Laurence Foltyn

Mr Speaker, I too would like to commend my right honourable friend for his work on this legislation. He has worked tirelessly and with great effectiveness on this issue. The creation of an Office of Renewable Energy was a key Alliance pledge in the manifesto, and this legislation establishes it, as a strong and robust source of research, guidance, and policy. I look forward to see it in action. However, I want to focus my remarks on two issues. Firstly, the nature of the fossil fuel levy and non-fossil fuel obligation. The levy and obligation will, of course, be set in a balanced and responsible way. There is no desire to render now-profitable industries unprofitable and far less desire still to reduce our capacity to invest in new infrastructure and technology. Such worrying is based on simple conjecture. The fact of the matter is, this government will be working overtime to promote and support innovation, British exports, green growth, and infrastructure investments, areas that have been neglected most egregiously by the Conservative Party. This bill should be understood in that context: as a tool to ensure that we use current economic resources and industrial capacity to take care of the British energy industry’s future and guarantee its future sustainability, to ensure that we are equipped to participate in international discussions about ecological sustainability, and to ensure that we make the necessary downpayments now to diversify our energy sector and position ourselves at the forefront of new opportunities for green growth. That is how I urge this bill’s levy to be viewed. As a way of ensuring that current investment goes, at least in part, to the needs of the future, to robustly and proactively protecting the green and pleasant land of which every intervention into this debate thus far has spoken so positively of. As to discussions about the downstream economic impacts on households, businesses, and farmers, again, I think the party opposite has again neglected key context. Firstly, the status quo is not sustainable. We are too vulnerable, as a nation, to shock in specific sectors. To disruptions in certain supply chains. To the increasing understanding of the public health and environmental impacts of certain pollutants, and the growing risk of global warming of the kind that may well in the future necessitate a far starker and more painful adjustment of practices. We remember, of course, the great disruptions caused by the global energy crises of the 1970s and the strikes of the first half of this decade. Mr Speaker, I believe we owe it to our constituents to do what we can to insulate Britain against future recurrences of such disruptive shocks. That is what we will be investing in. Secondly, Mr Speaker, let us consider what it is we will be doing with this bill, via processes such as setting standards and creating new incentives. We will be promoting energy efficiency, instituting new incentives for insulation and microgeneration, bringing down household bills, creating competition and innovation in the markets, creating new infrastructure investments for new energy sources. This is something that can be taken back to our constituents and presented as a positive step forward in energy policy. This includes in rural and disadvantaged areas.

Mr Speaker, I rise today in proud support of this legislation. I thank the Chancellor for his work in putting it together. The structure this legislation takes, of a Low Pay Commission and graduated offences, will ensure sufficient attention to broader economic conditions, sensitivity to the needs of businesses and employees alike, and guarantees that innocent mistakes and errors in bookkeeping will not be treated with the same approach as deliberate undercutting of fair wages. A minimum wage was, as astute observers will know, one of those manifesto commitments on which the parties of this coalition already enjoyed a ready-made consensus. A minimum wage is, bluntly put, the right thing to do. It is how we boost consumer spending, ensure the dignity of work, and fight the injustice of in-work poverty. The party opposite has, as predicted, opposed this legislation. It is, I think, very telling that their leadership does not consider the abolition of in-work poverty a desirable policy goal. Very telling indeed. Now, I do believe that market forces are of course an important factor in determining the appropriate wage levels. But let us not pretend that that is the entire picture, and that the profitability is the only morally relevant factor in determining wage levels. We need a guarantee, across sectors, including in relatively non-unionised sectors, that exploitation will not be permitted, that living wages will be secured, that there will be fair compensation for work. That is what this legislation achieves. Is the Conservative Party saying, as I think they are, that they will leave the settlement of wages entirely down to the forces of supply and demand? Because if so, can we take that to mean that they support the abolition of wage councils? As the Chancellor has already pointed out, it is government policy already, and has been for decades, that this kind of intervention is appropriate. What this does is rationalise the process, provide those protections for workers everywhere, and On another note: the minimum wage is not a novel idea, nor is it one without a history of successful application in strong economies throughout the globe. Indeed, no country defines the ethos of free market economics more robustly than the United States, for good and for ill. They have had a minimum wage for decades, and the somewhat cataclysmic depictions of its consequences, as described by the party opposite, have not come to pass.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewusSUeQMt7NvhShSKQQgZtuaCVPikEqe1DVL8Oweeo/edit?usp=sharing

Mr Speaker, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with the Labour benches when they say that this represents an abandonment of monetarist dogma. More accurately, I think, it is to be described as an attempt to rehabilitate said dogma in the eyes of the public. The overwhelming message of this budget is thus: that the government continues to insist upon the same failed economic policy that caused such grief and has torn apart so many communities, but they will every now and then try and mitigate some of its worst impacts with ad hoc spending proposals. That is the economic philosophy that we heard from the Chancellor today. These ideas are all in the realm of temporary solutions, stopgap measures, attempts to paper over the most egregious cracks in the social fabric of our nation. Even treated as stopgap measures, these proposals are wildly inadequate and grossly insufficient. But as investments in our nation’s future? Even more so. At no point in this budget does the government actually address the root causes of what ills our country. At no point in this budget does the government actually deliver lasting progress on fixing the manifest injustices plaguing Britain, or humbly recognise that the policies of the prior government have fuelled said social crises. At no point in this budget does the government place our economy on a more sustainable and equitable path for long-term growth. Perhaps I would be able to be more sanguine about this budget if it had been presented as a temporary fix: if the Chancellor had stood before us today and admitted that monetarist dogma was no longer working, that we needed a wholesale reorientation of economic policy, and that this budget was just to pave the way for that. I would argue this budget is still inadequate, but at least the underlying philosophy would be sound. But that is not how this budget has been presented. The budget has instead been presented as a commitment to staying the course, with