In other words, even now, with relatively healthy margins, the system is fragile. As more dispatchable plants retire and more intermittent generation comes online, that fragility will only deepen. That point leads me to the most pressing issue underpinning this debate.

At the end of this decade, the United Kingdom faces a firm capacity crunch. Older baseload and dispatchable plants are closing, and they are not being replaced at the required scale. Nuclear projects are delayed, investment in new gas capacity has slowed, and Government strategy appears to assume that flexibility and good fortune will fill the gap. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has called for greater private investment in gas power stations to provide the security of supply that only firm capacity can deliver, yet the Government persist in placing their hopes in demand shifting and in a growing share of intermittent power. That is not a credible energy strategy for a modern industrial economy. Other major economies are not taking this gamble; they are investing in firm, reliable power generation, because they understand that energy security is the foundation of economic strength and national resilience.

I ask all Members to consider what this would mean in a time of national emergency or war. In such circumstances, our productive capacity would need to run at full speed, continuously and without interruption. A system that is built around weather-dependent electricity and consumer demand shifting simply could not meet that requirement. We should not resign ourselves to an energy future in which households are constantly asked to postpone cooking, heating or charging appliances during peak times purely to compensate for low wind output, nor should business be expected to halt operations because the breeze has dropped. Innovations that give consumers the option to save money or lower bills are welcome. Where demand flexibility is voluntary and genuinely benefits consumers it should be encouraged, but it must never become the cornerstone of our national energy strategy. Flexibility should support the system, not prop up its structural weakness.

Our ambition as a country should be far higher. We should aim for an energy system that provides cheap, reliable and abundant electricity at all times of day and in all seasons; a system that does not depend on weather patterns and does not require consumers to become the balancing mechanism; a system with enough firm capacity built in that the lights remain on, even in the stillest winter week.

[Martin Wrigley]

May I draw to the hon. Member’s attention the analogy with off-peak train tickets? That is a similar way of using flexibility and offering consumers cheaper tickets when the trains are empty. He would have us believe that that is not a good thing, but it is exactly the same with offering flexibility in electricity consumption.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the trains will continue to run 24/7, whereas we are talking about a system in which if renewable sources drop and the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, the electricity is not there. I am not sure that his analogy is necessarily a helpful one, but I hear the point that he makes.

Ministers are creating a system that depends on the weather, while claiming that it makes us more secure. It simply does not. It papers over a capacity crisis that is approaching fast, and it risks burdening families and businesses with the consequences of that miscalculation. True energy security requires firm power, serious planning, serious investment and, above all, a willingness to confront reality rather than wishing it away. I urge the Government to rethink their approach and pursue a strategy based on reliability first and flexibility second. The country deserves nothing less.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals and for working with the Critical Minerals Association; their work in advance of this strategy was incredibly helpful. He speaks well in championing his area in Cornwall, where there are projects involving Cornish Lithium and British Lithium. I can assure him that I will meet both those companies and speak to the management and the workforce when I am in Cornwall tomorrow.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I welcome the ambition and importance of this new strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on recognising that Devon is the source of more than just cream teas and tourism. The Devon minerals plan has more in it than the critical minerals: my constituency has an application for an extension to dig up Zitherixon ball clay, a substance found in the middle of the town of Kingsteignton and in the war zone in Ukraine.

May I have the Minister’s assurance that, although we have a justified urge to get these minerals out, we will not abandon the environmental and residential concerns of our constituents in the areas impacted? Does he also acknowledge that transport is important and that Devon needs the Dawlish rail line to support these minerals?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Please keep questions short. They are not speeches.

Future of the Post Office

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

As I have said, in our view we should retain the current size of the network and the current access criteria, which are key to ensuring that every community, whether rural or urban, has good access to post office services. I encourage the hon. Lady to reach out to the Post Office to discuss the particular issues facing the businesses to which she has referred, which are interested in running post office branches but feel unable to do so, to see whether anything can be done to ease those local challenges.

More generally, the issue the hon. Lady raises partly speaks to the challenge of increasing postmaster remuneration. Post Office senior management clearly recognise that: there was a £20 million uplift in postmaster remuneration in the last financial year, there will be a £66 million increase this year, and Post Office management are committed to looking to go even further. I hope that will make the opportunity to run a post office much more attractive, and may address some of the financial challenges she raised.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I was slightly concerned that the franchising of Crown post offices, such as the one at Teignmouth in my constituency, has already gone ahead, prior to the consultation. Turning to a different issue, Royal Mail is obligated to provide a post box within half a mile of any house, but many new estates in my constituency have no access to a post box—they are just not there. Will the Minister put pressure on Royal Mail to ensure that post boxes are provided?

