House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Responsibility for tourism levies is devolved, but we want to watch what happens in Scotland and Wales with close interest. One of my main hopes is to increase the number of international visitors to the UK, and ensure more and more visitors come not only to London and the south-east, but travel across the whole United Kingdom.
John Lamont
Imposing taxes on tourists will only discourage people from enjoying the best of what the Scottish Borders and Scotland have to offer. Many small, rural businesses are struggling to sustain themselves, so I fear the extra tax proposed by the Scottish Government will be the last straw. Does the Minister share my concern about the impact that will have on tourism in Scotland? Will the Government undertake an impact study on the effect the tax will have on tourism, not just in Scotland but across the UK?
Chris Bryant
Despite having been a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the basis of devolution. This is a matter for the Scottish Government to decide. We want to have a very positive relationship with the Scottish Administration and, for that matter, the Administration in Wales. Of course we will look at this. The UK Government have no plans to introduce visitor levies at the moment, although there are potential benefits that might accrue to local communities, if they could be got right, but the idea of us investigating what the Scottish Government are doing would be completely wrong.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This Government are taking a fresh approach to our relationship with the Scottish Government and with our cultural partners across Scotland. We are seeking a far more consistent and constructive relationship than the previous Government. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister last week convened the first ever Council of the Nations and Regions, and this Government are putting the creative industries in every nation and region at the heart of our economic strategy.
Jamie Stone
I wholeheartedly welcome that answer. Scotland has great potential; if I say that “The Traitors” was filmed at Ardross castle in my constituency, the Secretary of State will know what I am talking about. I take the point that these matters are devolved, but Mr Angus Robertson seems to flip-flop when it comes to funding the arts, so I would be grateful for everything the Secretary of State can do to get Netflix, or whoever, to look hard at the Highlands.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to Scotland’s huge cultural assets. I was pleased to meet with my Scottish Government counterpart when I visited the Edinburgh Fringe over the summer. I know from the international investment summit, which the Government convened earlier this week, that partners like Netflix, and many other international investors, see the enormous value of Scotland and the attraction of investing there. This Government will do everything we can to support that, and we will put rocket boosters under the creative industries in Scotland.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
This Government are committed to providing high-quality, inclusive facilities that provide opportunities for everyone to get active and healthier. That is why we are investing £123 million across the UK in our multi-sport grassroots facilities programme.
Louise Jones
Access to those facilities is vital for mental health and community cohesion, no more so than in the small towns and villages that make up my constituency. Does the Minister agree that even in places like that we must have equal access to such facilities?
Stephanie Peacock
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to visit her constituency a few months ago; I represent a similar area, with a collection of towns and villages. Wherever communities are, across the country, we want to ensure they have access to local facilities. It is so important to get people active, particularly for mental health and wellbeing.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Minister will know that grassroots sports venues play a key role in improving the nation’s health. The UK will host the T20 women’s world cup in 2026, and cricket will join the Olympic family of sports in 2028. The previous Government committed a £35 million investment into 16 grassroots cricket hubs and cricket domes. Will the Minister commit this Government to fulfilling that promise?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for her important question. I was pleased to meet the England and Wales Cricket Board a few weeks ago, and I will be doing a visit with its representatives in my own constituency tomorrow. We absolutely see the benefit of cricket and, indeed, all sports across the country, but I am obviously not in a position to make spending commitments ahead of the spending review.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I set out in a previous answer, the Government are investing £123 million through football partners in grassroots facilities up and down the country.
Tom Gordon
I recently visited Knaresborough Town AFC in my constituency and met fantastic people who do more than just football. They share the club’s facilities with groups such as Rainbow Care, which provides a lifeline to other people, not just those interested in football. Due to the weather, the pitch is often waterlogged, and there is a lack of 3G pitches in the area. Will the Minister meet me to talk about how we can do more to support Knaresborough Town and, hopefully, get a pitch down the line?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am pleased to hear that he visited his local club, and I would be delighted to meet him. Ahead of that meeting, though, I will ask my officials to link him up with the Football Foundation, which supports grassroots communities to get new pitches. I pay tribute to all the volunteers to whom he refers for their fantastic work in the community.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Blyth Spartans in my constituency are arguably the most famous non-league club in the UK, but they are now up for sale, with the current chairman failing to deliver on his promises and to engage transparently and openly with the supporters. Does my hon. Friend agree that non-league football clubs are at the heart of communities and that engagement with supporters is critical to their survival?
Stephanie Peacock
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I completely agree. Now that he has put it in Hansard, perhaps Blyth Spartans are the most well-known club in the country. I echo his comments about fan involvement at every level of the football pyramid and, indeed, in grassroots football.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
From grassroots to professional, the number of women’s teams has more than doubled over the past seven years. Cheltenham Town Women have a thriving team, with junior and adult sections. Sadly, one place above them in the table this season are Lewes FC, who are running the “Equal FA Cup” campaign. Does the Minister agree that it is time for equality of prize money across the men’s and women’s FA cups?
Stephanie Peacock
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking such an important question. The Government are fully committed to supporting and growing women’s sport, and to ensuring that it is on an equal footing with men’s sport. The ambition to have equal prize money across sport, where possible, is absolutely right. I know that the Football Association took steps last season to double the prize fund for the women’s FA cup, and we will pay close attention to see what happens next.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her work to support young people in her constituency over many years. It is a source of national shame that youth funding decreased by 73% under the last Government—one of the deepest cuts made to any of our public services—and that there was no real strategy for a generation of young people. This Government are determined to get a grip on this issue to ensure that young people in towns such as Grimsby have the opportunities that they deserve.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. A shining example of youth services and their positive impact is the Haven Centre in Osborne Street in my constituency, where a dedicated team offer diversionary activities through sports and crafts and give essential mentoring and support. Since opening, the Haven has played an important role in reducing antisocial behaviour, with reported incidents down by 35% in the town centre over the last year. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the staff at the Haven and all the youth providers across Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and recognise the vital role that they play in providing safety for young people and giving them access to new skills and facilities that they otherwise would not have?
Lisa Nandy
I would be delighted to pay tribute to youth workers up and down this country, who have done incredible work. They have been a lifeline for young people in what has been a very bleak landscape for too long. I was very pleased to work with my hon. Friend and the East Marsh United group in her constituency, and she has done incredible work to support the community over many years in order to facilitate Grimsby’s OnSide youth club, of which we have a fantastic example in Wigan. I very much look forward to working with her to develop this work.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for a bit of Grimsby, I share the support of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for the excellent work carried out in the area. However, the Secretary of State rightly criticises the last Government for reducing the resources made available to the youth sector. Can she reassure me that this Government will actually increase those resources?
Lisa Nandy
We are determined to grip this issue. One of the things the new Government discovered when we opened the books is that, although there are several funding sources within my Department and across Government, there is no youth strategy at all. We are determined to set that right. We will develop and co-produce a strategy for a generation of young people, working alongside them and with the incredible youth workers at The Haven, the OnSide youth zones and many other places, including in Chorley, to support a generation to succeed.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I have had many meetings with the creative industries, which have raised AI at every single one. I make it absolutely clear that human creativity deserves remuneration. Wherever we end up, the rights of artists, musicians, publishers and journalists need to be protected while we garner the significant benefits of artificial intelligence.
Mrs Russell
AI-generated creations that mimic real people—deepfakes—can lead to financial and reputational damage for musicians and other creatives. However, as the domestic violence charity Refuge pointed out last year, the most common AI-generated deepfakes are non-consensual sexual depictions of women. How do the Government plan to ensure that creatives, as well as women and girls, are adequately protected from the misappropriation of their voice, image, name and likeness?
Chris Bryant
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this important issue that affects many people. In the words of Stephen Sondheim, “art isn’t easy,” and neither is the legislation in this area, but we are determined to look into it. It is already a criminal offence to share an intimate image without consent, whether real or synthetically generated, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am the real thing, Mr Speaker.
The creative industries in Strangford and across Northern Ireland are very important. In responding to the point raised by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell), it is important that Northern Ireland has similar consideration. Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that anything that happens here to protect women and ladies also happens in Northern Ireland?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Although some of the areas we are discussing are, of course, devolved, we want to make sure that the whole UK moves forward in the same direction. I am keen to talk to my counterpart in Northern Ireland about this subject.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is an honour to stand at the Dispatch Box for the first time, although I have to admit that it is not how I pictured it. I will do my best not to be a pain in your neck, Mr Speaker.
In a nutshell, the creative industries are worried that the Government will essentially give away their intellectual property. I am pleased to hear the Minister’s response, but the growing concerns were raised by the Chair of the Select Committee following comments by a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. With that in mind, will the Minister confirm that he will not give away IP through an exemption? Will he assure the House that he will not implement the EU’s approach, given its flaws? Finally, will he commit to holding a summit between the tech and creative industries to explore licensing and other models?
Chris Bryant
It is absolutely essential that we protect intellectual property, which is one of the key things this country has to sell. We have already had two meetings with representatives from the creative industries and tech companies, and we are keen to move forward.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman on his décolleté first appearance at the Dispatch Box. However, I gently push back on his suggestion, as I think the previous Government had embraced Bucks Fizz more than anything else:
“Don’t let your indecision take you from behind.”
The previous Government did absolutely nothing in this territory. We are determined to get to a proper resolution that satisfies the needs of both the creative industries and artificial intelligence.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Grassroots sports clubs are at the heart of communities up and down the country. We know just how important they are, which is why we are committed to continuing to support high-quality, inclusive facilities to get people more active.
Connor Naismith
Crewe and Nantwich athletic club, which celebrated its 50th anniversary this year, is home to the only competitive-standard athletics track in south Cheshire. However, the track is in desperate need of improvements so that the club can continue to flourish and support the young people who use its facilities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what support might be available to deliver those crucial improvements?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question and congratulate Crewe and Nantwich athletic club on half a century—what a great achievement! Such sports clubs are crucial to helping our young people to pursue their sporting passions. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, but in the meantime I will ask my Department to link the club up with England Athletics and other bodies for further discussion of the support available.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important issue. Football is one of our greatest exports and is a source of joy to people across the country. For too long, however, robust protections have not been in place to ensure that every town, village and city can share in that success.
May I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Sports Minister Dame Tracey Crouch for her work leading the fan-led review of football governance? The Government committed in the King’s Speech to the football governance Bill and we expect to introduce it shortly.
Yuan Yang
I associate myself with that tribute and thank the Secretary of State for her reply. My constituency is the proud home of Reading football club, which managed to stay up last season against the odds but which has been the victim of financial mismanagement by absent owners. We desperately need the Government’s football governance Bill, which will set up a regulator to safeguard clubs like Reading and prevent future abuses. Will the Minister meet local fans and me to discuss what we can do to protect the club?
Lisa Nandy
The Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), will be absolutely delighted to do so. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and to the three Reading MPs for their work to protect something that is so incredibly important to their town. I know from my experience of the work we had to do to save Wigan Athletic that when a football club is under threat from mismanagement or poor ownership, it is absolutely devastating for the generations of fans for whom the club is part of their civic inheritance. We look forward to introducing the football governance Bill without any further delay and to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues to ensure that we introduce the strongest possible protections to put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Government are committed to strengthening protections to ensure that people can continue to enjoy gambling as a pastime without the harms that can ensue from problem gambling. We have a dedicated Minister for gambling, Baroness Twycross, who has met representatives across the industry and those affected by problem gambling to seek the widest range of views and ensure that the Government have a robust policy in place.
Jim Dickson
Many of us in this House have encountered harrowing stories from constituents of the devastating impact of gambling suicide. The Gambling Commission estimates that 2.5% of the population meet the threshold to be categorised as suffering from problem gambling and in need of NHS treatment. My constituency is considered a high-problem gambling area, which means that we have a high number of people who meet the threshold. Are steps being taken to progress towards an independent statutory levy on the industry to fund the gambling treatment and independent information that so many people urgently need?
Lisa Nandy
The Government are committed to reviewing all the available evidence and listening to the first-hand constituency experience of Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend. That way, we can strike the right balance and ensure not only that the industry, which brings joy to many people, continues to thrive, but that we have the most robust protections in place to prevent problem gambling. I will update the House soon on the Government’s strategy, and Baroness Twycross will be happy to discuss the issue with MPs on both sides of the House who have personal experience and evidence that we will want to consider.
Elaine Stewart
I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in praising local community groups, such as those in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, that support people facing problems with gambling. At a time when financial resources are limited, and with a black hole left by the Conservative Government, have the new Government considered the fiscal cost to society of gambling, and particularly online gambling, which has a higher risk of harm?
Lisa Nandy
We are very aware of the issues that my hon. Friend raises and would be pleased to discuss them with her, as part of ensuring that we have the most robust protections in place, particularly in relation to online gambling. We are acutely aware of the problems that can ensue from gambling, but we also know that this is an industry that brings joy to many people. For example, more than half of all adults have participated in some form of gambling over the past year. We know that we must grasp this thorny issue, and we are committed to working with her and other colleagues to get it right.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The horseracing industry, which is a British success story, is dependent on income from responsible gambling. I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about responsibly enjoying a flutter. This is nothing like some of the problem gambling that we see online, and the proportion of bets on horseracing that are deemed to be problematic is comparable to the proportion of problematic users of the national lottery. What plans does she have to reform the betting levy and the affordability checks that have been in train for some time?
Lisa Nandy
I should tell the House that the Tote is headquartered in my constituency of Wigan, which gives me an insight into the industry, which I have had a relationship with for many years. There will be a debate on horseracing next Thursday in Westminster Hall. This industry is worth £4 billion to the UK economy, so this Government certainly take it incredibly seriously. Baroness Twycross is having discussions with representatives from across the industry, and I am sure that she would be delighted to discuss this with the hon. Member as well.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
No one wants to see people caught up in problem gambling, but equally, no one wants to see businesses struggle and jobs lost. As the Secretary of State said, we want this industry to thrive, yet this week that was threatened after it was rumoured that the Treasury is planning a £3 billion tax raid. That has already seen £3 billion wiped off the value of bookies. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether she supports the industry or the Treasury? Did she raise her concerns about the rumour, and when will we see the gambling reforms brought forward with a timetable for scrutiny by this House?
Lisa Nandy
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he should know, as we do, that we cannot believe everything we read in the papers. As he will have heard in my previous answer, we are determined to strike the right balance. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) a moment ago, we are aware of the value of this industry and of its importance, and not just for the UK economy but for the joy it brings to many people and the employment prospects it offers in every nation and region of the United Kingdom. We are also aware of the problems that can be caused by problem gambling. Like the previous Government, we are determined to talk to the widest range of partners and ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting people from the problems that can ensue and supporting a growing industry.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
We want to put fans back at the heart of live events and we want to ensure that more of the revenues come to the creative industries. That is why we will be launching a consultation on the secondary ticket market soon —the piece of paper in front of me actually says “in the autumn”, but I am never quite sure when that is, so I am going with “soon”.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I understand the need to look at secondary ticketing, but dynamic pricing is a contractual bargain between buyer and seller, based on supply and demand. It actually gives us cheaper tickets as well as more expensive ones. Does he really want the Government to get involved there? I know that the Prime Minister wants everyone to be able to afford concert tickets, but what is wrong with the way that he gets them?
Chris Bryant
The truth is that dynamic pricing has many different forms and some of them are good. For instance, early bird tickets benefit many people, as does buying last-minute tickets for the theatre. We will not interfere with that, but we will have a call for evidence about how that works in relation to live events. On ticket pricing, the real scandal is that, for example, the face value of standing tickets for Coldplay at Wembley on 22 August 2025 is £96.23, but when I checked StubHub this morning they cost £17,633. That is the real scandal and that is what we are going to deal with.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
After 14 years, this Government have opened the books to find a legacy of violent indifference and neglect of arts and culture that has created serious challenges for our proud creative industries. I am pleased to tell the House that the Government’s international investment summit this week put creative industries at the heart of our economic strategy. Thanks to the support of partners such as Netflix, Universal Music and Tate, we were able to welcome £63 billion of investment into the UK. Later today, in Downing Street, I will launch a new covenant with our civil society partners to reset what had become a needlessly antagonistic relationship under the last Government. We look forward to working with those across the UK to help fulfil the country’s enormous potential.
Jo Platt
The Wigan & Leigh short film festival, which took place last month, was once again extremely successful. It is a fantastic opportunity to gather like-minded creative individuals from the local area to celebrate and showcase up-and-coming talent from around the world. That is just one example of the enriched film and TV culture that is so vibrant in my constituency. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement of tax reliefs to create jobs and boost our creative industries—
Mr Speaker
Order. Topical questions are meant to be short and punchy, not a big, long question, Jo. Minister, can you pick the best out of that?
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I completely agree with what my hon. Friend was about to say.
Mr Speaker
Which part: the first three minutes or the second? I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Secretary of State believes that it is not good policy that counts, but good vibes: the violent indifference that led to a booming creative sector is no longer; the culture war is over; and we, the vanquished, submit ourselves for re-education along with the rest of the public. The problem is that every DCMS sector tells us that they want more than vibes; they need decisions and they want a Budget that will deliver. Can she tell us whether she is among the panicked Ministers who have written to the Chancellor about the Budget and their spending asks, and which has she listed as her priority?
Lisa Nandy
I am not entirely sure what the “vibes” issue is, but I will say that I do not need to write to the Chancellor. Unlike under the previous Government, we have a very close relationship and we tend to pick up the phone when discussions need to be had. Alongside the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Prime Minister, I was pleased this week to welcome £63 billion of investment into the UK to put creative industries at the heart of our economic strategy.
Julia Lopez
I spoke to some of the DCMS stakeholders who went to the investment summit, and they came away worried. They see a Government who absolutely milk their stardust, but all they hear is new taxes, new employment regulations, other Departments riding roughshod over DCMS interests and delays to decisions. Can the Secretary of State be specific? When she says that she is “putting rocket boosters” under the creative industries, what does that mean in practice?
Lisa Nandy
As I announced to the House last week, it means introducing an independent film tax credit, which the previous Government talked about for several months and did absolutely nothing about. I have to say to the hon. Lady that after the legacy that her Government left, which has brought our proud country to its knees, it takes some brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and criticise this Government. We are fixing the problems that her Government created, and a little bit of humility might go a long way.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. I congratulate the cyclists on completing their fantastic ride and on the impressive sum of money that they raised. I pay particular tribute to Austin Cornish, the organiser of the ride, whose father died in that crash.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Women are those most often criminalised for non-payment of the licence fee. The BBC charter review offers an opportunity for the Government to look at this issue again. Will the Government consider decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important issue. I am deeply concerned by the number of cases that have been brought to my attention since taking office of women who have fallen foul of this practice. I have personally had discussions with the BBC leadership about that. Obviously, the charter review, which we intend to start early next year, offers us an opportunity to look at these issues in the round.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to have to get through the questions more quickly. We do not have much time.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
It is great to see my hon. Friend here. First, we want to ensure that more international movies and blockbusters are made in the UK, and we want to increase investment. With more sound stages, we should be able to challenge Hollywood. I also want to ensure that every single child in this country can consider a career in the creative industries, whatever background they come from.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Eastbourne art galleries such as the Towner and Devonshire Collective VOLT—it made the tie I am wearing—contribute so much to our town and to our country, but the sector faces serious financial pressures. Will the Minister meet me and a delegation of art galleries to discuss them?
Chris Bryant
I will happily meet the hon. Member, who makes a very good point. We have hundreds of museums and galleries across the country. Some of them receive funding directly from Arts Council England. We want to talk to Arts Council England about how we can ensure that there is more support for our museums and galleries. Some of the funding comes directly from our Department. I am happy to meet him to discuss that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Stephanie Peacock
We know just how important the work of the Rugby Football League is in communities —I have seen it at first hand, as I know you have, Mr Speaker. It is one of the reasons the RFL has received just under £1 million in funding from Sport England over the past financial year to help tackle inequalities and improve access. I look forward to working with the sport in the months and years ahead.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
When mobile providers started to turn off the 2G and 3G networks earlier this year, we were told that it would have no impact on existing services, but the experience in my constituency is the contrary, particularly along the M74 motorway network. Will Ministers investigate the impact of the switch-off to date, and ensure that necessary improvements are made so that we have a full network across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Chris Bryant
I think this is a hangover from yesterday’s questions on telecoms, but the right hon. Member makes a very good point. One of the things that keeps me awake at night is worrying about what will happen to the transition for people with telecare devices, which rely on the old public switched telephone network. We are keen to have a safe transition. Exactly the same issues apply to 2G and 3G. I will happily meet with him, if that would help.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
I very much welcome the work that my hon. Friend is doing to champion his community, and offer him the Government’s support for it. I am working with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government ahead of the publication of our forthcoming devolution plans to ensure that we give communities the tools to bring our proud heritage sites back into use, and to repurpose them for future generations.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I urge the Secretary of State and the ministerial team to take account of the listed place of worship grant scheme, which is particularly valuable to many churches up and down the country, and to not allow the Treasury to trim it back. It may expire at the end of March next year.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that spending review issues are a matter for the Treasury—let us see what comes out of that review. I have had lots of representations, and he makes a good point.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
I am pleased to offer my hon. Friend our support on that. The football governance Bill, which we intend to introduce shortly, will significantly advance the protection of fans. We are working with the widest range of partners, and we hope to command proper cross-party support, as the previous Football Governance Bill did before the election.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
East Devon district council is making available £207,000 for young people’s sports facilities in Honiton. How can central Government contribute to that initiative?
Lisa Nandy
We are pleased to have announced investment worth £123 million in grassroots sports facilities for the coming year. Demand currently outstrips the pace at which such facilities can be created, but the Government are absolutely determined to work with the hon. Gentleman and partners across the House to ensure that we give our young people the facilities that they deserve.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend may be getting me again. It is a great delight that the arches will be sorted, not least because we launched his election campaign at that very site. Our heritage is a key reason why so many international visitors come to this country. If we can get the mix of historical and modern right, I am sure that we can challenge France for international visitor numbers.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, as this is my first time responding to questions, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor as Second Church Estates Commissioner, the former Member for South West Bedfordshire, Andrew Selous, for his work in the role. I certainly hope to do my best in it for parliamentarians and commissioners.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s question, the Church of England operates 16,000 parish churches, over half of which are in rural areas, along with Church schools. It provides the largest network of buildings in England that serve communities—buildings that are used for worship and education, as well as warm spaces and hubs for activities such as food banks, post offices, credit unions and other social and community initiatives.
Ms Minns
The parish of Bewcastle in the north-east corner of my constituency is perhaps best known as the home of the Bewcastle cross, probably the finest example of pre-Norman carving in England. Geographically, it is a very isolated community, but every single month, parishioners organise a vibrant community hub, which is critical in overcoming social isolation and loneliness. Next month will mark 1,350 years since the carving of the cross, so will my hon. Friend ask the Church Commissioners to consider additional funding for the parish to improve the village hall?
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate all the volunteers in the parish of Bewcastle on their work to tackle social isolation and loneliness. I will look into the specific case that my hon. Friend mentions and see what advice can be given to support her. I also commend the work of the Good Shepherd multi-academy trust, which is in her constituency and supports children, families and communities to flourish.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Second Church Estates Commissioner to her place, and thank her for her answer to the previous question. As everyone knows, the purpose of any church is to tell the greatest story ever told—the story of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ—but alongside that they have practical purposes, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) referred to. Those purposes include looking after the elderly, as well as children, through childcare and nurseries; and there is also the social media and the events that churches host. Those are the practical outpourings of the gospel in the lives of those whom we reach. What will the Church Commissioners do to ensure that those things happen, alongside the telling of the gospel?
Marsha De Cordova
As the hon. Member highlights, there is so much that the Church does by way of outreach in our communities. It also ensures that there is good infrastructure to protect all our communities, including children and young people.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Marsha De Cordova
When a church is closed, a formal legal process under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 is followed. There are currently 127 cases in which a new use is being found for closed church buildings; only two are cleared sites, and they are waiting for disposal.
Josh Babarinde
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Eastbourne declared a housing emergency last year, and the key thing we need to do to address that emergency is build our way out of it. The commissioners preside over a perfect brownfield site for housing: the site of the former St Elisabeth’s church on Victoria Drive, just down the road from where I went to school. It has been derelict for 20 years, and since the church on the site was demolished four years ago, there has been no sign of development whatsoever. I urge the commissioners to develop that site into affordable housing, and I appeal to the hon. Lady for an urgent update on the situation.
Marsha De Cordova
Since 2022, the Church Commissioners have been working with the diocese of Chichester to market the site and find a developer. I am pleased to say that a developer is in the process of agreeing to a conditional contract for a mixed-use development that will include convenience retail and housing, some of which will be much-needed affordable housing, which the hon. Member mentioned. That development will need planning permission, and that is being explored with the local authority now.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova
Local authorities are not currently required to consider the building of new places of worship, but under the national planning policy framework they are permitted to include places of worship among a range of community buildings in a development. Where local authorities include places of worship among community buildings, the Church Commissioners seek to promote these facilities.
Blake Stephenson
Development should be about building places and communities where people can live fulfilling lives, not just building houses, and places of worship play an important role in that. Will the hon. Member work with Ministers to ensure that the Government’s new towns commission incorporates the creation of places of worship in new towns?
Marsha De Cordova
The Church Commissioners are very much invested in place-making; it is at the core of their approach to bringing forward new homes for communities across the country. They have sought a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss the Church’s strategic land, and the potential to build up to 70,000 new homes. The diocese of St Albans has several good examples of how the Church is contributing to community-building in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The General Synod of the Church of England considered the Wilkinson review at its meeting in July 2024. The synod has commissioned a detailed analysis of four options for the organisational structure of safeguarding independence. The intention is for them to be presented to the synod at the next meeting in February 2025, which I hope to attend.
Luke Myer
I welcome my hon. Friend to her role; she is doing a fantastic job. My constituent has been involved in that process. Can she help to secure a meeting with my constituent to discuss the findings and the work in more detail?
Marsha De Cordova
I will do whatever I can to secure a meeting. It is important to put on record that there has been much engagement with all the survivors, who have been involved throughout the process. I will certainly write to my hon. Friend to see what we can do to ensure that a meeting is secured.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova
I certainly am, and so are my thighs.
At a national level, the contribution of local clergy and lay people is usually recognised through the Archbishops’ medals or a Lambeth degree. Most dioceses also have their own awards. Clergy and lay volunteers are eligible for nomination to relevant orders, and for decorations and medals, and there are opportunities in the wider civil honours system where appropriate.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that answer. I am full of praise for the hard work and dedication of all our clergy, but sometimes an individual goes above and beyond. That is true of Reverend Canon David Williams, who on Christmas day will lead his last service at St Mary’s, Princes Risborough, after 15 years’ service to that town and the surrounding villages. His work includes having supported thousands of children through Lighthouse Princes Risborough, and his role as a trustee of the Princes Centre and other charities, including those supporting the homeless. Will the hon. Lady join me in thanking David and his wife Jo for their 15 years’ service to Princes Risborough? What more can the Church do to recognise his and others’ hard work?
Marsha De Cordova
I place on record my thanks, congratulations and appreciation of Reverend Canon David Williams and his wife—as we know, these things are always a partnership—for all their good work in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The Diocese of Oxford is thankful for the dedicated, pioneering and innovative work of the clergy and their great contribution to the Church’s ministry and mission, and to our local communities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass on my thanks, and that he will be present for the reverend’s final service on Christmas morning, to congratulate him in person.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Some 85% of the global population have a faith that shapes their day-to-day life. The Church has been working at a global, national and local level to improve interfaith understanding and engagement. At home, it engages with national and local networks to support faith and civic leaders, mayors and MPs in building trust and resilience in their local communities, as they did during and after the most recent civil unrest.
Matt Rodda
I welcome my hon. Friend to her post; she is doing a fine job. Will she join me in congratulating the local faith communities across the diverse and tolerant town of Reading on their work to support one another, and to understand one another’s faith? I associate myself with that tremendous work; it is wonderful to see different faith communities working together for the whole community. I also put on record my support for the retiring Bishop of Reading, Bishop Olivia, and pay tribute to her for her outstanding work to tackle knife crime in our community.
Marsha De Cordova
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those working across all faiths to ensure that there is good, strong community cohesion, and I congratulate the retiring bishop. That is important across constituencies that, like Reading, have diverse communities with diversity in faith.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Marsha De Cordova
It is so important that we celebrate women who have been ordinated. Tuesday 12 March 2024 marked the 30th anniversary of the first ordinations of women as priests in the Church of England, and about 6,500 women have been ordained since 1994. Women now make up about one third of the clergy in England, and obviously this proportion is growing. Many services of celebration have taken place across the country to recognise the considerable contributions that these women have made and continue to make to the Church. However, as we all know, there is still a long way to go and much more work to be done in this area.
Dawn Butler
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent job she is doing today, and on her appointment. I want to highlight one particular woman, Bishop Rose. In 2007, she was appointed chaplain to Her late Majesty the Queen, the first ever black female to hold that role. In 2010, she was the first ever black female appointed as chaplain—the 79th chaplain—to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Since 2019, the Right Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin has been the Bishop of Dover and the Bishop in Canterbury—Britain’s first ever black female bishop. Will my hon. Friend join me in honouring Bishop Rose?
Marsha De Cordova
I take great pleasure in honouring the great Bishop Rose. As we all know, it is Black History Month, so there is double cause to do so. The diocese of London marked the anniversary, and there have been several services marking it across the country, in which 180 women have gathered to share their experience of ministry over the past 30 years. We all know what a difference Bishop Rose made to this place, including to me personally when I first came here seven and a half years ago. I should also pay tribute to Tricia Hillas, the Speaker’s chaplain for a period of time, another great and amazing woman. I am so proud of the role that women are playing in the Church. They are breaking down barriers and smashing those glass ceilings. Long may that continue.
Rosie Duffield
I welcome my dear friend to her position, and I know she will be absolutely brilliant. I was thrilled to attend the 30-year anniversary of the first women ordained at Canterbury cathedral earlier this year. The service was conducted by our dear Bishop Rose, our much-loved former chaplain to the Speaker. Will my friend join me in congratulating those pioneering women, including my partner’s mother, Canon Eileen Routh, who faced a degree of hostility when entering into their new vocations some 30 years ago?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I happily join her in congratulating the great Bishop Rose, but also in remembering all those women who faced hostility when starting out, including her future mother-in-law, Canon Eileen Routh; she faced a lot of hostility. As I say, there is still so much work to be done, but it is so important that we celebrate these achievements, because they will spur us forward to do even more.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Churches and cathedrals are the treasure houses of our local culture and history. The Church of England manages the largest single group of listed buildings in England—over 12,200 grade I and grade II listed buildings. The value of the work needed to maintain these buildings is estimated at £115 million annually, and the backlog for church building repairs is approximately £1 billion.
Douglas McAllister
There are many places of worship in perilous condition, not just in England, but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire. The listed places of worship grant scheme, introduced by former Chancellor Gordon Brown in 2004, is UK-wide. What efforts have the Church Commissioners made to ensure that the scheme is extended beyond March 2025?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend will know that the Church does not receive any regular financial support from the state, and church buildings often rely on fundraising by local volunteers. The Government’s listed places of worship grant scheme is extremely helpful for all our faith communities with listed buildings across the UK, reimbursing the cost of VAT spent on repairs to those listed churches. This year, more than 5,000 Church of England buildings received support through the scheme. That is transformational for local communities, and enables work on the vital fabrics of those spaces. It is important that that funding scheme continues. The Church has written to the Treasury, along with others, and I hope that my hon. Friends in the Treasury will consider extending the scheme in the upcoming Budget later this month.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, and I associate myself with her tribute to her predecessor. In recent times, the late noble Lord Cormack in the other place convened a meeting of MPs from cathedral cities and their deans, and there are plans to resurrect that meeting. Will the hon. Lady meet me to discuss how we can support her with plans to lobby the Treasury for capital grants for our great English cathedrals, including Salisbury, to maintain their presence in our country?
Marsha De Cordova
Yes, I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
May I say how glad I am to give my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) a break this morning? I also praise the former Chair of the Administration Committee, Sir Charles Walker; he has been a great friend and a great champion for this House.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for asking this important question. The House of Commons Administration is committed to providing period products for emergency use; they are available free of charge in selected toilets across the parliamentary estate. No one should be put in an uncomfortable situation due to lack of access to emergency period products.
Mary Kelly Foy
May I say how glad I am to be asking this question today, so that my hon. Friend can also earn his pay? Free period products in the workplace are essential items, but in far too many places of work they are seen as optional. I know there are a few places around the parliamentary estate where free period products can be accessed, but more places are required and we cannot leave out our constituency offices. Will he ensure that more period products are made available both here and in constituency offices around the country?
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend makes a great point. The House service was asked a year ago to provide period products for emergency use, and it engages with groups, such as our workplace equality networks, to ensure accessible products throughout our House. On constituency offices, as Members of Parliament we are responsible for our staff, and away from this estate I would expect a Member, as an employer, to decide on what provision to arrange for their teams. However, I am happy to take that point back to the Administration Committee for further consideration of take-up and distribution, and I will contact my hon. Friend in good time on the matter.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Smith
Earlier this year, the Restoration and Renewal Client Board published the strategic case for the R and R programme, which sets out how to deliver the R and R works that will be developed in detail over the next year. This detailed work, which will include robust cost, timescale and risk estimates for all three options, is expected to be presented to the House in 2025 to enable an evidence-based decision on how best to restore our lovely Palace.
Dame Meg Hillier
It feels a bit like groundhog day—we have been talking about restoration and renewal for 40 years. Bits are falling off the building, there are leaks in every office I have had in this building and in each part of the estate, and we all know the problems of asbestos and the issues in the basement. My hon. Friend has given me the timetable, but can he say that he will champion this issue, and that we will finally get to a resolution before a catastrophic event in this place destroys this world heritage site?
Nick Smith
I know that my hon. Friend has been an advocate for this programme for many years. Together, as members of the Public Accounts Committee, we sought safety for all of us here on the estate, the modernisation of our facilities and value for money. Detailed designs are being developed and surveys continue. The work of the R and R programme has been continuing at pace over the past six months, following the work of the client board and the programme board. We will work together on this.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I apologise for not being here earlier. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are spending more than £1 million a month on just the maintenance of this Palace? The long delay—there is no reason for it—over making these decisions lengthens the process and leads to the taxpayer paying more money, and it is leading to more degradation of this Palace as we sit here.
Nick Smith
The hon. Member is right about the importance of moving faster and reducing costs on this important programme. I do not know the detailed answer to the question he asks, but I will get back to him.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
My hon. Friend’s constituency is under the jurisdiction of the diocese of Coventry, and there is currently a vacancy for the diocesan bishop. However, all the contact details for the bishop’s office, diocesan staff and cathedral staff are found on the website. Contact details for local clergy are also available on the website A Church Near You.
Jodie Gosling
I thank my hon. Friend for their response and welcome them to their new role, in which they are doing a brilliant job. Constituents in Nuneaton have raised concerns about finding available burial plots. Given the recent consultation from the Law Commission, can my hon. Friend please update the House on proposals to increase burial capacity in England?
Marsha De Cordova
The Church of England contributed to the proposals developed by the Law Commission, and they have developed those proposals sensitively to address the complex questions around burial and cremation law. All sides recognise the growing need and the pressure for burial space, and the challenges facing burial grounds and maintenance. Reusing grave spaces in churchyards in some circumstances is a long-standing and lawful practice in the Church of England, ensuring that existing remains are left undisturbed. However, some churchyards are declared full and are closed by law. They are unable to be reopened for new burials.
Business of the House
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 21 October—Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill.
Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 23 October—Motion to approve the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, followed by a motion to approve the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the independent expert panel.
Thursday 24 October—General debate on Black History Month.
Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 October will include:
Monday 28 October—General debate—subject to be announced.
Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Great British Energy Bill.
Wednesday 30 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.
Thursday 31 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 1 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 November will include:
Monday 4 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 5 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 6 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 November and return on Monday 11 November.
Chris Philp
May I start by paying tribute to Alex Salmond, a substantial figure in our politics and personally always very popular across the House? We will all miss him. We also fondly remember Sir David Amess, whose crest is on the wall opposite me, and who was cruelly murdered three years ago this week. Sir David and his family will remain forever in our thoughts and prayers.
I congratulate colleagues who introduced Bills yesterday. The Bill on terminally ill adults has attracted particular interest. Getting the details right will be critical. If the Bill proceeds, will the Government commit to providing the time needed in Committee and on Report for full debate and votes?
We have just heard that the Budget will be delivered in 13 days’ time. There was not much enthusiasm from Labour Members when the Leader of the House announced that—I cannot imagine why. Labour solemnly pledged in its manifesto that it would not raise national insurance, so raising employer’s NI would break that promise, as well as hitting working people and destroying jobs.
But hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Paul Johnson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Labour’s NI plan is “a straightforward breach” of its manifesto commitment. The Federation of Small Businesses said it would be “a clear manifesto breach” and will “hit working people”. UKHospitality said it is “a tax on jobs”. The British Chambers of Commerce said it will
“hobble growth and lead to…less money to invest”
in workers. The Institute of Directors called it
“a poll tax on business”
and said that
“the costs will be borne by workers.”
My final witness is Rachel, from Leeds, who apparently used to work briefly at the Bank of England. In 2021, the Chancellor herself admitted that a rise in employers’ national insurance is, in fact, in her words, a “tax on working people”.
Now, Labour Members could have been honest in the election and made the argument for the increase, but they were not honest; they pretended that they had no intention of increasing NI, to trick people into voting for them. However, this is not just about Labour’s election dishonesty. In a Radio 5 Live phone-in yesterday, I spoke to a man who is closing down his business and leaving the country because of the high taxes and increased regulation proposed by this Government. Another man phoned in to say he was closing down too. This Government are driving businesses to close and making successful people leave the country. Their policies will destroy jobs and reduce the amount of tax collected. I say to them sincerely that there is time in the next 13 days to stop and think again. I appeal directly to Labour Back Benchers, whom the Prime Minister is more likely to listen to than me, to please appeal to their Prime Minister to think again. Otherwise, his personal poll ratings—already minus 36%—are likely to plummet further.
Speaking of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on the special police escort for Taylor Swift? It is reported that the police decided initially that no special escort was needed. Apparently, the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Mayor of London and, inevitably, Sue Gray then pressured the police into changing their mind and providing one, violating the police’s operational independence. We now know that among the many freebies that the Prime Minister has eagerly scrounged for himself were tickets and a backstage pass to that very concert. And it was not just him: the Home Secretary, the Science Secretary, the Culture Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for School Standards and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary all had free tickets too. What were they doing? Having a Cabinet meeting at the concert? Does the Leader of the House understand how bad this looks? The Government initially denied that the Met was pressured, which now appears to be untrue. Will the Government finally come clean and tell the truth about exactly what pressure was put on the Met and by whom?
Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on illegal immigration and asylum accommodation? It emerged this week that the Government are seeking even more hotels, at huge expense, to cater for the large number of illegal arrivals. Over 13,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel by small boat since the election. The Government must now regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The deterrent effect would by now have kicked in. We have seen the same approach work in Australia. We have seen the deterrent effect work with returns to Albania. Even the European Commission is now looking at a Rwanda-style scheme. Will the right hon. Lady therefore consider reinstating the scheme, given that the European Commission itself is now looking at it? And why have the Government closed the Bibby Stockholm, leaving them instead frantically renting expensive hotels? The Government are failing on illegal immigration. The country and the House need answers.
Mr Speaker
Order. Shadow Leader of the House, you get five minutes. Please do not take advantage. If you have good points to make, please make them earlier.
Lucy Powell
I join the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Alex Salmond, a great parliamentarian who has sadly passed away. I also pay tribute to the late Sir David Amess, as this week marks three years since his awful murder. We still miss him greatly in this House. I also send condolences to the friends and family of Liam Payne. One Direction was loved by millions across the world, and this was a tragic end for someone so young.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the Modernisation Committee’s call for views on its future work, which has been published this morning. I am hoping to hear many views, and I thank the shadow Leader of the House and other Committee members for their constructive engagement so far.
As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the private Member’s Bills were presented yesterday. I know that many colleagues want to ensure that proper time and consideration are given to the important matter of assisted dying. As a Member of this House who was present last time we considered this issue, I know that these debates of conscience bring out the very best of Parliament in respectful and considered debate.
I am sure that we all welcome this week’s news that inflation is now lower than the Bank of England’s target, for the first time in three years. After so much political instability, economic turbulence and rising bills, it will be a huge relief for families. But it is just the first step in securing the economy. Given the state of the public finances we inherited, there is a long road ahead.
The Conservatives do not like to hear it, but they left the country’s finances in a very sorry state. They ducked the decisions on things that they knew would explode after the election, and were grossly irresponsible: pay deals left on Ministers’ desks with no money allocated; this year’s pay rise for teachers not funded, and last year’s not either; a hospital building programme that was a work of fiction, not worth the paper it was written on; out-of-control expenditure in Departments, like the billions spent on asylum hotels; reserves for this financial year spent three times over; waiting lists at a record high, with industrial action ripping through the NHS; and prisons on the verge of collapse. It was a Government who knew they were about to lose, and left us to pick up the pieces.
This is not about not just the £22 billion black hole that we have now; it is a black hole year after year. Doing nothing is not an option. If we do not deal with it, markets lose confidence and the cost of borrowing goes up. We saw two years ago what happens, did not we not? The poorest in society pay the highest price when the economy tanks. We are all still paying higher mortgages and higher costs after what the shadow Leader of the House did when he was the Chief Secretary of the Treasury in Liz Truss’s Cabinet.
I will not be discussing the measures that may or may not be in the Budget. The Chancellor is working night and day to deliver economic stability. We stand by all our manifesto commitments, and we know that we need to live within our means. I have said it once and I will say it again: I will not take the right hon. Gentleman’s advice on economic stability, if he does not mind.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the Taylor Swift concerts, inevitably. Let me say to this House [Interruption.] No, I was not there. The concerts generated £1 billion for the UK visitor economy this summer. Surely people welcome that. I know that he is interested in quoting other people; he might want to read what the Conservative peer Andrew Lloyd Webber said in The Times today: the continued attention on this concert by the Conservatives is “ludicrous”. It is about time they “Shake it off”, quite honestly—someone had to get it in.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the Rwanda scheme. Frankly, more Home Secretaries from his Government went to Rwanda than illegal migrants. We are fixing the mess that the Conservatives left behind, as we are across all policy areas. We are restoring confidence and governing for the long term. Just this week, our investment summit attracted record private sector investment—twice as much as was attracted by the same conference under his watch last year. Businesses are coming to Britain; a vote of confidence in Labour’s handling of the economy, turning the page on the instability and infighting that happened in the past.
Just this week, we have gone further: we have published our industrial strategy; unlocked thousands of new homes on brownfield sites; kept our promise to veterans on voter ID; tackled spiralling car insurance costs; taken our first steps on Martyn’s law and on removing hereditary peers, which Conservative Members were against; published our Employment Rights Bill; taken action on carer’s allowance overpayments; increased independent film tax credits; and, today, opened funding applications for school-based nurseries. That is the difference that just one week of a Labour Government can make, unlike the Tories.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
This weekend, I had the great and fun privilege of attending the Windrush celebration at All Saints church in my constituency. It was as much a discussion as a celebration. Will the Leader of the House provide either a Government statement or Government time for a debate on the Windrush compensation scheme and the improvements that will hopefully be made under this Government?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; she is absolutely right. The scandal of the Windrush generation still scars our country. Those injustices are being furthered by the delays to the compensation scheme, which this Government are taking quick action to put right,. I am sure she could raise these matters in Home Office questions next week.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for the helpful clarity she has provided in giving notice of three weeks’ worth of business. We very much hope that this is how she intends to continue going forward. I also join her in sending my condolences to the family of Liam Payne, who has passed away so tragically.
It was with enormous sadness that I learned just two days ago of a horrific murder committed in broad daylight in a residential area of my Chelmsford constituency. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending condolences to the victim’s grieving family at this terrible time. As Essex police are now conducting an ongoing major incident investigation, I cannot comment much further on the specifics, except to say that I understand that this was a vicious attack with three male suspects spotted leaving the scene wearing balaclavas. I encourage members of the public who have any information to get in touch with Essex police.
My thoughts also go out to the brave police, paramedics and other first responders who have to attend such awful scenes across the entire country. I thank them for the incredible work they do and send them assurances from the Liberal Democrat Benches that we have their backs. We will never stop campaigning for the funding and resources they need to support them, which the previous Government did not prioritise, leading to the grave issues we see now in our beloved NHS and other emergency services.
Finally, Lake Windermere is England’s largest lake. Its beauty is internationally renowned. It is home to countless species of wildlife and surrounding habitats, and it is a haven for swimmers and water sports enthusiasts. It is therefore shocking to read the BBC revelations that north-west water company, United Utilities, spent three years spewing over 100 million litres of raw sewage into Lake Windermere. The failures of United Utilities are clear for all to see, unlike the water it is polluting. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss the ongoing appalling behaviour of water companies?
Lucy Powell
I see trying to give the House as much forward business and as many recess dates as possible in order to provide certainty as a key performance indicator, and I thank the hon. Lady for her comments in that regard.
I am very sorry to hear about the murder in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I join her in thanking all the services—the police, the NHS and others—that do such an amazing job when it comes to these awful incidents.
The hon. Lady rightly raised the truly appalling scandal of discharges into Windermere. As a northerner, I am a frequent visitor to the Lake District, and I am aware of its beauty and its importance not only as a tourist attraction but as a habitat for wildlife. The Government have taken rapid action in dealing with our water bosses and cleaning up our waterways. In his first week in the job, the Environment Secretary ringfenced infrastructure spending and empowered customers to hold bosses to account, and the Water (Special Measures) Bill is currently in the House of Lords and will come to this House soon. However, that is not all we have done: we have also launched a full review of water reform to ensure that we have the governance right and can take appropriate action, including sanctions, to prevent these discharges from happening again.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcomed the introduction of the Renters’ Rights Bill last week, but many more of my constituents are social housing tenants than are private renters, and they are living in seriously overcrowded conditions, often with damp and mould. This is not always entirely the fault of the landlord, but the conditions in which people are living exacerbate existing problems. Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate in Government time about the real need for investment in social housing, which, according to the Government’s own figures, is the best value for money for the taxpayer and prevents health and other problems?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right: in recent years this country has had a woeful record of building and creating social homes, which is fundamental for many people. I was struck by what the Deputy Prime Minister said once—that she had grown up in a council house, which at the time was seen as impoverishment, whereas today it is considered a privilege to get a council house. The Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes, a great many of which will be new social and council housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I look forward to meeting the Leader of the House next week to discuss the Committee’s work. I have encouraged parties on both sides of the House to ensure that we get the names in so that we can get the Committee up and running, but given that we are not up and running yet, may I make a suggestion for the general debate on 28 October that the Leader of the House has announced?
Many of my Jewish constituents enjoy playing golf at Hendon golf club. Recently, during Yom Kippur, the most abhorrent antisemitic statements were raked into the bunkers. That is under police investigation, but may we have a debate on 28 October on how we can create measures to combat hate crime across all religions and all backgrounds, so that we can unite and show the House that we are determined to stamp out behaviour of this abhorrent nature in society?
Lucy Powell
I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman next week, and to working closely with him as the Backbench Business Committee gets under way in the coming weeks. I am extremely sorry to hear about the antisemitic attacks at Hendon golf club, especially as they took place during Yom Kippur. That really is something that we need to end in this country, and we must continue to speak up about it, as the hon. Gentleman frequently does in the House. He has made a very good suggestion for a debate, and I shall certainly speak to the Chief Whip and others about it.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents face serious problems with antisocial behaviour and crime of various types. The Government are taking renewed action to tackle those problems, and I was pleased to hear some of the announcements from the new Home Secretary. Would the Leader of the House be able to arrange a debate in Government time on this very important matter?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Crime and antisocial behaviour blights many communities and is frequently raised at business questions by the Members that represent those communities. That is why we are taking action to create more neighbourhood police, as well as bringing in respect orders and other actions to tackle antisocial behaviour. Home Office questions is next week and he may want to raise the issue then as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I reassure the Leader of the House that some of us feel that nothing is too good for the marvellous Taylor Swift, including, where appropriate, a police escort for her “Getaway Car”. However, there can be no doubt that the terrorism threat is intensifying. Can we have a statement, as soon as possible, on the reports in today’s media about the possibility that Russia is behind an incendiary device that was flown in on a plane to the United Kingdom, but fortunately did not ignite until it was in a warehouse in Birmingham?
Lucy Powell
We have seen many of those reports, and we heard from the head of the security services, in a key speech he gave last week, about some of the threats that our amazing security services thwart, which we often do not know about. Home Office questions is next week, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not get the answers he wants, I will encourage the Home Secretary to consider giving us a security update.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Interests. Many former miners who suffer from acute respiratory diseases are applying to the Department for Work and Pensions for compensation, but the default response is that the process takes 16 weeks. That is totally unacceptable for people with such conditions. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss and investigate why the DWP is taking so long to ensure that there is justice for people who suffer from such conditions because of their occupation?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter; I know he has raised it many times in the House. Many of the compensation schemes that we, as a Government, have inherited are still taking far too long. I will raise the matters he talked about with the DWP on his behalf. The subject would make a good topic for debate in the future.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Labour and Conservative parties are getting down to the business of deciding who should serve on Select Committees. That is an important task and good luck to those who get those jobs. However, one group is effectively excluded from participating in cross-party scrutiny in this Parliament: Members of the smaller parties of this House. For the first time since Select Committees were established, there is no place for Members of any of the smaller parties, except if the Government gift us a place through their largesse and generosity. We are effectively barred from participating in Select Committees. How can that be right or acceptable?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As I hope he is aware, there is a long-established convention and practice that the smaller parties have representation on Committees, especially Members from the devolved nations on their relative Select Committee. That process is still ongoing. Some names are mentioned on the order paper today, but they only relate to some of the places that are to be allocated. Those conversations are continuing through the usual channels. It is my understanding that there will be places available on some of those Committees for Members of the Scottish National party and some of the other smaller parties.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate about how we can build more social housing and improve accommodation for homeless people? She is aware that there is a homeless hostel in my constituency called Bevin Court. St Anne’s Community Services would like to improve and renovate the hostel, and pay for that by selling off some of the land and building social housing on it, which would require a change in the covenant by Government. Lawyers have spent 12 months arguing about this and got nowhere. I wrote to Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in the previous Government, but the matter was passed on to the Ministry of Justice. In this Parliament, I have written to the Ministry of Justice but it has been passed back to the Housing Minister. Will the Leader of the House intervene to try to get this important project off the ground, and simply get the change of covenant that the organisation is asking for?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, and it sounds like that project is vital for creating more social homes in his constituency of Sheffield South East. I am really sorry to hear that he has been passed from pillar to post by different Departments, and this is exactly the sort of issue to raise in business questions. I expect Members to receive timely and helpful responses from Ministers, and I will raise the issue with the relevant Departments as soon as I leave the Chamber.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Labour manifesto contained a pledge to recognise Palestine. Subsequently, the Prime Minister has said that the Palestinians have an “undeniable right” to recognition, but something is holding him back. Could we please have a debate in Government time to examine the fact that all our Arab allies are saying that recognition is now a prerequisite for peace in the middle east, so that the House can vote to support the Prime Minister in taking this very significant step?
Lucy Powell
We absolutely do support recognising Palestine as a state, which is an indelible right of the Palestinian people. It is absolutely critical that we achieve a long-term, two-state solution in the middle east that recognises both Israel’s right to exist as a safe and secure country, and the Palestinian people’s right to have a Palestinian state that is also safe, secure and free. That is what we are working towards internationally and with our allies across the world, and it is something that I know the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister spend a lot of their time dealing with. We have Foreign Office questions coming up next week, and I know that the Foreign Secretary is keen to come to this House as often as possible to update Members on what is happening in the middle east. I am sure these issues will be debated further.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This week is Flood Action Week. In Calder Valley, where we have had several major floods in the last 15 years, my constituents are all too aware of flooding and its impact; indeed, we have spent much of the last few days under a flood alert. Although Yorkshire Water has been active in supporting anti-flooding measures, could we have a debate in Government time on how regulation could be used to ensure that flood prevention is part of the statutory role of water companies?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The issues of flood resilience and flood preparedness get raised in this session frequently, and I anticipate that as we get towards the winter months, when flooding becomes more frequent, they will be raised more often. We have launched our flood resilience taskforce to turbocharge the delivery and co-ordination of flood defences, but this issue would make a very good topic for a Back-Bench business debate or another debate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
No one in this House was among those who went to the South Pacific in the 1950s and ’60s to witness the first nuclear tests, but some of us have met the old men who did so as young men, unknowing of the dangers they faced. After a very long campaign, the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed that those men should be granted service medals, and the current Secretary of State for Defence has agreed that the eligibility criteria should be widened because many of the people who went have not got their medals. Given that the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey)—with whom I have worked—my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and others are desperate to ensure that the men get what they deserve, will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent statement? We owe these veterans, many of whom are dying, that honour, a duty and our thanks.
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. I have followed the issue of nuclear test veterans closely, and I know that it has been raised in this House many times. A recent documentary shone a light on these issues as well. I will certainly raise this matter with the Ministry of Defence, and we have Defence questions coming up soon. I will ask the MOD to come to the House and give us an update.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Last week I had the great privilege of visiting High Spen primary school and Ryton junior school in my constituency, which have been working with local artists on projects supported by Historic England. High Spen school has launched a mural celebrating local women heroes in its former category D village, while Ryton has created an online game commemorating the lost village of Addison, another category D village. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of our young people learning about their local history and the creative arts?
Lucy Powell
That sounds like a great project by schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am sure they will be pleased that she has raised it in the Commons this morning. Engaging young people in the cultural, industrial and other aspects of the history of their local area is really important. She might want to raise that at Education questions, which are coming up soon.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Nearly half a million British pensioners across the globe had the level of their pensions frozen when they left the country. That includes 99-year-old Anne Puckeridge, a decorated world war two veteran who did not leave this country for Canada until she was 76. Despite having paid a lifetime of national insurance contributions, she has seen her pension diminish every year. Ironically, this mostly affects pensioners who have gone to Commonwealth countries, because people who go to the European Union or the United States, for example, get the uplift each year. Can we have a statement from the Pensions Minister on what the Government intend to do about this? Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the Government for me and others who will be meeting Anne when she comes to this country in December to celebrate her 100th birthday?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate Anne on her forthcoming 100th birthday, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter. I am happy to try to facilitate a meeting for her with the relevant Minister. She will know that the policy on the uprating of UK state pensions paid overseas is of long standing. A key plank of it is that uprating is a reciprocal arrangement. However, I will definitely arrange a meeting for her, if that is helpful.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House make time for the House to debate, celebrate and accelerate the roll out of life-saving defibrillators across the UK? As part of that debate, we could discuss the growing campaign to remove VAT from defibrillators so that the money raised by voluntary organisations in many of our constituencies might go a little further. Finally, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Mary Montague, the indefatigable provost of East Renfrewshire who has turned personal tragedy into a determination that defibrillators should be available to everyone who needs them in their time of crisis?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend describes a very good local campaign, led by his provost and others, to get defibrillators into local communities. All of us can relate to the importance of having defibrillators available in our communities. He will know that VAT relief applies to defibrillators purchased by local authorities, the NHS and certain charities. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard his call for that VAT relief to be extended.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this week, I met the representative of a business that is proposing a carbon capture project in my constituency. They stressed the importance of having a decision from the Secretary of State by the end of this year. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House with a statement on the next stage of these projects?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State recently updated the House on the huge investment the Government are putting into this new carbon capture technology, and on where some of that investment will be going. I know the Secretary of State has been expediting decisions to ensure that businesses such as the one that the hon. Gentleman describes can benefit from that announcement. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what the hon. Gentleman said and returns to this House when he has a further update.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Pie Factory Music in Ramsgate, in my constituency, serves more than 1,000 young people across east Kent, many of whom are in care or are young asylum seekers, refugees or struggling with ill health. Unfortunately, Conservative-run Kent county council has slashed support for Pie Factory Music and now wants to sell the building, preventing access to a safe, dedicated space for these young people. I am aware that our Labour Government are committed to a new network of youth hubs. In that light, will my right hon. Friend provide Government time for a debate on the importance of youth services, particularly in building resilience, tackling mental health issues and enabling young people to thrive?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for these issues in Ramsgate and East Thanet and has raised them with me before. I am sorry to hear about the fate of Pie Factory and its work. We understand the difficulties that local authorities and others are under, but we are launching a new Young Futures programme, which I hope will support facilities like Pie Factory’s in future. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend’s request for a debate on youth services.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
This week is Flood Action Week, an important opportunity to raise awareness of this crucial issue. This week, sadly, North Herefordshire has been subject to flooding: roads are closed, schools are closed and soil is washing off the fields into the roads and rivers. Unfortunately, climate change is making these events more frequent and more extreme. Does the Leader of the House agree that farmers are crucial partners in tackling flooding through natural flood management? Will she make time for a debate in Government time on the crucial issue of flood prevention and action?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises an important matter that has already been raised today. She and other colleagues are making a very good case for a debate on flood resilience and flood action. She is right to say that climate change is having a profound effect on those issues, which is why the Government are committed to becoming a clean energy superpower by 2030. I am sorry to hear about what is happening in her constituency; I have already taken note of the early calls for a debate.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Each year, 300,000 people come to Cleethorpes for our Armed Forces Day. Can the Leader of the House advise me how I can best communicate to the Ministry of Defence how much we would appreciate it if National Armed Forces Day in 2026 could be held in Cleethorpes? It will be the 10-year anniversary of the last time it was held there; perhaps we could extend Armed Forces Day to start at the wonderful but somewhat overlooked north prom.
Lucy Powell
I did not know that so many people come to Cleethorpes for Armed Forces Day—it sounds like a real occasion. I will certainly make sure that the Ministry of Defence hears my hon. Friend’s plea. Cleethorpes sounds like a very good place for National Armed Forces Day in 2026.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has called in a planning application for the Marlow film studio, which had already been rejected by thousands of local residents, planning officers and the council. This is the wrong development in the wrong place, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on how the views of local people on planning can be retained before the Labour party concretes over the entire green belt?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation. This Government are unashamedly pro-house building and pro-cutting the red tape that stands in the way of business and business investment in our creative industries, our technologies and our transport, but we are absolutely on the side of local people as well, which is why our planning reforms put local voice and local plans at their centre. We have had debates on the issue, and I am sure that we will have many more in the coming weeks.
Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)
Is the Leader of the House, like me, very concerned about the trend of bank closures on our local high streets, including in my constituency? Recently, residents and local businesses received the disappointing news that Lloyds bank is leaving Shirley High Street; I am campaigning to save the branch. Does the Leader of the House agree that face-to-face banking is a vital part of our thriving high streets? It is essential for those with specific disabilities, for those who are digitally excluded, and particularly for the elderly. Does she welcome the Government’s plans for banking hubs? Will she allow time to debate banking on our high streets?
Lucy Powell
That important issue is raised very frequently. Access to cash and financial services for our local community has been on the decline and is a real matter of concern. That is why we have committed to accelerating the roll-out of at least 350 banking hubs, so that people have access to cash and wider banking services. More than 80 are already open, and we expect another 100 to follow. I shall certainly arrange for the House to be updated on any progress in that area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If we can keep questions short, I will do my best to get everybody in.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Blue-light escort decisions are rightly taken on an operationally independent basis by the police. Yet after the Home Secretary, the Attorney General and the Mayor of London met the police to discuss the escort for Taylor Swift, she was granted one. A few days later, the Prime Minister and his whole family met Taylor Swift and her manager back stage. Can we have a debate on the new Government’s approach to breaches of the ministerial code?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry, but I totally reject the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what has happened here. As she rightly points out, these issues are taken operationally by the police, which is absolutely right. As I said earlier, it is estimated that the Taylor Swift concerts have brought £1 billion into the UK economy. We should be attracting these kind of events and enabling them to happen. She will know that Taylor Swift was subject to a very serious threat to her safety only a few days before coming to the UK. I should not really have to remind the hon. Lady of this, but she will also be aware that Taylor Swift took a very close interest in what happened to those young girls in Southport who were at a Taylor Swift event when they were tragically murdered. The Prime Minister rightly wanted to thank her for all that she had done to support the families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Long responses from the Leader of the House will mean that fewer colleagues will be able to get in.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I have received a great deal of correspondence regarding the assisted dying Bill. I welcome the fact that Back Benchers will have a free vote. However, an issue as complex as this requires detailed scrutiny. As it stands, I am worried that colleagues will not have enough time to properly debate the Bill. Will the Leader of the House relay the concerns shared by many across the House that the assisted dying Bill should receive Government time over several days, so that we can do it justice?