just minor adjustments made to pacify the most transparently awful consequences of bad government policy. Our nation’s social fabric and economic stability cannot bear budgets like this becoming the norm. We need a government that works to fix problems, rather than just sloppily dealing with them once they get too big to ignore. What do we need instead? The government had a chance to ensure growth and a pro-business climate for years to come. They did not take this opportunity. The list of potential reforms is long. The government could have created new regional development agencies and bespoke new local employment schemes to help bring out the economic potential in every community. They could have replaced the general rate system with new and fairer means for funding local government services, helping local businesses and strengthening local government budgets. They could have addressed the inadequate levels of productive lending to businesses and commerce, creating new and reliable funding sources for businesses in need of patient capital, high-risk investments, and countercyclical lending from both the public and private sectors. They could have delivered reforms, and serious long-term funding sources and commitments, to increase housing and infrastructure construction. They could have adopted objective criteria for privatisation, rather than an ideology-first approach, and not pursued the ill-advised privatisation of British Airports. They could have delivered on modernisation and diversification of our energy mix, providing new investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. They could have announced a new industrial strategy that prioritises innovation, research, science, and manufacturing, rectifying the tragically low investment levels in civil research and science. They could have invested in some of our greatest assets as a nation: our universities, our rural communities and natural assets, our heritage and culture. These are all measures a good budget would have contained. Instead, the government opted for short-term measures, measures that do not secure our future prosperity, measures that do not address the underlying inefficiencies in our economy. And, of course, there was an appalling lack of vision when it came to investing in the NHS, in our nation’s schools, in public sector pay, and in matters of social mobility and social justice. There are many other glaring mistakes in this budget beyond just the broad lack of vision. The VAT increase, for example, must be opposed in the strongest possible terms. We know this to be a regressive move. We know that it will impact struggling families the most - those families and individuals already suffering most with the cost of living, unable to get onto the much-vaunted ladder of social mobility that this government claims to exist, the lowest earners in our society and the over 3 million unemployed. Those people will be the ones hurt most by the VAT hike. It will hurt businesses too. It will both dampen demand and raise costs. Businesses in communities hurt most by unemployment will feel these impacts the most. In a community rife with unemployment, it is not just the unemployed individuals who will be hurt by this tax hike. The local neighbourhood shops, dependent on their custom, will be hurt too. This merely aggravates the decline in such communities, a decline that is now more than ever looking like a deliberate government policy. Over £4 billion is raised from this measure. But for what? A government with even a base sense of social responsibility and moral propriety would - if they were to decide a VAT increase is necessary - use some of these proceeds to soften the blow. Increases in the social security safety net, targeted support for families and businesses, serious capital and systematic investment in tackling unemployment. The government has failed to do these things. And so for the job-seeker, for the precariously employed, and for the just-about-managing household whose finances hang on by a thread, the government has nothing serious to offer. Just higher taxes. There is no compensatory tax cut. No compensatory welfare measure. No compensatory guarantee of a hand up. The government preaches the dogma of low taxes. The Chancellor boasts of the government’s record here. “Policies that have cut taxes and ensured rising wages for Britain’s workers. The once overbearing nature of the state has been cut down.” Those are his words. A budget which “allows hardworking Britons to retain control over more of their own money.” That is his claim. To the ordinary Britons hurt by this VAT increase, these claims will appear to be nothing more than cruel fictions. The government’s desire to let hardworking Britons “retain control over more of their own money” seems to come with an awful lot of exceptions. And it is worth emphasising how little the government has done with this increase in revenue. There are, certainly, some investments that they can point to. I have already explained why I see no reason to be impressed with these investments. But as a whole, many government departments have seen either no real-term increases or pitiful increases. Let us take the National Health Service as an example. There are no new hospitals. The equipment and medical device budget largely stagnates. Only 100 new doctors, a meagre increase that is somehow meant to also adequately staff 100 new clinics. The public health, medical research, and training and education budgets - the items that can perhaps best preserve the NHS for future generations - are left without the increases they need. Many more areas see no substantial real-terms increase in funding. The government’s ideological opposition to public investment is still here, make no mistake about it. Heritage. Rural communities. Environmental protection. The London Transport Grant. Innovation and research councils. Business and investment grants. Crime prevention. Further education. These are important issues, all ignored by the Chancellor, neglected by the government. Another mistake within this budget is the privatisation of the British Airports Authority. I believe this decision encapsulates the government’s flawed and ideological approach when it comes to questions of state ownership. The BAA is, indeed, a highly profitable body, but as a virtual monopoly, the arguments for privatisation from the standpoint of efficiency and competitiveness are just not there. Indeed, there is a compelling public interest argument for such a monopolistic institution to instead remain under public control. We can, yes, bring private finance and private capital into publicly-owned companies, and that this route has not been taken is perplexing. We should also be encouraging municipal airports as a form of local enterprise - privatising the BAA undercuts that. The cuts to development aid also deserve an unequivocal rebuke. Though the Chancellor dressed these cuts up with euphemism, these are some brutal cuts. These funds could have saved lives. I think the Chancellor underestimates the political backlash to this move. There is increasing awareness of the moral import of development. Humanitarian concerns must be at the centrepiece of any foreign policy. For so many to face destitution and deprivation in our world is a moral outrage. The people of Britain understand that. It is also catastrophically short-sighted, hurts our long-term economic and security interests, and denies us an easy chance to rebuild our international credibility and prestige after the Prime Minister jeopardised it over the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Mr Speaker, this budget bakes in and doubles on so many failed policies. The British people need a change. Only the Alliance can deliver the prudent long-term fiscal framework that this country needs.

