Westminster Hall

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 16 April 2024

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

Food Waste and Food Distribution

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered food waste and food distribution.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Let me begin by reflecting on our connection to food. We all have cherished memories of key moments in our lives, sharing food with family, friends and neighbours at birthdays, weddings and celebration dinners. Food is the thread that weaves together the fabric of our families, communities and society. It is a universal language spoken and understood by all, regardless of background and belief. It is a remedy for loneliness. In a world in which technology disconnects us, food has the power to bring us together. For thousands of years, in the oldest cities on our planet, people have lived their lives in courtyards, in squares, on street corners and in cafés, tea houses and local shops, and they have shopped, shared gossip and shared food.

Knowing how we value food, it is an outrage that 4.6 million tonnes of edible food goes to waste every year, which is enough to feed everyone in the country for almost two months. That is just edible food waste, including food waste at the farm gate. We throw away more than 11 million tonnes of food each year, which is valued at £20.8 billion. The overall land use associated with food wasted on UK farms alone amounts to almost the size of Wales.

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

The hon. Lady is setting out the parameters of the debate well. On the farm gate issue, a lot of the waste is driven by consumer choice and by products on the shelf not looking acceptable to supermarkets or people. Does she agree that we need to look at more innovative approaches, such as that of Growers Garden in Cupar in my constituency, which takes the 20% of wonky vegetables and makes them into crisps? It is also a much healthier option than potato crisps.

[Jo Gideon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will come on to wonky veg, which is a particular passion of mine.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does she agree that some of the larger supermarkets are doing something to reduce the extent of food waste, but much more could be done to target hard-to-reach communities and food banks, where much more of the edible food waste could be put to much better use?

[Jo Gideon]

I absolutely agree. I will come on to that point, too.

By eliminating avoidable food waste, the average four-person household could save about £1,000 each year. Worldwide, about a third of all food produced is lost or wasted. That contributes to between 8% and 10% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. If food waste were a country, it would be the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind the US and China, accounting for more than four times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions produced by the world’s aviation industry.

Food waste is a social, financial and environmental issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with WRAP—the waste and resources action programme—and industry to meet the Government’s Courtauld commitment to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. Policy interventions are essential. We have reached the point at which the early adopters have taken up the cause, and measures are required to encourage action from the late majority. At the supply end of the food chain, retailers and manufacturer practices can have a significant impact on household waste.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Will she join me in thanking volunteers, such as the wonderful Bethan Davies, who work with Tesco in Holyhead and other local supermarkets to pick up surplus food, and the community champions Roy Fyles, David Coulson and others at the Anglesey food bank, who ensure that surplus food is not wasted but redistributed across Ynys Môn to those in need?

[Jo Gideon]

Yes, I congratulate the people my hon. Friend has identified. There are people and organisations in all our constituencies doing fabulous work in this space, and I would like to give a shout-out to them all.

Let me go back to retailers and things that could be helpful, such as changes to packaging, date labelling and multi-buy offers. The biggest reason for household waste in 2022 was that food was not used on time as it was past the date on the label, so we must improve our date labelling and remove unnecessary use-by stickers on fresh produce. Selling more fruit and veg uncut and free from packaging also prolongs shelf life and enables customers to buy only what they need, with the additional benefit of reducing packaging waste.

Guardians of Grub is WRAP’s food waste reduction campaign to tackle the £3 billion of food that is thrown away at hospitality and food service outlets. It explains that, on average, 18% of the food purchased by the UK hospitality and food service sector is being thrown away. Indeed, I am often concerned about the levels of food waste at catered events here in the House.

Quantifying the cost of food waste on the environment is particularly challenging, as the economic cost of climate change is highly contested, but it is clear that when it is left to decompose in landfill, food waste releases methane—a potent greenhouse gas that drives climate change—into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by an estimated 1.25 million tonnes per year if all local authorities collected household food waste separately to send to an anaerobic digester. Despite that, more than half of councils do not collect food waste.

I am therefore grateful that the Government have committed to proposals that councils must arrange a weekly collection of food waste. Introducing a separate collection redirects food waste away from landfill and towards recycling and reduction. It was announced in the net zero strategy that £295 million of capital funding was being brought forward to allow local authorities to prepare to implement the new weekly separate food waste collection from all households. Will the Minister clarify how councils will be expected to finance that new waste stream?

Food waste occurs throughout the food supply chain. Although it is a significant problem at the post-retail end of the chain, a large degree of wastage is documented at the start of the chain, at the farm gate. A single-year study by WRAP revealed that for just two important crops, strawberries and lettuces, £30 million-worth of food ended up as waste: 9% of strawberry production and 19% of lettuces grown. We have also heard about the problem of excessive rain this year, which means that crops will struggle.

As much as 48% of all food loss occurs pre-harvest, with food left in fields, driven by decisions on standards and specifications beyond the control of farmers, such as for the wonky veg that we heard about earlier, and an inflexible broken food system that I am determined we should do more to tackle. We need to fill the gap in food waste policy by focusing on on-farm food waste. Farmers currently lack incentives to redistribute the food, so instead it is left to rot, sent to landfill or anaerobic digestion. This is very topical: climate challenges mean that farmers have recently had to make difficult decisions.

The Government’s subsidy regime gives out £750 million to the anaerobic digestion industry each year, but 64,500 tonnes of the food processed by anaerobic digestion is perfectly good surplus food. Many categorise food waste as a hierarchy. We should aim to keep as much food as possible at the top of that hierarchy. Preferably, it should be distributed to humans, preventing it from becoming waste. Redistribution is the next best option, followed by being sent to animal feed. Recycling food through anaerobic digestion or compost should happen only when the food is unsuitable for consumption.

A recent survey by Farmers Weekly shows that if costs were not a factor, the majority of farmers would like to see surplus food redistributed to charities.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that supermarkets leave food to the very last minute rather than distributing it for human consumption, because they are incentivised to divert it to animal feed? If we can turn that around and incentivise them, as happens in France, to divert it to human consumption or make it compulsory, we will be in a far better place. It would solve some of the problems to which she alludes.

[Jo Gideon]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That is exactly the problem that we need to address.

At its heart, this is a simple logistics problem. How can we ensure that as much food as possible reaches the table? When food that is fit to eat cannot be sold, how can we get it to the people who most need it? Has the Minister looked at using the environmental land management schemes to rebalance the incentive for farmers to redistribute their edible food waste where it will be eaten rather than sent for anaerobic digestion?

Specifications can be beneficial and problematic. UK growers are proud of the high-quality food that they produce, but stringent quality parameters have embedded a buying culture among consumers who expect cosmetically perfect-looking produce. Many retailers have launched wonky veg lines to tackle food waste issues. However, those are not as popular, because consumers are trained to think that if something does not look perfect it is in some way inferior, so there is higher in-store wastage on the wonky lines.

Growers do not aim to grow wonky veg. Commercially, it costs the same, but it does not yield the same financial returns as their core volume crops. Retailers need to adopt greater flexibility and specifications to utilise the whole crop, and as consumers we must welcome produce in all shapes and sizes.

In 2022, the Government consulted on plans to require larger food businesses to report their levels of food waste, which resulted in the adoption of a voluntary approach. Following feedback from stakeholders, that decision is being revisited. I welcome that, and I support a regulatory approach to food waste reporting for large food businesses. Will the Minister update us on progress and advise us when we can expect the Government’s decision? The longer it takes, the more food will be wasted. Wasted food is also a waste of the land used to grow it, which could be better used to achieve other societal objectives such as nature recovery.

The first step for food chain operators towards meaningful food waste reduction action is to measure current levels of food waste and publicly report them so that they can act to eliminate waste. What is not measured cannot be reduced, so that is a vital first step. Evidence shows that 99% of companies that invested in food waste reduction had a positive return on their investment, and that for half the companies a £1 investment in action to reduce food waste yields a £14 return. Large businesses would have to prevent only 0.25% of the food waste that they create each year to offset any costs of measurement. That shows that reporting can support wider measures from the Government to reduce inflation and the cost of living.

Any enhanced voluntary or mandatory reporting regime should emphasise that products that are good to eat do not end up as waste. The Company Shop Group, for example, redistributes food that is good to eat or use and is within date, but has been deemed surplus for minor issues such as labelling or packaging errors.

I could not speak on this topic without raising the excellent work of FareShare, the UK’s largest food redistribution charity, which takes edible surplus food from more than 500 businesses and redistributes it to people in need through a UK-wide network of almost 11,000 frontline charities. One in four of the charities with which FareShare works say that if it were not for that supply, they could not keep up with demand to support the people who use their services.

It is often local groups that do fantastic work in this space, so I am delighted, as always, to highlight local efforts to combat food waste. Our local food banks and community-based kitchens, which are often based in faith settings, support those who are most in need. I am always humbled, when visiting volunteer-run local organisations—sadly, there are too many to name individually—to witness how those who have little help those who have less. I recognise and hugely value the work that the charities do in the food redistribution space. We now need to widen the discussion to cover the whole redistribution sector and include opportunities for social enterprises and commercial redistributors. Those businesses have a huge impact on tackling food insecurity in local communities and have a company mission of reducing food waste.

Technology will play an ever-growing role in combating surplus food from local businesses going to waste. In my constituency, we have saved more than 56,000 meals from the bin by using the Too Good To Go app, which is equivalent to one and a half years’ worth of hot showers or 24.8 million smartphone charges. I ask the Minister to consider how that might tie in with introducing more flexibility to the apprenticeship levy, helping to fill skills gaps in the food redistribution sector and the wider food chain and creating more employment opportunities in this growing sector. Indeed, there are excellent business and social enterprise models out there, funded by surplus food in an entirely self-sustaining way, with a social mission to address pathways out of food insecurity, while also preventing food from being wasted.

The national food strategy independent review highlighted the need to rethink our approach to food production, consumption and distribution. Vast potential remains for surplus distribution. By raising awareness of the need to tackle food waste and creating a policy space that empowers businesses, we encourage innovative and supportive investment. As we celebrate the joys and connections that food fosters, let us also pledge to combat food waste and extend the spirit of sharing surplus with those in need in every community.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I aim to call the SNP spokesperson to wind up at about 10.28 am, so if hon. Members stick to four to five minutes, everyone will get in.

09:47

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. I was thinking, “Please don’t call me, because my speech is eight minutes,” but there we go—you have not given me time to cut it down! I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. It is really important; we always say that, but this is crucial.

For most people, the past two years have been utterly dominated by the cost of living crisis, a fall in their living standards and a struggle from one payday to the next. The idea that there would be food waste as people struggle to feed their families seems perverse, but here we are.

I declare an interest, other than the obvious interest of my constituents’ right to nutritious food: I am proud to be a trustee of the Scottish Pantry Network, which started with one pantry in my constituency a few years ago and now has 23 member pantries across Scotland. I will say more about that later, but our passion is alleviating food poverty and reducing food waste. We do that day to day in each of the pantries, and we campaign more broadly for changes that, if we get our way, will make our pantries unnecessary. I am sorry to say that that is not the only organisation in my constituency to have to feed my constituents. North Glasgow Community Food Initiative, Lambhill Stables, Blackhill’s Growing and Spirit of Springburn are just a few of the many, and I pay tribute to their incredible work.

Of course, the UK is not alone in dealing with rampant inflation and an increasing number of its citizens not only feeling the pinch, but being thrust into severe poverty. It is not alone in having far too much wastage in a supply chain predicated on food being plentiful and cheap. Where it differs from other G7 nations such as France and the US is that it has not legislated to address that. The bulk of the work is being carried out by charities and community groups, so it is essential that there is a legislative and economic framework in place to support the businesses and supermarkets that already contribute, as we have heard, and to force those that are not yet engaging to do so. I guess that is probably where we will disagree; I think that they should be forced into it.

As has been mentioned, FareShare is one of the charities at the coalface. To cut down on time, I will not say the wonderful things that I was going to say about it, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has already done that.

My organisation, the Scottish Pantry Network, believes that dignity for people accessing our services is essential. We do not give away food and we do not require people to be living in poverty to access it. We also ensure that the food we sell includes fresh fruit, vegetables, meat and fish. It works out as roughly £15-worth of food for £3 or £4, and we sell it because it gives people some agency; it makes them customers and it means that they are not asking for a handout.

When a person enters one of our pantries, nobody knows whether their motivation is saving the environment or alleviating their own poverty. Many of our shops look exactly like any other shop on the high street. In fact, the Courtyard Pantry in Hamiltonhill in my constituency would not look out of place in a trendy west end setting—although I am not sure how they will feel about me saying that.

Diverting good food from landfill on to people’s plates makes sense on so many different levels. Surely to goodness we can agree that we must do everything in our power, here in this room, to support that. There are a few immediate steps that any Government, incoming or outgoing, need to take to address food insecurity and waste. As I said, the important one is to incentivise surplus food redistribution across the supply chain.

Under current legislation, supermarkets are incentivised to pass food on to become animal feed, even when it is still fit for human consumption. They know that they can still sell the food, so they hang on as long as possible. By the time they give up and decide to get rid of it, it is no longer usable, or it has around three hours left before it becomes unsafe for human consumption. But that is all right because, at that point, the supermarkets are given a subsidy for the food to be given for animal feed. I would like to see that changed.

In France, that practice has been outlawed; supermarkets are simply not allowed to throw away edible food. Incentivising giving food for human consumption is feasible and workable. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it, as well as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—just in case.

FareShare supplies most of the food to our pantries, but it often struggles to keep up with demand. Right now, FareShare accesses around 4% of the surplus food in the UK. Other businesses, such as discount stores, also buy up the surplus food. If FareShare could access its fair share, organisations such as mine could feed more people.

I want the Minister to know that those organisations are not sitting back and saying, “Give us more.” As we have heard, they are using innovative ways to get more for the people they support. They are growing food—my organisation now has a partnership with a farm, yet we are city-based. They are teaching people to cook so that nothing goes to waste. My organisation has wraparound services to support people into better paid employment and healthier lifestyles. When I ask for Government support for these organisations to be able to access more food, it is to add to the many ways they are doing that themselves. That is worthy of not just kind words—which I am sure will be forthcoming—but action.

We are debating food insecurity, and the focus has so far been primarily on the UK. Members can see that I am passionate about that, but I cannot speak about malnourishment and hungry people without mentioning Palestine, where thousands are starving and at least 27 children have recently died from malnutrition. There is food to feed them, but to get the food there we need a ceasefire now. I repeat my solidarity with the people of Palestine and my disgust at the perpetrators, and I reiterate the calls from so many of us for an immediate and unequivocal ceasefire.

09:53

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on securing today’s important debate. As she mentioned, 4.6 million tonnes of edible food are wasted in UK households annually. Around a quarter of that food waste is because too much food has been prepared, cooked or served.

I have been a big supporter of FareShare and its work, which in 2023 delivered 33,500 meals through six local community groups back home in North Devon, and more than 132 million meals nationwide. FareShare is the UK’s largest food redistribution charity. It takes surplus food from the food industry that would otherwise go to waste and gets it to a network of 8,500 charities across the UK. However, budget constraints meant that FareShare had to turn down up to 2 million meals-worth of good-to-eat surplus food last year.

I wrote to the Chancellor last November to support the food redistribution sector, because I felt that it was important that the Government continue to support FareShare’s invaluable work for our communities, and that they reconsider the ringfencing of funding for the sector. I am glad that after FareShare’s continuous campaigning, the Government have recently announced a new £15 million fund to tackle surplus food at farm level. The fund will enable farmers to redistribute surplus food that cannot be used commercially. As a very rural MP, I occasionally see different surplus food products in my constituency. I met FareShare very early on in my time in this place, and I was particularly interested to discuss its work with the Country Food Trust, which has championed dishes such as pheasant curry and venison bolognese as high-protein meat sources.

I also want to highlight the Government’s work to combat food waste. They have invested £2.6 million and have supported the Courtauld commitment 2030, which works for a more sustainable supply chain to tackle food waste and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use. Commitments also include a target to halve food waste by 2030.

In 2022, the Government consulted on options to improve food waste reporting by large food businesses in England. More than 380,000 responses were received, and hopefully DEFRA will be considering whether mandatory food waste reporting should be introduced in the future. Nearly £13 million has been awarded to over 250 redistribution organisations across the country since 2018 for the provision of warehousing, vehicles, fridges and freezers.

Weekly collections of food waste will be introduced for most households across England by 2026, ending the threat of waste waiting weeks for collection and cutting food waste heading to landfill. I find it bewildering that when I am up in London I have to put my food waste in the bin with everything else, unlike when I back home in North Devon, where we have a separate food caddy collection, so many thanks to North Devon Council for its work in ensuring that the weekly collections continue. I hope that we will be able to stop the move towards the three and four-weekly bin collections that have been seen in some areas of the UK, because we do not want food waste, particularly in a hot summer, to be sat on the doorstep for too long.

When I supported FareShare’s #FoodOnPlates campaign back in 2021, I said that wasting good food should never be cheaper than feeding people. I ask the Minister to look again at some of FareShare’s requests on how to incentivise businesses to redistribute more surplus food and consider long-term plans, such as the national food strategy, to recognise the bigger picture of how our food system is also linked to our environmental goals.

Many residents at home in North Devon have raised concerns with me about the rise in food prices, which impacts us all. As a result, many charities have reported financial difficulties. As the redistribution of food falls within a cross-departmental remit, I hope that the Minister will be able to share some insight into what is being done behind the scenes to support this crucial sector. Let me take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to everyone back home in North Devon for their ongoing work on food distribution and to reduce our food waste.

09:57

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for securing this important debate.

Food redistribution services are fighting on the frontline of the food waste and climate crisis and must be supported. More than a third of all food in the UK is wasted, which is an absolutely shocking statistic. That waste contributes up to 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions and costs the UK economy over £20 billion a year, which is more than the entire aviation sector. There is always lots of public debate about the environmental impacts of aviation, but maybe it is time to shed more light on how we can support food redistribution schemes, which will be foundational if we are to have a more environmentally sustainable future.

In my constituency, I have a wonderful example of success in the redistribution sector called Company Shop, which we have heard about already. The Company Shop Group is a food redistribution service that has been able to transform unwanted products into usable, saleable goods for the benefit of my community and many others in various locations across the country. It understands that the UK throws away at least 10 million tonnes of food every year, but, incredibly, 6 million tonnes of that waste is avoidable and has a retail value of over £17 billion. That is where the Company Shop Group can prevent wasted food and salvage value that would otherwise have literally gone in the bin by reselling the surplus food at a discounted price to its members.

The store in my constituency has saved my constituents nearly £7.5 million on their shopping bills, while saving 2,649 tonnes of food from being binned. Those numbers are astonishing and represent 6.3 million meals that would otherwise have gone to landfill, where they would have fed no one and contributed to preventable environmental damage.

Benefits from food redistribution services such as this are felt by more than just our planet; they are felt in our constituents’ pockets too. As we have seen over the last few years, the cost of food can rise very quickly and fall very slowly, and contribute to growing levels of food insecurity and financial hardship for working people. Food redistribution schemes can be incredibly useful in preventing food waste and ensuring that our food system is more affordable and sustainable. Although the sector has seen incredible success from various charities, there is also vital work by social enterprises and commercial organisations such as the Company Shop Group that we can celebrate.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food, I hear from food procurement specialists, school food providers, schools and families alike of the dire consequences of food insecurity. It is one of the major challenges policymakers currently face, and the most vulnerable in our society are those who suffer the most. We need to support charities, businesses and organisations to put food redistribution at the centre of their operations, so that we can save our constituents money and preserve the planet for future generations.

That is why many of us cautiously welcome DEFRA’s recent announcement that it will reconsider its earlier decision to delay mandatory food waste reporting for large food businesses until 2026. Due to overwhelming support for the policy from environmentalists, food and nutrition campaigners, food redistribution specialists, the public and businesses alike, the appetite for mandatory food waste reporting is at an all-time high. It is a relatively light-touch and simple intervention, which could be hugely cost-effective, incentivising large food businesses to cut down on their waste, and incentivising redistribution by organisations such as the Company Shop Group.

