Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank those who have shown up for this debate; we may not have a large quantity here, but I am sure that we will have quality. My role this afternoon is primarily to introduce the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, outline some of the arguments that have been raised and give colleagues an opportunity to consider the issue.

Let me start by thanking the many thousands of people who signed this petition, which was started by Barry McIlhinney from Perth in Kinross-shire. It gathered more than 129,000 signatures, including 252 of my South Cotswolds constituents. It may not surprise anybody to hear that the four constituencies with the highest number of signatories were Fareham and Waterlooville, Newark, Romford and East Wiltshire—I shall leave it to hon. Members to spot the pattern.

Whatever view Members may take on the proposal, it is clear that the petition touches on what some commentators have called a crisis of confidence in our democracy: the suspicion—we can debate whether it is a fair one—that some MPs are here less to represent the interests of their constituents, and more to represent their own. The petition reflects a wider public interest in the relationship between voters and those who represent them, and in how that relationship operates in the intervals between general elections. The key question is, when voters decide who to vote for, what exactly are they choosing? Some argue that voters elect an individual, full stop, and that what matters most is the person whose name appears on the ballot paper. However, others suggest that party affiliation is a significant part of how voters make their decision, as they view a candidate’s political party as shorthand for a particular set of values and attitudes.

I would suggest that in the real world, for many voters, the decision that they make in the privacy of the polling booth at a general election is a complicated calculation: an algorithm involving party values, historical loyalties, headline policies, party leaders, local reputations and individual personalities. In our first-past-the-post system, that also increasingly includes tactical voting, as in many cases voters feel that they must choose not simply the candidate that they most admire, but the one most likely to defeat the candidate that they most fear. That is one of the quirks—some may even say flaws—of our electoral system. MPs may like to think that every vote that they win is the result of their particular blend of wit, charm and intelligence, but I suspect that, if elections were decided purely on our unique personalities, many of us might not be in this Chamber at all.

My point is that voters often consider a range of factors when deciding how to cast their vote. This petition invites us to consider what should happen if one such factor—political party affiliation—changes during the course of a Parliament. Political parties clearly play a very real role in getting their candidates elected, investing time, money, wisdom and infrastructure. Parties pay the deposits and give their candidates training, campaign support and access to networks of volunteers. It could be argued that an exceptionally cynical candidate could simply align themselves with the party that had the most successful campaigning machine, and then promptly jump ship once they arrive here—I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody would do such a thing.

During a general election campaign, the people knocking on doors, delivering leaflets early in the morning, getting out the vote late in the evening and standing outside polling stations in the rain are often long-standing party members, supporting the person they see as their party’s candidate. Many would argue that party affiliation forms an important part of the democratic bargain made with voters at a general election. However, at the same time, others emphasise that MPs are elected as representatives rather than as delegates, and that they must retain the freedom to exercise their judgment and follow their conscience once elected.

This petition therefore invites us to consider where the balance should lie between those two contrasting principles. The question is whether the current constitutional arrangements strike the correct balance, or whether there should be some additional form of democratic mechanism when an MP decides to move to another party.

Some argue that a by-election would allow voters to confirm whether they still support their MP after a change in party affiliation. They also argue that, if the defecting MP is sufficiently confident in their wit, charm and intelligence and that they hold a special place in the hearts of their constituents, they should not be afraid to return to the polls.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

All political parties undertake a vast amount of data collection on their voter base. A good proportion of that data illustrates that the vast majority of people will cast their vote based on the political party rather than the individual. The individual carries less weight in someone’s mind when they cast their vote. Therefore, does the hon. Member agree that triggering a by-election on the basis of a defection is crucial to ensure that voters are represented by someone who reflects how the vast majority cast their vote at the ballot box?

[Dr Savage]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point. My main job today, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, is to present both sides of the argument, but the point about data on voting intentions, which we work so hard to glean on doorsteps, is a key factor in the debate.

Others raise concerns that a requirement for a by-election could have unintended consequences, including potentially strengthening the power of party leaderships or discouraging MPs from following their conscience due to legitimate dissent. At this point, I want to clarify that when talking about defections, I am not talking about the case where an MP loses the Whip for reasons to do with the leadership, but about voluntary defections undertaken by an MP themselves. I do not think any of us would want a world where party Whips could threaten an MP with a mandatory by-election if we displease them in some way.