Mr Speaker, I rise today in a spirit of gratitude. My first reason for gratitude is to welcome what seems to be a new consensus in this body around the fact that our future is with Europe. Labour is now recognising that the European project provides a unique opportunity to raise standards and promote concerns of social justice; the Conservatives accepting that adversarial confrontation and go-it-alone obstruction is not in our nation's interests. The Liberal Party, and my distinguished friends in the Alliance, have consistently recognised these opportunities. It has, for us Liberals, been a logical end-point of our commitments to free trade and internationalism. To see the force of these arguments win the day, in spite of election results, is a good thing. That is one reason to be grateful for the relatively drama-free way in which this issue has been pursued. There are voices on both the left and the right who have ardently fought against the European Community every step of the way. No overtures have swayed them - not the great political overtures of lasting peace in Europe and a guaranteed role for Britain in the future global order, not the more tangible economic benefits that come from free trade. This opposition has not just opposedn our entry into the European project, but all attempts to make it more effective and deliver much-needed reforms. I am grateful that such obstructionist views seem to have lost the internal arguments within their parties. I hope these parties now seize upon the imperative to make Europe work better, to continue these gains on democratic accountability and efficacy, and to seek further integration and common policies on areas where it would be helpful. I hope they prove, in short, not to be fairweather friends on this journey. I hope this proves to be a stable, lasting, and constructive consensus. I am grateful for the possibility that this hope now, for the first time in many years, now seems like a reasonable possibility. Another reason to be grateful is to be made in reference to other early decisions by this new Prime Minister. That the government is actually acknowledging the inescapable wisdom and limitless potential to be found in multilateral cooperation is a welcome relief. Many of us feared, following the jettisoning of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that this government would adopt such a cavalier attitude with all international agreements. It is a great relief that this government only has a selective reluctance to honour previous agreements - otherwise the damage to our international credibility would have been irreparable. Indeed, European membership presents one potential avenue through which constructive cross-border ties can be nurtured and protected, mutually beneficial discussions with the Irish Republic protected and solidified, and investments in peace secured. I am grateful that this avenue remains open. Throughout my career, I have always advocated for these sorts of steps as building a peaceful and more prosperous future. Britain's role in the world is to be advanced by closer ties with Europe, our collective ability to stand up for our interests and control our destiny enhanced by measures of this kind. Thus I posit that this kind of integration is to make us stronger, to protect our sovereignty in the long-term, to ensure that we retain our ability to influence global events and protect the needs and rights of British subjects in the years ahead. It allows us, in coordination and cooperation with the other economies of Europe, to compete with the economic powerhouses of the current age and, indeed, of future ages. Integration into a single market is a tremendous goal, and to accompany this integration with means of democratic legitimacy and sustained transparency is not just a political necessity but a moral requirement. That is why this bill has my unqualified support. The work does not end here, of course. We need more common policies on areas where European nations stand much to gain from standing together. This includes both diplomatic goals, such as the advancement of democracy and human rights both within and without the continent and in standing together to advance free trade and just development globally, and necessary economic and societal investments, in areas such as trade, infrastructure, energy, and social inequity. By working with our European partners, we can make great progress on goals such as energy conservation and the sustainable diversification of our energy mix; reducing the unjust scourge of youth unemployment and regional inequalities; and cementing Europe as a focal point for technological and industrial innovation. We need to be vigilant on political and institutional reform. As a first step, implementing proportional representation in the European Parliament will help ensure all voices are represented. Further steps, pursuing the goals of transparency, accountability and sovereignty that the Foreign Secretary highlighted, will of course be necessary. And we need to continue advocating for fixing the flawed structures of existing policies. The disproportionate weight put into the Common Agricultural Policy is grossly distorting and crowds out other priorities. Britain can play a constructive role in Europe. Europe needs the British contribution - in terms of expertise and ethos just as much as in terms of economic might - but Britain needs an effective Europe. That is the easiest way that we can invest in our future. I am glad the government is committed to that investment.

Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit the following motion to the House for consideration: I move that this motion be considered on an opposition day. Mr Speaker, I put forward this motion because I believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement that the previous Prime Minister negotiated was an impressive feat of diplomacy and that its apparent abandonment an act of serious political malpractice. I believe that a majority of this House shares that view. I believe that a majority of this House regrets the rushed and ill-conceived decision to not honour this agreement. I believe that a majority of this House thinks that it is a mistake to reattempt an uncompromising and perfectionist approach to the Northern Ireland, an approach that has failed countless times before. I am certain that, had the previous Prime Minister placed this Agreement before the House, it would have received the backing of a comfortable majority. And not just that, but the Prime Minister would have been in a small minority, not just within this House as a whole, but within his own party. I believe the Anglo-Irish Agreement can serve as an important stepping stone. It would improve trust and friendship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and improve coordination on issues such as justice and terrorism. It helps pave the way for devolution, and ensures that the right to decide the future of Northern Ireland stays with the people of Northern Ireland. Does it solve everything? No. But it provides necessary steps. And it was able to do these things because it is an imperfect compromise, because it doesn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, because there was a commendable restraint in its scope and ambition. That’s what makes this Agreement so impressive, so commendable. And the government’s cavalier attitude towards it all the more disappointing. Mr Speaker, I strongly believe that in their heart of hearts, a vast majority of this House recognises the folly of the government’s decision to abandon the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that we wish to see it preserved, to see trust in our word as a negotiating partner restored, and to see these essential stepping stones towards peace secured. That is why I urge the House to support this measure.