Lucy Powell
This issue gets raised a lot. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of conscience. The Government’s position is neutral, so Members have a free vote on the issues, and that is absolutely as it should be. The Bill will be given its Second Reading on Friday 29 November. As a Member who was in this place when these issues were last discussed many years ago, I can say that I think these moments provide a real opportunity for Members to think about the debate and to discuss these issues in a respectful and congenial manner and show Parliament at its very best.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be familiar with the UK Health Security Agency’s significant presence at Porton Down in my constituency, adjacent to the site of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the new Government’s future plans for Porton Down? After the vaccine roll-out and all the work that was done there, things have changed since previous announcements were made. Many of my constituents are concerned and need clarity on this matter. I am applying for an Adjournment debate, but I would welcome a statement as well because the matter is urgent.
Lucy Powell
I shall certainly make sure that the right hon. Member’s question is heard by the Secretary of State. I do understand why he wants some clarity on the matter. I hope that he is successful in securing an Adjournment debate where he will get a ministerial response, but I am happy to consider other ways for him to get answers.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit TMT First, a business in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It delivers technology lifecycle services for the circular economy, specialises in the repair, refurbishment and recycling of mobile technology, and processes more than 250,000 devices every year. But with the mountain of electrical waste estimated to grow to 74 million tonnes a year by 2030, we need to act and act fast. I invite the Leader of the House to visit TMT First in Newcastle-under-Lyme, as it is on her way home. More importantly, can we have a debate on how we can support our businesses to do more recycling and repairing of things, rather than simply replacing them? Our economy and environment need that.
Lucy Powell
I may well get off the train on my way home at some stage and visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that supporting and enhancing the circular economy is a key priority for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Departmental questions are next month, but I will make sure my hon. Friend gets a good reply.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Can Government time be given for a debate on how to strengthen the Environment Agency’s powers to ensure that operators of energy-from-waste facilities are forced to address exceedances and reduce overall emissions, and to look at the possibility of mandating carbon capture, usage and storage technology to mitigate the emissions produced from burning waste? I point to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as regards my role as a councillor in Sutton, as this challenge comes around often when we are looking to hold the operators to account.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which I know has had some attention recently. I have one of those waste facilities in my constituency, so I am well aware of the impact on and some of the challenges for the local community. I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he may want to raise it in DEFRA questions on 14 November.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The combination of the cost of living crisis and the mental health crisis has led to a worrying increase in ketamine usage in my constituency. Some young people are now facing a lifetime with an urostomy bag due to ketamine bladder syndrome. Good work is being done by local charities such as Horizon, but those services deserve more support. Can the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government can support long-term harm reduction in Blackpool South?
Lucy Powell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises an issue that is important to his constituency. Drug misuse and the rise in the use of ketamine and other substances is an issue of real importance, and it costs society greatly. I will make sure that the Home Secretary has heard his calls today—departmental questions are next week, if he wants to raise the matter then.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
We have had many important debates and statements about the Post Office Horizon scandal, but can the Leader of the House bring forward a debate in Government time about the future of the Post Office? In my constituency, we are struggling to recruit new postmasters to take over post offices in communities such as Eastriggs and Langholm, and in West Linton, where we currently have a post office, there does not seem to be any available support for it to continue.
Lucy Powell
This matter gets raised in business questions and elsewhere quite often because we are seeing too many closures and too many post offices struggling. I think the subject would make a popular application for a Backbench Business debate, and I encourage him to take that forward.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Last week, Buckinghamshire council confirmed the demolition of the Gala Bingo hall, a former live music venue and cinema on Aylesbury High Street. Our town has a proud musical and cultural history and many residents are concerned that not enough effort was made to preserve this historic site. Will the Leader of the House allow time to debate the importance of recognising and preserving our historical and cultural assets as we regenerate our town centres?
Lucy Powell
Music venues, cultural assets and leisure services are vital to our town centre regeneration, and our high street accelerators programme will be looking at grassroots venues. I encourage my hon. Friend to raise these issues in Housing, Communities and Local Government questions in a couple of weeks.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I was contacted this week by a resident of Sidmouth whose parent was interned in a Japanese camp during world war two. She wrote to me about her father’s affidavits, which are held by the Imperial War Museum, saying,
“They do not make good reading, but bear great similarity to what is happening in Gaza.”
Will the Government make a statement about their stance on whether Israel’s far-right Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Givr should be subject to UK Government sanctions? Also, will they offer support to the International Criminal Court as it seeks arrest warrants for the likes of Netanyahu and Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar?
Lucy Powell
The comments made by the Israeli Ministers, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, were “abhorrent”; disgraceful and unacceptable language was used. We are working closely with our allies internationally to bring an end to the horrors we are seeing in Israel and Gaza, which is why we need to make sure that everybody operates within international law. The Government are committed to that and to bringing about an immediate ceasefire so we can work towards a long-term solution.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
A constituent in Hethersett sadly lost her 17-week-old puppy Mini to the deadly parvovirus. This devastating disease takes animals’ lives very quickly, but can be held at bay by vaccination. May we have a debate in Government time on the importance of people vaccinating their pet dog, and on the responsibilities of good owners?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am sure that his question will help bring attention to the importance of people getting their dogs vaccinated; I was unaware of the virus. I am sure that it would make a good topic for an Adjournment debate, and he has rightly raised it on the Floor of the House.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Cafés are so important to rural communities in Hinckley and Bosworth and North West Leicestershire. I ran a favourite café competition, and a thousand constituents nominated cafés. In joint third place were JAFFLES@No3 and What the Fork; in second place was Liberteas; and the winner was Epicurean Lounge. Will the Leader of the House congratulate that café, and café owners up and down this country, because they are so important in our society?
Lucy Powell
I think the hon. Gentleman said that one of the winners was What the Fork. What a forking good idea his competition was. I congratulate the winners, and all his constituents on taking part. I look forward to a bacon butty, a cup of tea, and maybe a piece of cake in Hinckley and Bosworth at some point in the future.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I commend the work of five volunteers in my community who run Lichfield Community Media CIC. By operating a news website, they have prevented our area from becoming a news desert. Unfortunately, their posts are being blocked because algorithms on social media sites highlight them as spam. Does the Leader of the House agree that the issue of how independent publishers can access their audiences through social media would be a good topic for a debate?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, not just for independent publishers but for national news publishers, who are subject to the whims of tech giants when it comes to algorithms, and finding important journalistic work and news. I think the topic would make for a very well attended debate.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This week, we witnessed the unedifying spectacle of Scottish Labour MPs labouring under the misapprehension that if they put forward an idea that was to the benefit of Scotland, Ministers in the United Kingdom would take it forward. I am talking about the Scottish immigration visa system. Can we have a debate in Government time that lays bare the fact that when Scotland’s ambitions are at odds, or even at variance, with those of England, Westminster will put Scotland aside—not just sometimes or most of the time, but every time?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to say this, but the last time I looked, Labour MPs in Scotland won many seats in the recent election, and Scottish nationalist MPs lost many. Labour Members who represent Scottish seats in this House have done a fantastic job in standing up for Scotland, resetting the relationship, and ensuring that the people of Scotland benefit from this new Labour Government.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
This week’s public inquiry on the proposed toll increase for the Tamar crossings highlighted clear local opposition. This gateway to South East Cornwall is a vital link between Cornwall and Devon, and the crossings are among the only ones not managed by National Highways. The tolls place a burden on my constituents, who have no alternative to paying in order to access healthcare services over the river. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on fair and affordable transport in areas such as mine?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I know will be important to her constituents in South East Cornwall. I understand that there will be a final decision by the Transport Secretary once the inspector produces their report. I will of course ensure that the Transport Secretary comes to this House to tell my hon. Friend about that decision.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Just two months ago, Paul Reeves, a well respected farmer and agricultural business owner in my constituency, took his own life. Sadly, his story is all too common, with the many challenges that the industry often faces contributing to poor mental health. Farming families like Paul’s are the bedrock of our country. Without them, we simply could not function, and when they are struggling we must support them. In Paul’s memory, may we have a debate on improving mental health in our farming and agricultural communities?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about Paul Reeves, and I send the condolences of the whole House to his family and friends. The hon. Lady raises the subject of the mental health of our farming community, and many Members across the House will relate to what she said. That community does an amazing job to keep this country fed and well cared for, and to support nature, among many other things. That issue would make a good topic for a debate, which would be a popular one.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Two of my constituents, Hayley and Craig Vaughan, sadly lost their son Archie to brain cancer three years ago. On one of his final holidays, they took him to one of his favourite places: a caravan by the seaside. Archie’s parents have channelled their grief by setting up a charity called Archie’s Caravan, which offers free holidays to children in Archie’s position and their families. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Archie, to his incredible parents, and to the amazing work that their charity does, and will she make space in Government time for a debate on the care received by children with cancer after their diagnosis?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Archie, his parents and the fantastic work of that charity. The Government are committed to supporting children and young people with cancer. We established a children and young people taskforce earlier this year. I am sure that the Secretary of State will come to the House to update us on that.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Two days ago, the Conservative administration at Hertfordshire county council filibustered during a debate, preventing a Liberal Democrat motion on improving special educational needs and disabilities services in Hertfordshire from being debated at all. May we have a debate in Government time about the importance of scrutiny and constructive opposition at all levels of government, especially on the issue of SEND? In Hertfordshire, SEND services are failing children.
Lucy Powell
First and foremost, my job as Leader of the House of Commons is to ensure that issues are scrutinised and debated in this House, and that we do not filibuster and disrespect people’s views, or topics that they want to raise. I hope that parties across local government respect that, too. The important matter of SEND, which the hon. Lady mentioned, is raised here a lot, so I am sure that if she applied for a debate, it would be well attended.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
From Stotfold to Shefford in my constituency, homeowners on new estates have been trapped by the growth of the leasehold scandal. They are left having to deal with unaccountable and underperforming management companies, and often pay twice for services that people normally receive through paying council tax. After my vociferous lobbying of the then shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), I was happy to see in Labour’s manifesto a commitment to addressing leasehold. May we have a debate on how we can work together across the House to take forward action on that important issue?
Lucy Powell
As the MP for Manchester Central, I know only too well about the absolutely appalling circumstances that many leaseholders find themselves in, with rising costs from managing agents and insurance, and other issues. That is why I was absolutely delighted to ensure that leasehold reform was in the King’s Speech. We will get a draft Bill soon, and the Government are quickly implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
An NHS foundation trust is advertising for psychologists to work with children with gender dysphoria. It says that applicants must practise in a gender-affirming manner. That runs completely contrary to what the Cass review said. May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on the implementation of the Cass review in the NHS?
Lucy Powell
I will ask the Secretary of State to come to the House with an update on the Cass review, but I think it important when discussing these matters that we do not raise issues that may not be quite as they seem. We must handle these issues carefully, as some young people and adults have real challenges with gender dysphoria that can cause them a great deal of mental upset. I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and ask the Secretary of State to come to the House.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s move this week to ensure that veterans, including those in my constituency, who were turned away when trying to use their veteran’s ID to vote in the recent general election will be able to use that form of ID next year. It is not just veterans we need to support, but current servicemen and women and their families. May we have some Government time to talk about how we can support those brave men and women?
Lucy Powell
I, too, was delighted that this Government took quick action to deliver their manifesto commitment to ensuring that veterans’ cards could be used as voter ID, and I am pleased to hear of my hon. Friend’s reaction to that. As he will be aware, this Government are committed to an armed forces commissioner Bill. I can tell him today that that Bill is fairly imminent, and I am sure that we can debate some of these issues as we approach Remembrance Sunday, too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Tsering Tso, a Tibetan human rights defender and tour guide, has repeatedly faced arbitrary detention and harassment by Chinese authorities for advocating for the rights of Tibetans to freedom of movement and equal treatment under Chinese law. Her most recent detention occurred in June 2024, following her public criticism of local authorities’ discriminatory practices against Tibetan monks. Tsering has been subjected to administrative detention on multiple occasions, having raised concerns about racial discrimination and the unlawful detention of Tibetans—two monks were arrested while on a pilgrimage. What representations can His Majesty’s Government make to the Chinese authorities on the detention and repeated harassment of Tsering Tso?
Lucy Powell
This Government stand firm on human rights, including China’s repression of the people of Tibet. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Foreign Secretary is to make a diplomatic visit to China; I know that he will raise these matters in his conversations. I will ensure that he comes to this House to give an update on how that visit goes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To show us how it is done in one or two sentences, I call Steve Race.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Last night, the University of Exeter, the Met Office and Peers for the Planet launched the latest edition of “The Parliamentarians’ Guide to Climate Change”, which is a vital resource for us all. Will the Leader of the House welcome that report, as I do, and will she commend it to Members of this House and the other House?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely welcome that report, and of course I commend it to Members of both Houses.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The new rules on wine duty being implemented in February 2025 will be overly complicated and incredibly burdensome, especially for smaller, independent wine importers such as Canned Wine in Bath. The chief executive officer of that local business told me that the incremental duty rates will put incredible strain on their business. Can we have a debate in Government time on this important issue?
Lucy Powell
I know that the issue of wine duty is really important in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I am sure that we will have ample time to debate wine and other alcohol duties in the many days of debate that we will have on the Budget, which is coming up soon.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Recently in my constituency, I held a meeting with residents of Water Orton to hear how ongoing High Speed 2 works are affecting them. My residents are suffering from mental and physical health issues because of the air and noise pollution caused by those works. May we have a debate in Government time on those effects, and how we can improve them?
Lucy Powell
The ongoing mishandling and mismanagement of the HS2 project has been a bit of an embarrassment for this country, I am afraid. I am sure the Secretary of State for Transport will update the House on these matters soon, and of course, the HS2 hybrid Bill is proceeding through Parliament as we speak.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Rossington Main Ladies football club created a slice of history last weekend by qualifying for the first round proper of the Adobe women’s FA cup. Will the Minister join me in congratulating captain Steph Prescott and the team, and wish them good luck against Accrington Stanley—who are they?—in the first round in November?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate Rossington Main Ladies football club and their captain Steph, and wish them great luck against Accrington Stanley, who we all remember fondly from adverts.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
My inbox is full to the brim with complaints about Yorkshire Water’s lack of investment, on issues from failed pumping stations to polluted rivers. Can the Leader of the House advise Members on when we can highlight the chronic under-investment in our nation’s water supply?
Lucy Powell
It is a priority for this Government to take action against the water bosses, get the investment that we need and ensure that the costs are not all passed on to customers. My hon. Friend makes an important case.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Darent Valley hospital in my constituency needs significant expansion. Quarter 1 figures indicate that more than 32,000 people are waiting for treatment, and the hospital cannot cope with the new homes being built in the area. Will my right hon. Friend schedule a debate about the need to expand hospital provision in Dartford and across the country?
Lucy Powell
Waiting lists are at a record high, which is why the Government dealt immediately with the industrial action to get our doctors back on the frontline. We are committed to more GP appointments in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere. The Government’s target is 40,000 more appointments a week, which we will deliver.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are frustrated by rip-off car parking companies such as Hozah, which issue threatening letters and fines to people who have, in many cases, followed or barely breached the rules. May we have a debate in Government time on how we clamp down on those parking pirates to ensure that our town centres can thrive and our retailers can grow?
Lucy Powell
The Government will set out in due course our plans for the regulation of the private parking industry, which causes many problems, as my hon. Friend describes. I will ensure that the relevant Minister comes to the House to update hon. Members at that time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jim Dickson—[Interruption.] No, I call Andy MacNae. I am going so fast that I am losing my place.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I will try to be equally fast, Mr Speaker.
My constituents face dangerous speeding on the roads past their homes and schools every single day. When they raise deep concerns with the police or the council, they are too often told that not enough people have been killed or seriously injured. They rightly feel that that makes no sense. They know the risks—they see the close calls every day—so why should they wait for a neighbour to be killed before action is taken? Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the subject of prevention in road safety, using international best practice and new technologies?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for Rossendale and Darwen, and for road safety issues in his constituency. We will soon deliver an updated strategic framework for road safety—the first in over a decade—and I will ensure that a Transport Minister comes to the House to update hon. Members.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House referred earlier to the Modernisation Committee. Can she update us on its work on the key issue of call lists, which worked well in this place during covid and work well in the other place every day, and on her wider efforts to make this place a more family-friendly Parliament?
Lucy Powell
The issue of call lists and the desire for a more family-friendly Parliament have been raised by many hon. Members, especially those who are newly elected, and I hope that a wealth of people will input to the call for views that the Modernisation Committee opened today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Alex Ballinger—your patience has been noted.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I recently met headteachers across my constituency to talk about the challenges they are facing after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement of the education sector. They raised several issues, but in the interests of time I will mention only curriculum reform, which they were particularly interested in. I ask the Leader of the House to schedule a debate in Government time on curriculum reform, so that we can consider the views of teachers in my constituency.
Lucy Powell
Last but certainly not least, my hon. Friend raises what I know is a big issue in Halesowen’s schools. The Government are committed to curriculum reform. One of the first acts of the Secretary of State for Education was to establish an independent review of curriculum and assessment, led by Professor Becky Francis CBE. I know that the Secretary of State will be regularly updating the House on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is fantastic to get everybody in. I will focus more on names.
Criminal Justice System: Capacity
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on capacity in the criminal justice system. When this Government came to power, we inherited prisons on the brink of disaster, moments from total collapse. Had that happened, the consequences would have been apocalyptic: courts would have been forced to cancel all trials, the police would have been barred from making arrests, and we would have faced the total breakdown of law and order.
The last Government knew what had to be done. My predecessor, the former Lord Chancellor, begged his Prime Minister to act, but rather than have the bravery to do so, the now Leader of the Opposition chose to call an election instead. As a result, it fell to this Government to take the necessary but difficult action. While they say that to govern is to choose, my predecessors left me with no choice at all.
On 18 July, just two weeks into the job, I announced to this House that we had been forced to bring forward the release dates of some prisoners serving standard determinate sentences from 50% of time served in prison to 40%, serving the rest on their sentence on licence in the community. Make no mistake: the action we took prevented the immediate collapse of law and order in our country, but with our prison population still rising fast, there is more that we must do to address the capacity challenges our prisons face, and our task now is to ensure that a crisis like the one we inherited can never happen again.
Today, I can set out a measure that will begin to address a specific and acute cause of our prisons capacity crisis: the remand population. As this House will know, prisoners on remand are in our jails but have not yet been tried or sentenced. Because of the historical backlog in our Crown courts—another element of the woeful inheritance my predecessors handed to me—the remand population in prisons has soared. Today, it stands at a record 17,000, which is nearly one in every five prisoners. As some Members will know, remand prisoners are an especially acute problem as they are placed in so-called reception or category B prisons. Until they are tried and sentenced, they cannot be moved elsewhere in the estate. It is in our reception prisons that we face the most acute capacity pressure in the country. Unless we address our remand population, we could still see a collapse of the system, not because of a lack of cells, but because we do not have those cells in the places we need them. It is therefore crucial that we bear down on the remand population.
Magistrates courts have sentencing powers for only up to six months’ imprisonment for a single triable either-way offence, and only the Crown court can hand down sentences beyond that. Between May 2022 and March 2023, the previous Government chose to extend magistrates court sentencing powers to 12 months. This enabled magistrates courts to retain more sentencing hearings and meant that they were heard more quickly. It also freed up capacity in the Crown court to hear more complex cases. However, magistrates’ sentencing powers were then reduced back to six months when, having failed to address the capacity crisis in our prisons, the pressure on prison places became too great.
This Government have now acted to relieve that pressure, so I can announce that we will extend magistrates’ sentencing powers back to 12 months’ imprisonment. On 28 October, I will lay a statutory instrument to that effect, which will come into force on 18 November this year. This change does not increase the maximum sentence for specific offences, and nor does it change the length of sentence that a defendant will serve. Instead, it expands which courts can hand down sentences of six to 12 months’ imprisonment for a single triable either-way offence. It will enable the system to make more use of magistrates, who are an integral part of our court system, delivering justice swiftly across the country.
This measure will also allow us to begin to address the remand problem in our prisons, but it will do more than that. This Government inherited a record Crown court backlog. Waits for trials have grown so long that some cases are not heard for years. The impact on victims of crime is profound. For some, justice delayed is, as the old saying goes, justice denied, as victims choose to withdraw from the justice process altogether rather than face the pain of a protracted legal battle. By extending magistrates’ powers, we will be able to make progress on addressing the Crown court backlog, and we will free the Crown court to take on more of the cases that only it can hear. This measure is expected to free up an equivalent of 2,000 sitting days within the Crown court each year, which will add capacity on top of the additional 500 sitting days that this Government funded on taking office.
This measure will, in total, see a slight increase in the overall prison population, but by bearing down on the remand population in our reception prisons, we will create capacity where we need it most. This measure allows us to manage our prison population smartly, and it means we can both address our prisons crisis and tackle the courts backlog.
When this Government came to power, we inherited a justice system in crisis. We took immediate action to avert a total breakdown of law and order. We are now beginning the work of ensuring that this country never faces this crisis again. There will be more that we must do. In the coming weeks, I will return to the House and set out our long-term plan for the justice system, but these new powers for magistrates mark an important step. They help us alleviate the capacity pressures caused by the historical remand population that we inherited, and begin to address the record Crown court backlog that my predecessors handed to me. In so doing, for victims across the country they will make justice swifter, and ensure that more criminals receive the punishment that they deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor and her civil servants for their typical courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement. I am also grateful to magistrates, to whom I pay tribute. In many ways, they are the backbone of our justice system, and like juries they root our justice system in our local communities. Their service is hugely appreciated, as is the work of the Magistrates’ Association, and I recognise their skill and dedication.
The Lord Chancellor highlighted the backlog as context. As she will know, in 2010 the backlog that we inherited in the Crown courts was 48,000. It was reduced to 40,000 by 2019, but we recognise that it is a lot higher now. The change? A pandemic. She rightly referred to significant increases in the remand population. During the pandemic, supported by the then Opposition, we opted not to mass-release prisoners, as other countries did, and not to cancel jury trials. That of course led to increases in the remand population, compounded by the effect of the Bar strike.
The vast bulk of the backlog is in the Crown courts, as the Lord Chancellor will know, and it is right to recognise the interrelationship between magistrates courts and Crown courts. I believe that the concordat on sitting days had not been formally signed by the former Lord Chancellor at the time of the election, and I therefore saw with concern that, in stark contrast to previous Lord Chancellors who increased sitting days, it appears we will see a reduction of 2,700 sitting days compared with last year. I would be grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s reflections on that. In 2019 there were 85,000 sitting days, and 107,700 last year. This year the cap appears to be at 105,000. That appears to be the Government’s choice, but I would welcome clarity from the Lord Chancellor on that.
The changes that the Lord Chancellor has set out were characterised by the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Mary Prior KC, in The Guardian:
“This is a knee-jerk reaction, done without consulting—once again—the criminal barristers or solicitors who deal every day with these cases”.
There are therefore a number of questions about that and the broader criminal justice system, given the scope of the right hon. Lady’s statement, which I hope she will be able to answer. Has she conducted a complete impact assessment for the changes, and will she publish that and all the modelling on it prior to the statutory instrument being laid? How many people are currently on remand, and will she share with the House the latest, most up-to-date figure? Reports suggest that this measure will in the short term potentially increase pressure on prison places, so will she say by what amount her modelling suggests that will be? What prior consultation did she or her Department undertake with the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society before making this decision? What assessment has she made of the impact of the decision announced today on the backlog and on the number of short custodial sentence passed by the courts?
Given that the right hon. Lady explicitly referred to her prisoner early release scheme, I hope she will be able to answer all those questions, but there is also one important question that I hope she will answer today by way of reassurance: are any of the 37 prisoners released in error last month still roaming free, or have they all been safely returned to prison? I would be grateful for clarification on that, because it is important.
We will find out in under two weeks whether, in pre-Budget spending discussions with the Chancellor, the right hon. Lady has successfully fought for investment and in the interests of justice and victims of crime, or whether she has sold out the victims and the systems, and conceded cuts to the Treasury. If she has succeeded in securing additional investment, she will have my gratitude and support. If she has not, we will rightly hold her to account.
Shabana Mahmood
It is almost as if the shadow Lord Chancellor was not, in fact, a Minister in the Ministry of Justice just a few short months ago. Let me remind him of a few salient facts. First, on Crown court sitting days, I will not accept any suggestion or allegation from him that this Government have cut sitting days or trials in the Crown court. That is entirely untrue. As he knows, or ought to know, perfectly well—I am sure he can check with the former Lord Chancellor—on 28 June, the last Government and the last Lord Chancellor determined how many days the judges could sit this year. Since then, this Government have increased the number of sitting days by 500. As there is clearly some confusion here, it is important that I set the record straight.
Every year, the Government and the judiciary agree a number of sitting days, and an overall budget to fund those sitting days, in what is known as the concordat process. In June, the judiciary reached an agreement with the former Lord Chancellor to sit 106,000 days in the Crown court, with a total budget of £275 million. It has become clear that there has been over-listing against that budget, with more trials scheduled than the funding allowed for. As a result, some cases have had to be delisted, although far fewer than some recent reporting has suggested—it was claimed that around 5,000 sitting days were being cancelled, and I know that the shadow Lord Chancellor had some other numbers in his remarks. In fact, as I understand it, the number is more like 1,600 sitting days. Although misleading reports have abounded, one thing is clear: the concordat process has not worked as it should. I can assure the House that the first concordat process on my watch will be very different, and such confusions will not occur again.
The shadow Lord Chancellor asked a number of questions relating to the impact assessment for the changes announced today. I will publish all the usual impact assessments when the statutory instrument is published. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect an initial impact on prison places, but over time we expect that to come down. We have a little more space in prisons because of the action we have taken to stabilise the pressure on prison places. It is a sensible measure to then take the opportunity to bear down on the Crown court backlog by providing the extra 2,000 sitting days that this change will allow, while also bearing down further on our remand population.
As the shadow Lord Chancellor will know, the exact numbers are difficult to model because listing is a matter for the judiciary. Some of those on remand will ultimately be found not guilty and some will be found guilty and sentenced, and the whole range of sentencing measures is available to the independent judiciary. But we expect to make some progress on the remand population and, crucially, to be able to move people from the reception estate into the rest of the prison estate, thereby helping us to make sure we have the prison places where we need them. I can also confirm that all of the 37 people released in error because of being incorrectly sentenced are now back in custody.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As someone who spent a decade shadowing and scrutinising the previous Government’s justice policies, I sympathise with the Lord Chancellor over the chaos she has inherited, but the proposed changes to magistrates’ sentencing powers may have mixed results. They should ease the backlog in the Crown court, but they may put additional pressure on our overcrowded prisons. My concern is that we do not have robust data on the Crown court backlog or on the effects of varying sentencing. The Government are about to embark on a quick but thorough review of sentencing. Will they use that opportunity to get the policy and the figures lined up?
Shabana Mahmood
I think this is my first chance in the House to welcome my hon. Friend to his new position as Chair of the Justice Committee. Let me deal with Crown court data first. In fairness to the previous Government, they discovered this error prior to the conclusion of their term in office. When I came in, I was made aware of the issue with Crown court data. I ordered further investigation and examination of the issues. It is clear that a number of problems with the data—a number of errors and other issues—need to be resolved. We will make sure that it is published when we can be sure that it is accurate and that all those errors have been finally resolved.
Clearly, the situation is unacceptable. I am in discussion with the Lady Chief Justice about the need for a full external audit of Crown court data, because I think we can all agree that that data must be accurate. We clearly must do more to restore confidence in the reporting process, and I will update the House further in due course.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. So many of my constituents are appalled by the state in which the Conservatives have left our justice system: huge court backlogs, a woefully big remand population, overcrowded prisons and so many victims and survivors without justice. I therefore welcome her determination to arrest this problem and this decline, and especially the reports of her correspondence with the Prime Minister over a fully funded Ministry of Justice. However, I want to address some of the Liberal Democrats’ key concerns about some of the proposals that she has set out.
First, the Secretary of State recognised that there may be additional issues with prison capacity in the short term. With the system bursting at the seams and with us, a matter of weeks ago, just 100 men away from the prisons being completely full, how will she prevent our prisons from collapsing as a result of these measures?
Secondly, on prison effectiveness, putting too many eggs in the prisons basket will ultimately fail to keep our communities safe. We know that 75% of ex-offenders go on to reoffend within nine years of being released. From the work I did before I arrived in this place on getting kids out of crime and out of gangs, I know that rehabilitation, done holistically, is a critical way of reducing reoffending and victimhood. How will the Secretary of State double down on rehabilitation and through-the-gate mentoring programmes to reduce offending?
Thirdly, these measures will put more pressure on magistrates courts, at a time when many, such as my own in Eastbourne, have closed. That risks forcing victims of crimes currently heard in those courts to wait even longer for justice. How will the Secretary of State address that risk?
Finally, one of the worst Justice Secretaries in recent memory, Dominic Raab, tried a similar policy in 2022, with magistrates increasing the number of people being sent to prison on short sentences. The scheme was dropped after a year, and short-sentence reoffending rates are at 57%, which is a deplorable number. How will the Secretary of State avoid these measures backfiring in a similar way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just for reference, your questions should be two minutes, no longer.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I am very aware of the number of places in our prison estate, and we had a particularly difficult moment before the last bank holiday, in August, when we came down to fewer than 100. However, as a result of the measures we have taken on SDS40, there is now some space and some capacity in our prison system. It is important that we use this opportunity also to bear down on the remand population and to deal with the Crown court backlog.
This is a delicate balancing exercise, and it is one that I will personally be keeping a close eye on and keeping under review. However, I think that the measure we have announced is ultimately the right one, because it helps us with our prison capacity challenges. As a result, we will have the prison places where we need them—in the reception prisons—and we can start moving people out to other parts of the estate, which is not possible until cases are heard. I am confident that we have the capacity in the magistrates courts to deal with the additional workload. Again, I will be keeping that under review.
The hon. Member is right: 80% of offenders are actually reoffenders. This country has a real problem with failing to rehabilitate offenders, and our record on reducing reoffending is not as strong as it should be. Prison has a place, and it is really important that people who break our laws are properly punished. That is necessary for the public to maintain confidence in our system and for law-abiding citizens to feel that there are consequences when our laws are broken. There is no doubt in my mind that punishment and prison are important, but they go hand in hand with rehabilitation. I do not think there is a choice to be made between punishment and rehabilitation—they are two sides of the same coin, and we have to have both. This Government are determined to have a better track record on both punishment and rehabilitation compared with anything that has gone on in the previous 14 years.
Let me gently say that it is not the case that magistrates courts send more people to prison. Following the previous change the courts were able to run through cases faster, and because the previous Government had not created capacity in the prison estate, the pressure on prison places became acute and the measure had to be dropped back to six months—the shadow Lord Chancellor might wish to offer further comments on that. That is what happened and what I expect to happen again.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is fascinating and powerful to hear the plans to deal with the backlog in the courts. I know that all our constituents will be grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s work. I have a constituent who was the victim of an aggravated burglary that involved multiple men coming to her house with machetes in 2021. Finally, last week at Snaresbrook Crown court, a date for the trial of the gentlemen accused of this crime was set for October 2026. The Lord Chancellor will recognise and share the concern of my constituent. As she says, justice delayed is justice denied. What comfort can she give my constituent that such matters will be expedited as a result of her work?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I have many such instances of unacceptable delays for hearing cases in my own constituency caseload. I hope that the measures that I have announced today will begin to ease some of that pressure, because making this change will free up around 2,000 sitting days in the Crown court. This Government have funded an additional 500 beyond the concordat process agreement that was reached by the previous Government in June. I am determined to make more progress in dealing with the Crown court backlog so that constituents such as my hon. Friend’s do not have to wait so many years for their cases to be heard and, ultimately, for justice to be done.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I reach out across the party divide to say that I warmly welcome what the Justice Secretary said about punishment and rehabilitation? By coincidence, I have just written to her—she will not have seen the letter yet—about the work of my constituent, the publisher Andrew Duncan, in co-ordination with a panel of experts that includes a psychology professor, a former governor of Pentonville, a Probation Service specialist in reducing reoffending and a central London magistrate, on a new concept of community detention. My request is that either she or the Minister she thinks most appropriate will agree to have a meeting with my constituent, a few members of his team and me. As a right-of-centre politician, I am sometimes sceptical of alternatives to prison. This one sounds really interesting, and I think it would not be a waste of her time.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Member for the spirit in which he made his remarks. I hope that where consensus is possible on a cross-party basis across this House, we are able to work together, because this is a national problem that will require us all to come together to solve it. I will track down his letter and ensure that he gets a full response and a meeting.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In Shropshire, the justice system is broken. Under the watch of the last Conservative Government, the remand court in Shropshire magistrates court was closed and transferred to Kidderminster. I am delighted to say that, under this Government’s watch, that remand court is about to reopen. Some 300 court sessions are running empty each and every year at Shropshire magistrates court. My local paper, the Shropshire Star, highlighted a criminal trial—it involved a retrial—that will take seven years from the original date of the offence to be disposed of, which is an absolute disgrace. Will the Lord Chancellor look at ways in which we can further empower district judges in the magistrates court, and at the use of technology in the justice system? Finally, it is important that the transparency around data is fixed. Unfortunately, the last Conservative Government did not release the data on time. We need to understand what is really going on now, and what has happened in the past.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cases are taking too long to reach conclusion in our courts. We are making some changes, and I am considering what further ones we will need to make. There is an important piece around efficiency and productivity in the court system, and there have also been reports by Lord Justice Auld, Lord Leveson and others on other ways to speed up trials being heard. All those options are on the table, and I will update the House in due course about this Government’s approach.
I simply reiterate my remarks on the data: when it is finally published, it is important that we can be certain that it is accurate and properly captures what is going on in our Crown courts and that we can all have confidence in it. In fairness, the last Government did pick up on this problem. I am determined that it will be resolved and that the data will ultimately be published.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her very welcome statement. There is a clear commitment to the change that is necessary. She will note that I nearly always focus on victims, so will she outline what weight is given to victim impact statements, and whether there is a need to determine in law how much weight is given to the impact on devastated families? I always think of the devastated families—they are the ones who are really important.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reassure the hon. Member that we place great importance in the victim’s experience. This Government will strengthen that further and ensure that victims are not further traumatised by their experience of seeking justice. Victim impact statements have an important role to play. The victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), recently met Victim Support and other groups. This is a really important piece of work for the Government, and I know the hon. Member will hold us to account on our track record. I am very aware of the impact of delays in the system on victims, which is why we are making the changes today. We will make more progress to bring those delays down.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Lord Chancellor and her Department for their important work in tackling the backlog. Given that the previous Government agreed the funding allocation, who does she feel is responsible for the number of Crown court sitting days being cut? Has she explored the further use of artificial intelligence in small judgments to speed up the backlog?
Shabana Mahmood
I reiterate my previous remarks on what has happened to Crown court sitting days, but I do not think it is helpful for me to speculate on who is ultimately responsible. It is clear that the concordat process has not worked as it should. As I said, the first process that I conduct as Lord Chancellor will not have those issues. An agreement was reached and it has to be stuck to. I am sure that all those in the system are worried about the impact on victims—they are the ones who will be waiting longer. As I said, although reports have suggested that up to 5,000 sitting days have been cancelled, the number is more like 1,600, and the changes we have announced today will free up capacity in the Crown courts.
I am very interested in the role that AI and other technology and digital solutions can play in increasing efficiency and productivity in the Crown court system and the court system more broadly. That is subject to discussions in relation to the Budget and the spending review. I hope to update the House in due course.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I am very concerned to hear of the missed publication of Crown court backlog data. How can we hope to drive down the backlog if we do not know how big it is?
Shabana Mahmood
One of the reasons why I am determined to get to the bottom of what has gone wrong, and to ensure that all errors and accuracy issues are dealt with, is so that we have comprehensive data that we can rely upon. We know that the Crown court backlog is at historic levels. Sadly, I do not think that any assurance work on the data will suddenly bring that down—I suspect it is more likely to go up—but it is important to establish the true scale of that backlog, because this House needs to know exactly what it looks like so that it can hold the Government to account on their efforts to bring it down. We cannot do that unless we know its exact size. Sadly, I suspect it will remain at the historic levels that we have inherited—I do not think it will come down by much.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor very much for her statement. It is very clear, from everything we have seen over the past 14 years and since 4 July, that the previous Government completely failed to manage our prison estate. Does she agree with me and my constituents that it is really important that we maintain space in our prison system to lock up the most dangerous offenders? At the same time, we need to have a look at community sentences. Will she be doing that?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must always be space in our prisons to lock up the most dangerous offenders. We must always place public protection above all other considerations when it comes to dangerous violent offenders. When we have a capacity crisis as acute as the one I inherited, we unfortunately have to also consider alternatives, simply because running out of space is no option at all. I reiterate the remarks I made earlier: punishment and rehabilitation have to go together. It is not a choice between one or the other. They are two sides of the same coin and the Government are determined to make progress on both.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My constituents will welcome the clarity that the Lord Chancellor has provided today. With reference to her point about the long-term plan for the justice system, a plan that we have to get right, may I ask her to keep in mind the need for a proper, robust and accessible legal aid system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Legal aid underpins our system of justice and access to justice. Stabilising the situation in relation to legal aid is a key priority for the Government.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I have a number of prisons in my constituency, so I was particularly concerned to read about Serco’s failures on tagging. What is the Secretary of State doing to hold it to account?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Serco’s performance is unacceptable. We are having daily meetings with it to ensure it recovers the position. I have made it clear that improved performance is an absolutely priority. We are already imposing financial penalties, given its performance to date, and we will not hesitate to trigger relevant contractual penalties if it does not improve.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and commend her and her ministerial team for the work they are doing to fix the last 14 years of Tory mess in this Department. In her statement, she talked about the withdrawal of victims from the process. On that point, 60% of rape victims are dropping out of their cases, partly because they are waiting years for justice. Will the Secretary of State explain how independent legal advocates will support victims to see their cases through to trial?
Shabana Mahmood
The introduction of independent legal advocates for rape victims will, we believe, ensure that the rights that victims already have will be enforced, and in such a way as to give them the confidence to continue with their cases. This is a key priority policy for our party and for the Government, and I will be very pleased to be able to roll it out over the coming months and years. It is a significant change to our legal system. It will be the first time that independent legal advice is given to a type of victim. We think that is incredibly important, because rape victims lose confidence in the process and are often re-traumatised by the process of seeking justice. The independent legal advocates will try to ensure that the scales of justice are rebalanced and that victims have a fair shot at having their already existing legal rights enforced.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Prisons have two vital functions: punishment and rehabilitation. Reoffending has gone up, because after 14 years under the Conservatives prisons have become colleges of crime. We need to get the basics right and we need to get the fundamentals right on prison education reform. Will my right hon. Friend look at how we can improve literacy and numeracy skills in our prison estate?
Shabana Mahmood
We will of course look at improved literacy and other skills within our prison estate. The problem with running a prison estate as hot as the previous Government did, and so full to the brim, is that when we are so badly overcrowded and prisoners are locked up for 23 hours every day, there is very little other work we can do to help prisoners rehabilitate. Dealing with the capacity crisis will enable us to have a better performance and better track record on rehabilitation, which is crucial if we are ultimately to reduce the number of victims in future and cut crime.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that failing to address the prisons capacity crisis and allowing the Crown court backlog to grow to unprecedented levels has meant that the entirety of our criminal justice system has been broken? I make particular reference to rape and serious sexual offences cases.
Shabana Mahmood
It is clear that the position I have inherited from my predecessors was shocking and completely unacceptable. We were, simply, one bad day away from total disaster in our criminal justice system. That is why, since we formed the Government, we have been making the difficult choices necessary to stabilise our criminal justice system and stabilise the situation in our prisons, so we can restore the system to one that the public can rightly have confidence in.
Government’s Childcare Expansion
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s plans to deliver additional places in school-based nurseries, and a clarification on Government action on so-called top-up fees for funded childcare hours. I will also update the House on the Government’s response to the consultation on safeguarding requirements in the early years foundation stage framework.
The Secretary of State has promised a new era of child-centred government, working alongside the sector to deliver meaningful long-term reform of the early years system. The Government believe that all children deserve access to a brilliant early education, regardless of who they are, where they come from or their parents’ income. Today marks a significant step for thousands of families, as we begin the first stage of the Government’s plan to deliver 3,000 new or expanded school-based nurseries. From today, primary schools can apply for a grant of up to £150,000 from a £15 million capital funding pot to make the changes needed for their site to accommodate a nursery.
The new or expanded nurseries are set to open across England from the start of the next school year. We have chosen to expand school-based nurseries because schools are at the heart of our communities. School-based nurseries cater for a higher proportion of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and offer a higher share of nursery places in the most deprived areas. To support our most vulnerable children and build on the existing market, the funding will be available for projects that are either school-run or delivered on the school’s site by private and voluntary providers or childminders. Schools will be asked to work with local authorities to demonstrate local parental demand for places. If there are primary schools that are interested in this programme but are not currently ready or eligible to host new nursery places, we encourage them to register an interest for the future. We expect funding to be allocated to successful schools in spring 2025 to support delivery of the first nursery places from September 2025.
As we expand the childcare system, it is crucial that early education and childcare remains fair and accessible to all parents. That is why we are taking action to address situations where parents are facing high and additional charges on top of the funded entitlement hours. Those charges, which may include mandatory fees for nappies, lunch, or additional hours, should not be a condition for accessing a funded place. The vast majority of providers are working hard to make sure that parents can access their entitlements, but any sort of mandatory additional charging or preferential treatment towards parents who purchase optional extras is not acceptable. Over the next few months, my Department will engage with local authorities, providers and parents to develop and clarify guidance on this issue, including on so-called “top-up fees”. We will support local authorities to protect parents from overcharging.
I turn to new childcare entitlements. In September, working parents of children aged nine months and above were able to access 15 hours per week of Government-funded early education for the first time. I can confirm that over 320,000 additional children are now accessing the new entitlement. Delivering the scheme has not been without difficulty and owes much to the collaboration between local authorities, providers and the work of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, who has made ensuring the roll-out a priority. At the same time, we are helping the sector to deliver the necessary places for September 2025. This final, more challenging phase of the roll-out will increase the funded childcare entitlement of working parents to 30 hours per week.
Trust matters in politics, which is why I want to reiterate this Government’s commitment to honouring the promise made by the last Government to deliver these entitlements, but the House should be in no doubt that this will be an extremely difficult task. There remains a significant shortage of staff and places. The Government’s spending watchdog has said that, in order to deliver the roll-out, in some parts of the country we will need to double or even triple capacity in order to provide the additional hours. There are substantial gaps to fill, left behind knowingly by the Conservative party. We must be honest with families about the fact that in some parts of England, while parents may receive the hours they were promised, they may not get their first choice of nursery or childminder.
I assure the House that we will continue to work tirelessly to bridge the gaps in time for next September, and our plans to expand primary school-based nurseries will help us to deliver these entitlements. Our priority is to provide high-quality education and care for children while ensuring their safety, in order to give every child the best start in life.
Today the Department published its official response to the consultation on proposals to strengthen safeguarding requirements in the statutory early years foundation stage framework. These reforms are set to be implemented from September 2025. The changes to be made to the framework are based on lessons learned from tragic past events, responses to our consultation, and feedback from safeguarding experts and the sector. The consultation received 1,470 responses, with strong support for all the proposals. The Department will therefore implement all the proposals, including those on safer recruitment, child absences, safer eating, safeguarding training, and paediatric first aid training. There will also be new proposals on providing employment references and supporting whistleblowing. These changes will formalise existing best practices, and will ensure that all early years educators have the knowledge and support that they need to deliver safe, high-quality early education and childcare.
As many parents know, childminders are a key part of the early education and childcare market, providing choice and flexibility. We are already delivering childminder start-up grants to help new childminders with the costs of registering, and on 1 November we will introduce new flexibilities for childminders to help them join and stay in the profession. These changes will create a new category of childminder who can work entirely from non-domestic premises. The total number of people who can work together under a childminder’s registration will increase from three to four. Childminders will also have more flexibility to operate for more time outside domestic premises, for instance from a community hall or school. These new flexibilities will further support the Government’s commitment to rolling out expanded childcare entitlements and giving children the best start in life.
Parents’ need for childcare does not stop when their children reach primary school age. Since July, we have allocated more than £130 million to local authorities to begin delivering these new places to parents of primary school age children as part of the national wraparound childcare programme. Initial delivery plans indicate that this programme will deliver up to 200,000 new childcare places, at either end of the school day, available in over 50% of all primary schools. However, we want to go further to support hard-working families and tackle disadvantage, which is why we committed ourselves in our manifesto to introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school.
Breakfast clubs can have a tremendously positive impact in helping children to arrive at school on time and ready to learn, while also helping working parents to have more choices in the workplace. From April 2025, free breakfast clubs will be available in up to 750 early adopter schools. That will be part of the test-and-learn phase, but new breakfast clubs, once rolled out nationally, will be available to every state-funded school with primary school age children, and will give parents more affordable childcare choices while also helping families with the cost of living. Children will be able to start the school day ready to learn, which will give them the best start in life and in their education.
This Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity. That must start before school, with high-quality early education that is both available and affordable. We inherited a pledge without a plan, so this Labour Government must work to deliver the change that families need. We will deliver places in new nurseries, tackle unfair “top-up fees”, and ensure that every child can have the best start in life. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I should explain to newer colleagues that interventions are not made during statements by Ministers or responses from shadow Ministers. I now call the shadow Minister to respond to the Minister’s statement.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement.
Labour Members may take this opportunity to create a fictitious narrative about the alleged failures of the former Government on early years and childcare, but it will not wash with us and it will not wash with the British public. That is simply because our record on childcare is strong, so let me take this opportunity to remind the Government and the House exactly what it is.
In 2010, we extended the three and four-year-old entitlement, commonly taken as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. In 2013, we introduced 15 hours of free early education a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds. In 2017, we doubled the three and four-year-old entitlement to 30 hours per week for working parents, as well as introducing tax-free childcare, which meant that for every £8 people paid in, the Government would automatically add £2 to support childcare costs—on top of the free-hours entitlement. In March 2023, we announced the biggest expansion of childcare by a UK Government in history. It was intended to give working parents access to 30 hours of free childcare a week, from when their children were nine months old until they started school, and to save families an average of £6,900 a year. Our reason for doing that was simple: childcare is one of the biggest costs facing working families today, as well as one of the biggest barriers to parents returning to work if and when they wish to do so. I want to take this opportunity to thank early years providers, local authorities, membership bodies, and other key partners who have made delivering this possible.
I welcome the fact that the Government have finally agreed that rolling out our childcare expansion will empower parents to make the choice that is best for them, and are committed to doing so. I am, however, disappointed that they did not do more to spread awareness among parents of the childcare entitlements that became available in September. Will the Minister tell us whether there was any unspent budget for this, and will he now commit himself to increasing the publicising of childcare roll-outs so that parents are rightly aware of their entitlements?
Of course the Opposition welcome the expansion of childcare and support the idea of utilising unused space in schools, which provides a single point of contact for parents with multiple children, but will the Minister tell us how many childcare places the first 300 new or expanded nurseries will provide? The Government previously pledged to deliver 3,000 nurseries to support 100,000 childcare places. What will be the timeline for the delivery of the rest of those nurseries, and are the Government still committed to the creation of 100,000 childcare places across the country in the long term?
The Education Secretary has confirmed that early years and childcare are her No. 1 priority, which I wholeheartedly support. However, the Government’s education tax will mean that children in classes in which one child is five years old, or is due to turn five by the end of the year, will be subject to the Government’s retrograde education tax regardless of their age. Will the Minister confirm that that is indeed a broken promise? How can the British public trust the Education Secretary’s word that she will prioritise early years and childcare when she has already broken a promise within the first 100 days of a Labour Government?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister for his response, and welcome him to his place. I know that he will want to be a keen champion for the early years sector, and I was glad to hear him welcome the update that I have given to the House.
As I said in my statement, Labour is committed to the delivery of expanded entitlement across Government. The last Government left significant challenges, but we are not shirking that responsibility. With Labour, the early years sector can rest assured that we will be working tirelessly to deliver a wider sea change in early education, as well as high and rising standards throughout the education system.
Let me now deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. It is clear to me from my consultation and engagement with parents and providers so far that we have inherited a pledge without a plan, and the consequences of that are inherited delivery challenges relating to workforce and places. I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the workforce; I believe by resetting the relationship with the workforce, we can have a much more positive relationship with the sector in the future.
Over 300,000 children have benefited from the entitlement offer since September this year, which demonstrates that we are actively engaging and working with parents to promote opportunities to take up the offer. We will continue to do so.
On school-based nurseries, the pilot during the testing phase is for 300 places from April. Our ambition is for 3,000 places over the course of this Parliament. I look forward to working with the hon. Member constructively to bring about the change that early years education so desperately needs.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing to right a much overdue wrong. It is extraordinary to hear the shadow Minister trying to claim credit for something this Government have finally done today, putting to rest the concerns that many of us tried to raise with the previous Government. I thank the Minister for being honest enough to finally publish the data about the numbers of people we need working with our children to make these plans happen. The previous Government always avoided the question and now we can see why, because the data shows that we will need an extra 35,000 people working in our childcare sector by autumn next year to fulfil all our pledges, and an extra 6,000 by the end of this year. Will the Minister tell us more about his workforce strategy? We take our hats off to the people who look after our children. I know this Government want to invest in them, but we need a lot more of them. What can we do to make that happen?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless work speaking up for children, young people and parents up and down the country. As she rightly says, we are working hard with the early years sector to recruit the staff we need, including through the extended recruitment campaign Do Something Big, so that we attract more people to work in the early education system and ensure there are good training pathways into careers in early education. We are resetting relationships with staff across the education sector to ensure they are respected and valued for the important work they do. School-based nurseries currently have lower turnover and have the option to use some staff flexibly between reception and early years in primary schools. I am looking forward to cracking on with delivering on those commitments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has two minutes.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I am suffering because of the length of time that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) took earlier. I will try to stick to two minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Minister for sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats believe that flexible, affordable childcare and early years education is a critical part of our society. High-quality early years education is the best possible investment in the future and contributes to economic performance in the present as well. Most importantly, it is the most effective way to narrow the gap between rich and poor children.
Broadly, we welcome the Government’s promise to expand access to affordable childcare and early years education. Under the previous Government, we saw what happens when big promises on childcare are not backed up by the funding and resources needed to deliver them. The Conservative Government’s plans risked exacerbating the problems that parents already faced: a lack of childminder places and eye-watering fees.
The number of childminders in England fell by an estimated 26% between 2018 and 2023. Last year, a report found that 35% of nursery managers would limit the number of places they offered unless the Government helped with recruitment. I note from the Minister’s statement that the Government are taking steps to improve recruitment and retention in the childcare and early years sector, but does the Minister agree that a career strategy is also needed for those working in early years, including a training programme, so that all those working with young children are properly trained and supported? Will he give assurances that the places announced today will be properly supported by committing to a full review of the rates paid to providers for free hours, to ensure they cover the actual costs of delivering that high-quality childcare?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for his statement and welcome him to his place. As he identified, there are some core challenges for the early years sector in delivering the Government’s agenda to expand childcare entitlement. As I made clear in my statement, today’s announcement sets out key steps we are looking to take to deliver for children and ensure that they have safe, supported systems to help them succeed in life. I know that he will support our ambition of ensuring that every child, no matter where they come from, can succeed in life.
The hon. Member was right to focus on disadvantage, which is a key priority for me as a Minister. If we are serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, we need to think about the impact of the scheme on the most disadvantaged in our society. The number of childminders involved in the system has halved over the years; we want to reset that relationship. The new flexibilities announced today will make a big difference. Finally, he will appreciate that funding is a matter for the spending review.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for finally bringing forward a realistic plan for expanding childcare. Residents, and certainly parents, in Southend West and Leigh will welcome the announcement. Will he provide assurances that childminders, who are a vital part of childcare arrangements, will still be a key focus? Will he give a further idea of how they will be supported?
Stephen Morgan
Childminders are a key part of the childcare market, providing more choice and flexibility for parents. From next month, the Government plan to implement new flexibilities to help childminders join and stay in the profession. That will include enabling childminders to work from non-domestic premises, as I mentioned in my statement, and increasing the number of childminders who can work together; that will improve children’s access to new experiences out of the home and encourage socialisation. As we seek to deliver a sea change in our approach to early years, we want partners, including childminders, to work closely with us to push for better.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There are countless millions of free childminders available. The love between a grandparent and a grandchild is the purest love: love without responsibility. I declare a personal interest. Will the Minister assure me that he will incentivise grandparents to look after their grandchildren, and that nothing in the tax or benefits system will discriminate against mothers who want to look after their children full time? Will he build on the Conservatives’ scheme of transferrable allowances?
Stephen Morgan
Families have an important role to play in supporting children in the first few years of their life. We are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child, in every part of the country, and our childcare system has a key role to play in that.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
As a former school governor and a dad, I see the amazing work that preschools and nurseries do up and down the country. These measures will be a key way to break down barriers to opportunity and get the country growing, as the Minister says. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that children in care and the children of those in the armed forces are prioritised for the additional care places? Will he reassure childminders that we are on their side, because childminders in Telford have missed the memo from the Government on this set of improvements?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind hon. Members to ask short questions.
Stephen Morgan
Since joining the House, my hon. Friend has already become a champion for children and young people in his constituency. He raises a number of points—about childminders, support for children in care, and military families. As I represent the heart and home of the Royal Navy, I take those matters very seriously. I will certainly consider the points that he raises as we design a system fit for the future.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am incredibly proud of the previous Government’s massive expansion of the childcare offer, and I am genuinely pleased that the new Government are carrying on with it. When it comes to the expansion of in-school nurseries, what mechanism will be put in place to ensure that rural communities, like mine in Mid Buckinghamshire, get a locked in, fair share of those new facilities?
Stephen Morgan
Our party wants to govern the whole country. In the election in July, we won many rural seats, and we will take the views and ambitions of rural communities seriously. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise particular points with me to ensure that the roll-out works well in his constituency, I am very happy to meet him to discuss those issues.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
With so many families struggling to find affordable childcare across my Hitchin constituency, I really welcome the Minister’s announcement today, and I will encourage local schools to take part in the pilot scheme. I particularly welcome the focus on the exclusionary nature of top-up fees. Those fees run counter to the nature of the scheme, and all too often leave those most in need of affordable childcare unable to access it. Will the Minister assure us that as he takes the vital, robust action needed to clamp down on top-up fees, he will work with the sector more widely to ensure the viability of providers, who were all too often left on the brink by the previous Government’s mismanagement of childcare?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have heard that message loud and clear from parents in constituencies up and down the country. Where providers seek to put up fresh barriers to access, we will not tolerate them. We will make guidance in this area as clear and consistent as possible to support hard-pressed families as we deliver this sea change in early years provision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for this welcome news. Within seven months, my party colleagues in Northern Ireland have designed a scheme to slash childcare bills by 15%, saving parents up to £660 per month. The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme has saved parents about £1 million in the month of September alone. Some 13,000 children signed up in the first four weeks. That is DUP delivery. Does the Minister have any plans for implementing greater support on a UK-wide basis, so that better communication and better partnership can blossom and grow?
Stephen Morgan
I always enjoy responding to questions from the hon. Gentleman. On my visit in April to Belfast, I heard that childcare is a huge issue for the community. I assure him that there is more we can do to support our colleagues in Northern Ireland. We have already committed to a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss these issues.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome these measures, which will do an awful lot to help hard-pressed families in my constituency. Does he agree that the Conservatives suffer from something of a blind spot in looking back at their record, which contains years in which funding fell short of the delivery costs? They ignore the exodus of early years professionals and the fact that 1,400 Sure Start centres have been closed, yet they continue to believe that we have never had it so good. Will the Minister join me in thanking early years professionals in Southampton Itchen, who can finally count on a Government who are child-centred, and could he outline how these measures will be targeted at so-called childcare deserts?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on being selected for the Select Committee. I agree that we should be shocked by the Conservatives’ response to today’s statement. This Government are focused on the issues that make the biggest difference to working people across the country, so that we can deliver the change we need. Today’s announcement is an example of how we will go about doing that. I am very keen to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, and I appreciate his thanks to those in the sector for the hard work that they do in his constituency.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I hugely welcome the news about funding for schools, children and parents, and for school-based nurseries in particular. I hope the Minister will look fondly on applications from Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield in due course. I wonder whether he thinks that the capital allocation in the statement is sufficient for his ambition. Does the Minister agree that this Government are delivering on their promises within their first 100 days?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am absolutely delighted to hear of his enthusiasm for the scheme, which will make a huge difference to communities up and down our country. We are starting a test-and-learn phase in April; the roll-out will be in September. We want to learn from that approach, and I would be delighted to work with him on this matter.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the proposed expansion of childcare, which I am sure will help many families in my Penrith and Solway constituency. Can the Minister outline how this measure will be targeted at the areas of the country with the greatest need, and at areas that are considered to be childcare deserts?
Stephen Morgan
We are absolutely committed to being a child-centred Government, and it is vital that we deliver the programme in the areas in most need. That means making sure that we understand where there are gaps in places and in the workforce, and we look forward to working closely with the sector to ensure that the scheme makes the biggest difference in communities that need it the most.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
This announcement is particularly fitting, as my son started preschool today. Many hard-working parents in York Outer welcome today’s news, but many feel that some providers are taking the biscuit when it comes to funded hours, abnormalities, unfair top-up fees and even restrictions on the days of the week on which funded hours can be used. Will the Minister meet me so that I can pass on York Outer parents’ concerns about the funded hours scheme?
Stephen Morgan
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I wish his son good luck as he starts nursery today.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I have sore calves after this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. A child-centred Government are exactly what people in Newcastle-under-Lyme want, but the disgraceful state of special educational needs and disability provision in our schools means that we have more to do. How does this announcement, which I welcome, sit alongside our commitment to overhauling the SEND system?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are reviewing the early years SEND funding arrangements to ensure that they are suitable for supporting the needs of children with SEND. For children with more complex needs and an education, health and care plan, funding is available via the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant. Local authorities should have SEND inclusion funding for children with low and emerging needs. Disability access funding is also designed to support disabled children’s access to entitlements.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
We can probably all agree that every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of their background and circumstances, who they know and where they come from. None of that should shape people’s lives more than their talent, creativity or determination. I welcome the emphasis on the importance of early years provision. Particularly in these years after the pandemic, measures such as early speech and language interventions can make all the difference. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to take early years provision seriously?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is absolutely right. The pandemic had a huge impact on children’s lives, and our investment in early interventions around speech and language is absolutely key. I look forward to working with him to deliver that successfully in his constituency.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
We’ll see! I am intrigued to hear Conservative Members’ attempts to defend their record. Moments ago, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) is “preoccupied with her children” and cannot be the Leader of the Opposition while spending time with her family. This comes after she herself said that maternity leave has “gone too far”. Does the Minister agree that whereas this Government are working hard to back the hope that children represent, Conservative Members are, in the end, the same old Tories?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Early years provision was cast off under the Tories, and we are bringing it back into the fold as a crucial part of our education system. We are committed to giving every young person the best start in life, and I look forward to working with him to make that happen.
International Investment Summit
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Investment Summit.
I am delighted to open this debate on the Government’s inaugural international investment summit, which we hosted at the Guildhall in London on Monday. Leaders of the world’s biggest companies, from Alphabet and BlackRock to Goldman Sachs and Novo Nordisk, came from all corners of the globe to meet Government Ministers and to listen to what our new Government had to say. Our message at the summit was clear: the UK is open for business once again. We have turned the page on the stagnation and instability of the previous Government, and in just over 100 days, this Government have put growth front and centre of our agenda and reassured investors that we will create the very best conditions for them to invest and to grow their businesses, restoring the economic stability and confidence for which businesses have been crying out for too long.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor made it clear that the UK has an enormous amount to offer, as did all the high-profile investors who spoke at the summit, including esteemed business figures such as Larry Fink, Eric Swartz, Ruth Porat and more. We have made clear our commitment to growth and restored economic stability, and we have given businesses the confidence that they need for the long term. Businesses are safe in the knowledge that the UK at last has a Government whose central mission is to grow the economy and stimulate private investment, thereby ending the chaos and churn of the last 14 years.
As both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, increasing investment into the UK is the Government’s No. 1 priority to drive growth. Our mission-driven approach allows us to think in terms of years, not weeks, and to commit to the hard yards required to break down the silos that have too often prevented effective government and got in the way of real growth-driving change.
This is about ambitious policymaking for the long term, not sticking-plaster politics. As the Chancellor said earlier this week:
“If the challenge is growth, investment is the solution.”
I am delighted to say that, as a result of the stability dividend introduced by this Government, we announced a record-breaking £63 billion of shovel-ready investments across the country—more than at any previous summit, and more than double the total of last year’s summit—from global companies such as Eli Lilly, ServiceNow, Holtec and many others.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s success. Could the Minister tell us the proportion of that investment that came into play before the election?