Public opinion on this question appears to be mixed, although polling suggests it is an issue on which many people hold strong views. Some surveys indicate that around 40% of respondents believe that it is unacceptable for an MP to defect, while others suggest that a majority of voters think a defection should trigger some sort of electoral test. Those numbers do not resolve the constitutional question, but they suggest that people far outside Westminster really care about this matter.

It is also worth putting the question into perspective. Party defections in this country are relatively rare, although they obviously sometimes occur in clusters during periods of political turbulence—possibly such as we are going through now. The last MPs to resign their seats and seek fresh mandate after defecting were Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless in 2014, when they left the Conservative party to join UKIP. They refought their seats in by-elections.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making the case well on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Over the years, there have been a number of examples of some of my former Conservative colleagues ending up alongside Lib Dems in the House of Commons. In those circumstances, is the hon. Lady of the view that there should have been a by-election for those MPs to get their mandates restated?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. What we are talking about is the principle of the matter rather than specific defections from any one party to another.

This constitutional question has also been considered by Parliament previously. In 2011, a private Member’s Bill proposed that MPs who changed their party affiliation would have to face a by-election, and in 2020, another Bill proposed extending the Recall of MPs Act 2015 so that a voluntary change of party could trigger a recall petition. Neither progressed through Parliament, but the fact that the issue has arisen more than once suggests that it raises enduring questions about representation and accountability.

I would like to share some perspectives from other countries, because this is not a uniquely British debate, and other democracies have taken different approaches. Some, such as India, have adopted strict anti-defection laws under which MPs can lose their seat if they leave the party on whose ticket they were elected. Indian MPs are also, for the most part, compelled to vote with the Whip, which must make votes very, very boring. Others, such as New Zealand, have legislation designed to discourage what is sometimes referred to as “waka jumping”—I am reliably informed that that is effectively jumping from one canoe to another, which I can say from personal experience sounds like a very bad idea—although that approach has also prompted debate about the balance of power between MPs and party leadership. South Africa experimented with allowing MPs to cross the Floor, but later decided that that was a poor idea and prohibited it. That shows that views can change about how best to preserve electoral legitimacy.

The UK system has its own traditions and constitutional principles. Party affiliation plays an important role in how Governments are formed and how legislation passes, but MPs are also expected to exercise independent judgment. All of that means that there is no simple or obvious answer to the question raised by the petition of whether the current arrangements already strike the right balance between representation, independence and accountability, or whether there might be merit in exploring alternative mechanisms.

What is clear from the petition is that many members of the public care deeply about the relationship between voters and their representatives, how it works in practice and whether they feel that they are being represented in this place. I very much look forward to hearing the views of Members from across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

At the start of the debate, I suggested that we might make up for lack of quantity with quality, and I think we have delivered on that promise. I thank colleagues from across the Chamber for their most thoughtful, fascinating and wide-ranging contributions to the debate. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her interesting diversion into the many other ways in which we could help to restore faith in our democracy, such as a fairer voting system and House of Lords reform.

I echo the regret expressed by a number of colleagues that parliamentary procedure precludes the Chair from jumping into the conversation. I am sure that that would have been a most fascinating—

[Lisa Smart]

Hour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

Yes—but I believe that this Chamber will be available until at least 7.30 pm, so perhaps we could have an impromptu seminar.

I trust that Mr McIlhinney and the other signatories to the petition will feel that we have done justice to their concerns and will appreciate the calibre of the debate, even if the constituencies that I mentioned at the outset are not going to be dusting off their ballot boxes any time soon. I thank everyone present for their most valuable contributions.

Middle East

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I assure her and her constituents that all necessary measures are being taken to keep her constituents safe in relation to the use of the base in her constituency; that is a first-order priority for us, and that is what we are doing.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

We know so much now, 10 years on from the referendum, about the economic impacts of the Conservative Brexit deal. I will not spend too much time discussing them, other than to say that they come up every time I knock on a door in Reading that belongs to an owner of a small or medium-sized enterprise. Across the UK, their exports have fallen by almost a third since Brexit. We are now bearing the costs of that.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yuan Yang]

No thank you.

