Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that colleagues want to be forensic in their questioning, but shorter questions will be very much appreciated. I call Dr Andrew Murrison.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point. The Government are keeping precisely that concern under very close review so that we stand ready to make changes as and when they are required. The Security Minister is on the Front Bench with me today because he would lead much of that work.

Fire Station Closures

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the hon. Member for those points; he made them well, and I take them on. We should all think of what happened in Glasgow at the weekend.

Family members of firefighters from Wiltshire are in the Gallery, and I thank them for coming. I know of firefighters from Dorset and Wiltshire who would have liked to be here, but as on-call professionals, they are in their communities today, ensuring that cover is in place, and they will mobilise if the call comes in. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.

I have met firefighters at a number of fire stations in Wiltshire. They are dedicated local people demonstrating real pride in place, protecting their area, and they have genuine concern about what any proposals mean for fire safety in rural communities. There is a consultation taking place on the closure of eight fire stations across Dorset and Wiltshire. To put that in perspective, that is eight engines supported by nearly 100 firefighting staff who keep communities such as Bradford-on-Avon safe. The town’s fire station has served for generations, and the consequences of its closure would be profound. That goes for all eight stations listed for closure.

The crews attend over 500 incidents per year, ranging from house fires to flood response, from road traffic collisions to river rescues. Those are the emergencies that make the headlines, but the everyday call-outs are no less important to those in trouble, and they include freeing trapped livestock, assisting vulnerable residents who are stuck in their home, and ensuring that partner agencies know about any safeguarding risks.

The stations act as natural points of emergency response co-ordination for events that we hope will never happen, but for which they must always be prepared. Beyond the communities the stations serve, the closures will have an impact on the whole Dorset and Wiltshire service. More than 60% of incidents that crews from the eight stations attend are outside the station catchment area. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), who is also my constituency neighbour, has written to me to say that she shares the concerns of the fire service and the many residents across Wiltshire who are worried about the impact of the closures on our community.

Last summer, firefighters from Bradford-on-Avon travelled 50 miles to tackle a large wildfire on Holt Heath in Dorset. The incident was a stark reminder of how our changing climate is adding to the burden on fire and rescue services. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather are no longer once-in-a-generation events; they are becoming part of the operational norm. In spite of massive flooding during Storm Bert in my constituency and, indeed, this year in Devon, Cornwall and the east midlands, fire services across the country receive no specific funding for flood responses. How can we contemplate such sweeping cuts to emergency response capacity and civil resilience when, in fact, more is required?

Since my election, I have been in regular contact with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service leadership, who have told me about the increasingly challenging funding environment. Since the merger in 2016, the service has had to find savings of over £15 million, which has led to a 15% reduction in firefighter posts and the withdrawal of second engines from five stations. Though no one disputes the need to focus on value for money, the service is already recognised as outstanding for efficiency by the independent inspectorate. The service’s current operations are lean, and ongoing modernisation is keeping capabilities up to standard, but the obvious question looms of how any further cost pressures can be absorbed.

The Government’s three-year settlement has been a welcome aid to longer-term planning. Indeed, the Minister will be quick to point out the Government’s 4.1% annual uplift over this period; that arises because they are allowing the fire authority to raise the council tax precept by £5 to offset the 19.5% decline in central Government funding between 2026 and 2029. However, at the core of that settlement is the Treasury’s assumption that the area’s council tax base, which is driven by new housing development, will increase by 1.57% annually. That forecast contrasts sharply with what has happened to actual growth in the past three years, in which it has averaged just 1%. For the coming 2026-27 financial year, the figure is now confirmed at 0.9%, far below the Treasury’s projection. That is what it will remain for the following two years, and the result is a £1.27 million annual disparity. The Government have been clear: the multi-year settlement is intended to provide greater certainty for local authorities to take sustainable long-term decisions. The Treasury’s 4.1% uplift for Dorset and Wiltshire is welcome. The service is not asking for special treatment; the request is that the means are available to achieve the funding uplift on the ground, not just in an optimistic Treasury model.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for allowing me to intervene. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is concerned about Wilton, has written to the Minister to request a meeting. I did the same at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I very much look forward to that meeting—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is easy to resolve? The conundrum we are in is based on the Treasury assessment that he described, which was over-optimistic through nobody’s particular fault, but we can remedy it simply by allowing some flexibility in the precept. That would deal with the issue facing our wonderful fire and rescue service. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those wonderful people, particularly the volunteers, who freely give their time to keep our constituents safe.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments; in fact, I will go into some details on that now. Members from all parties will recognise that rural fire services face different cost pressures compared with urban ones, and rurality is not adequately addressed in the current or previous funding formulae. We must continue that debate but, in the face of closures this summer, an urgent solution is required to safeguard our community fire services.