Laurence Foltyn and Edward Winter, leaders of the Liberal Party and SDP, travel to Belfast for a joint event with the new constituent party of the Alliance (UK), the APNI. Both Laurence Foltyn and Edward Winter spoke at a rally in protest of the government’s abandonment of Anglo-Irish Agreement. Laurence Foltyn By nature, I am not a partisan fellow. Good ideas can arise in all parties, and no ideological tradition has a monopoly on good statesmanship. So though I oppose the vast majority of her political agenda, Mrs Thatcher’s government did do some sterling work in bringing the Anglo-Irish Agreement into reality. Will it solve the problems at stake entirely? No. Nobody is saying that the peace process is solved if we enact this agreement. More work would need to be done. But does this agreement take necessary steps, put forward crucial compromises, and pave the way for more life-saving work? That it does. So I have no hesitation in saying that this was a tremendous accomplishment by the Thatcher administration. If actually implemented. If actually given a chance to work. It represented serious compromise from both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can serve as a vital stepping stone to peace and to collaboration. But alas the new Cabinet has decided not to honour this deal. Their own party negotiated this deal. Now they decry it. We have a chance to reduce the violence here, a chance to pave the way for reconciliation and peace. It is a chance that this government is deliberately forgoing. The no-compromise approach has failed, and it is a great shame that the government is seemingly intent on trying it again. Their justifications for this abandonment in Parliament and the press have been wildly inadequate, and give no comfort to those who understand that peace requires compromise. We know, roughly, what the path to peace will require. Good faith participation from all parties. Protection of human rights and minority rights, with trusted and even-handed application of the law. Devolved government. Strong and enduring cross-border cooperation. And some painful compromises from all involved, a mutual willingness to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A sustainable solution will contain all of these elements, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement would, if enacted, bring all of them closer. Another grievous consequence of St. John jeopardising this deal is this: the international credibility of Her Majesty's Government. The world has observed recent developments in both London and Dublin. The message that has been sent to the world at large is that if you make a deal with us, at great domestic political risk and difficulty, the UK may not hold up its end of the bargain. That is the message that Charles St. John is sending to the world. It is a catastrophic message for our global standing. It is why there must be a serious political price for this behaviour. We must make it clear that it is just the current government who is incapable of honouring good faith agreement, rather than the entire British political class. I will be doing everything I can in Westminster to force the government to stick to this Agreement and to hold them to account for this unconscionable decision to jettison the talks. I know that this is a strongly personal issue for our Prime Minister. I do not wish to devalue or belittle his own pain in the slightest. But this Agreement is the right way forward, and it is the duty of Parliament to push for its preservation. I conclude with a message of hope. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland can be steadfast friends. The communities of Northern Ireland can be reconciled. Peace and prosperity is something that can be achieved within all our lifetimes. These are all attainable goals. But they will not be realised if political leaders refuse to compromise, refuse to honour agreements that have already been made, and refuse to accept anything but a total victory for their own agenda. Edward Winter Over the past couple of decades, Northern Ireland has seen and heard things that one shudders to think about, that no communities ought ever to experience in a democratic society. As we speak, an entire generation is – rather unintentionally - being raised in an environment in which violence is in danger of becoming almost normal. In which walled communities are seen as self-explanatory. In which the simplest personal attributes can be enough to characterize you as a whole. In which military and paramilitary presence seems almost ordinary. Perversely enough, one might argue that we run the risk, both here and across the United Kingdom, of eventually becoming desensitized to such violence, of treating it like a common fact of life. This, I believe, would be the ultimate moral defeat. For all of us, but particularly for those who are in a position to help bring an end to said violence. Like many of you, I see despair. But I also see hope. I see communities sick of violence and keen to end it. I see individuals aware of injustices, and driven to correct them through democratic means. I see, believe it or not, politicians showing courage, and daring to attempt compromises in the name of peace rather than sit behind a more comfortable and militant attitude of branding those who are willing to talk as cowards. I thought of Mrs. Thatcher and her cabinet as my political opponents – not my enemies -, and even in that opposition I recognize the courage that it took to speak frankly and valiantly with Dublin, just as I recognize the courage that it took for the Irish government to do the same. Coming from different environments and views, both sides reached a compromise. It was not a perfect compromise – for no such thing exists for the Northern Irish question -, but it was a valuable step forward. It was the promise that things could indeed be different. Shamefully, it was torn apart in a matter of seconds by a new Prime Minister, keen to distance himself from the deal his own party had brokered because, perhaps, it was more ideologically comfortable for him to do so. In this, a man as accomplished as Charles St. John did not show courage. He showed, at best, an extremely cavalier attitude to the well-being of Northern Ireland and its people. At worst, he showed a willingness to put personal views above the search for peace. In doing so, an opportunity to make progress has been squandered. Our standing in Washington and Dublin has been damaged. The Irish government itself has been destabilized, seeing its own overture so suddenly spurned. More concerning still, and to my main point, the prospect of eventual peace in Northern Ireland seems further apart than it did a few weeks ago. The SDP-Liberal Alliance, now pleased to include the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland as part of its federation, will not equivocate here. We will not sit on the sidelines and snipe out of cynicism, nor will we play games with the security and the well-being of Northern