Westminster Hall

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 6 November 2024

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK supply chains and Uyghur and Turkic Muslim forced labour in China.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Dowd, and for the opportunity to highlight the issue. I thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), for being here to respond to the debate: in his last period in office and during his sabbatical from this place he was a consistent advocate for the dignity of people all over the world.

That human rights have never been respected by the People’s Republic of China is a given, but the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims since 2017 has been unprecedented even for the Chinese Communist party. More than 1 million Muslims have been imprisoned in an enormous network of camps; possibly as many as 3 million out of a population of 11 million Muslims have made their way through the camps at some time. This is the largest mass arbitrary detention since the second world war. Uyghur women face forced sterilisation, forced abortion, sexual violence in the camps, and forced marriage to Han Chinese men. Thousands of mosques have been demolished. Hundreds of Muslim graveyards have been bulldozed. Countless sacred Islamic shrines have been destroyed. Uyghurs are forced to consume pork, drink alcohol and eat during the Ramadan fast.

These crimes are part of a deliberate effort to destroy the Uyghurs as an ethnic group with a distinct culture and religious identity. International organisations and human rights groups too numerous to list assess that crimes against humanity are taking place in Xinjiang, and this House of Commons has voted to recognise that what is going on is a genocide—an intentional policy that seeks to destroy a people.

All of that provides context to the issue of forced labour in Xinjiang, but it is important to understand that Uyghur Muslim slavery is not a by-product of the attempt to destroy a people; it is an integral part of China’s project. Indeed, as the camps were built, factories for forced labourers were constructed alongside them. For those Uyghurs who are not inside the camps, the threat of incarceration is used to coerce them into the PRC’s wider labour transfer programme.

There is a dark contradiction at the heart of all this. The atrocities are happening in a region that is increasingly closed to those who would testify to the crimes, the journalists and human rights groups who would document them and of course those who would flee to freedom if they could. However, at the same time that the region is closing down, it is increasingly open to and integrated into the global economy. Xinjiang mines, refines and manufactures for the world. Some of the best-known global brands are profiting from the destruction of a people.

The scale of slavery in the region is enormous and is barely disputed: four years ago, official Chinese Government documents acknowledged that 2.6 million Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities had gone through labour transfer programmes. The scope of the industries affected is too large to cover in the time afforded to us today, so I will focus on three areas that especially expose the UK’s economy and that risk consumers being unwittingly complicit in Muslim slave labour: clothing, cars and climate change.

Xinjiang produces a quarter of the world’s cotton. The idea of hundreds of thousands of slaves working in cotton fields evokes an image of slavery and forced labour from another era, but this is not historical practice. It is a well-documented economic reality in the Uyghur region today.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for illuminating an issue that still too few in the international global order are willing or brave enough to talk about. I assure him that Muslim communities across the country will be particularly grateful to him for securing the debate. Important as it is for us to be ethical about our own supply chains, does he agree that as a major global player we should double down on our efforts to persuade China’s near neighbours to adopt a similar ethical approach to the one that he espouses?

[Blair McDougall]

I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for the time he has taken to meet me and meet Uyghurs in the UK, and for his concern.

On cotton, it is highly likely that high streets around the UK are today selling goods made by Muslim slaves from Xinjiang for brands such as Primark, Next, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss, Pull&Bear, Mango, Guess, Jack & Jones, Levi’s, Burberry, Nike, Adidas, PUMA and Max Mara. In my city of Glasgow, I have identified 15 retailers on the famous style mile that stock brands that have been identified as at risk of being implicated in Uyghur forced labour. The same story is true of every shopping mall and high street across the UK. The price of disposable fashion is Muslim forced labour.

I turn to cars. The automotive industry is also deeply compromised: the steel, aluminium, electric vehicle batteries, electronics, tyres and spare parts used all have chains stretching back to the Uyghur region, to companies that we know take part in PRC-mandated labour transfer programmes. Audi, Honda, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Tesla, Renault, LEVC, which is the maker of electric London black cabs, Aston Martin, Bentley, Daimler, Jaguar and Rolls-Royce have all been identified by researchers as having supply chains at high risk of being compromised by Muslim slave labour.