There is much we can now do to mitigate the costs of Brexit for our constituents, including securing a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement with the EU. I ask the Minister to give an update on the progress of that. Colleagues on the living standards coalition of MPs found that securing such an agreement could reduce EU food import prices by between 3% to 6% in the next few years. That will go a substantial way to reducing our constituents’ cost of living.

In order to move forward, we have to look at where we are now and see how the world sees us. In my previous job reporting on trade from Brussels as a British journalist for a British newspaper, I would often attract wry comments from other members of the European Commission and community about my nationality and the choices that my country made. During the years of the Brexit negotiations, we had five Foreign Secretaries and six Business Secretaries, so no wonder they had some comments about my Government.

Contrast that with the reception that our Prime Minister had at the Munich Security Conference. I was in the audience and heard the spontaneous applause when the Prime Minister declared that

“we are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore”,

that we must

“build a stronger Europe and a more European NATO”,

and that

“there is no British security without Europe, and no European security without Britain.”

Security does not just mean defence—it means food, energy, and climate and the environment, and I am proud that in my constituency we have one of the last remaining European institutions headquartered in the UK: the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which will build on its new site. Soon, it will raise the British flag alongside the flags of all its partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate. In 2016, the British people were offered a vision of life outside the European Union built on easy promises: £350 million a week for the NHS, effortless global trade deals, and all the benefits of membership with none of the obligations. There was no detailed blueprint, no agreed destination and no serious plan. As the still comparatively new Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, I am acutely aware that my predecessor played a large part in leading us down that track.

Ten years on, we are living with the consequences of those events. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit has suppressed UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, a loss equivalent to around £250 million a day. The trade deals struck with Australia and New Zealand amount to a fraction of 1% of GDP. They do not come close to compensating for the loss of frictionless trade with our largest and closest market, Europe.

[Dr Savage]

With the President of the United States threatening a 15% blanket tariff on all trade with the US, does my hon. Friend agree that a closer relationship with the EU should be at the top of our priority list?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The capriciousness of the United States makes the case for closer economic co-operation with Europe all the greater. This is not abstract. Businesses up and down the UK are grappling with rules of origin paperwork, border delays and lost contracts. Investment is held back. Productivity is squeezed. Growth has slowed.

This is not only about economics. Three quarters of young people voted to remain. A generation has lost the freedom to live, work and study across Europe. We withdrew from Erasmus+. We stepped back from the easy exchange of ideas and opportunity that strengthened our country. At a time of war in our continent, and growing geopolitical instability, stepping back from Europe has not made us stronger. It has left us more exposed.

The Liberal Democrats have always been clear: Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe. We are unapologetically pro co-operation, pro political and economic unions of all shapes and sizes, and pro-European. We believe that sovereignty in the modern world is strengthened by partnership. Pooling power with allies does not diminish Britain: it amplifies us. That is why we have proposed a new UK-EU customs union—a practical, deliverable step to rebuild economic partnership and provide certainty for British businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.

Last year, the House backed that approach in a vote that, for the first time in years, appeared to nudge the Government into speaking seriously about rebuilding our relationship with Europe. A customs union would remove tariffs and rules of origin barriers, cut border friction, strengthen supply chains and support growth. It is neither the final destination nor the sum total of our ambition for the UK—I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry to our four-point plan—but it is the next step in restoring a close economic partnership with the European Union and rebuilding trust with our largest trading partner. That is absolutely essential in the low-trust environment created by the events of the last 10 years.