If the Government are not prepared to review their central funding, the only options on the table, when the Treasury’s assumptions are proven incorrect, are station closures, or additional precept flexibility for the 2027-28 financial year to address short-term funding pressures through local rather than additional central Government funding. Dorset and Wiltshire’s current precept is below the national average for stand-alone services, and a one-off correction would bridge the funding gap while keeping the precept in line with that of neighbouring services. In the consultation on closures, residents have been asked whether they are willing to pay a little more for their fire and rescue services. I urge the Minister to study their responses and act on them.

I can find no recent precedent for such a large number of fire stations being closed in one year, and with them the loss of so many frontline jobs. Once a station is closed and its site sold, there is very little chance it will be reinstated. The hit to emergency response times and community resilience is essentially irreversible.

For the average household, the fire precept amounts to less than £100 per year or £1.85 per week. For that amount, we receive what is arguably the most important insurance policy any of us can have: a well funded, well staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service, ready to respond when the worst happens. All eight stations are staffed by on-call firefighters—individuals who put their communities first and who are ready to pause their job and family life at a moment’s notice, putting themselves at risk to keep us safe.

To my mind, the question is simple. The Minister can do nothing, and the stations that have served our towns and villages for decades will close, or, by allowing some adjustments and giving the authority the opportunity to raise the funding that the Government say the Dorset and Wiltshire fire service should get via the precept, the stations will remain open, providing the emergency response, civil resilience and capacity that our communities will need in the years to come.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing this important debate, and I thank him and the Minister for giving me permission to speak. I am in danger of repeating many of the points that my hon. Friend made, but they are important points, and this is an important issue.

The proposals from Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service would see the closure of eight on-call fire stations across Dorset and Wiltshire, including the stations at Charmouth and Maiden Newton in my constituency of West Dorset. I recognise that decisions about station closures ultimately sit with fire authorities, not the Minister, but when the pressures driving those decisions stem from central Government funding settlements, it is only right that the Government are held to account.

If approved in the coming weeks, the closures would remove 16% of the service’s fire stations and lead to the loss of 72 firefighters. For many of the villages and towns these stations serve, they are the closest responders, and their loss would change the resilience of emergency coverage across our rural communities.

The proposed closures have understandably caused deep concern among my constituents. I have met the chief fire officer and senior management, representatives of the two firefighters’ unions and the station commanders for both Charmouth and Maiden Newton. I have also received a huge number of emails and letters from residents who are rightly worried about what the changes will mean for their safety and the safety of the many visitors who come to West Dorset each year.

The firefighters who serve our communities do extraordinary work. The stations at Charmouth and Maiden Newton, as well as the six other stations, are staffed by on-call firefighters—people who live and work locally but are ready to leave their jobs and families at the drop of a hat to respond to emergencies. They do so knowing that they may be putting themselves in harm’s way to protect their neighbours. In West Dorset, they are often the first responders to road traffic collisions, particularly on dangerous rural roads such as the A35. During the summer months they respond to wildfires and heath fires, which are becoming more and more frequent as temperatures rise. They also assist during flooding incidents, which our communities have experienced repeatedly in recent years, most recently during Storm Chandra.