Even if we were not appalled at the inhumanity of the persecution of Muslims, the theft of children from their parents, the sexual violence and the sterilisation, we should be angry as a nation at the economic unfairness of it. We cannot build our own manufacturing industries and create good jobs for our own people while competing with companies that have little or no labour cost. This Government are building a new green energy future for the country, but we cannot generate the green jobs that are part of that vision while competing against Muslim slave labour.

That brings me to my final point, which is on climate. The primary material for the production of solar panels is polysilicon. That manufacturers of polysilicon in the Uyghur region use forced labour is not in dispute. Every single polysilicon manufacturer in the Uyghur region has reported its participation in labour transfer programmes or is documented as being supplied with raw materials by companies that have participated in those programmes. More than a third of the global production of polysilicon takes place in the Uyghur region. No company or public authority in the UK should be sourcing solar materials that originate in that region. A further third of global production of polysilicon takes place in other parts of China, with a high likelihood that those supply chains ultimately begin with Muslim slave labour.

I am keen to hear the Minister expand on the welcome pledge that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero made during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill that the Government are working to ensure that the extension of solar energy in the UK is not built on Uyghur forced labour. I would argue that the only real solution, given the Chinese dominance of the market, is an urgent international effort to develop alternative supply chains that, from quartz to panel, never pass through China. The measures in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have not stopped companies profiting from the slave labour of Uyghurs and other Muslims in China.

Nothing that I have said today is new. These stories have been splashed over front pages and broadcast on television news. Shame, it seems, is not a greater motivator than profit margin. Sunlight is not disinfecting. Legislation based on transparency and reporting alone is not getting the job done. Other nations in the European economic area have gone further than us by requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence on their supply chains. I ask the Minister whether it is time to introduce UK legislation that emulates the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was signed into law by President Biden and which creates a presumption that any goods manufactured wholly or in part in the Uyghur region should be assumed to be the product of forced labour unless clear and convincing evidence proves otherwise.

I recognise that supply chains can be difficult to unravel and that exports often pass through multiple companies on their way into our economy. However, there is a direct freight flight from the Uyghur capital Ürümqi to Bournemouth that brings goods from the epicentre of forced labour in China. Yesterday, a flight from Ürümqi arrived just before 7 pm; another will arrive on Friday, and another on Sunday. That will continue week after week. This is not opaque or convoluted: it is a clear and obvious route and there is a significant risk that those flights will contain goods compromised by Muslim slave labour. I ask the Minister whether import inspections have been or can be carried out on the goods arriving on the freight flight to Bournemouth from Ürümqi.

After the results of yesterday’s election in the United States, there will be much debate about the state of the global struggle between autocracies and democracies and between strongmen and human rights. As we look for a policy response, we can begin by ensuring that our own economies are not funding the worst excesses of such regimes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Only those who were here at the start will be able to speak.

09:42

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for setting the scene so well and with such compassion, understanding and detail. There is no one in this House or outside it who would say that he does not understand the issue very well. We look to the Minister to respond to our requests. I wish him well in his position—it is nice to see him back—and hope that he can give us reassurance. I am pretty sure we will be unanimous, requesting the same thing with one voice.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire on his unwavering support for the Uyghur people. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, it is my duty and responsibility to speak on behalf of all those who face persecution on account of their faith, their beliefs or simply their right to exist. That is what we are really talking about here: the right to exist.

In recent years, the situation for the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province has intensified to a level that is almost incomprehensible. International human rights organisations, survivor testimony and investigative journalism have documented alarming reports of abuses encompassing forced labour, torture, arbitrary detention, cultural erasure and much more. Evidence from credible sources suggests that since 2017 up to 3 million Uyghur Muslims may have been detained in what Chinese authorities term “re-education camps”. What a term! That is so wrong.