Britain was, and will always be, a European country. Our prosperity, security and influence depend on recognising that fact. This is not a debate about the past. It is not a betrayal of 2016, as some would have us believe. It is a test of whether we are prepared to act now in the national interest. It is time to be ambitious for the United Kingdom again. It is time to rebuild a serious partnership with Europe. It is time to deliver growth, widen opportunity and secure Britain’s place at the heart of European economic, cultural and strategic life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roz Savage Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: families are desperate for the security of their own homes, and we are delivering the biggest boost to affordable and social housing in a generation, backed by £2 billion of additional investment. That, and our reforms, will fulfil our ambition to build 88,000 new homes in areas across London, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. At the same time, we are tackling the root causes of homelessness, and, of course, scrapping section 21 evictions.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Q5.   Under the Conservatives, inequality has surged. More than 14 million people—including 2,000 children in my constituency—now live in poverty, while the richest 1% see their incomes soar. Of the developed countries, ours is now the ninth most unequal. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats, the public and many of his own Back Benchers and commit himself to reversing changes involving, for instance, the personal independence payment, the winter fuel allowance and the two-child benefit cap, and will he introduce clear poverty reduction targets to ensure that any economic growth benefits those who need it most?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to mention the appalling record of the last Government, which saw 900,000 more children in poverty. We are already delivering 750 free breakfast clubs and boosting the minimum wage for more than 3 million people—the lowest-paid workers in our country—and the child poverty taskforce is looking at every lever that can be pulled. I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on tackling poverty, and we will continue to do that in this Government.

European Union: UK Membership

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies]

We have discussed that in the Chamber recently, and we have seen the fantastic work that the Prime Minister is doing with our close neighbours. Given what we face from Russia—a threat to all of us— working as closely as we can across Europe is crucial at the moment.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

One of the reasons that was given for leaving the EU was that it would allow the UK to develop stronger relations with countries further afield, including the US. However, with the American President being somewhat gung-ho with tariffs, and given his willingness to be best friends with the President of Russia, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should look to strengthen our relations with our nearest cousins in Europe?

[Paul Davies]

Again, this is a subject that we have discussed a number of times in the Chamber. It is crucial that we work very closely with our friends in Europe, and we have seen the need for stability as we move forward in the next few years. The relationship between us and the new President of the US is newly formed and is starting to evolve. The work that is going on to create that relationship is perhaps different from what it has been in the past, but I am confident that, with the fantastic team that we have, along with our Prime Minister, we will establish an ongoing relationship with the US, which is one of our most important partners. However, it is also important for us to be a part of Europe when it comes to security.

One of the primary arguments for leaving the EU was around the issue of sovereignty. Our leaving the EU was driven in part by a desire to regain control over laws and regulations. By rejoining, we would cede some of that control back to Brussels, and that might not sit too well with those who value national sovereignty.

Additionally, the financial cost of EU membership is a significant consideration. The UK would be required to contribute to the EU budget, which could be seen as a burden on taxpayers. Although the economic benefits of membership may offset those costs, it is an important issue to consider.

Then, of course, there is the question of public opinion. We will all remember that the 2016 referendum revealed deep divisions in our society, and the issue of EU membership remains contentious. Rejoining the EU could reignite some of those divisions and lead to further political instability.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that the UK Government have ruled out the possibility of rejoining the European Union. However, since July they have concentrated efforts on strengthening our relationship with the EU. The Government have prioritised resetting the UK’s relationship with the EU, which has involved a series of initiatives aimed at reducing barriers to trade, enhancing security co-operation and fostering closer ties with European partners.

General Election

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700143 relating to a general election.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members and, I bet, a whole heap of politicians in this Parliament when I say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 3 million—3.1 million—signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a truly vast number of people all across the country. For that reason, I personally and most sincerely thank its creator, Mr Michael Westwood, who is with us with his wife, Tanya, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting during the run-up to this debate before Christmas, when we had a long chat.

Mr Westwood created this e-petition with a clear and very simple call. Michael Westwood

“would like there to be another General Election”

on account of his belief that

“the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises”

they made during the lead-up to the last election, which was held, as we all know, in July 2024. When Michael Westwood and I spoke, Michael explained that his reason for creating this petition came from his personal frustration at the lack of transparency and accountability in our election process. He feels that the system does not ensure that the Government of the day are made answerable for unfulfilled manifesto promises and poor governance. Put simply, Mr Westwood believes that it is too easy for political parties—all of us—to mislead the public in order to gain their vote. In the case of the current Government, he believes that there is as yet no sign of Labour’s pledge to kick-start the economy, even after six months in office.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jamie Stone]

I give way to my hon. Friend with the greatest pleasure.

[Dr Savage]

My hon. Friend has my gratitude. Does he agree that although the Government have committed to growth, increasing national insurance contributions to the extent that small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy—are having to lay off staff is an odd way to go about it?