Ireland’s communities, Catholic or Protestant. Laurence has made a good job of outlining what we feel can be the path for peace, prosperity and stability. It relies on the people of Northern Ireland forging a path of progress through their own devolved institutions, through the representation of the majority and the minorities, with a British government committed to neutrality – but never to inaction – in terms of abiding to the will of Northern Ireland when it comes to its sovereignty, and its constitutional position. We recognize that what we advocate need not be popular, but it is what we believe in. One of the many reasons why we’ve found the APNI to be so valuable a partner is that it has been fighting this battle from a most courageous point of view since its foundation. The APNI was founded on healing wounds, bridging differences and providing a sorely missing non-sectarian point of view. Just as important, the APNI identified clearly and cleanly that a devolved government stood the best chance to bring economic and social development, to protect the rights of minorities, and to properly uphold the rule of law without the need for violence. It realized, essentially, that there IS a POSITIVE way forward. That progress, real progress, can be the key to ending the violence. There are those in Westminster who scoff at the prospect of an Alliance government, finding this prospect one they are comfortable to dismiss. But if we had an Alliance government, and if the voice of the APNI broke through here in Northern Ireland, let me assure you that we would not have a Prime Minister tearing apart agreements on a whim. Let me assure you that you would have a government in Westminster committed to the restoration of devolved rule as soon as possible, and furthermore committed, via that devolved government, elected through proportional representation, to bringing socio-economic progress and security. Today, I ask those who believe in dialogue, in compromise, and above all, in peace, not to give up hope. I invite you to realize that you’re not alone, that there are those in Westminster who view Northern Ireland not as a nuisance or a testing ground for ideological grudges, and more like a community – or communities – in dire need of meaningful, mature assistance. I invite you to consider, if only for a moment, that there is a better way possible. And that, though chest-thumping may be more attractive at times, real courage may actually lie in your willingness to talk with those who feel different than you, and reach compromises for the benefit of the people. Thank you.

Name: Laurence Foltyn Avatar: Mike Wozniak Age: 45 Sex: Male Ethnicity: White (Polish on his father’s side) Marital Status: Married to Elizabeth Kinghead (m. 1965) Sexual Orientation: Straight Party: Liberal Faction/Subgroup: N/A Political Outlook: Pro-Alliance yet supports an independent Liberal Party, staunchly internationalist and anti-communist, liberal on social issues, centre-left on economic issues Constituency: Colne Valley Year Elected: 1979 Education: Bachelors at Oxford, MA at Yale, PhD at Cambridge Career: Political philosopher and academic Political Career: Cambridge councillor, Liberal MP, various Liberal Party spokespeople positions Early Life and Academia Laurence Foltyn was born in Leeds on the 18th of November 1940 to Ignacy Foltyn (1917-1951) and Philippa Reid (born 1920), exactly two months after a hastily scheduled marriage. Ignacy Foltyn was a pilot in the No. 306 Polish Fighter Squadron, stationed at RAF Church Fenton. Philippa Reid was a Land Girl from a well-established academic figure and after the war would work as an administrator at the University of Leeds. Ignacy and Philippa would have three more children, but Ignacy was killed in a car crash in 1951. He attended a local fee-paying school, supported by the Reid family’s wealth (albeit Philippa was forever the black sheep of the Reid family for “running off with” a foreign pilot.) Foltyn received a scholarship in 1958 to study Literae humaniores, the great classics, at Oxford’s Brasenose College, graduating in 1962. During his time on the course his interests forever shifted towards more modern issues and applications, and Foltyn would later be vocal in his belief that he wished he had studied “the modern Greats”, or PPE, instead (despite this, he endorsed the 1968 pamphlet The Poverty of PPE). After taking a gap year to travel and gain experience in industry, he returned to his prize fellowship at All Souls College. In 1963, he travelled to Yale to study for a Masters in International Relations at the Concilium on International and Area Studies. In 1965, he started a PhD at King’s College Cambridge. From 1967 onwards, for the final year of his PhD, he would study under Bernard Williams as his new doctoral supervisor (meeting and befriending his then-wife Shirley Williams as a result). His PhD thesis was on the morality of Western cooperation with the Soviet Union, viewing it as a necessary evil yet an evil nonetheless. Foltyn’s first political memory was his parents’ anger over Poland falling into the Soviet sphere of influence in the aftermath of the war. The topic was thus an emotive one for him: Foltyn has long viewed Stalinism as an atrocious evil (leading him to a surprisingly ardent and ferocious anti-communist posture). After a one year postdoc at Durham, Foltyn taught for two years at the London School of Economics before returning to Cambridge in 1971. His research interests included work on international justice (where he contributed to early discussions about the ethics of dealing with "indecent" nations and arguments for a moral duty to provide aid to developing nations), cruelty and deception in politics (being an early interlocutor on the issue with Michael Walzer, Judith Shklar, Bernard Williams, and others), and a robust defence of value pluralism in the moral universe. Foltyn is a staunch critic of ideal theory and utopianism in political theory, which he made clear in an early book review of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. "Never have I agreed more ferociously with a work's substantive proposals while so profoundly rejecting its methodology," he would tell his colleagues. He has also been active in promoting applied philosophy and ethics, interdisciplinary engagement, and philosophical intercourse with foreign countries and minority groups. Foltyn has always taken the teaching and administrative aspects of his role very seriously, and was often at his most animated giving a tutorial or debating college policies. Extensively published in journals and a frequent contributor of book chapters, he had only managed to published two books by the end of his full-time academic career, On Cooperating with Evil, a restatement of his thesis published in 1971, and Non-Utopian Liberalism, published in 1976, a critique of the overreliance on ideal theory and end-state theories of justice while robustly rejecting the libertarianism of Nozick. He also co-edited an essay