Emma Reynolds
The agreements were reached in the lead-up to the summit and at the summit itself. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman joins us in congratulating the new Government on securing £63 billion of shovel-ready investment. I lost count of the number of Prime Ministers, Chancellors and Home Secretaries we had under his Government. I was working in the private sector at the time, and I often heard from businesses that said they did not have the stability, or even the predictability, of Government policymaking.
Emma Reynolds
I will not have a cross-Chamber discussion with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will make a contribution to the debate.
This Government are determined to increase the number of good, well-skilled jobs, to embrace the opportunities of technology and innovation, and to improve productivity across the country. At the international investment summit, we demonstrated that the UK has tremendous strengths. We have a dynamic, ambitious and globally connected economy that has long been at the forefront of global exploration, invention and innovation. We have a global language, a central time zone and a renowned legal system. We have a high-spending consumer market that benefits from an open economy. We have trade deals with over 70 countries, and we have world-class talent supported by our globally recognised higher education system, with four of the world’s top 10 universities.
One of my favourite moments of the summit was a panel chaired by our fantastic Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the creative industries and sport. I was delighted to have a photograph with Gareth Southgate, which I showed to my boys when I got home. In all seriousness, Gareth Southgate talked about how the Premier League was once just an idea and how it has been built and marketed into a world leader, creating great investment into our economy. I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment—
Emma Reynolds
The shadow Secretary of State is demonstrating that from a sedentary position—it is the first time I have said that in a debate for some time.
When we took over from the last Government, we recognised that there were issues we needed to address to improve the UK’s competitiveness. That is why we have already announced a series of steps to improve our business environment, such as driving through planning reform to get Britain building, removing the ban on onshore wind farms and giving the green light to key solar and data centre projects. We are also undertaking a pensions investment review, which the Chancellor has asked me to lead, to harness the potential of our £2 trillion pension industry to unlock new capital for our innovative businesses, to drive growth and to improve outcomes for future pensioners.
We have launched Skills England to boost the nation’s skills and fill job vacancies by bringing together businesses, trade unions, mayors, universities, colleges and training providers. We are also resetting our relationship with our closest partners in the European Union.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Government on an extraordinary achievement in securing £63 billion-worth of investment, which is a tremendous vote of confidence not only in this Government but in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that a big part of this is the stability dividend, but she is also right to say that resetting our relationship with our closest neighbours in Europe must also be a big source of appeal. Did she hear that feedback at the investment summit?
Emma Reynolds
Indeed, I did. Business wants the Government to take a pragmatic approach, not an ideological approach, to our relationships with our main trading partners, and that is exactly what our new Government are doing.
I am pleased to report that we are not resting on our laurels; far from it. On Sunday, the Business Secretary announced the launch of an industrial strategy advisory council, which will be chaired by Clare Barclay, the CEO of Microsoft UK. The Business Secretary also announced our modern industrial strategy Green Paper, setting out eight growth-driving sectors: advanced manufacturing; clean energy industries; creative industries; defence; digital and technology; financial services; life sciences; and professional and business services. This is not about picking winners; it is about building on the UK’s unique strengths and untapped potential to enable our already world-leading services and manufacturing industries to adapt, grow and seize the opportunities to lead in new and emerging industries.
At the summit, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s commitment to a pro-growth approach to competition and regulation, to create a dynamic business environment that will strengthen our foundations and help deliver our growth mission and industrial strategy. As investors made clear, they have a choice of where to invest. We must not rest on our laurels; we must make sure that we forge ahead with these policies, because we need investors to make a positive choice to invest in our country. As one private sector speaker said at the summit, we do not want investors just to invest; we want them to place a big bet on investing in the UK.
The Chancellor also confirmed two new innovative measures to ensure that our public finance institutions can better catalyse billions of pounds in private investment. We turbocharged the UK Infrastructure Bank to become the national wealth fund, which will have £27.8 billion to catalyse investment that would not have otherwise taken place. We have also launched the British Business Bank’s new pathfinder British growth partnership, a vehicle to crowd pension fund investment and other institutional investment into venture capital funds and innovative businesses.
We have committed to bringing forward a tax road map, long demanded by businesses across the economy, at the Budget. This will give businesses the certainty and predictability to plan for the future. As the Chancellor has already made clear, we will cap the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament. Gone are the days when a Government—the previous Government —would announce a decrease in corporation tax, then announce an increase and then, months later, reverse the decision again at the next fiscal statement. We want to ensure that businesses have predictability. We have also said that we will maintain our capital allowances offer, with full expensing and a £1 million annual investment allowance.
We will also reform and turbocharge the Office for Investment, which will sit under our new joint Treasury-Department for Business and Trade Investment Minister, Poppy Gustafsson, the founder and former CEO of Darktrace. This is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to better serving the needs of investors and breaking down the silos between Departments, which have too often prevented transformative Government policy.
We are determined to drive the transformational investments that the country so desperately needs to fulfil its economic potential. Such measures, introduced within just 100 days, show that this Government are not just about warm words; we mean business, in every sense of the phrase.
This week’s summit was a major vote of confidence in the UK’s economic future and in this Government’s commitment to realising it. The investments and partnerships forged at the summit will have lasting impacts, driving growth, innovation and sustainability for years to come. It was not just a one-off event; it was a first milestone in our ongoing work to build a deep and meaningful partnership with business, drive economic growth and create good jobs for working people up and down this country at all levels of society. As we move forward, let us work together across the House to ensure that the benefits of these investments are felt by all our citizens across every region of our great nation.
Before I finish, I want to say that the particular highlight of the summit for me was the evening reception at St Paul’s, at which His Majesty the King was present and at which many of us were delighted to hear Elton John, who had some very warm words to say about our new Government. He said something like, “We’ve been in the doldrums for the last few years, but now we have a new Government under the leadership of a new Prime Minister and things are looking up.”
As the Chancellor made clear in her closing speech at the summit, since taking power this Government have put unlocking private investment at the heart of everything we do. Our investment summit demonstrated our commitment to growth and that the UK is once again open for business.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I welcome the Minister back to this place and to her new position? I assure her that I am very happy to work with her to further the best interests of the United Kingdom.
I very much welcome what happened on Monday. Having 300 investors come to this country is very welcome; this country is clearly open for business. We are keen to help the Government to succeed, because it is in everybody’s interests. I speak not only as a constituency MP, but as a former businessperson.
I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about cutting red tape and regulation. We would all welcome that, although I have some questions. We know that there is a bottleneck in our economy, particularly in planning and infrastructure, so we will welcome any changes that the Government can successfully make to accelerate the projects that have been held up by problems.
We also welcome the work—for which I understand the Minister is responsible in her other role as Minister for pensions—on the Mansion House compact and the Mansion House reforms, which could liberate £75 billion of capital into our productive economy. That is much needed: only 3% or 4% is invested today in equities, compared with 50% a couple of decades ago, so it is very important that we continue the reforms started by the last Government.
We were pleased to see all the positivity on Monday, despite the gloom and doom that we have heard from Government Members in recent weeks. It is good to hear investors saying that now is the right time to invest in the UK. We can see why. [Laughter.] No, it is not necessarily because there is a Labour Government. It is because inflation is running at below 2%, whereas it was running at 11% only two years ago. In this country we have only 4% unemployment, our economy is growing as fast as any other in the G7 and our deficit stands at 4.4%. That is what we handed over to the Minister’s Government. The deficit was higher than we would have liked, but in 2010, by comparison, it stood at more than 10%.
We constantly hear from Labour Members the refrain that they inherited the worst economic situation in history, but that is simply not the case. I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or any other Government Member, on that point. If they can name a single metric that is worse today than in 2010, I will be happy to hear it.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee is going to give us one.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman gives way with characteristic generosity. The truth is that the International Monetary Fund forecast growth for this year at about 0.5%, that families were about £1,200 worse off on average at the last election than in 2019, and that since 2010 the national debt has more than doubled, to £2.3 trillion. I suggest that those three metrics represent not a good inheritance, but a bad one.
Kevin Hollinrake
There is no doubt that we have been through a difficult time, given the effect of covid and the cost of living crisis on a services economy, but the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that back in 2010 the deficit was more than 10%, whereas today it is only 4%. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, that is a difference of about £160 billion, the equivalent of the health budget. The inheritance left for the present Government is much better than the one we received in 2010.
Emma Reynolds
The shadow Secretary of State is being generous to a point. I suggest kindly that in 2010 the outgoing Labour Government did not leave a £22 billion in-year hole in the public finances, as the Conservative Government bequeathed to us.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is a very sensible person with experience both in the private sector and in politics, so I am surprised that she mentions that figure. Of the £22 billion, £9 billion was a result of her Government’s actions in lifting public sector pay without any commensurate productivity improvements and in scrapping the Rwanda scheme. It is fake news to say that there is a £22 billion black hole, I am afraid, and the Minister absolutely knows it.
There is no doubt that there are tough spending decisions and tough choices to be made, but it is very disappointing that one of the Government’s tough choices has been to scrap the winter fuel allowance. Let us see what their other choices will be.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Does the shadow Secretary of State acknowledge that the cost of Government borrowing that this Government have inherited is roughly double what it was in 2010? That is, in part, a direct result of the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is simply not true—just read what the Bank of England said about that time. All the numbers went back to normal within a month of that fiscal event. The hon. Gentleman can choose his opinions, but he cannot choose his facts.
Let us look at some facts. Of course we welcome the £63 billion that has been announced, but as the Minister and her Government stand on a platform of honesty and transparency, let us put some honesty and transparency around the numbers. The Amazon £8 billion was announced on 20 March this year. The Blackstone investment of £10 billion in a data centre was announced on 23 April this year. Of the £63 billion announced, £36 billion was announced prior to the investment summit or initiated via things like auctions by the previous Government. Only 20% of what was announced was not already in the pipeline before the investment summit. The reality is that much of it was already baked in. There is bound to be an overlap when a new Government come in, but let us have some transparency and honesty around the numbers.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
By spring this year, financial markets had already priced in the fact that they expected a large Labour victory, and that was what gave businesses and the markets so much confidence in the future stability of our economy. Will the shadow Secretary of State explain why?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will come on to confidence in a second, if I may.
The reality is that the UK has always been a good place for foreign investors. For the past three years, it has been No. 3 in the world for foreign direct investment; the only countries ahead of us have been the US and China.
The Minister referred to the wonderful event at the Guildhall. We have wonderful places to host international events, and we support what they do to show the best of Britain to our international investors. I was pleased, but perhaps surprised, to see Elton John entertaining the audience; I was expecting Taylor Swift. Was that ever on the agenda? There is obviously a very strong relationship there. But when I thought about it, and when I heard about the reversal of position on the DP World investment, I thought, “Well, it’s obvious why they’ve done that: they’ve asked Elton and the Transport Secretary to join in a duet of ‘Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word’.” Interestingly, a No.10 press release on this mentioned a rogue operator—I was not sure whether that meant the Secretary of State or the company—so I am not sure where that all landed in the end, or whether that was just a rogue comment by the Secretary of State.
None the less, we welcome the investment and we will absolutely support any successes that the Government can achieve, but, as the Opposition, it is right that we challenge where challenge is due. We have many concerns about some of the things to which the Minister refers. She is absolutely right to say that stability is the key. It breeds confidence in investors, which breeds investment. That is why we are particularly concerned about the changes to business taxation. Some were floated months ago and have been left hanging in the air. We know that this is now affecting investment, particularly around capital gains tax and around business relief—it used to be called business property relief—which is very close to my heart.
Business relief gives private businesses and businesses listed on AIM the ability to pass on their assets to the next generation without inheritance tax. There are a number of questions around whether that relief will be continued. It is hugely important that the Government do continue it, because it affects some of this country’s fantastic family businesses, which generate around £200 billion of tax receipts every single year and employ nearly 14 million people. That business relief is there for a reason. It is not a tax loophole; it is an incentive for family and intergenerational businesses to pass on their assets from one generation to the next. Similarly, that happens with agricultural property relief.
We are also concerned about the Government’s unwillingness to confirm that there will be no rise in national insurance for employers. Members on both sides of the House have described that as a jobs tax, and that is exactly what it is. All the uncertainty around business taxation will mean a suspension of investment and a reduction in the amount of hiring, particularly when it is seen in conjunction with the potential workplace changes that the Government are making, which we will debate in the House on Monday and about which we have great concerns. In particular, those relating to union powers could take this country back to the 1970s. I know that many Members in this place will not remember the 1970s, but I do and it was not a good place to be.
In the Prime Minister’s statement, he talked about cutting red tape. If, as currently drafted, the 28 new regulations—particularly those for small and medium-sized enterprises—are added to the Employment Rights Bill, it would seriously damage growth, investment and SMEs. But the Minister does not need to take my word for that. Let me read out some of the comments about the changes that the Government are thinking of making that will damage investment. The Federation of Small Businesses said that its members are viewing the measures coming down the line with “trepidation”. Tina McKenzie described them as
“clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”
She said:
“There are already 65,000 fewer payroll jobs since Labour took power, and the new Government is sending out troubling signals to businesses and investors.”
Those are her words, not mine.
The Institute of Directors said that confidence is fizzling out. Its index in relation to investor appetite has gone from plus 30% in June 2024 to minus 7% in October 2024. That is in just four months. The CBI said that 62% of employers say that the UK will be a less attractive place in which to invest. Ernst & Young said that
“60% of asset management (private equity) clients have asked them to start work on moving abroad.”
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that he is now guilty of talking down the entrepreneurial spirit and the ability of UK companies to cope with an exciting new Government?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very keen not to do that. That is my point. It is gloom and doom from the Opposition —sorry, I mean the Government; I have to stop doing that—and it is brought on by these significant changes. These are not my comments, but the comments of sensible business representative organisations, which are representing their members. We should listen to the voices of business in this context. Even Richard Walker of Iceland Food, one of the Government’s supporters, says that the changes must happen slowly to avoid a “disastrous impact”.
I realise that we have a lot to get used to these days. I have to get used to calling those on the Labour Benches “the Government”, and I also have to get used to being a backseat driver. It is even more frustrating being a backseat driver when the learner driver in the driving seat does not know the difference between the brake and the accelerator.
Importantly, stability is one of the key levers that the Government have at their disposal. Winston Churchill once said that some people see “private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Some see it as a cow that they can milk. Few people see it for what it really is—the strong horse that pulls the whole cart”. It is hugely important that we get behind private enterprise in this country. It is hugely important that we get that stability in tax policy, workplace policy and the employment relationship. It is hugely important that we continue to level up this country. I note that levelling-up seems to have disappeared as a departmental aim, but that is still hugely important to all parts of this country, not least to the part of the country that I represent. It is also hugely important that we control energy costs. We know that that is a key concern to many businesses around the UK. Another key concern is that we cut the red tape for our larger companies.
The area that I focused most on as a business Minister was SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy. The No. 1 area that they struggle with is access to finance. I would really like to see some different measures in that area.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
On that point about finance, I was pleased to see that JP Morgan, which has its headquarters in my constituency, joined other big banks in the world to back the push to invest in the UK ahead of the summit. Does the hon. Member agree with JP Morgan and those banks that we should be optimistic about the future of the British economy following the election?
Kevin Hollinrake
I would not necessarily say “following the election”, but, generally, we should be very positive about our economy. I set out earlier some of the economic conditions that would make it conducive to invest in the UK, and we should be proud of that situation. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the change of priorities of the British Business Bank, specifically in relation to the pathfinder initiative. That piece of work was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) when he was in the Treasury. Again, that will help to ease the flow of finance into our SMEs.
As I look, with a mixture of sadness and joy, at the now redundant Conservative party manifesto, I can see that there were some really positive ideas in there about easing finance for SMEs. In particular, I am referring to things such as regional mutual banks, which is a policy that the Labour Government should adopt, and the open finance and smart data revolution for our economy, which could transform the opportunities of SME finance, making it much easier for SMEs to shop around. However, the key thing that I would reiterate to the Minister and her team is that they need to make sure that we have stability in terms of not just work, but business taxation, capital gains tax, and business relief. I say no to a jobs tax, but, yes to stability and business taxes. I say no to taking us back to the 1970s, by giving unions more power, no to doom and gloom, and yes to a positive and optimistic view of the UK’s future in the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jade Botterill to make her maiden speech.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in this important debate on international investment, the benefits of which will be felt right across all regions of our country.
I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mark Eastwood. He was a dedicated servant to his previous constituency of Dewsbury. On behalf of myself and our community, I say thank you.
Being the Member for the area in which I grew up is truly the honour of my life. I will forever be grateful to the people across Ossett and Denby Dale who put their faith in me to represent the area that I proudly call home. I pay tribute to the Labour members across the constituency, especially stalwart member Robert Gosling, without whom I would not be standing here today.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my parents for their support, as well as my brother, who has always been there for me during some of the most challenging times. I am delighted that they have travelled from Wakefield to be in the Public Gallery today. Their own commitment to our community in their long careers of public service—working hard and talking straight—are principles that I hope to emulate here. My mum is so committed to the north that this is her first ever trip to London—proof, were it ever needed, that us northerners only come south if somebody makes us.
I know many Members have already spoken about the beauty of their patches, but with respect, I must make the case for Ossett and Denby Dale. Driving from Ossett towards the Wakefield rural villages and into Denby Dale, the sky widens and the moors roll out before you. On that drive, when I see the Emley Moor mast appear from the horizon, built taller than the Eiffel tower, I know I am home. It is beautiful, it is Yorkshire and it is the place that made me who I am today.
It is not just those moors and views that move me; it is also the people who call them home. We are people of talent, community and, as good Yorkshire folk say, hard graft. In fact, that beautiful landscape is the fruit of exactly that graft, of that talent. You see it in the pits dug across the countryside that served to fuel and heat our nation. You see it in the fields—ploughed, planted and grazed by countless generations to feed not just Yorkshire but the rest of the country. You see it in the town markets, which have bustled with small traders, craftsmen and local farmers for generations. That landscape is not just the cradle of talent, but a product of it.
Each town, each village has its own community, its own culture—all quietly, proudly distinct. As well as hard work, these towns and villages are famous for their culture, their creativity and their heritage—home to brass bands, Morris dancers, maypoles and even a Doctor Who, but most importantly of all, the world’s greatest rugby league team, Wakefield Trinity. Labour may be a party of the Union, but in West Yorkshire, when it comes to rugby, we watch the proper stuff and as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is league.
We are also home to Yorkshire Sculpture Park, with its Barbara Hepworths and Henry Moores, and the National Coal Mining Museum, which roots us in our proud history. I am enthusiastic—sometimes maybe a little too enthusiastic—that my constituency contains so many wonderful pubs and brewers. We have the ever expanding Ossett Brewery and our famous yearly festival, Ossett Beercart.
Just as we work hard and play hard, we also pie hard. Indeed, for over 200 years, the people of Denby Dale have marked special occasions in the only way I think appropriate: by baking enormous pies to feed thousands —some even as long as 40 feet, with nine tonnes of filling and 200 pints of bitter. That history and that culture must be championed. It is Yorkshire culture; it is our culture.
But I refuse to talk about my community only in the past tense—about opportunities we used to have and industries we used to lead. Indeed, I want my successors in this place to be celebrating the creativity and achievements of children being born in my constituency today. Sadly, however, the Social Mobility Commission recently reported that many young people in Ossett and Denby Dale, and other post-industrial communities across our nation, face an uphill battle. Growing up in a rural town, I know that feeling all too well: that the place you are from is overlooked—forgotten, even; that opportunities are few and far between; and that the only path to success in life is leaving your family, your friends, your home. After briefly living in London in my twenties for work, I remember feeling like the token northerner with the funny accent. I found myself having to speak eloquently so folk down here could actually understand me. The only problem with that was that when I got back home, my friends and family would ask me why I was speaking so posh. It actually made me feel quite lost.
Young people in Ossett and Denby Dale, and in towns and villages across our country, should not feel like they have to get out to get ahead—and yet so many of them do. To talk solely about what was once possible in our community is to betray those young people. Instead, our politics must be built on their dreams and on their potential: decent, secure jobs with reliable public transport to get them there; good affordable housing where they can build their families and their future; high-quality education and skills training; access to creativity and culture; aspiration, hope.
England is a nation of towns and villages like mine—of community, of culture, of graft. For England to succeed, towns and villages must succeed, and it will be my mission in this place to see that happen.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I also thank her for her support when she was not in this place and I was further back on these Benches, and we worked together on some of the issues under focus today.
We Liberal Democrats want Britain to be one of the most attractive places in the world for business to invest. We want to see responsible, sustainable businesses investing in tackling the climate emergency and creating jobs, growth and wealth, some of which should be invested into our health, education and public services. I welcome the Government deciding to hold an international investment summit within their first 100 days. It sends an excellent signal to the world that UK plc is open for business, and we Liberal Democrats welcome and support that move.
We welcome, too, the announcements about the revival of the industrial strategy and a new strategy for the British Business Bank. We look forward to scrutinising those plans as a constructive Opposition. However, we also know that this Government have to rebuild not only the economy, but our country’s reputation.
It is an enormous relief that some of the dark days of the last Government are—I hope—behind us. We had the tweeting diplomacy of two former Prime Ministers, which made us look like a small country on the international stage. We had the half-baked Brexit deal, which has wrapped up small businesses in red tape and reams of paperwork. We had the rolling back on net zero and the flip-flopping fiasco on HS2, which created uncertainty, scared off investors and put the jobs of the future at risk. We also had the sheer incompetence of a Government who had forgotten how to negotiate. In my former role as my party’s health spokesperson, talking to some of the pharmaceutical companies involved in the voluntary scheme for branded medicines, pricing and access negotiations, it became patently clear that many were putting their investment abroad and not in this country. That investment was lost on the Conservatives’ watch.
Even though I welcome many of the things that the Labour Government have proposed and are bringing forward, there are some notable gaps, and it is on those gaps that I wish to focus. We know today’s debate is about international investment, but I urge the Government to think about local investment in this country too. Small businesses are the engine of growth and the backbone of our economy. They are the heartbeat of our communities, but they are really struggling to invest. There is one major reason for that: the broken business rates system. It is absolutely absurd that small bricks and mortar businesses on our high streets up and down the country see their business rates going up while Amazon warehouses see their business rates going down. It is a disgrace. I urge the Labour Government, in the strongest possible terms, to make the Budget this autumn the final one in which business rates are a permanent feature. They should be scrapped and replaced with a commercial landowner levy. I urge the Labour Government to act on that as soon as possible.
To make it even worse, we know that in many parts of the country, where high streets are not in a good state, there are small businesses that want to invest in good environmental things. They want to invest in solar panels, insulation, ventilation and bike sheds—things that would be good for business and create a sense of community, tackle the climate emergency and improve the public realm. Yet if they invest in those things, their business rates can go up. That is absolutely nuts, and I urge all colleagues to get behind my call to make the upcoming Budget the final one in which business rates are a permanent feature.
The other point I will talk about is skills. The Government have talked a lot about investing in infrastructure, housing and big things that we can build, but skills are so important. In my constituency, we have a phenomenal organisation called GEM Cable Solutions, a leading defence and aerospace company that makes bespoke cables and fibre optics using precision manufacturing. That means individual people making handmade cables that are flying things into space—it is extraordinary. But can the company get the highly qualified engineers that it needs in this country? No, it often cannot, because we are competing on the international stage for some of the finest engineering talent. At the same time, under the last Government, the company could not get that talent from abroad either, so I urge the new Government to bring forward a skills strategy as soon as possible, consult with other parties, and ensure that our small businesses can get those skills.
My third point is about the climate jobs of the future. I know the UK Infrastructure Bank has been rebranded the National Wealth Fund, and has attracted £7.3 billion in funds already. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the new wealth fund will have an explicit remit to support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions. Finally, it is no secret that Brexit has wrapped up our small businesses in red tape, and that they are dealing with reams of paperwork. We have to remove as many trade barriers to our small businesses as possible. I urge the Government to bring something forward on that front as soon as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sarah Russell to make her maiden speech.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. When I drive around my Congleton constituency, I thank my lucky stars that I have the privilege of both living in and representing somewhere so very beautiful. It is made up of gorgeous rolling countryside, farmland, hedgerows and oak trees. The farmers work all hours to produce the food that we need. It has views of the giant radio telescope at Jodrell Bank and the natural beauty spot Bosley Cloud. It is Arcadia within commuting distance of Manchester, Crewe and Stoke, and I cannot tell the House how much I truly love it.
The constituency is a growing place, with around 5,000 extra houses in the last few years. The population is divided between the Cheshire market towns of Alsager, Sandbach and Congleton, alongside the larger village of Holmes Chapel, and many beautiful smaller villages, such as Rode Heath, Church Lawton and Goostrey. There can be few more idyllic spots in the country than sitting outside the Swettenham Arms next to the Lovell arboretum, overlooking St Peter’s, the archetypal village church.
Though each town and village has its own unique character and history, the joys and challenges experienced by the families who live there are often remarkably similar. They include families whose children have special educational needs and disabilities, who often face extensive challenges getting the diagnoses and support that they need. Those families need our help, and I will do everything that I can to assist them. I have been pleased to hear the Prime Minister referring repeatedly in this Chamber to those difficulties, and I am confident that he will help us too.
Families will also benefit from Labour’s review of shared parental leave. Some 54,000 women a year lose their job when they are pregnant or on maternity leave. Women actually out-earn men in their 20s. The gender pay gap is in many respects actually a motherhood penalty. Men taking longer periods of paternity leave is a way that we could normalise parental leave and potentially reduce those problems. I thank the Government for starting the consultation on this matter imminently. I pay tribute to campaign groups such as Pregnant then Screwed, Rights of Women, the Dad Shift, Parenting Out Loud, and the TUC and trade unions, which are all doing incredible things in this field.
Many homeowners in my constituency have been affected by leasehold and fleecehold problems, and will welcome our planned reforms on these issues, to which I intend to contribute. They include older people, often the backbone of our communities, who provide childcare for grandchildren, and often volunteer as well. Sometimes, however, they do so in avoidable pain while on NHS waiting lists that are too long. Those are just a few of the issues that I intend to apply myself to as MP for Congleton.
Let me take the House back to Congleton’s history. Congleton is known as Beartown, owing to a local story that in the 1600s the town saved up to buy a new Bible. Shortly before the summer fête, the village bear died, so the townsfolk agreed that rather than buy their Bible they would postpone the purchase and get a new bear with the money instead. Congleton is very entrepreneurial across the whole constituency, and many of our small businesses feature references to the bear. It is also in our local iconography everywhere. We have the Beartown Tap and Beartown beer. The bear features pretty much everywhere, as does our fantastic statue of Elizabeth Wolstenholme-Elmy, which was lobbied and fundraised for by local feminists. Elizabeth, who based herself in Congleton from 1874 until her death in 1918, played a significant role in the women’s suffrage movement, founding the Women’s Social and Political Union and campaigning for women’s education and voting rights. I hope that I shall think of her often in this place.
Another of our most famous local figures, although quite different, is Harry Styles, whose hometown of Holmes Chapel is now a point of pilgrimage for his fans. I am sure that everyone is sorry to hear today of the death of his former bandmate Liam Payne—we all extend our condolences to his friends and family. Local people have set up a walking trail associated with Harry Styles. If anyone fancies it, I would strongly recommend following it, with a stop in any of our local independent businesses on Holmes Chapel high street. I would probably include a drink at the George and Dragon or the Bottle Bank, or both. I know that both publicans do a lot of voluntary work within our community.
People volunteering is common in my constituency, as I know it is in the constituencies of many other Members. Whether they are coaching football at Vale Juniors or any of the other community sports clubs—there are too many for me to list—planting trees and conserving and maintaining our woodland and footpaths, as the Sandbach Woodland and Wildlife Group does, and as a similar group does in Congleton; helping young people through uniformed groups such as scouts, guides and the various air cadets, some of which I have visited; running schemes to support men’s mental health, such as the Goostrey Community Shed, Holmes Chapel Men in Sheds, or the new Sandbach men walking and talking group; or even running a community energy power plant in Congleton Hydro, we have the most amazing set of citizens. I am so grateful for the fantastic contribution that they make to help others, support those who need it, and truly make my constituency the fantastic place that it is.
On the topic of contribution, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Fiona Bruce. Congleton has had three MPs in its history, all of them women: Ann Winterton, Fiona Bruce and now me. I know that many Christians in the constituency and beyond appreciated Fiona Bruce’s advocacy on behalf of the religious community, both in the UK and internationally, in her role as envoy for religious freedom. We have many active local church groups in our community, and they contribute a great deal of very varied support. Churches and secular volunteers and organisations, including food banks, food pantries and the Old Saw Mill, are all quietly providing much-needed food support within the community. They do this for a far larger number of adults and children than the apparent affluence of the area would superficially lead one to expect.
As a discrimination lawyer, and someone who went into politics because of the value that I place on equality and inclusion, I will continue to advocate for the rights and freedoms of all my constituents, and celebrate the diversity within our community. I recently attended the One World festival in Alsager, which was first established by Margaret Keeling 30 years ago. It celebrates the diversity of nationalities living within the Alsager community, with food, activities and lots of performances from local schoolchildren. It really is a delight—thank you, Margaret.
Another of the many achievements of the fantastic volunteers in my constituency is that we have regular Pride events. Congleton held its first Pride about five years ago. I pay tribute to Richard Walton, Ronan Clayton and all those who were involved in setting it up. It is now ably chaired by Malcolm Pope, who is taking it from strength to strength. The excellent curator Anna Maluk put on a Pride exhibition in Congleton Museum, hosting photos from those early events and featuring art from the local LGBTQIA+ community. Since then, more Pride events have grown in Sandbach, Alsager and, for the first time this summer, Holmes Chapel. At one of these events, it was suggested to me that these are really just a family fun day—a village fête, if you will. It is true that the events are fun, fabulous and family-friendly, but beyond the live music and bright clothing remains a serious message. The hard-working volunteers who make these Pride events happen do so in the face of repeated homophobic hate crimes.
Similarly, there is still a backdrop of fear attendant in many women’s daily lives. Women in my constituency have written or spoken to me about their experiences of sexual violence. I say to the young women who have talked to me—you know who you are—that I will fight for you, and all young people, in this place every day. That will include ensuring that, when embracing new technology and innovation, as we have done this week at the international investment summit, we find ways of protecting people from new threats—whether that be people looking at tractors on their smartphones in this workplace, or artificial intelligence baking in discriminatory decision making. Unfortunately, new technologies also bring the potential for harassment, discrimination and abuse, and we must not be caught off guard—we must get on the front foot on that.
My constituency has a long history of developing new technologies. The constituency boundary bisects the site of Jodrell Bank, the amazing radio telescope. Sandbach was the proud home of ERF and Foden trucks. The first Foden traction engine was built in Sandbach in 1881, and that was followed by the production of heavy goods vehicles for 150 years. The history and heritage of Foden still runs through the blood of the town, with the annual transport festival and its incredible parade of vintage trucks, wagons, classic cars and even the odd plane on the common. My constituency is also home to one of the world’s leading brass bands, Foden’s Band, which was born out of the works in 1902 and has twice won, and twice been runner-up, in the national brass band championships of Great Britain. I will work across this House to stand up for the incredible, entrepreneurial and community-minded people and businesses of the beautiful place that is the Congleton constituency.
Lastly, I want to say some thank yous. I thank the volunteers who helped me to get here and continue to support me, to whom I am very grateful. That includes those from the Labour party, and I make special mention of the Fabian Women’s Network mentoring scheme. I thank my adored family, who are in the Public Gallery today. When I am in Westminster, I miss you so much. I hope I do all of you proud.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I pay tribute to those who have made their maiden speeches today. I think we all felt the passion and emotion in the beautiful speech by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). She has given me an idea: when I am out in Keston this weekend, I might recommend to the residents that we get ourselves a village bear—although I can hear my daughter recommending that we get ourselves a village Harry Styles; that would probably be preferred. The hon. Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) spoke passionately about representing the place that she called home. The idea of “Pie Hard” is what I am looking forward to—a Bruce Willis remake in the rolling hills of Yorkshire would be most enjoyable. I congratulate both Members on their maiden speeches.
I will continue being nice to the Opposition—
Peter Fortune
Yes, the Government—I have picked up that habit from my hon. Friend and I do apologise.
I am impressed by what has been achieved at the international investment summit. Within weeks of allegedly receiving the worst economic inheritance of any incoming Government since the second world war, Labour has supposedly secured billions of pounds of investment. That is frankly unbelievable, and not because I doubt our country’s ability to attract investment. Britain is a tremendous place to invest, as a wealthy, free, fair and talented nation where people can do business and thrive. That is why Britain’s foreign direct investment stock grew to more than £2 trillion throughout successive Conservative Governments—more than France, Germany and Italy combined. My scepticism is about the idea that the Government, who appointed a Minister for Investment only four days before the summit, secured every penny of the investment. As anyone in business will tell us, the devil is in the details, and a quick inspection will confirm that most of the investment was in progress thanks to the last Conservative Government.
Let us look at clean energy, for example. Britain secured much of the investment that the Government claim credit for thanks to a Conservative policy: contracts for difference. Without that market mechanism, under which investors bid for a guaranteed price, we would not have secured as much investment as cheaply for bill payers. It is why we have the world’s four largest offshore wind farms off our coast, why renewables generate 44% of our electricity today compared with 7% in 2010, and why the UK was able to close its last coal-fired power plant this year. That is a Conservative record, as much as Labour might envy it.
The Government have done the easy bit in tallying the figures and taking credit for someone else’s work. Admittedly, that is a harder task when No. 10 is in such disarray and the Minister had only two days to prepare for the summit. In fairness, only time will tell if the summit was a success and the relationships built there lead to more investment beyond what was already on its way. But that is the hard bit, because to secure more investment and compete globally, Britain needs to be light on regulation and low in taxes. Although the Prime Minister talked about removing “needless regulation” and being “open for business,” his Government’s actions say otherwise. Despite Labour’s explicit manifesto pledge not to increase national insurance, the Chancellor is drawing up plans to hike the tax for employers. Make no mistake: that would be a tax on jobs, and would make it more expensive for firms to hire, which would impact on businesses big and small, including in my constituency—from Bombardier in Biggin Hill to pubs and cafés in Hayes and the Churchill theatre in Bromley.
The tax hike may fall on employers, but working people will pay the price as job opportunities shrink and pay rises are limited. The hands of businesses will be tied further by what the Government themselves brand the biggest increase in employment regulation in a generation. While the Government plan to tax jobs and pass French-style union laws, a Cabinet Minister took a more explicit anti-business approach. The Transport Secretary admitted that she has been boycotting a ferry company for two and a half years, and encouraged others to do the same. While the Prime Minister glad-handed investors— promising less red tape and openness to business, and was careful to mention tax only once—his Government are delivering exactly the opposite.
Britain faces a more significant problem: keeping up as technology advances. Leading on artificial intelligence, quantum, engineering biology or semiconductors is vital to our future prosperity and security, but we face considerable challenges in doing so. For example, Britain is home to the largest number of foundational models and generative Al start-ups in Europe, but we lack the compute power that we need to build and run Al models. The previous Conservative Government recognised that problem and planned to build a new supercomputer in Edinburgh 50 times more powerful than our current top-end system, but Labour has now cancelled that £800 million investment. That is yet another example of Labour’s actions not matching its rhetoric.
The Government cannot be in favour of growth while cancelling investment. They cannot cut regulations while planning huge increases in red tape for employment. They cannot support jobs while preparing to tax their creation. And they cannot claim to have the worst economic inheritance while copying and championing the work of their Conservative predecessors. If the Government do not get their story straight, investors will almost certainly stay away.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Callum Anderson to make his maiden speech.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
It is with deep humility that I rise for the first time in this House as the Member of Parliament for the new Buckingham and Bletchley constituency, and I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) and for Congleton (Mrs Russell) on their excellent speeches. Their constituents are fortunate to have such formidable representatives.
I should of course begin my remarks by paying tribute to my two direct predecessors. In Iain Stewart, this Chamber had a calm, measured advocate for the former Milton Keynes South constituency who, among other things, consistently championed better transport connections for the city and the United Kingdom more broadly. I also thank the now hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), whose kindness and generosity I have valued as I have navigated these early months in Westminster. They followed in the footsteps of John Bercow, who served as the Member for Buckingham for 22 years, and Dr Phyllis Starkey, who served as the last Labour Member of Parliament for Bletchley, as part of Milton Keynes South, for 13 years. They all exemplify what it means to be a dedicated public servant, and I will do my utmost to meet their standard.
Although Buckingham and Bletchley is a new constituency for this Parliament, it is in fact a reunion of old friends. For nearly a century, those communities were connected as one, but in 1983, Milton Keynes, along with Bletchley, had the temerity to split away and flourish into the formidable modern city that it is today.
Although the towns of Buckingham, Bletchley and Winslow are different in character, all have deep-rooted, rich histories. And between those towns lie many villages, breathing life into the heart of our constituency. Be it Westbury, Quainton, Stewkley or Nash—I could go on—all contribute to the fabric of our collective identity, and I must never forget Tattenhoe in Milton Keynes. Although each community is unique, they share common values: a deep sense of civic pride, patriotism and a belief that opportunity should be available to everyone if they work hard. I pledge to serve each of them with the same level of diligence, be they urban or rural and regardless of their size or affluence.
One of the great privileges of representing Bletchley is that I carry the legacy of Bletchley Park and the remarkable codebreakers who worked there in the 1940s. The ingenuity and tireless efforts of those brave women and men—including Alan Turing, a very British hero—who together uncovered key strategic military plans of the Nazis, not only shortened the second world war and saved countless lives, but laid the foundation of today’s technological age. That is why Bletchley Park remains an iconic institution of national and global significance, and why it was such a fitting host for the AI summit last year.
That legacy of technology and creative thinking remains at Bletchley’s core today. As we speak, the South Central Institute of Technology is inspiring the next generation, providing young people with the skills to thrive in the digital age. The expertise does not end there: the University of Buckingham is innovating in higher education, enabling students to pursue accelerated degrees and equipping them with the agility and knowledge to navigate an ever-changing world.
Just as Bletchley and Buckingham lead in education, Silverstone—of which the southern half of the track is located in my constituency—leads on the world stage for motorsport. It convenes the best drivers, including our very own Sir Lewis Hamilton and Lando Norris, alongside cutting-edge engineers, technologists and designers. Silverstone is where the pinnacle of innovation meets the thrill of competition, and inward international investment has been pivotal to achieving that status. From Formula 1 teams to global technology giants, international investors are choosing Britain because they see a country where creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship can flourish.
But the value of international investment is not just financial; it is also a vote of confidence in us—in our workforce, our infrastructure and our unique creative spirit. It strengthens our relationships with key global players, ensuring that we continue to be the country that others seek out for collaboration, whether in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence or established ones such as financial services and advanced manufacturing. That is why this Government’s achievement in securing the commitment of £63 billion of private investment, 10% of which will help turbocharge Britain’s AI capacity, is so important. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends across Government on their hard work to secure that historic investment.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency offers so much more. Farmers and rural businesses across north Buckinghamshire work tirelessly to feed our nation, using the latest methods to produce high-quality food while safeguarding our local environment, as I saw at first hand when I met the Edgcott and Winslow Young Farmers earlier this summer. I am committed to being their advocate in the House, ensuring that they receive the support and recognition that they deserve.
If the House will indulge me for a few more moments, I want to close my maiden speech by thanking the people who believed in me and supported me on my journey to this place. First and foremost, I owe an unpayable debt to my mother, who brought me up alone in a council flat and sacrificed everything to help her son reach heights that neither of us could have dreamed of 33 years ago—be that the City of London or the home of our democracy—and whose simple values of hard work and quiet perseverance taught me that everyone has value and deserves respect. Her example has been a guiding light to me, and for that I will be forever grateful. There are so many others to whom I also owe so much, be they family members, my partner of 10 years, or my friends of 15, 20 and 30 years—all of which I mention to warn my constituents that I generally invest only in the most long-term of relationships.
It is on that note that I wish to address the young people in the towns, villages and city that comprise the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency: regardless of who your parents are, where you come from or what you look like, never stop believing that if you work hard, anything in Britain is possible. Every moment I am granted in this place will be spent working towards ensuring that you have the power to write your own life story and live the life that you have imagined for yourself on these islands of ours. That is the Britain I believe in, and the one I will be fighting for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sean Woodcock to make his maiden speech.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) on his powerful maiden speech. I am not sure that when he and I attended a Birmingham University Labour Students meeting back in 2009, either of us anticipated that we would be making our maiden speeches in the same debate.
I want to start by saying what an honour it is to stand here as the Member of Parliament for Banbury. As a Banbury lad who has never sought to represent anywhere else, I want to repeat what I told residents on the doorstep during the campaign: this is the job I have always wanted. To everyone who helped make that happen, I can only say thank you. I also want those residents to know that now I have this job, I promise that I will work hard every day to deliver for them, whether they voted for me or not.
What makes this an even prouder moment for me is that I stand here as the first Labour Member of Parliament for the Banbury constituency. Until 5 July, the constituency had remained in the hands of one party for 102 years. But change is something that Banbury—the largest town in Oxfordshire—has got used to over recent years. For those who do not know, the Banbury constituency is at the furthest point north in the south-east region, encompassing not just the town of Banbury but the towns of Chipping Norton and Charlbury, as well as countless villages and rolling countryside.
Banbury is a beautiful part of the world to live in and represent. It is most famous for our nursery rhyme, known across the English-speaking world:
“Ride a cock-horse to Banbury Cross,
To see a fine lady upon a white horse;
With rings on her fingers and bells on her toes,
She shall have music wherever she goes.”
Banbury’s history is more than that, though; indeed, it is more than just the town itself. The constituency reflects our country’s history, including in its foundations and its landscape. We have the neolithic and bronze age Rollright stones; the settlement on the edge of Chipping Norton left to us by the Romans; the Norman castle mound at Deddington; and Broughton castle which, as well being a stunning late-medieval stately home, is likely to be recognisable to many Members as the setting for TV’s “Wolf Hall”, and the films “Shakespeare in Love” and “Three Men and a Little Lady”. I was once told that one of the only request to film there that the owners declined was when the studio wanted to paint it pink, which was probably wise.
In the village of Wroxton, where I went to school, we have the former home of Lord North. He is also buried in Wroxton, giving us something that not all constituencies have: the resting place of a former Prime Minister. Bliss Mill, Tooley’s boatyard and the Oxford canal are all remnants of the area’s growth during the industrial revolution.
But the most colourful time in our history is undoubtedly the civil war, when Banbury itself was on the side of the roundheads, despite its castle—right in the middle of the town—being on the side of the cavaliers. The people of Banbury were so unmistakeably puritan that a poem was written about it:
“To Banbury came I, O profane one!
Where I saw a Puritane-one,
Hanging of his cat on Monday,
For killing of a mouse on Sunday.”
More happily, “the Puritans” is the nickname for the only supporter-owned football club in Oxfordshire, Banbury United.
I mention all this not just because I am really proud of where I call home and its role in our past, but because I want the House to understand what the Banbury constituency is all about. Although it did not change hands politically between 1922 and 2024, change did come to Banbury in a big way. Old industries such as making cloth in Chipping Norton or aluminium in Banbury went, while new ones such as logistics with companies such as DHL and TWE Haulage, food processing with Fine Lady Bakeries and Go Fresh, and high-end mechanical engineering with the Haas Formula 1 team and Prodrive came in instead. Other industries, such as brewing, moved within the constituency. We can no longer get a pint in a Hunt Edmunds pub, but Hooky beer from Hook Norton is on sale across the United Kingdom.
The building of the M40 in many ways permanently changed Banbury from a small, semi-industrial market town into something completely different. Thousands of new homes have gone up as our area has become increasingly attractive for commuters to Oxford and London, but we still have a council waiting list that has quadrupled in a decade and a private sector that cannot meet the need. Meanwhile, vital infrastructure such as schools, roads and health services have failed to meet demand, posing fair questions from the community for those, like me, who support the Government’s ambitious house building agenda.
While they have changed, Banbury, Chipping Norton, Charlbury and the villages of north and west Oxfordshire have not lost their sense of community. The community united across political divides, and none, in defence of our local Horton General hospital when it was faced with downgrading, successfully fighting it off in 2008 and less successfully in 2016.
As the use of food banks grew in the years after 2010, people across the area came together to help support those in need. For example, the Chippy Larder in Chipping Norton has become a much-loved community resource. Food security in Banbury cannot be considered without mentioning our rural farming communities and perhaps the most famous farm in the country: Clarkson’s farm. For all the entertainment that the series has provided, for me the most important aspect of it is the light that it shines on the huge challenges faced by our farmers, and not just in the Banbury constituency but throughout the UK. I hope that the Government’s programme to support them will relieve many of the burdens that have made farming so challenging for so long.
Southill Solar farm on the edge of the Wychwood forest near Charlbury provides community owned power to 1,200 homes. That is another reason I am so passionate about this Government’s exciting agenda on renewable energy.
Then there is the volunteer driver service in Banbury, taking the elderly or those less able to hospital and GP appointments at nominal rates. Throughout the pandemic, as in other places, people across Banbury worked hard to help those less fortunate during that most testing of times. Banbury’s community, led by some of its many thousands of Polish citizens, got together again to gather supplies to support the Ukrainian civilians fleeing that conflict, while welcoming others into their homes and communities.
On that note, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Victoria Prentis. Although there was much in the campaign that we disagreed on, this side of the House was united with the Conservative party in support for Ukraine. I pay tribute to Victoria’s decency and her clear compassion for humanity, exemplified as much by her taking a Ukrainian refugee into her home as by her nine years of service to the community.
As for myself, I stand here in support of this Government and their mandate for change—something that Banbury has a history of embracing. Before I finish, I want to thank my family for their support, in particular my wife who, despite having multiple sclerosis, remains the strongest, most steady and most stable woman I have ever met. I stand here as someone Banbury born and bred, ready to build a better Britain and a better Banbury, and I am determined to do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Claire Hughes to make her maiden speech.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill), for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) on their excellent contributions today—my thanks to them all.
It is the honour of my life to have been elected as the Member of Parliament for Bangor Aberconwy, and I offer my heartfelt thanks to everyone who supported me on my journey to this place: to my partner and my two kids, who I will not name—because my entry into the world of politics has already caused them enough embarrassment as it is—to my brother Mike, my sister Pam, my nieces and nephews, and all my friends back home; and to my dad, who is watching from the Gallery today, something that would never have been possible were it not for the incredible staff of Ysbyty Gwynedd, who have saved his life on more than one occasion.
I want to thank my incredible campaign team, my agent Jim Hoey and Ken Stevens. I also pay tribute to the late Councillor Bill Chapman, who is very sorely missed. Without his encouragement much earlier in my career, I would not be here today.
Bangor Aberconwy encompasses the former constituency of Aberconwy, as well as parts of what were Arfon and Clywd West. I thank all three of my predecessors, and their staff, for all their work in the support of local residents. Robin Millar served as the Member for Aberconwy from 2019. I know that his work supporting hoteliers during the pandemic was very much appreciated. David Jones served as the Member of Parliament for Clywd West and served in the role as Secretary of State for Wales during his time here. Hywel Williams served as the Member of Parliament for Arfon and the previous Caernarfon constituency for over 23 years—a Member who was and still is very well respected by the communities that he served.
I also pay special tribute to Betty Williams, who served as the Labour MP for Conwy from 1997 to 2010. She is a real Labour legend who is still remembered with huge fondness locally. If I can be half as good an MP as Betty was, I will be doing okay.
I have listened to many maiden speeches and noted that there is hot competition for whose constituency is the most beautiful in all the land—I am sorry, but game on! Bangor Aberconwy includes the seaside resort of Llandudno, the historic town of Conwy, Betws-y-Coed, Bangor pier, the Carneddau mountains, the Dyffryn Ogwen valley—too many beautiful places to name. I must, of course, mention my hometown of Penmaenmawr, which was the favoured holiday destination of Prime Minister William Gladstone, and my adopted home of Llanfairfechan.
I have noticed, too, that it is customary to elaborate on one’s political roots—childhood memories of being dragged along to party meetings or folding leaflets at the kitchen table—but I am afraid that was not me. Politics was not really discussed in our house. For our family, direct action meant going out with a bucket and torch to rescue frogs. Largely thanks to my mother, my formative years were spent bird watching, pond dipping, bat counting and on long mountain walks. My mum knew the value of our natural world and how vital it is that we protect it. I will make it my mission in this place to do so in her memory.
When I was 11, my mum’s life changed. She enrolled on an access course, did A-levels, then graduated with a degree in botany—no mean feat with three young kids. The fact that she was able to access higher education is testament not only to the last Labour Government, but to the grit and determination of working people in our community.
To understand why is to learn the founding story of Bangor University: 140 years ago tomorrow, on 18 October 1884, Bangor University opened its doors to its first ever cohort of students. Bangor University, the first in north Wales, was not founded by rich benefactors or philanthropists, but quarrymen and farmers who believed in the transformative power of education. They set aside money from their wages every week because they knew then, as we know now, that education is the way to get on in life. Our story is one of resilience and of people who believe in supporting each other.
All across Bangor Aberconwy, you will find incredible people who work hard day in, day out to support others in our community—people like Jaynie Black and the volunteers at Ty Hapus; Ginnie Rogers and the Friends of Mostyn Street; Brenda at Hope Restored; the wonderful women I met last week at Dyma Ni Befriending; Pobl i Bobl; Maes Ni; Hwb Ogwen; our food banks, our churches and our mosques; and our town, city and community councillors. There are too many to mention, but we owe them all a huge debt of thanks. Diolch o galon i chi gyd. [Translation: Heartfelt thanks to you all.]
I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are firmly on the side of working people. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity for young people growing up in communities like ours. And I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who understand that tackling the climate and nature crisis is not only the biggest challenge we face, but an opportunity for economic growth.
The subject of today’s debate is this week’s record-breaking international investment summit. Before coming to this place, I spent my career working with start-ups and SMEs, so I know how important economic and political stability is for business. Under this new Government, Britain is truly the best place to do business, and there is huge potential in our corner of Wales ready to be unleashed. We have a proud industrial history; a wealth of talent in science and technology; and wind, waves and mountain ranges. Everywhere you look, you will find ingenuity and innovation, and communities full of pride, purpose and potential.
To finish, I am proud of our past and I am excited for our future. Whether you live in Penmaenmawr or Pwllglas, Bangor or Bontuchel, Conwy or Cerrigydrudion, I will fight tooth and nail to bring investment to our area, while promoting our Welsh language and culture, to make sure that our young people know that these opportunities exist and are for them. There is much to do, and it will not happen overnight, but I hope to do every single one of my constituents proud.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jessica Toale to make her maiden speech.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to give my first speech in the House as the new Member of Parliament for Bournemouth West.
Over the last few weeks, it has been an absolute pleasure to hear the excellent maiden speeches of hon. Members from across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill), for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) and for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes). I have to say that I have been absolutely blown away by the talent and dedication that all of these Members have shown. It gives me lots of hope for the future, and I am honoured, truly, to be serving alongside them all.
It is no coincidence that I have chosen to speak in the debate on the international investment summit today. Although I was born in the UK, I grew up overseas and was always extremely proud to be British. Wherever I went in the world, people knew what we stood for, and they were impressed with British leadership, excellence and expertise. Wherever I went, people knew about Britain’s cultural contribution—from Harry Potter and Shakespeare to the Beatles and the premier league. This foundation, and my parents’ and grandparents’ encouragement to be curious about the world and to lend a helping hand wherever I could, took me into a career in overseas development, living, travelling and working in almost 100 countries. Not only do I have members of my family in the Gallery today, but I also have family friends from the United States, where we lived for eight years.
This foundation meant that Bournemouth was always at the heart of my life. My family live there now, and I have a very strong connection to the area from spending my summers there and getting that much-needed teenage freedom of being able to go to the beach with my friends, explore the town and explore the gardens. Sadly, it is not something that parents feel they can do any more. Over the years, not only has the reputation of this country that I love so much suffered, but the pride that the people in Bournemouth feel in their town has faded, and this is a real travesty. Do not get me wrong: I am still very resolutely proud to be British—for the record, I drive a Mini and I have two English bulldogs—but this is what has catalysed me into this place to stand up for the people of Bournemouth West, with a real desire to rebuild the bonds of community and to reignite the pride that we all have in our towns and our country.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and all their teams on the investment summit. This was Britain at its best: outward-looking, active and engaged on the world stage, and led by our values and by our mission. And I know that all the billions of investment that have come in will benefit all areas of the country—
Emma Reynolds
I wonder whether she would be tempted to tell us about her favourite pub in Bournemouth—or whether there are any bears around.
Jessica Toale
There are no bears, I am afraid, but I will get to that.
Bournemouth will benefit massively from the innovation and investments that the investment summit has brought in. I know that my constituents will be keen to hear how our local businesses and our high street, and even their bills, will benefit from the summit.
I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Conor Burns. He served the constituency for 14 years, making it his home following his election in 2010. As well as serving as a Minister, Sir Conor was passionately dedicated to our local schools, bringing in investment for their improvement and improving opportunities for local young people—a tradition I am keen to continue. Many hon. Members will also know that Sir Conor was proudly devoted to the late Mrs Thatcher. In his own maiden speech, he stood in the same place that Mrs Thatcher stood to give hers, so perhaps the greatest tribute I can pay to him would be to continue that tradition in the same place here. I wish him all the best of luck in his onward endeavours. While he and I may have differed drastically in many of our views, we are here to provide a voice for the people of Bournemouth West in Parliament, and that is a role I will continue. I want to put on record my thanks to the great people of Bournemouth West for giving me that opportunity to do so under a Labour Government.
Bournemouth is not natural Labour territory, and I am really honoured to have won the trust of the people of Bournemouth in becoming not just its first Labour MP, but its first female MP. That is a monumental sign of the real changes we have seen in the constituency that are affecting it now and shaping its future. Yes, we are a beautiful seaside town, with white sand beaches and picturesque parks—and our hotels, hospitality and cultural venues, and English language schools have attracted people for generations to visit, but also to seek a better quality of life—but there is so much more.
Bournemouth is a relatively new town, but parts of my constituency such as Kinson were mentioned in the Domesday book. Scratch the surface just a little bit, and you will find a growing and vibrant community of innovators and creatives. We have world-leading graphic effects and post-production companies. We have a vibrant community of small businesses and vibrant high streets in Winton and Westbourne, with businesses that are integrating sustainability and also community into their business models. We have a burgeoning tech sector, with leadership in fintech, gaming and active travel. We have two world-leading universities and an excellent further education college, feeding that ecosystem and making sure our young people are equipped with the digital and creative skills they need to succeed in the 21st century—and I could go on.
Of course, there are challenges. Like all seaside towns, we have seen our town centre decline. More than a decade of cuts to public services has meant that people now struggle to get an NHS dentist. Crime and antisocial behaviour are at the forefront of people’s minds as, for me, are parents who will not let their daughters go into the town centre at night. Knife crime has destroyed lives, the housing market too often locks out young people and young families, and do not even get me started on sewage.
But I feel hopeful about the future, and I feel hopeful because of the collective spirit that I see every day in my constituency, with people such as Fran and Jesse at the Henry Brown centre and Kerry and her team at the Bourne community hub working against the odds to build their communities and transform lives in neighbourhoods such as West Howe and Alderney; all the community groups and resident groups fighting hard to improve their local areas and campaigning to protect our ancient heathland and our precious coastline; and, of course, all of the businesses giving it a go, getting into our high streets and the town centre, breathing life back into empty shops and revitalising our heritage buildings.
This is all really exciting stuff and I know that, with a new mission-led Government, our town can and will be the safe and thriving hub it once was. I know that kids in West Howe can and will have the same opportunities that our young people in Talbot Woods do to get a world-class education in their schools, colleges and universities. I want graduates who fall in love with Bournemouth to find great jobs and affordable housing so that they stay and build their lives there. I want all of our businesses to thrive in the vibrant ecosystems that we are now developing, and families in Wallisdown to get the support they need in their schools and not to worry about getting a dentist or a doctor. All of our residents, regardless of age or income, should feel proud of their town and their local neighbourhoods.
Three out of four people in my constituency at this general election voted for change. They did not all vote for me, but delivering that change is a responsibility I now embrace. I want to use it to build a better politics and a fairer future where everyone feels like they have a stake. So I am very excited and looking forward to working with the brilliant people of Bournemouth West and our mission-led Government to build the shared future and reignite this sense of hope not only in our special seaside town, but across the whole country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Yuan Yang to make her maiden speech.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on her wonderful maiden speech. I know that her international background and deep expertise in international development will add much richness to our new parliamentary Labour party, and I also believe that an international background is essential to enriching the perspectives on our side of the House.
In my previous life, before coming into this place, I spent eight years interviewing the leaders of international businesses, many of whom had long-standing commitments to investment in the UK, but who repeatedly told me and my former colleagues at the Financial Times that political instability was putting them off making future investments. That is why I very much welcome the remarks of our Minister on the international investment summit and the importance of the private sector’s partnership with our Government.
The 10-year project that we have for national renewal, along with our 10-year industrial strategy, shows our commitment to long-term economic ambition and planning. I congratulate the organisers of the summit, which brought together more than 300 industry leaders and secured more than £60 billion of investment. That is 60% more than was raised last year, and it will create nearly 38,000 jobs, one of which is bringing Elton John out of retirement. Unfortunately, private investment in the UK since the global financial crisis has been much less “Rocket Man”, and more “Tiny Dancer”.
Over the last decade and a half, Britain has experienced a much larger slowdown in the growth of capital intensity than comparative countries such as the US, France and Germany, and it is that, alongside our skills growth, which accounts for our productivity puzzle. I very much welcome the appointment of John Van Reenen, the wonderful LSE economist, to our Council of Economic Advisors. He has done important work on productivity in the UK, and he suggests that our post-financial crisis fall in productivity growth is primarily due to a large fall in capital accumulation. In other words, British workers are being held back by low levels of public and private investment, and that is what our Government need to unlock to succeed in our growth mission.
We will provide stability, but stability alone is not enough. In the 21st century we must do more to provide industry and business leaders with the leadership that they require to navigate our increasingly complex geopolitical world, in which there is fragmentation of supply chains across the world, as well as the green transition. That means an industrial strategy. I welcome the publication of our Government’s industrial strategy earlier this month, and particularly the focus on life sciences as one of the key eight sectors for investment.
My constituency of Earley and Woodley in the Thames valley is a prime location for foreign direct investment, particularly in life sciences, and I am proud that the Thames valley is the fastest growing region in the UK outside London. I congratulate the Thames valley chamber of commerce, with which I have already worked in my first 100 days, on securing over the last decade more than 1,000 instances of foreign direct investment. We can measure the excitement of business and the private sector for our Labour Government by the amount of engagement I have already had from businesses in my constituency and through Thames valley chamber of commerce.
The biopharmaceutical group Lonza, which is Swiss in origin, received a grant of £30 million over the summer to expand and relocate to my constituency in the Thames valley park, which is one of three business parks in the area alongside Thames Valley science park and Green park. I recently met Bayer, originally a German company, which employs hundreds of people at its headquarters in my constituency, and contributes to crucial health and life science research in the UK.
Advancements in life sciences have fundamentally improved not just the economy and innovation of the UK, but the length and quality of life here and around the world. That is why I welcome the Health Secretary’s mission to ensure that the NHS receives the cutting-edge treatments being pioneered by companies in my constituency and beyond. Life science investment, if done correctly, can be a significant driver of growth and productivity—our central mission. I look forward very much to meeting the Minster for Industry next week to discuss how we can give full range to life sciences companies in our constituencies, and to the clinical research taking place in the Royal Berkshire hospital, which is at the forefront of much research in medical trials. That hospital will benefit greatly from private and public investment.
Businesses do not exist in isolation, and what makes some countries prosper is the strength of their institutions. Responsible and highly productive businesses wish to retain their skilled workforces, who require countries with well-functioning public service provision, infrastructure and accessible housing. Those companies want political stability and a regulatory framework that works for business, workers, and the consumer. That is why Labour’s pitch to business does not end with the international investment summit, but continues with legislation that the Government are passing, such as the Employment Rights Bill. Providing the foundations for businesses to thrive means fixing the foundations of our economy and society, and that is what I am proud to say our Labour Government will do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Kanishka Narayan to make his maiden speech.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr iawn—I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the privilege of making my maiden speech in this House. I follow a long list of maiden speeches and so I perhaps offer no novelty, but I will take the opportunity of offering familiarity.
I come to this debate on the international investment summit having spent the last decade on the frontline of investment, backing the inventors of artificial intelligence data and wider software businesses across this country and the United States. I therefore know the cause with depth and personal experience, and in particular I know that no working-age person in this country has seen a start-up go to the FTSE top 10. In the United States, eight out of 10 have experienced that. In the last decade of innovation, Britons in this country and in the Vale of Glamorgan have been denied the opportunity of shaping their destiny. Decline no more, because I know from speaking to investors, including those at the summit, that they believe what I know with this Labour Government: change is on the way and has begun.