The food redistribution system has the potential to be incredibly efficient, as long as we achieve the joined-up policymaking that stakeholders across the sector are calling for. Last month, over 30 companies within the food, retail and manufacturing sectors signed an open letter organised by the food redistribution app Too Good to Go. If anybody has not used that app yet, I can highly recommend it, especially in London, where you can access anything within a few metres of where you are; that is not so much the case in the north-east, although I do still manage to use it there.

The letter called on the Government to introduce mandatory food waste reporting as soon as possible. By reporting on food wastage, we support redistribution schemes and tackle the crisis of food waste that was, for too long, a hidden evil in our food system. We need to put food redistribution at the centre of how we think about our food system, and we need the policies to make this happen. Repealing DEFRA’s 2026 timeline and introducing mandatory food waste reporting as soon as possible should be a good place to start. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:04

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for leading today’s debate. It is estimated that total food waste in the UK amounted to 10.7 million tonnes in 2021. Most food waste comes from households, equating to some 60%, followed by farms, at 15%, manufacturing, at 13%, and retail, at 2%. It is clear that we need to do more as a collective to tackle our food waste statistics, so it is good to be here to discuss the issue. It is not just something that the Minister gives us the solutions for; it is something that we, as elected representatives, and communities must work together on.

I was shocked to read that the edible parts of household waste amounted to £17 billion. That is the equivalent of £250 per person per year, or £1,000 for a family of four. In Northern Ireland in 2021, Minister Lyons called for a crackdown on food waste. It was estimated that Northern Ireland accounted for 25% of the content of our non-recycling bins.

I want to give a couple of examples to illustrate what has been done in my community. At the end of the day, major shopkeepers, including Asda and Tesco, give perishable goods to community groups, which in turn give them to needy families and elderly people. What they do is incredible. I never knew this until I went to see the local warehouse just before Christmas, but Jude Bailey, the lady in charge of it, also does great work by collecting chicken and ready-made meals. The companies keep that food for 24 hours, but after that time they give it to the warehouse group, which freezes it and in turn makes meals. I was really impressed by what it does. Its volunteers make a free meal for the community every day so that the food is not wasted. That is similar to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) described. People are incredibly kind. Jude and her team of committed Christians show their faith through helping others.

We waste not only food but a large amount energy, and there are carbon emissions associated with growing and transporting food. In Northern Ireland, we have successfully diverted 1 million tonnes of biodegradable waste from landfill since 2015, but there is still an excessive amount of waste to be addressed. We are all guilty of throwing out too much food and not making use of what we have in our kitchens, but we do not realise the full extent of the environmental damage that that can cause.

This will be a trip down memory lane for you, Ms Vaz. In the ’60s, when I was a child, nothing was lost in our house—and I mean nothing. We owned a shop, and the family home got what we did not sell. That was not because the food was bad—I am a pensioner now, so it did not affect me in any way. I have held on to my health for many years, so that indicates that the food was okay. When the cheese went a bit blue, we cut off the blue bit and ate the rest, and it did not do us any harm. In this day and age, that probably would not happen, but we did it. Everything was used, and the collie dog got whatever we did not eat. My goodness me: as children in the ’60s with a very capable family, we were examples of using everything in the house.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point that I did not make in my speech. He brought this figure to my mind: although we all think that waste in this country comes from supermarkets and restaurants, 70% is from households. Does he agree that we need to start in our own households, exactly as he is describing, if we want to solve the problem of food waste?

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely, and that is the point that I am trying to make. I said to the Minister before the sitting that I do not expect him to give us all the answers. We have the answers individually and in our communities.

I am thankful that I have a very frugal wife who is careful with our grocery and shopping lists, but I understand the pressure on young families, who are busier now than I could ever imagine. Both parents work, and when they come home they carry out homework and take the kids to football or to Boys’ Brigade or Girls’ Brigade. When do they make meals? They have to rinse out containers for the recycling bin. They may envisage making dinner six times that week and buying groceries, but when the timings are changed for football or the school choir, or the kids need to be dropped off, it is hard for them to do that.

We have rightly moved away from girls-only home economics classes. I am impressed when I go to schools and see equal numbers of young boys in the same class, doing the same work and learning how to cook. Before I was married, it was bacon butties—toast and bacon under the grill. I will not say how often I used the grill and how often it was cleaned. I think I survived well as a single man, but when I got married, life changed. I thank the Lord it did.

It is clear from the figures that have been cited today that we need to take action. I am a great believer in education not simply changing our generation but equipping future generations with the tools to do better than we are currently doing, and I will finish with this comment. Households on low budgets need help to know how best to use their food, but households with higher budgets need the same lessons, because this is not a tale of income; it is a tale of mindset, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. We all must change our mindsets to be better stewards of our resources, food, money and, of course, time.

10:09

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber.

The contribution that food waste makes to carbon emissions is well documented. More than 10 million tonnes of food is wasted every year in the UK alone, producing 18 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, which is a most potent greenhouse gas. It degrades more quickly, but it is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. Let us not forget that. The food waste index report indicates that 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions are due to food waste—five times more than the aviation sector, as has been mentioned. We mention the aviation sector a lot, but food waste is one of the main contributors to global warming.

Much is made of commercial food waste, and legislation is often targeted at it. However, according to the Office for National Statistics, more than half of food waste happens in the home, and the majority of food that is thrown away is considered edible. Though businesses must bear a higher responsibility for reporting commercial food waste, households must also be incentivised to reduce their own food waste. We heard a powerful comment about what people can do to change their mindsets about food and about what is edible and what is not. There is a lot that households can do to reduce waste by changing behaviour. The waste and resources action programme suggests measures such as ensuring that fresh food is refrigerated below 5°C and purchasing loose, rather than packaged, fruit and vegetables.

More can also be done on date labels. WRAP suggests not putting a label on uncut fresh produce, unless it can be shown that a best before date reduces overall food waste. We Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the UK must adopt circular economy techniques and cut resource use, waste and pollution by maximising recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing. We can do so much better on recycling; too much organic waste is still landfilled or incinerated. Scotland will ban the landfilling of organic waste by 2025, but a similar ban in England will not come into effect until 2028. A 2025 ban would cut emissions by an extra 13% by 2030. Why are the Government not bringing that date forward?

There are many examples from the voluntary sector of the distribution of food that would otherwise go to waste. Organisations such as FareShare, which has been mentioned several times, play a pivotal role in diverting surplus food from the food industry. It redistributes food to a network of 8,500 charities across the nation. In my constituency of Bath last year, FareShare delivered the equivalent of more than 230,000 meals through 27 local organisations. That is an enormous amount, and we must congratulate FareShare on its incredible work.

However, it should not be down to voluntary organisations to plug the gaps that the Government allow to proliferate. We must address the underlying causes of food poverty and over-production. Businesses are not obliged to disclose their food waste data publicly. Will the Government consider bringing in mandatory reporting of food waste for businesses? Mandatory reporting was included in the Government’s resources and waste strategy, among other legislative changes, such as a mandatory food waste prevention target. The changes in the strategy have been broadly welcomed by many, and dozens of large supermarkets have called for voluntary reporting to become mandatory, but we are yet to see the strategy implemented. Could the Government indicate when it will be?

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am worried about others wanting to speak, so I will not.

Reducing food waste and improving food distribution is an opportunity to encourage sustainable, community-driven initiatives that reduce food waste and food miles. Recent research has indicated that the UK could grow up to 40% of its own fruit and vegetables by using urban green spaces. Liberal Democrats want to restore market garden hinterlands around our towns and cities. That would reduce food miles, provide satisfying jobs and reduce food waste and packaging. It would be a combination of small and medium-sized enterprise and community-supported agriculture.

In my constituency, projects such as CropDrop do incredible work to bridge the gap between locally grown produce and those in need. Since its inception, CropDrop has been a beacon of sustainability, highlighting the importance of allotment access and minimising the waste of locally grown food. In 2020 alone—its first year of operation—CropDrop completed over 150 journeys, delivering an estimated 21,000 meals. That is a prime example of the circular economy that Liberal Democrats want to see implemented across the UK.

Reducing food miles from plant to plate reduces emissions as well as wastage. However, we cannot leave filling the gap to the voluntary sector. The Government need to step up and act on this issue with a sense of urgency. Already inadequate action to address food waste has been delayed. Meanwhile, more food continues to go to landfill and emissions continue. We can do better.

10:15

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for securing this debate.

I want to take two different lines. One is the household; many people have made reference to the amount of food waste generated within the home. I will give a small example of what is happening. Many community groups in my constituency have identified that homes are under tremendous pressure, not just from the cost of living; their budgets are being squeezed in every way. These groups have made efforts to bring people together to educate those in the home who are cooking, providing and doing the shopping on how they can prepare meals and generate a shopping list.

Unfortunately, the way in which our supermarkets are laid out is not necessarily helpful. We used to walk into a shop with a list, and we would get what we wanted from behind the counter. Now we walk around the shop and everything is put out to tempt us to say, “Well, I think I need this.” Whenever I go shopping, my wife always says that it costs us twice as much as whenever she does it. My eyes are always bigger than my belly, and unfortunately I decide that certain things are needed when, to be truthful, they are not.

A number of community groups in my area have been running programmes where they are bringing people in, and are learning them how to put together a menu and to shop for a week. We have already heard that almost 70% of food waste is generated in the home and about how we can deal with that. We produce almost 11 million tonnes of food waste in the United Kingdom. That predominately goes to landfill, producing methane. There are other ways to deal with that waste rather than sending it to landfill. We can recover energy from our food waste by using technology.

Worldwide, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted. Much of that is down to lifestyle and how we have learned to be a consumable society; and, as a consequence, we produce far more food than we could ever usefully use. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that whenever he was young, the shop would look at whatever was left and see what was close to its end—not its sell-by date, because sometimes the sell-by date does not mean the food cannot be consumed.

Food used to be more local; we are now a global market, and our food comes from all over the world. That contributes to part of the problem because we have created different tastes within our society, including people wanting to eat certain foods that are not produced locally. We used to eat berries that were only produced at certain times of the year. Now we want them all year, so they have to be brought in. We have generated a consumable society that is fuelled by what we have on our shelves.

It is important that we put measures in place. The Food Waste (Reduction) Bill was introduced to Westminster in 2015. Certain parts of that legislation have been mentioned this morning. There are parts we want to encourage, and the large retailers have taken a lead in many areas. We should support them totally; on many occasions, they are ahead of what we are attempting to do as legislators. Certain measures should be brought in, including tax breaks for those who are efficient and do not produce much waste. That has to be considered as an opportunity.

Generally, we should be encouraging the housewife—maybe that is the wrong term to use—or those who are cooking in the home to be far more efficient about what they put on the table and what they do whenever they go out shopping, and ensure that we do not buy more than we can consume. That message will go back. I want to thank those charities that have been so successful in putting forward the FareShare scheme and the food reduction system. The Too Good To Go scheme is also fantastic; I was unaware of it until recently. I again thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for securing this debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. We have two more speakers before we take the wind-ups at 10.28 am, so they have roughly four minutes each.

10:21

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

It is a privilege to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I would like to cover three subjects. First, I will speak about the benefits of redistribution. Secondly, I will pay tribute to some brilliant community groups, from which I think we can probably all learn. Thirdly, I will talk a little bit about a specific proposal for the Minister today, relating to the emissions trading scheme.

A few years ago, takeaway baguette retailers would boast that if the sandwiches did not sell within three hours, they would be destroyed. I am so pleased that there has been a revolution in our thinking about food waste. We have heard that in 2021 over 10 million tonnes of food went to waste in the UK; that is still a staggering amount, but at least people are now starting to think about how they can avoid food waste. Still, £250 per person is wasted each year from food going in the bin. That is an absolutely huge sum.

I would like to pay tribute to some fantastic community groups. The Foodsave initiative in the part of East Devon that I represent is fantastic. This time last week, I was in the village of Beer, a former fishing village. There is such a strong sense of camaraderie in the food redistribution initiatives like Foodsave. I saw the hall being laid out with so much excess food that had been sought from retailers, including supermarkets. Then at 12.30 pm, the doors opened and in flocked tens of people from the local area to take food, with absolutely no stigma—and why should there be? They were not just alleviating poverty; they were saving food, saving money and avoiding waste. There is a big distinction between what food banks do, with referrals, and what redistribution organisations like Foodsave do. I pay particular tribute to Mike McAlpine from Beer Foodsave and to Jake Bonetta, who set up the initiative in Honiton.

I also want to talk about the time I spent at ReROOTed community café in Tiverton, which operates on a pay-as-you-feel basis. I went there several Saturdays ago and I cleared some plates—not only in the way a waiter does, clearing up after people have eaten, but also by eating the food that they had put together from scraps and morsels. It was absolutely delicious.

Lastly, I have a very specific point to make and a recommendation for the Minister. Given that we reckon that 18 million tonnes of CO2 was released into the atmosphere from the UK in 2021 due to food waste, we really have to think about how we can offset it. The Foodsave initiative—Jake Bonetta and co—has come up with a fantastic proposal. At the moment, the UK-wide emissions trading scheme generates over £4.5 billion—that was the case a couple of years ago anyway—but the Government are spending as little as 20% of the money received through the emissions trading scheme on cutting domestic emissions. What if the voluntary carbon market, which is unregulated, could be used for redistributing some of the funds to some of the community-based organisations that I have described? The Minister will sum up shortly and I encourage him to consider that redistribution scheme operators, such as Foodsave, are expressly eligible to sell their carbon offsetting through the scheme.

10:25

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for securing this important debate.

The food system is not working. People in this country struggle with food security and are living in food poverty. Much of our food waste ends up in landfill, thus contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The Food Foundation has found that the poorest 20% in society would need to spend half their disposable income to afford the healthy diet recommended by the NHS. Food waste is a significant issue with vast environmental, social and economic implications. We need to redesign the food system to meet everyone’s needs.

Mandatory reporting of food waste for big businesses is key if we want to understand how much food is being wasted. The Government have shown a remarkable level of indecision over whether to move from voluntary to mandatory reporting, but I was pleased that the current DEFRA Secretary decided last year to reconsider the decision not to implement mandatory reporting, but I am still concerned that that is after six years of delays. With the benefits so clear, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to confirm the timescale for the decision being made.

There is a real lack of information on pre-farm gate food waste, but WRAP estimates that there could be 1.6 million to 3.5 million tonnes a year. I was out talking to a farmer near Castle Cary about this recently and she told me how heartbreaking it is; and as a farmer’s daughter, I also know that. Sadly, much pre-farm gate food waste is driven by unfair supermarket buying practices in the just-in-time food supply model. If farmers fail to produce enough food for supermarkets, they can be hit with penalties that can drive over-production of food to ensure that targets are met. Supermarkets can negotiate contracts that give them flexibility to cancel or reduce orders at the last minute, whereas farmers are more likely to be tied into contracts that leave them with surplus food that they cannot sell elsewhere. We need to give the Groceries Code Adjudicator more teeth to stop that practice and to ensure that there is more fairness in the supply chain.

Riverford Organic Farmers has spearheaded the fairness in farming campaign, and late last year its survey of British fruit and veg farmers revealed that 49% feared they would go out of business within the year. Many cited supermarket behaviour as a major reason for that. The relentless desire of supermarkets to sell pre-packaged food also drives pre-farm gate food waste. Perpetual BOGOF—buy one, get one free—deals, and fruit and veg sold in plastic packaging, encourage consumers to buy more than they may use and force farmers to discard produce that does not fit into the specifications.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the SNP spokesperson.

10:29

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is nice to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for securing this important debate on food waste and redistribution.

As the SNP spokesperson for the environment and food, I welcome the opportunity to address this issue, which plagues our society: wastage and the unconscionable amount of food waste that we allow to happen each and every year. I will also highlight some of the excellent work being undertaken in Scotland in relation to this subject. It is not just a matter of leftovers on our plates, as important as that is; it is also about the obscene waste of perfectly good, nutritious food while people in our communities the length and breadth of these isles and beyond go hungry.

[Deidre Brock]

The managing director of Too Good To Go, an organisation that has been mentioned several times this morning, has said that the UK Government’s refusal to introduce mandatory food waste reporting is a blow to the UK food waste reduction waste efforts. There has been a lot of criticism about the constant delays on this issue. The European Commission has proposed introducing legally binding targets to try to limit food waste across the EU, leaving the UK behind once again in progressive regulation. Is my hon. Friend as dismayed as I am at the Government’s intransigence on this vital issue?

[Steven Bonnar]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes excellent points. We are all frustrated with the Government’s intransigence, not just in this area but right across the food, environment and rural affairs spectrum; some of the matters are really disappointing. I know that she is keen on these particular issues and that she has done some excellent work on them, so I commend her for that.

The food waste numbers are stark. In Scotland alone, we waste a staggering 1 million tonnes of food and drink every single year. Shockingly, around 60% of that waste originates within households, with an additional 25% of it coming from food and drink manufacturing. That is enough food to feed countless hungry families, yet it ends up rotting in landfill, emitting harmful greenhouse gases and contributing to the very climate crisis that we are also threatened by.

This issue is not just about individual actions, important as they are. It is about a systematic failure: the failure of the UK Government to take decisive action to address this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has just said. Instead, they prefer to prioritise their own narrow political agendas over the wellbeing of our planet and our people.

However, perhaps most frustrating is the fact that so much of the waste is entirely avoidable. We know that 70% of food waste is still edible and that preventing such waste in the first place is not only morally imperative but economically and environmentally sound.

[Sarah Dyke]

I recently visited Frome community fridge, which is the first organisation of its kind in the country. The people there told me that since it was established in 2016 they have been able to fill the equivalent of eight Wembley stadiums with surplus food. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this kind of innovative project is really important in helping us to reduce food waste?

[Steven Bonnar]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. In fact, that is a great analogy. Wembley stadium is massive. The thought of eight Wembleys stacked up—we can all visualise that right now—is absolutely obscene.

Research has shown that achieving a 58% per capita reduction in food waste by 2050 could remove the equivalent of 5.6 million cars from UK roads, which of course would significantly mitigate our carbon outputs. Also, let us not forget the impact on households struggling to make ends meet. We have heard of so many groups and organisations, like the one that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned, that are doing stellar work in relation to food insecurity across all our constituencies. Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is no different from any other constituency in that regard and I hope that the SNP’s appreciation of all of those groups and organisations is very clear.

Over a third of Scots worry about their ability to afford food, especially in the face of both a cost of living crisis and the disastrous effects of Brexit, which have only served to exacerbate the situation. The National Farmers Union has reported that crops worth over £60 million were left to rot in fields due to Tory-induced labour shortages and indeed other factors, while supermarket shelves are bare, prices are rocketing and people are being left devoid of the essentials that they so rely on.

Fortunately for those of us in Scotland, there is hope on the horizon. The Scottish Government have taken bold steps to address food waste head-on. In 2018, they committed to reducing Scotland’s food waste by 33%, which set a precedent across the rest of Europe. Through regulations and partnerships with organisations such as Zero Waste Scotland and FareShare, whose excellent work we have heard so much about today, the SNP has implemented measures to reduce waste at every level, from production to distribution and all the way through to consumption. We have also improved monitoring and have put infrastructure programmes in place to enhance public engagement and communication. We are leaving no stone unturned in the fight to reduce food waste.

The UK Government must now follow Scotland’s lead and take decisive action on food waste. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report “Environmental Change and Food Security” has called for a national strategy to tackle this issue, echoing much of what the Scottish Government have already implemented, so I hope that the Minister will look kindly on that recommendation. Let us all renew our commitment to reducing food waste and building a more sustainable future for the generations to come.