Since the merger that created Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service in 2016, the service has had to find more than £15 million in savings and is under real financial pressure. That has already resulted in a 15% reduction in firefighter posts and the removal of second fire engines from five stations. Under the so-called long-term funding settlement offered by this Government, the authority has a revenue budget deficit of £1.2 million in year 1, £1.5 million in year 2 and £1.7 million in year 3. Frankly, I do not think “funding settlement” is the correct phrase.

The Minister will mention the Government’s decision to allow fire authorities to raise the council tax precept by £5 per year, which is said to produce an average annual increase in funding of 4.1%, but, as has been outlined, that does not tell the full story. The central Government revenue support grant for Dorset and Wiltshire is projected to fall from £12.8 million in 2026-27 to £10.3 million by 2028-29—a reduction of nearly 20% in three years. The fair funding model has, to date, removed about £1.8 million a year from the service’s budget. Put simply, the Government expect fire services to make up the shortfall the Government have created through council tax increases.

In theory, council tax makes up 73% of fire service funding, business rates make up 11%, and revenue support grant from central Government makes up only 16%, but the underlying assumptions do not work for our rural areas. Council tax revenue depends heavily on local population growth and housing development. In many rural areas, including Dorset, the tax base is growing far more slowly than Treasury assumptions suggest. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has already confirmed that its council tax base growth is below the levels assumed in the funding settlement.

At the same time, the service faces rising costs that it cannot control: increases in employer national insurance contributions; higher fuel costs, especially with the current conflict in the middle east; higher energy bills; and rising contract costs. That is further compounded by the fact that the funding model does not properly account for rurality. All this leaves the service in an increasingly vulnerable financial position.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has to say. However, does he agree that the only practical way of getting Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service the funds it needs to prevent the closure of the eight stations, including at Mere in my constituency, is to allow for flexibility around the precept? Otherwise, sadly, they will close. The structural issues he has cited of course need to be addressed, but they will not help in respect of the emergency that is upon us.

[Edward Morello]

I fully accept that an increase in the precept would be one option available to the Government, but I would also like to challenge the Government on the underlying assumptions in Treasury funding models, not least with the forecast population growth and the lack of rurality in many of the funding models across the board. We are talking about fire services, but I could talk to rurality in the funding of Dorset police, Dorset NHS or any number of areas. The fact is that rural Britain is repeatedly underserved when it comes to the Treasury funding model.

The result is that stations like Charmouth are now being considered for closure, with neighbouring stations, such as Lyme Regis, expected to cover larger areas without any additional resources. If local stations close, travel distances will inevitably increase, which means longer response times for fires, road traffic collisions, flooding incidents and other emergencies. Sixty per cent of incidents that crews from the eight at-risk stations attend are outside the station catchment area. In critical, life-threatening situations, small delays will have consequences. That is particularly concerning in West Dorset, where the population increases by 42% during the summer months due to tourism. Our narrow country roads, the wider effects of rurality, seasonal visitor numbers and coastal geography all create travel difficulties that are not accounted for in the formulae. Time and again, it is rural communities that end up paying the price.

A consultation on the proposed closures is under way and, like many, I urge all my constituents to make their voices heard. But the reality is that the service is being pushed towards these decisions by the financial framework that it has to operate within. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has already lost one fifth of its workforce since 2010. Removing another 16% of stations would push the service even further. I therefore ask the Government to look carefully at whether the current funding settlement for fire and rescue services properly reflects the needs of rural and coastal areas, and whether the current funding is undoing years of underfunding or, in reality, compounding it.