collection on The Ethics of Foreign Policy in 1978. Foltyn frequently talks about the many half-finished manuscripts he has, spanning topics and genres, with a tone that can be mournful and boastful in equal measure. Since being an MP, Foltyn has co-authored a 1984 book for popular audiences, Great Liberal Biographies. While well-received overall, one critic said that “in what seems like naked political self-interest, Foltyn argues that in reality there was a liberal spirit underlying almost every ‘nice’ social movement and that every self-professed liberal who associated with injustice misunderstood their ideology.” Political Activity Foltyn's first love has always been political philosophy and the history of ideas, yet he also considered it an imperative for ethicists to be involved in politics and to learn from practitioners. In this regard, he was always active in Liberal politics. Though he does not particularly enjoy door-to-door campaigning, he always had a remarkable stamina for it, packing with him a book and a packed lunch and being able to pull a weekend 9-to-5 shift (in no small part thanks to the flexible hours of his academic career). Why the Liberals? The attraction was philosophical, a belief in what the Liberal Party could be more than anything. "The liberal utopia is a uniquely plausible one," he argued in a 1974 paper, "in that it is secured and defended on a person-by-person basis. It requires no social engineering, nor will it be rendered fragile by the diversity of people's wishes." He was drawn to the party despite them being a non-entity in parliamentary elections in his home constituency of Leeds South and despite having immense personal respect for Hugh Gaitskell, his MP growing up. He has never voted for any party other than the Liberals, except when they are not on the ballot. He had always been willing to put his name forward as a paper candidate, but he wanted elected office. Elected as a Liberal councillor in Cambridge in a 1974 by-election, he became an influential figure in internal party politics, sitting on committees, winning board elections, and advising the party's great and good. In the occasional media appearance, too, he strived to be a public voice for liberalism. An ardent free trader and internationalist, Foltyn has been in the minority in his party on a couple of issues, most notably nuclear power. As a councillor, Foltyn was obviously ambitious and much more interested in national policy. His aversion to case work and "pandering" made for some testy re-election battles and confrontations with his more grounded colleagues. "You can't win elections by citing your work on Mill!" a furious election agent once yelled at him. Foltyn returned to his native Yorkshire in 1979 (on a teaching sabbatical) to be a candidate in the Colne Valley constituency. Richard Wainwright, the incumbent MP, had decided to step down. The party had assumed that the seat would likely be lost, but Foltyn spent his time integrating himself with the community, requesting nearby Liberal activists to travel in to help, and working closely with Wainwright to keep the seat in the Liberal column. By concentrating efforts and resources, Foltyn surprised party leadership by keeping the seat. He was helped by the national swing against Labour, the traditional rival to Liberals in the constituency. The Foltyn campaign helped motivate future Liberal discussions about targeting strategy. Despite having no direct connection to Colne Valley before his selection (beyond a friendship with Wainwright), he swiftly cemented himself as a local champion, surprising those who remembered his more aloof stance as a councillor. However, he was unapologetically invested in national politics He served as Liberal Party spokesman on trade and industry (1979-1982), health and social security (1982-1983), Liberal Party chairman (1983-1985), and finally Liberal Party spokesman on foreign affairs, his dream job. When David Steel announced his resignation as party leader in late 1985, Foltyn ran for the position out of a desire to steer party policy in a more aggressively liberal direction. He was initially reluctant to leave his brief behind, but had no guarantee of keeping it and saw internationalism as something that could also be championed from leadership. The contest was close though not particularly exciting. Foltyn was seen as a relatively safe pair of hands. Foltyn was a believer in an authentic and independent Liberal Party, yet able to work constructively with the SDP. He was seen as keen to innovate party strategy yet respecting already valued processes such as community politics and internal democracy. His parliamentary backers saw him as a solid media performer despite the occasional lapse into academic jargon or philosophical abstraction. His opponent in the leadership race, Alan Beith, ultimately stumbled in strategy. The Beith campaign message clumsily tried to argue both for the merits of a more experienced parliamentarian as leader and of the unsuitability of such an ivory tower figure. A plausible message in principle, the messaging ultimately collapsed into a confusing fusion of establishment and anti-establishment rhetoric. In contrast, Foltyn stayed disciplined, avoiding his more controversial opinions such as nuclear power and deftly steering the conversation away from more radical liberal views on immigration, internationalism, and land value taxation. As to his original career, Foltyn has said that "I would love to return to political philosophy one day, but ideally, if I can actualise my liberal beliefs in reality, such a move will not be necessary." Personal Life Foltyn met his wife-to-be, Elizabeth Kinghead (born 1939), while they studied at Oxford together (albeit at different colleges, and she studied PPE) and participated in student campaigns together. Kinghead still works as a political theorist, focused on economics, feminist political theory, and virtue theory. Though both liberals, they have intense disagreements about the methodology and functions of political philosophy. They were also jealous of the other’s undergraduate course, Foltyn finding himself drawn more and more to the questions asked by PPE while Kinghead found answers to such questions in classical texts. Those who knew them from their undergraduate days described them as constantly arguing over the most minute of things. When they married in 1965, it was something of a shock for those who thought they were vicious rivals. Kinghead worked at University College London during most of the 1970s, adding a strain to their relationship. Foltyn’s election as MP, then, by allowing him to spend more time in London helped their relationship improve. They have two children together, Isaiah (born 1976) and Judith (born 1981). They were quite late to have children, while Foltyn’s siblings all had at least one child by the time Isaiah was born. Isaiah was named for Berlin, Judith for Shklar (thus inheriting her nickname Dita), both family friends. Foltyn is known as a somewhat eccentric and usually phlegmatic figure, though prone to becoming animated by the smallest of issues and the tiniest of details if they capture his attention. He is frequently mocked around Westminster for his constant fidgeting, his misreading of social cues, and his struggles to tolerate the rambunctious noise and clamour of PMQs. Whenever possible, he skips such events. At times, he can be quite detached, as if approaching political dramas from the perspective of an impartial spectator, engrossed in the gossip and theatre of it all yet acting as if he was a mere viewer, a reputation no doubt helped by his fastidious diary-keeping. Foltyn is very skilled at community politics, despite the behaviour of his Cambridge days suggesting he views it as boring and quotidian, necessary only as a means to get elected. Foltyn is a Catholic, though not an especially devout or attentive one. There is Jewish heritage on his father’s side. He is proud of his Polish roots, and often advocates for Polish refugees and causes in Parliament.