The vastness of the detention camps indicates an industrial-scale operation. Detainees are stripped of legal recourse, are often held without charge and are separated indefinitely from their families. The hon. Gentleman referred to children being taken away from their mum and dad. It must be incredibly difficult for someone to deal with not knowing where their children are or whether they will ever see them again.

Disturbingly, reports indicate that detainees are forced to abandon their cultural practices and religious observances under the guise of re-education. Many have been detained for so-called infractions as minor as possessing the Koran or praying at home—imagine being imprisoned for praying in your own house where nobody can see you. Somebody must have seen those people and told on them. Such charges reveal a policy not of reform but of deliberate, state-sanctioned erasure.

An estimated 80,000 Uyghurs have been forcibly moved from Xinjiang province to work in factories across China in conditions that indicate forced labour. Investigations have implicated prominent global brands—the hon. Gentleman referred to many of them; Apple, Nike and Volkswagen are just three—in benefiting from that exploitative system. Those companies need to be accountable. It is not all about profit, how much they can make for their shareholders or what they can do; it is about what is right. Human rights abuses are not right. No company that does that should think that it can get away with it. We in the west should make companies that sell in the west accountable for the process.

In 2023, a coalition of human rights groups urged global supply chains to sever ties with any forced labour practices in Xinjiang province, yet companies continue to engage in such transactions on opaque terms. In the light of that, I will ask the Minister some questions. What measures are the Government taking to enforce stricter import regulations to prevent products from those supply chains entering the United Kingdom? The hon. Gentleman gave three times at which those products are arriving in Great Britain. If we know what time they will arrive, we should be able to do something about that. It is essential that our economy does not implicitly endorse such abuses. I know that the Minister and the Government will not do that, but we need action to follow up the words in today’s debate.

The surveillance infrastructure in Xinjiang province is one of the most technologically advanced in the world. Reports from 2022 indicate that companies such as Hikvision and SenseTime have supplied facial recognition technology specifically designed to identify Uyghurs. The level to which the Chinese Communist party will go to identify Uyghurs is incredible. I do not begin to understand technology—I am from a different generation —but I understand that that is wrong. That facial profiling extends beyond Xinjiang, infiltrating public places and tracking individuals across the country, wherever they may be.

In a troubling parallel, the use of artificial intelligence by the Chinese authorities has expanded to track behaviours deemed to be suspicious. What is meant by behaviours? Is it walking down the street on the wrong side, talking to somebody or bumping into somebody by accident? What does “behaviour” mean, and who decides what behaviour is incorrect? We seem to be talking about behaviours ranging from owning certain apps to communicating with overseas contacts. That digital repression is paired with a social credit system that penalises Uyghurs and other minorities for perceived infractions, curtailing their freedom of movement and employment opportunities.

The Chinese state is taking over the very life and blood and breathing of the Uyghur people. One of the most horrifying allegations to emerge in recent years is that of forced organ harvesting. Some years ago —I believe it may have been prior to 2015—I brought forward a debate about organ transplants taking place among the Falun Gong, another religious group. There was a report that the Chinese Government were doing organ transplantation on an industrial scale. They are at it again, only this time it is not the Falun Gong but the Uyghurs, so we really need to step up.

The China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice found credible evidence to suggest that Uyghurs, alongside other minorities such as Falun Gong practitioners, have been killed for their organs—killed for their organs. The Government remove them on an industrial scale, showing total disrespect for the people who lose their organs. In 2022, the UN Human Rights Council called for greater transparency and accountability from China and demanded clarity on how organs are sourced. Despite those international calls, there has been no co-operation whatever from the Chinese authorities. That is no surprise, given that it is an autocratic state that does not believe in human rights or liberties, or the right for people to have their own religious views and freedoms.

In the light of those grave allegations, I again urge the Minister to adopt stronger legislative measures to prevent UK citizens—citizens from this country—from engaging in transplant tourism. I understand that the previous Government took some action on that, but I am keen to hear what has been done and to get an update on where we are.