It is not hyperbole to say that, without proper funding, we are putting people’s lives at risk. I beg the Minister and the Treasury to meet Dorset and Wiltshire fire service to review the underlying assumptions and reconsider the funding settlement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for raising this important issue and setting out his concerns so clearly. I acknowledge the firefighters who have attended and welcome them to the Gallery. I am mindful that this is an issue of significant concern to many, including those who have travelled here today and those who feel passionately about this subject. He has quite understandably focused on proposals affecting his constituency, and I will address the points he has raised, while noting that there are, as he acknowledges, limits to central Government’s involvement in local decisions.

First, let me be clear: public safety is and always will be the main priority of this Government. I want to place on the record the Government’s deep appreciation for the dedication, professionalism and courage shown every day by firefighters and the support staff who stand behind them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) pointed out, their work saves lives and provides reassurance to communities across the country, as was demonstrated in the fire near Glasgow Central station on Sunday, which shows how much we depend on the bravery and rapid response of firefighters to safeguard lives and provide reassurance in moments of real danger.

Members will appreciate that decisions on how fire and rescue services are organised, including the number and locations of fire stations, appliance availability and crewing numbers, are not decisions for the Government. I am pleased that hon. Members recognise this and that they are rightly the responsibility of the local fire and rescue authority and its chief fire officer, who are best placed to assess local needs and demands.

All FRAs have a statutory duty to produce a community risk management plan in which they set out the key challenges and risks facing their communities and how they intend to mitigate them. Decisions on fire and rescue resources, including how staff are best deployed and the location of fire stations, are matters for each FRA based on risks identified within local community risk management plans.

Let me turn to funding. After a decade of short-term settlements, 2026-27 marks a significant change, as hon. Members have recognised. It delivers the first multi-year funding agreement for local government, providing councils and FRAs with the stability and certainty required to plan ahead and invest for the long term. Under the settlement, almost £1.95 billion in core spending power will be made available to stand-alone FRAs in England, excluding North Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. That represents an average increase of 4.71% on 2025-26 levels, rising to a total increase of 12.75% by the end of the multi-year settlement period. In addition, since the provisional settlement, an extra £15 million has been secured for fire and rescue services over the multi-year settlement. That ensures a minimum uplift of 3.8% in core spending power in 2026-27 for all stand-alone fire and rescue services, with some benefiting from increases of more than 7%.

[Dr Murrison]

I welcome the multi-year settlement, and so does the fire and rescue service. However, does the Minister accept that one problem is that the assumptions on which Government support is based—the growth of council tax—cannot be tweaked up or down, because we are looking at a longer settlement period than was previously the case? That is precisely the problem that we face. The solution being offered is precept flexibility, which would keep our fire stations open. In a sense, what we are talking about is an unintended artefact of the multi-year settlement.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I look forward to discussing them with him further, as I will no doubt be representing the Prime Minister in our meeting. In line with usual practice, and in recognition of the views raised, the Government will continue to keep our methodology under review when calculating the core spending power of local government for future years. I have noted Members’ comments.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes mentioned funding pressures. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service will have access to £79.5 million in core spending power in 2026-27—a 4.1% increase compared with 2025-26. That strengthens the FRA’s ability to plan, invest and deliver for the communities it serves. Although the Government set the funding framework, decisions on how best to deploy resources to meet core responsibilities remains the responsibility of the FRA, ensuring a locally led response to local risk.

I pay particular tribute to our on-call firefighters, who balance everyday lives, jobs, families and responsibilities with the exceptional commitment of responding to emergencies. Whether they are attending a fire in a rural village or a major incident in a city centre, their readiness and bravery command the respect of the whole House. In many rural areas, on-call firefighters are not just important; they are indispensable. Those communities rely heavily on their presence, their local knowledge and ability to respond rapidly. I firmly believe that the on-call model is invaluable to the communities that it serves. Although the Government recognises the challenges for services in which the on-call model is integral to operations, it can, with innovative and strategic thinking, work and offer real resilience within fire services. With sustained collaboration between Government, fire and rescue services and fire and rescue authorities, there is real opportunity to strengthen and revitalise the on-call workforce as part of a wider workforce strategy that sees on-call staff treated and respected as the professionals that they truly are.