Colne Valley, please.

Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit the following motion to the House for consideration: I will start this speech by confessing to what some might call a hypocrisy. I am not a vegetarian. Goodness knows I've tried, but my family is Greek, and the temptations at family get-togethers are just too great. I don't know if you've seen the film My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Mr Speaker, but there's a line in it that I can imagine any of my older relatives saying: “he don't eat no meat? Oh, that's okay. I make lamb.” And veganism? Oh, no chance. I do love halloumi. But I acknowledge that as a species we need to cut our animal agriculture usage and our meat consumption. Our planet's ecosystem cannot survive current trends. The stakes of this topic are high. Incredibly high. Yet, Mr Speaker, I wish to start my remarks on a positive note. The global middle class is growing. It is set to continue growing. This is something to be celebrated. Opportunities, choices, and most importantly the liberating freedom from poverty and misery are being extended to countless millions, in places where previous generations could never have imagined such wealth. But we need to acknowledge that, as more and more people find themselves able to enjoy the luxuries and conveniences of modern life, we must do more and more to decouple those things from greenhouse gas emissions. Now, we increasingly are understanding that this can be done. That we can make a net profit out of net zero is increasingly recognised. The government’s plan for net zero takes some great and necessary steps here. But we need to apply this logic everywhere. That includes food. As the global middle class expands, meat demand is set to increase by around 70%. This is not sustainable. Already about a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to animal agriculture, including around a third of methane emissions, a superpollutant that is 28 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide in terms of long-term warming of the planet. Animal agriculture takes up about three-quarters of animal agriculture land use. This drives deforestation - 75% of deforestation in the Amazon is linked to this, as is a third of global biodiversity loss. Again, a major contributor to climate change. We’re losing crucial carbon sinks. If meat and dairy demand continues at its current pace, by 2050, that’s 70% of our allowable greenhouse gas “budget” gone. Used up. The environmental costs do not end there. Erosion. Nitrogen pollution. Air and groundwater pollution. Antibiotic resistance. Just a few examples. There are broader humanitarian and political consequences. It increases the price for staple crops as they lose the competition or their outputs are diverted to animal feed. A third of worldwide grain is used for feeding livestock. Around 15% of global freshwater goes towards this industry. There is a food security angle to this as well, and a geopolitical risk that comes from, quite bluntly, an inefficient means of food production. There are, of course, long-documented health costs and ethical concerns too. Mr Speaker, I say all this to emphasise the degree of the problem that we face. But I am no pessimist. I believe that Britain in particular can play a leading role in helping humanity adapt. Firstly, there are important regulatory steps we can take, yes. Higher animal welfare standards and working to export them abroad - a place where we already have had great success - is an obvious starting point. We can do the same with issues such as antibiotic resistance and ending the medically unnecessary use of antibiotics in agriculture. I think we can do much more, on the international sphere, to address this issue. Secondly, there are techniques that can be used. An article in the Nature journal, “Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector”, highlighted just some of the ways we can reduce emissions by improving the efficiency of agricultural practices. Use of feed additives, improved feed digestibility, manure management, soil carbon sequestration, animal productivity and health, intensifying certain practices to reduce demand for deforestation. Perhaps we can also explore alternative ways of producing animal feed too, less intensive ways. I bring these measures up because we need to begin exploring not just their scientific validity but also the policy implications. Thirdly, however, we do need to address demand. Now, Mr Speaker, people like meat. People will not stop eating meat. I do not think you can tax or legislate that desire away. No sane or just government can think that’s a viable strategy or something even worth attempting. So one very positive way of addressing this is via alternative proteins. Lab-grown meat. Synthetic meat. The recent headlines here are positive. This has potential. It is a growth industry. We can use renewable energy as an encouraging point of reference here. As a global community, we've achieved good breakthroughs with renewable energy using some policy innovations that are now tried-and-tested. We can do the same, and help deliver a more hopeful future, by applying these same innovations to synthetic foods. First, investment in research and development, namely public, open-access research and multilateral research projects. Secondly, the same strategic investments that we know can catalyse growth in a sector can be used here. I'm talking demonstration projects, tax breaks, loan guarantees, things that make the initial capital investment worthwhile, things that make the risks worth taking. Finally, making sure those communities currently involved in animal agriculture can, via programs such as job training, transition to those new sectors. I am a strong supporter of the actions on climate change and biodiversity that this government has announced. I am proud of them. But, Mr Speaker, we can do more. And that is why I humbly submit this motion to the House.