Another area of grave concern is the extensive use of biometric and DNA data collection. Since 2021, every Uyghur in Xinjiang province has been required to undergo biometric registration, including facial scans, fingerprints and even voice samples—my goodness! Alarming questions are raised about that mass data collection and its potential uses, which include heightened monitoring and the suppression of an entire ethnic group. What is it for? Repression is already there, but with the rise of sophisticated AI-driven tools, such databases could further enable targeted repression that is even more subjective, violent and difficult. I again call on the Government to press for an independent investigation by international human rights bodies and to seek accountability for that systematic abuse.

Beyond physical oppression, an insidious campaign aims to erase Uyghur culture, their language and their right to practise their religion as they wish, which is a right that I uphold and support across this great world. Xinjiang’s mosques have been destroyed or repurposed —my goodness, a mosque repurposed—when their sole objective is to let people worship their God and follow their religious viewpoints. Uyghur language schools have also been shut down and traditional practices have been banned.

In 2022, UNESCO expressed concern about the cultural genocide unfolding in Xinjiang province, yet China continues to stifle cultural expression with impunity, seeming to think that it can do whatever it wants and get away with it. Those responsible may think that they can get away with it in this world, but I believe that they will be held accountable to God in the next world for what they do wrong. I would also like to see them accountable in this world, so they get it in both places. Whatever the Government can do to make that happen would be helpful.

We are not talking about a mere matter of policy; it is a deliberate attempt to erase people’s identity, their history and their place within China’s fabric. This great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland champions the freedom of belief and cultural expression. The UK must therefore continue to voice its condemnation.

In 2023, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a detailed report condemning the abuses in Xinjiang province, describing the situation as “crimes against humanity”. Those are not just words; they explain implicitly and fully what it means to be a Uyghur Muslim in China. Numerous countries have since imposed sanctions against Chinese officials involved in the abuses. Will the Minister say whether we have done likewise where we can? The UK’s response has been measured, but we now have a new Government and an opportunity to do better. I look to the Minister and our Government to do better if we can.

I call on the Government to consider imposing Magnitsky sanctions on individuals and entities proven to be complicit in the abuses. In this debate, we must send a very clear message that the United Kingdom will not tolerate human rights violations by any power in this world, no matter how great it thinks it is. I believe in a God who can strike those people down. This is a call to action: the horrors faced by Uyghur Muslims must not be met with silence or passive disapproval. The Government have an opportunity—indeed, I believe they have a responsibility —to stand with the persecuted, uphold justice and affirm our commitment to human rights.

I will conclude with this: the Chinese Government are guilty of genocide. The evidence is enormous. The cries of the Uyghurs and Turkic Muslims have to be addressed and the Chinese Communist party must be held accountable. I urge the Minister, on behalf of the House, to address the issue with clarity, conviction and above all a steadfast commitment to justice. The world is watching, and history will remember how we responded to this dark chapter and the role that we played.

09:54

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for securing this important debate and for setting the tragic scene so well regarding the appalling human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang against Uyghur and Turkic peoples. Those abuses have been perpetrated on an unimaginable scale. They are crimes against humanity, which this House clearly resolved form part of a genocide. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have been speaking out and speaking up on this issue and who are suffering the consequences from the Chinese state through sanctions and other effects.

Many hon. Members are familiar with the dreadful situation in Xinjiang, but I suspect that very few people outside this place realise how complicit many companies are in their use of supply chains that involve forced labour. Those supply chains touch on many industries, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but I will focus on the automotive industry.

The Helena Kennedy centre at Sheffield Hallam University, which I commend, has done lots of research on the matter and has documented clearly the links between automotive industry supply chains and forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. Its claim, as profound as it is harrowing, is that anyone in the UK who has bought a new car in the last five years will have benefited from a product that was produced with forced labour. It found that the Chinese Government have deliberately shifted raw materials, mining, processing and auto-parts manufacturing into the region, making international supply chains captive to repressive programmes and systematic forced labour. The investigation found massive and expanding links between western car brands and those abuses in everything from hood decals, car frames, engine casings, interiors and electronics to the raw materials involved.