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that specific matter. I will happily draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is responsible for Royal Mail, to that issue. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, but I am not aware of the details of the issue in his constituency, but he may want to write to us at the Department so that we pass the details directly to Royal Mail.

Company Directors (Duties) Bill

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Under current UK law, company directors have one overriding duty: to maximise shareholder interest. This narrow, outdated legal framework of shareholder primacy has created a culture in which short-term financial performance overrides long-term sustainability. The Bill will amend section 172 of the Companies Act to change the duty of company directors by requiring them to balance the needs of shareholders with those of employees and the environment, thereby building better and more sustainable businesses. The Institute of Directors backs this change, which will empower directors to do the right thing for their business. It will drive the sustainable growth needed to turbocharge our economy and help to realise the Government’s ambitions for growth.

The Bill gives directors the legal clarity and freedom to make better, long-term decisions, moving away from the short-term drive of a quarter’s profits. Businesses focused on their stakeholders, not solely on shareholder returns, consistently outperform their counterparts. Last year, UK B corps increased their turnover by 23%, compared with the national average of 17%, and they saw a 9.6% increase in employee headcount, compared with a national decrease of 0.5%. Moreover, research conducted by Demos on behalf of the Better Business Act highlighted that a purpose-led economy would boost UK GDP by £149 billion.

It is clear that embracing stakeholder primacy improves financial performance. The law should encourage this, not obstruct it. It is time to change the law to follow the example of the thousands of businesses and organisations that have seen that better business works well. With this change, we can help to build better businesses and a better Britain.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on introducing the Bill and on squeezing in his remarks under the wire. He made some important observations. Clearly, we do not have the time we would like to explore the provisions in more detail, but I understand that I will be engaging with him—

[Martin Wrigley]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

I may have anticipated the hon. Member’s intervention; I will be engaging with him shortly on the Bill’s provisions. It is not a Bill that the Government will be able to support, but I do want to have further conversations with him about it. It is important that we recognise directors’ duties for what they are: a cornerstone of UK company law. They help to ensure that companies are run responsibly and, importantly, that directors act with integrity at all times.

We are really talking about section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which the Bill seeks to amend. That is a key part of the directors’ duties framework, which was developed in the light of the major company law review commissioned by the previous Labour Government. I want to be clear that section 172 as it stands already places a legal duty on directors to have regard in their decision making to the interests of employees and the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment. It also requires directors to consider a range of other factors, including the impact of any decision on the long-term success of the company.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Of course my hon. Friend is right. I want to thank everybody who has campaigned and worked for so long on the mineworkers’ pension and everybody who has been in touch with me and with colleagues across the House on the BCSSS. One of the most humbling events I have been to in my political life was speaking to former miners following the announcement on the mineworkers’ pension. I am incredibly grateful to the many people who have campaigned and who are getting in touch and showing us how important this is. Of course, we completely understand it.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

This is a new topic to me personally. I was contacted by a constituent whose late husband, a good friend of mine, Michael Green, worked for British Coal at the time. He too was passionate that this money should be returned to the miners. Does the Minister agree that we need to get on with this and get this to happen as quickly as possible?

[Sarah Jones]

We are certainly moving as fast as we can. I will explain where the process has got to, and I hope that Members will be reassured.

The transfer of £1.5 billion from the mineworkers’ pension boosted pensions by 32%, which was an average increase of £29 a week for each member. The hon. Member for Ashfield made the point that this is about putting money not just into people’s pockets but into local communities, and that is incredibly important. I also understand that in the context of the BCSSS in exactly the same way. My officials are working closely with the trustees of the mineworkers’ pension on the review of the future surplus sharing arrangements, and we hope to come forward with proposals and reach an agreement on that soon. Having worked closely with the coalfield communities on the delivery of the mineworkers’ pension, I completely recognise the strength of feeling on the BCSSS.

Non-disclosure Agreements

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this important debate.

We have heard from Members how widespread this issue is: we heard about the hospitality industry and the creative industries, we just heard about teachers, and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) told us that it occurs in every HR department. I am horrified that it also happens in the NHS. I was approached by a constituent whose employment as an NHS nurse was terminated, but I do not know many of the details, because she cannot speak to me about it. Her employment was terminated due to—how can I put it best?—a medical condition that she suffered and is now over, but she cannot talk about it, and it has given her issues ever since. I do not know how many people in my constituency fall into that category, because, as the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley said, they cannot talk to us about it.