10:34

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It has been a busy few weeks for DEFRA since we were all last together, with the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries knighted and the Secretary of State overriding his civil servants. Anyone would think there was a major event coming up soon. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), can pass on our congratulations to his colleague, whose knighthood is very well deserved. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on securing today’s debate, on all the work she has done as chair of the national food strategy all-party parliamentary group and on her excellent introduction to the debate.

Nobody wants to see good food wasted, but the scale of food waste in the UK is shocking, as many contributions this morning have outlined, with 3.3 million tonnes of UK food wasted on farms every year and 2.9 million tonnes of farm produce that could still be eaten going to landfill, incineration or waste treatment plants. UK on-farm food waste alone is estimated to use an area of agricultural land half the size of Wales—we have heard lots of similar comparisons this morning—and that land could be used to help sustainably feed the UK and restore nature to address the biodiversity and climate crises.

After leaving the farm gate, the UK food supply chain and households currently waste 9.5 million tonnes of food every year, 70% of which could have been eaten. This annual waste has an approximate cost of £19 billion and causes emissions of 36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—a point made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). That means that over a quarter of all the food grown in the UK is never eaten, and this wasted harvest counts for between 6% and 7% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, this is at the same time that 2.1 million people in the UK are living in a household that has used a food bank in the last 12 months.

As has been mentioned today, high food inflation also hits poorer families much more severely, forcing them into buying cheaper, less healthy food at best, or hunger at worst. As the Food Foundation recently pointed out, if poorer families were buying the lowest priced fruit and veg available, it would cost between 34% and 52% of one person’s weekly food budget to afford a week’s worth of the recommended five a day. That is twice as much as the 17% to 26% for the wealthiest 10% of families. Despite the high prices, too many farmers and growers increasingly despair when it comes to being able to make a living, particularly in the face of cheap, lower standard imports. As we discussed in last month’s food security debate, this is leaving the UK vulnerable to global supply shocks and disruptions.

Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy and others have pointed to some of the causes of food waste that run throughout the supply chain. We have heard much about them this morning—it is familiar stuff: vegetables grown for a market that has dried up; wonky carrots cast aside; wasted peelings; unappetising meat offcuts; over-ordered food, which supermarkets or restaurants cannot sell; food we bought but no longer fancy at home; and food that rots because of a shortage of labour to harvest it or while stuck in post-Brexit queues at the border. There are problems, it seems, at every stage through our system. But there are also opportunities, and—as ever in this country—there are plenty of good initiatives.

With the encouragement of WRAP and the food waste reduction road map, almost a third of large UK food businesses are implementing “target, measure, act”, representing almost 60% of the overall turnover for UK food manufacture, retail, and hospitality and food service. The redistribution of food by groups and businesses that we have heard much about this morning, such as FareShare and Too Good To Go, helps to feed hungry people through food banks and is of course praiseworthy, but frankly we should not kid ourselves. Voluntary waste reduction and surplus redistribution can, at best, only ever be short-term sticking plaster solutions to food waste, poverty and hunger.

The food waste and surpluses created arise from market failures in the food supply chain. Not only can the Government act to redress them; they committed to a target in last year’s environmental improvement plan, to reduce food waste by 50% by 1 January 2028 in line with the UN sustainable development goal 12.3—but I am afraid that the evidence is that food waste levels have not decreased overall relative to baselines. Furthermore, since 2018, despite huge efforts from some businesses, there has actually been an increase, if waste by producers and manufacturers is included. Including inedible parts, businesses produced 5% more food waste in 2021 compared to baseline, with a 9% increase from producers and manufacturers.

Does the Minister accept that the problem of food waste has actually got worse? Can he tell us whether the 50% reduction target will be achieved in 2028? If not, what further measures does he plan to take? Will he strengthen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator with an explicit focus on tackling unfair trading practices that lead to food waste?

Will the Minister finally deliver on requiring food waste to be monitored and reported through the supply chain, because businesses—as we have heard—are clear about the importance of a level playing field to ensure that all supply chain participants use better-practice methodology with robust processes to capture and measure their food loss? Does he agree with them that voluntary actions are inadequate, and that the continued failure of many businesses to reduce food waste risks undermining the progress that has been achieved voluntarily?

Businesses supporting mandatory food-waste reporting know that identifying and reporting their waste will enable them to drive down costs and to improve their efficiency and productivity. It is not surprising that the Government’s response to the consultation rejecting regulation faced a legal challenge on the ground of irrationality, given all the evidence in their own impact assessment that costs can be recouped with only a small reduction in food waste. The Secretary of State was therefore right to withdraw his predecessor’s consultation response last November, but, as we have heard, we still have no decision. Instead, the Secretary of State told WRAP to run yet another consultation and said that any decision could still be another six months away. Will the Minister tell us today whether we are any nearer a mandatory scheme being introduced?

Finally, on labour shortages, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee found clear evidence that food insecurity and food waste have increased significantly, with food left in the fields to rot because of lack of labour. It is 10 months since the publication of John Shropshire’s independent review into labour shortages in the food supply chain. What is the Government’s strategy for preventing yet more waste? Where is the response to the Shropshire report, which the Farming Minister promised that we would see last autumn?

Let me conclude by reiterating that for us it is clear that food security is national security. Labour will back our food producers by ensuring that we buy, sell, make and grow more of our food here at home, entrenching our reputation as a beacon for quality food, high standards and ethical treatment of animals. We will ensure that more of our British-grown and reared produce ends up on people’s plates, using the Government’s purchasing power to back British produce with 50% of food in our hospitals, army bases and prisons locally grown or certified to higher environmental standards. We will work with business to design and deliver a proper food waste monitoring programme. Put simply, it is time to end the waste.

10:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

I am grateful to all Members who have spoken in this debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for raising this important issue. Over many years—in fact, for all the years she has been in this place—she has championed challenging the complexities and ensuring that we are doing our best as a country to reduce food waste. I thank her for her efforts.

No one wants to see good food going to waste. It harms the environment and is bad for business. The UK is an international leader on tackling food waste, and we are fully committed to meeting the target of the UN’s sustainable development goal 12.3, which seeks to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030. I will try to respond to all the many and various themes raised by Members, but I will start by addressing household food waste, which in my view—I think all of us would agree—is the biggest opportunity for us to meet the 2030 target to reduce food waste, because 60% of food that is wasted in the UK is wasted by citizens in their own homes. That is 4.7 million tonnes of food, which could be eaten, being thrown away every single year.

Action needs to be taken across the supply chain and in the home. We are supportive of consumer awareness campaigns delivered by WRAP, including Food Waste Action Week and Love Food Hate Waste, which helps citizens reduce their food waste. The current focus is moving retailers to sell more loose fruit and vegetables so that people can buy what they need, which reduces waste and saves plastic, I hope reducing the need for as much packaging as there is in the retail network.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Twenty years ago, I was a councillor with responsibility for waste, and we had the same issue then. What has happened in the meantime? In 20 years of being aware of household food waste, what has happened?

[Robbie Moore]

Let me highlight some stats that have been presented to me and the Department by WRAP. From the 2007 baseline to 2021, total post-farm-gate waste has dropped by 18.3% and households are wasting 17% less than in 2007. Of course we recognise that household waste is still too high, and we are doing our utmost to reduce it. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about education and improving food technology and home economics lessons, so that everyone going through the education system has a better understanding of ingredients, nutritional values and the quantities needed to produce good-quality meals.

All speakers today have referred to the request for mandatory food waste reporting. We support Courtauld’s delivery of the food waste reduction road map, which provides guidance to businesses on identifying and measuring food waste and food surplus. We support the “target, measure, act” approach, as it enables food businesses to drive down food waste through measuring their surplus and waste. It also shines a light on any surplus that arises and how to get it to redistributors.

We consulted on improving the voluntary approach with options that included making it mandatory for large businesses. Members will be aware that when the Secretary of State took up his position in November last year, alongside a new ministerial team that includes me, our determination was to review previous decisions. We are gathering new evidence to make the most informed decision using the latest available data. We look forward to making that decision soon.

I have met Too Good To Go in my constituency, through a visit to Booths supermarket in Ilkley. It is a fantastic organisation, which I hope will be rolled out further in the north-east, if it is not there yet—I can certainly confirm that it is in Yorkshire and working its way north. I took on board the points it made in its request to roll out mandatory reporting, which is being considered by the Secretary of State as we speak.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that the Minister heard the enthusiasm for mandatory reporting from a number of Members. What is causing the Government not to go forward, given that businesses want it to happen?

[Robbie Moore]

A previous Secretary of State made the decision to go for a voluntary approach, and it is right that the new team are reviewing that decision, alongside various stakeholders. As I have said, we aim to make an announcement soon.

The Government strongly support the surplus food redistribution sector because we recognise the environmental and social benefits of making sure that good food is eaten rather than wasted. Since 2018 we have provided nearly £13 million in funding to increase the capacity of the sector, funding infrastructure such as warehouse facilities, freezer units and temperature-controlled vans, taking great strides in improving the capacity of redistributors to access, transport, process, store and ultimately redistribute surplus to people in need. The results of our investment and the hard work of all people involved in the redistribution sector are reflected in the latest report from WRAP, which shows that the total amount of food redistributed in the UK in 2022 was more than 170,000 tonnes. That has a value of around £590 million and is the equivalent of more than 404 million meals. That is an increase of 133% since 2019.

Hon. Members have raised examples of good voluntary schemes in their constituencies. I commend the work done by the Company Shop Group in the constituency of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who noted that 6.3 million meals have been saved that would otherwise have gone to landfill. It is good to recognise the work that is going on in our constituencies. As well as meeting Too Good to Go, I met with Olio just yesterday to discuss its app-based system. A great deal of work is going on in the private sector and in voluntary schemes to reduce food waste.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) raised particular on-farm issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. In addition to the work on post-farm-gate surpluses, the Prime Minister announced at the National Farmers Union conference earlier this year action to tackle surplus food on farms, with a £15 million fund to redirect that surplus into the hands of those who need it. We will provide further details in coming months. We are working with stakeholders to ensure the scheme works adequately and appropriately, to make the most positive impact on reducing food waste.

We seek a productive and efficient farming sector that prevents waste from occurring in the first place. We are supporting investment in productivity, boosting equipment, technology and infrastructure through the farming investment fund, which provides grants to farmers and growers that will help their businesses prosper, while improving their productivity and enhancing the environment.

WRAP supports the measures that the Government are rolling out. It recognises that the total amount of edible food on UK farms that might be suitable for redistribution is approximately 330,000 tonnes per annum, or about 10% of the total of 3.6 million tonnes surplus and waste estimated to be generated on farms. The Government are working with various stakeholders, including WRAP, to address how to minimise and redistribute on-farm food waste.

The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) spoke about the supply chain and contracts, We have taken steps through the fair dealings powers awarded by the Agriculture Act 2020 to clamp down on unfair contract practices. Last December, we launched a review into fairness in the fresh produce supply chain. We are analysing responses and will soon publish a summary of them, as well as our proposed next steps. We intend to work with stakeholders to explore how those powers could be exercised to reduce those concerns and provide more certainty to farmers, who are being negatively impacted by some of the decisions supermarkets are making through unfair practices in their supply chain contracts.

Many hon. Members raised challenges related to kerbside collection of food waste. The food and drink surplus and waste hierarchy lays out clear guidance for the use and disposal of surplus food and waste. We ask all businesses to take into account the measures that the Government wish to take, particularly in relation to the food hierarchy—first, to prevent food waste, followed by the redistribution of food surplus to those who need it, and, as a last resort, to end up as animal feed. There is tax relief when businesses donate to charity.

There will always be some waste that cannot be prevented. The hierarchy prefers disposal of that waste through anaerobic digestion rather than landfill, because of its recognised negative impacts on the environment. Whatever preventative and reduction actions are taken, some food waste will arise. Anaerobic digestion is the Government’s preferred option for recycling food that eventually ends up as waste. Treating food waste through anaerobic digestion removes it from the residual waste stream, where it can end up in landfill and create harmful greenhouse gases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central asked how local authorities would roll out kerbside collection of food waste. Under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, we will require all local authorities in England to arrange weekly collection of food waste for recycling. It is frustrating that my local authority in Bradford does not collect food waste; other hon. Members said the same. There is a disparity in what local authorities across England are doing. The Government want to make it clear that all local authorities must adhere to this measure. The waste must always be collected separately from residual waste and dry recyclable materials, so that it can be recycled appropriately. The Act also requires non-household municipal premises, such as businesses, hospitals and schools, to arrange food waste recycling collections.

On simpler recycling, in the Government response published last October we announced that the requirements must be implemented by 31 March 2025 for non-household municipal premises in England such as hospitals, schools and businesses; by 31 March 2026 for kerbside collection for domestic properties; and by 31 March 2027 for microbusinesses. DEFRA has up to £295 million in capital funding to roll out weekly food waste collections across England. The Government will also provide resource funding to be spent from this financial year to support local authorities to implement food waste collections.

The Government are committed to preventing and driving down food waste. We are supporting prevention initiatives and taking action to get surplus food into the redistribution system. That is crucial to ensure that it does not end up in landfill or anaerobic digestion. We are helping businesses to be more resilient and efficient and to cut costs while protecting the environment, and helping citizens with advice on how they can reduce their food waste and save money.

I thank all Members for their contributions today, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for securing this important debate.

10:56

[Jo Gideon]

I, too, thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. All hon. Members share the view that we have to do something about food waste. It is not party political, and the tone of the debate was appropriate. I thank the Minister and look forward with bated breath to the announcement on mandatory reporting. I know that he is still gathering evidence, but hopefully we will get a good outcome.

As we reflect on the importance of food in our lives, with 11 million people in the UK experiencing food insecurity and charities struggling to help, I think everybody agrees that we have to address the scandal of the volume of food waste at all stages in the supply chain. That demands a concerted effort across all sectors—Government, industry, farmers and consumers. What the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said resonated with me, because I buy more than I need to. I still shop as though I have a family at home, even though they have long since moved out. We all share the responsibility for doing something about that.

By increasing awareness, implementing effective policies, fostering innovation and supporting grassroots efforts, we can transform surplus into sustenance, ensuring that nobody goes hungry, while simultaneously safeguarding our resources and planning for future generations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered food waste and food distribution.

Citizens’ Assemblies and Local Democracy

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call Debbie Abrahams to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered citizens’ assemblies and local democracy.

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am absolutely delighted to lead this Westminster Hall debate on how citizens’ assemblies can be used to enhance public engagement in political decision making, bringing benefits to our democracy and society as a whole.

As hon. Members may know, last month I introduced the Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct) Bill to Parliament. Many people across our great country and nation states feel that the UK Parliament—including MPs and Ministers who sit in this place—is disconnected from them and their lives. It is not just the poor behaviour of a few bad apples affecting how people feel; there is a much deeper malaise.

People have a growing lack of trust and confidence in politics and politicians. Last year, a King’s College London study of 24 countries found that the UK fares poorly in people’s confidence in the Government, political parties and even Parliament. Added to that, there is a marked difference by generation. Young people have experienced some of the biggest shifts in attitude: confidence in the Government among millennials in Britain has halved since 2005, falling to its lowest level on record, and generation Z has very low confidence in a wide range of other institutions, too.

In the Hansard Society’s audit of political engagement series, which was carried out between 2004 and 2019, people reported an increasing sense of powerlessness and disengagement over time. Similarly, polling by the think-tank Compassion in Politics showed that four out of five people have no respect for politicians, and that 40% of parents would be concerned if their child expressed a desire to become a politician, which is worrying if we want our democracy not just to survive but to thrive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. I always do research on these matters. Northern Ireland is fortunate to have its own citizens’ assembly with 75 members, which passed three high-level resolutions that made recommendations on the core themes of social care, change and strong leadership. Is the hon. Lady aware of Northern Ireland’s citizens’ assembly? Does she believe that it can foster better communication between people and their elected representatives? If so, would she add her support to it?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I was not specifically aware of the citizens’ assembly in Northern Ireland, although I am aware of many across our nation states and in other countries. They are seen as a mechanism by which elected representatives can maintain contact with their constituents on various policy issues throughout a political cycle.

Polling from the Institute for Government recently showed that two thirds of constituents do not think that the current Government behave to high ethical standards. Likewise, polling from the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition found that two thirds of voters believe that UK politics is becoming more corrupt. We know that when socio- economic inequalities are narrow, trust between different communities and groups increases, and the reverse is true when the inequalities widen. Of course, that is the situation we find ourselves in at the moment.

There are other good reasons for greater public engagement and deliberative policymaking, including through citizens’ assemblies. Before I was elected to this place, I served as a public health consultant and academic. My work was focused on tackling health inequalities and their main determinants—inequalities in income, wealth and power. It may surprise hon. Members to hear that there is an independent and universal effect on our health and wellbeing that relates to our status in a hierarchy. The process of engaging people in decision making and sharing that power has a positive impact on their health and wellbeing, in addition to leading to the development of better politics based on lived experience and consensus.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

How does a few people sitting in a citizens’ assembly enhance the involvement of the public? Is it not in fact completely undemocratic and contrary to the involvement of the public, who have the right to elect and unelect us?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will explain more about how it adds to and does not detract from the role of elected representatives, and the benefits of that.

The European values study and the world values survey have tracked changes in individuals’ perceptions of freedom and control over time. Worryingly, they found that low perceptions of freedom and control were associated with rising populist support. When people do not feel engaged in society and their local community, decisions are made about them without them. When politicians do not have their interests at heart, not only do they lose faith in democracy and seek political extremes, but it has an impact on their health. That is why citizens’ assemblies and active participative policy- making in general are important. By engaging with and empowering people on the issues that matter to them all year round, we help to give them more control over their lives and a far greater stake in our society.

[John Spellar]

Essentially, having a few people in a citizens’ assembly does not involve the public. The public will get involved this year in a general election; that is how the public get involved and engaged. They may feel that the results of that election are not reflective, because the great and the good and financial sources may influence things more than they should, but none of that affects the general public. The latest referendum in Ireland might demonstrate that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Again, I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I am afraid that the evidence does not bear that out. It does not replace the role of elected representatives, as he seems to suggest, but enhances it. I urge him to listen to what I am saying; I am happy to supply evidence of the evaluations of the benefits.

There may be questions about—even some resistance to—the notion of citizens’ assemblies because of the Burkean belief that policymaking is a job for elected representatives. Let me be clear that citizens’ assemblies do not replace the ultimate decision-making role of elected representatives: they enhance it by providing considered evidence and recommendations to inform that decision making.

Very briefly, citizens’ assemblies are representative groups of people, selected at random through the lottery principle. They are tasked with examining an issue in depth and making recommendations. Such assemblies have been used by many policymakers in the UK and elsewhere to assist in policy decision making. An evaluation is taking place in a swathe of the democracies that constitute the OECD, because of the value that has been seen. Citizens’ assemblies have been used by Governments in their policymaking, and have even formed part of some countries’ constitutions—for example, Ireland has that important role as part of its constitution. Famously, Ireland used citizens’ assemblies to examine delicate and sensitive matters such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

[John Spellar]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will, for the last time.

[John Spellar]

Did they use this in the recent referendum?

[Debbie Abrahams]

The last one they used it in was about 10 years ago, and we had an in-depth analysis from the people who ran that about two years ago.

In 2018, two Select Committees undertook a citizens’ assembly on social care, and in 2019-20, six Select Committees commissioned one to look at climate change. I was an official observer of that process. I was so impressed with how it was organised, from the selection of citizens and facilitation of the evidence sessions to the consensus on the development of recommendations. The interviews I did with participants were incredibly powerful, and everyone seemed to get so much out of it.