My role has been to put the Vale of Glamorgan front and centre in that wave of change, but I start by also recognising the dual impact that change in this House always has. For every maiden contribution, there is a contribution that has been, and in my case I wish to recognise that of my predecessor, the right hon. Alun Cairns, Conservative MP for the Vale of Glamorgan for 14 years. In those 14 years Alun served our constituency with sincerity. In fact, he was so sincere that I remember knocking on doors in Cadoxton in Barry with the best constituency Labour party in the country, only to have my hopes dashed by a lovely elderly lady who said, “I am going to be voting for Alun, the best Labour MP this town has ever had.” We all carry an inflated sense of our personal vote in this House, beyond our political allegiances, but in that moment I have to say that I felt and saw one. I congratulate Alun on his service and wish him the best with the inevitable duality of change that we share, but I also commit to him some continuity in the service that he and his predecessor, the Labour MP John Smith, offered the constituents of the Vale of Glamorgan—and continuity also because the cause of Barry’s development, which I know Alun initiated, will echo for years to come as my top priority too.
I offer continuity because in fact the Vale of Glamorgan stands out for its continuity. There is continuity as the world centre of education. It was in Llantwit Major and St Illtud’s church that the UK’s first college was sited, not only home to St Illtud, but also host to St David in the early sixth century. In was in Cowbridge in 1795 that one of the first Gorsedd of the Bards was hosted by Iolo Morganwg, since then a font of appreciation for the Welsh language, Welsh literature and Welsh poetry.
There is continuity not just in education but in energy, with Barry being the world’s powerhouse and the largest coal exporting port in this country, and indeed the largest in the world in 1913, and with Aberthaw not just one of the most advanced power plants of its time, but now the host of my and my constituents’ future dreams of a centre of excellence in green energy.
Alongside energy and education, there is continuity in the world’s pinnacle of natural beauty—a title I will only share, perhaps, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes), with our shared Welsh background. My hon. Friends from Dorset and Devon might have the Jurassic coast, but I confess that in the heritage coast of the Vale of Glamorgan we have every bit of the beauty and the history, and perhaps, for being a better kept secret, a brighter future too.
Finally, there is continuity not just across education, energy and the beauty that we have, but in the heart and humour of the people of the Vale of Glamorgan. Barry is the town that hosts “Gavin and Stacey”, and in particular the heart and humour of Uncle Bryn, my favourite character, who when driving down the M4 blasting out James Blunt songs has been a personal inspiration to me each time I leave this esteemed Chamber for the even more esteemed comfort of Barrybados.
I have seen the heart of the community spirit across the Vale of Glamorgan in Big Bocs Bwyd, which is an initiative across schools that started in Barry and now goes beyond it, ensuring that no child goes hungry when they are learning. There is the real struggle and the fight that I see each week in the Vale Domestic Abuse Services in my constituency, fighting the onslaught of violence against women that we have seen not just in the vale but across this country, and there is the powerful heart of the voice choirs of Barry, Llantwit Major, and Cowbridge, which were able to combine the pure heart of “Calon Lân” with the deep optimism of “The Greatest Showman” in one night.
I come here with news of the heart and humour of the Vale of Glamorgan, but also to report its honest challenges. We have the honest challenge of Barry, where, when delivering medicines as a volunteer, I learned that the pharmacist was issuing multiples of painkillers per patient, compared with the same pharmacist in Cardiff. We have the honest challenge of our beautiful farmlands, where third and fourth- generation farming families are fighting a great but difficult fight against the combined challenges of weather, disease and uncertainty. We have the honest challenge of the veterans of the Vale of Glamorgan, who are not seeking the world, but simply seeking a bit of public service for the exceptional national service they gave us.
Money does not buy most things in life. It does not solve most of our problems, but its absence and the deprivation entrenched over the last decade are at the root of many of them. In particular, that has chipped away at the dignity of my community. That is why I come here with the twin ambitions of greater prosperity and a deeper bond of dignity in the Vale of Glamorgan and across the UK. I do so not as a political slogan or out of political theory, but out of a history of personal gratitude, because it was 22 years ago that the Vale of Glamorgan and south Wales, including Cardiff, offered a newly arrived set of parents the opportunity of a minimum wage and a night shift to subsidise the sleep of their young boys. In the absence of any holidays, it was Barry island that first gave those two young boys the opportunity of relief, and perhaps even some delight, over the weekend.
It was south Wales, where I grew up with my brother in a situation of particular economic stress, where I felt, through the deepest privileges of education, that I could go on to advise the Prime Minister and the civil service, to advise FTSE boards across the City, to invest in tomorrow’s inventors and ultimately to stand before the House as Wales’s first Member of Parliament from an ethnic minority background. When I stand for my twin ambitions of prosperity and dignity for the vale, I will do so out of that personal history of gratitude. For as long as I serve as the vale’s voice here in Westminster, I will fight each day for the people in my community.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I congratulate all my hon. Friends on their deeply eloquent and moving maiden speeches this afternoon. It is a real pleasure to be in the Chamber to hear them.
I take this opportunity to commend those on the Government Front Bench for a successful, record-breaking investment summit earlier this week. The investment of £63 billion represents a real vote of confidence in this Government’s mission to grow our economy. I welcome in particular the announcement this week of a five-year programme of investment at Stansted airport, which is a major employer in our constituency of Hertford and Stortford. That programme totals £1.1 billion, including a £600 million investment in an extension to the airport’s existing terminal. That investment in the east of England’s largest single-site employer will not only provide an even better passenger experience, but help to connect our region’s innovative sectors and creative industries with their international partners.
In Bishop’s Stortford, Stansted airport is right on our doorstep, providing employment for around 1,500 residents in our town and surrounding areas. That contributes roughly £140 million in gross value added to our constituency. The terminal extension alone represents up to 5,000 additional on-site jobs, offering further employment opportunities for our residents and strong rail and bus links to our constituency, meaning that even more commuters will be able to take public transport to work. On that point, I welcome the recent Department for Transport announcement that contactless payments will be rolled out on the Stansted airport line in 2025. That will allow residents at Bishop’s Stortford and Sawbridgeworth stations to make use of tap in, tap out payments for the first time. That is an important step in improving rail travel for the many who rely on it in our constituency.
The House may already know that Stansted airport is the only major airport in this country with a purpose-built, on-site technical skills college, but I will tell the House more. Stansted airport college offers vocational training opportunities to young people in our community, and it is delivering record numbers of apprentice students into employment in aviation, helping to fill urgent skills gaps in the sector with our local talent.
Under this Government, I want Hertford and Stortford to be an even better place to live, work and learn. The investment promises to open new doors for our residents to new opportunities to gain skills for life and find meaningful work. It is also a clear signal that under this Government, Britain is once again open for business, and I hugely welcome it.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I join in the congratulations of colleagues who have made excellent maiden speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale). I was only sad not to hear the names of her bulldogs and perhaps even her Mini. My hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) gave such important mentions of their mums in their lives.
I congratulate the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) on this record-breaking £63 billion of investment. It is a sign of the confidence in the British economy and this Labour Government. It is more than double the amount committed at the last Government summit and is set to create nearly 38,000 jobs across the UK, including in Scotland, with £2.5 billion committed for Green Volt, Europe’s largest floating wind project, to develop its north-east Scotland site. Iberdrola announced it was doubling its investment in the UK through Scottish Power from £12 billion to £24 billion over the next four years.
As a former trade commissioner, I thank my former colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade and in markets such as India for the incredible work they will have been doing to achieve that investment. I well remember the beavering away and constant phone calls to major investors at such moments. Having been at the last summit, I am sure my invite to this one was lost in the post.
I know from my time in India that international investors were already beginning to price in the benefits of a change in government. They see a Labour Government as a source of stability and predictability and the UK becoming a place for long-term, safe investment. That is the stability dividend that my hon. Friend the Minister has already spoken about. I just say that the £63 billion, while a record sum, is not enough for Scotland. We have seen significant investment in the first 100 days, but we would like to see even more come north of the border, and in particular to communities such as mine in Ayrshire. My hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) are keen that increasing investment in Ayrshire is at the forefront of Ministers’ minds.
For the first time in 10 years, we have four Ayrshire Labour MPs committed to growth and investment and a Labour Government who can deliver it. My hon. Friends and I are working with the three local authority chief executives and the excellent principal of Ayrshire college to develop that “Invest in Ayrshire” proposition, and we are looking at the opportunities for our region and our skills gaps, because 14 years of the Tories and 17 of the SNP have let communities in Ayrshire down. Our towns were promised funding by the last Conservative Government and we, like other communities promised that towns funding, are lobbying the Minister for Democracy and Local Growth, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris). We want the towns of Irvine and Kilmarnock prioritised, but we know that other hon. Friends will be making similar cases. We need to see a mix of public and private investment in our towns to deliver the change that our communities need.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also working closely with us so that we can ensure that the Ayrshire growth deal meets the real current and future needs of the Ayrshire economy. In the thousands of conversations I had during the election campaign, it was clear to me that jobs, investment and growth will be the most significant change this Labour Government can bring to communities across Ayrshire. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade visited Prestwick airport during the election campaign, for which I am grateful, and he will remember that Prestwick is Scotland’s aerospace hub, with 55% of Scotland’s aerospace sector jobs. That sector already attracts international investment, but we want to do much, much more.
Similarly, we are looking at GB Energy and this Government to drive further green investment in Ayrshire. We want to see parts of that green energy supply chain come to Ayrshire. We have a positive story to tell about transforming our coalfields into clean power fields, and we are proud to host our fair share of wind farms, which play a significant role in ensuring the Government meet their commitments to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030. We have also seen investment in companies such as XLCC, a subsea cable manufacturer, which has secured £87 million from the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in the development of new subsea cable factories in the Scottish town of Hunterston, which was once home to nuclear power in Ayrshire. That industry is now on the way out, because of the failed policies of the SNP, which include a nuclear-free Scotland relying on English nuclear. I note that, once again, SNP Members are not in the Chamber in an important debate for Scotland’s economy. When Torness in Scotland stops generating, and if no replacement capacity is built, the power generated in England when there is low wind output—as on Monday this week, for example—will be needed to maintain supply in Scotland, and it will be significantly based on nuclear energy.
I was pleased that the last Labour leadership of North Ayrshire council welcomed the opportunity to restart the conversation with the nuclear industry in Ayrshire, because the jobs and investment that the industry could bring would be significant. With Ardagh Glass, Irvine continues to be a major centre for glass manufacturing—another industry that benefits from stability and predictability in policymaking and that is looking to make a significant investment in the green transition.
To conclude, I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sees that there are significant opportunities for greater investment in Ayrshire and will ask her brilliant colleagues in the Office for Investment to prioritise working with my colleagues and me to make that investment happen.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I start by noting that we have on the Government Front Bench two Ministers who split their time between Departments. One is at the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, and the other is at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade. That just goes to show that we have a joined-up, mission-led Government who are trying to move away from working in silos and to have a shared ambition, and that is to be commended.
We are here today to talk about investment, which is obviously about money, but it is also—I would not want to lose this—about people. It is about skills, expertise, experience, opportunities for learning, better jobs, dignity at work, feeding families and enabling the maximum amount of prosperity. We should hold on to those things, because they are what our constituents want and what they send us to this place to deliver.
That said, investment is also about the money. The £63 billion truly is a record-breaking amount, and I commend our mission-led Government for securing it. It is the clearest sign that global businesses are backing the British economy and working people under this new Labour Government. That money could have gone elsewhere, but it is coming to our country, for all the reasons I just described. It is coming here because the country voted for change to achieve stability. In the last 14 years, we have had little to no growth, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted and a huge black hole in our finances. The country was left vulnerable to the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, and our Government was forced to spend £94 billion on household support because we were so exposed to fossil fuels.
That is why I am particularly pleased that so much of this investment is going towards clean energy. For example, some of the £2 billion from Octopus Energy will be used to build four new solar farms across Bristol, Wiltshire, Essex and the East Riding of Yorkshire, powering up to 80,000 homes. Those investments will improve our local economies and communities.
I feel sad and wrong saying this, but we have been talking about Elton John, and nobody else has made the inevitable point: sorry seems to be the hardest word, but we are not hearing it said, either in jest or in sincerity. As I look at the Opposition Benches, which are deserted, I wish that Conservatives could speak up on behalf of British business—[Interruption.] I do apologise to the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies). Perhaps he will find the hymn sheet to sing from—the one about being in favour of British business and investment. Perhaps he will also say sorry, much as it is the hardest word—I have said that twice now.
As I said, neither this debate nor these investments are just about the money. Hopefully, nearly 38,000 people across the UK, including in my home of Bournemouth East, will begin new jobs as part of the green transition that our country so desperately needs and that our industrial sector has been crying out for. To that end, I very much welcome the publishing of the Government’s Green Paper on their 10-year industrial strategy, which we have already heard about.
In the short time I have been a Member of Parliament, the Government have committed to strengthening Britain’s industrial base—in both the service and manufacturing industries—to create good, well-paid jobs in not only the green sectors we have today but those of the future. With the right policies, the Government can supercharge investment in clean energy industries across the UK, from the industrial heartlands of the north to the thriving finance sector in Bournemouth. This is about more than just creating green jobs; it is about the revitalisation of entire regions and ensuring that every corner of our country benefits.
I have been fortunate this week to spend time with investors, businesses and working people at three events in London, and the relief is palpable. I have listened to investors talk about how they have been holding on to money because they have been craving regulatory certainty; planning reform; the building of homes for their workers; an NHS that can fix those workers, who they need at their workplaces but who are at home unwell, because of mental ill health, musculoskeletal problems or worse; and the certainty from Government that would remove the barriers to growth, so that the investments they make extract a dividend for not just their companies but our wider economy. When Members hear that the investment we are talking about was lined up before the general election, they should not believe it. It came forward after the general election, because businesses now have a Government who are committed to putting in place the infrastructure and changes needed for our economy to grow now and into the future.
We know the benefits of action, and we know the costs of inaction, because we are bearing those costs now. Working together, Government, investors, working people, our trade unions, and businesses will achieve energy independence and security. We will achieve falling and lower bills. We will achieve good jobs and pride in our communities. Together with our mission-led Government, we will achieve a growing and improving economy and way of life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I now call the shadow Minister, Gareth Davies.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I thank all those who have spoken in today’s debate. It is right that I recognise the contributions that have been made from both sides of the House, but especially those made by Members making their maiden speeches. We all remember the moments leading up to and during our maiden speech, and it still gives me chills to this day.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) that I hope her mother is enjoying seeing the bright lights of London for the first time. I know she will be very proud of her daughter. I wish the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) well with her campaigning on parental leave. We all regret the time we spend away from our families, but it is for a life of purpose and a worthwhile cause, as hard as it is.
I had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) before he was a Member of Parliament. I hope that, as the Member of Parliament representing Bletchley, he can crack the code to the success of this place. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) gave an excellent speech, and he will be a great local champion for Banbury. I appreciated the comments he made about my former colleague and his predecessor. The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) will no doubt be busy in this job, but I hope she will still find time for frog searching.
Finally, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) gave an incredibly impressive and excellent speech. He went to one of our finest schools, studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford and later attended Stanford University in California, which, by the way, has some quite impressive alumni. I am sure he has a bright future in this place, although he should be prepared for many of his Labour colleagues to constantly suggest that he is desperate to return to California at the earliest opportunity.
All jest aside, let me say genuinely from the outset that it is right that we welcome this Government’s building on the strong foundations for international investment in our country. As of July—a randomly picked month—the UK was Europe’s leader for new foreign direct investment projects for a third successive year, with the highest total number of projects in the past five years.
The most recent official figures show that the UK ranked second only to the United States for greenfield FDI overall, while leading the world in investment into our renewables sector. That is one of the reasons why we have achieved the fastest decarbonisation of any developed country in the world, and we should be proud of that. That is down not just to those who are elected but to officials who work day in, day out to support Governments: those in the Office for Investment, the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and our many trade commissioners, who help drive our efforts to attract significant pools of investment capital from across the world.
This has been a good week for investment into our country—[Interruption.] It really has. It is important that we recognise the cross-party heritage of this week’s summit, which I am sure the Minister will acknowledge when she stands up. Labour has carried forward good ideas that we Conservatives either implemented or started in government. The Government deserve credit and I am very happy to give it, because this was, in the end, a fine follow-up to the global investment summit pioneered this time last year.
Our cross-party collaboration does not end there. In many cases, this Labour Government have announced or re-announced investments that were negotiated or even agreed by their Conservative predecessors. I guess some things sound so good that they are worth repeating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—who has made a timely entrance to this Chamber to rapturous applause—highlighted, more than half the investment that the Government announced was actually announced before the general election. That includes the £10 billion committed by Blackstone, which was announced in April, and the £8 billion committed by Amazon, which was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. I could mention BW Group, which was announced in 2021, or CyrusOne, which was announced in 2022.
Whatever the origin, more private investment clearly benefits the British people, contributing to more jobs, better productivity and stronger growth. We can all agree on that point, and it should not be taken for granted. I commend the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), a relatively new Member, who highlighted the importance of not being complacent about that, and in particular ensuring that regulation remains low. As I said at the beginning, I commend Members for all the contributions to this debate, maiden or otherwise, that rightly recognised the importance of private investment in our economy.
However, we need to face the fact that this summit has been overshadowed by a rather large elephant in the room. As the Transport Secretary knows all too well, many investment decisions are provisional and dependent on an economic environment that welcomes and supports investment. Since Labour has taken office, thanks to all the doom and gloom, made-up black holes and submission to the unions, business and consumer confidence has fallen and the cost of borrowing for the British Government has risen.
We have had 100 days of self-contradiction and uncertainty. Even in just a few months, this Labour Government have promised public investment while cutting capital expenditure, fretted over a supposed black hole while frittering away billions on pet projects and union paymasters, disavowed red tape while smothering small businesses in new regulations, and paid lip service to fiscal responsibility while laying the ground to fiddle the financial rules. Meanwhile, almost every single revenue-raising policy in the Labour manifesto has proven pretty much worthless, just like its promise not to raise national insurance.
The rest of us were left wondering, and continue to wonder: if I make a successful investment, how much of the return will I be able to keep? If I take on a new employee, how much tax will I need to pay for the privilege? If I increase my workers’ pay, what will the total cost be? If I save for the future, will the Government help themselves? If I pass on the business I built all my life to the next generation, will they be penalised?
If £1 billion is jeopardised by bad Labour commentary, £63 billion can be jeopardised by bad Labour policy. Investment and economic growth are not simply convened; they take concerted effort, not contorted fiscal signals. Some have questioned whether having the summit before the Budget was putting the cart before the horse, but my worry is that, come Budget day, the horse will already have bolted. I wonder, in the event that the Budget backfires, will the Prime Minister be forced to disown or defenestrate yet another member of his top team, to avoid taking responsibility himself—sacrificing someone else on the altar of self-service?
As has been said before, Labour’s chaos might be in my party’s interest, but it is not in the national interest. I want to see the promise of these investments fulfilled. Labour must not put them at risk. Let us build on the success of our country’s economy and push up businesses that want to succeed, not pull them down when they do succeed. I am afraid that as long as this chaos, scandal and uncertainty continues, I will not hold my breath.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) was doing so well. [Laughter.] He was doing so well in the first half of his comments and then he returned to the same old tired lines that got the Conservatives defeated in the general election.
I am so pleased to be closing this debate today, which in a parliamentary context draws to a close a hugely positive and successful week for the United Kingdom. I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I am disappointed that only one Conservative MP managed to make it here to speak in the Chamber and that nobody from the SNP managed to come. I am surprised that they are not here to welcome the week we have had so far.
The Prime Minister made this Government’s guiding mission clear from day one: we will go for growth at every opportunity, and we are doing that in spades. A week ago today, we launched our landmark Employment Rights Bill to create more secure employment and a happier and more productive workforce. On Monday, we launched our industrial strategy Green Paper, something business has been crying out for, which lays strong foundations for 10 years of growth and investment in our most important sectors. Also on Monday, the Prime Minister hosted some of the world’s biggest investors to show them why, under this growth-driven Government, UK plc will be a blue-chip company that they should invest in. As was mentioned, Elton John was there to speak. I should tell the House that he took no fee—he took no fee. He wanted to come and celebrate with us the commitment of companies from across the world coming to the UK.
Before I talk a bit more about the investment summit, I want to pay tribute to the Members who spoke today, in particular those who made their maiden speeches. As someone who wells up quite often and quite easily, this was a difficult debate for me. There were many moments when we looked up at the Gallery and saw parents and other family members wiping tears from their eyes. It was lovely to see.
I loved the motto of my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill). Working hard and talking straight is a great motto for this new Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) gave us a wonderful tale of her constituency and its people, including a slightly odd story, I have a say, about Beartown. [Laughter.] But there we go; that’s Congleton!
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) gave a great speech, telling us about the importance of Bletchley Park and its influence not just in world war two but on the technical age we are in today, and talking about the advanced manufacturing in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) was a Labour Student. I do not know how many members of the Cabinet were Labour Students —I was not—but it is quite a good stomping ground for future Cabinet members. He paid wonderful homage to the people and the place of Banbury.
Diolch to my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) for an incredibly beautiful speech about her constituency, its proud industrial history, and the ingenuity and innovation that it still shows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke without notes and made a really impressive speech. The passion with which she wants to reignite pride in her town and in our country was very well understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who has incredible experience, not least working at the Financial Times, talked about the life sciences in her constituency and how important they are. I look forward to meeting her next week to talk about that more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) also spoke without notes. He spoke lovely words about his predecessor, told a lovely story about the history and beauty of his constituency, and paid tribute to his constituents. Many of us have spent many happy days in Barry island—I certainly have.
At the investment summit, £63 billion of investment was announced, more than double what was raised at the Opposition’s summit last year. Iberdrola doubled its wind energy investment in the UK from £12 billion to £24 billion; there was £10.5 billion from Orsted and Greenvolt, and more than £200 million from SeAH Wind. There was £8 billion for carbon capture, which will create 4,000 jobs and support 50,000; £2 billion from Octopus Energy and £1.3 billion from Macquarie for solar projects; £6 billion of new money for data centres, on top of the £10 billion recently committed by Blackstone and £8 billion from Amazon; £1 billion for DP World’s London Gateway, and £200 million for a new freight ferry terminal at the Port of Immingham; more than £300 million for Holtec’s advanced engineering plant in South Yorkshire; £500 million from BMW Group for battery energy storage; more than £2 billion for rail and air projects from Network Rail and Manchester Airports Group respectively; and £400 million for life sciences and healthcare innovation. Moreover, our fantastic Imperial College London will put £150 million into a new R&D campus.
On top of these transformational investments, we have proved our credentials as a pro-business Government. Thanks to the Chancellor’s announcement that the UK Infrastructure Bank would be turned into the national wealth fund, we are catalysing tens of billions of pounds of private investment into the UK’s clean energy and growth industries, including green hydrogen, carbon capture and gigafactories. We are establishing an industrial strategy advisory council, led by Clare Barclay, to help deliver the pro-business environment on which our industrial strategy will depend. We are creating a British growth fund that will fuse pension investments and venture capital markets. We are expanding the Office for Investment to ensure that international investors receive the information and guidance they need to invest in Britain, and we are cutting red tape to remove redundant reporting requirements, while making it easier for companies to re-domicile themselves in the UK—and all this within 100 days of our taking office.
From more rights for a more productive workforce, to a pioneering industrial strategy for our sectors of the future, to scores of investments worth tens of billions of pounds, this Government are delivering change. The last Government’s scattergun approach to growth left our country starved of investment, economically divided and struggling to maintain our competitive edge in the global economy. Growth was anaemic; wage growth flatlined on their watch. Productivity was down; the gap between France, Germany and the United States doubled since 2008. We saw the lowest investment share as a percentage of GDP in the G7, and we ranked 27th out of 30 in the OECD last year. That is on top of the state of the public finances that the Conservatives left us, with public services starved of investment, millions of days of work lost to strike action, and rocketing debt.
However, in just 100 days this Government have already laid down the blueprint for 10 years of growth through our biggest and most innovative sectors; secured £63 billion in new investments that underline our potential as a world leader in renewable energy, life sciences, technology and clean growth; and brought forward a raft of reforms to create a happier, more secure and more productive workforce.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Minister is making a very interesting and important speech, and she has set out exactly what this Government are doing to benefit my constituents. Could she find some time to meet me so that we can discuss how together we can ensure that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire more widely can benefit from the investment secured at the summit this week?
Sarah Jones
I am always happy to meet and to talk about what more we can do in our next 100 days, and indeed—we hope—our next five to 10 years in government.
Some Conservative Members have questioned whether some of these investments were teed up under the last Government. They know perfectly well that business confidence can rapidly change investment decisions. All the announcements included are of new, firm commitments being made by companies to invest in the UK either when final investment decisions have been taken or when announcements have been accelerated or unlocked because of actions taken and support provided by this Government.
I am sure that Conservative Members will have seen the letter, published in The Times at the start of the week, from five of the world’s biggest banks, joined by private equity firms, insurers and tech giants, saying that it was
“time to invest in Britain”,
and that Britain’s “greater stability” had increased its attractiveness to investment, which was of course a reference to Labour’s decisions when we took office. They concluded:
“We are optimistic about the future of the economy, and believe it is time to invest in Britain.”
The fact that scores of investors attended our summit on Monday, with tens of billions of pounds being firmly committed to new projects, shows that under this Labour Government, business and investors have a great deal of confidence in our growth mission.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is talking about confidence, but if confidence is rising, can she explain why the Institute of Directors has stated that confidence has gone from plus 30 in June to minus 7 today?
Sarah Jones
The shadow Minister knows that we are working very closely with businesses, business organisations and others to ensure that the changes we bring in grow our economy. We have huge confidence from a raft of people. For every quote the hon. Gentleman can find, I can find 10 that say the opposite. He can pick on one if he wants to, but I suggest that £63 billion does not lie. Let us not forget that our summit on Monday was organised in a matter of weeks. The Conservative party had two years between their investment summits, yet we secured double the amount of investment compared with its summit last year.
To respond to a couple of other points, the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), rightly mentioned business rates. We are looking at that and will deliver on the commitments in our manifesto. She was right to raise skills, which are a huge challenge for us. We see huge opportunities for growth across the entire country but we must ensure that we have the skills landscape, which is why we are setting up Skills England. She also talked about the national wealth fund and its ability to crowd in funding for the green sector and green technologies; it absolutely will do that.
To summarise, across the House we are united in the belief that Britain needs to facilitate growth. Let us face it, we have been severely starved of it. Only through growth can we keep taxes lower for working people, invest in our public services and create secure, well-paid, high-skilled jobs. Of course, this is against a backdrop of the poor economic inheritance left by the Conservative party, who lurched repeatedly from Prime Minister to Prime Minister, gave us seven growth plans in 14 years, made millions of people pay the price of a Trussonomics Budget and saddled the people of Britain with a low-growth, low-productivity, low-investment economy. The steps that this Labour Government have taken in just 100 days show that we are overturning the Conservatives’ legacy of inaction, stagnation and deterioration, and creating a country of stability, innovation and prosperity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the International Investment Summit.
Telegraph Poles: Planning Permission
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I know that a number of colleagues have experienced similar problems in their constituencies to those I will be raising, and I will try to accommodate interventions.
I welcome the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), to his place. I am sure hon. Members from all parties welcomed his statement in July:
“We fully understand people’s concerns about the excessive deployment of telegraph poles, and are urgently considering options to address this.”
As time is short, I will focus on the current absence of a requirement to consult residents under the legislative and regulatory regime that Ministers have inherited. This is not about being against telegraph poles, nor is it about being against the roll-out of fast broadband. New infrastructure is vital in a society that is increasingly dependent on fast and reliable internet services. However, surely it is wrong that when poles are sited inappropriately, recourse for residents is advisory only, and, in many cases, completely lacking in practice.
Official statistics suggest that in my Birmingham Northfield constituency, almost 99% of residents have access to superfast broadband. I know that Ministers have some scepticism about the accuracy of those figures, but it is undeniable that broadband coverage is better than in neighbouring rural areas, yet urban areas are the current focus for the roll-out. The case for the changes in 2013 that established the current permitted development regime focused almost exclusively on the need to extend superfast broadband to rural areas and new-build estates. Little to no consideration appears to have been given to how the legislation would impact already built-up, urban areas. The consequences are now being seen in south Birmingham, as some residents are left to accommodate poles that are unwanted, unneeded and obtrusive.
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and it is much needed. As he said, many of our constituents already have excellent broadband, so telegraph poles should be strategically prioritised in rural areas. In one of my streets alone, there are five poles. I have previously asked the Government how many poles they think is acceptable. Does he agree that this is not the way that providers should behave?
Laurence Turner
I know that my hon. Friend has been doing extensive work on this issue. There are similar problems in my Birmingham Northfield constituency, and I would be sympathetic to having different approaches in rural, semi-rural and built-up urban areas, precisely because of the issues she raises.
Alex Ballinger
I thank my hon. Friend for organising this excellent debate. Telegraph poles are a key issue in my Halesowen constituency. My constituents support the roll-out of high-speed broadband, but they are concerned about the installation of telegraph poles in areas that did not previously have them. Community engagement has not been done well—I give the example of the Squirrels estate in my constituency, where a recent campaign, which I supported, was successful in stopping a company rolling out telegraph poles in an area that did not have them. The residents’ major concern was about the use of underground ducting. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is accessible infrastructure underground already, broadband providers should use that? The Government should change the regulations so that providers are able to share the infrastructure, even if they are competitors.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. He highlights issues that are common across the wider region and, I suspect, the country. I will come on to some of the regulatory changes that could be made, but it is important to recognise that there was a requirement for companies to share infrastructure wherever possible. However, I will discuss some of the cases in my constituency where that clearly is not happening.
I want to draw attention to some of the problems in my constituency. I recently attended a residents’ meeting in a street in Birmingham Northfield called Pineview, a quiet cul-de-sac that is set back from a busy road. The community is close-knit, and over the years, the residents have invested their time and a considerable amount of money to ensure the upkeep of the area. They have lived with underground telecommunications infrastructure, which serves different operators, and they have experienced a positive service. However, residents report that four telegraph poles were installed on the road last year, starting early in the day and finishing late at night, with intrusive spotlights to facilitate the work. There was very limited community engagement, despite the residents taking up the company Brsk’s suggestion that a petition be collected. That was done, but to no effect.
I also draw attention to Lovell Close in Weoley. It is another small cul-de-sac, with only half a dozen houses and narrow pavements, but activities by two competing companies are now causing obstruction for residents and users of an adjoining public park. The hope that the infrastructure would be shared is not being observed in practice, and there are ongoing problems with pavement parking across south Birmingham. I know that Transport Ministers are looking separately at this issue, but the fact is that the combination of pavement parking and the loss of pavement space to poles has created obstructions and pinch points. This is a particular problem for those with prams and mobility scooters.
There are also problems in the Bournville conservation area, which I discussed recently with the Bournville Village Trust. I place on record my thanks for the local representations that have been made to me in advance of this debate by Councillors Esther Rai, Miranda Perks and Jamie Tennant in my constituency, and Liz Clements and Fred Grindrod in the neighbouring ward of Bournville and Cotteridge. I also want to mention the work done on this issue by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)—as she said, she is addressing the same problems in her constituency—and my other constituency neighbour, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As a Front Bencher, he is unable to speak in this debate, but I know that he is addressing the same problems and has written to Ofcom on this matter.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
In Stourbridge in the west midlands, we face similar problems with the same company, which is causing havoc. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the legislation was passed in 2013, yet in 2024, we are still waiting for the full roll-out of ultrafast broadband. Although I appreciate what he says about our current adequate speeds, they could be much faster. When I was recently in Ukraine, I experienced far better internet connectivity than I do in central London or Stourbridge town centre. Our European neighbours are enjoying much faster broadband while we languish behind, and Stourbridge residents have been left at the mercy of these third-party companies—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady might like to sit while I am standing. I have previously told Members that interventions should be short and spontaneous. It is not an opportunity to read out a pre-prepared speech. If she wanted to speak in this debate, she could have asked permission from both the Minister and the Member in charge, and that would have been acceptable.
Laurence Turner
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles).
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) about engagement. I am holding a letter that residents received from my predecessor, containing the promise from the company involved in rolling out these poles in Inkberrow that the work would initially be done underground. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks later, poles appeared and work was carried out late into the night. Re-establishing co-operation and engagement with the community is vital to regaining trust.
Laurence Turner
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his case well. This is not about saying that there can never be telegraph poles, as there are some areas where they are clearly the right solution. However, there must be a proper process, and companies cannot be left to mark their own homework. He highlights well the issues in his constituency.
One of the few requirements placed on network operators is to provide 28 days’ notice in writing to the local planning authority when they propose to put up a pole. That is a very low bar. Without commenting on an active investigation, it should be noted that Ofcom is currently investigating Brsk for an alleged failure to notify Birmingham city council 28 days prior to installing poles. It is important that the investigation is concluded quickly.
I understand that the industry body, the Internet Service Providers Association, which I thank for providing a briefing ahead of the debate, is working on a potential revision to the cabinet and pole siting code of practice. I hope we will hear something encouraging from the Minister but, as long as the code remains voluntary, it will always be circumvented in some cases.
The code of practice merely states that, following advice for engaging and consulting residents, the code operator should place a site notice in
“as close proximity as possible… If an appropriate place to site a notice is not available, another means of informing residents may be discussed and agreed upon.”
In seeking to address these concerns, a number of residents in my constituency have, individually and collectively, attempted to follow the steps set out in the code of practice, including the complaints process. However, the code of practice, in its current form, fails to provide sufficient redress. It states that a complaints procedure should be in place, but it fails to go further than a company providing written responses detailing why a complaint is accepted or rejected. Frankly, that is not good enough. We must focus on preventing poor practice, as well as encouraging the best.
I thank the Minister for his engagement with hon. Members across the House on this issue. Does he agree that, in pursuit of the Government’s welcome manifesto commitment to a renewed push for full gigabit coverage by 2030, a better code of practice is needed? Does he agree that there is a natural conflict of interest in allowing broadband companies to be the sole arbiters of their own practice? And does he further agree that there should be a role for Ofcom in upholding the code?
I thank the Minister for his attention, and I look forward to hearing how he proposes to engage with Members across the House on this important issue. I am sure we will all hear more about this problem throughout the course of this Parliament.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
As this is the first time that I have seen you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say how glad I am that you were elected? I voted for you, so there. [Laughter.] It is a secret ballot, so you can’t check.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on his election; it is good to see him in his place. I think I am right in saying that King’s Norton is part of his patch, but he may not be aware that one of the shields on the wall of this Chamber is for a former Member for King’s Norton who was killed in the second world war: a very brave man who fought for his country and who died making it possible for everybody to evacuate. Ronnie Cartland was his name; he was a Conservative, but his first rebellion was when he was angry that the Government were not doing enough for distressed areas, including in my constituency in south Wales. I feel I have an affinity with my hon. Friend’s constituency, although I hope I have not prompted him to rebel instantly.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to have this debate. I will be very clear: the vast majority of companies operating in this sphere are doing so entirely responsibly. They are doing a great favour for the nation in rolling out broadband of the kind of speed that everybody wants. I note the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) made about other countries in Europe; of course we aspire to that coverage for everybody across the UK.
The vast majority of companies are operating responsibly but, frankly, a few are behaving like cowboys. As a Government and as a Parliament, I think we sometimes need to say to cowboys that they are drinking in the last chance saloon. I have made that abundantly clear to some of the operators. I know that some operators are striving to co-operate with one another and with BT Openreach to ensure that no unnecessary street furniture suddenly appears and that there is full consultation with the local community before a road is dug up for a new duct or a new pole appears. Companies that are abiding by the code of conduct and fulfilling their obligations are almost as fed up as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and other hon. Friends; indeed, I am sure we could fill the whole Chamber with hon. Members who are equally fed up with the few companies that are bringing the whole system into disrepute.
That matters, because in the end the most important thing is that the wider strategy is right. We want to deliver good-value, very high-speed, more than ultrafast, gigabit-capable broadband based on fibre to the whole UK as fast as possible without having to provide vast amounts of taxpayers’ money. We therefore need to do so on the basis of commercial roll-out. Of course it is right that that should not be on the basis of monopoly and that competition, where possible, should drive choice for consumers and cheaper prices. That part of the strategy is absolutely right.
The part of the strategy that the previous Government were a bit more relaxed about—in fact, Ministers used to say categorically that they were completely relaxed about it—was overbuild. That has meant several companies digging up the road one after another, as has happened in some parts of the country. It has also meant several companies deciding that they need their own set of poles, or poles appearing in an area that had never previously had poles and in which ducts had been laid out but not used.
I am not completely relaxed about overbuild. I am concerned about it, because I know that a lot of constituents up and down the land are concerned. However, I want to make sure that commercial operators that are abiding by the rules and the code of conduct have every opportunity to continue to do so, in order that their commercial investments are not disrupted unnecessarily and we can deliver the infrastructure that we need across the whole United Kingdom. In the end, I want the cheapest possible prices for people and the highest possible capacity across the network for every property in the land. I would issue one slight corrective in this debate. Sometimes people say that this is a battle between urban and rural, but in fact some of the issues in urban areas are completely different from those in rural areas, and some are identical. I am not sure whether that dichotomy is fair.
My preference is for ducts wherever possible. That is not always possible, for a whole series of different logistical reasons in different areas. It is an undeniable fact that providing connectivity via poles is likely to be something like 10 times cheaper than doing it via ducts, so I fully understand why commercial operators want to install poles. I understand that that could mean that there will be poles in areas that have never had them before, and, in some areas, that is something that we will have to live with.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree with almost everything that he has said. I also wish to reflect on the moving tribute that he made to a predecessor Member for King’s Norton.
I understand the case that my hon. Friend has made, and I welcome his comments. Does he accept that, when the price of poles is already cheap, there is a risk that some companies will undercut each other on consumer service to reach lower margins? That is at the heart of the issue that we are debating today. It is about those operators and local cases in which standards have not been followed. Good network providers should have nothing to fear from the changes that have been suggested tonight.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has just said. He put it extremely well. He probably ought to be the Minister, and perhaps he will be soon. He is right. I also want to say that we should have shared infrastructure wherever that is possible. Legislation already makes provision for some of that to happen. In speaking to the operators, I have laid it down quite firmly that we need to enhance that infrastructure. I can perfectly understand why a commercial operator might say, “Well, I am not sure that I really want to share with my competitor”. That is why a new code of conduct has taken a while. I hope that new code of conduct, which I have discussed with the operators, will be laid out very soon. There is urgency about this, because the roll-out is happening this week, next week and the week after. We need to tackle these issues in short measure, not wait a long period of time.
At the very latest, this code of conduct will be published in the early new year, and I encourage everybody in the sector to abide by the code. I encourage competitors to tell the two or three companies that are not playing by the rules that they are bringing all of them into disrepute. The single most important issue for most of these operators is how they will drive take-up. It is about not just roll-out—that is their investment—but take-up. When we talk about 100 megabits per second—or about gigabits per second—many people have no idea what we are talking about. The truth is that all of our homes and businesses will need much greater broadband capacity in the near future, so we do have to roll this out. We have to make sure that people understand why they need it. The danger is that, if this whole process undermines confidence in the roll-out, it will affect take-up. It is in the commercial interests of everybody to make sure that we come to a better set of solutions in this area.
Let me go through a couple of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised. As he knows, the cabinet siting and pole siting code of practice was issued in November 2016. It sets out guidance on best practice relating to deployment, encouraging operators to site apparatus responsibly and engage proactively with both local authorities and the local community, and he laid out some of the specifics that follow on from that—the 28 days’ notice that needs to be given to local councils and so on.
There are some operators—not the ones my hon. Friend is talking about, but for instance, IX Wireless, which I had in my office earlier this afternoon—that are operating a different model, and a different set of issues relates specifically to them. There, too, I have tried to make it clear what Government expectations are. As I say, following a meeting with the operators, the industry has committed to revising the code of practice, which I think will be much tougher, and the guidance should be published in the new year. However, I am absolutely clear that if voluntary adherence does not work, we reserve the right to change the law. We are in earnest about that, because we are aware of the concerns people have expressed.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that Ofcom has stated that it would investigate any cases where poles are sited in a way that is not consistent with the requirements and guidelines in place, including where they block residents’ drives or where operators systematically fail to engage with local planning authorities’ suggestions. As my hon. Friend has already referred to, Ofcom has opened an investigation into whether Brsk has failed to comply with its obligations. I am keen to have a meeting with Brsk, and I hope that will happen in the next few weeks. I do not want to interfere in the process that Ofcom is engaged in; that is a matter for Ofcom and I would not seek to undermine what is effectively a quasi-judicial operation. However, I want to make sure that Brsk fully understands the concerns not only of many Birmingham MPs—I noted the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) earlier—but of the Government in this field.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for getting the debate so early in his time as a Member of Parliament. He is obviously going to be a doughty defender of the rights of his constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I noticed that you were nodding along—I know you are not really allowed to do that. You are shaking your head as well—you are not allowed to do that either. None the less, I think you broadly agreed with the thrust of what I was saying, so I feel as if I have united the House. On that note, I bid you farewell.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered visas, security and access to services for Hong Kongers living in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. As a new Member of Parliament, I am happy to say that this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I am delighted to have secured it on such an important set of issues.
Support for Hongkongers is a priority of mine for two main reasons. First, my constituency is home to a large diaspora of Hongkongers. We take great pride that so many have chosen our community as the place to rebuild their lives, having fled from tyranny and oppression. Secondly, the Labour party has a proud history and record of standing up for human rights, from Northern Ireland to Kosovo, and of supporting those who have come to our country having fled authoritarian rule. I am confident that our new Government will uphold that fine heritage. If they are to do so, however, support for Hongkongers is essential, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
There has never been a more important moment to stand with Hongkongers than now. We all know about the tragic erosion of democracy and human rights that has occurred in Hong Kong since the imposition of the national security law in 2020 with more than 10,000 arrests of those protesting for freedom, 900 journalists losing their livelihoods simply for speaking the truth and a rapid growth in the number of political prisoners, matched only by the rapid decline in due process as authoritarianism continues to spread. With the article 23 legislation now set to make the situation even worse, these are worrying times for Hongkongers wherever they are in the world. Given the increasing need for Hongkongers to leave Hong Kong and come to the UK, it is important to take this moment to consider the future of the British national overseas visa scheme.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I genuinely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this early opportunity to ventilate the issue. He talks about those who flee persecution, and he is right, but the truth of the matter is that even when Hongkongers are in this country, they are not beyond the reach of the Chinese Communist party. We have seen instances of illegal police stations operated by the Chinese and of persecution on campuses around the country. Does he agree that our responsibility to Hongkongers coming to this country does not end when they arrive at Heathrow? That is simply when it starts.
Mr Rand
Yes, absolutely. I thank the right hon. Member for making that important point, which I will come on to later in my remarks.
On the BNO visa scheme, for the sake of fairness, I should start my remarks by giving credit where it is due: the scheme is one of the best things that the Conservative party did in its 14 years of government. Even though it is top of what I might consider a vanishingly small list of achievements, that should not distract from what a resounding success it has been. About 150,000 Hongkongers have been able to flee tyranny because of the scheme. Our country should be deeply proud of that. I will be grateful if, when the Minister responds, she could spell out that this Government’s commitment to the scheme matches that of the previous Government.
I also want the Government to consider the loopholes within the BNO visa scheme. We know that the scheme was initially designed for Hongkongers who, as adults, had applied for BNO status prior to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. In 2022, the scheme was expanded to allow younger Hongkongers born after the 1997 handover, who never had the chance to apply for that status themselves, to come to the UK as part of the visa. However, there is a group in the middle.
Thousands of Hongkongers born between 1979 and 1997 are caught by a loophole as they are not old enough to have applied for BNO status before the handover, but not young enough to qualify under the 2022 expansion. I encourage the Minister to engage on this issue with Hong Kong Watch, which has proposed practical ways to close the loophole and open up the path to escaping oppression for thousands of Hongkongers, allowing family reunions that would mean so much to those living in the United Kingdom.
On the subject of design flaws with the visa scheme, I also encourage the Minister to look at visa and asylum applications that have been refused on the grounds of the applicant having a criminal record. Although that may be perfectly reasonable in other circumstances, we know that some pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong are getting criminal records, and that in and of itself should not be a reason to deny them safe passage to the United Kingdom, as I am sure all colleagues would agree.
Although the visa scheme is important, it is also vital, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, that we ensure Hongkongers living in the United Kingdom can live happy, safe and prosperous lives. The point on safety is particularly crucial. Members will be aware of the long arm of the Chinese state, which is a daily source of fear and anxiety for many Hongkongers, including those in my constituency—both for themselves and for the fate of loved ones they have left behind.
Each act of Chinese aggression—political interference in this place, sanctions against parliamentarians, or outright acts of espionage, as we have seen—heightens the fear of Hongkongers that they might be next. In July and December, under the Hong Kong national security policy, arrest warrants with £100,000 bounties were issued for six exiled Hong Kong activists living in the United Kingdom. Closer to home, we had the incident at the Chinese consulate in Manchester. I hope that the Minister will reassure Hongkongers in my constituency today by setting out the measures the Home Office has in place to ensure their safety, given the unique threats they face.
As well as guaranteeing the safety of Hongkongers in the United Kingdom, we must work to ensure that their lives can be as happy and prosperous as possible. I will briefly touch on two related points before wrapping up. The first is the issue of accessing retirement savings. The Mandatory Provident Fund is a compulsory retirement scheme for the people of Hong Kong, which, for most Hongkongers, is their main pension pot. In theory, they should be able to withdraw it in full even if they choose to leave Hong Kong; in practice, vindictive policies stop them doing so, and have made it almost impossible for Hongkongers who have fled their homeland to access vital money for rebuilding their new lives. It is estimated by Hong Kong Watch that Hongkongers who have fled to the UK are being denied access to £3 billion in savings. Would the Minister be willing to have a conversation with colleagues in the Treasury about what more can be done to tackle this grave injustice?
I also encourage the Minister to have conversations with colleagues in the Department for Education on the issue of tuition fees. For many Hongkongers in England and Wales, higher education is rendered unaffordable by the requirement to pay the international rate of tuition fees, which stands in contrast with students who have come to the UK on other humanitarian pathways, such as those from Ukraine and Afghanistan, who have home fee status. This feels like an unfair discrepancy, and if we want Hongkongers to thrive in the UK, it is something that we should seriously look at.
I know that I have several asks of the Minister today, and that many of my colleagues will no doubt have done the same about various other important causes, at a time when, I know, asks of the Home Office are extremely significant, but we must not lose sight of Hong Kong. It cannot be forgotten about or pushed to the margins. That is not just because of what supporting Hongkongers says about our country’s commitment to the fundamental value of freedom, but because I know, from my own constituency, that if those who arrive from Hong Kong are given the support that they need, they can make an immense contribution to the communities that they now call home.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. To allow Mr Rand two minutes at the end to wind up, I will be calling the Front Benchers from 2.28 pm. If Members could limit their contribution to five minutes, I will have no need to impose a time limit.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The context of this debate is that since the Chinese Government’s national security law was imposed and since the 2019 Hong Kong protests in support of democracy and human rights, 10,000 people have been arrested and 2,300 charged, and 150,000 Hongkongers have fled to Britain under the British national overseas visa scheme. To be clear, the scheme allows individuals to come and live in the UK, but does not grant formal refugee status. That is a point that I will return to shortly.
I want to pay tribute to the Hongkongers in my constituency of Bolton West, many of whom live in Westhoughton and in Horwich. In the most difficult of circumstances, they have moved thousands of miles away from their homeland in search of a better life. Yet all too often, Hongkongers tell me about their concerns for themselves and their families, loved ones, and friend —both those here in the UK and those still in Hong Kong. Let us not forget why we are having this debate today.
With that in mind, I wish to touch on a couple of points raised by my constituents. First, the BNO visa scheme, which was expanded in November 2022, allows individuals born after the handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 to apply for the scheme independently of their BNO passport-holding parents. What that expanded scheme failed to address, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) has already mentioned, was that Hongkongers under the age of 18 on the day of the handover were unable to apply for BNO status themselves. Therefore Hongkongers born between 1 July 1979 and 30 June 1997 are currently stuck in a loophole, neither old enough to have applied for BNO status before the 1997 handover nor young enough to qualify under the November 2022 visa scheme expansion. My view is clear: Hongkongers within that age bracket should be able to access the BNO scheme to allow them to flee political persecution and join family members here in the UK. I ask the Government to look afresh at the operation of the scheme.
That takes me to my second point: many Hongkongers who hold BNO status are unable to access university education in the UK without student finance, because they are not eligible for home fee status. Some young Hongkongers find themselves in a position where they fled persecution but are having to pay up to £50,000 a year in university tuition fees. That not only prices them out of courses but denies them the opportunity to pursue professional careers. Whether that is because the BNO visa scheme does not grant refugee status is unclear to me, but I hope that the Government will be able to rectify the issue so that young Hongkongers who have fled persecution can proceed with their university studies.
Finally, I want to touch on repression. British citizen Jimmy Lai has been in prison in Hong Kong for over 1,500 days in solitary confinement. I take comfort from the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week that securing his release “is a priority”, and we must urgently see that release happen.
Closer to home, I know from conversations with my own Hongkonger constituents that many continue to live in fear for their security, even here in the UK, and there has been a worrying pattern of behaviour over recent years. We have seen the Hong Kong national security police issue bounties for exiled Hongkongers now living in the UK, and we all remember the shocking and frankly unacceptable event in October 2022, when a BNO visa holder who was peacefully protesting outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester was assaulted by masked men, having been dragged into the grounds of the consulate. Those actions are unacceptable, constitute an assault on human rights and must be condemned in the strongest terms. I welcome the continued support that the Government provide to Hongkongers in the UK and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing this important debate.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Hongkongers live across the UK and in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including in Haslemere and Liphook. I declare an interest—this is also a plug—in that I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. If any Member in this room wishes to join, I encourage them to do so. We are not favoured by the Chinese Communist party, I can tell you that.
Among the many wise and important decisions that the Conservative Administration made over the last 14 years, one of the most important was launching a special immigration route in June 2020, in response to the escalating political situation and the Chinese Communist Government’s implementation of the dangerous and oppressive national security law. The visa has welcomed Hong Kong residents who hold British national overseas status, and their immediate families, to live, work and study in the UK, away from restrictions on their freedoms and political rights. Since the launch of the scheme in 2021, as has been mentioned, more than 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to Britain using that bespoke immigration pathway, with more than 26,000 emigrating over the past year. For many people, the scheme has not only been a lifeline, but has ensured their families’ survival and their own. We have seen many cases, including those mentioned today, involving brave political and democratic prisoners such as Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong and Benny Tai.
First, I will address the important role that Hongkongers have played in key sectors, such as healthcare, which is my own background. My work in the health and social care system means I have seen the impact that BNO visas have had on the core institutions in this country, such as the NHS. As of June 2023, more than 700 Hongkongers are working in the NHS, with Asian people being the second largest nationality, next to British, working in our healthcare system. Access to services such as the NHS is available to anyone who resides in the UK, and BNO visa holders pay the immigration health surcharge during the application process. If they contribute to our system through their employment, it is only right that they benefit in their times of need.
My second point is about our security and defence policy. Alongside its allies Iran and Russia, the Chinese Communist party—the Government of China—is the single greatest threat to democracy, peace and freedom here in the United Kingdom and across the western world. As has been mentioned, that is evidenced by the crackdown on political and freedom of speech, as happened with Jimmy Lai, and its integration into international universities and education systems. We saw that specifically in the UK with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was shelved by the Education Secretary over British universities’ desire to protect their operations against authoritarian states such as China. The protection granted to the Chinese state amid crackdowns on freedom is disastrous for not only British students, but for Hongkongers in the UK, and it creates problems with security. China does not believe in the dual national status of descendants, so they will continue to be recognised as Chinese nationals and therefore denied UK consular access, as in the case of Jimmy Lai. Only yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated Mr Lai’s case, and the Prime Minister agreed with the Opposition that his imprisonment was a breach of the 1984 treaty. In his party’s manifesto, the Prime Minister committed to continuing the Conservative-instated BNO visas.
However, the repression of democracy is not exclusive to the mainland and Hong Kong. As has been mentioned, we saw it here in the UK in the attacks on Hong Kong protesters in Chinatown in London, a 20-minute walk away from here, and outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester a year later. As a result, and for the protection of those to whom we issue BNO visas, it is essential to gauge a better understanding of the transnational threat that BNO holders face in the UK. I call on the Foreign Secretary, when he meets the Chinese Government, to raise these issues and absolutely confirm the new UK Government’s commitment to standing up for Hongkongers and against the Chinese Communist party. I have submitted questions over this to the Home Office about naturalisation and British citizenship protections.
Finally, in the 20 seconds left to me, I want to reiterate my earlier point about freedom. China is a country where dissent is stifled and free speech tightly controlled. The internet, a tool of liberation and information in many parts of the world, is censored. Citizens who speak out against the Government or challenge the state’s narrative can face imprisonment or worse. We must not let the plight of Hongkongers in Hong Kong or in Britain be ignored or put to the side, so I ask this of the Minister. We must stand up for them, and I welcome the commitment that I hope she will give in a moment to that cause.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who will clearly be a massive asset on this issue. I thank the many organisations that have chipped in on it, but I want to speak to three points raised primarily by constituents who are directly affected as BNO Hongkongers on their practical experience here.
The first point is to reiterate what has been said about university and non-home fees. Many BNO Hongkongers are simply priced out of higher education in the UK, despite the reason why they are here—persecution in Hong Kong. They already have to pay the health surcharge. There are higher fees for being here to begin with, before even looking at paying the overseas student fee rate, which is not applicable to others. This is a doubly egregious issue, because residents from almost all British overseas territories have been eligible for home fee status at UK universities since 2007, but BNOs are not eligible, because they had their rights stripped away in 1997. I hope that the Minister will commit today to at least examining the restoration of those rights, to allow more Hongkongers to benefit from reduced rates.
There is, of course, the parallel with those who are granted leave under other schemes; those for Ukrainians have already been mentioned. I would like to see that generosity extended to those who make a permanent home in my Southwark, London constituency, as well as other constituencies that have been mentioned.
Time is tight, so apologies if I am rattling through this rather fast, but the Mandatory Provident Fund is also of significant concern. Hongkongers are being denied the £3 billion of compulsory retirement savings that has been mentioned, despite proof that they have resettled abroad. The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority released a statement in March 2021 saying that because the BNO passport was no longer recognised by the Hong Kong Government as a valid travel or identity document, those trying to withdraw funds could not use the BNO system. That has led to funds being frozen, in contradiction to what representatives of some of the firms involved have told our colleagues in the Canadian Parliament. I hope to hear from the Minister that the collapse in Sino-British relations will not prevent Ministers from probing the companies directly involved about delivering on their legal obligations.
No one should be prevented from accessing their funds just because they hold a BNO passport or visa, but there are already examples of that happening in the UK, including to a Hongkonger single mother who was unable to afford a heater for her son. She was denied £57,000-worth of her MPF, and a family of five were unable to afford a wheelchair-accessible property for their disabled child because their MPF was withheld. I think that the Minister is probing some of the companies. Just to give an example, HSBC oversees five MPF schemes and manages approximately 29% of the total MPF market. This should not be ignored. Although I welcome the audit, we cannot wait for the end of it to look at some of the interplaying issues and relationships. We need action on this, and perhaps it would be useful to call in some of these companies to examine how they are supporting BNO Hongkongers now. Hongkongers have asked for documents that they can present to the MPF holder, representing a formalised commitment to apply for British citizenship. I hope that the Minister will look at that.
My final point is on security. We have heard about Manchester, and there are examples in Surrey and in my own constituency of cyber-security issues, as well as physical harassment and intimidation, following, the disruption of meetings and the prevention of the booking of meetings at venues. Those are simple things that are being done to try to deny people the right to rebuild and live a normal life here in the UK. Transnational repression is completely unacceptable. Some of those responsible have been shown to work for the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office here in the UK. Why does it still have diplomatic status? I have asked Ministers about that. Again, the audit is one area that might look at that in the longer term, but we could look at it now. The US has sanctioned 49 Hong Kong representatives. We are yet to move in the same way, and Ministers should look at that now.
Will the Minister give us a steer on protective measures that could come forward sooner? We have the Community Security Trust to protect synagogues and the protective security for mosques scheme. Something similar that specialises in the situation that Hong Kong BNO holders face, as well as training and support for the police authorities involved, would be incredibly useful. I have written to the Security Minister on that specific issue and I hope to hear from him soon that that offer of security will be afforded, because we cannot let those who have fled communist persecution abroad be subject to communist persecution here in the UK.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this debate. I associate myself with his comments about how the previous Government should be congratulated on honouring the BNO scheme in the first place.
My borough of Sutton is home to more than 5,000 people on the BNO scheme. I represent the eastern half of the borough in Carshalton and Wallington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) will talk about the west side in Sutton and Cheam later. We have had lots of constituents coming to us to share their concerns, some of which have been aired already. The one that came up most on the doorstep and in the events that I hosted was about access to jobs, and qualifications not being recognised. More specifically, in our area it was about social work. There seem to be quite a lot of Hongkonger social workers in my area. Their qualifications were not being recognised because they had not had the required conversion courses or because an unco-operative Hong Kong Government were holding back proof of their careers and qualifications.
I am also a local councillor and I was aware that Sutton council desperately needed social workers, so I reached out to my local council and asked whether there was anything we could do. I am pleased to say that next month we will be launching an innovative internship programme where we have linked up with a local university, Kingston University, which has been providing formal study for Hong Kong social workers that we have identified. They will also get the opportunity to get some in-the-field experience with social workers who are already employed by Sutton council. We hope that that will result in the necessary recognition of their qualifications by Social Work England.
I am sure that that problem is widespread across the UK and perhaps in other professions, too. I know that there are some debates about what constitutes formal study, but I would really like to work with the Minister to see whether we can find a way of scaling up this kind of initiative across the country so that we can get a lot more of these qualified Hongkongers recognised and into the work that they are skilled at.
I have a statistic that I want to share. Somebody told me that up to 98% of the Hongkongers that have arrived in recent years have a degree. They have the skills and we need those skills, so let us make sure that they can put them to good use. My next point around university admissions has already been raised a couple of times. It has been a frequent complaint that despite the fact that all the arrivals are extremely well qualified academically, as demonstrated by the figure that I just mentioned, they are worried about their children not being able to access the same level of education because of the scale of fees that international students face. They tell me that they have British national status, but that it does not feel that way when applying for university, so that is something we need to fix.
Finally, the point about security has been well made already. It is critical that Hongkongers feel safe in the United Kingdom. We all know why they fled, but they are still living in fear of surveillance and persecution here. I have mentioned the Hong Kong Government holding back qualifications so that Hongkongers cannot get the work that they need here, and there is evidence of other records that they need access to being destroyed. They have been holding on to criminal records for things that we should not recognise in this country, such as taking part in protests. Pension entitlements, which I think have already been mentioned, are also being held back.
Closer to home, for a long time there were widespread reports of some sort of secret Chinese police station operating out of Croydon, around the corner from me. I have to put it on record that the Met found no evidence out of that, but that demonstrates the fear among the Hong Kong community. We have also heard repeated concerns about Confucius institutes at universities, which have called for lecturers and others to be sacked and intimidated Hongkongers so that they feel they need to be silent.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned cyber-harassment. My borough council experienced that when an event we put on to welcome Hongkongers was subject to a series of threatening posts telling people that they should not attend and making up all sorts of reasons why it should not go ahead.
As a local MP, I will always stand up for my constituents’ rights. As a country, we have a duty to ensure that all our citizens feel this is a democratic, free country, full of opportunity for them. I hope we can deliver that for Hongkongers.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this debate.
Before I was elected, I worked with dissidents, democrats and human rights defenders, including many in the territory of the People’s Republic of China. Earlier this week, along with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I was elected to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, and like the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) I am a member of IPAC. These issues have always been of political interest to me, but since my election they have also become constituency issues. As with many other Members, many of the 144,000 Hongkongers who have come to join us in this country have decided to settle in my constituency of East Renfrewshire, and in particular in Newton Mearns. They always say three things: first and foremost, that they are delighted to be here; secondly, that they wish the weather were better in Scotland—
Blair McDougall
We do.
Thirdly, those Hongkongers say that, although they are now living in a free country, they are not living free from fear. It is little wonder, given that in Glasgow we had a similar story to the one the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington recounted: there were reports of a secret police station being run in the basement of the Loon Fung Chinese restaurant. Like the previous Government, this Government have made it clear on many occasions that such oppression on British soil is not acceptable, but I would be interested to hear what more can be done and whether we can keep under review the diplomatic privileges given to organisations such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office to ensure they are not used as organs of transnational repression.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked what extra support can be given to make diaspora groups serving Hongkongers in the UK more resilient to that repression. In addition, can work be done to come up with an accepted definition of “transnational oppression”? This debate is about Hongkongers, but autocrats are increasingly reaching beyond their own borders, so this issue affects many other diaspora groups.