[Mrs Russell]

Typically, the agreement’s wording will contain an exemption for whistleblowing—the Solicitors Regulation Authority says it must—so the chances are that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent can actually talk to him about the details, and he can refer to it under parliamentary privilege. However, most people do not fully understand the relationship between the whistleblowing exemptions—they are extremely limited and tightly drafted and say that someone can only speak to very limited people in very limited circumstances to whistleblow in line with the law—and the broader statement that I referred to: “You cannot discuss the circumstances surrounding your employment.” Unless someone has had good legal advice that makes that really clear, and they can retain that quite sophisticated combination, they do not understand. The exemptions that we have just do not work.

[Martin Wrigley]

I fully agree. Absolutely—people do not know what they can do.

Will the Minister investigate how widespread the use of NDAs is in the NHS? Given that it is probably in the Government’s power to ban it in the NHS without primary legislation, will he take steps immediately to have it stopped and seek what recompense is required for those who have suffered it?

I agree absolutely that this practice must be stopped entirely. It is just one of many poor practices that are carried out by some businesses—not all, but some—often unwittingly. That is why I introduced my Company Directors (Duties) Bill, which will have its Second Reading debate on 4 July. Right now, the company directors’ duties say that they must put shareholder interests first and might have regard to other things. My Bill—I hope the Minister will consider working with me on making it happen—would change company law so that directors have a duty to balance the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment. I seek the support of Members present to make the Bill law; I hope that we can have further discussions to see what we can do to get it into the Government’s schedule. Until we put that balance at the foundation of the company directors’ duties, it will be impossible to get rid of circumstances, such as those the hon. Member for Congleton described, where company directors behave badly.

I fully support the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on all the issues that she identified and will happily engage and do whatever I can to advance work on them.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The Front-Bench speeches will need to start by 10.28 am. I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I shall come on to the action that we are taking a bit later. None the less, that is an important point: there are legitimate uses for NDAs and it is important that we get that balance right, making sure that those commercial and legitimate business interests are protected while, at the same time, not deliberately silencing victims. NDAs should never be used to silence victims of harassment or any other misconduct in the workplace.

There are important legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. Any clauses of an NDA that were to stop a worker from blowing the whistle, for example by making a protected disclosure to a lawyer or a prescribed person, are not enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer could also amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains would be void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effects of that agreement.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have both published guidance on NDAs to ensure that workers and employers understand those limitations, but we have heard from many hon. Members that the guidance is not being observed in practice as much as we would expect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley mentioned the guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which has issued an updated warning notice to remind the legal profession that NDAs should never be used to try to prevent the lawful disclosure of serious misconduct or potential crime. The SRA is also clear that evidence of the use of inappropriate clauses in such agreements may lead to disciplinary action.

Nevertheless, we hear the calls to go further, and the issues raised today highlight some of the key areas that we want to further investigate. It is clear that there are still serious concerns about how employers are using NDAs to silence employees. We have heard today that victims often feel that they are left with little choice but to leave their employer, without any assurance that their employer is addressing the misconduct and dealing with the perpetrator.

[Martin Wrigley]

Does the Minister agree that we need to change the social contract for companies such that they no longer take all the benefits of limited liability and simply focus on shareholder value? Will he support my better business Bill—the Company Directors (Duties) Bill—which will have its Second Reading on 4 July, and meet me to discuss it? The Bill is backed by some 3,000 businesses, the Institute of Directors and others. As I mentioned, it would balance the responsibility of company directors with the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment; fundamentally change their basic responsibilities in how they run their companies; and therefore turn the purpose of the company to good, including that of the employees. It would prevent many of the circumstances that we are describing today.

[Justin Madders]

I have not seen the hon. Member’s Bill, and I suspect that its application is rather broader than just to the topic we are debating. We are looking at corporate governance, and in due course we intend to introduce legislation that may pick up on a number of the issues addressed by his Bill.

As we have touched on, a number of recent reports, such as the Women and Equalities Committee’s “Misogyny in music” and the Treasury Committee’s “Sexism in the City”, highlight that NDAs do not stand up in a court of law and are often used to chill victims.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke about the good work of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. I understand that the Culture Secretary recently met the authority to discuss how they can work together to improve workplace standards and behaviour in the creative industries. We want to support the authority moving forward; that is a matter for the Culture Secretary, and I am sure that she continues to engage with it.

Local Post Offices

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed. I think the hon. Member had read the next sentence of my speech, which was about the post office branch housed in WHSmith on Fore Street in Taunton. That business is potentially up for sale, which poses risks. The loss of such post offices would leave a huge gap across the country, particularly in county towns like Taunton. In the course of his work, will the Minister get concrete assurances from WHSmith that post offices in its stores will be retained following the sale? It is important that the Government get assurances from WHSmith on that point.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The distinction between Crown post offices and franchised post offices cannot be drawn heavily enough. In my constituency, we lost Crown post offices in Newton Abbot and in Dawlish, and the one in Teignmouth—which I believe is the last in my constituency; all the rest are franchises—is now under threat. Does he agree that the franchise system can provide a useful service but is absolutely no substitute for the full Crown post office service, which must remain?