I have long been convinced of the importance of participative, deliberative decision making in policy development and reviews, and I believe that citizens’ assemblies could be an incredibly powerful tool for that. However, as a politician who believes passionately in evidence-based policy, the evidence from the recent evaluation of citizens’ assemblies, including an independent evaluation of the climate assembly pilot, is also encouraging. The “Evaluation of Climate Assembly UK” report states:

“Our overriding conclusion is that CAUK was a highly valuable process that enabled a diverse group of UK citizens to engage in parliamentary scrutiny of government on climate policy in an informed and meaningful manner. The case demonstrates a significant step forward in the UK Parliament’s public engagement strategy and based on our evidence, they should seek to establish more citizens’ assemblies in the future to feed into the scrutiny work of their select committee process.”

I hope that as we move towards the general election, we discuss not only what our policies will be but how we will develop and review them with people locally and nationally.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. The criticism I hear from the public is that politicians talk too much and do too little. People want things done. Across our institutions—national, devolved and even local—politicians seem to be desiring to abrogate responsibility. Politicians need to make decisions. Politicians need to get things done. That is what people want.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I would not disagree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, citizens’ assemblies do not remove the responsibility of politicians to make those decisions, but ensure that those decisions are better informed and based on evidence, and that we have support from our constituents.

From artificial intelligence to air quality and assisted dying, citizens’ assemblies could be an invaluable tool. Crucially, we cannot treat general elections simply as a referendum held once every five years and just expect the British people to suck it up when policies change or new policies emerge between elections. Rather, general and other elections must be part of a process of deliberative democracy that engages with the people that we represent and serve, all year round, locally and nationally.

11:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to reply to the debate ably introduced by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

Let me begin, as I always like to, by trying to find a point of agreement with whoever has raised the debate. The hon. Lady is right to talk about the importance of trust in politics and engagement in our political processes. Like all advanced, mature western democracies, we are living in difficult times. With social media, conspiracy theories, different people with competing views, the rise of populism and an uncertain world with many big geopolitical and environmental questions, no wonder a lot of people feel disconnected and discombobulated.

Public engagement is key. One of the strengths of our country, as the inbox of any right hon. or hon. Member will attest, is that we have very vibrant lobbying, including from the third sector, on a whole range of issues. I have been doing this job for eight and a half years and am still surprised by some of the groups out there that wish, perfectly properly, to make their views on certain issues known to their Members of Parliament .

We have vibrant, open and democratic political parties. Our advice surgeries are a wonderful opportunity to provide mini citizens’ assemblies, effectively, at which individuals or groups of constituents can come and talk to us about issues that are important to them.

I think we occasionally underplay our power to convene. We can convene all sorts of public or private meetings in our constituencies and invite people, either on a select list or via open invitation. I have done something very similar on environmental and climate change issues: I issued an open invitation and a whole raft of people in my constituency came, across the age groups. They certainly improved my knowledge and understanding of the issues. I hope also to hear, from the political perspective, some of the checks and balances and some of the challenges that the democratic process throws up.

There are ways currently being deployed to maximise public engagement and therefore, hopefully, to grow and inculcate trust. However, I do not subscribe, and nor do the Government, to the hon. Lady’s argument. She has put forward a perfectly respectable argument, and she has evidenced it as she has seen fit, but it is a question of judgment. As we all know, to govern is to choose, and often there are competing options. I do not think that we would address some of the fundamental problems that she set out at the opening of her speech by defaulting to the creation of citizens’ assemblies.

The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) almost gave my speech for me.

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

Almost as if the right hon. Gentleman had been pre-timed, he is on his feet. I give way.

[John Spellar]

The Minister rightly says that the essence of exercises such as citizens’ assemblies is that they will deal with a narrow issue. The Government then have to choose between priorities: that is where essential political decisions get taken. There is then the opportunity for the British public to decide whether they like the direction of travel. Does he agree that we need to listen to campaigning groups, which play an important part in our democracy, but that ultimately it is the broader public who have to decide?

[Simon Hoare]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the great strengths of single-issue pressure groups is that they bring a whole wealth and range of in-depth knowledge on a particular system or issue. The downside is that a single-issue pressure group or campaigner does not look at the larger picture or take the balance. It does not have to govern by choosing. I have seen a lot of evidence to suggest that membership of single-issue pressure groups has gone up, but the mixed potpourri—the Woolworths pick ’n’ mix—of joining a political party, where people have to give and take and trim and tack, has proven less popular, particularly among younger people.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I think that there is a misunderstanding. Citizens’ assemblies are not about replacing decision making, but about trying to provide an evidence-based rather than lobby-based approach for a particular vested interest. Evidence is provided to the participants of the citizens’ assembly that is balanced and comprehensive and allows people to come to a consensus on a recommendation to policymakers, who then decide. This discussion has completely misrepresented what citizens’ assemblies are about. They are about the engagement of people with a particular policy issue.

[Simon Hoare]

I am not entirely sure that the hon. Lady has helped her cause with that further amplification of what she means by citizens’ assemblies. The point that the right hon. Member for Warley made was the right one: what will the outcome be? If one stands as an independent candidate, free from a party Whip and from supporting a party programme in government, one can of course seek the views of constituents all the time: “How would you like me to vote on this?” However, it fundamentally changes the Burkean principle of having a representative rather than delegatory democracy. I think our representative democracy, as set out in Burke’s famous address to the electors of Bristol, still holds us in pretty good stead.

I do not make this point facetiously: this Chamber is a citizens’ assembly in a representative democracy. We have elections to it at some point this year. In a couple of weeks, we will have elections to citizens’ assemblies, be they for the mayoralty, for police and crime commissioners or for our local councillors. We talk about the word “democracy”, but let us remind ourselves of the history of that word. It comes from the Greek words “demos”, meaning people, and “kratos”, meaning power—power of the people. We are the citizens’ assembly and we can represent the concerns of constituents in a whole variety of ways, through appeals to Ministers, all-party parliamentary groups, debates and the like.

I am all for involving as many people as possible. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth was absolutely right to highlight the particular need to harness the intellect, enthusiasm and interest of our younger generations, who occasionally—slightly lazily, slightly arrogantly—turn off and turn away: “Oh, they’re all corrupt. They’re all this, they’re all that. Nobody listens.” When we ask, “Well, when was the last time you made a representation, asked to see someone, joined a lobby or whatever?”, they say, “Oh, I don’t bother with any of that.”

I say the following as somebody who voted remain in the referendum. After the event, there was a large pro-EU demonstration outside. I fell into conversation with about 20 young people, all of whom were of voting age. Only 10 had voted. The others told me that they had posted stuff on Facebook or put things on Twitter. I then had to point out to them that the returning officer did not count posts on Facebook or posts on Twitter; they counted ballot papers. That is how to effect change.

[Conor McGinn]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) posed a legitimate challenge around how, in a systemic way, we can create evidence-based policy based on participatory democracy. I am not convinced that the way to do that lies in citizens’ assemblies, but I entirely understand her point.

What I rail against—the Minister touched on this point—is the idea that politicians are not citizens. The Minister spoke about the formalised structure through which we can consult constituents. A good Member of Parliament who is rooted in their community will be doing that every day. I do it while doing everything from taking my kids to football, cricket and rugby to going to mass on a Sunday or the bookies on a Saturday. A good MP will be in touch with his or her community and will consult them all the time. That is a separate point from the one that my hon. Friend made, but it is important that MPs do not allow the perception to take hold that we are all rarefied species detached from people, because it is not true.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We do ourselves no service, as a group of people called to this particular strand of vocational public service, if we try to set ourselves apart like plaster saints who are in some way separate and uncontactable. I agree that we have to be within our communities. I usually have a citizens’ assembly when I drop my kids off at primary school or when I am in the queue at the supermarket or the petrol station: “Hello, Simon! How are you? While I’ve got you, can I talk to you about this, that and the other?” That is what an engaged Member of Parliament does.

I hear what the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth says, but it is the ballot box that creates the forum for those citizens’ assemblies, a representative democracy. We cannot have elections every six months, every year or whatever—as often as we may change our socks or our stance on a particular issue—but that is how this country selects its representatives to take decisions.

One thing I have yet to be convinced about, with regard to the efficacy of citizens’ assemblies, is selection through a random postcode lottery, as the hon. Lady set out. They hear evidence from experts; who appoints and defines who these experts are is a moot point, but let us just work on the principle for the moment. They give up a lot of their time, they take evidence, they come to a conclusion, and in coming to that conclusion they will probably find themselves operating in exactly the same way that we do: “I’ll give way on that point; you’ll give way on this point. We will find a compromise.”

It may work once, but I can just imagine somebody saying, “There has been a citizens’ assembly in my constituency and they have decided this, and they want me to vote this way or do this thing.” That may be a luxury of opposition—something I hope I never get a taste of, but who knows?—or it may come from somebody on the Government Benches. The right hon. Member for Warley is a seasoned former Whip for his party. I am not entirely sure what our Whips offices would say collectively to the idea, but they might well say, “Well that is all fantastically interesting, but the party policy is X. You availed yourself of the benefit of standing for party X, Y or Z, and you will have to follow the Whip.”

If we go back to those people who gave their time willingly at a citizens’ assembly and say, “I hear exactly what you said, and thank you for all your effort, but you cannot mandate me to do anything. I am perfectly free to do as I will, but my Whips have told me that that freedom is fettered and I have to do this, that or the other,” I am not entirely sure that the dynamic of citizens’ assemblies would create a self-perpetuating success story. The cold reality of the delivery of governing to choose, or choosing to govern, would hit the slightly abstract, theoretical way in which a citizens’ assembly might be run.

[John Spellar]

The Minister is identifying another part of the problem. First, Governments have to govern broadly and make trade-offs all the time. Secondly, those who attend citizens’ assemblies, and spend their weekends and everything else, are almost by definition not representative in the sense that we are. What makes us representative is that we are elected, but that does not make us normal in that sense. What it means is that ordinary citizens have other priorities, which is a very good and sensible thing. It does not mean that those who are prepared to participate are necessarily representative of the broader public.

[Simon Hoare]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I would add that another thing they are not is accountable. We are accountable: we are accountable in a society with a free press and media, and we are accountable through the ballot box. We can hold surgeries where people come to see us and ask, “Why did you vote for that and against the other?” and so on. It is about not just the representation element, but the accountability.

As somebody who started as a grassroots member of a political party and got involved in politics by joining an action group to save a field at the rear of a cathedral that somebody wanted to convert into a car park, I am hugely in favour of the power of the citizen to get involved and effect change. It is demonstrable and clear, certainly to my mind, because I am a product of it. As MPs, let us facilitate and empower more people. Let us convene more discussions locally to get people involved so that they can see the merits of this place and so that once again, or continuingly, they can see the House of Commons, their council chamber and other forums where elected people serve as their true, real, legitimate and representative citizens’ assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Human Rights: Consular Services

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage in the Chair]

14:30

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered consular services for cases involving human rights.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. As many other Members probably do, I have a wee blue laminated badge that says “Free Nazanin”. It was given to me by Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband Richard the first time I met him, during his hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy in London. I keep it in the corner of a mirror in my flat. Originally, it was a daily reminder of Nazanin and the emotional torture that she and her family were being put through. Now, I keep it as a reminder of those who are still enduring imprisonment abroad and having to fight for the right to fair representation and fair trial, which in this country we take for granted.

Jagtar Singh Johal has been arrested and held without trial in India for seven years—seven years in which the Indian Government have presented no evidence to link him to any crime. There have been claims of his having to sign a false confession under torture. Ryan Cornelius was arrested in 2008 and convicted of fraud in the United Arab Emirates. After completing his sentence, he now faces a 20-year extension, decided behind closed doors without legal representation. British-Russian journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza, for his criticism of the regime of Vladimir Putin, was given the longest prison sentence for political activity in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union: 25 years, in one of the country’s harshest prisons.

How can that happen, we ask ourselves? How can it be that British nationals can find themselves without legal representation or recourse to support? It was only in a recent conversation with Richard Ratcliffe that I realised the lengths to which he had to go to ensure that Nazanin got representation. As it stands, there is no legal guarantee that any British citizen will have the right to assistance from the consulate in the country where they are held. There is no process, threshold or mechanism. In other countries, there is: in the United States there is a statutory requirement for the State Department and the President to advocate on behalf of US nationals who are wrongfully detained. They must also endeavour to provide support and resources for the detainee’s family, whose advocacy can be crucial in securing release, as we know from the case of Richard and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Yes, support can be provided, and sometimes it is, but the problem is that that is at the discretion of the consulate. Although the UK ratified the Vienna convention through the Consular Relations Act 1968, so much of it relies on diplomacy, good faith and international relationships—discretion. Surely that is not enough. It is not enough that if any of our constituents find themselves detained abroad, they will have no guarantee that their Government will protect them and their wellbeing, and that the right to protest their innocence or transfer home to this country will be dependent on diplomatic niceties and international relationships.

Too often, the fair treatment or the eventual release of British citizens detained abroad depends on publicity, on campaigns by the family and on the support and hard work of their MP. Many of us have direct experience of offering such support to our constituents. In my previous career as a journalist, I covered the case of a schoolteacher from the north-east of Scotland whose release from jail in Thailand was secured by the then MP for Gordon, my noble Friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie —it is a long-standing issue. I have already mentioned the efforts on behalf of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, many of which were made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has worked on behalf of Jagtar Singh Johal; the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) does a power of work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance. But the people they have represented are just a tiny fraction of those affected, and the problem is growing.

Just last year, a Foreign Affairs Committee report recognised the scale of the problem. It is a problem that the Government are familiar with, not just through the high-profile cases that I mentioned earlier, but through the 5,000 new cases of British citizens arrested or detained abroad that the Foreign Office estimated in 2022 that it can deal with annually.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful and well-informed speech; I congratulate her on bringing the issue to Westminster Hall. Is she aware that 10 years ago the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a report on consular assistance that said that the level of support did not meet public expectation and that there were huge gaps? Does she think that things have changed since then?

[Christine Jardine]

Unfortunately, if things have changed they have got worse. The public have become disillusioned, in a way, and are beginning to think that nothing will ever be done to improve the situation. Everyone who is affected is currently dependent on discretion as to whether their human rights will be protected in the way that we might all expect, and that the public have a right to expect whenever they go abroad. The responsibility falls on families to lobby MPs, the media and even the public to raise awareness of cases and ensure support.

It is vital to stress that none of what I am saying is meant as a criticism of existing consular services—quite the opposite. I hope that we can put on the record our support for the hard work that our consular staff do across the world. We also need to push the Government to recognise that more needs to be done. I believe that it is necessary to strengthen the powers and responsibilities of embassies and consulates around the world to help those in need and provide an automatic response. The fact that that does not exist just now means that the response of the authorities, if it happens at all, is slower than it would ideally be.

We need to overcome the inconsistent level of support across the globe by establishing a clear process to be followed. To that end, my private Member’s Bill—the Consular Assistance Bill, which is due a Second Reading on 26 April—would impose a new obligation on UK Government Ministers to inform consular officials if they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk of a British citizen suffering an abuse of their human rights. It would have to be investigated, and consulates would have to inform the Government and relevant authorities. The person detained would be protected and would then be subject to more intensive and comprehensive investigations by the consulate, which would then have to inform the heads of mission and Ministers of any developments. Visits, discussions or deteriorations in circumstances would also have to be reported. Family or designated persons would have to be informed.

There would also be enhanced responsibilities towards detainees. It would be the duty of the consulate to take reasonable steps to secure the safety and support of the person detained, with visits, food, water, reading and writing materials and, if necessary, medical supplies. Is it not astonishing to be discussing even the possibility that any British citizen detained abroad would not have those things?

For the most serious cases, the consulate would have to ensure access to the correct legal advice and support. We should not forget that in some cases individuals may be the hostage of another state, may have been detained arbitrarily or may even face a possible death sentence. It should be the Secretary of State’s responsibility to bring forward the processes that I have mentioned.

I stress again that none of this is meant as a criticism of existing consular services. Quite the opposite: I would like to give consular services the tools to protect British citizens in the way that we and they would surely wish. To that end, I would like to assure the Government of what I am not suggesting. I am not suggesting giving a blanket right to consular assistance in all cases, nor am I suggesting forcing the UK Government to act in every case. My suggestion is specifically to improve the responses for British citizens in extreme or severe cases in which their human rights are at risk or denied. For routine cases such as the loss of a passport or other minor issues, the provision of services will, I hope, remain at the discretion of the consulate.

Of course there is a balance to be struck between personal responsibility and Government support in extreme circumstances, but human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture and inhumane treatment need to be addressed specifically. We should not forget the cases of those who are in detention across the globe just now. I would like to mention the work that Richard Ratcliffe has done to draw attention to the issue—he opened my eyes to what is needed—and the work of charities such as Redress. Their concern, like mine and many other people’s, is to ensure that citizens have the assurance that they deserve: that in the most extreme cases and in the most desperate circumstances in which they might find themselves abroad, their Government will be there for them.

14:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Dame Caroline. I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for setting the scene so well. She has been a spokesperson for those in difficulties and always outlines those cases. Perhaps her journalistic history has given her a flavour for those things. It does not matter—the main thing is that the hon. Lady presents the case very well and I am pleased to support her.

Why is this issue so important for me? It is as important to me as it is to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), when it comes to issues of human rights and freedom of religious belief and the necessity of consular services being involved. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and have spoken on the subject many times.

I see that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is here to speak on behalf of those detained in Hong Kong, who have their human rights and religious beliefs restricted, and who are in prison even though they are British passport holders. Jimmy Lai is one who comes to mind. We had a Westminster Hall debate when each of us who participated specifically outlined the case for that gentleman. I will speak for him again today, as I know the right hon. Gentleman will.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on obtaining this debate. I do not intend to speak; I just want to make a couple of quick points.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will recall, one problem we discovered with the Jimmy Lai case is that until literally the past few weeks, the Government refused to accept that Jimmy Lai was a British citizen, even though he had never held a Chinese passport, and they adopted the Chinese Government’s position that he was a dual national, which he was not. That meant that our Government did not claim consular access rights to a British citizen, which was a pretty appalling state of affairs. We did have those debates—therefore, yes to British citizen; but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British Government must first always stand by those who believe and have the right documents to say that they are British citizens?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman intervened to underline that issue. I was going to mention Jimmy Lai; the key issue is that he is a British passport holder and does not hold a Chinese passport. He deserves and should get the consular assistance that all British citizens would get, including any one of us who holds a British passport.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to Richard and Nazanin Ratcliffe, whose MP used to come to speak at Westminster Hall; I cannot recall her constituency, though I used to support her every time. There was great joy when the British Government and others were able to gain Nazanin’s freedom and bring her home. I saw a lovely wee story about her in the press last week, as she tries to adjust again to normal life, which could never be easy after all the trauma and the separation from her husband and child.

As an MP who has had many constituents needing help from consulates, I was not surprised to see the level of consular assistance granted to people each year. In any given year, we support 20,000 to 25,000 British nationals and their families, including almost 7,000 detained or arrested abroad. There are occasions whenever we have to intervene or approach the consulate to ask for help. I am not saying it is always the case, but those who contacted me were either guilty of a minor misdemeanour or were unfortunately targets for untrue allegations.

Some 4,500 people from here die abroad each year. I think of one in particular, although I can think of three or four. I cannot remember what it is called, but I commend the organisation that we have back home in Northern Ireland—I think it is in the UK as well. If someone dies abroad, it supports the family with financial help to try to get the deceased back home. That is such a key role to play for families who grieve and do not know what to do next. That organisation has been very helpful.

[Hannah Bardell]

I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. I think the organisation he refers to is the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust. Kevin Bell was killed abroad and his family set up a trust. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that although the trust does fantastic work, bereaved families should not have to set up trusts to make sure that people get their basic human rights?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me. I could remember the name Kevin but not his last name—my apologies. I thank the hon. Lady for filling in the gaps in my memory. She is absolutely right: it should not be down to trusts to fill the gap. That particular trust has done excellent work in Northern Ireland and in the Republic as well. Its generosity, commitment and work have been instrumental in bringing people home to their families.