Other Members mentioned Jimmy Lai, and his case rests on all our consciences. He is a 77-year-old man whose health is failing, and he is in solitary confinement in a Hong Kong jail, in the baking heat. He has been denied independent medical access and consular access, and is facing a life sentence after a trial without a jury. That case rests heavily on the minds of Hongkongers, who are unsure whether they will be able to access consular assistance if something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to address that and assure Hongkongers, including BNOs, that by default they will be treated as British nationals for the purpose of consular assistance.
I echo the concerns other Members have mentioned about electronic travel authorisation. The assumption that if someone has had a custodial sentence of more than 12 months they would be refused such an authorisation particularly worries Hongkongers, because if someone has been a political prisoner—or they are one of the more than 1,000 political prisoners still in Hong Kong— the average sentence is far longer than 12 months. It would make it far harder for them to flee here if they needed to.
What I and other hon. Members are asking the Minister today is about the principle that Hongkongers are British, and because they are British they deserve the same protections, privileges and opportunities as any British citizen. That has a wider symbolic importance for us, as well. We are engaged in a global struggle between autocrats and liberal democracies. The people of Hong Kong stood up and said what side of that battle they were on. For all the brutality and repression they face, we have to show that we as a country will continue to stand beside them, and that we have clearly chosen a side in that global struggle.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second or third time this week, Mr Vickers. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on setting the scene so well. By pursuing this debate he has given us all an opportunity to make a contribution in support of his thoughts. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), and I look forward to many more debates together.
I have long been an advocate for the people of Hong Kong, and for their right to live in Hong Kong without bowing the knee to China. The outrageous actions by the Chinese Government have ripped through the Sino-British joint declaration. I say this with great respect, but I believe that our lack of fulsome responses embolden the Chinese, as has been exemplified by the fact that the Chinese continue to break international treaties. I still believe that diplomatic action should be taken, but that is not the focus of today’s debate.
I welcomed and supported the Conservative Government’s approach, and I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), in his place. He, I and others in this Chamber supported the BNO visa, and have welcomed the 150,000 Hongkongers who have used it, some of who came to my constituency. I welcome the Minister to her place; she and I have been friends for many years on the Back Benches where we warmed the seats regularly. She is now a Minister and I wish her well; I look forward to her answers to the points we will make.
The visa for the Hongkongers allows them to come to our shores and live a life free from oppressions. They have indefinite leave to remain and qualify for permanent residency after five years, and British citizenship after six years. It is right and proper that we offer them a way of escape, and that is exactly what it is. It is a chance for some freedom and liberty.
I want to put on record, as the Library briefing outlines, that a single adult can apply for a five-year BNO visa and would pay £250 application fee and an immigration health surcharge of £5,175. The visa gives people permission to come and live in the UK with few restrictions, and it also gives them access to most benefits, tax credits and housing assistance paid by the state. I put that on record because it is my opinion that this is the bare minimum, and that we must enhance their ability to apply for help with, for example, home fee status or student finance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for which their third level students are currently ineligible. I ask the Minister whether we can review that. I know that she is eager to help, and I am sure she will do her best to come back with something positive.
Security concerns remain for Hongkongers living in the UK. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is not here, but he made that point clearly in his intervention. Reports of police service stations have been made. I have been contacted by some constituents about their safety in Northern Ireland, and I have made the police in my constituency of Strangford aware of that. People from other constituencies in Northern Ireland have contacted me to say that their phones are being tapped. My constituent came with all the evidence, and the PSNI became involved.
People have concerns about their family back home in Hong Kong, and because they have family they are conscious that whatever they do or say, the Chinese authorities—or whoever it may be—are keeping a tab on them. They believe that this is operating in Belfast, and the evidence seems to prove that. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I will give another example of an incident that happened this year. Statements that the APPG put out were hacked. I do not understand technology and am very old school—pens and pencils are my method—but they reworded articles that asked questions about the actions of the Chinese, and turned them into favourable pieces on the APPG website. We took the necessary action to knock that on the head.
That shows that there is an evidential base for Chinese intrusion into every bit of life, for anybody that happens to have a different opinion or expresses it in a different way. Those who believe themselves to be under scrutiny most likely are.
I fully support the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West prioritising this issue in his role as an MP. I support the calls for greater support for those people who understandably feel, and which has been evidentially proved, that they have been abandoned and left at the mercy of the Chinese. We can all say with great honesty that mercy and the Chinese Communist party are two alien concepts—they do not usually go together. We must do more. I look to the Minister to begin to do more today and I say to her that we are here to support her in those efforts.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing a really important debate today. Over the last 18 months and during the election campaign, I had the privilege of meeting Hongkongers in Leeds. Listening to their experiences shed much more light on the ongoing denial of human rights and democratic values in Hong Kong. They told me of the important work they were doing across Yorkshire, including supporting the estimated 4,000 people who have settled in Leeds since 2020. Around one third of those live in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley. This is an issue that is both very important to me and very close to me.
More than 10,000 people have been arrested in the protest-related cases since the start of the pro-democracy movement in 2019. That includes, as has been referenced today by many Members, the British citizen Jimmy Lai, who has been behind bars for years. He faces life imprisonment under the national security law for, quite simply, telling the truth.
Given that we recognise why Hongkongers are leaving their country, it is essential that we consider security and access to services for those who come to the UK. Because of the time constraints in this debate, I will focus on one specific aspect of security—transnational repression.
Many British national overseas visa holders remain concerned about the threat of transnational repression against both them and their families back in Hong Kong. Some 97% of respondents to a survey conducted by Hongkongers in Leeds supported the strengthening of action against transnational repression. Worryingly, more than half of those that responded to that survey agreed that they themselves would not speak up against the injustices in Hong Kong, due to their fear that their families still in Hong Kong would face consequences. They also questioned whether they would ever be able to return to Hong Kong should they criticise the Chinese Government.
Members of the Hong Kong community in Leeds, including those in Leeds South West and Morley, have reported facing ongoing intimidation and harassment, which is something that I would like to share with hon. Members today. At several events organised by Hongkongers in Leeds, individuals were seen photographing attendees without their consent. Some attendees were even threatened with claims that the photos taken of them would be shared with the authorities in Hong Kong to prevent them from ever being allowed to return home. Threats have also occurred on social media in Leeds, with the Leeds Hong Kong community Facebook page being shared in far-right circles, in an attempt to cause agitation. Worse still, the personal information of prominent activists in the Hong Kong community in Leeds—phone numbers and personal addresses—has been shared publicly, in an attempt to humiliate and endanger them.
The experiences, threats and intimidation that the people of Hong Kong and the Hongkongers based in Leeds face today are concerns that are continuously raised with me as the constituency MP, and were raised prior to that, when I was the candidate for the constituency. We know that this behaviour is being encouraged by the Chinese Government—we know that. In the survey of Leeds Hongkongers, which was carried out prior to the general election, only 18% of respondents agreed that the UK Government provide a safe environment for them from the Chinese Government. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to take a proactive approach to countering the most acute forms of state-directed threats to individuals.
I encourage the Minister to consider additional provisions in the state threats aggravating factor to cover criminal actions aimed at individuals who are identified by a foreign power as a dissident. Doing so would be a recognition that the naming of individuals is a form of state threat behaviour, too, even if the state does not issue a directive to harm the individual in question.
We must work continually to support Hongkongers to live freely, both in Hong Kong and the UK—free from threats, free from intimidation, free from repression. It is crucial for our democracy and the values we espouse to keep all our citizens safe.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for setting up this important debate. For me, this debate is freighted with some emotion for very personal reasons. When I was a student many years ago—this will give away my age somewhat—I helped to organise for Martin Lee to speak at my university. I remember how hard campaigners like him fought to establish a vibrant democracy in Hong Kong. I remember the hope we had for the future. It is heartbreaking to see how the situation has unfolded: with China’s promises turning to ash; with the repression that my hon. Friends have talked about; with publications like Apple Daily being shut down; and with British citizens such as Jimmy Lai resting in prison, denied their basic rights.
China, as the Prime Minister said, has clearly broken its agreement with Britain, but far more importantly, it has breached its covenant with the people of Hong Kong to respect their rights and freedoms and to allow them to live in the way that they were promised. In so doing, it has struck at the very heart of what makes Hong Kong so special.
Jim Shannon
At last week’s business questions, I brought attention to Jimmy Lai and the fact that he was denied his religious liberty. He was denied the Eucharist as a devout, practising Roman Catholic. That is how far China is prepared to go. There is an example of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—he is absolutely right.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I thank the hon. Member for his point. Absolutely—Mr Lai’s treatment is appalling. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words yesterday in the Chamber about the way he will hold China accountable for that, alongside engagement.
I am also incredibly proud of the way in which my community in Hendon and communities across the UK have welcomed new arrivals from Hong Kong. In Hendon, we have a large and growing Hong Kong population, particularly in Colindale. It adds so much to the life of our community, but those people have some serious concerns, as many others have expressed. I shall not echo in great detail the points that others have excellently made, but many of my constituents face great difficulty in accessing their savings and their futures through the MPF, and local financial institutions are not doing enough to help.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) made an incredibly important point about the recognition of qualifications; that is a real challenge for people in Hendon. We have also talked about access to public services, which includes everything from getting a national insurance number to finding schools, and about BNO status and ETAs.
The point I would like to rest on is that of transnational repression. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned overseas police stations, one of which was allegedly identified in my constituency. It is completely unacceptable that people in this country face surveillance, repression and threat simply for exercising their democratic rights—and that extends to the treatment of Members of this place.
Time is tight, so I will finish by echoing the points already made and by urging the Government to do what China has not: renew our covenant with the people of Hong Kong. I thank the Minister for her work on this issue.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this important debate. Political and socioeconomic affairs in Hong Kong remain so important to us here because of our history, and like everyone, I welcomed the clear cross-party support for reintroducing the BNO visa for Hongkongers. I am very pleased to represent the constituency of Rushcliffe in the south of Nottinghamshire, which has become home to many members of the Hong Kong community over the past three years. There are now over 1,000 Hongkongers living in my constituency and it has been a genuine privilege to meet and get to know them at recent events.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight the great work locally of East Midlands Councils, which hosts our regional welcome hub. As part of the Hong Kong welcome programme, EMC has provided a range of resources, events and services for our Hong Kong community. As a council leader between 2022 and 2024, I saw at first hand the positive impact of that programme. I am therefore very pleased that funding for the welcome programme was renewed in March. Long may that programme and the BNO visa scheme continue. We should also applaud the outstanding work and extra effort of all councils to ensure that Hongkongers have been welcomed. I would like to encourage the Government to consider a number of measures—some of which have already been mentioned—to ensure that members of my local Hong Kong community can continue to play a vibrant role in helping our economy to grow.
The first point I want to make is that many 18-years-olds in Rushcliffe and across our country started university this autumn, but thousands of young BNO Hongkongers in the UK simply did not have that option, as they are not currently eligible for student finance or home fee status. That is a generation of talented young Hongkongers who are waiting to access our higher education system, despite having top grades in their A-levels and having so much to offer this country as doctors, teachers, scientists or in other skilled professions. It is my sincere hope that colleagues can work across parties to resolve that issue.
Secondly, some of my constituents have told me that they are struggling to access the Mandatory Provident Fund savings. I welcome the Government raising this issue directly with the appropriate organisations, and I encourage Ministers to continue to urge for early drawdown of those funds. That is straightforward for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently; the discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable.
Thirdly, on a very practical level, I know that my constituents would value greater control over the provision of English language teaching. I understand that funding is not always provided up front, meaning that the incentives for colleges to support English language tuition can be limited. The Hong Kong community groups local to me have said that they would welcome the ability to lead on those courses themselves with fewer funding constraints.
Fourthly, I am aware of members of the Hong Kong community having issues accessing the equivalent of Disclosure and Barring Service checks and facing challenges translating qualifications from one system to another, as was alluded to earlier. When we have known shortages in this country of GPs, teachers, nurses and other professionals, I encourage Ministers to look afresh at how to expedite the transition of Hongkongers into higher value, more productive jobs in this country, which will in turn benefit our wider community.
Fifthly, it is worth remembering that there are some asylum seekers from Hong Kong in our community, as well as those who have come under the formal scheme.
Finally, I know that this Government have sensibly committed to a China audit. My constituents really welcome that initiative and would like to see it brought forward as soon as is practically possible. I hope it will look carefully at key policy areas such as security, technology, trade, education and human rights, reflecting the concerns raised with me when engaging with this important and welcomed part of my local community.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate. I also thank the Minister for Migration and Citizenship for hearing from us all today. This week I had the opportunity to engage with the Hong Kong Democracy Council and Hong Kong Watch, and to attend a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. These discussions provided valuable insights into the key topics surrounding the current debate, with headline concerns around transnational repression, access to the £3 billion held hostage in mandatory provident funds in UK banks, eligibility gaps in the BNO scheme, and access to home fees at UK universities for BNO visa holders.
Hongkongers are an integral part of the community in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam. I am proud to represent thousands of residents originally from Hong Kong. Our area, known for its proximity to central London, family-friendly atmosphere and outstanding schools, is a welcoming place for those looking to make a new start. My constituency is a mosaic of multicultural communities that enrich modern London. From Hongkongers to Ukrainians and Afghanis to Tamils, I take immense pride in representing an area that stands as a crucial sanctuary for those fleeing persecution abroad. In Sutton and Cheam, we embrace the unique backgrounds of every resident in a community where diversity is valued and celebrated.
Tragically, however, because of the actions of an overseas state, many of my constituents are afraid to show their faces at demonstrations here in London advocating for democracy in Hong Kong. How can it be acceptable that they feel it necessary to wear face coverings and masks to conceal their identity, to avoid repercussions for themselves, their families and their friends? Many of the residents I represent live in fear of being photographed on the street by those acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, worried that these images could be used to target and persecute their families back in Hong Kong. Such a fear tactic has no place in our democracy. I am deeply appalled that it is happening right here under our noses. With the Chinese Government expanding their embassy operations with the volunteer recruitment scheme designed to surveil dissent against the CCP, the anxiety is likely only to escalate among my and many others’ constituents.
This kind of transnational repression is not just happening at major protests in central London. Just last year, former Hong Kong Chief Executive, Leung Chun-ying, took to social media to criticise the promotion of a children’s day camp put on by Hongkongers in Sutton in my constituency; that was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The day camp celebrated a series of books titled “Sheep Village”, which aim to teach children about justice, civil liberties and human rights, informing a new generation of the context behind Hongkongers’ struggles against CCP influence.
The event illustrates the extensive surveillance the Hong Kong special administrative region—HKSAR—can exercise in our capital. A seemingly small community book event at a local church in my constituency could be swiftly reported to CCP officials in Hong Kong, exposing my constituents to potentially life-changing consequences. This reality not only raises serious concerns about personal safety, but also highlights the chilling effect on freedom of expression in my constituency. It should simply go without saying that no one on UK soil should ever feel threatened by another country for standing up for their freedom. If we are to continue to be a beacon of light and hope for those fleeing oppression, we cannot stand for such blatant disregard for the values of openness and freedom that we cherish in Britain.
I must also draw attention to a critical oversight in the British national overseas visa scheme. Since its launch in 2021 under the previous Government—I again congratulate and thank them for their action—more than 160,000 Hongkongers have utilised the pathway to seek refuge in the UK, but a troubling loophole exists, as has been mentioned. Individuals aged between 27 and 45 are unable to access this vital lifeline unless they came to Britain as part of a family unit. That has meant that many young Hongkongers who want to take up the offer are unable to do so. The needless exclusion leaves many vulnerable to the increasingly oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party back in Hong Kong. Why should an uncontrollable variable such as age determine an individual’s ability to escape oppression?
We recognise that the scheme has evolved and developed as the situation in Hong Kong has changed, but we encourage the Government to take action. As we have all identified today, this mistake needs to be corrected. Taking action to plug the gap in the BNO visa scheme is plainly the right thing to do, so can we please expand it to ensure that Hongkongers of all ages can live in Britain with their families?
The Liberal Democrats stand firmly behind the people of Hong Kong and their democratic freedoms, both abroad and in Britain. The CCP is exerting transnational oppression right here on our doorsteps. Inaction is not the answer—not if we are to meet our obligations and continue to be a moral leader and champion of democracy around the world. Britain and Hong Kong’s stories are intermingled. Our colonial history has made that so. It leaves us today with a profound imperative to not abandon the people of that great city wherever they now reside, and to ensure the flame of freedom that they have never shrunk from carrying with them is not extinguished. We urge the Minister to ensure that the Foreign Secretary raises the concerns highlighted in this debate with the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments at every opportunity.
Just metres from this place, a statue of Millicent Fawcett stands in Parliament Square. Inscribed on it are the words:
“Courage calls to courage everywhere”.
The people of Hong Kong are showing their courage, and it is calling out to us. Let us answer that call.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate. I responded to a debate he spoke in earlier this week, and he is typically courteous and cares deeply about his constituency. He will be a really good voice in this House over the next five years, particularly on issues such as this.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West mentioned the large diaspora of Hongkongers in his constituency. He also rightly outlined the challenges in this country’s relationship with China and the many loopholes within the scheme set up by the previous Government. However, I thank him for giving credit to the previous Government for instigating the scheme. The fact that he put the credit in the right place shows that he has excellent judgment, and we look forward to that excellent judgment being shown during his career in this House.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned Jimmy Lai. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments welcoming the Prime Minister’s remarks in the House yesterday. We stand with those remarks and look forward to seeing the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister challenge the Chinese in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) was right to mention the previous Government’s commitment to ensuring that we welcomed many Hongkongers, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley. I know that through his activism he will encourage the new Government to challenge the Chinese Government in the meetings that the Foreign Secretary is shortly to hold.
I thank Members from all parties for their contributions today, which struck the right tone. I am heartened by the continued support for BNO visa holders who come to this country, where they can rely on the rule of law, developed and protected institutions and a stable democratic system regardless of which party is in charge. Since the introduction of the BNO visa scheme in January 2021, we have witnessed a remarkable response, with more than 210,843 individuals seeking to live, work and study in the UK. This visa route, which is available to those with British national overseas status and their eligible family members, has provided a lifeline for many fleeing the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, a place once known for its vibrant democracy but now facing unprecedented challenges.
The number of applicants illustrates the urgent desire of Hongkongers to find safety and stability. However, with that influx comes responsibility. We must ensure that our support systems are prepared to meet the needs of these new residents, enabling them to integrate fully into our society. Although the BNO visa allows holders to work in nearly any capacity and study in the UK, it does not grant access to public funds. That exclusion can create significant challenges for individuals who might find themselves in precarious financial situations on arrival. For example, many BNO visa holders have reported difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience.
A survey conducted by the Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers revealed that 40% of respondents felt that their financial health had worsened since arriving in the UK, with rising living costs further complicating their integration. Moreover, although a large majority of respondents—90%—reported having established connections with local communities, language barriers continue to pose a significant hurdle. More than a third of BNO holders rated their English skills as poor, which hinders their ability to find suitable employment and to participate fully in society.
The ongoing need for language support underscores the importance of the Hong Kong BNO welcome programme, which aims to assist such individuals as they navigate their new lives. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West was right to raise the case of those with criminal records who were refused under the scheme under the previous Government. Can the Minister outline the line that the new Government will take that?
Another pressing issue that has arisen is the difficulty many Hongkongers face in accessing their pension funds, which remain trapped in the Mandatory Provident Fund system in Hong Kong. Under the regulations, those emigrating on the BNO passport cannot access their retirement savings until the age of 65. That situation poses a significant financial burden, especially for those who have relocated permanently and are now struggling to establish their lives in the UK. Reports have surfaced of individuals who, due to their involvement in the pro-democracy protests, left Hong Kong with their life savings inaccessible, jeopardising their financial stability within the United Kingdom.
The welcome programme launched in April 2021 represents a crucial step towards successful integration. It includes demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English-language and destitution support, an online welcome pack for newcomers, and a network of welcome hubs across the United Kingdom. Such initiatives are vital in supporting BNO holders to settle into their communities. For the upcoming financial year, I welcome the fact that the Government have announced that £1 million is being targeted on employability and mental health support for BNO visa holders, highlighting the Government’s recognition of the unique challenges faced by this community.
As we look to the future, however, it is clear that we need to do more. The new Government have made a commitment to a strategic approach to managing our relationship with China. That must also encompass a firm stance on the rights of those who have chosen to make the UK their home and must include addressing the complex dynamics of our bilateral relationship while standing in solidarity with Hongkongers who have fled oppression. The Government must continue to push for action under the Sino-British agreement of 1984, which is being breached consistently by the Chinese Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined.
The Government have acknowledged such challenges, stating that they are working with the Hong Kong authorities to address the barriers preventing BNO visa holders from withdrawing their funds. Not only is the issue of access to funds a bureaucratic hurdle, but it directly impacts on the ability of Hongkongers to secure housing, support their families and build a future within the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, let us reaffirm our commitment to supporting Hongkongers in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that our visa routes are not merely a means of entry, but a genuine pathway to integration and opportunity, which I think we can say has happened with the Hong Kong community. That includes providing adequate resources to help individuals adjust to life in the United Kingdom, ensuring access to essential services and advocating for fair treatment regarding their financial assets. It is our duty as a House as well as the duty of the Government and the Opposition to ensure that the promises made to Hongkongers are honoured, reflecting the values of compassion and justice that define our nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate, which has given rise to powerful speeches by hon. Members from all parties.
Members have spoken up for their constituents and about their experiences and I will try to address as many of the points made as possible. Many issues were covered, whether that was the BNO visa route, security issues at home and in Hong Kong, pensions, home university fees, democratic freedoms, police stations and more.
I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for their contributions. The issue has had cross-party support in the past, and I am sure we will continue to work in that spirit in support of Hongkongers in the UK and those who may come here in the future.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will recognise that I may not be able to address all the issues raised today. Some of these complex matters need cross-departmental work, whether that is with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the DFE. I hope that I will cover most of the issues in my comments today, but I assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we will look at all the issues raised. I also pay tribute to the work of Hong Kong Watch and others in sharing their experience and research.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will be aware, the Government are deeply committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I think I speak for all of us when I say that Hongkongers have become an integral part of our economy and local communities, and make fantastic contributions to our national life.
I will speak first about the Hong Kong BNO visa route. The route was established in 2021 in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong, which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral responsibility for and commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Since its launch, more than 209,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK. Those Hongkongers are free to live, work and study in virtually any capacity on a pathway to British citizenship. I am sure we will welcome many more Hongkongers to the UK in future so that they can also build a new life for themselves here.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I asked about students across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England, as well—the Minister may be coming to it, but if she is not, I hope she will. I underlined that there is a clear issue relating to students from Hong Kong having the same opportunities as those who are born here. I urge the Minister to give us an answer on that.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and will come on to that point.
I will deal first with questions around the expansion of the BNO route, in particular to people born between 1979 and 1997. A number of Members have suggested that the BNO route should be expanded to include those who were children at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997 but whose parents did not register them for BNO status. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic commitment to those who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status, and we continue to uphold those commitments. Those not eligible for the BNO route need to consider other available UK immigration routes, for example as a student, graduate or skilled worker. I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to make any policy commitments in this forum, but I want to give assurances that I will take their comments away and consider the points that have been raised today.
I will also address the point about criminality. The standard immigration rules on criminality and other adverse behaviours apply to applications through the BNO route. However, all applications are carefully assessed against the latest country information, and guidance for caseworkers provides flexibility to ensure that overseas convictions for offences—particularly those not recognised in the UK—do not result in the automatic refusal of an application. I am aware of the concerns of those applying through the BNO route, and of the risk of their being refused on suitability grounds because of a conviction for what I think we can describe as politically motivated or trumped-up criminal charges in Hong Kong. I assure hon. Members that I am keeping the issue under review.
On the question of access to services, I thank hon. Members for their comments about the Government’s welcome programme, which we have remained committed to and which is now entering its fourth year of funding. That very important programme enables Hongkongers to access support on a range of issues, including employment, education, housing and the English language. It helps them seek employment, build skills and learn more about life in the UK so they can play a bigger part in their local communities.
As the shadow Minister said, there is currently £1 million of funding for voluntary and community-sector organisations to deliver projects focused on employability and mental health and wellbeing. The Growth Company has been funded to deliver the Jobs for Hongkongers initiative, which will help BNOs in England find employment. I am aware of other good examples. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) talked about a scheme, and I would be interested to hear more about how those local initiatives are working.
International fees are a concern for those on the BNO route, who can study and work in virtually any capacity. Generally, to be eligible for student support, home fee status and fee caps, a student must have settled status in the UK, and ordinarily they must have been resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of their course. The majority of BNO status holders will be able to qualify for home fee status and student finance once they have obtained settlement in the UK, subject to meeting the normal eligibility requirements. The eligibility criteria apply to all students, except persons granted international protection by the Home Office, but I have heard what hon. Members have said today.
On the Mandatory Provident Fund, hon. Members raised the very serious matter of the estimated £3 billion of funds alleged to have been frozen. We know that individuals who have chosen to take up the BNO visa route have difficulty drawing down early their pensions held in the Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund. Although documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early are a matter for the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has raised the issue directly with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. We have urged them to facilitate the early drawdown of funds, as is the case for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently, and we have made it clear that such discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable. I will certainly keep that under review.
On security, we take the protection of Hongkongers’ rights, freedoms and safety in the UK very seriously, and we continue to assess potential threats in the UK. We work closely across Government, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement bodies, to protect persons identified as being at risk and ensure the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. I want to be clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and the other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. We will challenge where we must to protect our national security and values. We are also working to improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses through an audit of the UK’s relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor.
It is also worth saying in response to the cyber-security issues that have been raised that the National Security Act 2023 gives the police new powers to protect the public from these malign threats, including those actions that amount to transnational repression—I take the point about the need for a clear definition. The Act brings together vital new measures to protect the UK’s national security, creating a whole suite of measures to enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern state threats.
Seema Malhotra
I am conscious of time and I want to make a couple of final points before wrapping up.
A concern was raised about whether there were plans to shut down the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, but its status is enshrined in primary legislation and there are no plans to change that framework.
On Jimmy Lai, we continue to call on Hong Kong authorities to immediately release British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case, as has been mentioned by the Prime Minister this week, is a priority for the Government. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s case in his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in July. We continue to raise his case. UK diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong continue to attend his court proceedings on a regular basis and will continue to do so when the trial resumes in November. We are deeply concerned about the allegations about his treatment in prison and have sought reassurances on appropriate medical treatment.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been an incredibly important, thoughtful and well-informed debate. It is important that we take this opportunity to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to the people of Hong Kong and to the BNO route, which provides long-term safety and stability for Hongkongers in the UK.
Mr Rand
I thank everyone for their contributions today. It is really encouraging to see the level of cross-party support on this vital issue. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his kind words about me, and for his contribution. I thank the Minister very much for her strong words in support of Hong Kong and her constructive engagement with the points raised in the debate.
We had some immensely powerful contributions from Members today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for being the first to raise the case of Jimmy Lai and I thank others who have spoken about that case. It was really encouraging to hear the Prime Minister’s strong words on that case earlier in the week and to hear the Minister reaffirm those today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for speaking so powerfully, as always, about the plight of those in Hong Kong. He brings an immense amount of experience to this debate and the discussion. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, for talking so powerfully about our fundamental values of freedom, the right to protest and the right to self-expression.
What unites us all is a belief in the importance of standing with Hongkongers, both at home and abroad, and that this country continues to offer Hongkongers a route out of oppression, to ensure that Hongkongers living in the UK feel secure and have an opportunity to build a better life here. I know that the Minister is personally committed to those aims, as are the Government. I am sure that those in the Hong Kong community following today’s debate, including constituents of mine in Altrincham and Sale West, will be really encouraged by the contributions and the positive response of the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered visas, security and access to services for Hong Kongers living in the UK.
Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.
I rise today to address a pressing issue affecting not only my constituents in Gordon and Buchan but rural communities and family-run businesses across the entirety of the United Kingdom. As we approach the autumn Budget, there is growing anxiety, yet to be put to bed, among farmers and family business owners about the potential changes to agricultural and business property reliefs. APR and BPR play a crucial role in securing the longevity of farming and family businesses. Without inheritance tax reliefs, the value of an individual’s business assets will be chargeable at a full 40%. The rate of inheritance tax in the UK kicks in at a relatively low value in relation to the value of farming assets, even for a small farm, particularly when compared with that of other countries. There is speculation in the media, coupled with Government silence, on the future of these reliefs, which is causing profound problems.
In a meeting with the Country Land and Business Association just yesterday, I heard how some of their members are already taking rash and rushed decisions because of this matter, which will impact their businesses, tax position and operations for years to come. Its members—our constituents—fear the worst in terms of changes to APR and BPR in the Budget and the profound impact that may have on their businesses, which, in many cases, provide employment for their families and wider communities, and have done so for generations.
APR and BPR are not, as some would have us believe, just tax loopholes for the wealthy. Viewing those reliefs as fair game in a Budget shows a complete lack of understanding of their importance and function. APR and BPR are lifelines for hard-working family farms and entrepreneurs, who form the backbone of our rural communities and local economies the length of the country. These are same businesses that we MPs are always too delighted to be seen to visit and champion as pillars of our communities and for their hard-working, entrepreneurial spirit; it is now time that we put those words into actions. Many of these businesses would not survive a succession event without APR or BPR—it is that simple. There is a reason why the reliefs have been in place for almost 50 years, which is that they work and are needed. Without them, farming and family businesses would change, and the UK’s rural business landscape would be unrecognisable.
Agricultural businesses are vital for not only economic activity but food production and security, land stewardship and environmental management. As farmers face ever-tighter margins from increased environmental obligations, spiking input costs and global market pressures, there is already considerable strain on farming profitability. It is important to understand that although farms have high asset values, they are often cash poor. In 2022-23, across all types of farms, 17% were failing to make a profit and 59% were taking home less than £50,000. Even where a profit is made, it is usually directly reinvested back into the farm—the business—in order to increase efficiency, develop or adapt. Cash does not simply sit idly; it is usually invested into assets needed to grow the farm and allow it to function, be it via land, buildings or kit.
APR is also vital for ensuring that farms can be passed to the next generation without a crippling inheritance tax bill. The continuity of family farms is necessary for the maintenance of our cultural heritage and expertise and, crucially, generational stewardship of our countryside and responsibility for food production. Without APR, many families would be forced to sell their land or buildings or even split up the farm in order to pay inheritance tax bills, which, even for the most modest of farms, could be hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not in the millions. That would mean selling the very assets and losing the scale needed to operate and produce food, fundamentally undermining the viability of those businesses.
It is important to appreciate that farms do not operate in isolation; they typically engage with multiple businesses in close proximity to their holdings. In my recent meeting with the National Farmers Union Scotland, I was told about a farm in north-east Scotland that engages with no fewer than 92 separate businesses within a radius of just a few miles; those businesses all benefit from that one farm. The closure of a single farm will have a ripple effect throughout any local economy.
The average age of a farmer in the UK is 59, and 35% of farmers are aged over 65. We all know that it is common to see farmers still managing their holdings well into their seventh or eighth decades, but that means that, on family farms, a succession event—planned or otherwise—can hit very suddenly. Without the reliefs, we risk losing a generation of farmers, threatening the future of British agriculture. Many family businesses will simply cease to exist if they are removed. The impact will extend not just to landowners, but far beyond, to tenancies and the wider rural economy.
In a recent poll by the CLA of over 500 landowners and farmers, 86% said they were likely to have to sell some or all of their land upon a death if inheritance tax reliefs were scrapped, and 90% said that the UK’s food security would be damaged in the long run. I find that really hard to disagree with. The potential loss of productive agricultural land and farmland has serious implications for our national food security, and I remind the Minister of the line in the Labour manifesto, that
“food security is national security.”
Let us also consider the alternative: if large areas of land were sold to cover an IHT bill, who would be likely to buy that land? Would it be another farmer, who would also have to manage their own capital in light of their own family’s IHT bill down the line, or a large corporate company, where boardrooms and bottom lines dictate the approach to environmental management, room for nature and food production? I do not think that that is the ownership and business structure of rural Britain that this Government, or indeed any of us, are striving for.
We must also consider the impact on tenants as well as landowning farmers. Any changes to APR that make it less appealing for a tenancy to be created will have a detrimental impact on tenants, the tenancy sector and the next generation of farmers.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I might have this wrong, but I understand that the Tenant Farmers Association has suggested that there could be scope for reforming these taxes in a way that is of benefit to long-term tenancies. What is the hon. Member’s view on whether such reforms would be worthwhile?
Harriet Cross
I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production.
BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges.
Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field.
About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it.
In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes.
APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. We have already spoken briefly in an all-party parliamentary group meeting about the similarities between our constituencies. She and I both know the importance of a thriving agricultural sector, the jobs it provides, and the almost undefinable contribution it makes to the character of the constituency and to a community.
I am concerned because farmers in my constituency have told me that they have been dealing with the chaos of the economy for the last 14 years. They have been dealing with crashing consumer confidence and an international trading situation in this country that simply is not conducive to the long-term success of the agricultural sector. For example, the Australia and New Zealand trade deal was a betrayal of the sheep farmers in my constituency in particular and has threatened their long-term business prospects. I hope that the Minister not only responds to the points made in this debate but talks about how we can make sure that the economy is stable, secure and on firm foundations, and that we never again see our farmers sold down the river as they once were.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Canadian deal has not been signed in the last 18 months in order to take account of the agricultural sector’s concerns in particular? The pressing, immediate concern for which the Minister must provide a resolution today is how this Government are disposed towards agricultural property relief and business property relief. That is their concern now. The hon. Gentleman is making a political point—whatever happened previously, we have to focus on his Government’s responsibility in the coming two weeks.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I have just been reminded by the Clerk that it is very unusual for a shadow Cabinet member to speak in a Westminster Hall debate as a Back Bencher. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but apparently that is not the done thing.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
It is not the Opposition Chief Whip’s decision; it lies with the Chairman of Ways and Means. Our rule book says that it is highly unusual. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but hopefully there will not be a back and forth between the shadow Cabinet and Back Benchers.
Joe Morris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his highly unusual intervention. I will make a brief university point and say that it is highly unusual to have a Mansfield College MP intervene on a Mansfield College MP; it is probably the first time that has happened in this Parliament.
Joe Morris
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am glad that the last Government learned some of the lessons of the Australia trade deal and implemented them. It is important that we get an answer on APR and BPR. I am making a slightly political point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will humour me for it, but it is important that we maintain that international trade is an ongoing piece and the agricultural sector does not exist in isolation. None of these reliefs exist in isolation. Farming, more than anything, is an industry with concerns that sit between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business and Trade. More than almost any other industry, it is reliant on good cross-party and cross-departmental working, and we need to ensure that the Government do that. I hope that we do not consider these things just in isolation but overall and together, and we must ensure that the Government are working towards securing them.
One of the main concerns that I picked up from my constituency is the inability of consumers to distinguish between British and foreign produce when it is badged up the wrong way. I hope the Treasury will listen to representations on how we can combat that kind of false advertising when foreign produce is repackaged as UK produce. How we keep the family farm going, and how we ensure that small farms are able to continue to produce in the Tyne valley, is deeply concerning to me. I have spoken to a lot of local farmers about land loss and about large corporations buying up prime agricultural land and using it to—I think it is fair to say—greenwash. That is genuinely a national issue that requires cross-party cohesion and cross-party solutions. My own hackneyed political point scoring is not going to help in that, but in the long term and in this Parliament, I would always welcome working to address that. However, I urge the Minister to remember that farms are businesses and they need long-term consumer confidence. They need an overall business climate that rewards investment and entrepreneurialism, but not one that is not built on sand. They need one that is built on secure, stable foundations and that is open to serious cross-party working.
When we look at how we get the rural economy growing, it is really important that both land-owning farms and tenant farms in particular can continue to employ people and that there is money going out of those farms into the local economy. I have spoken to my constituents: they have had to take certain crops out of production to grow those that need less manpower. They would have employed people to work those fields or work that livestock, but they have been forced to change by often badly designed initiatives from DEFRA, and we need to work cross-party to ensure that those initiatives are better designed in future. They have been forced into those measures that, over the course of many years, slowly bring their workforce down and lead to less money coming into the local economy. In his response, I hope the Minister can ensure that the Treasury hears the pleas of rural communities. This issue is genuinely a concern across parties, and my constituents are very concerned about the ongoing removal of prime agricultural land from food production.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to make a speech. We will then calculate whether we need a time limit.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing a very timely debate. She has provided us with what is definitely my favourite euphemism, the “succession event”, and I think we know what that means in most cases.
This is a timely debate because we have had a lot of speculation in the media in recent weeks about the possibility of changes coming in the Budget very soon. There is very little that is certain in politics these days, but I am as near certain as anybody can be that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will say that he is not going to tell us anything about the Budget. I understand the reasons for that, which are essentially sound, long-standing and respected by all, but it illustrates the inadequacy of this as a way of effecting meaningful change. Without the ability to have a proper debate involving the Treasury, change will inevitably come in a haphazard and chaotic way, and it will bring with it many unintended consequences that will have an effect on not just farmers but the wider rural community. I should have said right at the start that I have my own interests in agriculture, which are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I remind the House of those.
There may be a case for reform, but this really is not the way to go about it. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan was right to say that farming is a capital-rich and revenue-poor industry. Of course, any changes in farming will have consequences that spread beyond agricultural businesses. What affects farmers will affect vets, agricultural merchants, local shops and post offices in some of the most economically fragile communities to be found anywhere in the country. My concern has long been—it is not exclusive to this Government—that the Treasury does not quite understand the way the rural economy works. It is a cliché, but true, to say that farming underpins just about everything in rural communities and the rural economy, whether environmentally—through the way in which land is managed, which has consequences for nature—or financially.
The Tenant Farmers Association provided a briefing for this debate, which said that it is already seeing consequences among its members:
“We are already seeing, first hand, concerns about how Inheritance Tax charges change the way that traditional estates have thought about the management of their agricultural land, and that is before there is any change to the Inheritance Tax regime. Rural estates with significant residential and mineral interests will want to ensure that they have sufficient business activity elsewhere on their estates to be able to qualify for BPR from Inheritance Tax across the whole of their estates. If APR was abolished this will make things hugely much more difficult for farm tenants.”
That important point gets right to the heart of the matter. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Lady, in framing this debate, covered APR and BPR, which work in an interlinked way. It also shows the responsibility we in politics have when we set hares running.
North of the border, for the last few years we have had an active and often welcome debate about land reform, but one of the consequences of that debate is that many agricultural land owners, instead of moving out and putting in tenants, have moved into grass lets. A lot of the larger landowners’ estates, in particular, have replaced the secure agricultural tenancies for which they had been known for generations with a much less secure system of tenure.
As the TFA says, there might be a case for reform. It suggests ways to reward longer tenancies of 10-plus years and more secure tenancies. We have to have that debate, but we cannot effect that in a meaningful way that looks at agricultural spending in the round once the decision has been announced in a Budget. There are many other influences at play. For example, in recent years we have had the reform of agricultural support payments in England and Wales, and that is now coming through in Scotland.
For decades, farmers have been told that they have to diversify—diversify, diversify, diversify—so they have renovated farm cottages and turned them into furnished holiday lets, and now they are being told that they are responsible for the housing crisis in the country and are being hit with furnished holiday let reform, which this Government appear to have inherited from the previous one.
Inheritance tax can be avoided by intra vires transfers, but the way they work can often be arbitrary. They can also have some difficult personal consequences when it comes to the transfer from one generation to the other, as the family interaction can be difficult.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan. I hope that when the Chancellor delivers the Budget next week, if this issue is under the Treasury’s active consideration, we will see the Government’s direction of travel and the overall picture that they want to achieve, rather than just one quick hit, because that could have serious consequences for family farms and rural communities across the country.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this debate on agricultural property relief and business property relief. Like her, I represent a constituency with a large rural community of many farms and agricultural businesses, so I am acutely aware of just how important the relief is for the long-term viability of farming and the wider implications for UK food security.
There is already a recruitment crisis in the sector, which is heavily reliant on families to work in farming into the future. While I would, of course, encourage young people to look into agricultural and land-based courses such as the ones offered at the excellent Reaseheath College in my constituency, it is fair to say that farming is often in the blood, with the skills and knowledge passed down from generation to generation. If the physical means to farm, the land and the property, are not passed down to the next generation, then we risk losing the people, knowledge and skills that we desperately need to keep the sector viable.
I have spoken to farmers, who are clear that changes to agricultural property relief would mean that land would have to be sold to cover the cost of subsequent tax bills. I know that that is the case across the country. According to a large CLA poll, 86% of farmers said that all or part of their land would need to be sold when they passed away, if agricultural property relief was removed. Farmers have already been through a challenging time. Rising costs for energy and fertiliser, inflation, and adverse weather are just some of the issues that farmers have faced in recent years. The Government need to stand by farmers and support them, not restrict and punish them as the removal of APR would do.
Across the House, we rightly say that food security is national security. Farmers need land to produce food. If the Government remove protections that are in place to exempt farm land from inheritance tax, it will be yet another step to putting our food security at greater risk. This is a very real problem that is pertinent to all of us, whether we are farmers or not, because all of us rely on food that is grown to feed our nation. Many farmers across Chester South and Eddisbury provide jobs directly and indirectly—for instance, through food production or hospitality—that rely on local produce. Farmers are also essential for land management and maintaining our environment.
This policy threatens the future of the countryside. I remind the Minister that he stood on a manifesto that committed to not raising taxes on working people. I would respectfully suggest that any change in the current rules and rates of agricultural property relief would be contradictory to that promise. Farmers are working people. They work incredibly hard, often without the recognition they deserve, and they must be supported, not penalised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure, as always, Dr Huq, to serve under your chairship. It has probably been more than once this week but, none the less, it is lovely to see you in your place. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for setting the scene so well and giving us all an opportunity to make a contribution on an important issue. It is an honour to speak on a subject that is not just a matter of fiscal policy, but is of vital importance to the very backbone of the United Kingdom. I declare an interest as a farmer, landowner and member of the Ulster Farmers Union for some 40 years. I joined the Ulster Farmers Union not because it was in Northern Ireland, but because the insurance premiums were very cheap. They are maybe not quite as cheap now, but then no insurance is as cheap now as it is used to be, and that is a fact.
I can attest to the importance of agricultural property relief in ensuring the sustainability and longevity of farming enterprises across our great nation. In my constituency of Strangford, farming is not just an industry, but much more—it is a way of life. It is about generations of families working the land, providing food, maintaining the landscape and contributing to the rural economy. More than that, it is about stewardship, which the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan referred to in her introduction. It is really important that we focus on that. Farmers are custodians of the countryside, caring for the environment while ensuring food production to feed the nation. That means everyone; not just the farmers, but everyone who lives in this great nation. Agricultural property relief plays a critical role in maintaining that balance, allowing farming families to pass on their land and business without crippling tax burdens.
Agricultural property relief is one of the key supports for farming families across the United Kingdom, and in Strangford it is essential. In Northern Ireland, agriculture is responsible for some £501 million in income, as of 2021—a substantial 8.3% increase from 2020. It is no exaggeration to say that agriculture is at the heart of our economy, and everyone has said it. Agriculture is critical to everyone. Not a person who has spoken so far has not said that about our rural community.
My constituency of Strangford is home to a vibrant agrifood sector that employs thousands of people through major employers such as Willowbrook Foods, Lakeland Dairies and Mash Direct. Those companies are household names. They are family businesses that started as farms and then diversified—something that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to. They have ensured the sustainability of our rural community. Without APR, those family-run enterprises could be forced to sell land and assets just to meet inheritance tax liabilities, potentially dismantling businesses that have been built up over generations. This issue is critical to the future of my constituency’s farming community, and to those businesses.
Agriculture is not just a business; it is the fabric of rural life. We often talk about food security, environmental stewardship and rural economies, and yet without the right fiscal support, those pillars of our country are put at risk. That is why this debate is so important. APR helps farmers to plan for the future, ensuring that the next generation can take over the family farm without being forced into financial hardship. It allows them to focus on what they do best: producing high-quality food, maintaining biodiversity and contributing significantly to local economies.
We have a rich agricultural tradition. Our dairy farmers, sheep farmers, pig farmers and vegetable growers are among the best in the world and take immense pride in their work. Lakeland Dairies, which employs more than 250 people in my constituency, and Mash Direct, which employs more than 230, have been the cornerstones of our agrifood economy.
Let us not forget the Comber early, a potato with protected geographical indication status, which means it is recognised across Europe for its unique quality. It is grown right there in the fields of Strangford. Those enterprises are not just businesses; they are a way of life. It is about not just tradition, but innovation. Innovation is part of what farmers do. They are not just the boys who plough the fields and scatter the seed—that is almost like the hymn “We plough the fields and scatter”.
Let us take Mash Direct, for example. A family-run business that began in a kitchen 20 years ago now supplies some of the largest retailers in the United Kingdom, including Asda and Spar. The business is forward-thinking. It has installed solar panels and invested in sustainable practices, all while providing hearty, healthy food at affordable prices. Lakeland Dairies, meanwhile, exports its milk products across the world and contributes to the economy. These are family businesses that started off in a very small way and have grown and created jobs. They are success stories, and we must ensure that the tax system supports their continued growth and does not hamper them.
This is why I am calling on the Government to ensure that agricultural property relief remains intact and that it is not reduced or removed as part of any future tax policy. We must give farmers the confidence to invest in their businesses, to innovate and to continue producing high quality food for our nation. The very last thing we need is for farms to be sold off piecemeal because families cannot afford the tax burden. Let us be clear. APR is not a loophole for the wealthy; it is a lifeline for farming families who are working hard day in and day out to maintain their land and their livelihoods.
In Strangford, where agriculture is not just a part of our economy but a part of our identity—it is who we are—support is vital. As we look to the future of UK farming post Brexit, with new trade deals, changing subsidy regimes and heightened environmental targets, we must ensure that the fiscal framework surrounding agriculture is robust and supportive. APR is a crucial part of that framework, allowing farmers to pass on their businesses, invest in new technologies and ensure that rural communities remain vibrant and sustainable.
Farmers in Strangford and across the United Kingdom are already taking steps to reduce emissions, embrace low-emission technology and promote biodiversity. However, those efforts cannot come at the cost of financial viability. Many of the improvements needed to reduce emissions, such as upgrading farm infrastructure, require significant investment, as the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan said. She set the scene very clearly. The money that is made must go back into the farms so that they can move forward.
APR helps to ensure that farmers have the financial security to make those investments. Without it, we risk failing not only our farming communities but our environmental goals. I say this to the Minister kindly—he knows that I do not criticise or give people a hard time, but I do make a point. The Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that Labour is committed to achieving environmental goals. The farmers whom I and others here represent are also committed to achieving those goals, but that can only happen if the money comes through for that purpose.
I want to mention the need for better protection of farmland from schemes such as solar farms and pylons, which can remove valuable agricultural land from production. While we must embrace renewable energy, we must also ensure that food production remains central to our land-use framework. There has to be a balance, as Members of both the previous and the current Government will understand. We need to strike the right balance between energy production and food security. Farmers should not be forced to choose between their livelihoods and environmental progress. Both things can, and must, go hand in hand.
I have spoken fairly quickly, and I think I have got more words in than anyone has ever done. Farming is at the heart of our nation, and agricultural property relief is at the heart of farming. Without APR, many of our farming families—those in Strangford and across this great nation—would face insurmountable challenges. The loss of that vital relief would be a blow not just to rural communities, but to our food security, economy and environment. Each of those is critical, so let us continue to back our farmers, protect our rural communities and safeguard our food security by maintaining agricultural property relief. I urge the Government to make that commitment and recognise that the future of farming in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland depends on it.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I join in the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate. Like many Members, I am motivated to engage in it because I represent a rural constituency that is made up of many small and large farm holdings.
Without making this sound like my maiden speech, Suffolk is a beautiful rural constituency with a stunning landscape. It is known for its contribution to our food system, and it is home to many market towns where family-owned butchers, bakers and grocers source their produce from local farms. Even breweries do so. Adnams Southwold is in the next-door constituency, but it sources all the ingredients for its famous beers and other products from farms in the local area. One in seven jobs in Suffolk have some relationship to the food production industry. One only has to go to the Suffolk Show to see the importance of farms, farming and agriculture to our local economy. As a result, we have to take seriously the livelihood and financial sustainability of our farms.
It is worth remembering that farms are, as many Members have said, small businesses with tight margins and high capital costs. One way we could greatly threaten the long-term financial sustainability of farms, which are so integral to our economy and community, is to threaten the owners with a tax if they pass the family farm down to the next generation.
Let me explain why that is a bad idea. First, as with the taxation of many forms of capital, liquidity is being demanded from a resource that is fundamentally illiquid. As we have heard, the Government will fundamentally force many farms to sell off parcels of land, and when farm owners realise that it is hard to sell off small parcels of land, they will be forced to sell their whole holding. Don’t believe me? Eighty-six per cent. of respondents to a poll of farmers conducted by the Country Land and Business Association said that they would have to sell some or all of their land if they were faced with a new IHT obligation.
Secondly, those who can shoulder the cost of a new tax on their farm and business will simply have to reallocate a lot of their capital away from more productive sources of investment, such as cattle, machinery and labour. That has grossly negative economic and social consequences. My next-door neighbour is a relatively well-heeled farmer who also uses his land to provide a wedding venue and rental properties—that is something we have heard about. If we place farmers under more financial stress, they will simply have to close down those businesses. Let us not forget that many of those businesses provide really important jobs and incomes and, fundamentally, pay tax in our economy. We are taxing one half of the equation only to take away from the other.
Thirdly, the proposal will yield an irrelevant amount of money in the long run. We have all read the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says that agricultural relief costs the Exchequer £400 million a year. To put it bluntly, I know that many people in the Treasury and Labour Members see landowners as rich rent seekers who invest in property to avoid IHT. But let us look at the contribution that people such as James Dyson have made to our food production industry by incorporating technology and environmental standards into the sector, or at the incredible impact of the Grosvenor group in restoring peatland and moorlands in parts of Cheshire and Lancashire. That will have a hugely positive impact on wildlife numbers and carbon emissions.
If the Treasury genuinely believes that we should tax farmers in the hope that they will release land to housing and property developers—trust me, we are not going to solve the housing crisis by building houses on farmland in Suffolk. It will be solved by investing in units in towns and cities, where young people really want to live and where footfall already exists. Such an argument ignores all the positive impact that many farmers have made, and it completely neglects the thousands of small families who are not rich and who may be forced to sell their farm despite having tended to the land for generations. The imposition of a new tax on inherited land will have a sad impact on family-owned farms, of which there are too many in my constituency to name. Many have spoken in recent years of the increasing difficulty of running their farms in the current economic climate. They have to negotiate a labyrinth of new environmental regulations, a new post-Brexit payment system, an energy crisis that has pushed their costs through the roof, higher interest rates and increasing competition from abroad.
To remove agricultural and business relief from these small family-owned farms could push many over the edge. What a loss that would be to our economy, to our communities and to the many families who have owned, farmed and maintained their land for generations, and who will continue to do so for generations to come.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I call the first Front-Bench spokesperson: Will Forster for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Wanting to leave your children something is a natural part of being a parent. Right now, inheritance tax is quite unfair. Families face a tax rate that is very high by international standards. Tax-free allowances have been frozen for some time, while house prices and inflation have gone up significantly. It is understandable that people I have met on the doorstep in Woking over the years have said that they are worried about their family being caught by that tax, even though they are by no means wealthy. Meanwhile, economists and policy experts have expressed concerns about the ways in which inheritance tax reliefs can be used. The aim of business property relief is to make sure that family businesses can pass from one generation to the next. I hope everyone here would agree that that is a worthwhile aim.
Woking is a town teeming with family businesses. We all have family businesses in our constituencies that are near and dear to our constituents and that enrich our areas not only economically but culturally, making them unique. We need to ensure that those family businesses are genuinely protected by new rules, so that they can continue from one generation to the next, and we need to ensure that they are genuinely sustainable so that the stewardship of the history and heritage of our local areas is maintained.
Experts point out that certain provisions within business property relief are not particularly well targeted at local family businesses or small businesses, which are usually the ones in most need of support. For example, it has been noted that 100% relief applies in the same degree to businesses of all sizes, from large corporations worth several billion to micro and small family shops or farms. There are also questions about accountancy practices that can give certain financial portfolios the same treatment as a local family-owned shop, pub or manufacturing business. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on these issues and on how the Government envisage supporting cherished family-owned companies that champion the heritage and local economy in my constituency and elsewhere.
It is equally important that family-owned farming businesses, which have been the focus of most contributions to this debate, be preserved and protected. Farming is vital to our rural communities, providing the foundation for our whole economy and our food security. We need to have the raw materials and to guarantee safety; s we live in a more dangerous world, we need to be able to feed ourselves. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on how we can continue to support agricultural businesses, ensuring that they continue to operate as family businesses, creating jobs and adding value to their area. I also urge him to recognise the contribution of our farmers practically by accelerating the roll-out of the new environmental land management scheme, properly funding it with an extra £1 billion a year to support profitable, sustainable and nature-friendly farming.
After years of Conservative chaos and neglect, there is no doubt that our NHS and social care, our schools, our local authorities and our other public services desperately need more investment, so I can understand why the Government may look at different options for raising revenue. Our GPs are overstretched, our hospitals are overcrowded and our school buildings are crumbling, but at the same time families and pensioners are struggling with the rising cost of living.
The Conservatives put up their taxes by freezing tax thresholds for years. It would be wrong to ask residents to pay again to clear up the Conservative mess. The Liberal Democrats would therefore focus tax changes on making the system fairer, such as by reversing the Conservative party’s tax cuts for big banks and imposing a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies. Responsible public finances are essential to the stability, certainty and confidence that drive economic growth, and to getting mortgage rates under control.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
For His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I call Nigel Huddleston.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions: I was particularly entertained to hear everybody’s friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) say that he does not give anybody a hard time. I warn the Minister that he can expect persistent, relentless and vigorous but polite nudging; it may not be defined as a hard time, but it certainly sometimes feels like that. It is very polite, I have to say.
A few other points were raised today, but I will not delve into all the issues. Under different circumstances, I would be happy to have a debate with the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about international trade. Having negotiated some of the trade deals, I can reassure him that the NFU and others had a very strong voice and that we listened to them very carefully. Their opinions, views and points were very often made. We tried to put safeguards in place; that has not always been acknowledged, but that is a debate for another day. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), raised a bunch of other issues—again, a debate for another day.
Just two weeks before the Government deliver the Budget, I am aware that the Minister will be unwilling—and, to be fair, unable—to comment in detail on the issues that have been raised today. Nevertheless, I think it important that he and the Treasury team hear and reflect on the concerns and fears that Members have expressed on behalf of their constituents and other stakeholders who could be considerably affected by any changes to inheritance tax relief and particularly to business property relief and agricultural property relief.
My party supports wealth creation, which is important and which helps to pay for our public services, but we also understand the importance of ensuring that wealthy individuals make a fair contribution and pay tax appropriately. Earlier this year, the Minister and I had a debate about the broader issues of inheritance tax in which we recognised that we do not have a wealth tax in this country, but that there are taxes on wealth. Inheritance tax is an important such tax: it brought in something like £7.6 billion last year.
We have a progressive tax system. The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax, so they contribute a huge amount. The vast majority of estates do not pay inheritance tax: only about 5% do so, because there are so many exemptions and reliefs. It is important to recognise those reliefs as legitimate. There is abuse in the tax system—there are loopholes that need closing, and HM Revenue and Customs, the Treasury and others spend a lot of time closing them—but let us not forget that the reliefs are there for a reason. Business property relief and agricultural property relief are perfectly legitimate reliefs. Without them, many businesses, including farms, would cease to exist or would be broken up on the passing of their owner. The reliefs form a critical part of overall business planning and especially of succession planning.
Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have expressed anxiety about the prospect of changes to or the abolition of business property relief. Currently, business relief is applied at either 50% or 100% on qualifying businesses when working out how much inheritance tax should be paid. That allows businesses and business assets or shares to be passed on to the next generation without the need to jeopardise the viability or even existence of vital businesses. Without that relief, many more family-owned businesses would have to be sold or broken up to pay a big inheritance tax bill. Prior to the election, many businesses and business bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses, believed that they had heard and received commitments and assurances on inheritance tax and BPR from the Labour party. Many small businesses in my constituency and across the country seek the reiteration of those assurances.
BPR also plays an important part in attracting and retaining certain investments, for example in the alternative investment market. According to some analysts, the removal of BPR from the alternative investment market could result in a loss of between £14 billion and £21 billion in value to UK shareholders and would permanently damage the AIM. Given the importance of inheritance tax relief to the AIM, they are also looking for the Government to confirm its continuation. Uncertainty and speculation around its continuation may already be jeopardising investment.
Many hon. Members’ speeches have focused on agricultural property relief, because it is vital to the continuation of our rural way of life and our countryside. The NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and others are concerned about the renewed uncertainty and the impact on farming, including on tenant farmers. Some fear that APR may be removed and that some form of BPR may be kept, but even that could deter landowners from letting their land to tenants; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke about some of the further considerations and concerns for tenant farmers in particular.
As many colleagues have said, many farms would simply not survive the imposition of inheritance tax. Families who have farmed the land for generations could be forced to give up their businesses, their farms and their homes, which could jeopardise the sustainability of the rural economy, as well as undermining efforts towards greater self-sufficiency in food production and compromising environmental goals broadly agreed by both the former Government and the current Government.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed last year, when he was the shadow Secretary of State, that the Labour party had no plans to change inheritance tax, including APR, if Labour won the election. Sadly, speculation has since arisen, and I do not believe that further assurances have been given by the Secretary of State or the Treasury. If the Minister can provide any certainty or even an indication to provide additional confidence, I and many of my constituents will welcome it, as will many other hon. Members’ constituents, many farmers, many investors and many business owners across the country.
Labour did not mention APR or BPR in its manifesto, nor did it make statements about them during the election campaign, but it clearly stated that it would not increase taxes on working people. As we have heard today, farmers and family business owners are very clearly working people; my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made that point very well.
Given all the comments we have heard from the Labour party, I hope the Minister agrees that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are no plans, and should be no plans, to change the inheritance tax relief system, especially because those reliefs play such an important part in investment decisions and business planning. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s speech providing at least some of the reassurances that we seek today.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Let me join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions —including the advice from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), on what to expect in my new role from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
As many Members have rightly highlighted, there has been a great deal of speculation in recent weeks about potential changes to taxation in the Budget, including to the reliefs that we are debating today. Hon Members will understand—indeed, many of them acknowledged in their speeches that they understand—that I cannot add to that speculation. The Budget is on 30 October, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out any changes to the tax system then, in the normal way. However, ahead of that, I welcome this opportunity to hear Members’ views on this matter.
Let me start by briefly setting out the context for this Budget. Following the spending audit in July, the Chancellor has been clear that difficult decisions lie ahead on spending, welfare and taxation to address the £22 billion black hole that we inherited from the previous Government. Decisions on how to address that will be taken at the Budget in the round. It is crucial that we get the public finances back on a firm footing so that we can restore economic stability. On those foundations, we will boost investment, increase growth across the UK and improve public services. That is the prize ahead and how we will make people across Britain better off.
Let me turn to how inheritance tax operates in the UK tax system. Inheritance tax, as other Members have said, is a wealth transfer tax and applies to the estate of the deceased. Transfers made in the seven years before death are also taken into account. The estates of all individuals benefit from a £325,000 nil-rate band. The residence nil-rate band is a further £175,000 and is available to those passing on a qualifying residence on death to their direct descendants, such as children or grandchildren. That means that, altogether, qualifying estates can pass on up to £500,000. Furthermore, the qualifying estate of a surviving spouse or civil partner can pass on up to £1 million without an inheritance tax liability, because any unused nil-rate band or residence nil-rate band is transferable to the surviving spouse or civil partner.
Above those thresholds, the headline rate of inheritance tax is 40%, but it is important to remember that that rate is charged only on the part of the estate that is above the threshold, and after the application of reliefs. That is obviously the subject of today’s debate, so let me turn first to business property relief. That relief is a long-standing part of the inheritance tax system. It is designed to ensure that businesses need not be broken up or sold on the death of an owner in order to pay an inheritance tax liability. That reflects concerns that there may not always be enough liquid assets in the business to pay the tax. Subject to certain qualifying conditions, the relief generally applies to unquoted shares and interests in a business. It also applies to shares designated as “not listed” on a “recognised stock exchange”, such as shares that are quoted on AIM, as mentioned by the shadow Minister. The rate of business property relief is usually 100%, but can be 50% in some circumstances. Until March 1992, the maximum rate of the relief was 50% and there was a lower rate of 30% alongside that. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the cost of the relief has risen from £685 million in 2019-20 to a forecast £1.3 billion in 2023-24.