To support that work, the National Fire Chiefs Council has published detailed research into the sustainability of the retained duty system. This work has been shared with FRAs to inform future planning, improvement activity and local workforce strategies. The Government continue to engage closely with the sector on this important issue.

More broadly, the Government remain committed to a reform agenda that supports the sector to evolve, professionalise and thrive. I am encouraged by the work of the ministerial advisory group for fire and rescue reform, which has brought together a wide range of voices to identify good practice and remove barriers to progress. I do, however, recognise that the funding formula as it stands is out of date. We are working on reforming it for the next spending review period.

Operational decisions rightly must remain with local FRAs. I note that the Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority, in which the hon. Member’s party holds the majority, is consulting on these proposals. The consultation runs until 15 May, so I encourage all affected residents, firefighters and stakeholders to participate. Meanwhile, this Government will continue to support the sector with stable funding, a clear framework for reform—of the role of firefighters and FRAs and of funding—and an unwavering commitment to public safety. We will stand with firefighters as they continue to protect our communities with professionalism and courage. I thank the hon. Member once again for raising these important issues, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that our fire and rescue services remain resilient, responsive and equipped for the challenges ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Rough Sleeping: Families with Children

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am, so brevity will be a virtue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman came into the debate about half an hour in. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Woking whether to allow the intervention, but in general I expect people to be in the debate far sooner. A few minutes late is permissible; 30 minutes is not.

[Mr Forster]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I believe he will attend debates a bit earlier as a result of your comments, Dr Murrison.

Community Cohesion

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. We have three colleagues wishing to speak. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so that means short speeches, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.

It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.

The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.

The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I will allow Munira Wilson to intervene—at a stretch, because she arrived late to the debate.

[Munira Wilson]

I apologise, Dr Murrison. The debate moved more quickly than I had anticipated. I thank the Minister for giving way despite my late arrival. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s aims; we all want to tackle deprivation and poverty. In my borough, the London borough of Richmond, we are going to see £29 million of cuts over the next three years, which will stretch to £46 million by year 4. That means a huge cliff edge, and at the moment the Government are refusing to provide any transitional protection. I recognise that Richmond is largely a wealthy borough, but we have significant pockets of deprivation and very needy residents, particularly young and older vulnerable residents. Despite a maximum council tax hike and efficiency savings, we will see cuts to the most vulnerable.

Will the Minister finally agree to meet with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of our council to talk about how we can put transitional provisions in place? She has refused to do that so far. [Interruption.] She seems perplexed, but her latest letter refused a meeting with us, so I am asking her again, in the spirit of cross-party working, if she will meet us to discuss this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I am not going to give way during this very short summing-up. [Interruption.] I would say to him that listening to his impassioned pleas on behalf of inner-London boroughs does sound a little bit like the arsonist complaining that the fire brigade is not putting out the fire quickly enough. [Interruption.]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Helen Hayes]

I urge the hon. Member to reflect with a bit of humility on what his party did to local government funding when it was in power.

Chinese Embassy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

With all due respect to the hon. Lady, this is an urgent question in relation to plans that are part of a planning process. I understand her frustration, but it was precisely to secure the information in question that a reference back was made to the parties on 6 August. Her constituents can be reassured that all material considerations will be taken into account by the relevant Ministers when a decision is made on this case.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am sure that Tower Hamlets building control is very good, but it is not a security expert. If this plan goes ahead—I very much hope that it does not—will the Minister at least assure the House that the agencies will be fully involved in monitoring the demolition of the wall along Mansell Street and around the Wapping exchange? Will the replacement be monitored closely to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is safeguarded?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s question. For obvious reasons, we do not comment on intelligence matters. I can assure him that national security concerns and all the representations that have been made along those lines will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. He says that Tower Hamlets does not have the relevant expertise to make the decision in the round; that is precisely why an independent public inquiry was held by an independent public inspector. The report was passed to the Government, and they had the chance to seek further information for a reference back, as we did on 6 August, so that the relevant Planning Minister in my Department can take the decision on the basis of all the required information.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa]