I remember one case very well; it was just before the 2017 election. A constituent came to the office and told me that his son had died due to an accident—he was found drowned in the pool. My constituent did not know what to do. To be honest, I was not sure, either, as an MP. The first thing I did was contact the consulate and it organised the whole thing. Although the Kevin Bell trust does great work, on that occasion the consulate did the work and brought the son home so that he was reunited with his family. I got to see at first hand the pain that his dad and the whole family went through because of what had happened. The son was away from home and the family had not had a chance to say their cheerios, because thousands of miles and an ocean separated them—but the consulate stepped in and helped. I put that on the record and thank the consulate.

Some 1,600 people are victims of crime abroad. I have had a few cases where people have been robbed and found themselves in difficulties; they have lost passports, money, cheque books and cards. In desperation and not knowing what to do, again the consulate has stepped in.

I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West when she set the scene: we thank the consulates and their staff for all that they do. We cannot take away from the role that they play. As an elected representative, we always outline cases when things have fallen down. That is the nature of life. Why do people come to us as elected representatives? Because of a problem. They do not necessarily come to say, “You’re a good guy. Well done. Thank you very much.” They come to tell us about their problems. That is not a criticism, but an observation. I am very happy when they do it. I know others feel the same, because it is our job and we do it with compassion, understanding and a wish to do so.

In any given year, some 5,000 need welfare support and 4,000 are hospitalised abroad. We have had occasions when people have had an accident—they fell and broke their leg, or perhaps had concussion or spent a few days in hospital, and may not have had medical insurance. Sometimes that happens; it is just the nature of people’s lives. These are the problems we have to deal with. More often than not, when we seek support, it comes through the consular services.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office annual report of 2023 highlights that in the last three months of the financial year, consular teams responded to—my goodness—some 114,000 inquiries; 5,000 new assistance cases, which was an increase of 29% from the same period in 2021-22, with over 1,700 of them considered to be vulnerable; and over 6,700 applications for emergency travel documents from those who had lost their passports or travel documents and were panicking about what to do next.

I make this plea for the freedom of religious belief; that is the point I want to make to the Minister. I am pleased to see him in his place, by the way. He is a gentleman and a Minister whom I admire greatly. He understands these issues because he shares the passion that I and others have for freedom of religious belief. I know that he wishes to have a positive response for all those people across the world who are subjected to freedom of religious belief and human rights issues, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to.

As Members are aware, some of the hardest working non-governmental organisation aid workers in foreign countries are missionaries working through churches. I support a number of them and can well remember the difficulties—I am long enough in the tooth to go back a few years, perhaps more than others in the Chamber—that missionaries had in Zimbabwe, and what was then Rhodesia during the unrest, which put some of them in a very vulnerable position.

I will put this on record because I always think it is only right that if people do things right, we should tell them, and if they do things wrong, we should also tell them that. That is our job in this debate. When missionaries from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had to be evacuated from Rhodesia at that time, and Zimbabwe as it was a few years after that, they were able to get support not simply from their missionary organisations but from the British consulate. How proud I am to be a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sorry, I am not being smart to my colleagues from Scotland when I say that; I mean it as a personal thing. How proud I am to have a British passport, which I have carried all my life. Some people ask whether I ever think about getting an Irish passport. No, I do not. My passport will always be British. I will comment more on that in a few minutes.

The British consulate got the missionaries safely over the border and to where they needed to be, which was incredibly important to those NGOs. That support was vital for missionary families at a very difficult time, and it is imperative that we have the necessary support in place for those who are under threat due to their religion and belief. Unfortunately, there are more cases of that happening. I think the world has become more radical. People have become more fixated on their views, whether they be on the right or on the left. The understanding that I and others in the Chamber have in our hearts is something that we wish to see, but we do not see it very often.

As a Member, I have the ability to verify both British and Irish passport applications, which I do back home in my office every week. I cannot believe how many passports I verify, and I am happy to do it for those in my constituency who identify as British, Irish or indeed both. For those who are lured by the ability to skip the queue in immigration on their Spanish holiday by perhaps having a different passport, I always urge them to retain their British passport and identity. It is really important that we do that. There is a reason for it, which is why I encourage people to do so: we have many more consulates in place and therefore much more support. That support is essential for foreign travel, especially to places with limited help for foreign nationals.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I am someone who is proud to be British and carry a British passport, knowing that I will be protected and that my family will as well. I see the protections and benefits that come with carrying a British passport, and it is with real pride that I carry it and show it to others. I have help should I need it, and we need to ensure that British citizens across the world hold the assurance that there is always an avenue for help. There is always a British consulate that is willing to help. That is even more important in those countries whose Governments do not have the same human rights duty that we take for granted here. That is the thrust of the argument made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, and it is why we are here in Westminster Hall today.

We look to the Minister for a response. We also look to the shadow spokespeople in both the SNP and the Labour party. I very much look forward to hearing all their contributions.

I go back to the words of my friend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. We have talked about Hong Kong and China’s imprisonment of people who dare to speak out against those regimes. That includes Jimmy Lai, a man I have never met but who I have read about, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been very active on his behalf. Jimmy Lai’s passport and his access to the help it implies means something, or at least it should, and the fact that it has not until now disappoints me. In the light of the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman and my own request, will the Minister therefore update us on where we are with Jimmy Lai?

Retaining consulates in China is vital for cases such as this, but that really only works if we can see it working, and we have not until now. I hope the Minister can give us some encouragement on that in his response to us. I urge the Government to prioritise access to consulates for all our constituents throughout the world. I know that the Minister is committed to that, but it only ever works when we see it in action. Until now, we have not seen action when it comes to Jimmy Lai, but we hope that we will shortly.

Dame Caroline, it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I very much look forward to hearing what my colleague and friend the hon. Member for Glasgow North will say shortly and also to what others will say.

14:56

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline, especially at relatively short notice. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that when Scotland becomes an independent country, I am sure he will have more than sufficient heritage to apply for a Scottish passport, which he can proudly hold alongside his UK passport.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate and on her efforts to champion this issue, because the adequacy—or otherwise—of consular assistance, particularly in difficult circumstances, has been of concern to many of us and to our constituents in recent years. We have heard particularly about the incarceration of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and I suspect that all of us received significant correspondence from constituents standing in solidarity with her and her family during the years of her imprisonment. I think of the debate that was held here in Westminster Hall in November 2021, which was one of the busiest I have ever taken part in. There were dozens and dozens of Members—far too many for them all to be able to speak in the time allowed.

However, in addition to high-profile cases with national significance, many of us will have dealt with the circumstances of other individuals, and we have heard examples today. In September 2017, I held an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber on consular assistance and support for people caught up in terrorist atrocities and particularly for witnesses. Constituents came to see me about terrorist attacks in Stockholm and Tunisia, and although they were fortunate in the sense that they had not been directly injured or bereaved, they had been witnesses to those attacks, which in itself was an incredibly traumatic experience. Regrettably, support was found to be lacking—both immediate assistance and longer-term follow-up—and has not always lived up to people’s expectations, which was a key point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West made.

A lot of people look at their passport, at what is said on the FCDO’s website or perhaps at the experiences of citizens of other countries, and they expect a level of service that does not necessarily always manifest itself. I echo the hon. Member in saying that that is not a criticism of existing staff and the services that they attempt to provide. Many of them are doing a very impressive job in what are sometimes very difficult circumstances. That is partly a legacy of the austerity agenda, from which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was, was not immune—in fact, it was perhaps seen as low-hanging fruit. What was once a Rolls-Royce Department was chipped and shaved away at, like so many other Departments, and its more limited staffing base is under increasing pressure. The Minister may disagree, but that is the experience that many of us have heard from our constituents. There is a growing divergence between what people expect to be entitled to and what the level of service sometimes turns out to be. We have heard examples of that: Nazanin in Iran has already been mentioned, but there are also Mehran Raoof in Iran—a dual citizen—Jimmy Lai and Jagtar Singh Johal, championed so worthily by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes).

There is therefore considerable merit in the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, and I hope the Government find a way to make time for it to progress. Important recommendations have been made in reports and other documents published by the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) ably chairs. Like others, I acknowledge the important work of Redress, Amnesty International and others, which have supported those initiatives as they have gone through Parliament. I am particularly grateful for the work of Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone, run by my constituent Julie Love, who champions people who have lost a loved one overseas and who seek justice, repatriation or simply care and support.

I hope that the Minister is prepared to engage constructively and to listen to the real-life experiences we are bringing to his attention. I also hope he will consider how best the Government can live up to the expectations that people rightly have, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, because of what is written in the passports that we are all supposed to be so proud to carry around with us. If that has to be put on a statutory footing through the likes of the private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is bringing forward, perhaps that is not a bad thing. Perhaps that would allow the FCDO to make the case to the Treasury for more adequate resourcing, for improved training and for more staff and resources to be available to our consular offices around the world. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute briefly, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

15:02

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I start with heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine): it is wonderful to see another Member taking up this cause so passionately. I pay tribute particularly to Richard and Nazanin; if it were not for the dignified way they raised their voices, this issue would not have come to the attention of all Members from across the House. However, it should not be that he or she who shouts the loudest gets the most attention. I spoke to Richard when my team and I were writing our report for the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, which I chair, and he said that himself, as did many families who gave evidence to us. I commend the hon. Lady’s Bill, and I agree with everything in it. The only point I would make—this is not a criticism—is that I want it to go further and to be expanded upon, and I will tell Members why shortly.

On the inside page of our passports—I appreciate that mine might be out of date, for obvious reasons—it says:

“Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”

That is what it says on our British passports, and it is what our citizens rightly expect to get for being British citizens, whether they are singularly British citizens or dual nationals. That is the point that we all need to start from. The general public have a reasonable expectation that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will help us, and will help our family members if we are killed, if we die or if we get into trouble and something goes wrong when we are abroad. They expect the level of service we get to be akin to that which we would get if we got into trouble here in our own country.

My comments come from some personal experience. Having worked for the American State Department as a local staffer in a consulate for a couple of years before I came to this place, I saw at first hand the level of assistance afforded by the American state. There are a lot of things we can criticise America for, but its consular assistance is not one of them. I saw at first hand how, when a family had lost a loved one in Scotland—they were an American citizen—how the consul general, who was my boss, phoned the family up personally, spoke to them, went to the airport to meet them, liaised with local police services, and made sure the family were kept up to date.

It is not a criticism of our consular services that they do not do that, and I know that, in some cases, they do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Edinburgh West all recognise, we should pay tribute to consular staff, but the reality is they are doing their jobs with one hand tied behind their back. That is partly because of Brexit and partly because of austerity, but they have been to cut to the bone.

When I visited the embassy in Madrid a number of years ago to raise concerns on behalf of my constituent Kirsty Maxwell, who was killed in Benidorm, and I talked to the staff and the ambassador about the proposals in our report, they could not have been more supportive. They recognised that the human rights of our citizens were not being fully adhered to and supported, because staff were not able to provide the service that they would like. That is a particularly important point to make.

We have heard of a number of cases of human rights abuse in this debate, and we must include Alaa Abd El-Fattah—the British-Egyptian dual national who was denied British consular support—Jimmy Lai, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and, of course, Jagtar Singh Johal. What the families of those people have been through is unimaginable, and so too is the experience of the families of those who are killed abroad.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone, or DAYNA. His constituent Julie Love set that charity up after her son died abroad in suspicious circumstances. Eve Henderson set up Murdered Abroad when her husband was killed in France. The Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust was set up for similar reasons, and the parents of Tom Channon—John and Ceri Channon—set up a charity to raise awareness after their son died in Magaluf.

My constituents Brian and Denise Curry have campaigned relentlessly after their daughter was killed on holiday in Benidorm. She and her husband Adam were married just a few months before she died. It was an utterly tragic case. My constituent Julie Pearson was killed after a severe beating by her partner in Eilat in Israel. Despite the local authorities claiming she died of natural causes, we knew differently, and her aunt Deborah, who is my constituent, is one of the most formidable women I have ever encountered.

I dealt with those constituency cases early in my parliamentary career. I did what all MPs do: I stood up, I asked questions, I pressed the Foreign Office—and I got nowhere and got no answers. I knew that there must be more that could be done, which is why we set up the all-party parliamentary group and why we continue to campaign on this issue. Families whose loved ones die abroad, are incarcerated or have their human rights violated need that support.

The Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is particularly interesting because it has certain limitations on it. I would argue that if we had an absolute right to consular assistance, and that assistance was provided early on, whatever the circumstances, people’s rights would not be violated. That would ensure that people get the support that they need.

The reality is that since Brexit, there has been a scramble for trade deals. Human rights are—in the eyes of some—going out the window and being traded off against trade deals. That, for me, is fundamentally unacceptable. I recognise the pride of the hon. Member for Strangford in being British—I do not identify with it, but I understand it—but he and others surely understand that the positive notion of being British is being undermined. The notion of a global Britain, when our services and institutions are chipped away at, actually undermines the positive case for the British identity.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, and I could not agree more, when Scotland is an independent nation we will devise and develop an international diplomacy service—I hope it will be called that and not a Foreign Office—that will have consular affairs, consular assistance and human rights absolutely at its heart, not because we want to be different, but because it is the right thing to do. The Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West goes a long way towards establishing those principles.

The contributions that people have made have been incredibly powerful, but how many more times will we have to stand up and represent constituents whose loved one has died in tragic circumstances, or constituents whose loved one is incarcerated somewhere and who cannot even get an officer there to support them, because the officer does not have the ability, the support or the resource? I have no doubt—when we took evidence from those who were caught up in terrorist attacks, there was a recognition of this—that there is a standard of service provided to our citizens if their loved one is killed in a terrorist attack. They get translation of documents and support for repatriation, so we know that the FCDO can do this.

Some 4,500 UK citizens die abroad each year; a very small fraction of those deaths are in suspicious circumstances. Surely the very essence of being a proud nation, however you identify, is that you look after those who are the most vulnerable and those who get into trouble. The reality for so many families is that they have to fundraise to get their loved ones home—either because they did not understand the nature of the insurance they had taken out, or because the insurance was not adequate.

I plead with the Minister to seriously consider the hon. Lady’s Bill, but also to look carefully at the resource that his own staff need, because taking a trauma-informed approach is crucial. We have spoken to so many families who have been traumatised, and also to staff who have worked in consulates and have dealt with traumatic situations. It is absolutely crucial, so I hope he will hear the cries from the Benches across the House and from Members who have had to represent constituents who have got into terrible situations. At the very least, these constituents deserve to have their human rights and their dignity respected.

15:12

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this important debate, and I thank colleagues for such a good and wide-ranging debate. We have heard some powerful speeches today, not least from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on freedom of religious belief, and from other Members with personal stories about why these consular services must be strengthened.

The Labour party firmly believes that the protection of British citizens should be central to our foreign policy. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on that today. Consular assistance is a core function of the FCDO and a vital tool to respond to a spectrum of situations affecting British citizens overseas, including serious human rights abuses. For any British national, the idea of being wrongly detained overseas or denied due legal process is the stuff of nightmares. Kept away from friends and family, dealing with foreign laws and customs, subject in some cases to arbitrary processes with an uncertain outcome—that is a situation that none of us would want for any of our loved ones.

I know that Foreign Office consular officials regularly go above and beyond to provide reassurance and support to British nationals who get into difficulty, but there have been several high-profile cases—we have heard of some today—of FCDO Ministers receiving criticism from families and the media for failing to secure timely release of British citizens detained abroad. No one doubts the difficulty of these cases, but too often the Government’s efforts to secure the release of nationals unjustly detained abroad have been, according to the families themselves, arbitrary, haphazard, unco-ordinated and lacking resource and transparency.

Members right across the House will know the harrowing case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British-Iranian citizen detained in Iran for six years on false spying charges. She and her husband Richard, who campaigned tirelessly for her release, have been articulate critics and advocates for change. It was here, in this very room, just a few years ago that I, along with many of my colleagues in the House, spoke so passionately about the need for the FCDO and the Government to do more to secure her release. I remember speaking to her directly, knowing that she could hear the speeches here, and saying that she must believe her release would one day come.

Today, I want to raise the issues facing some of those who remain unfairly detained abroad. Alaa Abd El-Fattah is a human rights activist who spent almost a decade in prison in Egypt. Alaa is a British and Egyptian citizen, a courageous voice for democracy and a prisoner of conscience. The UK Government have not managed to gain consular access to him in prison.

Mehran Raoof is an activist currently in Iran held under arbitrary detention at Tehran’s Evin prison after being arrested by agents of the revolutionary guards in 2020. He is enduring prolonged solitary confinement, contravening the prohibition of torture.

For Jagtar Singh Johal, it is over 2,000 days since he was detained in India, and the current Foreign Secretary is the sixth to be in post since his arrest. Jagtar’s family and representatives are exhausted by having to start all over again when a new Foreign Secretary is appointed.

As others have mentioned, Jimmy Lai has been detained in Hong Kong for pro-democracy protests and accusations of endangering national security. If convicted, he faces life in prison.

Vladimir Kara-Murza is held in Russia for denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. His declining health while being held in harsh conditions in Siberia and moved around from prison to prison is of huge concern. I could go on.

There are so many others, though, who do not share the high profile of those five and who go under the radar. Families of those victims have called upon this Government for support, and promises have been made to them that they are yet to see. Can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Secretary has met with the families of any of those I have mentioned here today? If so, which ones?

The Vienna convention on consular relations recognises the vulnerability of foreign nationals facing prosecution and imprisonment abroad. A country that is party to the convention has a legal duty to provide the UK with access to its detained citizens, including the right of consular officers to visit and assist detained nationals. However, there is no corresponding legal obligation for the UK Government to provide consular assistance to a UK citizen, even in cases involving allegations of torture or arbitrary detention. At present, consular support for British citizens abroad is entirely at the discretion of the Foreign Office and Government Ministers.

Does the Minister agree that a right as basic as consular assistance should not be based on the generosity or discretion of a particular Minister or civil servants? I believe that most of our constituents would be very surprised to learn that they do not have that right already. It is a fundamental duty of Government, and it is what citizens should rightly expect. That is why the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), has made two pledges.

First, a Labour Government will seek to legislate for a new right to consular assistance. Putting that on a statutory footing will help raise consistent standards in consular assistance while sending a clear message to other countries that the UK will always raise cases of poor or unfair treatment of its citizens, particularly where we are dealing with cases involving allegations of serious human rights abuses. I welcome the ideas raised in this debate about how that could be delivered.

Secondly, we would appoint a special envoy for Britons wrongly detained abroad. That would strengthen the capacity of Government to work on the cases of those wrongfully detained. It would provide a single point of contact for affected families. It would also help to strengthen efforts with allies and partners to challenge and deter the worrying rise in the use of arbitrary detention as a tool of foreign policy.

I believe that these two proposals together can make a real difference. It remains the first and foremost duty of a Government to keep their citizens safe. A Labour Government will always take that duty seriously.

15:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I commend her strong interest in supporting British nationals abroad. I note her work on the private Member’s Bill, which is also related to consular services, and will seek to address some of the concerns that she and others have raised. I reply as the Minister responsible for consular policy. I am grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members and acknowledge the strength of feeling on this important topic, both in the room and across the House more widely.

Let me begin by providing a brief overview of our consular services in human rights cases before moving on to details on some of the individual issues raised and some of the individual cases, which are important. A number of hon. Members raised points and concerns, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh West, for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). When we are talking about consular services, it is really important to highlight that these are genuinely complex cases—everybody recognises that—and, as a result, they are not simple. I review our complex cases very regularly, as do other Ministers; they are extraordinarily challenging.

I note gently to the hon. Member for Glasgow North, who I respect enormously on this subject, that we are now living in a world in which there is an increasing number of challenging and complex situations, and that makes this all the more challenging. We can have a debate about resources, but there is also a debate to be had about the demand and the challenges of the world that we are currently living in, which no doubt will be a debate that we continue to work through.