[Gideon Amos]

I agree. I am sure that the Government will say in due course that, whatever its exact business model, a viable post office is what matters, and there would be some truth in that, but a secure post office, established for the long term, is what really matters.

The worries we hear from across the House and the country are not without foundation. We have seen worrying closures across the country. Notably, as has been mentioned, there was a recent consultation on the closure of 150 post offices. The loss of branches means that fewer communities can access vital services. House of Commons data shows that the number of post offices is rising overall, but in the south-west, which has lost more post offices than any other region in England, it is falling.

Wellington in my constituency lost its post office in 2019, and we can see the damage caused by that loss. Wellington is not a small town; it has 15,000 residents and is growing fast. Its population has grown by a third over the past two decades according to census data, and around 1,500 new homes have been built there in recent years. It also has a proud history as the home of Fox Brothers & Co, which has been manufacturing the finest flannels and fabrics for over 250 years and also owned its own bank—the Fox bank on Fore Street was the last bank in the country to issue its own banknotes. It is unacceptable for such a town to have no main post office. Losing the post office in 2019 has been a real blow. One constituent told me that he finds it

“totally baffling why Wellington Post Office was ever closed”.

It is particularly difficult for those without access to a car to visit the nearest alternative at Rockwell Green, a village several miles away. If they do, residents often find that the sub-post office is oversubscribed, with queues out the door. As a small village post office, it was only intended to provide for small numbers, and when it is open, parking has become a bit of a nightmare.

Budget Resolutions

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

We know that growth comes from investing in productivity and skills, and I, too, welcome the £22 billion for the NHS. Long-term public investment is essential for the security and stability that the UK needs. However, we heard about the issues relating to employers’ NI contributions, which will hit doctors, dentists, care homes and local hospices, adding a significant amount to their annual cost base per employee.

There is also pressure on voluntary, community and social enterprises. In my district, Teignbridge Community and Voluntary Services tells me that the sector employs some 3% of the local population, who are now all subject to the NI increase. Although it is better than nothing, the business rates reduction from 75% to 40% will disappoint local retail, hospitality and leisure businesses—not forgetting the inheritance tax threat to Devon’s family farms. There is nothing in this Budget for social care, for Devon’s crumbling hospitals or for Devon’s essential transport.

[Ben Maguire]

Bank shares are soaring following this Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat proposal to reverse the Conservative Government’s cut to the big bank levy, raising around £4 billion a year, would mean that we would not need the GP tax, the family farm tax or the winter fuel cut and that we could fund upgrades to the Treliske, Derriford and North Devon hospitals—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This is too long an intervention.

[Martin Wrigley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are other ways that this money could have been found. The Liberal Democrats have long been saying that we should be looking to the banks, the big oil companies and the big international tech companies to pay their fair share, and that is where money should be sought.

There is nothing in the Budget for Devon’s essential transport. Last year’s pothole fund was a “drop in the ocean”, according to Devon County Council, and the 50% increase in this Budget still leaves a big hole. Not even mentioned in the Budget is the completion of the Dawlish rail resilience project, which is key to connecting the south-west. Without funding, the design team will soon be redeployed and all the progress to date will be lost. This project will cost millions more if it is not done now, and I urge the Minister to meet us to get it funded. Growth in the economy in Devon and Cornwall is heavily dependent on fast, reliable train services, and we saw what happened with Dawlish.

The Budget also mentioned housing and local government. Until July, I was leader of my district council, and I am proud that the Lib Dem administration started building council homes—the first in 30 years. They were cheap to rent and cheap to heat because they were well insulated and powered by air source heat pumps and solar power. Additional capital for social homes is welcome, but the frozen local housing allowance hampers housing associations that have already scaled back their plans for development, and commercial developers will still try to cut affordable homes from section 106 responsibilities.

The Budget also offers 300 new planning officers, but those are spread very thinly over the 326 planning authorities. Newton Abbot’s social housing need has increased by 50%. In my constituency—like in Ely—the average house price is 11 times the average earnings and rents have soared. The broken housing market is failing Newton Abbot, and the proposed changes to the planning rules are insufficient to fix it. Homes are unreachable for too many families. People are being denied the right to a safe and secure place to call home.

I welcome the multi-year settlements for councils and the removal of the “Hunger Games”-style bidding for grants involving huge amounts of wasted efforts writing bids and unachievable timeframes. We cannot let that centralised control continue. We need real devolution, but devolution is not just reorganisation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Rosie Wrighting.