Mr Speaker, I welcome and applaud this statement. I ask the Secretary of State what measures are being taken in order to achieve human rights in North Korea, and what support we are providing to security in the broader East Asia region.

Mr Speaker, There is so much to applaud about this budget and I commend the Chancellor - indeed the whole team at the Treasury - for this fabulous budget. There’s so much that my constituents in Enfield North, and families throughout the country, will be celebrating. A £400 tax cut. Much-needed cash fusions for the NHS. Nursing bursaries. Scrapping the innocence tax. Hiring more police officers. Effective public transport. More housing. More child tax cuts. And all done while adhering to sensible fiscal rules. The party opposite crows and whines about this budget but really the central economic principle behind this budget isn't an ideological one. It’s not like their budgets, which were all fixated on ideological ends. It's a pragmatic one instead: focused on the truth that investing now pays dividends in the future. It is how we grow our economy, it is how we succeed as a country, it is how we develop the capacity to weather whatever storms and seize whatever opportunities come our way. The National Transformation Fund, of course, embodies this. Our country has long failed to keep up the building needs required to create a sustainable, green, and prosperous long-term economy. I am excited to see a renewed industrial strategy, and I hope it contains the reforms to areas such as planning and skills needed to really ensure these ambitious funding commitment can live up to their full potential. I have every faith that they will. But this budget's potential doesn't end there. Throughout, the Chancellor has shown that we can both address short-term injustices and public service needs while at the same time creating the foundations for a prosperous future. In fact, the Chancellor has demonstrated that we need to do these things together. The immediate cash fusion into the Social Care system, for example, isn't just a great humanitarian move. It is smart economics too, keeping the social care system functioning and giving it the investment it needs to provide quality care. Including preventative care, and we all know stronger prevention is key to maintaining the promise and dignity of the NHS. Nowhere is this excellent logic more on display than with Education. I look forward to the development of the National Education Service. The ministerial statement by the Education Secretary on this topic was very exciting, and that it is already being backed up with such sizeable investments shows that this government is working hard to make historic investments. This is a very smart proposal, both in that it rectifies the great inequalities cleaving our nation and in that it unlocks the growth and innovation potential of every community. I am especially pleased to see just how comprehensive this investment is. Childcare. Universal free school meals. The Education Maintenance Allowance. A commitment to skills, apprenticeships, and lifelong learning. I am curious to see how the tuition fees abolition will be implemented, and am sure it will be implemented in such a way that protects real term university funding levels and progressively advances social mobility. I eagerly await the government setting out how it will meet these two criteria in the long-term. But I also want to, in closing, say this: kudos to this Chancellor for having the political bravery to robustly invest in overseas development aid. Not only is such a move a moral imperative, but it is in our national interest as well. It is an investment in the brand of global Britain, in promoting our values of human rights and democracy abroad, and creating a greener, safer, healthier, and more prosperous world.

Mr Speaker, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on this great achievement. I have two questions: firstly, how was the £75mn a year figure arrived at, and will the native Chagossians soon be returning to their homeland?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Foreign Secretary for this statement and would like to say how reassuring it is that the government is quick to tackle this issue and that support is on hand for British nationals living within that country. I join the calls for our citizens to listen to the guidance from our Embassy as and if it changes. I am curious to hear what the government's strategy is for safeguarding and promoting human rights and democracy within Zimbabwe.

Name: Christos "Chris" Demetriou Avatar: Andrew Adonis Age: 57 Sex: Male Ethnicity: White (Greek Cypriot) Marital Status: Married with children. Gerdana Berzend, m. 2002, a local Labour councillor. Three children. Sexual Orientation: Heterosexual Party: Labour Faction/Subgroup: Labour to Win, Blairite Political Outlook: Pro-EU, remainer, socially liberal, economically centrist. Was a Liberal in his youth, very briefly a Lib Dem but left the party a year after its founding. Constituency: Enfield North Year Elected: 1997, lost seat in 2010, regained in 2015 Education: Local comprehensive, LLB at King's College London, MA at York Career: Human rights, equalities, welfare lawyer (solicitor) and legal academic Political Career: MP from 1997 to 2010, 2015 onwards International Development Committee, 1997-2001 Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Disabled People - 2001-2003 Minister of State for Arts - 2003-2004 Minister of State for Climate Change and the Environment - 2004-2007 Secretary of State for International Development - 2007-2010 Lost his seat in 2010

Enfield North, please.