As others have done, I thank the amazing work of our consular officers and their extraordinary and dedicated service, particularly in some extraordinarily challenging situations. Our support for British nationals in difficulty overseas is right at the heart of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our staff are contactable 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they offer empathetic, professional advice, tailored to each individual case. In the last 12 months, consular staff opened over 3,000 new arrest and detention cases and are currently providing assistance in over 1,800 cases. Detainees’ welfare and human rights are our top priorities. Our support can include seeking consular access, monitoring prisoners’ welfare and helping them gain access to local justice processes. We provide tailored information for each country on the local prison and judicial systems for detained British nationals about what to expect, and we also raise specific consular cases with foreign authorities and support the families of those who are detained. We will come on to some of those cases in just a minute.

We take allegations of torture and mistreatment incredibly seriously. When we receive such an allegation, we will consider approaching local authorities to support the welfare of the person affected, such as by lobbying for them to receive medical treatment or be moved to a different facility. Our approach is informed by our specialist human rights advisers, who provide expertise on human rights concerns and every allegation of torture and mistreatment. Where we hear of an allegation over the phone or from a third party, we prioritise actually visiting the detainee to check on them and, where safe to do so, ask about the allegation.

We are not able to carry out investigations in other countries. However, we can and do raise allegations of torture and mistreatment with local authorities, requesting an effective investigation as required under international human rights law where we have the consent of the individual to do so.

Last year, the FCDO received 189 new allegations of torture and mistreatment from British nationals overseas. Each year, our human rights advisers conduct a review of all such cases to identify trends and develop strategies to engage with relevant countries. For transparency, we publish consular data on torture and mistreatment as part of our annual human rights report. The Government take a taskforce approach to the most serious and complex cases. That ensures that we harness the right expertise across the FCDO and across Government, and the appropriate senior engagement to drive progress. My ministerial colleagues and I are consulted from the outset, receive regular updates on the cases and are involved throughout.

Arbitrary detention has also been raised. The UK deplores and condemns the practice in all circumstances; it is a clear breach of human rights and is contrary to international law. The FCDO is not a fact-finding or judicial body and is therefore not best placed to determine whether an individual’s circumstances could amount to arbitrary detention. Nevertheless, where the United Nations says that is the case or where there is supporting evidence, our expert advisers will form an assessment based on all available information, which will be put to Ministers to decide our approach.

We will never accept our nationals being detained as a means of diplomatic leverage and we are determined to combat the practice. In the very rare instances in which that is the case, a senior official such as that country’s director will lead case handling until the person is released. In that way, we have secured the release of British nationals across the globe, including in Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Myanmar and Libya. We also work with like-minded states—for example, Canada—to end the use of arbitrary detention, to support those who have been arbitrarily detained and to demand accountability.

In all that, our ability to support British nationals overseas depends on the co-operation of the state in question. The UK is a party to the Vienna convention on consular relations, which is clear that we cannot interfere in foreign legal processes, with the detaining authority having jurisdiction over British nationals. The convention provides for consular visits to British detainees but is silent on dual nationality. Many states interpret that as meaning that it does not cover dual nationals in their other home country, which is a complicating factor, as many colleagues are aware. Where we have human rights concerns, we will also lobby to have access to detained British dual nationals. However, the host state’s national law and interpretation of the convention are key in determining whether we are able to gain consular access. That frequently hampers our efforts to support dual nationals, especially in cases that are politicised.

Before coming on to cases, it is important to note that in carrying out this important and complex work, we collaborate closely with partners who provide specialist support. Some of them have already been mentioned in the debate. The charity Prisoners Abroad does wonderful work to support British nationals detained abroad, to help their families and, on their release, to help them settle back into the United Kingdom. In cases where British and dual nationals face the death penalty, our partners Reprieve and the Death Penalty Project can offer support. We are assisting 10 British people sentenced to death around the world. We do all we can to prevent the execution of British nationals and we continue to campaign for capital punishment to be abolished.

A number of sensitive and challenging cases were raised at the start by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, including that of Jagtar Singh Johal, which other speakers also mentioned. We have consistently raised our concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with the Government of India, including his allegations regarding torture and mistreatment and his right to a fair trial. The Foreign Secretary met Mr Johal’s brother and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on 12 February. The Foreign Secretary is currently reviewing our approach to Mr Johal’s case, which he discussed with Mr Johal’s brother and the hon. Member when they met. Mr Johal’s family and hon. Members will be updated when that review is complete. Our approach will always be guided by our assessment of Mr Johal’s best interests.

The hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Cardiff North mentioned the very sensitive case of Vladimir Kara-Murza. The politically motivated conviction of Mr Kara-Murza is absolutely deplorable. To answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Cardiff North, the Foreign Secretary met Mr Kara-Murza’s wife and mother on 1 March, and our officials continue to support his family.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am concerned, because rather than run away, Kara-Murza went back to Russia to make the case against the brutality of the war on Ukraine, rather like Jimmy Lai did in his case. He is now incarcerated on trumped-up charges, which we have known for a long time. He is very ill, and his likely death is very much at the forefront of our mind because of the murder of Navalny when he became the main target. To that end, I note that the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), said that

“we do not and would not countenance a policy of prisoner swaps.”—[Official Report, 19 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 495.]

I ask the Minister to review that, because I do not think it is correct. That process has been used to obtain the release of British citizens in the past, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and, I remind him, Natan Sharansky and Vladimir Bukovsky during the Soviet period. I am concerned that it will come down to that, as the only method we have available. He may not survive long if we do not do something about it. I would be grateful if the Minister took that away and asked his officials whether we will engage on this, if necessary, with a prisoner swap.

[David Rutley]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. I have always enjoyed his contributions, which are very thoughtful. I respect him enormously, having been his Parliamentary Private Secretary for more than a year. I can say that, as a result of what has happened to Mr Kara-Murza, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office sanctioned 11 individuals in response to his sentencing and appeal, as well as two individuals involved with his earlier poisoning. I understand the points my right hon. Friend makes; I think he understands that we do not normally engage in prisoner swaps, and they are not part of our policy, but I will take his points away and talk to officials.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the case of Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah. We remain committed to securing consular access and release for this dual British-Egyptian national and human rights defender. The Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad have met family members, most recently on 20 December 2023. I hope that hon. Members can see that these sensitive cases that have been raised are being tackled and engaged in at the highest level in the FCDO.

That brings me to the Jimmy Lai case, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Mr Lai’s prosecution is highly politicised, and the Foreign Secretary recently reiterated his call for Mr Lai’s release with Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Munich security conference on 16 February. There has been some debate about Mr Lai’s citizenship. He is a British citizen but Chinese nationality laws are clear: China considers anyone born in Hong Kong to be a Chinese national. They do not recognise dual nationality, as I highlighted earlier in my remarks. Hong Kong authorities therefore consider Mr Lai to be a Chinese national.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

In one second, because I have not quite finished. We have not been granted consular access. The UK Government are equally clear that Mr Lai is a British citizen and we continue to request consular access.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I have to ask why it took so long for the British Government to claim him as a British citizen. The Chinese position is hypocrisy, because not that long ago the Chinese authorities did not recognise someone who was in Hong Kong as a Chinese citizen. They reversed that only a few years ago, to claim them if they were born in China as Chinese nationals or dual nationals, which they then did not respect.

The problem is that the Foreign Office has got itself into a complete mess over Jimmy Lai, and it must never do that again. We should stand clearly on the basis that we recognise British citizenship and the individual’s passport. It is not for us to allow ourselves to repeat what the other nation says, in this case China, which is a disputed position from start to finish. Why we got into that, I have no idea at all.

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I would like to restate that the Foreign Secretary reiterated his call for Mr Lai’s release on 16 February. That is the Government’s policy. I think my right hon. Friend is pleased that that is the stance and that we continue to push for access to him.

I would like to respond briefly to the point from the hon. Member for Strangford about freedom of religion or belief. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) are the two champions of this vital human right. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising it repeatedly and in most debates of this nature. We are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. With all the many other rights we have that we obviously need to uphold and support, we must not lose sight of the importance of religion to so many people in this world and how much it means to them. We must respect that. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we continue to hold close this important human right. Most recently I have been focusing on the appalling human rights abuses around freedom of religion or belief in Nicaragua. I know that is an area he feels very strongly about too.

I should also mention the important case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which has been raised by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West at the start of her powerful speech. Nazanin, her husband Richard and their family were put through unimaginable torment by the Iranian authorities, and we are glad that that is over. FCDO officials and Ministers worked tirelessly to secure the release and return of Nazanin and other detainees from Iran. The Foreign Secretary met Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Richard Ratcliffe on 15 March.

We should recognise that the Foreign Affairs Committee has issued a report and a follow-up report on what it calls “combating state hostage taking”. We do not recognise that term. However, the Foreign Secretary has fully read the FAC follow-up report and informed the Committee during his appearance before it on 9 January that he is taking more time to fully consider the recommendations before responding in full. These are important issues that require a lot of thought, and we need to pull our actions together.

It is vital to highlight that lessons have been learned from these cases, and we continue to learn as we deal with very challenging circumstances. Following the publication of the Committee’s initial report and having consulted with external trauma experts, FCDO has formalised arrangements to ensure that ongoing psychosocial support is made available to returning detainees—something I think the hon. Member for Livingston would approve of. That is very important. They will also have a named point of contact on return to the United Kingdom, and we have reinforced our partnership with Hostage International, so these lessons are being learned.

We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, about how we can best support British nationals abroad. While we all have that as an aim, the Government have a different view on the case for legislating to support that aim. We believe that a legal right would not change the course and outcome of most complex cases. The Vienna convention on consular relations requires us to provide assistance without interfering in the internal affairs of the host state, so our ability to offer some kind of assistance would continue to remain dependent on co-operation from the host state. A law in the UK would not change that.

Most of our international partners do not offer a legal right to consular assistance to their citizens. That includes our Five Eyes partners: the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Most countries, like us, have discretion in the provision of consular services and have a published policy or charter that sets out what services citizens can expect. There are some exceptions in Europe that have provisions for this legal right—Germany, Sweden and Belgium. It is important to highlight that we are aware of only three of the more than 190 countries in the world that have provisions for some form of legal right, and their laws are specific about the limitations.

Consular assistance is wholly dependent on what the receiving state—the foreign country where the consular services are offered—will allow. Sweden also charges for all consular services and makes having appropriate insurance compulsory. There are some important issues to think through in this area, notwithstanding the fact that we all recognise that consular services are an important way to support British nationals overseas.

I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions. We will continue our efforts to support detained British nationals and tailor our approach to specific cases, within the parameters of international law. I thank the families of detainees who help to support their loved ones. I also thank our specialist partners, including Prisoners Abroad, Reprieve and the Death Penalty Project, for their expertise, and the other organisations that hon. Members highlighted. Last but by no means least, I pay tribute to our consular officers, who put huge effort into helping people in the most difficult circumstances. They do important work, and we are very grateful for all that they do.

15:41

[Christine Jardine]

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate for making such a concerted and powerful case for change. I fully appreciate what the Minister says about the good work that our embassies and consular services do every day across the world, but it is clear from what right hon. and hon. Members said that more needs to be done. The public in this country need reassurance that if something goes wrong when they are abroad, they will get the help and support they need. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for informing us that a new Labour Government would take a different approach and would improve the situation. We will hold her to that if there is a new Labour Government later this year or next year.

I would like the Minister to take this point away and consider it: it is time for change. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, it has been more than 10 years since the Foreign Affairs Committee report that said that the public expect better than they get at the moment. If we do that, perhaps we can be confident that the service will live up to the promise in our passports of support, help, passage, safety and security wherever we go in the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered consular services for cases involving human rights.

15:43

Sitting suspended.

Health Services: Cross-border Co-operation

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

I will call Virginia Crosbie to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, or indeed for anyone else to make a speech, but there will potentially be opportunities to intervene.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered cross-border cooperation on health services.

It is an honour to have you chairing this important debate on cross-border co-operation on the health service, Dame Caroline, and I thank you for the opportunity to hold it.

My constituents in Ynys Môn, like those of my colleagues here today, are served by the devolved Welsh NHS, which is managed and funded by the Welsh Government in Cardiff. Despite health having been devolved for 25 years, around a third of my most serious casework is for my constituents who are suffering, or perhaps even dying, because of failures in our local health board. I hear from patients, families and even members of staff who are deeply concerned about Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board—BCUHB for short—and the effect that its failings are having on the people of north Wales. That is why my colleagues and I want the UK Government to help find a solution and why we desperately need the following: much better co-operation across borders on our health services; data that allows the direct comparison of performance across all health boards in the UK, regardless of whether they are devolved; a recognition that the UK Government have a moral, and arguably a legal, duty to take action where the wellbeing of their citizens is compromised; and a willingness to act on that duty where necessary.

I can best explain why we are so concerned by sharing the issues we face in north Wales. BCUHB is by far the largest health board in Wales; with a budget of £1.9 billion, it is responsible for a quarter of the Welsh population—more than 700,000 people spread across a huge area roughly four times the size of Greater London. BCUHB is currently in Welsh Government special measures for not the first but the second time; it has spent all of the last six years in special measures. Despite that, its performance seems to be getting worse, not better. It has been called “dysfunctional”, “chaotic” and a “basket case”. In February 2023, the Welsh Health Minister sacked its entire board. An audit of its 2021-22 accounts found £122 million unaccounted for, with senior executives accused of deliberately falsifying entries. It is now on its eighth chief executive in 11 years. All that is despite a devolution settlement that funds the Welsh Government with £1.20 per person for every £1 we spend here in England.

It is difficult to relate just how bad some of the stories I hear are: people discharged from hospital sicker than when they went in; hours spent waiting for ambulances, and hours spent waiting in ambulances outside A&E; errors in patient records; appointments lost; significant failures in the provision of medication; palliative patients dying in hospital because fast-tracking them home would take weeks; and medical appointments cancelled and rearranged for hospitals 60 miles away.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has, over the last decade, received the 11th highest number of prevention of future death reports of any organisation in England and Wales. To put that in perspective, organisations with comparable numbers of such reports are generally whole United Kingdom Government Departments. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a damning indictment of the poor state of health services in north Wales and further emphasises the serious concerns about the adequacy of those devolved services?

[Virginia Crosbie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to thank him for his hard work in fighting not only for his constituents, but for everyone across Wales. They deserve a better service than they are getting, and it is only by working together that we can get action, so I am delighted that he is here today. He is a doughty campaigner and a doughty champion for his constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland cross-border initiative was officially closed in December 2020 due to the withdrawal of EU funding. It was a scheme that many of my constituents bought into and did well out of, getting their operations down south before coming back to Northern Ireland, thereby skipping long waiting lists.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask for better cross-border health co-operation between Wales and England, and I understand the reason that she does so, but I believe that there is an argument to be made for a scheme across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because I think that there are cross-border opportunities that we can all take advantage of. Although she is asking specifically about Wales and England, the title of the debate, if she does not mind my saying so, is “Health Services: Cross-border Co-operation,” and that is something that we can all ask for.

[Virginia Crosbie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and in particular for that feedback on how cross-border co-operation actually works. Of course I am focusing on Wales, but he quite rightly highlights that this is the United Kingdom. By working together, we can solve these issues and provide a collaborative approach to healthcare for people across the UK.

I also wanted to add to my list of failures the near-collapse of local NHS dental services. I could honestly stand here and reel off story after story of lives drastically and sometimes irreversibly impacted by the failures of BCUHB. In Holyhead, the largest town in my constituency, two GP practices were merged during the pandemic into Hwb Iechyd Cybi, or Cybi Health Hub. That practice has suffered a series of problems, including twice facing the threat of having no GPs—and that is in Holyhead, the largest town in my constituency.

One of the main things that would make a difference to Hwb Iechyd Cybi and the people it serves would be to co-locate the two original practices. Proposals have been made for that and, in the longer term, for a state-of-the-art healthcare centre for Holyhead. The co-location project would deliver economies of scale that would vastly improve the service that the practices can deliver and, therefore, patient outcomes. The project was allegedly given the go-ahead two years ago, but it has stalled and stalled in BCUHB’s hands, and now it has completely stagnated. Likewise, the integrated health centre has been under discussion for years, but it remains under discussion, with no progress likely. Lack of funding is the problem that is generally cited.

Hwb Iechyd Cybi serves 9,000 patients, and there are around 15,000 people in its catchment area. Holyhead is not a minor backwater in north Wales; it is a large town, yet it has no integrated healthcare. It has an A&E that is 25 miles away across a bridge that closes in high winds, and it has a massive shortage of doctors. I have launched my own petition to raise awareness of this issue and to call on BCUHB to proceed with the co-location project, as well as starting work on the new health centre with urgency. I recognise that the NHS faces significant pressures across the UK, but people are actually moving out of my constituency to live in other parts of Britain because they are scared of becoming ill in north Wales.

There are too many stories of avoidable death and harm. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to compare the situation across the devolved nations in order to see just how bad it really is, because the Welsh Government produce different data from that produced by the UK Government. That makes it almost impossible to compare patient outcomes across borders.

What we do know are facts like these. In 2023, over 22,000 paramedic hours were lost in Wales just waiting outside A&E. In January 2024, more than 3,000 people in north Wales waited for more than 12 hours to be discharged from A&E, and nearly 60,000 BCUHB patients had been waiting for more than 36 weeks to start treatment; six years earlier, that number was just under 10,000. Over 57,000 people across Wales have been waiting for more than a year to start treatment, with 24,000 patient pathways waiting more than two years. Since 2010-11, the Welsh Government have increased health spending by 30.6%, well short of the UK Government’s increase in England of 38.9%.

We have asked the UK Government for help on behalf of our constituents. Last year, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), wrote to the Welsh Government to offer a right of access to NHS services in England for people in Wales. Unfortunately, the Welsh Health Minister claims not to have the additional budget to facilitate that proposal, despite the clear benefits it could offer our constituents. The Welsh Government can, however, find an estimated £100 million to increase the number of Senedd Members from 60 to 96; £4.25 million to buy a farm that it now cannot develop; and over £30 million to implement the much-derided default 20 mph speed limit.

The Welsh Government approach is also highly inconsistent. Take the covid pandemic. The Welsh Government seemed to be unaware that they would have to provide their own response to the threat, despite having been in charge of healthcare in Wales for years. They prevaricated and created different measures and responses, but they want to be part of the UK covid inquiry rather than holding their own. They seem to think they can pick and choose when they are accountable. It would be fantastic to see the Welsh Government prioritising health as the UK Government are doing, for example by enabling pharmacies in England to prescribe medication for common conditions such as earache and impetigo. It is challenging to be a UK MP in Wales when a matter such as health is devolved. Many people do not realise that it is devolved and blame Westminster for failings.

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

The hon. Member is making an splendid speech, and my goodness, it rings a bell with me. I have a GP friend in Caithness who developed an aggressive cataract; within a very short space of time she was unable to drive and had to give up her practice. She put her name down with NHS Scotland. Shortly afterwards, she went private and got it dealt with. Fourteen months later, she got a message from the NHS to say she could have a consultation —not a treatment, but a consultation. She would have grabbed it with both hands if she could have got treatment across the border in England. There is a lot wrong with the NHS in Scotland. It is too bad that none of the nationalists are here. They should be pressing for cross-border co-operation as well. Let us hope we get it.

[Virginia Crosbie]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing some background information on the situation in Scotland and his friend’s story of waiting 14 months for a cataract consultation. He makes a very important point: there should be many more Members of Parliament here for the debate. We have the Minister here, and it is an important opportunity to share some of the some of the terrible stories that we hear.

Despite health in Wales not being our gig, it makes up a third of my postbag, and my colleagues and I cannot turn our backs on our constituents. We cannot ignore their problems and blame Wales, because these are life and death situations. We desperately need the UK Government to step in and up the ante on cross-border co-operation. We desperately need the UK Government to take this matter in hand and do something now to protect the wellbeing of British citizens. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister commit to visiting Ynys Môn and meeting my constituents who have suffered as a result of the BCUHB failures and those who desperately need an integrated medical centre in Holyhead?