Agricultural property relief is also a long-standing part of the system. It has a similar purpose to business property relief, although the main benefit is to ensure that relief is available when land is let to tenant farmers, as we heard from various hon. Members today. This is largely because owner-occupiers of agricultural land also qualify for business property relief. Again, the rate of agricultural property relief is usually 100%, but can be 50% in some circumstances, and as with business property relief, lower rates existed before 1992. The cost of this relief has risen from £320 million in 2019-20 to a forecast £365 million in 2023-24.
There are many different views on these reliefs. Stakeholders, including Family Business UK and the Country Land and Business Association, have argued strongly against any prospect of the reliefs being abolished. Other organisations are in favour of changes to the reliefs, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggesting that a cap on such reliefs could allow those passing on small farms or businesses to be taken out of inheritance tax, while preventing agricultural and business investments from being used to avoid it. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I thank for his contribution, said that there may be a case for certain reforms to agricultural property relief. Of course, the previous Government had views on these reliefs. I understand from reports in the Telegraph that the previous Government considered abolishing these reliefs as part of reforms to the system.
I welcome the opportunity today to hear from Members on their views, particularly on agricultural property relief, but also on issues relating to farmers and their constituents more widely. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) rightly highlighted the importance of food security for this Government and its importance in our policy making. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in nudging me gently, to quote the shadow Minister—spoke eloquently about the importance of farming in his constituency and in the economy of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) spoke of some of the wider challenges facing the farming community in recent years, not least energy bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) is proving to be a very effective constituency MP already, raising a number of important issues on behalf of those he represents, as well as drawing attention to the wider significance of having economic stability and security for farmers and everyone in his constituency.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister reminds us—it is our fault for doing this—that we have focused very much on the family farm as the unit of concern, because that is what concerns most of our constituents. However, a lot of agricultural land is, in fact, owned by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I am a member. The RSPB is never going to have a succession event, to join the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) in using that expression. The consequence of abolition could be that two farms right next door to each other—one owned by a charity or an institution of that sort, and the other owned by a family—would be left having to farm in very different economic circumstances. Is that really fair?
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point, although he presupposes he knows what will happen to agricultural property relief, which, as I set out earlier, I cannot comment on further. He will have to wait a couple of weeks, perhaps, to have further conversations about what the Government will do in this space. I thank him and all hon. Members for their comments today, because it has been an interesting debate. As we have heard, the issue generates some strong views among many of our constituents and the Members present, who represent them.
I understand that there are many different views on what the Government should do, and the debate has allowed me to hear them. As always, the Government welcome all opinions and keep all taxes under review. However, I return to my earlier point: the Chancellor will, of course, announce changes to the tax system at the Budget. There is not long to wait.
Harriet Cross
I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his closing remarks. A constant theme of today’s debate has been the importance of family businesses and family farms and the vital role they play in our rural economy. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly said and, of course, knows well from his ultra-rural island constituency and communities, the interconnection between farms and other local businesses cannot be denied. Any impact on farming impacts everything else, whether that is marts, vets or suppliers—the knock-on effects are endless.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and echo her words about the Government’s commitment to not increase taxes on working people. If farmers and family businesses are not the pure definition of “working people”, I really do not know what is. Similarly, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about the need for cross-party working on this issue; as we all strive to secure a stable rural environment for the economy and employment, that is really important. We should absolutely work on a cross-party basis as we go forward.
Farms and businesses must adapt and innovate to survive across generations. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly identified, the ability of farms and family businesses to do so will be severely hampered by changes to APR and BPR—they must be able to survive across generations, as well as during single generations. Put very simply, people need cash in order to pay a tax bill, and they need a lot of cash to pay a very large tax bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) put it so succinctly, asking many farmers and family businesses to pay a tax bill from an illiquid asset is very difficult: they do not have liquid to play with.
As I said, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that we are less than two weeks out from the Budget, and therefore he is completely unable to confirm or deny rumours, but I hope the concerns that have been raised today have been heard and will be considered in good faith, because they are not just the concerns of people in this Chamber. They are the concerns of our constituents—of farmers and small and family businesses the length and breadth of the country. The Minister pointed out that the cost of BPR has risen to £1.3 billion, but that compares very favourably with the £225 billion of tax income that family businesses contribute to the Exchequer each year.
I will conclude by reiterating my calls for clarity on this matter, maintenance of these reliefs, and meaningful engagement with affected communities on any such matters going forward. Today’s contributions have strengthened the case for action in this area: our rural communities, family businesses, food security and stewardship of our countryside all depend on the certainty that those reliefs provide. I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.
Written Statement
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Infrastructure Planning Application: North Lincolnshire
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd for development consent for the construction and operation of a combined heat and power enabled energy generating development, with an electrical output of up to 95 megawatts, incorporating carbon capture, associated district heat and private wire networks, hydrogen production, ash treatment, and other associated developments on land at Flixborough industrial estate, Scunthorpe.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Planning Act 2008 to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the North Lincolnshire green energy park application is 18 October 2024.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 14 March 2025 for deciding this application. This is to ensure there is sufficient time for the Department to consider and consult interested parties on a residual waste infrastructure capacity note that officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intend to publish by the end of 2024.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS144]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Mackinlay of Richborough
Education Sector: Equality of Opportunity
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote equality of opportunity in the education sector, particularly in schools.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who unfortunately is unwell.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to promoting equal opportunities and breaking the link between young people’s backgrounds and their future success. Breaking down barriers to opportunity is one of our five missions, ensuring that every child thrives in education and achieves their ambitions, no matter their background. That is why, as first steps, we are committed to delivering 6,500 additional teachers and rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. She will be aware that education provision all too often does not meet the needs of all children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities. The Government are committed to a community-wide approach to school inclusivity, so does my noble friend agree that there is a need for all state-funded schools to be required to co-operate with their local authorities on school admissions, SEND inclusion and place planning?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that children with special educational needs and disabilities are not receiving the sort of education that they need and deserve, despite the enormously hard work of our teachers and others in supporting them. That is why we are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensuring that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs. As announced in the King’s Speech, we intend to legislate to require schools to co-operate with their local authority on admissions and place planning.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that women and girls with special educational needs have a history of being underidentified because they tend to cope in the classroom by hiding and disappearing, as opposed to disrupting? When do the Government reckon they will have enough trained teachers to spot the girl who has her head down and is desperately excluding herself from the classroom by being quiet, as opposed to the boy causing trouble at the back?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about early identification of children with special educational needs or some form of disability—he is absolutely right. In the early stages, that needs well-qualified teachers, with the support of inclusive practice and expertise developed throughout the school, to recognise that. This Government are determined to improve that provision in mainstream schools.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, earlier this year, schoolteachers got a fully funded 5.5% pay increase, but no such award was made to college staff, even though most pupil-premium students in the 16-plus age group are in colleges. How do the Government propose to address the impact of this unequal treatment on colleges, including the haemorrhaging of skilled staff?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness will understand that in FE there is no pay review body in the same way as in schools. The Government were pleased to be able to fund the 5.5% pay increase for schoolteachers. The noble Baroness is right that, although we recognise the enormous contribution of FE staff, we were not able to match the pay for FE teachers on that occasion. This week, we have for the first time extended the retention incentive to teachers in the first years of their careers in FE. Applications for that opened on Monday, and lots of FE teachers have already applied for that. In our discussions on the spending review, we are thinking about and arguing hard for the support that further education needs and deserves, as the noble Baroness rightly said.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Could this mission to promote equal opportunity in schools include much greater encouragement of teaching financial literacy in schools, in line with several ideas put forward by Members of your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Having spent 11 years teaching economics and business studies— I am not sure my personal financial literacy quite matches up to what might have been expected from that—I think the noble Lord makes an important point. A whole range of schemes and important initiatives already help in that area, and I am sure that teachers and schools would be keen to support others, as well as what they are able to deliver in the curriculum.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, according to data published by the Education Policy Institute, disadvantaged learners in Yorkshire and the Humber are typically 21.4 months behind their more advantaged learners by the end of secondary school. This is opposed to a disadvantage gap of half that size, at just 10.4 months, in London. What steps will the Government take to reduce such perniciously stubborn regional inequalities in educational outcomes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that regional inequalities at key stage 2, GCSE and A-level are not just persistent but, certainly in some of those cases, have become worse. That is why the Government and the Department for Education are absolutely committed to ensuring that, wherever you live in England and whatever your background, you will have access to the highest-quality teachers and the best possible curriculum. This is the reason for our launching the curriculum and assessment review. That is absolutely at the heart of the Government’s opportunity mission.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the latest figures show that 65% of Asian girls and 61% of black girls on free school meals go to university. That is fantastic, and a credit to them and their parents. But the comparable figure for white working-class boys on free school meals is just 15%. Getting on for 70% of young people from some wealthy London boroughs go to university, but the figure is less than 20% in places such as Barrow, Blackpool, the south Wales valleys and Grimsby, for example. What will the Government do to deal with this massive problem of educational inequality?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that white working-class boys are among the lowest-attaining groups in our schools. That links to the point about regional inequality made previously. It is why the opportunity mission is absolutely clear that we need to break the link between background and success. That means more highly qualified teachers in front of our students. It means making sure that children, whatever their background, get to school, are well-fed and are able to learn, which is the reason for our rolling out breakfast clubs in primary schools. It also means that this Government are absolutely focused on raising standards in all our schools for all our children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister talked about regional inequality. Of course, the region, or country, with a severely underperforming educational system is Labour-run Wales, which has seen standards decline and where the OECD has described the education system as having “lost its soul”. That is in contrast to England, where we have seen international rankings improve in reading, maths and sciences. What will this Government do differently from Wales to make sure that we do not see the same decline here?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am surprised, given the efforts that the noble Baroness made when she was a Minister in the Department for Education, that she is quite as complacent about performance in England as she appeared to be in that question. We are still in a situation, in 2024, where at key stage 2 the gap between the highest-performing and the lowest-performing regions remains the same, at 10 percentage points, and where at GCSE, the distinction between the best-performing and worst-performing regions has grown by 0.7 percentage points. So not only are all standards not high enough but we have ongoing, persistent inequality in our system between regions and between people, dependent on their background. With respect to England, this Government will not rest on their laurels in the way in which the noble Baroness seemed to suggest the previous Government would have done. That is why, as I have outlined, whether it comes to teachers in classrooms, getting children into our schools or making sure that we have a curriculum fit for them, we will take action, which the last Government failed to do.
Zero-emission Vehicle Mandate
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential merits of bringing forward the deadline for requiring all new vehicles sold to be ‘zero emission’ from 2035 to 2030.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, accelerating to net zero is at the heart of our mission-driven Government, and this Government are taking action. All new cars and vans sold in the UK from 2035 will need to be fully zero-emission. We are not proposing to change this. However, we are committed to restoring the original 2030 phase-out date for new pure internal combustion engine cars, alongside setting out ways to support demand for zero-emission vehicles and accelerating the rollout of charge points.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former union convenor for the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port, where I still have family working. The Tory Government’s delay from 2030 to 2035 has thrown the industry into complete turmoil, as the Minister knows, after manufacturers invested billions to prepare for 2030. What the industry needs most of all now is flexibility as their vehicles disappear from sale, apart from fleet sales. For example, Vauxhall makes electric—
Lord Woodley (Lab)
Comrades, please bear with me. For example, Vauxhall makes electric cars in this country, but they are not off-set by different quotas and fines for non-compliance. Therefore, will the Minister agree to meet the industry body, the SMMT, and trade unions to discuss the implications for UK jobs?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I make it absolutely clear that this is Question Time and we need questions that are short and succinct, and short and succinct answers from Ministers as well.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Woodley is correct. The ZEV mandate includes zero-emission cars and vans separately. That is because the average emissions from cars and vans are not the same. However, the mandate is based on UK sales and not manufacturing. Manufacturers may continue to build any vehicles and export them. I am aware that the Minister for the Future of Roads, Minister Greenwood, has already met Unite on this topic, and the Department for Transport welcomes continued engagement with the SMMT and trade unions on it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the premise behind the Question about the 2030 date from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, but does the Minister agree that we need new regulations on electric vehicle charging points akin to those we have for petrol stations—regulations on equipment, safety and clear display of pricing—to increase confidence among potential purchasers of vehicles?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a pertinent and important point. When I was formerly a member of the Electric Vehicle APPG, we had intensive discussions about that. There are enormous issues relating to accessibility and disabled people turning up at points and not being able to access them. We know that local government has a huge role to play in this. A review is taking place and will report in February next year. I hope that everyone can input into that review to make sure that we come up with a much more fair and equitable system.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, given that when the last Government extended the phase-out date from 2030 to 2035 they were aligning with Europe, is the decision of the present Government to go back to 2030 a deliberate decision to misalign with Europe and to seize a Brexit opportunity, or do they just think that the Europeans have got it wrong and they had to overcome their natural Europhilia?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think the noble Lord has referred to himself as the grit in the oyster. He makes an important point, but we are responding to the demands of car manufacturers. I think everyone can recall the outcry when the change was made by the previous Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, more than a year ago. We are not playing games on this; it is about what is right for the industry, for the consumer and, most importantly, for the country.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, in addition to regulation, is it not the case that the mode of taxation will also need to change and that, as we electrify our vehicles, we will need to move to road user charging rather than fuel?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right that the end date for the electric vehicle tax relief is next year. However, as he and everyone else in this Chamber will be aware, we are approaching a Budget and I cannot comment on any matter that might be raised in that.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s Question was all to do with zero emission in relation to electric vehicles. Will the Minister consider carefully the alternatives that we are faced with in zero emission, such as synthetic fuel, hydrogen power and so on? Are we not putting all our eggs in the wrong basket?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am sure he is aware that trials are taking place around hydrogen-fuelled vehicles as we speak. Everyone is open to looking at new technologies coming along and making sure that we make the most of our mission to clean up the air in this country for the benefit of those who have to breathe it in as well as for the planet, in terms of the climate change objectives.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the European Union is going to increase by a huge amount the tax on electric vehicles coming in from China. Can she tell me, or perhaps write to assure me, that this will not affect electric cars in Northern Ireland, which under the Windsor Framework is still in the European Union for this kind of thing? Does it mean that people in Northern Ireland will have to pay more or less for their electric cars?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of China and Chinese imports. At the moment, imports from China represent 34% of EV cars coming into the country. We will work closely with our US allies and, obviously, with Europe—but we need to focus on economic security. I cannot answer the specific question that she asks about Northern Ireland, but I am happy to follow up with correspondence on the matter.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, why do the Government think that people on ordinary incomes will be able to afford these cars, especially if they have to take into account the possibility, which I hear is on the table, of road pricing?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think the noble Lord has to reflect on the fact that we are talking about the new car market. An enormous amount of work needs to be brought together around the second-hand market—which also includes recycling the key component parts so that they do not end up in landfill or other places—so we can make sure that expensive components are available.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister share the views put to me by other Ministers that the biggest problem they have is clearing up the mess created by the previous Tory Government?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I am not sure we have yet had an answer on the Government’s view on road pricing. Can the Minister answer and make it clear whether we are going to go down that line?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
In terms of clear answers, I thought I had made it absolutely clear that I am not able to comment at this point in time.
Lord Markham (Con)
We definitely did not get a clear answer to the question of whether ordinary people can afford these types of car. Perhaps the Minister would like another opportunity to answer that one.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I made it absolutely clear that we are talking about affordability across the piece. The new car market is a relatively small part of cars coming in altogether. Affordability is very much an objective on this side of the House, and I do not think we need any lectures at all on how we make sure that all people can benefit from improving manufacturing and living standards.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Should we not be grateful that we are in a better position financially than we would have been, had we been trying to shift London airport down into the estuary?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has far more information on that subject, and I welcome his contribution.
Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to regulate artificial intelligence and, if so, which uses they intend to regulate.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, as set out in the King’s Speech, we will establish legislation to ensure the safe development of AI models by introducing targeted requirements on companies developing the most powerful AI systems, and we will consult on the proposals in due course. This will build on our ongoing commitment to make sure that the UK’s regulators have the expertise and resources to effectively regulate AI in their respective domains.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, with individuals having loan applications rejected off the back of AI decisions and creatives having their works ingested by GenAI with no consent or remuneration, would not the Minister agree that we need economy-wide and society-wide AI legislation and regulation for the benefit of citizens, consumers, creatives, innovators and investors—for all our AI futures?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Thank you. It is an important area, and one where we have huge opportunities for growth. There is definitely the need for regulators to become upskilled in the ability to look at AI and understand how it impacts their areas. That is the reason we created the Regulatory Innovation Office, announced last week, to make sure that there are the capabilities and expertise in sector-dependent regulators. We also believe that there is a need for regulation for the most advanced models, which are general purpose, and of course cross many different areas as well.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the need for sector-specific approaches and expertise, does my noble friend agree that public confidence and constitutional legitimacy require primary legislation, and sooner rather than later?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The reason we are establishing the prospect of an AI Act is to look at those models that are the ones that are at the biggest forefront in general use and carry with them specific opportunities and risks that require that specific legislation. It is not the case that that is true for every aspect of the application of AI in every single area, much of which can be covered by existing regulation and can be dealt with by regulators, provided that they are appropriately reinforced with the skills, capabilities and knowledge required.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, if a photograph tells 1,000 words, an AI-generated image can tell 1,000 lies. As a photographer, I am concerned about altered or manipulated imagery in journalism and on social media. Generative AI images used in journalism will soon be good enough to blur our ability to discern truth from fiction. What are the Government doing to support a move to a standard of authenticity signatures on real images, so that all photographs can be quickly verified as either real or AI-generated?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This again is a very important area in which there are rapid technological advances. Watermarking to enable understanding of what is original and what is not, and indeed what component of originality is in any finished product, is an important development that is not there yet but is on the way. In the meantime, there are specific provisions in the Online Safety Bill to make sure that the most egregious examples of this are caught—and, indeed, are illegal.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this Government have pledged to recalibrate trade relations with the EU. However, the new EU AI legislation is much more prescriptive than the regulation proposed by the Government. How will the Government ensure that UK-based AI organisations with operations in the EU, or which deploy AI into the EU, will be aligned with EU regulation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Viscount points out, the EU regulation has gone in a somewhat different direction in taking a very broad approach and not a sector-specific approach. In contrast, the US looks as though it is going down a similar sort of route to the one that we are taking. Of course, there will be a need for interoperability globally, because this is a global technology. I think that there will be consultation and interactions with both those domains as we consider the introduction of the AI Act, and we are starting an extensive consultation process over the next few months.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am somewhat concerned by the Minister’s reference to regulating the most powerful and general purpose models, because I fear that that is a pathway to closing down markets and preventing access to challenger firms. But, in the context of copyright, which is of concern to all content creators and certainly to publishers, are the Government considering a mandatory mechanism to ensure transparency, so that those publishers that choose to opt out their data from the training purposes are able to do so?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
In passing, I will just reference the first part: even Eric Schmidt, at the investment summit on Monday, made the point that some sort of guard-rails and some sort of certainty for business are required in order to grow those most important models. There is a demand for something there and that is what we want to try to get right. It is not right to leave nothing as these models progress. I am sorry, I have completely forgotten the second point.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Yes—the question of intellectual property and transparency is important. We are consulting widely on this with the creative industries and with others. Indeed, in my own review, which I did for the previous Government when I was in my post as the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, I made the very clear point that we need to distinguish between the inputs to these models and what is required for intellectual property control there, and the outputs of the model, which goes back to the question about watermarking and understanding what component of the output is derived from which part of the input.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one area of AI technology that has been used a lot without regulation for many years, and has been exposed as having some quite severe flaws, is that of facial recognition. It is being used a lot by police forces all over Britain and clearly has caused a lot of confusion and made a lot of mistakes. Will that be one area that the Minister will be looking at, specifically for regulation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
That is an area that of course comes under several other parts of regulation already. It is also an area where there are massive changes in the way that these models perform. If one looks at GPT-4 versus GPT-3—I know it is not facial recognition, but it gives an indication of the types of advances—it is about twice as good now as it was a year ago. These things are moving fast and there is indeed a need to understand exactly how facial recognition technology is valid and where it has problems in recognition.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, the supply chain for the development of the more advanced AI systems is, in almost every case, highly global in nature. That means that it becomes quite straightforward for AI developers to offshore their activities from any jurisdiction whose regulations they might prefer not to follow. This being the case, do the Government agree that the regulations for AI development, as distinguished mostly from use, are going to have to be global in nature? If the Government agree with that, how is it reflected in their plans for AI regulation going forward?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. This will be global; there is no question about it. Therefore, there needs to be some degree of interoperability between different regions in terms of the regulations put in place. At the moment, as I said, of the two most advanced, the US is the biggest AI nation in the world and is developing a regulation along similar lines to ours, we believe. The EU is of course the most regulated place in the world for AI and we need to work out, in consultation over the next months, how to make sure that we work out where the areas of interoperability will lie.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that any advisory committees on regulation of AI should include smaller companies involved in the sector and also representation from the regions?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is an area where there were something like 100 new start-ups in the last year alone. We have something like 4,000 small companies. It is an area where small companies are critically important and must be involved in the discussion. It is worth remembering that some of the enormous companies were small companies not very long ago in this space; it is moving fast. I will also take this opportunity to say how fantastic it is that, in our own country, we had a Nobel prize awarded to Demis Hassabis for his extraordinary work and that of his colleague John Jumper at Google DeepMind.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lord Camrose. I am so pleased that the Government are taking advantage of this Brexit opportunity. Last week, I got a new iPhone—for the first time in 10 years —and it came with an Apple intelligence function that was not available on the iPhones released on the same day in the EU. Will the Minister confirm that we have no plans to follow Brussels in imposing needless regulation that is hostile to growth and innovation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are very minded of the opportunity of AI—the report by Matt Clifford on AI opportunities will be coming out shortly. We want to see this as a growth industry in this country and, as I said, we are developing in the AI Bill an approach that is only about those general models and is not sector-specific regulation, thereby differing from the EU currently.
Taiwan
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Foreign Secretary plans to raise directly with the government of China the recent military activity against Taiwan during his visit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in our Statement of 14 October, we stated our concern about China’s military exercises around Taiwan and reaffirmed our interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The United Kingdom considers the Taiwan issue one to be settled peacefully by people on both sides of the strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. We will continue to raise issues of concern with China.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Beijing this week, will he be raising the escalation in the military intimidation of Taiwan and its 23 million people directly with the Chinese authorities? With Bloomberg estimating that a blockade of the Taiwan Strait could cost the world economy around $10 trillion—equal to 10% of global GDP—can the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary has confusingly decided to no longer describe the PRC as a threat, and spell out exactly what is the Government’s policy on Taiwan, which has never been a part of the People’s Republic of China?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There are two questions there. The first is: what is our relationship with the People’s Republic of China? It is one of co-operation, particularly when we need to address those global issues, but we will confront China, when we need to, particularly on human rights issues, which the noble Lord has raised on repeated occasions. On Taiwan, we are quite clear about the need for peaceful dialogue to resolve these issues. The Taiwan Strait is of interest globally, but particularly to the United Kingdom in terms of our trade routes. Dialogue is what we will try to seek to ensure that we have a peaceful approach to these issues.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Chinese are placing great emphasis on, and putting great effort into, what is known as cognitive warfare, which seeks to undermine the structures, processes and will of the West—not least through AI. This is a serious threat to our society; we are playing catch-up, and we are playing it too slowly. With that in mind, will the Minister remind the Foreign Secretary, before he goes to Beijing, of Virgil’s famous line:
“Timeo danaos et dona ferentes”,
although, in this case, it is the Chinese, rather than Greeks, bearing gifts whom he should fear?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I think I understand the point of the noble and gallant Lord’s question. The fact is that Taiwan’s biggest trading partner is the People’s Republic. Trading across the globe with China is huge; it is its second biggest economy. It is also vital in terms of addressing those challenges that we face on climate. We therefore need to ensure that we have dialogue and co-operation. But we understand the other issues that the noble and gallant Lord has raised, which is why we committed to in opposition—and will deliver in government—a complete audit of our relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor to improve our ability to understand and respond to not only the opportunities but the challenges that China poses.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the importance of dialogue in this relationship. Does he also recognise that supporting Taiwan’s democratic self-governance is essential for peace and security in the region? Following on from the increased Chinese military war-games in the Taiwan Strait, can His Majesty’s Government confirm whether they have further plans for freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have addressed these issues. The increased tensions are concerning and we are increasingly concerned about the consequences should peace and stability fail the in Taiwan Straits, including, as I mentioned, for global supply chains. It is incredibly important that we focus on ensuring that there is dialogue and not aggression, and these things need to be resolved by the two parties in proper dialogue and consultation. That has been the position of this Government and the Opposition as well as the previous Government, and we will maintain that position as we move forward.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having visited Taiwan recently as a guest of the World League for Freedom and Democracy. The Chinese President’s decision to authorise military drills around Taiwan in the week that our Foreign Secretary is due to arrive in China underlines his contempt not only for the Taiwanese population but for the British people. The Prime Minister visited Taiwan as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman in 2016 and 2018 and will certainly have a deep understanding of the issues challenging Taiwan. I ask the Minister whether and when the Prime Minister or indeed the Foreign Secretary intend to visit Taiwan in their new roles to have dialogue.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, I have also visited Taiwan. The United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan but a strong unofficial relationship based on deep and growing ties in a wide range of areas, underpinned, as the noble Lord said, by democratic values. We will continue to engage with Taiwan on economic, trade, educational and cultural ties. This relationship delivers significant benefits to both the United Kingdom and Taiwan and has featured a wide range of exchanges and visits; for example, on environmental, judicial and educational issues. We will continue to establish our relationship on that basis.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, it is a well-known geopolitical fact that India and China do not see eye to eye over many issues in Asia. Are our Government regularly in touch with the Indian Government over this issue?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
One of the vital aspects of the recent United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, certainly in my engagement with both, is that we establish strong dialogue with both India and China on how we address the tensions that are developing. When I was addressing the Security Council on enlargement, we discussed with both the P5 and the 10 members of the Security Council that are there on an elected basis how dialogue and consensus is an important way of moving forward. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue dialogue on that basis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, UK trade with Taiwan is of strategic importance to the United Kingdom, so tension in that area is of concern to our economy, especially in light of the fact that the UK has a trade deficit of £26 billion with China. That means that we are vulnerable to China with regard to trade, so I support the Government in carrying out a strategic audit. Will the Minister commit that that will be published and debated in Parliament in advance of the defence review and the Government’s industrial strategy, so that it can inform those, not be responsive to them?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I must admit that I was reflecting this morning, at an APPG meeting, on what we can do in the first 100 days. I was reflecting on the fact that I have been a Minister for only three months and I have actually been able to do quite a lot, but there is a lot to do and I do not think we should overstretch ourselves. We are committed to this audit; it will cover a broad range of deepening that relationship, because it is not just Government to Government or just in terms of the private sector. There is the local government sector, the public sector—a huge range, not least in the National Health Service, where we have had a lot of concerns about the nature of those imports. I am not going to give any timeframes or say whether or not it can be public; the important thing is that we are focused on delivering it and on better understanding our relationships so that we face up to the challenges that the noble and gallant Lord raised.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, taking account of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, just said, China has a huge influence on North Korea. As we know, there has recently been talk about the degree to which North Korea is having a major influence in Ukraine. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, North Korea is one of the worst regimes in history in terms of the way that it treats its people, and certainly it is in a crisis situation. Russia, in trying to maintain its aggression against Ukraine, is seeking all kinds of supply streams, not least from places such as North Korea. We are assessing the impact of that, but our relationship with North Korea is very clear. We have expressed concerns at the UN and the Human Rights Council and will continue to do so.
UN Sustainable Development Goals
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
That this House takes note of the impact of conflict, extreme poverty and climate-related emergencies globally; and of the progress towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start, I point out to noble Lords that the advisory speaking time is nine minutes. That means that at eight minutes, they should make their concluding remarks, and at nine minutes their time is up. I urge all noble Lords to adhere to this advisory speaking time; it helps the House to function well.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I start by drawing attention to my entries in the register of interests. I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who have agreed to speak in the debate; I am very grateful to everyone. Looking at the range of speakers, I can see that we are going to raise a variety of topics. That is useful because it gives me the chance to open with an overview. I am also very grateful to the electorate, because this is the first time I have had the opportunity, in the 14 years I have been in the House, to speak from the Government Benches; I thank them for that opportunity. I also thank those who provided my hearing aids over the summer because, for the first time in a long time, I will actually hear the full debate and the Minister’s reply. I welcome the Minister: we have worked hard on these issues for many years, and I have been delighted to see his work at the United Nations and in many bilateral visits over recent months. I wish him well in his role.
There have been 280 Members of your Lordships’ House appointed since the sustainable development goals were agreed in September 2015. It is quite a remarkable figure, and it shows that there may be many who have not taken part in a debate on the SDGs before, so I will briefly introduce the topic by saying that the millennium development goals agreed in 2000 came at the end of the decade of upheaval and change across the world in the 1990s. They were agreed at the start of the new millennium to give some direction to the support that was required to deal with extreme poverty in the global South.
Here in the UK at the Gleneagles summit in 2005, the UK Government turbo-charged their work on the millennium development goals, because they were already falling behind. The millennium development goals made a difference, but they only really dealt with a small number of very specific issues: primary education, the supply of clean water, maternity provisions and so on. They never really dealt with the underlying causes of extreme poverty and the difficulties faced by so many people across our world.
Instead of taking four hours to agree the millennium development goals, we took four years to consult on, debate and agree the sustainable development goals in 2015. They attack the causes of extreme poverty and vulnerability around the world—climate, conflict, inequality and the lack of strong national economies—to ensure that all the other work on education, health, clean water and public services is underpinned by stronger sustainable economies at the national level and the peaceful environment that is required to allow them to succeed.
The SDGs had core themes. Leave no one behind was the driving force, as was prioritising the most vulnerable in our societies to ensure that they are not left behind. They were universal, applying to every country in the world to ensure that people were not left behind anywhere. They were for everybody, everywhere. They had a structure: a system of voluntary national reviews which allowed national plans to be developed to prioritise the right goals in the right countries and ensure that they were reporting against their targets to their peers.
Unfortunately, although a number of countries in the global South took that structure seriously, far too many in the developed world did not. Perhaps only Japan, under Prime Minister Abe, really took seriously the need to create a framework in government that drove support for the SDGs at home and abroad. Perhaps also remarkably, businesses across the world, large and small, took this seriously. Many now embed the SDG framework in their long-term planning to preserve their supply chains and ensure that they are treating their workforces well, and to ensure that they are making a contribution to society.
However, by 2020 and the pandemic, progress against the goals was far too slow, and we were way off track already. Of course, the pandemic had a terrible impact, on everything from girls’ education to vaccinations and health system structures in different parts of the world. It also provided an opportunity for those who perhaps had less inclination to support the most vulnerable in our world to cut overseas aid, primarily here in the UK with then Chancellor Sunak’s decision to dramatically cut our aid budget in the middle of a global pandemic—a decision I still find utterly remarkable, but one that was also mirrored in some other countries as well.
Today we see the impact not just of that pandemic but of the rising tide of conflict around the world, creating a situation in which only 17% of the SDGs are even remotely on target to be achieved by 2030. We have the highest level of conflict around the world since the 1940s, over 700 million people are living in extreme poverty and the graph is going up, rather than down, for the first time in 30 years. We have had the hottest year on record—we can see the impact of climate change—and over 100 million people have been displaced, including nearly 50 million children displaced from their homes in our world today. All over the world, there are children who are out of school, who are not being vaccinated who would have been just a few years ago, who are hungry and would have been fed just a few years ago, and we have children in danger from conflict and violence. This is a global emergency, and the SDGs provide the framework for us to deal with it nationally and internationally.
As I said, I have found the support of businesses for the SDGs over this time to be particularly interesting. Businesses that have a long-term plan for success take into account the many factors that affect their success, whether that is their workforce, their supply chain, their impact on society or other factors. It is astonishing that over the course of the last nine years, Governments have let down populations so much when businesses have actually risen to the challenge.
Fast-forwarding to September 2024—I say this carefully—we saw at the United Nations more warm words of the sort we have seen again and again from countries around the world that actually do not mean it, and I want to start at that point. The pact for the future, which we of course signed up to at the UN General Assembly in September, has 56 individual actions to try to get the SDGs back on track in order to achieve as much as possible by 2030. It has the addition of a—very welcome—global digital compact, and a further declaration on future generations that expresses all sorts of wonderful motherhood and apple pie about where we should be in our world today.
The pact itself talks about a
“profound global transformation … human beings … enduring terrible suffering”.
It also talks about
“a moment of hope and opportunity”
and expresses a wish to see
“a world that is safe, peaceful, just, equal, inclusive, sustainable and prosperous”.
If we look around our world today, we are further from that than we have been for a very long time.
I say first of all to our new Government that it is vital that we engage in as many international fora as possible to ensure that we step up and push our peers around the world to be more committed to acting and not just talking. This includes the many countries that have stepped up at the United Nations and supported adopting these kinds of statements every September since 2015 and have either violated the commitments they made or ignored them.
Our new Government have a firm commitment to a world free from poverty on a liveable planet. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary referred to the SDGs in their speeches at the United Nations in September, and I certainly welcome that. Leaving no one behind is a driving principle that should underpin the review of our development activity that is under way in the FCDO.
I would also like to see a cross-government approach to this in the UK. We have waited nine long years for this, and almost secured it when Prime Minister Theresa May managed to get her Cabinet to have their pictures taken with placards on each SDG in February 2019. At that time, Secretary of State Penny Mordaunt was ready to make a number of commitments, before she was moved to become Defence Secretary. We need cross-government co-operation. This is not just about our global commitments in the FCDO and the climate department; it also cuts across other government departments. As we review our ODA and development activity, the SDG strategy should be centre stage, and we should commit as soon as possible to a second voluntary national review, as 2019 was the last time we reported on our progress against these commitments.
Of the three topics mentioned in my Motion today, I do not want to spend a lot of time on climate, because we discuss it on many occasions here in your Lordships’ Chamber. I just express the hope that what was being said and supported by the UK at the UN General Assembly in September is coherent with what we then say and do at the COP in Baku in November. One of the great benefits of the SDGs was to pull together financing for development, the development targets for the world and our climate targets in Addis, New York and Paris in 2015. We can play a role on these international stages to ensure consistency and co-ordination between what is being said and done in the different summits. I do not see action on climate and on development as an either/or; they have to go absolutely hand in hand.
I mentioned earlier that we have such a horrific and high level of conflict in our world today that it almost seems impossible to tackle. But we need a commitment in this country not just to our defence but to our interventions around the world that help prevent conflict and build peace. I would be interested to know more about whether the Government will continue with the integrated security fund, run from the Cabinet Office rather than from the FCDO. I would be interested to know more about how that fund will direct resources towards peacebuilding and conflict prevention, and not just perhaps more traditional forms of security. I would also be interested to know whether the remit for my noble friend Lord Robertson’s defence review will include a commitment to a greater UK intervention on conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
We can make a significant impact around the world on conflict prevention. At times over the last 20 years—with the Conflict Pool; the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund that was built up by the Conservative Government; and now, again, with this Government’s strong commitment—we have made a real difference on conflict prevention over the years, and I hope that will continue and expand with the new Ministers in place. I would us to have a particular impact on children affected by conflict. Organisations such as Education Cannot Wait, which supports education for children displaced from their homes due to conflict, are definitely worthy of the UK’s support as we review our development budgets.
Finally, on extreme poverty it is stunning that, having set out a commitment to leave no one behind, we are leaving more people behind in 2024. That cannot continue. There is a whole range of financial issues that we could spend a whole day debating, but I will highlight just a few. The first is our own official development assistance. This country has been spending a third of its official development assistance in the UK—not abroad but in the UK; not with the poorest people in the world but here in the United Kingdom—for the past couple of years. That is totally unjustified, unfair and wrong. I hope that the Government will do something to start to change that. We need to be consistent in our approach to ODA and, as I said, we should ensure that “leave no one behind” is a theme that runs through all our bilateral and multilateral interventions.
We also need to ensure that other forms of finance, which are in reality far more important than ODA, make their difference too. The UK and the City of London can make a real difference, whether in dealing with debt or getting private creditors to the table to deal with the terrible burden of debt; through tax transparency and making sure that climate finance is additional to development finance; or by ensuring that businesses step up to the plate in all these areas.
I will finish on this point: I am always reminded that this is, ultimately, about human beings; it is not about formulas, summits or even debates here in your Lordships’ House. In February this year, I met a young girl in Malawi, Alinafe, who walks seven kilometres to and from school every day. She is the youngest of seven in her family. She is the first to get past the first year in the local high school. She does not know anything about the SDGs—she has never heard of them—but what we do with them matters to her and to her opportunities and start in life. We should always remember that these human beings are at the centre of this agenda. If we do that, we are more likely to succeed.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this debate and for his continued work on the UN sustainable development goals. Back in 2014, I think, I worked with the then Prime Minister—now the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton—on a high-level panel ahead of the SDGs. I have not been involved for as long as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, but I agree with him that they are absolutely a strong framework for the world that we want, but of course we are a long way off track.
Conflict, extreme poverty, and climate-related emergencies are three crises that are deeply interconnected and jeopardise our efforts to achieve the SDGs, particularly goal 5 on gender equality, which I will focus my contribution on. These intersecting crises threaten the fundamental rights and well-being of women and girls globally.
The relationship between conflict and climate change is increasingly evident. As highlighted by the International Organization for Migration, climate-related factors are significant drivers of forced displacement, pushing individuals into conflict zones or making them refugees. That creates a vicious cycle of vulnerability, where women and girls face heightened risks, particularly to their health, safety and well-being. In regions plagued by conflict, we see not only a deterioration of those outcomes but an alarming rise in gender-based violence. Women and girls often become targets for exploitation, and their rights, safety and health are stripped away.
A study from the WHO highlighted that conflict situations often lead to a spike in maternal mortality rates, with women in these regions facing barriers to accessing healthcare services. Just a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature correlates with a 6% increase in stillbirths, showing the direct consequences of climate change on maternal health. We know that conflict exacerbates the challenges posed by climate change. As natural resources become scarcer due to environmental degradation, competition over these resources can lead to conflict, further displacing communities and endangering lives. In such settings, the ability to access basic services, including healthcare and education, becomes even more compromised and difficult, particularly for women and girls who bear the brunt of these crises.
We must acknowledge also the impact of conflict, climate change and extreme poverty on hunger and nutrition, which is foundational to achieving all the global goals. Conflict is a major driver of hunger. Last year, conflict-driven hunger affected 135 million people in 20 countries. Reports show that malnutrition and hunger could increase by 20% by 2050 if we do not address the effects of climate change. Hunger and malnutrition, of course, affect everybody but, as ever, women and girls are disproportionately impacted.
Extreme poverty compounds these issues, leaving women and girls with fewer resources and options. They make up a disproportionate amount of the 700 million people estimated by the World Bank to live in extreme poverty. As I said, it acts as a barrier to accessing healthcare, education and economic opportunities. In many low-income countries, the lack of financial resources translates into an insufficient healthcare infra- structure, resulting in inadequate health services. The Covid-19 pandemic further highlighted those disparities, leading to disruptions in healthcare services including, importantly, sexual and reproductive health and rights. The repercussions of these disruptions will be felt for years to come, undermining progress made towards gender equality.
Gender equality—the subject of SDG 5—is not only a fundamental human right but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world. Happily, we have made some significant progress over the last decades, with more girls getting into school, fewer girls forced into early marriages and more women in work, serving in parliament and in positions of leadership. Laws are being reformed to advance gender equality. I am very proud of the important role that the UK has played in this advancement through our international development work all around the world.
Despite these gains, significant challenges remain. Discriminatory laws and social norms are still pervasive; women continue to be underrepresented at all levels of political and economic leadership; and one in five women and girls between the ages of 15 and 49 reports experiencing physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner within a 12-month period. As I have said, the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic could reverse the limited progress that we have seen. Given all that, I very much welcome the Development Minister’s pledge to put women and girls at the heart of everything she does in government. I was pleased that, in an article ahead of the United Nations General Assembly, she highlighted that conflict drives home the very worst of gender inequality and intensifies pre-existing problems, intersecting to wreck the lives of women and girls.
How can we address this? First, we can do so by building on the role that the UK has played in establishing the women, peace and security agenda through the landmark UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which recognised the disproportionate impact of conflict on women and girls. We must work closely with our partners, including civil society organisations and communities, to fully implement Resolution 1325 and to ensure that all the resolutions that followed are implemented. They recognise the disproportionate and unique impact on women and acknowledge the very important contributions that women can make to conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Hodgson in this area and her continued effort on her Private Member’s Bill.
Secondly, we must keep a strong focus on our work on gender-based violence, addressing its rising rates in conflict-affected areas—it must be a priority. As Minister, I saw at first hand the impact that UK programmes can have, helping the survivors of violence through support for safe spaces and comprehensive health services. But we must scale up effective and innovative interventions to stop violence before it starts. The programme What Works to Prevent Violence, run first by DfID and then the FCDO, does exactly that, and I hope that the new Government will continue to support its incredibly effective work.
Thirdly, we should continue our focus on supporting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls. This is fundamental to progress towards gender equality. We know that conflict, extreme poverty and climate change make access to and the availability of SRHR services even more challenging. A key part of that is continuing work on strengthening education and health systems. Investment in education, particularly comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education, is crucial to help young people become empowered and to equip them with the knowledge they need to make informed choices on how they live their lives. Strengthening health systems will ensure that sexual and reproductive health services are accessible and effective. We should prioritize the integration of SRHR services into climate action plans, including ensuring access to these services during emergencies and incorporating better gender analysis into climate strategies to address the needs of women and girls.
Under the previous Administration, significant work was under way in the department, both to respond to the helpful inquiry from the International Development Committee into SRHR and on a campaign to give a renewed focus and push to the UK’s work on SRHR. I hope that work will continue to be encouraged.
Two overarching themes cut across all this work towards SDG 5. First, increasing support for civil society organisations is vital. I hope the Government will continue to ensure that there is adequate funding and an enabling environment for these organisations to amplify the voices of women and girls and to advocate for their rights. I know the Minister will agree with me that CSOs are often on the front lines of addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, and that their contributions really are indispensable. Secondly, on the importance of data-driven policies, we need to prioritise the collection and use of disaggregated data to understand the specific impacts of climate change and conflict on women and girls. That data is essential for creating effective policies and interventions.
The Minister and I have regularly debated finance for overseas development. I do not expect him to make any commitments on whether the Chancellor will replicate the previous Chancellor’s billions towards ensuring that more of our overseas development aid is spent overseas. However, I hope that he will be able to say something about the future trajectory of ODA funding.
Finally, I have a question. In the days of DfID, we had a strong strategic vision for gender equality. The previous Government set out a new international women and girls strategy in 2023, which formed a key part of the cross-party White Paper steered by the previous Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell. Can the Minister give any detail about how the new Government will ensure that women and girls are truly put at the heart of everything they do across the department? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, says, we need to make sure that this is not just warm words. What structure, mechanisms and accountability will be put in place to ensure that this is achieved?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for putting down this subject for debate and for his continuing advocacy for the SDGs. As he mentioned, the millennium development goals made significant progress by their end date of 2015, with the halving of extreme poverty. The sustainable development goals had the ambitious target of ending extreme poverty while leaving no one behind. It was not to be a matter of averages. There were 17 goals and ambitions within each; it was comprehensive.
The UK played a key role in the development of the SDGs. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was one of the conveners, and Michael Anderson, from DfID, was the key person, turning the discussions and commitments into an agreement. At the time, the UK was meeting the UN commitment of 0.7% of GNI for development. It was part of the coalition agreement. The last piece of legislation that went through Parliament in the final days of the coalition put that into law. It was part of our soft power, and of the UK playing a global role.
What then happened? That commitment was abandoned, as we heard. Then, without warning or consultation, and clearly lacking awareness of what he was doing, damaging even the UK university sector, including the Jenner Institute at Oxford, Boris Johnson destroyed DfID, theoretically merging it with the FCO, despite their different aims and expertise. That merger has still not fully settled, but we have lost a lot of development expertise and lost our leading place on this in the world.
Where are we now, and where is the world in achieving those SDGs? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, we are just a few years from 2030. The UN reports that escalating global conflicts and increasing climate-related crises have badly affected the world’s ability to achieve those SDGs.
We know that investment in development is not only right but in our interest. As Bill Gates wrote in the Times this week,
“we see every day … how events in one part of the world have ripple effects, whether that’s through food prices, migration, or the spread of a disease like mpox”.
As he rightly argues, assisting countries to develop lifts everyone. Think of the populist exploitation of migration and the division caused in western societies by this, let alone the benefit to all of us of growth in the global economy.
The UN puts the lack of progress, and even reversal in some areas, down to the pandemic, conflicts, climate shocks and economic turmoil. Climate change is surely the most fundamental of all these challenges. The UN’s Global Humanitarian Overview 2024 stated that climate-related disasters are rising sharply—we all know this. It noted that 2023 was the hottest year on record, with drought in the Horn of Africa, wildfires in Canada, floods in north Africa, Europe and China, and heatwaves across the world. It noted a significant increase in the number of displaced people as a result.
Climate change will increase threats through extreme weather, sea level rise and natural disasters, which are likely to result in mass migrations, social and economic disruption, hunger, the spread of disease, water and food insecurity, and conflict over land, water and other resources. The World Bank estimates that over 200 million people could be forced to move by 2050.
There is increasing awareness of the health threat of climate change. That is particularly so for older people, young children and vulnerable people, and, as we have heard, the risks increase for women and girls. The UNFPA notes that climate-related emergencies cause major disruptions in access to health services and life-saving commodity supply chains, including contraceptives. Additionally, it warns of displacement, resulting in an increased risk of gender-based violence and harmful practices, including child marriage. Heat also worsens maternal and neonatal health outcomes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, just said.
Can the Minister spell out how developing countries facing the effects of climate change will be further assisted, and whether, in particular, the Government will increase funding to support women and girls, including supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights and combating gender-based violence, as well as looking at the insidious movement of right-wing organisations which are seeking to undermine in this area?
Children are particularly vulnerable, of course, due to climate change and conflict. Save the Children points out that children may not only face severe injury or death but are often deprived of their education, healthcare, family support networks and food. It reports that, globally, almost 800 million children are living in poverty and exposed to high climate risk—a situation magnified by rising conflict.
According to the World Food Programme, a quarter of a billion people are facing acute food insecurity or worse. Good nutrition is fundamental. The UK’s global nutrition budget was cut by 60% following the aid cuts in 2021, and yet malnutrition is the leading cause of death in children under five. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, used to rail against the previous Government on this. Could he update us on the actions he has now been able to take?
The Prime Minister recently addressed the UN General Assembly and emphasised the importance of conflict prevention and peacebuilding. He called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, peace initiatives in Sudan, and support for Ukraine. He pledged to restore the UK’s 0.7% development commitment. He pledged to meet net-zero targets by 2030, increase climate finance, and support global adaptation efforts. That no doubt sounds very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
Where is the reality in this? The conflict in the Middle East is intensifying further. The loss of life and hope in the region is likely to foster even more conflict, which is in no one’s interests. Can the Minister update us on the actions that the Government are taking? Conflict in Sudan and the Horn of Africa is causing untold human suffering. What action are the Government taking to increase aid to this area? The Government urgently need to return to 0.7% and to reduce the amount of ODA being spent on in-country asylum costs; currently, as we have heard, it is a third of the aid budget. When will this happen?
Ahead of the Autumn Budget, there are reports that the aid budget will fall; we hear depressing accounts from within the department as to plans that might need to be made. Can the Minister confirm that the figure will not fall but will in fact rise, as the Prime Minister seemed to pledge? Surely the Government must recognise that it is both right and in our interests to play a key role in development and meeting the SDGs. We heard the warm words from the Prime Minister at the UN, but they are not enough if there is no action behind them.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing this debate.
In the UN’s 2024 report on progress towards the sustainable development goals, goal 2 on zero hunger was shown to be making the least progress of all. It is not that the world does not produce enough food to feed its growing population but that it does not produce it in the right place. Luckily, it is now well recognised that sending cheap food to countries with nutritional problems only undermines the local agricultural economy, meaning that farmers do not have the money to buy seeds and inputs for next year’s crop—thus the problem spirals downwards in the years to come.
Agricultural production in developing countries needs focus and a big shot in the arm that has so far been missing; that is why this goal is drifting away from us. As Bill Gates—I am the second person to quote him —said:
“If you care about the poorest, you care about agriculture. Investments in agriculture are the best weapons against hunger and poverty, and they have made life better for billions of people. The international … community needs to be more … focused to help poor farmers grow more”.
But it is not only international aid that is needed. The developing nations themselves must play their part. In 2014 the African Union’s Malabo declaration reconfirmed its Maputo commitment for each country to put 10% of its GDP into agriculture—but, so far, few countries have fulfilled that commitment.
It is not as though this has not been tried and tested. Vietnam used to be a big importer of rice, at great cost to its hard-pressed treasury. Then, over a decade or so, its Government put 10% to 15% of its GDP into agricultural development each year—irrigation schemes; crop storage; markets, both physical and virtual; roads to get supplies in and out of the countryside; and, above all, training. Vietnam is now the second-largest exporter of rice in the world, a fact that has kick-started a huge economic boom. As I say, it just needs focus.
I will focus on smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, where the current population is due to double by 2050. The lives of some 60% of the population depend on farming, and 65% of the farmers are women. Every woman farmer you meet who has learned to make money from her holding will spend it on educating her children, with education being the most important goal of all. The World Bank has said that money invested in agriculture in Africa brings three or four times the number of people out of poverty than money invested in other businesses. African agriculture needs investment and could bring huge rewards by kick-starting a much bigger economy.
Where is this investment needed? First, there is infrastructure—better mobile connectivity for weather reports, market reports and technical advice. You send a picture of your plant and are told what is wrong with it and how to fix it. We also need better roads for getting seeds and fertiliser in and harvested crops out. We need better power to process crops locally in order to avoid the huge post-harvest losses that are prevalent in Africa. Many countries in Africa do not have a national grid, so local solar power with some form of storage is the obvious answer. Local power will also help kids do their homework at night.
Then we need better management of water. Most sub-Saharan African countries actually get more rain than we do but, of course, African rains come all at once. So mini village reservoirs make sense. Also, Africa is full of aquifers, which are hardly tapped at all. Mankind in Africa uses only around 2% of its annual rainfall, compared with 40%-plus in parts of Asia, so there is a lot of slack here. We could quadruple the output of many farms by helping farmers borrow money to put into communal irrigation schemes.
Another need is better security of tenure on land. DfID started doing good work in this area, but I am not sure where that programme has got to in the FCDO; maybe the Minister can let us know. The point is that without security of tenure, it is difficult to invest. Why would you spend four years of your income on drilling a bore-hole when you could then easily lose your land? It does not have to be vacant possession—it can be through guaranteed-term tenancies —but it has to be done.
Furthermore, why would you borrow money if you can get only 45% interest rates—that is, if the bank will lend you any money at all? Banks do not normally lend to farmers unless they have other collateral somewhere else, such as a town house, but it makes no sense to borrow money at 45% interest rates. Donors such as the UK should guarantee loans to farmers at interest rates of less than 10%. Various UN pilot schemes in this area have worked well, and farmers are now proven to be reliable borrowers.
That brings me to the greatest need for African agriculture: knowledge. We must invest in agricultural training colleges, which have to be open to women. We must ensure that women farmers can get training on their farms, bearing in mind that female ownership of land is still frowned upon in some countries. We must encourage the private sector to assist in training, particularly for existing farmers.
There are two ways of improving skills in the existing workforce: push and pull. Push is when you go to a village and train farmers on the ground, but it is slow work and quite hard to scale up—although you can train a chosen farmer in each village then get her to train, say, 100 others. It is a sort of pyramid selling of agricultural skills. The other—and, I think, better—way is what I call pull. You encourage a private company, maybe with a subsidy or a guarantee or two, to invest in some form of local processing. It then trains farmers to produce a given crop specifically for it, so the farmer has a guaranteed market.
As an example of the latter, a few years ago I visited a Diageo brewery in Addis. It had started training farmers to grow the barley it needed to make its beer. It started with as few as 100 farmers; when I visited, it had some 3,000 and was intending to expand to between 15,000 and 20,000. Those farmers were making money and, of course, educating their children, which is, as I said, the most important goal of all.
In conclusion, these are my two main messages: first, get all Governments to wake up and recognise the opportunities that agriculture brings, while working hard to persuade all African Governments to put 10% of their GDP into agriculture and its infrastructure, as they have already promised; and, secondly, we all need to put more money into agricultural training for the women farmers of Africa. There is so much more to be done, but the rewards are huge.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this debate in advance of the Budget, which is due to be delivered in a fortnight’s time. Undoubtedly, that Budget will involve difficult decisions and sacrifices. It is easy to lose sight of how very fortunate we are as a nation when compared with many others around the world.
As noble Lords have mentioned, the UN has warned that progress towards the sustainable development goals has ground to a halt and in some cases been reversed. Over the last year, the prospect of achieving the 16th sustainable development goal of
“peaceful and inclusive societies”
for sustainable development, and
“access to justice for all”
has seemed even further out of reach as war in the Middle East has become broader and deeper, and multiple conflicts in Africa have also worsened.
With religious differences front and centre of the conflict in the Middle East, as with many others around the world, it may seem at first glance that religion is an obstacle to achieving the sustainable development goals. I have been told this quite often by those who work in development and peacekeeping. However, because of the potential for faith to divide, it is especially important for us to support the efforts of faith groups around the world who seek peace and reconciliation, in order truly to see sustainable development.
There are examples of such initiatives all around the world, from Northern Ireland to Nigeria, advocating for peace, de-escalating tensions and healing the wounds left by conflict, so that communities can experience lasting peace. For instance, the South Sudan Council of Churches has played a crucial role in peacebuilding efforts since the outbreak of civil war, serving as a mediator, brokering ceasefires and peace agreements, and providing humanitarian aid and many other things, leading to reconciliation at high level and at grass roots, although there is a long way still to go. In countries such as Nigeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, interfaith networks help foster understanding between different religious groups, bringing people of different faiths together to work for a common understanding and to stop conflicts spiralling out of control.
As anyone who has been involved in conflict resolution and reconciliation work will know, these efforts, as valuable and precious as they are, are not always popular and their fruits can be fragile. The new Government have outlined their commitment to reconnecting Britain, strengthening our reputation on the international stage and our moral leadership in humanitarian crises. I would be interested to hear what they are planning from the White Paper that was published last year. As they develop their own foreign policy, I urge them to champion and invest in locally led interfaith and reconciliation programmes at home and abroad. This is because, quite simply, Britain is connected. As we saw so clearly in the summer, our communities are not insulated from the impact of conflicts elsewhere in the world. Promoting peace and reconciliation across religious difference in other countries can help to make the UK a safer and more cohesive society, just as supporting interfaith efforts here in Britain can in turn serve as a model and inspiration for others.
This I know is an ambitious project, but one that would be markedly more feasible with proper use of our overseas development aid budget, as I think every speaker has mentioned so far. So, like many other noble Lords, I would like to see it restored to 0.7% of gross national income. The Government have suggested that they will do so when fiscal circumstances allow. That is to miss the point of setting the budget as a percentage of GNI—which means that we spend more when our economy is doing better and less when it is under greater strain. Nevertheless, in the meantime I urge the Government to commit to moving their spending on housing asylum seekers and refugees from the overseas development aid budget to the Home Office, and spending ODA where it is most needed, which is overseas, as the name implies.
I conclude with the thought that conflict has the potential to reverse the progress made across all the sustainable development goals. So I urge this Government to be courageous in standing with and resourcing those seeking peace and reconciliation, even where it seems most hopeless.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord McConnell for securing this debate, and for his long-standing and determined campaign to keep these goals at the forefront of our attention in this House. Today’s debate is another opportunity to focus on such vital issues.
We have debated challenges to achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals before, but, in the present climate, these seem particularly daunting. It is clear that everybody who has spoken in this debate shares my alarm at the latest UN report, which said that progress towards achieving the SDGs has “ground to a halt”. It is truly shocking that, in 2022, an additional 23 million people were in extreme poverty and over 100 million more suffered from hunger compared with 2019; and it is startling that the Covid-19 pandemic has undone nearly 10 years of progress on life expectancy.
I will focus my brief remarks on those who are particularly affected by multiple overlapping crises. They are most affected because these crises exacerbate pre-existing inequalities. When the number of people in poverty rises, when food security is weakened, and when income and wealth inequality increase, it is the most vulnerable groups in developing countries, such as women and children, who are hit hardest. Escalating conflicts are also having an appalling impact. In 2023, four in 10 civilians killed in conflicts were women and three in 10 were children.
Women and children are most susceptible to the impact of crises in healthcare and education. In its response to the UN report, UNICEF reminds us:
“Climate change, poverty, deepening inequalities and intensifying conflict are cutting children off from their chance to thrive”.
It warns that, if we do not act now, with just six years left to reach the sustainable development goals,
“we risk losing millions of lives to easily preventable causes like disease, poor nutrition and unsafe environments”.
Inequalities in access to health treatment, particularly vaccines, have also deepened in the current climate, with huge impact on life chances. While manufacturing capacity has increased worldwide, it remains highly concentrated. This risks shortages as well as insecurity in regional supply, made more vulnerable by escalating conflicts.
Education is a proven route out of extreme poverty. Children living through political instability, conflict or natural disaster are also more likely to be cut off from schooling, as are those with disabilities or from ethnic minorities. Escalating conflicts, disasters and public health emergencies mean that more children than ever are not in school and not learning. The UN report has shown that many countries have recorded declines in maths and reading skills—the building blocks of that route to increased prosperity.
Alongside this, the UN report says simply:
“Progress towards gender equality remains disappointing”.
It notes that more than half of the 120 countries it surveyed
“lack laws prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination against women”.
In this area I particularly recommend the work of Womankind Worldwide, the international organisation that funds and works with partners and women’s rights groups across the world to end gender inequality. In response to how the pandemic, the climate emergency and escalating conflicts are increasing inequalities across the globe, it is working to increase women’s economic rights and strengthen women’s participation and leadership in public life.
As we have heard, more than a third of the 17 targets for the SDGs have stalled or are in reverse, while not quite half are showing minimal or moderate progress. I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about the impact of conflict on women and girls. The UN report said that progress on all SDGs is reliant on peace and preventing violent conflicts. Yet, as my noble friend Lord McConnell said, the number of conflicts in the world is at its highest since the end of the Second World War. It is predicted that, by 2030, nearly 60% of the world’s extreme poor will live in countries affected by conflict, fragility and violence. Our global track record of bringing peace and prosperity to our people and our planet is poor. With six years to go, we must all do better.
The UN SDG report makes clear the need for stronger and more effective international co-operation to maximise progress. It calls for reform of
“outdated, dysfunctional and unfair international financial architecture to encourage greater investment in the SDGs”.
I strongly support this Government’s commitment to rebuilding Britain’s reputation on international development and to restoring development spending. Notwithstanding the crucial rider of this happening as soon as fiscal circumstances allow, I urge the Government to make their promised new approach a priority and to focus on the SDGs. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether we can expect a timeline for restoring ODA funding to 0.7%? Can he give us any indication of whether any new approach will include reducing the amount of ODA currently spent on in-country refugee costs? I echo here the concerns of many others in this debate.
The Prime Minister’s speech at the recent UN General Assembly was a welcome reinforcement of the UK’s commitment to the SDGs, but it is clear that achieving the SDGs, both here and internationally, will be possible only with strong financial commitment. We need to reaffirm that commitment urgently.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this debate. It is a take-note debate on conflict, extreme poverty and climate-related emergencies and their impact on the sustainable development goals. My speech is in the nature of questions to the Minister about the action the Government are planning in two specific areas where they could clearly take action.
I begin with what is happening right now in Nigeria, Mali, Niger and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where floods have driven nearly 1 million people from their homes and killed more than 1,400 people. Save the Children tells us that around 10 million children in the region are being kept out of their homes. Mali has delayed the start of the school year for a month because so many people are sheltering in schools. In Chad, every province has flooded—and this is a country where more than 40% of the population lives in poverty and which is home to more than 2 million refugees. Those who question Britain’s contribution in taking refugees might like to consider that figure. These floods are, in part, a consequence of a natural weather cycle, but they are undoubtedly worsened by the climate emergency.
What does this actually mean at the human level? In the capital of Mali, Bamako, Reuters spoke to a grandmother, Iya Kobla. Her fishing village has been destroyed and many of the mud homes have been swept away. She told Reuters:
“We lost everything and now my grandchildren are all sick”.