[Jamie Stone]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, that is one particular matter I shall touch on shortly.

On account of the sheer number of signatories to Michael’s petition, it is only reasonable to assume that similar feelings are held by a great number of people currently living in the UK; but before I explore the technicalities of this request for an election, I want to address the purpose of petitions and their significance in our political system as it is today in the UK.

Let us remember that petitions are first and foremost a mechanism of civic engagement and political expression. As individual politicians, each and every one of us resides in this place, in this House, only at the behest of our constituents, and it is surely paramount that a dialogue is always facilitated between us and the public. I say to colleagues that whether we agree or disagree with Mr Westwood’s petition, we should not lose sight of the fact that a petition that garners this much support is surely the sign of a healthy democracy. The fact that we are here today, in this place, debating this matter is surely evidence that we live in a democracy in which our electorate can express discontent, demand our attention and know that we will listen to them and take their concerns seriously. Ultimately, we work for all those who put their name to this petition, and I believe that the Government should welcome their input as a sign that our representative democracy in the UK is alive and well, which is a lot more than can be said for far too many other parts of the world where it is not alive and well at all.

All that said, the petitions system was created to bring to Parliament’s attention issues of policy on which there is strong public feeling. It was not ever intended as a mechanism to circumvent parliamentary democracy or change the terms by which it is conducted. Creating a petition is a means of advocacy and participation. A petition is not an autonomous decision-making tool that can act as a substitute for a representative democracy. We need to remember those important principles.

Income tax (charge)

Roz Savage Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

One thing that we always feel after a Budget is a sense of relief, because we at least know that we are going to get some answers. It feels that when we are talking, campaigning and raising issues, we are always told to wait for the Budget. I was additionally relieved yesterday because my son managed to pass his driving test theory. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.

I do not think the Government need any help in talking about the economic legacy left by the previous Government, but we do have to acknowledge that the funding structures put in place by the previous Government have created a legacy, as well as expectations. I want to talk about those that most directly impact North East Fife, starting with infrastructure funding.

I was pleased to hear the city deal announcement in relation to Argyll and Bute, given that I have an Argyllshire father, but I want to highlight the opportunities within existing city deals to add value and to make up some of the increased costs we have seen in recent years. The town of Newburgh in North East Fife has been cut off from the railway for almost 70 years. It has a line running through it that transports 38 trains a day and for the last 13 years there has been a campaign to rebuild a train station and reconnect it to the line. That makes sense from a number of perspectives: a train station takes cars off the road; it allows investment into the town; it can bring tourists to places such as the Lindores Abbey distillery; and it shortens journey times for those travelling beyond for NHS or other treatments. However, the only mention of railway infrastructure is in relation to the city region sustainable transport settlements, which are for England only. I acknowledge that transport is devolved, but there are ways in which the UK Government could look to work with the Scottish Government in order to help those communities where additional funding could make a difference.

The other element of transport infrastructure is Access for All, which is a UK scheme although the Scottish Government play a part in determining which stations receive support. I want to make an additional call for funding for Leuchars station, which serves St Andrews—although it is one of the best-known parts of my constituency, it does not have a station. It sometimes feels that we have fallen into the cracks between Westminster and Holyrood on that. On disability and on Access for All, we need to do more at all levels to ensure that we deliver the funding.

Returning to the impact of the different funds and schemes that were put in place post following our departure from the EU, and the need to replace EU structural funding, I want to touch on the community ownership fund and the shared prosperity fund. I and other Fife MPs—I see two of them in their places—recently met Fife council to talk about the future of the shared prosperity fund, which is due to end in March 2025. I am pleased by the commitment to continue it for another year, although we need to move away from year-to-year funding. I am sure we all meet third-sector organisations and others who talk about the uncertainty that short-term funding brings to the services that they provide. We also have to acknowledge that the Budget— the relevant passage is very short—will mean that Fife council, for example, will see a cut of about a third in shared prosperity funding, which has delivered programmes such as Kingdom Works, an employability service that has supported over 8,000 people. The Government said in the Budget that they want to reform funding, and I urge them to do so quickly so that we get certainty.