I absolutely agree, and I sympathise entirely with the hon. Lady. I would go further. I made the point earlier about finding suitable experts who are able to apply their technical expertise to help campaign groups or MPs to rebut planning applications on a technical basis. They are simply not there, for fear of a conflict of interest given their commercial interests with large-scale developers. The hon. Lady makes an important point and has put it on the record.

The UK has committed, through regulation 4 of the Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2023, to achieving an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms of PM_2.5 per cubic metre by 2040, with an interim target for 2028. That is a legally binding obligation, and rightly so, but we will not meet it if the standards we use to assess air quality for quarries are not up to date with the latest scientific evidence. If we keep relying on outdated guidance, we will keep underestimating the risks to public health, particularly for children, older people and those with respiratory conditions who live near quarry sites.

Furthermore, when key guidance is issued by professional bodies rather than statutory authorities, it is far harder for us as lawmakers, and for the public, to scrutinise and challenge their work. That can lead to accountability issues. At the same time, the reliance on organisations such as the IAQM places a significant burden on them, and they may lack the resources or mandate to keep up with changing scientific and legal requirements. Accordingly, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, whether she believes it is right for professional bodies like the IAQM to set air-quality guidance for quarries, as opposed to the relevant statutory public bodies, given the possibility of a conflict of interest between public health goals and financial gain.

Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that the guidance that underpins air-quality assessments is independently reviewed, regularly updated and aligned with statutory obligations on air quality and public health? In addition, the regulatory framework for quarry safety could be strengthened. The Quarries Regulations 1999 focused primarily on workplace safety, but do not require the same structured pre-emptive risk management that is now standard in other high-risk sectors. Would it not make sense for quarry operations to be brought under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, for which the Minister has ministerial responsibility? She knows that the CDM regulations are not just best practice but required under the 2015 statutory instrument, which requires comprehensive risk assessments, formal hazard identification and clearly defined duties of care for all parties involved. Those measures are now standard practice across the construction industry.

Quarries present many of the same hazards as large construction sites, including airborne dust, heavy plant machinery, vehicle movements and complex site operations, but under the current framework there is no consistent requirement for structured design or risk assessments, no formalised application of the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle, and no robust mechanism for protecting the public from involuntary risk. Incorporating operations into the CDM framework could deliver more rigorous and consistent risk assessments, clearly documented mitigation strategies, legal accountability for duty holders and, crucially, better protection both for workers and for the surrounding public. Does the Minister agree that environmental protection, worker safety and public health will benefit if we treat quarrying operations as the major industrial undertakings that they are?

Finally, I hope the Minister will agree that targeted reforms, the clarifying of interim assessment standards and the modernising of safety regulations will deliver better outcomes for the industry, for workers and, most importantly, for all our constituents, wherever they may be.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I intend to start calling Front Benchers at 10.28 am, which means we are oversubscribed, so I will impose an indicative limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar for which will be Adam Jogee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.

[Samantha Dixon]

Thank you, Dr Murrison.

I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.

Supporting High Streets

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I have so many wonderful contributions to take from my colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

One thing that the Government might like to reflect on is the perverse situation that people facing VAT find themselves in. The £90,000 threshold is causing many small business people, such as barbers, to adjust their behaviour—classically, reducing their working week from five days to four or three. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury needs to look at the increased tax take that it might receive if it changed VAT thresholds to allow those small businesses to work full time?