Those grandchildren are sleeping on makeshift beds in the very school rooms where children should be learning.
Lest it be thought that this is happening in just one continent, in Latin America we have had a year of record heat, floods and drought, as the World Meteorological Organization reports. Those countries have suffered tens of thousands of climate-related deaths in the past year, at least $21 billion-worth of economic damage and “the greatest calorific loss” of any region. It has to be noted that nearly all the people suffering, people like Mrs Kobla, have done nothing to cause the climate emergency.
This brings up the context of loss and damage in COP climate talks. This is supposed to be compensation from those causing the damage to those who are mostly suffering from it. COP 29, which is fast approaching, is being touted as the climate finance COP, yet the Heinrich Böll Foundation reports that rich countries are fighting the inclusion of loss and damage as a thematic focus of climate funding in those talks. Can the Minister assure me that the Government support the inclusion of loss and damage as a thematic focus? What other plans do the Government have to advance the loss and damage agenda within COP and to deliver the funds that are so urgently needed?
I move on to my second theme. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, spoke about business stepping up to support the sustainable development goals, and said that the City of London can make a real difference. I agree with that: it can make a real difference by cleaning up the rampant corruption that is robbing huge funds from the global South. The robbing of the global South that began centuries ago continues apace. I cite former Government Minister Andrew Mitchell, who was the Deputy Foreign Secretary. In May this year, he acknowledged that 40% of the world’s dirty money flows through the City of London and the British Crown dependencies. According to IMF figures, 5% of global GDP is lost to corruption.
I am particularly driven to this theme by a meeting this week of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax. The topic of the session was Bangladesh and the return of stolen assets. We heard from Professor Mushtaq Khan from SOAS that Bangladesh has lost an estimated $50 billion to $100 billion. We heard from the central bank of Bangladesh how desperate it is to recover this money and how difficult it is expected to be. We heard very directly from Al Jazeera journalists how that money has flowed into this city, right here, right now.
It is not that people are not trying to do something about this. I note that a group of anti-corruption NGOs wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 3 September with three key recommendations: a surge in resources for the National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit to allow it to prioritise the urgent work in Bangladesh and elsewhere; greater external help for the interim Government of Bangladesh to allow them to identify stolen assets; and collaboration with key allies of the UK to identify targets for potential sanctions and visa bans. Susan Hawley, the executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, said:
“The UK really needs to put its money where its mouth is”.
In response to that NGO letter, a letter has been released from Catherine West, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, dated 10 September. It listed all the existing organisations and structures that have been in place for many years and that have not stopped this rampant pillaging of the assets of Bangladesh. It concludes:
“We share your concern about the need to support Bangladesh. We will continue to work with the interim government in Bangladesh on their specific requirements including working with civil society, political parties and international partners”.
My direct question to the Minister is this: what are the Government actually going to do about this stolen money?
I need to tie together the two issues I have raised. Bangladesh has a population of 161 million people. It is the eighth most populous country in the world and it is acutely vulnerable to the climate emergency. Tropical cyclones now cost Bangladesh an average of $1 billion a year. Sea rise means that saline intrusion is affecting the drinking water and irrigation water of 20 million people, who are frequently forced to drink unsafe surface water as a result. One projection from the World Meteorological Organization suggests that one in seven people in Bangladesh could be displaced by the climate emergency by 2050.
But, of course, Bangladesh also needs power; it needs renewable energy resources. A 2018 study from Frontiers in Energy Research looked at
“the mean capital cost of a power plant in Bangladesh”,
which was
“twice … that of the global average”.
Bangladesh desperately needs investment. It needs support. It needs us to stop robbing it—to return the money that has been stolen through the City of London and is being held right around where we stand today.
Let us deliver possibility for the people of Bangladesh and the people of the world. This means not just aid, nor just loss and damage finance; it very much means a transformation of our own society.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the debate we are having today on the UN sustainable development goals is, if anything, overdue, so the initiative by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is doubly welcome. The hard fact is that the mid-term review of progress towards the 2030 sustainable development goals showed as much regress as progress. We in this country bear some responsibility for that, as we squeezed our overseas aid budget, cut back on our contributions to multilateral development programmes and diverted huge sums of development aid to financing Ukrainian refugees in this country. This lamentable performance was not without its cost to us in terms of waning influence in the global South. If we ignore its priorities, why should it pay much attention to ours?
Where does remedial action begin? Clearly it begins, if it does not end, with finding more overall resources for overseas aid to developing countries. Getting back to our legal obligation of 0.7% of gross national income will not be easy or quick, but it needs to start now. The Budget at the end of this month surely needs to contain some modest first steps in that direction. Let us hope it will, otherwise our credibility will be hard to sustain.
A key priority among the sustainable development goals must surely be climate change, both what we do in this country and what we do overseas through our aid programme. It would surely be better to move away from the annual wrangles at COP meetings over the global figures for developing countries to more practical and precise programmes which will help developing countries face up to a range of challenges for whose origins, as other speakers have said, they were not responsible. There should be more resources for those developing countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and others whose action to check climate change could make a real difference; some linkage between relief for the heavily indebted countries and their action against climate change; and better ways of judging right across the board how well every country in the UN is carrying out the obligations it has freely entered into.
Then there is world health. This is now risking neglect as Covid fades into the rearview mirror, but do not doubt that there will be another global pandemic soon enough. We need to be able to spot it and take remedial action quicker than we did with Covid, and to find more equitable ways to distribute vaccines than we did on that occasion. Much will be riding on next year’s negotiations for a pandemic convention. What are the Government’s plans for that event?
Trade policy too is returning to the development agenda, after a period when freer and fairer trade worldwide was the order of the day and brought much benefit. Now, protectionism is on the rise, and we should have no illusions: if the sort of tariffs being touted by Donald Trump come into being and are replicated by other major trading nations—as was, lamentably, the case in the 1930s—then the damage to the prospects of developing countries will be real and profound. That disastrous precedent needs to be avoided if the SDGs are not to take another heavy hit.
The issues I have identified already make up a daunting agenda. Others in this debate will be added and will be every bit as important. Ducking that agenda would be a futile course, the consequences of which we would all suffer. The UK, working with other like-minded countries, has a modest capacity to make a real, positive difference, and it is in our interest so to do.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for this important debate, in particular for focusing on the human experience at the end of his remarks. I too will tell a story.
Like many other noble Baronesses, I am sure, I somewhat dread International Women’s Day—it feels like a tyranny for busy women to be even busier for a day—so this year, I decided to do something completely different: I visited Kakuma, a refugee camp in northern Kenya, as an ambassador and patron of a charity, iamtheCODE. Imagine my surprise as I walked into a metal hut in the middle of the camp, where maybe 150 girls were studying artificial intelligence on laptops, with the sustainable development goals written on the walls as the reason why they should be learning and being educated. I felt some optimism as these young women—completely unaware of the situation they were really up against—bounced around, danced for me and gave me so much reason to believe that they were going to be able to create the dynamics of change in their very tough environment.
I do not know how many noble Lords might know Kakuma, but it is a visual representation of why the sustainable development goals and, in fact—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell—this debate are so important. It sits beside Sudan; you can practically see people leaving that area because of the conflict they face in the hideous landscape behind them. There is no water, because the largest river that had run beside the camp for the past decade has now dried up. There is extreme poverty in the camp but, as always, extreme entrepreneurship taking place alongside it. There are these remarkable attempts at education, with charities delivering extraordinary services in the most difficult circumstances. I feel very lucky to have seen this up close and to have really appreciated so many of the goals face-to-face: SDG 4 on education; SDG 1 about poverty, which has been mentioned; SDG5 on women and girls’ inequality; and SDG 9 about infrastructure. I will make my first remarks on the latter.
I have worked in the world of technology for far too long, but even I find it hard to keep up with the pace of change, which we have frequently heard about in this Chamber over the last two or three years. When I look at the goals, I have a fear and anxiety that they do not adequately reflect the modern world in which we live. They do not adequately put technology and digital skills, and the pace of change in AI, at the heart of how we drive forward change. I would be very interested in the Minister’s response on how the UK can continue to modernise the SDGs and make sure that they really are fit for purpose, particularly against a backdrop of knowing that we are not achieving so many of them effectively. There is no explicit mention of digital skills, AI, data or many of the things that we know will be important to ensure that people living in those most difficult of circumstances have the skills and capacity to help in their local lives.
Not only that, but we also know that digital access can be a transforming technology for people. I saw those girls, who had no fixed status and often no families and will probably never leave the camp, believe that they had a future and the capacity to work because they were learning coding skills. I know I probably have a natural bent towards some of this stuff, but I know that everybody here would have been amazed at their resilience and optimism that they could create a career and future, and earn money, because of the opportunities that they were being given. Yet I do not see this adequately reflected in some of the frameworks around the SDGs. It will be so important to put data and understanding at the heart of them but also to continue to fight to close that digital divide, because it really impacts on all the other parts of the puzzle and the whole ecosystem.
One girl I met as I was leaving, who was a particularly brilliant dancer, told me that she wanted to become a climate activist. She said that she was going to use her coding skills to build awareness and to build apps to help people see what was happening to the local water supply, in order to be able to directly show—particularly to the corporate sponsors that were helping in the camp and with iamtheCODE and the work it does—the exact impact and devastation of the drought and the meteorological changes happening around her. I have absolutely no doubt that she will go some way towards doing this, but this relied on her being given this opportunity with technology. So my first question for the Minister is, how will we make sure that the SDGs really reflect the modern world we live in?
My second point is on the role of business. I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, feels so optimistic that more progress has been made in business than in government. To some degree this is true. At this point, I declare my many interests, particularly as president of the British Chambers of Commerce but also as a member of the multiple boards from which I see this particular aspect of the SDGs. There is no doubt that in every boardroom I have ever sat in over the last 10 years, the SDGs have at least been mentioned, or sustainability goals are now at the heart of every board priority. We have many British success stories. I particularly highlight Belu Water—a member of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I am sure many noble Peers know this company. It has a deep commitment to many of the SDGs—100% of its net profits go towards WaterAid and it does extremely interesting things with recycling its bottles. With such an overtly deep commitment to the sustainable development goals, it is an entrepreneurial local business that we in the UK should be proud of.
There are many other brilliant examples of British success, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree. However, I have an anxiety. As many noble Lords are aware—it has been vaguely referenced in the debate already—there is a move to undermine many of the ways businesses see ESG. That is perhaps the most obvious expression of some of the SDGs and the tangible way that both institutional investors and companies are looking at how to benchmark and deliver on commitments.
ESG did not exist a couple of decades ago. That is progress, and yet, when I think about US institutional investors in particular, there is a move to somewhat undermine its competence and importance and to put too many of the important ESG metrics in the camp of “wokeness”, or just diversity and inclusion gone crazy. This is wrong and dangerous—we need business and institutional investors looking at public companies to continue to apply high standards to companies and to invest based on their clarity of purpose in delivering on ESG metrics. I hope that this somewhat knee-jerk and unpleasant reaction to some of the DEI initiatives over the last decade does not take root here in the UK, and that we hold financial institutions, too, to a high standard. We know that it is that cycle that will deliver the change already mentioned in today’s debate.
I finish by asking the Minister those two questions. How will we make sure that we continue to put the latest thinking about technology at the heart of SDGs? How will we make sure that businesses have the necessary, understandable and not too complex frameworks to continue to deliver on the targets towards which we have made so much progress over the last decade?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox; her points about technology are well made. I thank too the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for giving us the chance to have this debate. My only concern is that when we have these debates, it is the same group of people who are debating. It is unfortunate that the rest of the Chamber does not realise how important and central this is. It is not a peripheral issue, and yet I am afraid that too many of our colleagues regard it as such.
Nobody should underestimate the damage done in the last few years to the UK’s global reputation and the impact and influence we have. Those of us who travel—most of us do—have met people who have told us how they looked on in astonishment at our clumsy, bad-tempered exit from the EU, our threats to tear up international treaties, our disregard of international and domestic law, our slashing of our world-class international development assistance.
Even with Covid, we developed the vaccines, but did we share them with the developing world, as we had indicated we would? No, we did not. Unless we are honest about what we have done to our reputation, it will be difficult to start the process of rebuilding it.
Boris Johnson’s destruction of DfID and slashing of the aid budget, after promising to do neither, shocked our partners and opened the door for others to move in to the space we have vacated. The point has already been made that the cut was a lot worse than just going from 0.7% to 0.5%. That was bad enough, but the £4.273 billion paid domestically, which should be going to development abroad, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has said, has reduced the budget in practical terms to some 0.3%, not 0.5%.
I acknowledge that at the end of the last government, Rishi Sunak tried to do some rebuilding by putting the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and Andrew Mitchell back in place. The rot was stopped at that point. Nevertheless, we must recognise that we have a lot of work to do if we are going to get back to where we were.
I had the privilege to chair the International Development Committee during the period when the UK delivered 0.7%. Not only did we set an example and encourage others to follow, but the quality of what we did was world class. It was untied to British commercial interests and focused on poverty reduction. We led the world in programmes empowering women and girls, delivering on education and health, and rolling out vaccines. What we are doing now is a shadow of what we were. I am glad that spending on Africa and Asia is beginning to recover, but it is from a much lower base.
I was recently told that the UK’s offer in many countries, once ranked as the best in the world and on a par with the Americans and the World Bank, is roughly equivalent to Sweden’s. No disrespect to the Swedes, who have always been generous with aid, but our population is more than five times Sweden’s, and yet we are delivering only at that level.
The nub of what I have to say is a political point. As the UK has diminished its reputation and influence, China and Russia have stepped in aggressively. They have moved in offering billions of conspicuously spent dollars of assistance with few questions asked, and certainly not focusing on poverty reduction. Until the demise of its founder, the Wagner Group operated as semi-licensed mercenaries of the Kremlin across Africa. It has now morphed into a state agency called Africa Corps. It is offering billions to acquire mineral rights and securing political support for Russia in the United Nations.
This is accompanied by a massive incursion into acquiring or developing media outlets pouring out propaganda against the democratic world. The BBC World Service, which is being forced to cut back because of budget constraints, estimates that Russia and China are between them spending between $4 billion and $8 billion a year acquiring or developing media assets across the global South. When the BBC, as part of its cuts, gave up its presence in Lebanon, Russia immediately picked up the frequency it vacated. These outlets are not promoting freedom, human rights and pluralism but denouncing ex-colonial powers such as Britain as unreliable exploiters, despite the irony of their own mercantilist expansion. Unfortunately, that propaganda has traction when countries look at the way we have behaved in the last few years.
Where are those who looked, and look, to us for leadership to turn in the light of this decline? How can we ensure, for example, that the Commonwealth still upholds the rule of law? I suggest to the Minister—I do not think I am speaking to closed ears—that these are immediate and urgent challenges for the Government if we are to start rebuilding the profile. We had it; we need to have it again.
I appreciate that a global impact review is taking place, but we need to take urgent action now and rebuild the cross-party consensus that sustained what was delivered and ensured that people were able to see that the politicians and the people were as one. It is too easy to use cheap comments such as “cash machines in the sky”—an ignorant and deeply offensive comment by Boris Johnson.
To the detractors of aid, I say that reducing poverty, malnutrition and hunger and providing clean water and sanitation are not only the right things to do but make a safer world and improve the chances of getting people in countries to share values. Narrow selfish nationalism always diminishes us. When they have been given the opportunity, the majority of British people have always shown strong support for compassion at home and abroad. The problem with the argument that charity begins at home is, as we all know, that it stays at home.
I have just visited Zambia, and I saw some concern that our presence was visibly reduced. Everywhere I went people said, “Where are you? What has happened to you? Where have you gone? Are you coming back?” I think I could find that in many countries across Africa. But I did see one or two quite encouraging things. I declare an interest as an adviser to a company called DAI. I was looking at some of the projects it is delivering on behalf of USAID. I also saw a couple of other organisations that I have a personal connection with. I chair a charity called Water Unite, which provides money to companies in-country to build sustainable provision of water and sanitation, and I went to a company called Jibu, a franchise operation which is providing clean water to businesses and individuals at an affordable and therefore sustainable level. Its ambition is to have a franchise operating in every part of Zambia. It is operating across east Africa. I saw a different Zambia- registered company, inspired by British interest, delivering investment in renewable energy by linking it to markets and ensuring therefore that although there is room for some aid in development, actual markets and the private sector can unlock real practicalities.
The Liberal Democrats have stated that we would commit to 0.7% immediately and would also re-establish DfID. I know that the Government are not going to do that, but I echo what everyone else has said, which is that the Government have made a commitment that they are going to do it. We have a Budget coming up. We have to see that progress is started in this Budget. I hope that the rumours suggesting not only that that will not happen but that the aid budget might be further cut will prove to be unfounded. It would be a terrible mistake if the Government went down that route.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. As ever, he did what I expected him to do and covered the breadth of this subject with intensity but also personal knowledge and understanding that I have a lot of respect and time for, and he knows that.
Since so many other noble Lords have talked about the more general issues, I want to speak about a particular issue. Some noble Lords may say, “She’s at it again”. I want to speak about what the SDGs say about the role of volunteering in delivering outcomes. We rarely talk about it. We have incredibly good experience of and knowledge about it, but we have sort of abandoned it, and we need to get back to it.
Noble Lords have heard this from me before if they have been in debates such as this one, but I value enormously the role that Voluntary Service Overseas has played in my life and recognise that it has had the same effect on many other people’s lives. I went to Kenya to teach from 1967 to 1969. That was a long time ago, but it changed my life. Since I came back, I have never let go of keeping in touch with VSO, pursuing its objectives and understanding the changes in how volunteering now works. I was involved in its governance for over 10 years and have seen that volunteering is very different from when I did it all those years ago. It is now seen and recognised across the world as a very important means of developing objectives in international development.
I am sure noble Lords know that there is now a global volunteering standard. More than 60 organisations around the world have signed up to it, including the African Union. I went to Ethiopia after the signing of the SDGs and met the AU. We signed a memorandum of understanding between VSO and the African Union to develop national volunteering around Africa. VSO now works through joining together international volunteers, who usually come from here, with national volunteers who are volunteering in their own country. Frequently, they will be moved to another part of that country so that they learn a bit more about their country, in Kenya often working with a different tribe in the locality and so on. This means that high numbers of young people in and around Africa, as well as in Asian countries, have developed skills in leadership, working together and going across borders of traditional ways of doing things and have been able to participate with international volunteers, particularly young people, in tackling climate change and in peace and reconciliation at a very local level. They live in the local community and work with the local people and build their resilience and knowledge and understanding of how to tackle these issues.
I therefore agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane- Fox, that we see the inspirational and challenging things that are happening that local people are pursuing and that we are letting go. We gave up the youth volunteering programme during Covid, and I understand why, but we lost a raft of people who knew what to do and how to do it. I know that there are now thoughts in the FCDO about how we return to that, and I urge the Government to get on top of that and look at it much more carefully.
VSO is doing some incredible work on the border of Sudan and Ethiopia and in the Philippines on peace and reconciliation and on how local people can think about the things that will keep their community going, whatever is happening, and how they do that. Some of the work is remarkable and, as I say, inspiring. It is also working on issues around women and girls, particularly what is happening to them in conflict, and on climate change. On climate change, a lot of that is about how you develop resilience at a local level to make sure that a flood can be handled in a different way and the way that other climate change effects can be dealt with in the local community. This is what international development is all about, and it is also the way that many young people in this country have learned about the rest of the world and about how they can work in the rest of the world and get an enormous amount out of it themselves in terms of learning, skills and future opportunities.
There is someone here who did a short programme with the International Citizen Service. She came back and said, “I’ve totally changed my life aspirations and what I was going to do”; she is now working here in the CPA. We can change people’s views of what is going on in the developing world and the global South, if we get more involved and enable more young people, in particular, to get involved in volunteering.
I urge the Government on this. I know how tricky it is, but I have ideas for them which would mean that the new youth volunteering programme would cost a lot less than what the previous Government were working on when they left office. It can be done and I am sure that, even in times of difficulties, we can do it. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do that as quickly as possible.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing this topical debate. I wish to focus my few remarks on the impact that conflict, extreme poverty and climate-related emergencies have had in Africa.
We are all cognisant of the horrendous crisis in Sudan—we had a very moving debate here just a few weeks ago—as well as the recent damage to infrastructure in Sudan, such as the dams in that country, due to widespread flooding and the ongoing conflict that has escalated the cholera pandemic. In the Horn of Africa, five consecutive failed wet seasons have left millions unable to grow crops and sustain livelihoods, putting them at risk of extreme hunger. Across Africa as a continent, a staggering 868 million people today face moderate to severe food insecurity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke powerfully on the impacts of climate change in Africa. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington that we need to provide much more investment in agriculture. As he mentioned, 60% of those in most countries in southern Africa depend on farming for their livelihoods and, sadly, those suffering most are women and children. Africa contributes 3% to 4% of global carbon emissions but experiences about 25% of the observed global climate change damage.
Of the 17 SDGs, I wish to focus on goals 13 and 16, specifically on what action can be taken to combat climate change and its impacts, as well as what measures can be taken to promote conflict resolution. Sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned, the progress of the SDGs is severely off track. This pertains particularly in Africa. We continue to see the forcible displacement of people and, of course, increased resource scarcity.
I want to talk not just about the challenges; in a debate such as this it is important to look at future solutions. There have been countless studies on the positive benefits of promoting a green economy by creating jobs, growth and thereby stability. Africa has the potential to become a trailblazer for renewable energy solutions, both powering local communities and attracting foreign investment from wealthier nations such as the United Kingdom. Fossil fuel subsidies are estimated at $7 trillion per year. This massively outweighs subsidies for the green economy. Balancing these subsidies towards renewable energy and green technologies is crucial for Africa to advance sustainable development and address climate change effectively.
Technology can also address many of the pain points in Africa. As my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox said very powerfully, we need to focus on promoting digital skills. Some 57% of the adult population remain unbanked, without access to traditional financial services. Can the Minister elaborate on what measures are being promoted to increase access to microfinance to support small and medium-sized businesses across the continent? The financial inclusion landscape is certainly improving, with the rise in mobile banking and fintech solutions, and more access to affordable broadband thanks to Starlink, but a lot more can and should be done to improve the imbalance.
The ongoing conflicts in Africa have naturally had a massive detrimental impact on economic growth and sustainability, destabilising markets and thereby foreign investment. Conflicts, extreme poverty and climate- related emergencies are all interlinked. Roughly 60% of Africa’s population is under the age of 25. This youthful demographic should be a force for good, with its potential for increased growth. There should be more investment in the promotion of young entrepreneurs who can stimulate the economies of the future.
In conclusion, there is a long-term challenge but long- term challenges require long-term, systematic solutions. It is inevitable that there will be many more climate-related disasters and instability in Africa in the foreseeable future; the green economy must be prioritised to counterbalance this. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in winding up, can elaborate on what measures are being taken to promote peace summits, as well as addressing the financial measures that are planned to promote sustainable economic development in the continent.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, my speech is about world poverty today and its historical root causes. According to the World Bank, nearly 10% of the global population—approximately 700 million people—live in extreme poverty, defined as surviving on less than $2 a day. This staggering statistic is not merely a number but a scar on humanity. Such levels of poverty represent lives constrained and destroyed by historical inequalities, systemic exploitation, conflict, weak governance, environmental destruction and economic mismanagement.
The consequences of poverty are severe and far reaching for us all. For those directly affected it leads to poor health outcomes, low life expectancy, limited educational opportunities and, ultimately, political instability and conflict. Such conflicts create vicious circles. They lead to violence and displacement, destroy infrastructure, precipitate economic collapse and create refugee crises. This all deepens poverty. Although we have not witnessed large-scale wars since the Second World War, we have seen a troubling rise in small regional conflicts. These conflicts are predominantly internal, manifesting as civil wars, ethnic strife, terrorism and religious divisions.
We all agree that there are complex factors at play, but we must recognise the root causes of competition over resources and colonial legacies that disregarded geographic, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and tribal realities. The truth is that colonial rule has left deep scars and given rise to economic, political and cultural challenges that continue to challenge former colonies. A glance at the world map today reveals that most extreme poverty is concentrated in regions that were subjected to European colonial rule for centuries. This is the central point of my argument.
Colonial powers often employed divide and rule strategies, fostering divisions among local populations to suppress potential resistance. This left a legacy of ethnic and sectarian conflict. In some areas, resistance to colonial rule resulted in prolonged war, further entrenching a cycle of violence and militarisation that has fed into post-colonial conflicts.
Colonialism was also concerned with the extraction of wealth. It is a fact that western nations extracted vast resources from these regions, enriching their own economies while leaving poor infrastructure that hindered recovery. The authoritarian rules of colonial governance meant that, when these powers departed, newly formed states inherited a fragile and dictatorial structure, often leading to military coups and continued instability. It is also true that colonial rulers rarely invested in local institutions, leaving independent states ill-equipped to manage complex challenges of governance. This neglect contributed to weak states marked by corruption and inadequate public services.
Many newly independent nations emerged burdened with heavy debts and economic structures that were designed to benefit their former colonisers. Today we see many developing countries trapped in a cycle of debt, relying on international institutions for survival. Indeed, some scholars argue that colonialism never ended and that modern multinational corporations perpetuate a form of economic neocolonialism, exploiting resources in former colonies. The economic system crafted by the colonial powers favoured their industries and exports even after their departure. After the Second World War, many newly independent states became pawns in the Cold War, caught in a geopolitical struggle between the Soviet Union and the West. This further prolonged instability and hindered the development of functional states.
The legacies of colonialism have left indelible marks in many regions of the world. The economic exploitation, artificial boundaries, political instability and social fragmentation established during colonial rule continue to shape the world. If we are serious about tackling global poverty and climate disaster, we must face up to these persistent legacies and work together to map a new course for all humanity.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I voluntarily chair the UK board of Search for Common Ground, which is a global peacebuilding charity delivering programmes supported by the UK Government. I am also an associate of Global Partners Governance, which focuses on strengthening representative institutions linked with sustainable development goal 17.
As others have, I commend the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this very important debate and for his tireless work in the all-party parliamentary group. Most recently, very early yesterday morning we had a session with Minister Dodds, who spoke with great passion about the Government’s commitment to the SDGs. This is an important debate. The SDGs were not in the Labour manifesto, so it is a good opportunity, early in the new Government’s term, for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to outline the Government’s thinking on how they will be going forward, and to report back on the very valuable work he did at the United Nations in recent weeks.
My noble friend Lord Bruce commented on the number of speakers in this debate. I note that the next debate on VAT for private schools has more speakers than a debate on global poverty, but “quality rather than quantity” could perhaps be said of this debate. That debate is sandwiched by another very important debate this afternoon, regarding Ethiopia. So this is a good day for us to consider not only the global challenges, which have been discussed, but what the UK’s response should be.
My noble friend Lord Bruce also explained why it is important. It is in the strategic interests of the United Kingdom to restore our scale and reputation of partnership programming. The very essence of a liberal, rules-based international order, compared with a multi- polar world based around Beijing or Moscow, is in our defence, security, diplomatic and development priorities. The SDGs should be at the heart of that.
My noble friend Lady Northover, in her extremely powerful contribution, outlined the consequences of the approach of the climate emergency—food insecurity and resource conflict potentially displacing 200 million people. We know that in the UK we are not immune from the consequences of that. It is in our domestic interests that we work abroad.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and my noble friend indicated, the greatest impact is on women and girls. The sustainable livelihoods that would be denied, and the lack of economic development for women and girls, will mean fewer trading partners and less sustainability for the UK. Therefore, all this should be at the heart of what we believe should be a feminist UK development policy.
Conflict was, quite rightly, one of the themes of this debate. There is a need for a concerted effort on prevention, even as the number of conflict areas in the world has grown. But conflict today is different from what it was. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, said about the consequences of colonialism, and I share many of his views. But, unfortunately, some elements of conflict are different from in the past: civilians are more actively targeted and there is hybrid warfare and access to resource conflict. One more recent development is that conflict is not solely about nationality or territory; often, it is now about profiteering and the UK should take a lead on the dark links between global finance and conflict.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, “banged on” about volunteering. I declare that, earlier this year, I took part in a VSO visit to Cox’s Bazar and Dhaka. She is absolutely right—volunteering is not just a nice thing to do that helps the volunteer; it allows there to be networks of young people at the hard edge of peace and reconciliation work. I saw the programmes on climate action, young women’s sexual health and women’s economic development. That was in Bangladesh, where VSO has had programmes for 50 years. This has been a sustainable part of the UK’s relationship, regardless of the political circumstances, which can be complex and destabilising. So I hope the Minister will respond on the Government’s plans for the volunteering programme. It was welcome that the previous Government’s White Paper said that citizenship and volunteering would be brought back—although not at the scale there was under the coalition Government. I would be grateful to hear from the Government what the timing of that might be.
The 0.7% has been a constant element in many of the contributions, because it is not just what the UK’s policies for supporting the SDGs are; it is that we do it at scale. Over the period of the SDGs, very few countries have been able to deploy the level of resource that can have a global impact on their development. As the UK has pulled back by cutting our ODA by a third, we see the SDGs falling back. In many of the SDG areas, the UK was the principal funder—not just a contributory funder—and it was impossible to infill from other countries.
We heard that one of the worst impacts of the UK reneging on its obligation was that it gave some licence for other countries to cut and pull back too. This means that the cumulative impact has been even worse. We did that not in a calm and benign global environment but in the centre of a global crisis, with the climate emergency and a pandemic. The signal this sent to our development partners was terrible, especially since so many programmes specifically linked with delivery of the SDGs were cancelled mid-programme. ICAI showed the impact of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, was right: one of the worst elements of not only the cuts but also of removing DfID was that we hollowed out a network of policy staff, especially in agriculture. The UK was not only a deliverer of programmes but in many areas a thought leader, and it supported policy-making in many countries that lack the capacity themselves. The running down of the humanitarian response fund also meant that the UK response to humanitarian crises over recent years has been weaker than in the preceding decade.
I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to restore an independent development department and I am also disappointed that they are using, word for word, the same language on the restoration of 0.7% as the previous Government—when the fiscal rules apply. Gordon Brown increased ODA after the 2008 global crash. David Cameron and Nick Clegg delivered 0.7% while other budgets were cut. Meeting 0.7% is not a fiscal choice but a policy one. Indeed, it should not be a choice at all; it is a legal obligation, not just to meet 0.7% but, under the 2002 legislation, for Ministers to have the ability to “provide assistance” for the reduction of poverty in countries “outside the United Kingdom”. If Governments choose to renege on legislation, they should be up front and repeal it; they should not ignore it. The consequences of that reneging are huge, especially since, as we heard, for the first time in our country’s history more official development assistance was spent in the United Kingdom than overseas.
In 2015 we had a window of opportunity of political consensus at home and the ability to bring political consensus abroad. Given the existing dysfunction in the United Nations and the higher number of conflict areas and vulnerable states than a decade ago, I fear that we would not be able to agree the goals today. Therefore, if we fail to deliver them, we will not have an opportunity again. The UK must restore its ability for global leadership and development and do it at scale—it is urgent.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to see the House taking note of the UN’s sustainable development goals, alongside noting the impact of conflict, extreme poverty and climate-related emergencies globally. Like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for bringing forward this debate on this important topic. We have had some excellent contributions, as one would expect given the considerable expertise that exists on this subject in the House.
My noble friend Lady Sugg made some particularly excellent points about the impact of poverty and conflict on women and girls. She highlighted some of the excellent work that took place under the previous Government and welcomed the continuation of that work under our new Government—I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has to say about that.
One hundred countries have been at least partially involved in some form of external conflict in the past five years, and that number has, sadly, doubled since 2008. Between 2022 and 2023, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace, some 97 countries recorded a deterioration in peace. For many of us, the terrible conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East have brought this unsurprising reality to the forefront; we undoubtedly live in extremely dangerous times.
Although in recent years we have made considerable efforts to reduce global poverty, some 700 million people are still living on less than $2 per day. Despite that, I am still optimistic for the future and want to emphasise the importance of holistic action led not just by government but by those in industry and the private sector. Much has been said about this being a time of understandable constraints on public expenditure. Therefore, I favour a Government who also help to facilitate a private sector-led approach that allows society to take the lead and does not just leave everything to government. I want to advocate for a policy that supports corporate philanthropy and global responsibility and is more fiscally prudent and efficient than a solely government-led approach. We can see the contribution of many private sector partners here in the UK to improving our efforts to meet the UN development goals, from Tesco combating poverty and hunger both within our shores and overseas to Unilever improving its environmental and social working practices internationally.
We all have a part to play in helping to build a better world. I particularly welcome debate on this issue and thank the many noble Lords who have made some very thoughtful contributions. The previous Government did some excellent work in this area, and in particular were an ally to Ukraine. We must continue to stand with our many allies as the world becomes more dangerous.
I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the many issues that have been raised, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, just mentioned, on the 0.7% target—his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, posed some interesting questions. I will not embarrass the Minister by quoting all his and the Prime Minister’s previous trenchant criticisms of the reductions implemented by the previous Government, but I know him to be a man of his word. I am sure that we are all eagerly anticipating him repeating some of his numerous promises today. I am sure it is just another example of the tough choices that the Government are fond of telling us they are keen on making.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
Well, up until that point, I thought it was quite a consensual debate. Anyway, it has been a very interesting debate and could not be more timely, and I thank my noble friend for initiating it.
Sometimes it is quite important to remind ourselves exactly what the SDGs are. They are universal. They apply to everyone and all countries; it is not the north telling the south or vice versa. If we start this debate on that basis, we can see a lot more progress.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, will forgive me because I am not being partisan, but I thought that the first attempt at the voluntary national review, which my noble friend referred to, was disappointing in the sense that it did not focus on the cross-governmental attitude. It did not look at how we are responding in education, health and other areas; it looked at what we are doing to others. I thought that was a missed opportunity and a big mistake. It could have been an opportunity to give the political leadership we needed.
By the way—my noble friend mentioned this, and it is important to restate it—this country has a proud record in promoting global development, certainly with Gordon Brown and how he pursued the millennium development goals, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in pushing that SDG agenda. We have a proud record as a country and on a cross-party basis. It is important that we remind ourselves of that and that, as we move forward in trying to deliver on the SDGs as a new Government, we work across government and not just in the FCDO. I will come on to some of those other issues to do with departments.
I think that Anneliese Dodds, the Minister for Development, would have been delighted to be here in person to listen to this debate, but she is at Chatham House giving her keynote speech on the Government’s approach to development, which will cover many of the topics discussed by noble Lords today. I hope there will be an opportunity for us to circulate that and perhaps even have a further discussion about the future.
The other thing I would like to say at the beginning— I will return to some of these points—is that we have initiated a review under the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, who was a Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Development. That review will be concluded fairly speedily, but I do not want to pre-empt some of the things it might include.
The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have set out some clear priorities for the FCDO, tackling the issues that all noble Lords have raised today. The focus is on delivering the Government’s five missions: delivering growth, enhancing security, tackling the climate and nature crises, rebuilding our relationship with Europe and, as we are discussing today, modernising our approach to international development. This Government’s mission is to help to create a world free from poverty on a liveable planet. Inevitably, this requires holding on to the hope that we can get the SDGs back on track through clear, effective and modern development policy, placing climate and nature at the heart of everything we do. There is no pathway to development without increasing climate resilience, tackling the nature crisis and improving access to green energy, and no pathway to a sustainable future without development that leaves no one behind.
My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of businesses and the private sector. The SDGs cannot be delivered by Governments alone and cannot be delivered even with the private sector alone. It is a joint enterprise. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong has also highlighted, this is about how we generate civil society to support the SDGs. I pick up the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that mobilising civil society includes faith groups and other organisations. Even though I am a committed humanist, I have seen incredible work by faith groups in this country to deliver support for people—and I have seen that in other countries too. Mobilising that is incredibly important.
We had the Secretary-General’s pact for the future at the UN General Assembly, which will be important in mobilising for future generations. It is a key element. I hear what my noble friend says about that. There are always lots of kind words at these events, and we need to translate those words into action. However, the fact that we achieved a consensus at the General Assembly, across all countries, is a sign of hope and positive news.
Over the last three months—and it is only three months —this Government have focused on some key areas to tackle the issues that noble Lords have raised today. Economic growth is a top priority for this Government, at home and abroad. We are focusing on sustainable, inclusive economic development and growth that delivers opportunity and unlocks human potential. This approach is the one that will help to lift millions out of extreme poverty, as has been evidenced in the last 30 years. Giving local working people access to better and more productive jobs is the only way to sustainably reduce poverty and build resilience to climate change. As noble Lords are aware, by 2030, countries in the global South will make up the top 30 economies. I have been reminded in every visit that I have made to African countries in the last three months that, by 2050, a quarter of the world’s population will be African. It will be the biggest market, so we have to refocus our attention to these in terms of partnership and economic development. It is essential that there are quality jobs and infrastructure improvements, and that exports grow.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Dillington—sorry; there are too many Lord Camerons in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is absolutely right. I visited the food security conference in Kigali and I came away from that event feeling incredibly positive about the potential for agriculture in Africa. There is huge potential, but it needs to be addressed in terms of connectivity. The fact is that, from harvest to market, Africa loses 40% of its products simply because it does not have the cold storage or a way to manage the logistics. Those issues can be addressed with appropriate investment, and certainly with innovation.
We also have the FCDO’s new land facility programme, launched in 2024. It will build on previous work, and support partner countries in Africa, south-east Asia and Latin America to develop robust land administration systems to protect land rights and facilitate sustainable land investment, which is key. I have seen co-operation between local farmers and British farmers who have gone into countries to develop exports. The other thing that was stressed in Kigali is that most agricultural producers need support and help to focus on markets first—it is about understanding your market and increasing that investment.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, it is true that there are lots of targets with the SDG 2030 agenda but, at the General Assembly in New York, we were focused on the global digital compact. It was adopted at the summit of the future and focuses on inclusive adoption of digital technologies to accelerate SDG delivery, closing the divide in digital support through international multi-stakeholder collaboration, and recognising the role that AI can play. The Government have launched an AI for development programme, which aims to create safe, inclusive and responsible ecosystems. I add that we focus, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, did, on SDG 5, but I also focus on SDG 8, because that is about training a productive, inclusive workforce. We need to ensure that we see the SDGs in a more cohesive, comprehensive way.
On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, all our development partnerships will focus on championing equal rights and empowering women and girls. That is absolutely essential. Investing in their progress and breaking down the barriers they face is essential to development. We will partner with others to confront the rollback of rights, tackle discrimination and scale up proven, locally led approaches to ending the gender-based violence she described. Next year will see the 30th anniversary of the Beijing declaration. We will work really hard to renew that, and the whole question of women, peace and security. Through these efforts, we will ensure that women, girls and marginalised groups have access to essential, quality education and, most importantly, sexual and reproductive health and rights. We will also focus on how we deliver that.
The other big issue we heard in this debate was reform of the global financial system for climate, nature and development. We understand everyone’s concerns about the unfairness of the current system, but I also want to address the whole question of ODA. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was absolutely right: we need to return to building a cross-party consensus. I do not think we need to be partisan on this issue, because what we are able to deliver on the SDGs benefits us all as a country. It improves our security too, and that cross-party support is something we have to try to return to.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also said—that the problem with the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was not just the cut but the way it was done and the speed with which it was done. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, will agree with me on that. It caused huge damage to our credibility, and that is what we have to try to restore. I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will say that I am just repeating what the previous Government said, and I will repeat it, since he expects me to do so: the Government are committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% of GNI—the Prime Minister has made that clear—as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. But that does not stop us focusing on what we do and how we deliver it. We will focus on impact, and I will certainly be determined to ensure that for every bit of our activity. I think that is what the development review will do. Let us focus on impact and how we can achieve more.
One thing I have been focusing on is a commitment to a partnership of equality and respect to deliver economic growth. We are working towards a general partnership to deliver reforms on a greater scale, in terms of the financial support globally. This includes championing reform of multilateral development banks, which are the largest source of development finance. There is a significant opportunity to increase the volume of finance they can offer. There is so much we can do beyond ODA; I think that is really important. We can see them go further and faster in stretching their balance sheets so that they can lend more, but donors also need to step up. We seek an ambitious replenishment of the World Bank’s IDA21, the largest source of low-cost loans for the poorest and most vulnerable. We are playing our part in increasing its pledge and urging all partners to contribute to the fund. Together, we can make sure that we deliver the largest replenishment in history.
Yet, despite this progress, the number of countries spending more on debt interest repayments on health and education remains too high. We will continue to push for improvements to the common framework for quicker debt treatments for countries experiencing debt distress. We are finding creative ways to give partners that sort of hope.
We have also rolled out and championed climate-resilient debt clauses, which allow developing countries to pause debt and repayments when disaster strikes. We know that the global financing gap cannot be filled through public finance alone. As I said at the beginning, the finance needed will be delivered through the private sector, and we are playing an important part in that.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we pledged up to £60 million for loss and damage, including £40 million for the new fund responding to loss and damage, and up to £20 million for wider funding arrangements. We are working closely with our partners to operationalise this fund.
How do we mobilise the private sector? Of course, we have to recognise that the City of London is the biggest global hub for mobilising capital, and we will be doing even more on that. We are also going to do more in working with BII to unlock that sort of investment. In my visits to Africa, I have seen how we can ensure greater access. We do not tell this story enough. I visited Angola and saw the Lobito Corridor, and I visited an extractive mine that was focused on delivering greater processing, bringing employment into the local labour market. It then supported investment in agriculture, using that connectivity, so there was a perfect, positive story to tell about development. I certainly want to focus on that.
Sadly, I am running out of time—now I know the difficulty the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to have. Security, which was raised by every noble Lord, and in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord McConnell, is an important area. Prevention of conflict and peacebuilding is essential. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, looking at that peacebuilding element, will of course be part of that. It is about a resource.
There is no sustainable development without peace, and there is no peace without sustainable development. I focused on that last week at the UN, and I met all the people concerned, who were absolutely committed to ensuring that we can deliver more. In the current climate, it is even more essential that we focus on that. I caught the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about women’s participation, which we are absolutely committed to.
I have an answer on the integrated security fund for my noble friend, and I also had a lot to say on illicit finance, but I have run out of time. I will write on those points, because I have visited places, particularly in the context of illicit finance and what we are doing to combat corruption, which is one of the biggest elements holding back development.
In conclusion, the SDGs will get back on track; we are determined to do so. We will focus on working together with our allies to face up to those shared challenges. This debate will be an important contribution to the way we refocus our efforts, so I thank noble Lords.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response to all the various points made in what was an excellent debate. I was glad of my new hearing aid, which allowed me to hear the speeches for the first time in a couple of years. There were many excellent speeches during the debate, and I hope that Ministers—not just my noble friend Lord Collins but others in the Government—will pay particular attention to the outstanding speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg, Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Armstrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. They raised specific and detailed points on where we can go forward in our development approaches and towards the sustainable development goals.
There is a clear message from this debate. Across the parties and individuals represented in your Lordships’ Chamber, there is a strong commitment to this country’s contribution to a more peaceful and prosperous world, and the sustainable development goals provide the framework through which we can achieve that progress. The new Government have an opportunity, with the strong support of people across this Chamber, to embed the sustainable development goals in the framework of policies the Government are pursuing. They can take early action to end the scandal of not just depleted ODA in this country but far too much of that money being spent inside the United Kingdom, and then ensure that, in this interdependent world, we engage internationally to change as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and I beg to move.
Independent Schools: VAT
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of levying VAT on independent schools with effect from 1 January 2025.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies. Its 670 members—which are generally small in size, with great strengths in special needs, bilingual teaching and the performing arts—are particularly at risk as a result of the Government’s VAT plans. The council acts on behalf of some 1,400 schools, which are educating around 80% of the 600,000 children in the independent education sector.
Surely, it ought to be the duty of each and every Government, regardless of political complexion, to value and to safeguard all children in our country’s schools. The education of the many thousands in independent schools ought never to be harmed by the actions of government. Can it be right to inflict on some—perhaps many—of these children the problems that the imposition of VAT, our country’s first ever education tax, will inevitably cause?
Nevertheless, this very short debate is not about whether VAT should be slapped on school fees. The die is cast: Labour’s election manifesto said explicitly that VAT would be extended to school fees, and the Government are proceeding at breakneck speed to get it introduced. This debate is about the great haste with which the Government are acting. Out of the blue, schools were told at the end of July that they would start paying VAT five months later, on 1 January next year—five months to alter plans and budgets that had been fixed for the academic year starting in September. Notice of those five months was received during the school summer holidays, during which the Treasury held a consultation exercise covering a whole host of technical details.
The Government say, blithely, that five months is quite sufficient to prepare for this unprecedented change. I ask the Minister: would the Government ever contemplate asking state schools to redo their plans for a new academic year at such short notice? Taxation apparently trumps the education and welfare of children in our country’s independent schools. The Treasury wants to start getting in cash as fast as it can. Last week in the Commons, a Treasury Minister said that
“we want to raise the money as soon as possible”,
adding, breezily yet again:
“There will have been five months for parents and schools to prepare”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/10/24; col. 174.]
Glorious things are promised from the VAT receipts: 6,500 extra teachers, 3,000 new nurseries and breakfast clubs in all primary schools. All these benefits will come from money which, if the Government should manage to raise their levy target of £1.5 billion, will represent just over 1% of the total education budget. A degree of scepticism about these promises might be in order.
Will the £1.5 billion target be reached? The crucial issue is the extent to which the education tax will force parents to move their children to state schools. The Government say the numbers will be small. They have not bothered to make any assessment of their own; they are placing their faith entirely in one single report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This suggests that between 4% and 7% of children will “migrate”—a singularly inapposite term for the displacement and disruption of pupils during their school careers. That would mean up to 40,000 children would be unable to continue their education in the schools their parents had chosen for them. That in all conscience would be bad enough, but a number of other independent studies have calculated that the number will be much higher. The Government ignore them.
But even the author of the Government’s favoured report now has his doubts about its predictions. This is hardly surprising. The report itself declares that it is based on “relatively thin” evidence and “relatively old” data, garnished by details furnished by Catholic schools in America, whose relevance is unclear. Last weekend, the author of the IFS report said that the Government’s education tax could destroy the continuity of education for far more children: 15% could be forced to move. That means 90,000 children would be added to the number in state schools, virtually wiping out the £1.5 billion for which the Government introduced their education tax in the first place.
But such gloom is misplaced, say the Government, because, as the Treasury Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, told your Lordships a week ago,
“very many private schools will take steps to absorb a proportion, or all, of the new VAT liability, so there may be no increases in fees”.—[Official Report, 10/10/24; col. 2103.]
The noble Lord should get out and talk to those dealing with the financial affairs of independent schools. He would quickly discover that absorbing the education tax would mean cuts—above all to staff, who account for some 70% of school costs. No wonder the NASUWT has called for the new tax to be delayed until next September to try to find a way of reducing the prospect of job losses.
“What about the large sums that schools derive from their substantial capital assets?” some say. “They can be used to pay the education tax.” But no more than a small minority have any income from such sources. It cannot be said too often that most independent schools are small in size, serving their local communities in which they are embedded and by which they are cherished. Some 40% of independent schools have under 100 pupils. They have no handy reserves into which they can dip. They will be forced to jack up their fees by a massive 20% in the middle of an academic year—after a period of 20 years in which fees have risen broadly in line with inflation.
What have the Government to say to the thousands of worried parents up and down our country? I will give just one example. A father in Worcester will have to move his son from an independent school at the end of this term. He writes that,
“we need a local school that will teach my son for his A-levels starting in January. You can’t possibly expect a young man to drop two years and restart A-level courses in different subjects. He is studying Greek, Latin and German. There is no local school that can provide what he needs”.
How would the Minister reply to that distressed parent?
Independent schools are surely entitled to expect clear, comprehensive guidance on what they must do when the education tax takes effect in two and a half months’ time. They have not got it. What was issued to them a week ago by HMRC was woefully inadequate. In a letter to the Treasury last Monday, the Independent Schools Council described it as “disheartening” and “disappointing” and said that it did not provide the
“clear and comprehensive overview schools need”.
The guidance, it stated, was
“confusing, partial and lacking in relevant examples for schools”.
They may have just a single bookkeeper who will be a novice on VAT matters. The ISC said:
“Clear and understandable guidance is needed if mistakes are not to be made”.
Will the Minister give a firm commitment that this crucial guidance will be revised and reissued? Nothing could illustrate more clearly the folly of rushing to bring in the education tax on 1 January. Will the Minister tell the House whether anyone—anyone at all—outside the Labour Party itself has said that they support the introduction of the tax on 1 January?
Finally, in the debate that I introduced six weeks ago, much disquiet was expressed about the ways in which VAT will affect service and diplomatic families defending and representing our nation overseas; the families of the some 90,000 children with special needs who are thriving in independent schools without education and health care plans, which are so difficult and often so costly to get; and the Muslim, Jewish and other families who depend on small, low-cost faith schools in the independent sector. Will the Government now find the time to consider with great care the needs of these many desperately worried families? To do that, they should halt the dash to impose VAT in January.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, whom I much respect, for giving us this debate on a subject that is, I know, close to his heart.
The question of VAT on independent school fees was widely circulated before the election, so nobody should be surprised by it. I accept that the January date will have come as a surprise to some but, having said that, if a school has decided that the imposition of VAT will mean it has to close, I cannot believe that the tax starting in January rather than September will be the deciding factor. Surely no school that values its students would close half way through an academic year.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, mentioned job losses and the National Education Union. It seems inconsequential to me because, given the issues around the retention and recruitment of teachers, any teacher unable to gain employment in the independent sector will have no difficulty in getting a job in the state sector.
My final point is that there seems to be a hypocrisy here. The Tories have characterised the proposed national insurance contribution rise as ignoring a Labour manifesto commitment. Here is a Labour manifesto commitment being delivered, yet there is more criticism. You cannot have it both ways—much as some would like to.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have four quick questions.
First, how many of the highly experienced educationalists on the Government Benches are in favour of making such a demanding change half way through the academic year? Will the Government consider deferring this damaging decision to September, which will give time for an impact assessment and cause far less disruption—although disruptive it will still be?
Secondly, on VAT, what action are the Government taking on the discrepancy that means that FE colleges are not liable for the VAT refund scheme in the way that schools and multi-academy trusts are? This takes well over £210 million out of FE funding every year. They do an amazing job on very limited resources and they really deserve parity.
Thirdly, how will the needs of children with special needs or special skills that cannot be met by the state sector be covered if the specialist schools cannot afford to continue? What provision is being made for this?
Fourthly, I come to my regular question on the children of military personnel. Will the education allowance be increased to cover the additional cost? Military children already suffer upheaval aplenty and military personnel may well not be able to afford the increase if the Government do not pay. I am happy for the Minister to write if she does not have time to reply.
We have 19 spare minutes in this debate; I apologise for taking up 17 seconds of it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, during our previous debate, I referred to advice from my noble friend Lord Pannick on issues of compatibility with conventions that are relevant to the rights of children and their education. In the light of this proposal’s impact on schools catering for children with special needs, faith schools and specialist schools—as well as the disruptive consequences for children caused by the implementation date—several submissions have now been made by Members of this House to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, urging it to consider these issues of compatibility. There is also to be a legal challenge in the courts. It would be prudent and respectful of proper parliamentary scrutiny and consideration for the Government to wait for the outcome of such consideration and I urge them to do so. It is true that, when you legislate in haste, you repent at leisure.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support VAT on tuition fees. If parents want to avoid it, there is a perfectly acceptable alternative: send children to boarding schools in the state sector, where VAT is likely to apply to boarding alone and not to tuition. For example, Keswick School, formerly a grammar school and now a comprehensive with a wide curriculum, in my former constituency, which three generations of my family have attended, provides day-pupil and boarding facilities in a beautiful environment in the heart of the Lake District, and attracts pupils worldwide.
Whereas public school fees average over £40,000 per year, state boarding schools such as Keswick School average at around £14,000. It is their wide social mix, in an atmosphere of local intake, parental aspiration and teacher commitment, that enable such schools to top state and private sector academic listings. Such schools are few and far between. I would like a huge expansion. Too many parents commit to public schools in the belief that a narrower social mix uniquely provides for the standards that they seek. They are mistaken. There are far too many casualties in the system that so often go unreported.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, independent schools add greatly to their wider communities. They take the strain from the state sector through the willingness of parents to fund their children’s education, often at great personal cost. In many cases they offer a haven for children who struggle in large classes.
However laudable the Government’s aim to provide more resources in the state sector is, the means of funding this is questionable. This is not a theoretical debate. This affects real children and real choices. The changes to the system are bound to be complex, but enacting those changes in just five months and in the middle of the school year will have profound consequences for children in both the independent and the state sector. Philip Britton, the head of Bolton School, where I was educated and am a governor, has said that these changes need
“time and care and it really is a moment to press pause and think harder”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the limited warning and the unworkable timings of a school holiday deadline mean that smaller schools without large accounts teams and in-house expertise will struggle to make the required changes in time, and it is unfair to give schools and parents such little time to digest this.
What about the child who has to leave a school where they were happy and thriving, and where that child has a supportive network of friends? The mental health crisis for young people resulting from the pandemic should be a reminder that young people are vulnerable to change. Each of the children leaving a school that they love is an individual, not a statistic, whose day-to-day life has been upended with virtually no warning. These children are the voiceless victims of the policy.
What plans do the Government have to support children going through this change? I would be very interested to know what the Minister has to say. The focus should be on bringing the whole education sector together. One suggestion put to me by a leading independent school was that, rather than VAT, why do the Government say that they expect independent schools to show that 20% of revenue goes into supporting means-tested bursaries and partnerships? If schools do not meet their target, tax them on the rest. As it stands, levying VAT is a pernicious move which will be disastrous on the whole of education.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have two points for my noble friend the Minister by way of background to this debate. Does she agree that it is not just those parents who pay for their children’s schooling who care about their children’s education? Also, we all must pay our fair share of taxation—some taxes on our incomes, some on our expenditure through VAT. We pay our taxes not as a fee for service but as part of our commitment to society as a whole.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
Have the Government assessed the impact for Scotland? We have a different curriculum, exam structure, term dates, and pay and conditions for teachers. We also have different school starting ages, meaning that this policy could include nursery provision. Special needs are governed by the ASL Scotland Act. A diagnosis is not required to get help. We do not have EHCPs. A co-ordinated support plan is not a direct equivalent, as it is not required to attend a special school or receive additional support.
As education is devolved, the Government cannot reassure us that any income passed to the Scottish Government would be ring-fenced for education. At this moment, the Scottish Government are withholding £145 million from local authorities which is earmarked for education. Councils are making cuts. North Lanarkshire is reducing school bus services. Falkirk Council is considering cutting school hours. Inverclyde Council has said that if it does not receive the funding it will be forced to cut teacher numbers. Question 5 of the Treasury’s consultation asked:
“Does this approach achieve the intended policy aims across all four UK nations?”
Can the Minister tell us what responses to this question have revealed?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, as a number of your Lordships know, I prepared an assessment on the school fees issue. I believe that this assessment was fair, honest and accurate. I sent a copy to the Prime Minister on 15 August and have supplied a number of Peers with copies, including my noble friend the Minister.
On the essential issue of the likely forced pupil migration, it is clear that the Government’s assessment is patently wrong. The consequences are grave: no profits whatever for the much-needed benefit to state education; and 80,000 pupils being forcibly migrated from the independent sector. This must not happen. I ask my noble friend the Minister to prevent it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, this is intended to raise £1.3 billion to get 6,500 more teachers, yet we have 7% of children in private schools. I am a governor of Wellington College and a president of BAISIS. An estimated loss of 135,000 pupils would mean that we lost £1.58 billion not raise £1.3 billion, even if 15% to 25% of pupils moved to state schools. What about the 80% business rate discount being removed? That is so unfair. Will special needs children be exempt from this and continue to get help? Will Armed Forces children continue to get help?
We have a state school budget of £60 billion. Trying to save £1.3 billion when we actually end up losing £1.6 billion is not just a false economy; it is foolish. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Who thought of this? This is the politics of envy. We should be rising all the boats.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on a particular aspect of education: cathedral choir schools. They are the inheritors of a priceless tradition that goes back centuries. The number of visitors to the cathedral services at which pupils sing is an acknowledgement of the hard work that choristers have put in, in their pursuit of excellence.
Musical education is hard work at these schools. They have a normal curriculum and rehearsals, and it is a condition of practically all choir schools that pupils study and learn a second instrument. If a cathedral school is forced by this new proposal to close, or at least to discontinue its choral traditions and facilities, the public sector will not be geared to take up the slack. I urge the Minister to do all in her power to safeguard the continuance of these very British institutions.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s plan, linked to the policy to recruit 6,500 more teachers, is a vital step to solving the crisis in music education in state schools. Since 2010, there has been a catastrophic reduction in the number of children in state schools receiving sustained music tuition. We lost over 1,000 music teachers from state schools in a decade. Last year, the previous Government reached only 27% of their target for trainee music teachers. The number of GCSE music students has fallen by over a quarter since 2010 and the number taking A-level music has fallen by over two-fifths. Middlesbrough was among the areas that did not have a single school offering A-level music in 2021-22. Some 50% of children in independent schools receive sustained music tuition, but the figure for state schools is only 15%. The Government are right to take action to invest so that sustained music education and music qualifications become available to more pupils in state schools.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I declare my interests, as in the register. I have three questions. First, in opposition, noble Lords made much of commitments to the performing arts. Why do they now attack schools providing specialist training in these disciplines? They rely on recruiting young people with talent regardless of the means to pay. Ability to pay will now trump talent, endangering the pipeline of young people empowering the creative economy, including the tradition of English choral music.
Secondly, what is the Minister’s advice to a pupil studying A-level music who is forced out of their school in an exam year with no local school offering that subject, which is highly likely as 50% of state schools no longer do? Is it home schooling or “give up on your dreams”?
Thirdly, £1.5 billion is a wild overestimate of VAT revenues because of pupil migration. Even if, in the Government’s economic la-la land, all the money goes on teachers, which it will not, because this magic money tree is also funding nurseries and breakfast clubs, it will add just one-third of one teacher to each school. Is this con trick not just raising unattainable expectations of increasing standards for vulnerable children?
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, we have heard of the disruption to be caused by the extremely tight timing and of the groups who will be impacted particularly hard by the Bill. I have travelled professionally around the globe, and Britain’s independent schools are admired the world over. They are soft power, which is terribly important in this country. I am all in favour of social mobility: I was something akin to a governor of that great school, Christ’s Hospital, a unique school with a special position in social mobility. Please, can we not seek to level up?
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, when I asked the Government in a Written Question what assessment they had made of the mental health implications of this policy on children with autism and neurodiverse conditions, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, said that it was a “tough” decision. I agree—tough if you have autism, SEN or a disability. Can the Minister confirm that she will place in the Library a copy of her department’s rigorous assessment of the mental health implications for these children, which her noble friend seems unaware of?
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, we need to look at this thing from a wider perspective. I suggest that we look at it in terms of what it is trying to achieve. Basically, it is concerned with achieving a certain measure of equality. We all recognise that our society is, rightly or wrongly, characterised by a deep sense of inequality, and that has educational and economic roots: a few schools, for example, produce students who control positions of power. Therefore, if our society is going to make progress and be stable and cohesive, it should be equal. An equal society would mean that those who have should share with those who do not. Therefore, in principle, I support this principle. The only question is whether it will achieve anything by itself. No, it is only a small step. Are other measures being contemplated? I do not see that. Therefore, my answer is: yes, this is a step in the right direction, provided it is complemented by other steps.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, nowhere else in the world is education taxed in this manner. Thousands of our children are to be basically left behind in the middle of the year, just at the time they need to prepare for exams and just after they have been through Covid. Boarding is vital to the military, our diplomats, and those who work abroad. I went boarding at Bedford School because my father was working in Pakistan. No, we cannot have envy being the determinant of the education, and indeed the future, of our country.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when it comes to this subject, here is the tack I would take: what is the practicality? What are you achieving? The fact of the matter is that the independent sector has had a tradition of covering gaps that the state has, particularly in special educational needs. There is music education, which it has quite clearly taken over, and the issues raised about services families. I gave some warning of this question, the answer to which should arrive in the Minister’s reply: will the Government take an assessment of what has happened in those three areas at least, and will they publish it during this Parliament so we can see what effect this has had? It is a fundamental change that they are making here, and they are on very shaky ground, so I would suggest that that happens.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I too thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate. We have heard an overwhelming set of arguments this afternoon, as we did in our earlier debate, against this misguided move on the part of the Government.
Those arguments fall into different groups of children: those with special educational needs and disabilities, children from military families, children who take part in the music and dance scheme, and those attending cathedral choir schools. We have also heard serious concerns about implementation; the timing of introducing the new tax, particularly in Scotland; the disruption to teachers and children; the lack of readiness of HMRC; and, importantly, the impact on mainstream schools.