16:13

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate on cross-border healthcare. I know the performance of health services across the United Kingdom is a subject close to her heart, as it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who have all made important contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn works tirelessly on improving local health services in her constituency, including by campaigning for an integrated health centre in Holyhead and championing the importance of mental health by pushing for 100 members of the public to undergo a mental health training course in Anglesey.

Although my hon. Friend rightly said that healthcare in Wales has been devolved for 25 years, as a representative of the UK Government and a proud Unionist, I feel it is important that all four nations work together where that is of benefit to the people we represent. For that reason, within my first few weeks in post, I was pleased to visit Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to look at the different approaches being taken to the shared challenges that we face.

During my visit to Wales, I heard directly from some GPs in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and met some of the pioneering Welsh life sciences companies whose innovations have so much to offer the NHS across the whole United Kingdom. I would, of course, be delighted to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn to learn more about the challenges that she faces there.

Without doubt, one of the biggest challenges facing all four nations is dealing with the legacy of covid-19, which has left us with record waiting lists. Cutting waiting lists in England is one of the Government’s top priorities, and by delivering on the actions set out in the delivery plan for tackling the covid-19 backlog of elective care, we are making good progress on tackling the longest waits. Thanks to the incredible work of NHS staff, as of February this year the number of patients waiting over 18 months had been reduced by almost 90% in England, which is a far faster reduction than we have seen in Wales or Scotland.

A core part of that approach has been empowering patients to make decisions on their care by choosing their provider. Improved choice can not only lead to shorter waiting times for patients and incentivise providers to offer appointments, but have a positive impact on the overall patient experience. However, as the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), said last year, it is vital that the UK Government and devolved Administrations work together to ensure that no matter where they live, patients can access the care that they need when they need it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, a genuine offer was made to the devolved Administrations, which remains open. We continue our commitment to working closer with the devolved Administrations on elective recovery and access to primary care, on top of the existing cross-border arrangements to allow patients who live in Scotland and Wales to access care in England under certain circumstances, which is paid for by the relevant Administration. That is important because when adjusted for data differences, the Welsh waiting list of 677,000 represents 21.6 patient pathways per 100 population compared with 13.3 per 100 in England. The magnitude of the difference between England and Wales cannot be accounted for by divergent definitions. That is why the current Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), will be engaging with her counterparts as her predecessor did.

I am pleased to confirm that the next meeting of the inter-ministerial group for health and social care will take place on 24 April. Further, we have agreed to take forward those meetings quarterly. The inter-ministerial group includes Ministers from the UK Government and the devolved Governments who have health and adult social care matters in their portfolios. It provides a forum for strategic discussion between the portfolio Ministers on health and adult social care policy issues, enabling them to engage on areas of shared interest and, where possible, collaborate on policy development and address shared challenges. Moreover, officials have been working on sharing lessons and comparing approaches to demand management and supporting the patients who have been waiting the longest, including through the “Getting it right first time” programme. Those discussions have been constructive in highlighting the benefits of sharing approaches to elective recovery.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made some excellent points about how critical data is as a tool for improving health and tackling inequalities. This Government and the devolved Administrations have been doing important work to improve data comparability in the UK. Not only is it fundamental that citizens can scrutinise the performance of their health services, but a coherent picture of health across the UK is essential to policy evaluation so that we can provide robust challenge and support where it is needed, and build a deeper understanding of the health outcomes in the different parts of the United Kingdom. The Office for National Statistics has recently expanded its cross-Government work and partnered with health bodies in all four nations to ensure that data is coherent, accessible and meets users’ needs. Through that approach, we will enhance our collaborative working and ensure that health services work for every citizen, regardless of geography.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done to improve health services in Wales and promote the importance of cross-border health co-operation across the entire United Kingdom. She raises the concerns of her constituents with me and other Health Ministers week in, week out. Her constituents could wish for no better representative than her. I hope that what I have said today shows that we are committed to improving health services for everyone across the whole of our United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

16:20

Sitting suspended.

Digital Skills and Careers

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of digital skills and careers.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline, and to welcome the Minister to his place.

The Government have set out an ambitious vision of establishing the UK as a science and tech superpower. The Chancellor has also said that the UK is

“on track to become the world’s next silicon valley.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 843.]

While the UK is well placed to harness the opportunities presented by the growth of the digital economy, considerable preparation and investment in education, training and skills will be needed to make the most of those opportunities and to ensure that the UK has the necessary talent pipeline to help it to realise its goal of becoming a tech superpower. It is vital that we ensure that right across all stages of education, from early years to higher education and throughout workplace training, people are given the necessary digital skills to succeed in their career.

Last year, the Prime Minister announced a bold new plan to cement the UK’s place as a global science and technology superpower by 2030, from pursuing transformational technologies such as artificial intelligence and supercomputing to attracting top talent and ensuring they have the tools they need to succeed. We also hosted a successful AI summit that was internationally renowned. The Government have said that they want to be at the forefront of emerging technologies in key high-growth industries, such as cryptocurrency and digital assets, blockchain technologies, Web3 and AI. I have been learning a lot about that as chair of the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group, where I have had to be taken with baby steps through the whole process so I could understand it. It is very complicated. Those new and developing technologies have such potential and they could be the key driver of growth for the UK economy moving forward.

One of the issues raised when speaking to the sector is how many employers say they cannot find the talent they need. If we are to realise the vision, we must ensure the UK is investing in our talent, ensuring that future generations are equipped with the digital skills they need to take advantage of the new career opportunities for what I would probably call a digital Britain that we will all work together to help create.

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

It is a fact, I think, that many people who are autistic have huge potential to contribute in terms of information technology skills. They are often at the cutting edge, but those same people often do not get any help at all when leaving school. It seems to me that we are missing a trick here, and on the intelligence front we could really use these people. I hope the hon. Lady agrees with me that we should do something for them.

[Dr Cameron]

I totally agree; the hon. Member makes an excellent point. Indeed, I have just come from a meeting with DFN Project SEARCH, which works with young people with special needs to give them placements in a variety of industries, including in digital industries and in this Parliament. We must harness everyone’s potential, and everyone should have the opportunity to realise their potential. We should particularly focus on making sure the transformation is inclusive, including of people with special needs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate; she always brings interesting and sensible debates to Westminster Hall and elsewhere. From the time I have known her, she has always been astute and assiduous on these issues, and I thank her for that.

We should teach the importance of having sound digital skills, especially for most modern jobs, which require that we understand information and communications technology. I say that as one who probably does not, to be truthful—but it is important for young people coming through that they do.

Lloyds Bank found that 18% of adults lack the necessary essential digital skills. Does the hon. Lady agree that consideration should be given to teaching a mandatory ICT lesson within careers classes in all schools across the United Kingdom to ensure that young people have the skills needed to obtain employment in all types of industries? In my constituency, we need young people with those skills. I think the hon. Lady would probably agree that she needs them in her constituency as well.

[Dr Cameron]

I totally agree. Digital skills are going to be an integral part of the curriculum for everybody moving through the school process, and for people at all stages of their lives; some people might want to change career and move into the digital posts of the future.

If I may give a small anecdote, when I attended one of the APPG’s sessions, the Children’s Parliament came to speak to us. We were talking about the metaverse and a person from Roblox was there. I spend a lot of money on Roblox, as a mother, because children are so interested in it, so I was desperate to speak to this person about what Roblox was really about. He asked a question of those in the room—Members of Parliament; Members of the House of Lords; and Members of the Children’s Parliament, who are aged from about eight to 14— “Who understands the metaverse?” All the children put their hands in the air, but not very many MPs or Lords Members did.

Digital skills should be part of the curriculum, but younger people are quite digitally native; they are quite used to it. I therefore think there must be across-the-lifespan development so that older adults who are in careers in which they have not had the opportunity to gain digital skills can gain them if they would like to. Certainly, we in Parliament have a way to go to catch up with the children in terms of digital understanding. I include myself in that.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. I am concerned by the lack of digital skills among parliamentarians and legislators, particularly as we are trying to catch up legislation and regulation with the online space and the digital world. That is imperative, given the recent stories about what has been happening to parliamentarians, be that cyber-flashing, sextortion or honey-trapping. It is really important, when we are talking about this area, that our legislators have advanced digital skills.

[Dr Cameron]

I totally agree. For over two years, the APPG has held sessions for MPs who are interested in this particular sector to try to upskill ourselves. As I said, I totally include myself in that.

We have come quite a long way. When I started about two and a half years ago, we had not had any debates in the House of Commons about cryptocurrency, yet over 2 million people in the UK were engaged in the sector. In some ways, Parliament itself is playing catch-up to what has become quite mainstream in our society but there are risks, as you say. To create competent legislation, we need to be involved and to understand the risks.

The children from the Children’s Parliament said that Web3 and the metaverse have extraordinary potential to change their education. For instance, they can understand, through a headset, what it is like to be at the precipice of a volcano. But they said, very clearly, “You have to make it safe.” They also wanted additional research on the impact of being online for long periods of the day on mental health and wellbeing, and where the limits and the cut-offs are in that regard. They were really sensible; I was very impressed by them.

A 2022 report by Tech Nation showed that just under 5 million people were working in the UK tech economy, which was an increase from under 3 million in 2019 but more than double the 2.18 million working in the tech economy in 2011. We can see the potential that is growing exponentially. There were also 2 million vacancies for tech roles between May 2021 and 2022, which is a huge amount, from a total of 14.85 million vacancies across the economy as a whole.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady mentioned skills, on which we have failed to move forward. I will give an example, and I hope she agrees with what I am about to say. Even industries such as diesel mechanics, which relates to heavy goods vehicles, require a lot of digital skills. Unfortunately, our technical colleges are still teaching students about diesel engines that were operating in the 1950s, so they have not moved with the times. The new emissions checks are totally digital, so people need IT skills to achieve some of the emissions regulations. We need flexibility within our education system to integrate digital skills into every aspect of careers.

[Dr Cameron]

I totally agree. The digital transformation affects every sector. I think about finance, given that I chair the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group, but it also affects health and even international aid. Payments transformation means that we can reach the most vulnerable without intermediaries and get payments to them faster and more seamlessly. It is changing almost every sector, and all our educational establishments need support to develop programmes that give people the skills to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

The UK digital assets sector has the potential to boost economic growth, jobs and skills right across the UK. According to King’s College London, in 2021 there were more than 14,000 jobs advertised on LinkedIn in the blockchain industry worldwide. UK-based firms provided almost a quarter of those job advertisements, even though the UK houses less than 7% of the firms worldwide.

A report by Access Partnership and Amazon Web Services published at the start of this year showed that 51% of employers consider hiring talent with AI skills and experience to be a priority, and that boosting AI skills could increase salaries by up to 31% and accelerate career prospects. However, nearly three quarters—71%—of employers said, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that they still cannot find the talent that they need, and that it is not incorporated where it should be.

The UK already has a strong track record as a leader, and we want to maintain that leadership and be at the helm of this transformation. We want to be seen as a destination for innovation and businesses that want to start up and scale up across the United Kingdom. We also have to level up. I hear a lot in my role about businesses starting up in London, and that is absolutely fantastic, but that has to be levelled up to give people opportunities right across the UK. The UK boasts some of the most respected universities, and the largest financial services sector and tech ecosystem in Europe. In 2023, the UK tech sector reached a combined market valuation of more than £1 trillion.

Focusing on education and boosting digital skills will therefore be central to the success of the Government’s vision and will ensure that people have the skills they need to pursue careers in digital economy transformation. To turn that vision into reality and make the UK a digital and technology superpower, we must not only attract the right talent but build the talent base here through teaching and training in every sector and maximising our talent pipelines.

Last month, the Government pledged more than £1 billion to train millions in high-tech skills in order to cement the UK’s place as a technology superpower by 2030 and to create the high-paid jobs of the future. That would be a really positive step in the right direction. We have to be aware that we are facing fierce competition from other countries, so it is vital that we keep the momentum and continue to capitalise on the good base that we already have. We must really maximise the potential here at home.

The International Institute for Management Development, which measures economies on a world digital competitiveness ranking, last year ranked the UK 20th out of 64 economies, so although there has been a good start and we have made progress, there is scope for improvement. In order to become a tech superpower, the UK will need to look at how we boost digital skills from early years through higher and further education and workplace training. I would welcome the Minister’s views on what more we can do to embed digital skills training in schools and throughout all stages of education.

Higher education will be crucial in that regard, too. A recent report by techUK highlighted that despite having less than 1% of the world’s population, the UK boasts four of the top 10 digital universities. That is a real credit to the work that has been done. We also have 14% of the most highly cited academic publications in the world, which is a huge achievement for the Government and for the United Kingdom.

Ensuring that the UK remains an attractive destination means that we also need to attract people from other countries with the skills that we want to develop here. It would be helpful to look at how to attract people—either to university courses or into jobs—who could then train our leaders and innovators of the future in certain parts of the sector where we do not have the talent that we need already established. Industry leaders say that digital technology continues to become an even more essential part of business, so we need to help our small, medium-sized and large businesses to make sure that digital skills are embedded in the work that they do.

Employees can, I think, be worried. I know that when I worked in the NHS, every time there was a digital change, I worried about whether I would be able to do it. Employers need to give people the self-confidence and managers must ensure that there is continuing professional development for staff in businesses across the UK in this sector.

Before I bring my speech to a close, I would like to mention diversity. Having attended a number of conferences looking at digital assets in the UK, I have seen quite a lack of female engagement in the audience, and certainly on the panels that I have taken part in. It was quite stark to me that we are perhaps not making the digital transformation as inclusive as it could be in terms of people from different backgrounds, age groups and ethnic minorities or in terms of the gender gap. That is borne out by a recent study by Forex Suggest, which found that women are vastly under-represented in leadership positions across the blockchain industries, with only 6% of CEOs being women, while men held 94% of the top executive positions. That shows how much work has to be done.

I have two girls who are digitally native. In fact, if my iPad breaks, I often ask my daughter, who is only 10, what to do, and she can fix it very quickly: she just does something and it works again. Children—both girls and boys—are becoming much more confident. However, we need to make sure that that confidence continues through the classroom, through their education and into the workplace, so that women take up those posts and work to the top of those professions that will be so pivotal for the future.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Member is being very generous in taking interventions. She is making a really powerful point. The tech for the future needs to be built by everybody who will be using it. It needs to be inclusive, particularly generative AI and AI large language models. What they are learning from needs to be appropriate, responsible and inclusive. I know we have both worked hard on things like tackling antisemitism. If we want the technology to be taken seriously, it has to be built by everybody who is going to be using it.

[Dr Cameron]

Yes, it is fundamental to the work going forward to make sure these systems are inclusive and are not built by certain people with certain views that perhaps exclude important sectors of the community. These systems are going to be pivotal for the economy and our lifestyles. Everyone has to be included in making sure that this works and in shaping it in a positive way.

I recently visited RoboThink, an innovative business delivering STEM coding, robotics and engineering programmes in the UK, and in 20 other countries around the world, for children as young as three or four and up to age 10 or 12. They were building and coding robots. It was amazing to see. It struck me that the more we have those projects in local communities—in kids’ spare time external to the curriculum, built into it, or a bit of both—the more we can harness kids being positively engaged and, critically, prepared for the workplace of the future. I can assure hon. Members that those young children were building robots that I could not build. I was very impressed by them.

As chair of the crypto and digital assets APPG, I really feel that this is an important time. We should also work in partnership with business to make sure that, educationally, we are in the leadership position to achieve the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s aims. I was interested to hear that Ripple launched a university blockchain research initiative in 2018 in collaboration with top universities around the world, including UCL and others, to support technical development, innovation, cryptocurrency and digital payments. Circle, a leading financial technology firm and issuer of USD Coin, partnered with academic institutions through its Circle University to provide education courses to improve digital financial literacy—another really important aspect, particularly for those who perhaps feel digitally excluded.

In February of this year, Tether announced the launch of Tether Edu, a global education initiative dedicated to improving education skills in blockchain, artificial intelligence and coding. Much of this will be a partnership between Governments and industry for the future, so I would welcome the Minister’s views on the role of industry in helping to improve digital skills and, in particular, on the potential for further partnerships between Government, educators and private industry.

These days, most jobs are going to be developed with a digital element. We should be ensuring that our education system is able to equip people with the digital skills they need to succeed in their careers and to help to drive economic growth and innovations of the future, and to meet the skills needs that UK and international business leaders say are currently lacking.

The UK has a really solid foundation. Parliament should work cross-party and through the APPGs, with business and educators, not only to make sure that the UK maintains its leadership of the digital Britain I want to see developed, but to create digital innovation for the next generation—I include my own children in that—making sure that they can meet their potential in this new digital world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order. Two Members have indicated that they want to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at about 5.13 pm, so please conduct yourselves appropriately.

16:53

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I will be brief. It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing it. We share many concerns, but we also see the potential for the future and what the UK is capable of—not just for our young people, but for everybody.

As the former shadow Minister for technology and the digital economy and the proud chair of Labour Digital, I am passionate about that potential and the potential for technology to transform all our lives for the better. With that potential comes an abundance of opportunity, and it is essential that it is grasped with both hands—by individuals and by businesses—so that we can all reap the benefits that are available. We have all heard and felt the concerns about technology and AI having a negative impact on skills, opportunity and careers, but there is a lot to be excited about if we approach this right.

People’s lives have become more and more digitalised. Individuals have begun to grasp the digital opportunity with both hands. Conventional ideas about how and where work is undertaken have also transformed as people are able to adapt to the digitalisation of our world. We have all seen that, from a rise in social media influencers to marketing careers, online food and clothing delivery services, and more and more opportunities for growing small businesses online. While technology and AI have been smeared as threats to career opportunities—and of course we need to have regulations in place—we are also seeing the need for adaptation to embrace the potential that this can bring to our economy.

Central to that adaptation is, of course, the need for internet access. We have to get the basics right. When so many millions of people in our country still do not have access to reliable, affordable internet, how can we possibly teach people the digital skills that they need to take advantage of those opportunities? That is why I and the Labour party believe that access to the internet should be a right and not a privilege.

As our world and our economy become more and more digitally dependent, we have to take our people with us to take advantage of those opportunities. We can only achieve that if we ensure that people are fully equipped for that transformation. Of course, assisting people and enhancing their digital skills will also look different for every individual and for every community up and down our wonderful islands. From those in school to those retiring, improving people’s digital skills will span a variety of people of different ages, backgrounds, circumstances, and needs, as the hon. Lady has already pointed out.

Someone in their 80s who wants to be able to access healthcare information on an app needs entirely different resources and support from a young individual wanting to improve their coding skills, for example. I hear regularly from older members of my constituency in particular their concerns about being left behind in this transition, but it is not just individuals who fear being left behind; it is wider communities too. From my role proudly chairing the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, I know that stronger policies are needed to grow local economies of our former mining towns. We use the phrase “from coal to code”. Forget the silicon valleys—we have the coal valleys, and that is where we need to be investing.

Our recent report, “Next Steps in Levelling Up the Former Coalfields”, emphasises the recommendation that growing the economies in those towns is dependent on an investment in skills and training. As I said, we have to get the basics right. Digital skills and digital career training must be at the heart of any plan the Government bring forward to ensure that our communities are meaningfully involved in the economy of the future.

Former mining communities such as the one I represent know exactly what exclusion looks like. Whether it is delayed delivery of fibre-optic broadband services or the reliance that even the Government place on having a smartphone to access basic public services, if the economy of the future is to be online focused, industrial communities like mine need the support to adapt to the change. Cross-departmental working is also crucial to achieve that and to ensure that different people are given different support when necessary. I urge the Minister to ensure that a holistic approach is taken across Government when speaking to the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to ensure that we have a joined-up approach to tackle the issue head-on.