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes another excellent point. I recently had the wonderful opportunity to meet Dr Arthur Laffer, whose pioneering economic research showed that reducing taxes increased not only the growth rate of the economy but, as a consequence, the tax take to the Treasury. That is a very important point about incentives and what we in this House can do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am, of course, delighted that we are making some small progress towards a better relationship with Europe—I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, we could go a lot further. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing for a UK-EU customs union, which would unlock many, many more benefits, but the Labour Government are very reticent. I welcome some of the noises from both the Treasury Bench and many Labour Back Benchers. I find it astonishing the number of Labour MPs I have encountered over the past couple of weeks who are suddenly desperate to tell me how very pro-European they have always been. I am very pleased to hear that, but I would say that I have not always heard that from the Labour Benches. But all progress in this area is welcome.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am listening very carefully to what she has to say. One of the more useful things the Liberal Democrats have done in the past is to support the future high streets fund, brought in by the last Government, but she has not mentioned it and neither did the Minister. That is surprising. Nearly £10 million of future high streets funding was given to Old Kent Road in Peckham in her constituency, but she did not mention it. A large sum of money was given to Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, to good effect. What does she think of the fact that the future high streets fund has been ditched and replaced by something called pride in place, which is a pale reflection of the future high streets fund? Would she like to think about including that in her contribution?

[Sarah Olney]

I am very grateful to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman as to what I should and should not include in my speech. What I would say is that it is always targeted pots of money for individual places, but we have always advocated for a much more wide-ranging set of policies that would support all high streets wherever they are in the country.

The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to scrap the national insurance jobs tax and act with far more urgency on implementing the industrial strategy, cutting energy bills and strengthening our workforce. We call for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures to replace business rates with a fair new system that can boost high streets and town centres, and we call on the Government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small businesses and supercharge our economy as a whole.

Pride in Place

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that at the heart of this must be the community. That is why we have made the neighbourhood board absolutely critical, and there is a huge job for Members of Parliament from across the House in helping to organise, convene and bring together community leaders who can populate that board. We are very clear that regeneration plans will be driven by that board. Critically, it will not just be the board in the driving seat; big swathes of the community will be engaged, and they will have a voice and a say in what this looks like. Alongside that, we are making sure that there is a community right to buy, which I have spoken about, so that the community is in the driving seat, taking on community assets of value. There is a huge opportunity, but Members of Parliament and local government must play an enabling role, so that we can put communities in the driving seat for the first time.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The future high streets fund worked well, because to get any funding, areas had to demonstrate that they had a plan, and that the money would be used effectively, in accordance with local priorities. Pride in place is structured in a very different way. I accept that the Minister’s intent is to ensure that redundant premises are repurposed and reused; that is really good, and as chairman of the Trowbridge Place Partnership, I certainly welcome that. However, how will she ensure that the whole thing is not just bunged up with endless legal challenges, as her unelected boards make diktats that will be subject to endless review?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

There is the pride in place impact fund—£1.5 million that will go to local authorities across the country to bring about high-street regeneration. Alongside that, there is this programme. We are unapologetic about the fact that we want communities in the driving seat. We know that this is a different approach for Government, but it is the right approach, because we cannot and will not address the huge distrust, anger and frustration in our deprived communities unless we give people power and agency to shape and drive the change that they want. We will work as a Department to enable that. I have talked about the community delivery units; they will work alongside areas to make sure that we provide capacity-building support and enabling support, so that the investment not only works for the community in the short term, but fundamentally builds community wealth.

Chinese Embassy Development

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

China is already revelling in the Government’s spectacular own goal in handing over Chagos. China looks as if it is about to benefit again. Even if the Minister cannot say what amounts are involved, will he say what works would need to be done in advance of the embassy being set up at the Royal Mail site, and who would pay for that? Would it be the Chinese, or would it be the UK Government, and which part?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, a public inquiry was held between 11 and 28 February, and all the relevant documents submitted to that inquiry are available online. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go and look at them. Again, he invites me to speculate on matters that are part of the application that the inspector will have considered in making his report and recommendation—when that arrives—to the Department. I emphasise again that no case is yet with the Department.