Organisations from the education unions to the Chartered Institute of Taxation are calling for delay, so I ask the Minister two questions. First, will she commit to talk to her colleagues in the Treasury to review the timing of the introduction of VAT? Secondly, if this really is not an ideological move, will she commit that the OBR will do future annual impact assessments, and reverse this if there is not a net contribution to the economy?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate and providing another opportunity for noble Lords to discuss the implications of tax changes affecting private schools. I welcome the speed with which those contributing to the debate have rattled through their questions and I will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised. Where I am not able to do that, I will write to noble Lords with those responses, although given that we had three and a half hours on this topic relatively recently I am not sure that any new issues were raised in this debate. That does not mean that I do not recognise the strong feelings that have been expressed.
For the Government, the key implications are to secure the funding necessary to improve the state-funded schools that educate 93% of our children. Our state-funded school system includes more than 20,000 schools in England educating almost 8.5 million pupils. It is to this system that most parents and children must turn to meet their high aspirations—they do not have a choice. It is to this system that any parent can turn if they need a school place for their child—this includes parents of children who have previously attended a private school or may do so in the future. It is this system which already supports the vast majority of children with special educational needs. Most children with education, health and care plans are already educated in mainstream state-funded schools. It is these schools that provide a safe, supportive and nurturing environment, and high-quality education, for most children. It is for all the parents who have no choice that we must focus our efforts on these state-funded schools—this is where our priorities lie.
Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. It will generate additional funding—I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—to help improve services, including the Government’s commitments to improve state-funded schools, which includes expanding early years childcare for all, opening 3,000 new nurseries, rolling out breakfast clubs to all primary schools, recruiting 6,500 new teachers, and improving teacher and head teacher training as part of restoring teaching to the career of choice for our best graduates.
It is strange to argue that “£1.5 billion is not that much money and therefore we should not pursue this particular route”. It perhaps explains how we ended up in the fiscal mess that we have done that so many noble Lords opposite are so flip about £1.5 billion.
Many noble Lords expressed concern about the timing of this provision. It was, of course, included in the plans of this Government when in opposition, and was for some time. It was in our manifesto. We have had a consultation on the issue. I and my colleagues in the DfE and the Treasury have held many meetings with concerned groups to listen to concerns and respond to them.
VAT will apply to tuition and boarding fees charged by private schools. I should say to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that VAT will not apply to boarding fees in a state boarding school for terms starting on or after 1 January 2025. It is right that we end tax breaks as soon as possible to raise the funding needed to deliver our education priorities.
HMRC will be providing support to schools. Schools will be able to register for VAT following the Budget on 30 October. The Government recognise that, for many private schools, this will be the first time they have needed to register for VAT, which is why there is already bespoke guidance for schools. There will be online support sessions over the coming months to support schools to ensure that the registration process is as smooth as possible for them. That will help schools to be ready to charge VAT correctly and to remit it to HMRC.
I was clear the last time we spoke that the Treasury is assessing the impact of these changes in advance of the Budget. It will publish a tax information and impact assessment, including an equality assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, wanted an assurance that that would include special educational needs, and it will. On the impact, it is worth pointing out this change does not necessarily mean that parents will automatically face 20% higher fees. The Government expect private schools, as all businesses have to when taxes change, to take steps to minimise fee increases, including through their ability to reclaim VAT that they incur in supplying education and boarding, and, like state schools—which have seen considerably smaller increases in the resources available to them than the increases in fees for private schools—to make savings where necessary.
I know noble Lords feel very passionately about special educational needs, and so do the Government. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made improvements in special educational needs provision fundamental in our department. We are not willing to accept that the only way we can deal with special educational needs is by providing an opt-out for a small number of pupils. We have sought to ensure that these changes do not disadvantage pupils who genuinely need provision unavailable in the state sector. Pupils who need a local authority-funded place in a private school, including those with local authority-funded education, health and care plans, will not be impacted by the changes because local authorities are able to reclaim the VAT that will be charged.
Most children with special educational needs attend mainstream state-funded schools. Most parents do not have the option to secure support within a private school. It is right that, where parents have the resource to choose a private school place for their child, for any reason—I understand why parents might choose to do that, given the parlous state that special educational needs provision in our schools was left in by the previous Government—they should pay their fair share to support a good state-funded education for every child. Any child with SEN who needs a state-funded place can apply to their local authority. All state-funded schools are used to supporting the needs of children with SEN. With the actions of this Government, I hope they will be even better at doing that in years to come. Parents of children with needs that cannot be met by their current school can request an education, health and care assessment, which can lead to an education, health and care plan. As I have already pointed out, if it identifies that a place in a private school is necessary, that will not cost the parents.
Once again, noble Lords have rightly identified the considerable contribution made to our education and creative sectors by music and dance schools, and choral schools. The Government have been engaged in discussions with schools providing that service. It is because we recognise the enormous contribution made by the eight schools in the music and dance scheme that we already provide access to that provision for talented young people on a means-tested basis. This allows low-income families to access that specialist education, where they have the enormous talent needed to do that.
The right way to manage this is to consider the support that the department provides through our music and dance scheme, rather than through any tax exemption, given the simplification in this system that the Treasury has rightly set as a principle. I know that the department will consider these issues following the upcoming spending review, as will the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office when looking at the continuity of education allowances provided to eligible officials and service personnel.
Once again noble Lords raised the extent to which pupils will transfer out of private schools. There are always some pupils who move between the private and state-funded school sectors. Approximately 50 mainstream private schools close every year, for a range of reasons. Where schools close, pupils may transfer to another private school or move into the state sector. I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Hacking; all the evidence appears to suggest that the number of pupils who might switch schools following these changes represents a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector, and any displacement is likely to take place over several years. The IFS, by the way, is sticking with its figure that there will be a small impact in pupils moving.
Given that private schools have increased their fees— I made this point in a previous debate—by 20% in real terms over recent years, yet we have seen few students moving, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there is an inelastic demand for private schools, and that we will not see the scare stories about pupils having to move which have been part of this debate. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. I know that moving schools can be challenging but, where that happens, local authorities and schools already have well-established processes in place to support pupils moving between them.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, that Scotland will be covered by the impact assessment.
Private schools will remain a part of our education system. Most pupils who are currently privately educated will continue to be privately educated. For the small number of parents who choose to move their children from the private to the state sector, we will make sure that there is a place for them. However, most children are already educated in the state sector, and that is where we must target our support and focus our efforts and resources. That is what we will do.
Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone
That this House takes note of the 40th anniversary of the 1984 Ethiopia famine in the light of the current conflict and food insecurity in the country.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, 40 years ago almost to the day, on 23 October 1984, the nation was shocked by Michael Buerk’s famous BBC broadcast. It was a watershed moment in TV and world history that alerted the world to the terrible famine in Ethiopia. Close to 8 million people became famine victims during the drought of 1984, and more than 1 million died.
It was a broadcast that woke millions of people across the world to both the suffering of the people and the scale of the inequities across the world. It was transmitted by 425 television stations worldwide and gave birth to world fundraising in a way that we had never seen before, in the shape of the unforgettable Live Aid concert in July 1985, driven by Bob Geldof. It spawned Band Aid and subsequent initiatives such as the Jubilee 2000 campaign and Make Poverty History. It galvanised a whole generation into action. But what happened next, when the focus moved on, years passed and Governments changed?
In the decades that followed, huge progress was made to tackle hunger and malnutrition around the world and improve global health, with new resources committed by the developing world and effective pro-poor policies enacted by partner Governments in many countries. As an International Development Minister for two years during the coalition, I went to Ethiopia six times and saw both the progress and the need.
Today that progress is in reverse. As we look back and try to understand what the world can do to help deliver lasting change, with all the challenges that beset countries such as Ethiopia, what is the single most important thing that we—indeed, the world—can do to change the future more positively? Bill Gates has said:
“Every now and then, somebody will ask me what I would do if I had a magic wand. For years, I’ve given the same answer: I would solve malnutrition”.
He is right, because it is fundamental to everything.
This is important, not just because of the millions of lives lost to malnutrition and the millions more blighted by it but because every step forward to tackle the world’s challenges is made harder by malnutrition. Tackling malnutrition is fundamental in every aspect of improvement and change. It is absolutely foundational to global development and to a safe, secure and prosperous world. Without it, people cannot reach their full potential either physically or cognitively, economies are less productive and economic development is undermined.
Tackling malnutrition is also cost effective. It is the proven way to make progress on global development. For every $1 invested in nutrition, $16 is returned to the local economy, making it one of the most effective investments in the world. Conversely, malnutrition costs African economies between 3% and 16% of their GDP annually.
We know what to do; the world knows how to make progress on hunger and malnutrition and has done so to a remarkable degree in the past. Between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of undernourished people in low and middle-income countries was halved by global collective action. Sadly, we are no longer doing it. Today the world is cutting official development assistance, even as climate change and conflict contribute to growing levels of malnutrition and hunger.
When the UK Government reneged on their 0.7% commitment to overseas development aid in 2021, the global nutrition budget was disproportionately cut. A Development Initiatives report, commissioned by the UK Government, calculated that nutrition received a 60% cut. At the same time, debt servicing is once again placing unsustainable pressures on countries. We all remember Gordon Brown’s remarkable intervention in that regard.
So progress is going into reverse. In 2023 the World Health Organization estimated that 148 million children experienced stunting and 45 million children experienced wasting. Those are the two most severe forms of chronic and acute malnutrition, and they rob children of their life chances and, sometimes, their lives. Malnutrition is an absolute marker of inequalities in human development and will severely constrain the economies of low and middle-income countries in the future. That, in turn, will limit their ability to provide education and undermine their ability to provide public services and meet the aspirations of their people.
I remember a visit I made to a village in Ethiopia. I gave a talk to a group of women about contraception. Afterwards, I remarked to my civil servants that I was surprised to see so many children there—but, of course, they were not children but stunted adult women. I had never seen a stunted adult before. It was a truly shocking experience, one that we are fortunate never to see in this country.
What do we, and for that matter the developed world, need to do? I am hopeful that, with the new Government, we will see change from the retrograde actions in recent years. First and foremost, we must restore UK aid funding to the 0.7% of GNI for which we legislated under the coalition Government, becoming the first G7 country to meet this long-standing commitment. We must also reverse the 2021 cuts to the global nutrition budget, with an emphasis on long-term, predictable and multiyear funding so that we can build resilience. We need to invest in cost-effective and nutrition-specific interventions such as prenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation, MMS, which costs just $2.60 for an entire pregnancy. If all low and middle-income countries switched from iron and folic acid to MMS, half a million lives would be saved by 2040 and 25 million babies would have better birth outcomes.
We must also specify the proportion of the 2021 Nutrition for Growth summit pledge that will be spent on nutrition-specific interventions, as the Government did previously with a floor of 20%, representing the figure specified in the previous Nutrition for Growth pledge. The Government pledged to spend £1.5 billion on nutrition in the period to 2030—can the Minister update the House on where we are with that pledge?
We need to invest in research to improve climate resistance and the nutrient value of crops, and to support the fortification of staple foods to provide those vital micronutrients. Talking of crops and climate change, I note that one of DfID’s initiatives, together with local partners, was about creating routes to market and improving yield through knowledge. One such market that I visited was organised for local people to learn how to purchase good seeds, when to plant, where to plant and how to irrigate. Perhaps the most impressive thing I saw, and something I have never been able to forget, was a supplement in cow feed that meant a cow would fatten in 2.5 years, rather than the seven it usually took. That would triple the income of a family with one cow—although I dreaded to think what was in the supplement.
The environment in which nutrition suffers is plagued by conflict. There are so many warring parties, and we need to pressure them, to the best of our ability, to adhere to international humanitarian law and allow access to food supplies. We need to work with international and local partners to promote food security and peace- building.
Investing in nutrition is a cost-effective and proven way to make progress on global development. As I said before—it bears repeating—for every $1 invested in nutrition, $16 is returned to the local economy. It is one of the most effective instruments and investments. Equally, malnutrition costs low-income economies between 3% and 16% of their GDP, and the economies of reducing malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa are beyond proven.
The proportion of undernourished people in low and middle-income countries fell by nearly half between 1990 and 2015, as stated in the World Food Programme’s state of food insecurity report of 2015. In that period, Ethiopia saw a 57.2% reduction in the proportion of undernourished people in the population—noted in that report—and made remarkable progress in reducing child stunting, from 57.4% to 36.8%. Child wasting was reduced from 12.4% to 7%, and child underweight levels were reduced from 41.8% to 21.3% over the past two decades.
However, the recent conflict in northern Ethiopia, governance challenges and natural disasters have reversed some of that progress. Progress on infant and young child feeding practices is mixed, and children’s dietary diversity remains among the lowest in Africa. Malnutrition is the leading cause of deaths in children under five years old, responsible for 45% of deaths and claiming 2 million lives each year. According to the World Food Programme, over a quarter of a billion people across 58 countries and territories face acute food insecurity or worse.
Of course, it is not just Ethiopia; we see other terrible situations across the region—in Sudan, in Tigray and, sadly, many more countries. I could not believe the previous Government collapsing DfID into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The soft power and the good that DfID did were unquestionable. I do not know whether our new Government plan to re-establish it at some point, but the focus it brought to the critical pathway needed was extraordinary. The separation between what the Foreign Office did—foreign affairs—and what DfID did gave two angles, and soft power was extraordinary where DfID was at work.
I declare an interest. As I said, I spent two years as a Minister in DfID with special responsibility for sub-Saharan Africa, and I came to love those countries. That is why, when the noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked me whether I would become one of the three cross-party patrons of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, together with the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I said yes. I almost never say yes to any requests, as we get many, but I said yes to this, because our international development was something I was incredibly proud of and something that we as a nation were truly proud of too. We did good in the world, in partnership with local and world actors, and moved the dial forward.
But this is where we stand today. And as I stand here, I call on our new Labour UK Government to focus on malnutrition and to press our international partners to do the same. Surely we can promote this message—shout from this Chamber to reach across the world—of the urgent and ever-pressing need to focus primary development efforts on tackling malnutrition. It is the basis of everything, for without food you cannot study, you cannot grow, you cannot think, you cannot live, and you certainly cannot thrive.
Let us help enable the world to feed itself. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, given the gravity of the events that are the subject of today’s proceedings, if it is not exactly a pleasure to contribute to this debate, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. I thank her for securing this debate and for a clear-eyed, informed, impressively analytical and forensic speech. I intend not to repeat the appalling statistics that show the extent to which food insecurity in Ethiopia remains a present reality but to focus on the Tigray and Amhara regions.
As the Motion before your Lordships’ House makes clear, when we examine the situation in Ethiopia today, there is an awful resonance about the events of 1984. Though thankfully different in scale, the current acute food insecurity has one key element in common with the famine of the 1980s: both are, to some extent, manmade. An essay published in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Food Studies in June underscores the extent to which, in the conflict between the Ethiopian armed forces and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front,
“belligerent parties on all sides employed food as a weapon, actions that included destroying local food supplies, dismantling capacities to produce food and market infrastructure, and diverting humanitarian aid toward supporters and away from adversaries”.
Though the TPLF and the Ethiopian Government concluded a fragile—and, in the case of the neighbouring Amhara region, largely ostensible—peace in November 2022, the concentric circles of that conflict continue to ripple outwards. Last year, we saw starvation deaths in both Tigray and Amhara. Almost 700,000 people are still displaced and over a quarter of a million men remain under arms and the TPLF banner. Despite the efforts of both this Government and their predecessor, there remains a significant gap between the humanitarian funding needed to feed the hungry in Ethiopia and the amount pledged by the international community.
Perhaps most importantly for those who wish to see the fragile peace between the TPLF and the Ethiopian Government endure, there has been no peace dividend in Tigray. History tells us that, if swords are to be beaten into ploughshares, a demonstrable improvement in everyday conditions needs rapidly to be achieved. Though this summer’s rainy season saw some crops being brought in, many farmers continue to suffer from the historical effects of drought, with some having been unable to harvest for years. Critically, agricultural infrastructure is in a parlous state, with many farmers having had their equipment looted or damaged during the period of conflict. The USAID-supported Famine Early Warning Systems Network has estimated that large parts of northern and eastern Ethiopia experienced crisis levels of food insecurity from August to September 2024 —that is the last two months—and parts of Afar, Tigray and Amhara in the north were in the emergency category.
Meanwhile, the western part of Tigray is disfigured by a campaign of ethnic cleansing prosecuted by Fano militia. They have displaced hundreds of thousands of Tigrayans, perpetrated massacres and used torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention. That region is now cut off from aid delivery, and sesame, a crucial cash crop that underpins the economy of that region, is going unharvested. Negotiations between the Fano leadership and the Ethiopian Government are not progressing, with a resolution appearing unlikely in the months ahead. Indeed, the counteroffensive of the Ethiopian National Defence Force has led to the indefinite suspension of all transportation activities within the Amhara region, effective from 3 October. That will only impede humanitarian access further, lead to further food shortages and intensify the horrors of conflict.
Where food has so often been used as a weapon of conflict, there is nothing that will act as a greater spur to a renewal of hostilities as the persistence of starvation in peacetime. Earlier this afternoon, your Lordships’ House debated the link between conflict and extreme poverty. That link is as profound as it is inexorable, and no less indissoluble is the need to ensure that peace brings, if not plenty, at least the means of minimum subsistence.
All the humanitarian issues we have heard enumerated in this debate so far are taking place against a darkening backdrop in the Horn of Africa as a whole. The expansionist ambitions of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed are placing a severe strain on relations with Somalia, are pulling other regional powers, including Egypt and Turkey, into the orbit of this diplomatic crisis, and have fashioned an ideal context in which al-Shabaab recruitment and funding have spiked. I know, partly from a ministerial response to my Question I asked on the 7 October, that my noble friend Lord Collins and the Foreign Secretary have made representations at the highest level with the Government of Ethiopia to urge de-escalation. I know that the whole House will wish them well in those efforts.
As the FCDO’s report on UK aid spending in Ethiopia published in July last year made clear, there is something of a paradox about the economic situation there. It described 20 million people as “severely food insecure”, outlines the plight of
“11 million in drought-affected areas”
and identifies an upsurge in cases of cholera, malaria and measles. But this deterioration sits alongside an “ambitious reform agenda”, with significant investment in clean energy, aviation, finance and telecoms. Though any measures which improve the Ethiopian economy are positive, a sharp disjunction between the beneficiaries of this investment and those regions of Ethiopia that continue to see starvation deaths, a lack of basic infra- structure and outbreaks of conflict may serve only to stiffen the resolve of separatist movements to continue their armed struggle against a Government who are apparently oblivious to their suffering.
When preparing my remarks for today’s proceedings, a quotation from Marx’s essay on Louis Napoleon repeatedly came to mind. It runs:
“Men make their own history … under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living”.
I hope that when our successors gather to debate Ethiopia a few decades hence, they will be in a position to celebrate long-term peace and progress rather than trace the outline of that dreadful historical circularity which has so often held Ethiopia in its grip.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate at such a critical time for the security of the peoples not only in Ethiopia but across the whole region. There are high levels of humanitarian need across many parts of Ethiopia, as has been described. It is driven by climate changes, conflict, disease outbreaks and high inflation. The debate is also timely, since the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has only just returned from his diplomatic visit to Ethiopia.
I thank the Minister for his helpful response to my Question for Written Answer on the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia. I admit that I tabled it only just after he had been appointed as a Minister, so it was rather a testing time but he responded with a very full and helpful Answer, for which I am grateful. He referred to the pledging conference in Geneva in April this year, which was co-led by the UK, Ethiopia and the UN. The conference helped to increase humanitarian funding by pledging almost $630 million, including $253 million from the US and $125 million from the UK. What is the Government’s expectation of the period of time over which those countries—not just the US and UK, but others that pledged—will contribute their pledges in full?
The Minister also referred to the provision of UK support to the Government of Ethiopia’s productive safety net programme. That is welcome and should strengthen food security and resilience for the 8 million people living in extreme poverty in Ethiopia. However, is he confident that this will be fairly distributed among the different and sometimes conflict-affected regions of Ethiopia? The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the conditions in some parts of the country but, indeed, all regions are at times affected by conflict.
I note that one of the commitments made by the Ethiopian Government in Geneva was to facilitate unimpeded and sustained access for humanitarian organisations to reach affected populations throughout the country, including conflict-affected regions, and to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and assets. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about what has been happening. Can the Minister therefore give an assurance that the UK Government will focus pressure on the warring parties in conflict zones to adhere to international humanitarian law to allow access to food supplies?
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, referred to the disastrous 1984 famine; I think all of us here are of a generation that can remember that. It meant, however, that huge progress was made around the world to tackle malnutrition and hunger, not only in Ethiopia but elsewhere. Ethiopia did indeed make remarkable progress after that famine. I had the opportunity to see some of the consequences of that progress when I went on a British Group IPU scoping visit to Ethiopia in February 2019. I went with just the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—I say “just”, but no one could say “just” about the noble Baroness, who is a force to be reckoned with; she is sadly not here today, but that is not her fault—and my then honourable friend in another place, Pauline Latham.
At that time Ethiopia was undergoing a profound political transition, set alongside economic and social transformation. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed had been in office for nearly a year and had set a fast pace of reform. He declared the end of the conflict with Eritrea; appointed women to 50% of his Cabinet posts; appointed the first ever female President; and appointed a Tigrayan woman as Speaker of the House of Federation, with whom we had a very friendly and, I would say, very feisty meeting.
We saw construction under way of a high-tech business park and of a factory for the production of Ethiopian textiles and garments. The latter was expected to give employment particularly for women, who were experiencing high levels of violence and neglect and lacked the opportunity to get legal, regular employment. Our delegation left Ethiopia with hope that there could be a positive future. Later that same year, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Fast forward one year to November 2020, and the same Prime Minister declared a state of emergency in the Tigray region and Ethiopia endured two years of conflict, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the internal displacement of millions of people.
At this stage, we still hoped there might be a way of finding peace and progress. In November 2022, an agreement on a permanent cessation of hostilities was signed by the Ethiopian Government and the Tigrayan forces. However, the World Food Programme has reported that, despite agreement in the Tigray region, intense armed conflict had erupted elsewhere. Conflict combined with projections of severe drought conditions mean that over 8 million people are expected to be at risk of food insecurity this year. The expert briefing from the organisation United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, to which the noble Baroness has rightly referred, points out that some of the progress achieved over the previous two decades had been reversed by the recent two years of conflict but also by governance challenges, disease outbreaks—including malaria, cholera and measles— and natural disasters. By August this year, an estimated 16 million people needed food assistance and approximately 4.7 million children and women required immediate nutrition assistance.
While the Minister was in Addis, I note that he was able to have a meeting with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, which the Minister’s tweet—I follow him on Twitter, obviously—reported was:
“A constructive first meeting to discuss strengthening cooperation on shared priorities: promoting economic growth; bolstering global security; conflict prevention; reducing humanitarian need”.
I was rather concerned that conflict resolution was not in that list. Was it discussed and, if so, what were the consequences?
It is encouraging that the Minister took so much of his time this summer to pay attention, as Minister for Africa, to the very areas that crucially need that attention. I know it has been well received in the countries he visited, but it also means he is able to give us a much more up-to-date report today than we would otherwise be able to get. I look forward to hearing his views on how he sees the future for that region and particularly the future for our relationship with Ethiopia.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. “Make poverty history” was the mantra in 1984, and who will forget the pictures of tiny children starving to death? Never again, we said. Indeed, while there has been remarkable progress in Ethiopia in the intervening years, certainly between 1990 and 2015 there has been a clear reversal, due in large part to conflict. It is estimated that something like 4.7 million women and children are in need of emergency assistance, reflecting a global trend of malnutrition once again becoming the leading cause of death in children under five. We hear these figures with a kind of resignation: it is too large a problem for any one source to deal with. But it remains an obscenity that we have what, in many cases, can be called deliberate starvation—a term far stronger than “manmade famine”.
We see two shocking examples in Gaza and Sudan: the deliberate blocking of life-saving humanitarian aid to those most in need—a clear flouting of international humanitarian law. I often wonder how many of us actually imagine what it is like to say to our children or grandchildren, whose stomachs are cramped with hunger, “No supper tonight, and nothing tomorrow, but there might be some food in the future”. It is unthinkable.
There are, of course, some uncontrollable causes of food shortage, through drought, disease or pestilence, but food shortages in these conditions do not necessarily imply famine. Famine is a phenomenon against which whole communities use their last possible defence: to uproot and trek to where food might be available. In this final stage, mass deaths from hunger and disease are inevitable. However, there are many discernible stages before this catastrophic uprooting, all of which can be managed, for example, by ensuring that the price of staples remains affordable, with cash incentives and food for work.
Working in Africa and Asia many years ago, it became clear to me that all vulnerable societies have food shortage survival mechanisms. Some of these centre around diversification of income sources. For example, a village woman may grow crops, weave baskets for sale in markets, brew local beer or ensure that some family members leave the rural area to become wage labourers in towns.
Rural groups often develop life-saving transactional relations with neighbours and with distant relations. All these strategies stand populations in good stead when food shortage is threatened. In this context, we should persistently monitor how far development agencies bolster these intelligent choices, or whether they perhaps instead focus on introducing new techniques which have no inbuilt protection elements.
In today’s world, the most devastating cases of starvation arise due to artificial man-made actions—as I have said, deliberate starvation. These include the forcible movement of populations by militias, the destruction and/or pilfering of food crop stores, control of markets as means of punishing one ethnic group or another, and the deliberate blocking of humanitarian aid.
We are dealing with the impossible—armies and militia groups marauding, bombing and making all coping mechanisms immediately redundant, as was the case in Ethiopia in 1984, when government policies of mass population relocation followed by a widespread cholera epidemic caused mass deaths from starvation. One has only to remember Mao Tse-Tung’s Great Leap Forward, the devastating famine of the 1960s, when the entire country was forced to abandon agriculture in order to manufacture steel in their back yards. A conservative estimate at that time was that 20 million people died.
What can be done? I believe that the international community can insist on accountability and culpability for abuses of the right to humanitarian aid, using some of the following channels. There should be meticulous monitoring of efforts to interrupt or block humanitarian aid, naming names and following up with prosecutions. I really would like to see a dedicated unit, UN-sponsored or otherwise, to note and list all those involved, including government agencies and armies. New food supplements should be developed for easy, effective and rapid distribution, possibly using drones, along with increased ratification of international instruments safeguarding the rights of civilians in armed conflict. Freedom of movement should be safeguarded and non-voluntary relocation prohibited, and the right of free access to humanitarian assistance for everyone should be affirmed.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this important debate and for the opportunity to contribute to it.
I remember 1984 very vividly. That summer, I graduated from university and got married, and early that autumn, I began training for ordained ministry. I have clear memories of the powerful BBC news coverage of the Ethiopian famine—which, as the noble Baroness reminded us, was broadcast exactly 40 years ago this month—and of the Band Aid Christmas single that year and the Live Aid concerts of 1985. Those events were all quite formative for me.
In retrospect, our crowd-sourced responses to the famine in 1984 were naive, not least in treating the famine as simply a natural disaster and in failing to take into account the human factors that contributed to it, including both the global climate emergency, or global warming as we were just beginning to call it then, and the more local political and military practices. Although we may have learned a good deal in the past 40 years, and although we may be significantly more sophisticated now in our analysis of the causes of famine in that part of the world, it is evident that we are barely more effective at responding to it, let alone at preventing it. Both those aims are urgent: we need to respond effectively to the current crisis, and we need to improve our capacity to anticipate and therefore to forestall future famines.
The current humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia is again drastic, with climate shocks, including flooding as well as drought, compounded by widespread armed conflict inside the country and on its borders. Christian Aid estimates that at least 21 million people in the country need humanitarian assistance right now, and that is of course nearer to three times than to twice the number affected in 1984.
We also need to become better at anticipatory action: reducing the risk of recurring droughts and floods in future years. If solutions were easy, we would have found them by now, but there are steps that can be taken both at once and in the medium to longer term. I tentatively offer two of each. For the short term, first, I urge the Government to ensure that next year the overseas development aid budget really is spent overseas and on development, and not any longer on in-donor refugee costs. Secondly, I urge the Government to take advantage of the UK’s influence, as current co-chair of the Green Climate Fund, to focus climate finance on this region. For the medium term to longer term, I trust that the Government really will, as soon as fiscal conditions allow, and as other Lords have already urged, restore our ODA budget to the 0.7% of gross national income to which we committed ourselves in 2015.
Finally, we on these Benches welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle unsustainable international debts. We ask that this agenda be taken forward with urgency, and with due priority given to those parts of the world, including Ethiopia, where the humanitarian need is greatest. I would be grateful to know what assessment the Government have made, or intend to make, of these potential positive steps.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger. I was 14 years old when that famous Michael Buerk broadcast led the 6 pm evening news on Tuesday 23 October 1984. It grabbed my attention like no news item ever had before or ever has since. It opened with these powerful words, which have haunted me ever since:
“Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korem, it lights up a biblical famine, now, in the twentieth century. This place, say workers here, is the closest thing to hell on earth. Thousands of … people are coming here for help. Many find only death. They flood in every day from villages hundreds of miles away, dulled by hunger, driven beyond the point of desperation. Fifteen thousand children here now; suffering, confused, lost. Death is all around, a child or an adult dies every twenty minutes. Korem, an insignificant town, has become a place of grief”.
That broadcast shocked a pop star—Bob Geldof—into action, and a world out of its indifference. However naive the response was, it was the waking of a movement which made a huge amount of difference in years to come. It changed my life; it led me to run away from home. I managed to get myself to Ethiopia, feeling somehow that simply by the passion of my desire to do something, I could make a contribution. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that, when I arrived, I discovered fairly rapidly that the demand for unskilled 15 year-old English kids was not great and that Ethiopia, at that time under its Marxist military Government, was not a fun place to be. But, luckily, more strategic responses were in hand.
Over the next three decades, as we have heard, huge progress was made in reducing poverty and hunger. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone said, that led to the proportion of people in the world going hungry halving between 1990 and 2015—a huge accomplishment. In Ethiopia, following the defeat of that brutal Marxist-Leninist regime of Colonel Mengistu, remarkable advances were also made. Economic growth took off and a focus by the new Government on pro-poor policies, supported by donor countries, including and in particular the UK, saw rates of extreme poverty and hunger reduced by half.
Today, as we have also heard, much of that progress has been going into reverse around the world, including in Ethiopia. Internal conflict, disruption to food systems as a result of Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and drought and flooding, have led to a deteriorating situation across many regions of Ethiopia. The World Food Programme estimates that 19.7 million people are now facing high levels of food insecurity.
The UK Government have a long-standing commitment to development in Ethiopia and it was heartening that the Minister for Development, Anneliese Dodds, visited Ethiopia just a month after taking office and placed a real focus on the need to resolve conflict and secure peace and security across the country. It is also great to know that the noble Lord the Minister for Africa was also recently in Ethiopia. It is extremely heartening to have a Minister with such a long-standing commitment as a champion in the fight against malnutrition.
It is vital that we maintain our commitment to tackling the causes of malnutrition and hunger, because Ethiopia’s experience is not an outlier but part of a pattern where the achievements of the past three decades are going into reverse. Today, the World Food Programme estimates that 309 million people in 71 countries face acute hunger, and millions more are not getting the nutrients they need.
That matters because it means millions of children dying every year unnecessarily, and millions more who will not have the nutrients they need to develop physically and cognitively. It means lost productivity and economies that will not prosper, jobs that will not be available and societies that will be destabilised. In neighbouring Sudan, almost unnoticed by the world, a catastrophe is playing out that may prove even more devastating than the 1980s famine in Ethiopia. Already, as we heard in a debate we had at the initiative of the Minister a few weeks ago, famine has been declared in regions of Darfur and is likely to become far more widespread, and the displacement of people is having an impact on Ethiopia as well, adding to the pressures that it faces.
Even before the brutal civil war began over a year ago in Sudan, hunger was widespread and contributing to the displacement of people—because that is what happens when people go without food: they move, and when people move, tensions rise, with competition for pastureland and water, and other resources.
As in Ethiopia, so in Sudan—hunger drives instability and conflict, and conflict drives hunger, in a vicious and horrifying circle. Outside actors helping to sustain and fuel the conflict in Sudan have a wide series of motivations, one of which is the desire to secure access to food production. The United Arab Emirates, which denies involvement in the conflict but is widely held to be supporting the Rapid Support Forces, has invested heavily in agricultural land in Sudan as part of its efforts to secure food security for its own population, adding to this complex web of hunger and violence. In Ethiopia, Sudan, Gaza, Yemen and the DRC, conflict and hunger are coming together to cause immense human suffering. As Concern Worldwide (UK) warned in a report published today, climate change is only exacerbating the pressures on food systems, threatening hunger and instability across Africa.
If we are not as morally outraged as we should be about the suffering of millions of people around the world who do not receive the nutrition that they need to survive and thrive, perhaps we should consider the geopolitical consequences of a world that becomes ever hungrier. My hope and prayer are that we rediscover the moral outrage we felt in 1984 and marry it with our self-interest, so that I can look back at the 14 year- old me who sat and watched that BBC news broadcast and say, “In 2024, the world woke again from its indifference and demanded action”.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for introducing this crucial debate.
As many noble Lords have already said—it is worth repeating—the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s was one of the most devastating humanitarian crises of the last century, claiming up to a million lives and displacing millions more. It shocked the world into action. However, famine is not just a historical tragedy. It remains a deadly weapon in modern conflicts, including in Ethiopia.
I personally witnessed the use of food as a weapon during the 1990s, when the Bosnian Serb army laid siege to Sarajevo. My friends and relatives perished, some from bombings and others due to a lack of food and medicine. I also recall the so-called UN safe area of Srebrenica, where mass starvation of the civilian population preceded the genocide. Ethiopia’s tragedy should have served as a warning—a call to ensure that such horrors were never repeated—yet, in some cases, the lessons learned have been exploited to further weaponise food, with dire consequences.
It is worth reflecting on what this means in practice. The suffering inflicted on families deliberately deprived of the means of sustaining life is horrific; the effects persist long after the fighting. Children in the final stages of starvation endure their bodies self-cannibalising. Growth ceases. Limbs wither, bones decay and organs shrink. In the South Sudanese conflict, for example, women and girls were raped. They were forced into marriage and prostitution to survive. Single women, female-headed households, adolescent girls, elderly women, women with disabilities, and children are at particular risk.
Today, in Tigray, where food was used as a weapon during the recent conflict, the situation is particularly dire. Some 3.5 million people—more than half of the region’s population—require aid throughout the year. The root cause is the war’s devastation, which has plunged Tigray into extreme poverty. Soldiers were stealing and destroying food, destroying farms and livestock, vandalising water systems and obstructing humanitarian aid. Although natural disasters such as droughts and floods may seem inevitable, famine is often a man-made crisis, resulting from a deliberate withholding of supplies and a failure to act, leading to inhumane and catastrophic outcomes.
The integrated food security phase classification system warned recently of catastrophic and emergency levels of food insecurity across Haiti, the DRC, Sudan, Gaza and Afghanistan. USAID has described the crisis in Sudan as potentially even worse than the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s. The Norwegian Refugee Council stated that,
“Sudan is experiencing a starvation crisis of historic proportions. And yet, the silence is deafening. People are dying of hunger, every day, and yet the focus remains on semantic debates and legal definitions”.
I therefore welcome the noble Lord’s personal commitment to this region and look forward to more progress than we have made so far.
Although the climate crisis is a leading cause of the global rise in hunger, with climate shocks destroying crops, livelihoods and communities’ ability to sustain themselves, nearly 70% of the 309 million people facing acute hunger are in fragile or conflict-ridden countries. Violence and instability in regions such as the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean, South Asia and eastern Europe disrupt food production, displace populations and often hinder humanitarian access to those in need.
The weaponisation of food is a political and military strategy intended to inflict suffering. However, rather than securing military victories, these policies fuel further violence and sow seeds of long-term instability. Since Defense Minister Gallant’s speech on 10 October, the Government in Israel have targeted food supplies, healthcare facilities and water infrastructure, cut communications and blocked humanitarian aid. Recently, humanitarian assistance was denied to 400,000 civilians in north Gaza. We decided to intervene, in particular the United States, and four days ago a letter was sent to Minister Gallant requiring assurances that American aid would not be arbitrarily restricted or obstructed, and signalling a potential halt to arms transfers if it was. The pressure seems to have worked, as 50 trucks were immediately allowed in; more might follow. However, it has taken way too long. One might cynically attribute this belated intervention by the US Administration to the upcoming US elections and competition for votes. Just imagine what a timely, earlier intervention, combined with a concerted diplomatic pressure, could have achieved, and the lives that might have been saved as a consequence.
The impact extends beyond hunger. Famine tears apart communities, weakens state structures and contributes to atrocities such as sexual violence. Famine often leads to forced resettlement, leading to overcrowding, insecurity and chaos, which creates the enabling environment for rampant sexual violence. Perpetrators frequently exploit the depleted protection mechanisms to inflict horrific suffering. The stories of sex for food and of sexual starvation crimes in Tigray and Sudan have been tragic examples of this.
We must act, not only because it is morally right and our common humanity demands it but because it serves our national interest. The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2417 in 2018 was a milestone in recognising the links between conflict and hunger, yet today, Sudan’s conflict has ignited a hunger crisis of historic proportions. Without urgent action, hunger will claim more lives than the fighting itself.
Hunger is not merely a byproduct of conflict. It results from deliberate choices by warring parties to ignore international law, disrupt food systems, displace populations and obstruct aid. It often may appear that nothing can be done. That is not the case. We must prioritise ending fighting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law. This includes insisting upon unhindered access for humanitarian aid, whenever and wherever, across borders and front lines; the protection of civilians and essential infrastructure; monitoring and mitigating threats to children, women and girls at risk of abuse due to food insecurity; helping to boost food production through steps such as the removal of mines from farmland; and supporting local communities.
In 2021, we committed to the G7 famine prevention and humanitarian crises compact, pledging to uphold UN Security Council Resolutions 2417 and 2286, yet we have lost momentum. I therefore urge the Government to recommit to these resolutions, particularly Resolution 2417, which condemns the starving of civilians and unlawfully denying humanitarian access.
Sadly, the famine of the 1980s was not an isolated incident. It was a collective failure to prevent and respond to policies of collective punishment that were repeated elsewhere. The culture of impunity persists, allowing the weaponisation of food and abuse to go unchecked. I hope that we can learn from the past and from our own mistakes. The best way to honour victims is to use every tool to ensure that starvation can no longer be used with impunity as a weapon of war. For that, we must act decisively, not just to respond but to prevent future conflicts and famines.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for initiating today’s important debate. During her remarks, she referred to the consequences of indebtedness on development—a point taken up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. Forty years ago, on 22 November 1984, in the House of Commons, I challenged the then Government on their policy on Ethiopia, stressing that Ethiopia was still paying back more in debt than it was receiving in aid.
As the noble Baroness rightly remarked, in comments that were echoed very movingly by her friend the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the catastrophe in Ethiopia was brought into our homes by the extraordinary journalism of the BBC’s Michael Buerk. His devastating first hand accounts roused our consciences and indignation —a point to which I will return in my comments.
I will follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and roll the clock forward from the two years of war in Tigray between 2020 and 2022 to the situation there now. Professor Jan Nyssen of Ghent University, a leading European authority on the war, put the number of war fatalities at between 300,000 and 500,000 people, including 50,000 to 100,000 from fighting, 150,000 to 200,000 due to famine and 100,000 from a lack of medical attention. To be clear, this was manmade, but no men have been brought to justice.
Professor Alex de Waal, the executive director of World Peace Foundation, draws parallels with the catastrophic situation in 1984. He says:
“In 1984, the Ethiopian government wanted the world to believe that its revolution heralded a bright new era of prosperity, and foreign donors refused to believe warnings of starvation until they saw pictures of dying children on the BBC news”.
On Tuesday evening, while speaking here at a meeting held in the Palace, I was struck by the intervention of a Tigrayan who believed that a complete denial of media access to the region from 2020 to 2022 enabled the regime to repeat these unspeakable acts of horror—these atrocities. That meeting was held to discuss a report of the New Lines Institute, undertaken over two years and comprising some 100,000 words. It concludes that the crime of genocide has occurred in Tigray. I have a copy for the Minister, which I will give to him during the debate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister will know then, having seen the report, that that the situation has echoes of 1984. Ethiopia, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was then ruled by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-Soviet Derg. That ended in 1991, when its leader, Mengistu, fled to Zimbabwe. The House should note that an Ethiopian court found him guilty of genocide in absentia. His regime was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 0.5 million to 2 million Ethiopians, mostly during the famine. Of course, he has never been brought to justice, becoming a role model for others who commit atrocities with impunity.
In September 2023 I chaired a cross-party inquiry, which published a report entitled The Three Horsemen of the War in Tigray: Mass Killings, Sexual Violence and Starvation. It called on the UK Government and other actors to provide a response commensurate with the gravity and scale of what had occurred. It made clear that starvation in Tigray is not an unintended consequence of the conflict but, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, a method of war. That finding is underlined in the New Lines inquiry, which concludes that there was an
“intent to destroy Tigrayans as an ethnic group, in whole or in part”.
That is one of the criteria for the crime of genocide, fuelled by torture, rape, mutilation and sexual violence. Another criterion—one of those factors taken into account when declaring a genocide—is the prevention of birth, illustrated by the slogan:
“A Tigrayan womb should never give birth”.
In October 2021, Mark Lowcock, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, commented on the situation in Tigray, including the attempt to block aid from going into the region. These are his words:
“There’s not just an attempt to starve six million people but an attempt to cover up what’s going on. What we’re seeing play out, I think, is potentially the worst famine the world has seen in the 21st century … What’s happening is that Ethiopian authorities are running a sophisticated campaign to stop aid from getting in by, for example, making it impossible for truck drivers to operate by setting up checkpoints with officials and militia people, by preventing fuel from getting in … And what they are trying to do is starve the population of Tigray into subjugation or out of existence, but to avoid the opprobrium that would still be associated with a deliberate, successful attempt to create a famine taking the lives of millions of people”.
In 2021 Pekka Haavisto, Finland’s Foreign Minister and a European Union special envoy to Ethiopia, said that, following his talks with Prime Minister Abiy and other Ministers, he believed that they were
“going to wipe out the Tigrayans for 100 years”.
In response to our cross-party inquiry, the Tigrayan Advocacy and Development Association told us:
“The Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Amhara forces left a trail of scorched earth … in which they deliberately burned houses, forests, and field crops ready for harvest; cut mango orchards, papaya trees, and plant nurseries; mixed grains with soil; looted and slaughtered livestock; and killed hundreds of protected wild animals. To ensure no harvest for the next season, ENDF, EDF, ASF, and Fano militia worked in tandem to block vital agricultural supplies, including seeds, destroyed and looted farm tools and prevented farmers from tilling their land during the most crucial period”.
Martin Griffiths, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs reported that, at the height of the crisis, 100 trucks a day of aid needed to get to Tigray but only 10% had gained access in the previous three months. New Lines highlights the shooting of truck drivers and the arrest and detention of drivers before they reached Tigray as another way of preventing food getting through.
The restrictions of aid continued after the ceasefire and during the informal truce. Although WFP and OCHA reported a resumption of aid deliveries at the beginning of April 2022, in reality, while they estimated that 115 food trucks would be needed every day throughout May, convoys were able to bring supplies into Tigray on only six occasions.
That brings us to today. In February 2024, Tigray officials warned of an unfolding famine that could equal or eclipse the 1984 famine. Ethiopia’s ombudsman said it confirmed the starvation deaths of at least 351 people in Tigray and another 21 in the neighbouring Amhara region as a result of drought and instability. Once again, the scale of this tragedy—like that in Sudan, as we have heard—has been massively under- reported.
In February the Guardian reported that
“humanitarians have mostly kept quiet, fearful of losing their operating licences”.
It went on to say:
“In private, however, their language is stark. A recent memo circulated among aid agencies warns that ‘starvation and death are inevitable … in considerable numbers’ from March onwards in some areas of Tigray if aid does not reach them soon. Another says child malnutrition rates”—
the role that malnutrition can play in long-term development was emphasised earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others—
“are as high as 47% in parts of Oromia, Ethiopia’s biggest region”.
On 30 July, I asked the Minister to comment on reports that more than 2 million were reported to be at risk of starvation in Tigray. He responded:
“The humanitarian community is targeting 3.8 million people … with food assistance”.
I was pleased to hear that the UK is leading a pledging conference. I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as to how much of the $610 million has been raised and deployed.
I ask once more: what is being done to bring those responsible to justice? I hope, like the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Browne, that in another 40 years there will not be a similar parliamentary debate asking why those with political power in 2024 did no better than those who went before them.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I join with others in congratulating my noble friend and commending her on securing this debate. We are very proud to have her on our Benches, with her record as a Minister. She is a perfect example of what Ministers can do, even in a short period, with passion, persistence and dedication. I am pleased that she initiated this debate, which has allowed us to reflect on failure. There is an element of success, of course, but fundamentally, 40 years on, we still have enormous challenges. The global community is not living up to the required response.
My noble friend highlighted the power of the BBC and broadcasters, of what good journalism can do, and of the ability to shock and then galvanise a response from the public. But with conflict and climate-induced hunger and starvation, famine is now back in the Horn of Africa and, as we have heard, on the worst scale in 30 years. The public appeals are less clear and there is little action. As we heard in the debate on neighbouring Sudan, the conflict has brought about a humanitarian crisis deeper and broader than Ethiopia 40 years ago, but it does not even warrant a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. It does not even trigger the lowest level of what the DEC might seek to gain public support. What a contrast between that and 40 years ago.
Another contrast with 40 years ago is that when there was famine in 1984, global GDP was $40 trillion. At the end of last year, global GDP was $140 trillion, but now we have the worst malnutrition in that 40-year period. The IDA of the World Bank is now struggling to have a replenishment that might even just simply stay static, not grow. The World Bank has indicated that the majority of developing nations still have not recovered from pre-Covid levels, when the richest countries in the world operated out of self-interest rather than good interest.
I, like many colleagues taking part in this debate, have been to Addis Ababa on a number of occasions—most recently just three weeks ago. I know that many Ethiopians today do not like references to 1984 and the perception of a country in need. I can understand this and have seen for myself many areas where development has been raised. I congratulate policymakers for this, but with conflict, neighbouring tensions, lack of food security, drought and flood—a combination of natural and manmade impacts—there are too many still in grave need in the area. Some might consider the climate-induced impact to be natural, but this is a region that contributes just 0.6% of the world’s greenhouse gases yet is most afflicted by the consequences of our pollution.
In his excellent contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, gave the scale of the crisis. My noble friend Lord Oates quoted Michael Buerk, who said that in the camp he was in a child was dying every 20 minutes. The nutrition and hunger crisis in the wider Horn of Africa continues today unabated. During the short time of this debate, 200 children will die hungry.
In response to this crisis in the Horn of Africa, the previous Government cut UK assistance by 80%. It was impossible to infill from other donors, so it was an actual cut to the global response. In 2017 the Government provided £800 million to a famine that was less than it was last year, when the Government provided £156 million. When it comes to the famine prevention initiative, working with the G7, the UK pulled back. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the current Government’s position with regard to the famine prevention initiative. It is needed even more; we need to build on it, not retreat from it.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in her excellent contribution cogently said that much of the crisis is manmade, and she is absolutely right. In her opening remarks, my noble friend said that the response to 1984 showed the best of humanity, but today we see the worst excesses of what man can do to man. But as we have heard, it is the girl and the woman who are the principal victims.
As a consequence of conflict and tensions around Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Somaliland, an increased number of people are now being smuggled from Metema in Ethiopia to eastern Sudan and, ultimately, trafficked towards Europe. The current situation in the Amhara region sees traffickers exploiting the conflict and crisis there.
As I indicated, the world is nearly four times richer than in 1984. Why is it that its leaders are not rising to the moment? Why is it that our public seem to be bored of seeing conflict? Why is it that they switch off? Policymakers seem to be cynical: as long as the growth of wealth is in the hands of those with power, they need not have the kind of response necessary for the crisis today.
This debate and the excellent one obtained by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in which we debated 0.7% and sustainable development goals, sandwiched a debate in which more Members of this House spoke on the charitable status of private schools than those who have spoken on conflict, global hunger and malnutrition. In the wonderful memoir of my noble friend Lord Oates, telling his story as a precocious 15 year-old seeking single-handedly to solve the issue, there is a short chapter with which, with great coincidence, I want to close. One of the elements that motivated him as a youngster was seeing on the telly stories of the European Community stocking food that could not be resold. He said:
“In a desperate attempt to dispose of the grotesque mountains of excess, these stocks were handed out to charities, and—thanks to their charitable status—the most exclusive schools in the country were among the happy recipients. Subsidised butter fed to the richest people in the land while millions faced starvation. Don’t tell me there weren’t things to be angry about”.
In my mind, this debate means that we still need to be angry. The Minister and the new Government with an enormous mandate—a historic mandate on which I congratulate them—have a historic opportunity. I very much hope that they do not squander it, that we do not repeat the mistakes we have made in recent years and that we respond, as we should as one of the richest countries in the world, with a moral heart.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow such a powerful speech. Like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this debate and reminding us of a couple of things: first, those terrible events 40 years ago and, secondly, just how old some of us are getting, yet we remember those days as if they were yesterday. As we mark this solemn 40th anniversary of the famine, we must not forget, as a number of other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have reminded us, the present situation in Ethiopia and surrounding countries.
In April this year, 21 million Ethiopian people needed food assistance—these numbers just get larger every time; they almost fade into insignificance, with a million here and a billion there. In this case, that would be about a third of the population of the UK. From these Benches, we offer our full support to the Government in taking constructive measures to support those many vulnerable communities in Ethiopia and highlighting the urgency to act.
The World Food Programme’s ramped-up efforts in February of this year were desperately needed to prevent the already severe food shortages becoming a major humanitarian catastrophe. According to the FAO and the World Food Programme, Ethiopia is predicted to be among the top five hungriest countries from June to October of this year. It was solemn to hear many contributors saying that this is not an accidental disaster; it is entirely man-made. The poor women and children are those who suffer, but it is usually made by men.
To what can we attribute the causes of this? Sadly, of course, it is the usual suspects of armed conflict, communal violence, flooding and localised crop production shortfalls. The friction between civilians, militias and Ethiopian federal forces has led to states of emergency in many parts of the country. The Ethiopian authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, have imposed curfews and restrictions on people’s movement. These appear to have worsened the situation in many respects by affecting livelihoods, access to market and important trade flows.
In April this year, the previous Government pledged to provide life-saving support to hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it was not enough; nevertheless, we did do that. The UK Government pledged to cover the deficit in nutrition supplies, to increase safe water and sanitation, and to provide emergency funding to help improve food security and resilience in Ethiopia’s vulnerable areas. Now that we have a new Government in office, I very much hope to hear the Minister confirm that that work to improve Ethiopian food security will continue. I hope that they will be able to keep to the promises that the previous Government made—I am sure they will, but it will be interesting to hear that confirmed by the Minister—and continue to act in the best interests of the Ethiopian people.
Let me also ask the Minister a couple of other questions. First, much of the Government’s current support is for short-term relief efforts, rightly, as we have just heard. But in addition, how can the Government best support the long-term resolutions, which will solve the problem only in the longer term, and what support can they give to institutions that will aim to resolve Ethiopia’s long-term food insecurity?
Secondly, would food aid and other current government pledges be best provided alongside diplomatic assistance to help resolve internal conflicts? If so, how can the Government best support existing NGO and IGO schemes to assist in conflict resolution? How can they effectively monitor the success and impacts of the aid that is given to Ethiopia and what metrics will they use?
According to the World Food Programme, South Sudan and Sudan are more severely affected by food insecurity. We had an excellent debate on that subject recently, so how do the provisions for and response in Ethiopia compare with those that will be given to other African countries? I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those questions and some of the others posed in the debate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for opening the debate with such insight and care on issues that are incredibly important. I share in what the noble Lord opposite quite rightly said: many of the interventions that we have made are not short-term but long-term. They require continuity to ensure that we deliver proper support, so I welcome his comments. Let me reassure him that we will continue, where appropriate, the good work of the previous Government.
Having visited Ethiopia just last week, I was struck by just how pertinent the issues from the famine of 1984 are. The scale of human suffering in 1984 affected our collective conscience and taught us some vital lessons about how we can prevent such disasters happening again. We can all be incredibly proud of the way the British public rallied round in what remains the biggest humanitarian fundraising effort in history. The BBC’s expert reporting was a contributory factor in bringing that famine to global attention, and we should pay tribute to that.
The celebrity-endorsed Live Aid event united 1.9 billion people and raised £110 million, or $333 million. Live Aid asked some tough questions of western governments and relief agencies around the world, and rightly so. It helped people become more aware of global inequality and exposed them to the politics of international development and assistance, particularly in Africa. However, the horrific images also contributed to the perception of Ethiopians needing to be saved by West, and the idea that famine is a natural disaster rather than a manmade one, as we have heard in this debate.
Over the last 40 years, I think our views have changed and our perspectives have widened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, highlighted. Other events have brought to our attention the need for a changed attitude. I am pleased to say that this Government are bringing a modern approach to development and our relationship with the people and Government of Ethiopia. We want to learn the lessons from the last four decades and tailor our approach to both humanitarian response and bilateral relationships. That means working hand in hand with our development partners, making sure that it is just that—an equal partnership. That requires leadership and responsibility from both sides, not just to respond to the crises but to prevent them in the first place. That is why I visited Ethiopia, including the affected Tigray region, within months of becoming a Minister.
Today, not only do we have better monitoring systems for assessing levels of need, but better global co-ordination and preparatory measures. That means we are much more capable than before of preventing such crises. At the same time—I want to stress this point—it is the responsibility of the Ethiopian Government to find political solutions to the internal conflicts, which, as we have heard in this debate, worsen humanitarian needs. Let me reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I did make these points when I met Premier Abiy. He certainly gave me a history lesson, but we also focused very much on the future and what steps he needs to take to ensure that political effort is put into resolving potential conflicts in the future.
We are increasingly aware of the compounding impacts of climate change on the humanitarian crises. As I heard on my visit last week, it affects conflict, education, healthcare, the economy and our very ability to co-ordinate action globally. The UK’s engagement with Ethiopia has focused on tackling these issues, and adopting a multifaceted approach is key. That is why we have increased our focus on food, health, water and sanitation, and on the most vulnerable populations. We are also investing in improving data and evidence to enable informed decisions—a point that was made well in today’s earlier debate. We do this bilaterally through established routes and monitoring systems, via the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Of course, our approach must continue to evolve and we must focus more on preventive measures. It is hugely encouraging that we are one of the biggest contributors to the UN Central Emergency Response Fund, because equity is a key part of our approach. It provides a tailored response to vulnerable people, including internally displaced people and women and girls. As all noble Lords here are aware, women and girls bear the brunt of major crises. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his and the APPG’s work on this. I certainly have read the New Lines report— I will keep his copy as an additional copy.
When I was in Tigray, I met women and girls in the Sabacare IDP camp there. Such shocks worsen existing inequalities and education prospects, undoing the progress achieved in empowering women and girls. For example, the incidence of child marriage and gender-based violence significantly increases in the areas of drought. These facts show why we are adopting a more tailored approach.
This year, we are helping over 435,000 children and pregnant and breastfeeding women with nutritious food—the previous Government also contributed to this. I saw examples of our collaboration with the World Food Programme in Tigray, as it delivers holistic support to women and children in the health centre. It was a continuous programme, doing excellent work.
In 2023-24, we reached 36,879 women and girls suffering gender-based violence, and child protection services supported 52,000 wasted pregnant and breast- feeding women with critical nutrition. We provided regular cash transfers to 2,871 households with pregnant women and young children, and we placed 500,000 girls in school over the last year.
We have consistently called for the end of the wide- spread gender-related sexual violence in Ethiopia. We have deployed preventing sexual violence team experts in Ethiopia, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, mentioned. We will continue to focus on that work. We will protect more than 23,000 women and girls through those services, with regular cash transfers, as I said.
We obviously also need to focus on how to have future growth in Ethiopia. We have rallied international support for a multibillion dollar financial package from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But no country’s economy can flourish in the midst of conflict, which remains a persistent contributing factor to the humanitarian crisis—another point I absolutely stressed to Premier Abiy. We know that the conflict in Tigray claimed the lives of up to 600,000 people.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has constantly pushed on the issue of genocide, and he knows the long-standing government position on how you make such a determination. But I reassure him that I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we hold those responsible to account and that we have proper policies to end impunity. That means ensuring that we not only support the evidence-gathering process but help survivors—who are left with a legacy of widespread human rights atrocities perpetrated by all sides—to get justice. We are committed to supporting them, which is why we support Ethiopia’s transitional justice policy and why, in my visit, I announced £16 million to help 75,000 Tigrayan military personnel return to civilian life.
As my noble friend Lord Browne mentioned, since August last year the Amhara region has been plunged into instability, with a full-scale insurgency. In other regions, violence is coming on. I assure my noble friend and others that the Government are absolutely focused on bringing international attention to this. We want to ensure that we join those affected by this conflict to call on the Ethiopian Government to find a peaceful resolution. I raised that not only with Premier Abiy but with all leaders in Tigray; I spoke to the Acting Premier and President in the region.
I want to underline the importance that we place on these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke about the pledging conference in Geneva. Certainly, we will continue that work—$610 million has been raised. The pledges made were intended for 2024-25, but we will host a follow-up meeting in November to ensure not only that we deliver those pledges, which have been met, but that we increase them from April. We are working on that. In the post-conflict situation in Tigray, I visited a manufacturing factory in the war zone. We will pledge further support, just under £7 million, for Ethiopia’s textiles and garments sector. Jobs are vital to changing people’s lives, and I have seen how this can work.
On malnutrition, I think noble Lords know exactly where my heart lies on that—for 10 years, I supported the Nutrition for Growth summits for the APPG. As noble Lords have highlighted, malnutrition has long-term consequences such as stunting, which excludes affected people from the economy and harms development prospects for populations far into the future. In tackling the risks of famine, we are also safeguarding Ethiopia’s future economic prospects. This is in all our interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others raised the issue of ODA spending. Certainly, the Prime Minister and this Government are committed to restoring 0.7% of GNI once the fiscal situation allows. However, as I said in the earlier debate and will repeat now, we are focused on impact and on delivering what we can. Nutrition is vital. Our support for the pledges of the Nutrition for Growth summit remains. It has the biggest multiplying effect in investment and development, and we will continue to support it. In 2021, the UK pledged £1.5 billion to improve nutrition of women, girls and children. It also pledged to integrate nutrition across the ODA portfolio and to use the OECD/DAC nutrition policy marker to report on nutrition integration in our programme. We will publish annual nutrition accountability reports on progress against our pledges—the previous one was published in August. We will continue that work, and I hope that I will be in a position to report on it in the future.
We know we are operating in a difficult environment in Ethiopia, with active conflicts, hard-to-reach areas and tough regulations, and many humanitarian agencies struggle to help those who most need it. As a result of the Geneva pledging conference, the Government of Ethiopia made commitments to reform humanitarian practices. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that that includes facilitating unimpeded and sustained access to all areas and affected people, collaborating on an analysis framework that draws on global best practice—again, another issue raised with Premier Abiy. While food insecurity and malnutrition remain a cause for concern in Ethiopia, we hope that these steps will reduce prevalence over time.
In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate. Looking to the future, prevention has to be our primary goal. Our objectives must be to ensure that the events that stunned us 40 years ago are never repeated. We will do that by promoting sustainable economic growth, creating climate-resilient humanitarian systems and prioritising human rights alongside empowering women and girls. We will do this working in genuine partnership with the Government of Ethiopia. With conflicts currently raging across the country, reports of human rights abuses and violations, serious economic challenges and food insecurity crises throughout Tigray and Afar, there is much work to be done. As partners, our Governments must work towards the benefit of both our peoples. Resolving this is the collective responsibility of the Ethiopian Government and the international community, because only by working together can we discover lasting solutions to poverty and inequality.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I shall not detain noble Lords for long. It has been an excellent debate, and I want to thank every single contributor for their wisdom, knowledge, passion and intellect in addressing what are insoluble problems. When I was in Africa, they had an expression: “Eat while you are at the table”, which basically meant that if your tribe, ethnic group, people of your religion or whoever were in power, then all your relatives and your tribe were okay—at the expense of everybody else. Until that basic way of fighting for scarce resources is changed, I do not know how much you can change for the long term, because it is a massive undertaking. But in the short term, people are dying because they have no food.
I am grateful to the Minister, and I wish him well, and speed, with his work in Africa; it needs him. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Oates. If we had not had a 14 or 15 year-old boy running away to Ethiopia, we might not have had this debate today.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That the Regulations laid before the House on 30 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
With the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.