I am proud that the Labour party is committed to that collaborative working in all our policy areas, not just technology. I know from my current role as shadow Minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding, as well as from my work on what is now the Online Safety Act 2023, that adaptation in the face of developing technologies also means equipping people with the knowledge necessary to protect themselves from those who—disgustingly—weaponise technology as a misogynistic and violent tool.

As a woman in politics, and as the first woman to represent my constituency of Pontypridd, it is essential that I point out that technological advances go hand in hand with an advancement in the way that perpetrators can offend, something that will disproportionately affect women. These are gendered crimes, so we need to make sure that women are equipped with the necessary digital skills to deal with them. We have all seen them, from AI-generated porn to deepfakes, online harassment and the rise of incel ideology. We need to be educating people to ensure they are equipped to deal with what is sadly an inevitable feature of our increasingly digitalised society.

I really welcome the announcement from the Government today on making a new offence of the creation of deepfake pornography—I think it is long overdue—but it is as an amendment to a Criminal Justice Bill that has no confirmed date for its return to the House. We do have to wonder where the priority is. I am also concerned about the nature of these new offences that have been created. They look to be intent-based rather than consent-based, again prioritising the right to banter ahead of a woman’s right to feel safe online. We have to get this right. We are all too aware of the impact of AI-generated porn and image-based abuse, both fuelled by misogyny. Tackling those issues, working with the Department for Education, has long been a frustration and motivation for me across the briefs that I have held.

Another big concern I have is about the number of elections this year—hopefully a general election will not be too long coming—and the issue of deepfakes, AI-generated images and videos of potential candidates that could do real harm to people if they do not know what they are looking at and cannot verify their sources. Again, with the rise of misinformation and disinformation online, people need to be confident in what they are reading. They need to be able to be confident in their candidates and that what they are seeing, hearing and watching is true. I really am concerned that elections are coming and people do not have those necessary digital skills, and about the impact that that could have on democracy.

Yes, people need the digital skills to be able to take full advantage of the great and positive things that are to come, whether that is growing our economy or boosting our place on the world stage, but they also need these skills more than ever to ensure that they can combat the unfortunate dark side that accompanies the digital world. Let us be clear: we have to protect people against the digital dangers caused by perpetrators, but equally we must never shy away from the potential that technology holds.

That all requires enhanced support to help with online literacy in every single aspect of people’s lives, so I am keen to hear from the Minister exactly what the Government’s digital media literacy strategy is. Sadly, we have seen very little of it of late. It has been left to Ofcom and to the platforms themselves to provide that for people, so I really would like to see some political leadership on this. From careers to education to retirees who just do not want to be left behind, digital skills are essential for our future and must be available to all.

17:00

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this important debate.

It really is important that we, as a country, ensure that we have a digitally literate population. If we do not, we deprive people of opportunity, particularly in employment. So much of what we do today relies on us using the internet, whether that is applying for jobs, accessing education and training, banking, paying bills, and accessing other services and leisure opportunities. It is far easier nowadays to find employment online than by using other, traditional means, because there are just so many websites that advertise jobs and so many social media sites where professionals can network.

However, when we look at the statistics, we can see that there is a lot of work to do to ensure that people can take advantage of the job opportunities provided by having good digital skills. Last year’s consumer digital index, which is run by Lloyds bank and commissioned by the Department for Education, reported that there are about 13 million people in the UK with very low digital capability, which means that

“they are likely to struggle interacting with online services”.

That is about a quarter of the UK’s adult population. The index also found that 7.5 million people, or 18% of UK adults, lack the essential digital skills needed for the workplace. That is over 7 million people who are missing out on opportunities to progress in work, which is a form of deprivation that must be recognised and addressed. That is vital both for the individuals concerned and for the economy.

Despite the Government’s rhetoric about us becoming a tech superpower, it is immensely disappointing that the UK ranks poorly in comparison with other countries when it comes to digital skills. According to the International Institute for Management Development’s world digital competitiveness ranking, the UK was ranked 20th in 2023 out of the 64 economies ranked, but we were 16th in 2022, so our performance clearly dropped. I would be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that was the case.

Older people are much more likely than younger people to struggle with digital skills, according to the consumer digital index. For example, in the 45-to-54 age bracket, 10% of people are below foundation level, which consists of the most fundamental tasks needed to set up an individual for success online. In the 55-to-64 bracket, 16% of people were found to be below foundation level. In the 65-to-74 bracket, that goes up to 29%, and it is higher still for the over-75s, at 37%.

We must bear in mind that adults who have been doing a job, perhaps of a physical nature, may come to a point where they are unable to continue doing it, either because it is no longer available where they live or because of a workplace injury or health condition. They may well then have to consider new types of employment, so we need to ensure that there are opportunities available to allow them to acquire the digital skills they will need to access that employment. That is particularly important for people who live in rural areas, where digital access, ironically, is sometimes weakest; of course, poor public transport can make finding work harder as well. We must ensure that the provision is there so that adults have the chance to improve their digital skills.

We also need to provide adults with a chance to improve their literacy skills. The National Literacy Trust estimates that more than 7 million adults in England—16.4% of the adult population—are functionally illiterate. The Government need to address that as a matter of urgency. We cannot hope that people will improve their digital skills if they do not already have good literacy skills. I have raised that issue numerous times in this place. For example, I tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that would have required the Government to include the reducing of geographical disparities in adult literacy as one of their levelling-up missions, and to review levels of adult literacy in the UK during each mission period, to publish the findings of that review and to set up a strategy to improve levels of adult literacy and eradicate illiteracy in the UK. It was immensely disappointing that the Government voted against that, because if we want to address a problem, it is important to understand its extent and make-up.

Adults need greater opportunities to learn and to improve their literacy and digital skills, yet adult skills spending has been cut under the Conservatives. Last December, the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that

“total skills spending in 2024-25 will be 23% below 2009-10 levels.”

That is really shocking and comes despite an increase in total spending on adult skills in recent years. The IFS goes on to say:

“Spending on classroom-based adult education has fallen especially sharply”,

driven by falling learner numbers and real-terms cuts in funding rates, and will be more than 40% below 2009-10 levels in 2024-25. That is very damaging to our economy, and the situation needs to be reversed. We need to see a significant increase in investment in adult skills so that those adults who struggle digitally or with literacy can acquire the necessary skills to help with their career prospects and in everyday life.

We need to ensure that everyone has reliable and affordable access to the internet. In relation to employment and careers, that is particularly important for people who rely on working remotely, who could live in rural areas, have caring responsibilities or be in ill health. It is also important for people on low incomes and those living in poverty.

There are some good initiatives to try to help digitally excluded people get online. I would like to mention the work of the Good Things Foundation national databank, which provides free mobile SIM cards to help digitally excluded people get connected. Those are distributed by churches and community groups. I encourage MPs across the House to look at the work that the foundation does and to consider how it might be able to assist people in their constituencies. According to the foundation, 2.5 million households in the UK struggle to afford the internet, and one in 14 households have no home internet access at all. Clearly, poverty is also a barrier to digital literacy.

It is important that the Government ensure that everyone is able to reach their potential. In today’s jobs market, confidence in digital skills has an important part to play in helping people to do that. We need a commitment from the Government to extend access to adult literacy and digital skills training in our communities, especially in areas of deprivation. We need action on the provision of broadband right across the country so that no one and no area is left behind.

17:07

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I welcome the Minister to his new role, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing the debate. She has hit on one of the important and strategically significant issues of our day, and made the point that there is a whole set of issues and new disciplines that policymakers need to catch up with.

The subject of digital skills covers a range of disciplines. It could mean digital literacy for engagement with services; accessing information online; office-based skills, such as creating spreadsheets or presentations; or new digital social media tools. It also covers business software use and development; confidence with hardware, including mobile phones; social media for businesses; data analytics; and so much more, as has been highlighted. Indeed, the hon. Lady talked about how Britain becomes a science and technology superpower and leads the way in cyber-security, AI and so much more.

Digital skills are crucial for the future of our economy, businesses and workforce. That is why a core pillar of Labour’s industrial strategy is to harness data for the public good and to transform digital skills. Database technologies are already transforming our economy. For example, AI is being used to prevent fraud, enable search engines and develop vaccines and medicines.

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), have made powerful points. The key point about inclusion—whether by place, demographics, needs, disabilities or the gender divide—is how, not by accident but by design, we can create and work towards the future in terms of how Britain performs.

As a nation, we are way behind where we need to be. The Government have failed to equip young people and the existing workforce with the digital skills they need. That has been demonstrated in some of the research that has been quoted today. Fewer than half of British employers believe that young people have the right digital skills, and we do much worse in computer skills than most of our economic rivals.

As has been mentioned, the 2023 Lloyds bank report commissioned by the Department for Education found that about 13 million people in the UK had the lowest level of digital capability, which means they are likely to struggle to interact with online services. That is an enormous number. The digital skills gap is estimated to cost the UK economy £63 billion per year, and 46% of businesses struggle to recruit for roles that require hard data skills. That also absolutely has an impact on our productivity, such that we sit 16% below international competitors such as the US and Germany.

The Digital Skills Council has found that the barriers to the uptake of digital skills courses include opportunity barriers such as lack of encouragement, restricted options, low teaching quality or even the capacity to access courses in local areas. It also found that those barriers hinder early-career switches for those aged between 27 and 35 and prevent those people from upskilling digitally. That is critical, given the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West made about people being able to move from job to job or from career to career in a changing economy. We also know that the total number of information and communications technology-related apprenticeship starts has fallen by almost 30% since the start of this Parliament. There are core structural and strategic issues that have not been dealt with effectively by the Government.

There need to be solutions that are commensurate with the challenge. The last Labour Government introduced the statutory digital entitlement for adults with low digital skills. Similarly, boosting digital skills will be a national priority for the next Labour Government. That work will be led by a new national body, Skills England, which will drive the skills needs of our industrial strategy and the green prosperity plan, making sure that we deliver those things in line with what is needed on the ground through the local skills improvement plans, working with employers, unions and civil society. We will also reform the apprenticeship levy so that employers can use up to 50% of their total levy contributions on more flexible course, which, as the Minister will know, was called for by the Manufacturing 5, UKHospitality, techUK and so many others.

The system needs to work together. Young people need to understand developing technologies, to be able to use and shape them, and to understand the opportunities and risks. That is why our curriculum review will embed digital literacy and skills throughout children’s learning and ensure that the curriculum keeps up with technological change.

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. Will he outline what steps the Government are taking to reduce the barriers to uptake of digital skills courses and to address digital literacy gaps? Why are the Government not sufficiently addressing the significant gender disparity in the uptake of computing GCSEs and A-levels, with 92% of those starting A-level courses being male students? That critical issue needs addressing. Finally, how is the Minister working with businesses to understand the digital skills needs of the future, how skills needs can best be met now and what we can do to future-proof our courses? Ensuring that the workforces of today and tomorrow have the digital skills they need is vital for our citizens, our economy, our industry and our public services.

17:13

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing a debate on this vital subject.

We live in a digital age. Digital skills are essential to support a successful economy and to ensure that people of all ages have the skills they need for their chosen careers. In the UK, we have a world-leading digital economy. To enhance that position, we need to ensure that people can develop digital skills throughout their lifetime—a point that has been made throughout the debate. Such skills will benefit individuals and employers.

Now is the time for us to act and to deliver our ambitions by investing in digital education and skills and building a diverse pipeline of future talent. If my hon. Friend is happy for me to do so, I will set out some of the work that the Government have been doing and the context for it, and then I will pick up on some of the points that she and other colleagues have raised during the debate.

We need that pipeline of talent because, quite simply, digital skills are needed in nearly all careers in our country these days. There are more and more digital jobs and careers in which the digital element of skills is absolutely central to the role.

We know—I think every Member raised this point in the debate—that there is a digital skills gap to address. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), said, that gap has been estimated to cost the UK economy £63 billion a year. That was a key theme of today’s debate, and it is one that the Government do not take lightly.

Digital jobs grew by 9% last year and are projected to continue to grow by 9% to 2030 and to a significantly higher level thereafter. Sixty per cent of all businesses believe their reliance on advanced digital skills will increase over the next five years, and analysis that the DFE will publish imminently highlights the importance of digital skills across sectors. Of those that are most relevant to critical technologies, the four with the highest levels of employment all relate to digital and computing. That analysis shows how reliant we are on computer science graduates to fill relatively entry-level occupations. We need to ensure that employers and learners are aware of the high-quality technical routes that are available to gain those vital digital skills.

At a local level, digital was one of the top five sectors in which skills needs were identified across the local skills improvement plans. That is a key part of the work that we are doing to engage with businesses and local authorities, bringing together the sector to ensure that we are delivering the right sorts of jobs and entries into the workplace.

It is clear that we have to address the issue in our economy, and we are taking action to do so. One of our beliefs is that the digital skills journey for so many people starts in our schools. To address the growing demand for people with computing and digital skills, we introduced computing as a statutory national curriculum subject back in 2014 across key stages 1 to 4. To provide a basis for further study and careers in digital—including in AI, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow—the computing curriculum ensures that pupils are taught the principles of information and computation, how digital systems work in the modern era, and how to put that knowledge to use through programming.

To ensure that pupils receive a high-quality computing education, we invested over £100 million in the National Centre for Computing Education, providing primary and secondary teachers with the support that they need to drive up participation in computer science at GCSE and A-level. Over 13,000 teachers have engaged with subject knowledge courses, boosting their confidence to teach engaging and effective lessons in this area. Crucially, in post-16 education, the computer science A-level further develops students’ understanding and application of the principles and concepts of computer science, whether that is abstraction, decomposition, logic, algorithms or data representation.

Digital T-levels are also supporting progression to occupations such as software development technician. I went on an incredible visit a couple of weeks ago to Bridgwater and Taunton College, where I met some digital T-level students who were hugely passionate about the work that they were doing. The college has a really positive partnership with different digital technological providers, including Apple, to ensure that students not only have good work and engagement placements, but have the technology that they need as their opportunities on those courses develop. It is not just occupations in the digital sector where good digital skills are needed; relevant digital skills are built into every T-level qualification.

Points were quite rightly raised during the debate about the workforce. One of the steps we have taken to boost teacher retention is investing £100 million a year—this year and in the next financial year—to ensure that every early career teacher of STEM and technical subjects, including computing and digital courses, receives up to £6,000 annually on top of their pay. The investment is targeted at teachers in their first five years of teaching in disadvantaged schools and colleges, ensuring that we help to tackle some of the hotspots with particular challenges. We already offer those levelling-up premium payments to computing teachers in their first five years, but the expansion will double the payments and extend the scheme to eligible further education teachers.

We are also funding flexible skills bootcamps at level 3 and free courses for jobs, which include a range of in-demand digital qualifications and provision such as network architecture, data analytics and coding. I met representatives of the Institute of Coding last week at the University of Bath, one of our digital skills bootcamp providers. I will return to diversity in the sector more generally in a moment, but one of the incredible statistics was that more than 44% of starts in the digital skills bootcamp now are from women. There is a huge amount more to do, but that shows that having different avenues into the workforce and different types of training interventions can have a massive impact and be one part of tackling the issue.

At levels 4 and 5, the first higher technical qualifications were in digital occupations, and 56 HTQs are available for teaching, with a further 10 approved for first teaching in September. Employers in the digital sector have developed 32 high quality apprenticeships from level 3 to degree level in exciting fields, including cyber-security, software development and AI. In 2020, we introduced a digital entitlement, funding adults with low digital skills to study essential digital skills qualifications and digital functional skills qualifications, developed against new employer-supported national standards, which provided learners with the essential skills they need to participate properly and actively in the workforce.

We have also introduced institutes of technology, which are employer-led collaborations—another theme that has been raised several times in this debate. They are bringing together the best existing FE provision with HE partners to build a high-skilled workforce to respond to the needs of the employer, which is crucial. Of the 21 IOTs, 19 have been launched already, and they all include a digital specialism.

Higher education is a key pipeline for digital jobs—a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. Through the strategic priorities grant, we are directing funding towards strategically important subjects, including computing and IT courses. From 2025, the lifelong learning entitlement will transform access to further and higher education so all adults have the equivalent of four years’ worth of student loans to use flexibly on a quality education and skills over their lifetime.

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have shown strong interest in ensuring that we embrace the opportunities and advances that AI offers and that we make use of technologies such as blockchain, which is fundamental to the future of our digital economy in some ways. In schools, the computing curriculum as a foundational subject for all key stages ensures pupils have a broad knowledge of the skills they need to specialise in later, for example in AI, facilitating further study. At the other end of the pipeline, we have an AI data specialist apprenticeship standard approved for delivery at level 7. That highly skilled role champions AI and its applications, promoting the adoption of novel tools and technologies.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The Minister is putting an awful lot into his speech, which is good. Can he tell us what the Government are doing to look at which areas of digital jobs will be under threat with the development of AI? Today’s landscape will not be the same in five years’ time. What work has his Department been doing on that? Is it informing the courses that are being provided? We do not want people to invest a lot of time and money in training for something, only for AI to come and wipe it off the map.

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. Let me make a couple of points. First, yes, we are absolutely looking at the matter as a Government Department. Secondly, we are working with external partners and providers too, whether that is through the LSIPs or other mechanisms, to forward-look at what skills are needed as part of our economic model, not just now but in the years to come. We are doing that in multiple ways; perhaps I can write to the hon. Member with more information. I can assure her that work is under way through LSIPs and in other ways.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow raised points about female participation in digital skills. I mentioned the importance of using digital skills bootcamps as a lever and a mechanism to tackle that issue, but we know that there is a lack of diversity, particularly gender diversity, within the digital skills pipeline. Only 15% of the UK’s programmers and software development professionals are female. That is why we are supporting programmes to widen participation in digital and wider science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers, including through the National Centre for Computing Education’s “I Belong” programme.

We are also putting £30 million into an AI and data science conversion course programme, funding universities to develop masters-level AI and data science courses suitable for non-STEM students. There are up to 2,600 scholarships for students from backgrounds under-represented in the tech industry. Of course there is more to do, and we look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow to tackle that challenge.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke passionately about some of the challenges facing her own community, as well as some of the opportunities that digital advancements and AI can bring. I took particular note of a couple of her points. First, she was absolutely right to highlight that this area cuts across all Departments and all layers of government, including local government, the devolved Administrations and the Government here at Westminster; I can assure her that I will certainly tackle that issue wherever I can. She also highlighted her work with the APPG and the report she has produced on coalfield communities; I would love to meet her and talk more about the recommendation in that report. I look forward to reading it and will be happy to discuss it further.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer in his place, made an intervention about the importance of ensuring that individuals with special educational needs have the right level of access to digital skills. That is a crucial point, and I want to assure all hon. Members that we are taking action in that area. We are ensuring that all colleges have a named person with oversight for SEND, that colleges have due regard to the SEND code of practice, that apprenticeships have diversity champions and that institutes of technology are looking at a diverse workforce. I am always happy to talk to colleagues about that important issue.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow again for securing this debate. There is a clear, unanimous voice on the importance of digital skills, ensuring that everybody in our country has equal and clear access to those skills, and future-proofing our workforce. I have set out our offer to ensure that the UK has the digital skills to remain a science and technology superpower. That is just the start. Every individual, business, employer and part of our economy needs digital skills. Of course there is more to do, but I am sure that by working together, including with providers and employers, we will deliver the digital skills that our country needs for the future.

17:27

[Dr Cameron]

I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate on a very important issue. I am pleased that we have been able to work together to identify the key challenges for those from rural areas and minority backgrounds, and in terms of the gender gap. We have talked about a holistic approach and why it is important to level up across the UK and right across the lifespan.

I thank the Minister for a comprehensive response. I think that the future is positive for the UK in this regard. We have an innovative workforce and there is a digital generation up and coming; I see it all around me. We are fortunate to have a Prime Minister who has a clear and proactive vision for digital Britain moving forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of digital skills and careers.

17:28

Sitting adjourned.