A combination of the weak enforcement of forced labour laws, the Government’s perceived blind eye to environmental standards in China in the past and convoluted supply chains has left the industry reliant on abusive suppliers. Every car brand—Volkswagen, BMW, Honda, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Tesla—is at risk of sourcing from companies linked to those abuses. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is not just cars; the issues permeate many other sectors, with Sheffield Hallam University’s forced labour lab finding links between the cotton garment and solar panel industries and the use of forced labour.

There is some light. In September, the Court of Appeal removed certain legal barriers to investigations into businesses suspected of profiting from alleged forced labour in China, but that was after the National Crime Agency formally declined to investigate companies accused of importing cotton into the UK that might have benefited from forced labour. That is just the tip of the iceberg. We have to go further. Companies themselves need to conduct thorough reviews of supply chains with their procurement teams, down to the raw materials, and suppliers should remove themselves from contracts with companies that have engaged in the use of forced labour.

The only way to ensure that a company is not sourcing goods made with forced labour is not to buy anything from suppliers that are willing to use forced labour anywhere in their operations and to take a risk-averse approach where there is any chance that that might be the case. The Government should consider enacting and implementing mandatory human rights due diligence laws—we have heard about legislation and regulation being passed in the United States—in recognition of the fact that abuses can be easily distanced from direct suppliers under state-controlled economic systems. Forced labour import bans are a necessary complement to mandatory human rights due diligence, especially where state-sponsored repression effectively prevents companies from conducting the on-the-ground assessments that they would usually do of forced labour risks.

If companies and the Government adopt robust and thorough mechanisms to look at their supply chains, we will eventually see divestment from firms that endorse state-sponsored repression, and send a clear message to the Chinese Communist Government that their treatment of Uyghurs and Turkic peoples is wholly unacceptable. It has been pointed out that we play a key role in the international community: we are a leading industrialised country and a member of the G7, and people will look to us to set an example in how we approach these affairs. In the best British tradition, we should be upholding human rights in every sphere that we can.

09:58

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for securing this essential debate.

Now that we have a Labour Government, we have an opportunity to review our trade and diplomatic relations with nations, not least with China. We know that many manufactured goods exported from China have used forced labour by Uyghur and Turkic Muslims, not least in the solar, electric vehicle, cotton and seafood industries. Absent from the last Parliament was a human rights approach to trade. We have an opportunity to reset our trade policies and international relations and to ensure that countries that exploit labour know the consequences. We must not stand by when Uyghur and Turkic Muslims are exposed to slave labour, torture and re-education programmes.

As the Minister knows, I have been challenging the UK’s approach to trade with China in the light of the harvesting of organs and the use of forced labour; I sought to amend the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 and the Procurement Act 2023. Over the past few years, UK legislation has fallen behind developments in the supply chain. Our laws urgently need to be enhanced to protect human rights.

Such crimes must be held against the standards set in international law, and where found wanting, sanctions imposed. I call on our Government to clean up the supply chain and ensure that China is held to account for the abuses perpetrated. Britian has been a soft touch and now we need to be in touch with the reality of these atrocities. The evidence is there—from submissions to The Hague to inside reports—that these crimes are being committed.

Today it is estimated that 40% of the UK’s solar industry and 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon supply are connected to the Uyghur region of China. That means that 97% of the world’s solar panels could contain polysilicon made in the Uyghur region of China, which has credibly been reported as being at risk of association with Uyghur forced labour. As Labour progresses with its green energy sprint, it is vital that clean energy means clean procurement. Similar breaches have been exposed in the batteries for electrical vehicles.

Will the Minister introduce a presumptive ban on imports from Xinjiang, akin to the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, so that unless a business provides clear and convincing evidence that goods sourced in Xinjiang were not made with forced labour, they will be prohibited?

We need to further review our modern slavery legislation. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 needs to be more robust. Can we please review it so that companies and their supply chains can be held to account? Should companies be found in breach of cleaning up their supply chains, significant penalties should be applied to the perpetrators.