The Liberal Democrats have talked a lot about health and social care. Others have spoken about the fact that we need to focus on social care, because without fixing it, we will not fix the NHS. Again, the NHS is devolved in Scotland. I welcome the significant increase in funding for Scotland; it is now over to the SNP-led Scottish Government to deliver on that. I am pleased, too, that we will see support for public sector organisations in relation to the national insurance increase. However, there is no doubt that the NHS in Scotland is in a dire state. In Fife, there is no NHS dentist currently taking patients, and in my constituency we are seeing further cuts and closures in dental services.

The other thing that I want to say about what I think the Scottish Government should be doing relates to the business rates changes that the UK Government have brought forward. Let me quote one of my constituents, who was reported in today’s Courier newspaper saying about rates relief:

“We don’t have the cliff edge in Scotland. We’ve been paying full rates ever since last summer.”

I accept that that potentially is not covered by the block grant, but given that the whole UK is a tourism destination, the Scottish Government need to look at how they best support hospitality and tourism, because there is a real difference between what is happening in other parts of the UK and what is happening in Scotland.

I should declare an interest at this point: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Scotch whisky and worked for Diageo for four years before my election. At the start of the debate, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster talked about choices. For me, the other aspect of choices is managing expectations. That is where the real issues that I have with the Budget come to the fore.

Mark Kent, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said in The Scotsman today that the decision to increase rates on Scotch whisky

“not only flies in the face of the commitment to back the industry as a core element of the government’s ‘Brand Scotland’ concept, it also serves no economic purpose.”

The Conservatives’ 10.1% increase in alcohol duty was deeply damaging to the whisky industry. In the 12 months since it came into force, revenues from the tax have actually fallen by £298 million, so it is clearly not delivering increased revenue to the Treasury. What we saw from the Government yesterday will continue to hurt the industry, which is so important for Scotland. The Chancellor offered support to breweries through the cut in duty on draught products, but that will do nothing to support responsible drinking. Taxing based on strength of alcohol is not the right way to go about it; it is about alcohol being alcohol and how it is consumed. I might not represent the most whisky distilleries in Scotland by number, but I probably do by volume, with the Diageo distillery and bottling plant in Leven.

Returning to the point about promises and expectations, we come to farming and the issue of the inheritance tax changes. The National Farmers Union Scotland said on its blog today that it is pleased to see the roll-over of the agricultural funding, although that has gone into the Scottish Government’s block grant, so, again, it is over to the Scottish Government to ensure that they deliver for farmers. We need farmers for our food production and security, for our climate and nature recovery, which is more vital than ever, and for rural growth and support.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

The Budget is subtitled “Fixing the foundations” but I was saddened that it contained no mention of the most important foundation of everything in Britain: our natural world. Does she agree that more resources need to be dedicated to the restoration of nature and to supporting our farmers, both of which are crucial to food security?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I absolutely agree. Whenever I have that discussion with farmers, they want to support climate and nature—they want to do the right thing—but they need support to do so.

As I say, the overall funding envelope for farmers is for the Scottish Government to deliver, and I am confident that my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues in Holyrood will be making the case for them to do so. In his intervention on the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about how the number of farms affected will be small, but the issue is that the Government promised last year not to do anything in relation to agricultural property relief, yet that is what is happening. I am already being contacted by local farmers who fear that this will be the death of their and other families’ farms. It is important that we remember that it is not just about those farmers; it is also about the infrastructure and the wider communities that they support, such as vets and other facilities.

We should not forget tenant farmers, either, because they are some of our most vulnerable. I know that because I worked with some of them prior to the election in relation to the roll-out of universal credit. That system is not fit for purpose for farmers. The Work and Pensions Secretary is no longer in her place, but I will be coming back to her on that issue. We need to ensure that we provide that support.

Until very recently, I wore multiple hats, because I had far fewer colleagues. Now that I have more of them, I have given up my Department for Work and Pensions hat, but I welcome the changes to carer’s allowance. I would like some clarity about the carer support payment in Scotland, which is a devolved benefit that is currently being rolled out. I have not seen it in the notes that I have looked at so far, but perhaps it will become clear in the coming days whether that is included in the block grant that is coming to Scotland, or whether there will be additional consequentials.

To conclude, there are things in this Budget that I absolutely welcome, but, as always, there are unintended consequences, on which I hope the Government will listen to us.