We need a serious trade framework making it explicitly clear that the UK will cease all trade if there are traces of forced or slave labour. The reported abuse of Uyghur and Turkic Muslims is a significant breach of the values of our country and our Government, and we must seek to lead the way to ensure that our trade restrictions become freedoms for the Uyghur and Turkic Muslims.

It has been less than 16 hours since I sat and listened to two Falun Gong people—a woman and a man—in Room G off Westminster Hall last night. One had been imprisoned in Xinjiang for over 20 years—taken in and brought out, taken in and brought out, for years, and tortured. She is now here in this country. I listened to her. It was harrowing. It was horrifying. A younger man was also there; he had been in a number of times and escaped—got out.

I have met a doctor who escaped and is now living in this country. He did not know what the scar he had was until he was taken into hospital for something while over here. It was found that part of a kidney and part of a lung had been extracted, and there was no point in taking those from him. He was a prisoner.

They were all Falun Gong, and what is happening to Uyghurs now is what has happened to Falun Gong. Since we started looking at this situation and raising things in the UK, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded in 2022 that violations in the region

“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

The UK Parliament voted on 22 April 2021 to recognise those atrocities as genocide. Since then, Beijing has renamed hundreds of villages and towns, continuing the effort to subsume and eradicate any Uyghur culture. New regulations are in force that further restrict religious practice. Volkswagen and SHEIN have come under heavy pressure for continuing to source from the Uyghur region, with attendant risk of supply chain slavery.

Many internment camps have been abandoned since 2023. Information from the region is scarce, but it would be accurate to suggest that persecution has not ceased. Rather, there appears to be a move away from internment in labour camps towards larger numbers imprisoned—one in 26 Uyghurs. The extraction of organs in organ harvesting happens at age 28. The three organs survive when taken from these young men while they are alive, because it is most successful if they are fresh and taken from live bodies. That is what happens in organ harvesting.

In April 2022 the Health and Care Act came into force, introducing significant reforms to the administration and delivery of health and care services in England. Section 47 of the Act mandates a comprehensive review by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to assess the potential risks of slavery and human trafficking within the NHS chain. The recent review undertaken by NHS England and Supply Chain Coordination Ltd scrutinised 1,361 suppliers. It encompassed 600,000 products, including approximately 30,000 cotton-based items. The review revealed that 21% of UK health procurement is categorised as being at high risk of involvement with slavery.

An estimated 40% of the UK solar industry is credibly reported to be at risk of being tainted by Uyghur forced labour. We have inadequate laws on public procurement, and they need to be sorted out. Falun Gong is near the end. The hounding of these people is international; it is even in this country. A woman was left splayed on the ground outside our British Museum. No one went near her and no police came—nothing. We are having further investigations into that.

We have had police in “stations” in Manchester. This is all about controlling different categories of Muslims. There may be slight changes, but we can all practise our religion or practise none if we so wish. What steps will the Minister and our Government take to ensure that Great Britain cleans itself up? How will we ensure that people can live in other countries and not be persecuted for cheap labour?

All this is about keeping the Communist party in China, along with the Communist party in Russia. We are in a dreadful situation in our world, and Great Britain really must step up. Our Government cannot allow us to drift along, which is what will happen if we do not step up soon.

10:09

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing a debate on such an important topic. It is also good to see the Minister; I look forward to working constructively with him.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the Court of Appeal has overruled the National Crime Agency’s decision not to launch an investigation into whether high-street brands are using forced labour in the Xinjiang province in China. I congratulate the Global Legal Action Network and World Uyghur Congress on that success. Importantly, in the short term, the ruling means that the National Crime Agency needs to seriously consider its decision not to carry out an investigation, because with 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of it is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.

The Global Legal Action Network says that there is an abundance of evidence that UK companies import cotton made with forced labour from China, and that 85% of Chinese cotton is grown in the Xinjiang region. Let there be no confusion: slavery is not an issue of the past. Today, almost 50 million people worldwide are trapped in slavery. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to reverse the Conservative party’s roll-backs of modern slavery protections and to introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability of their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions in the products that we buy.

My constituents in Wokingham do not want to buy clothes that are the result of forced labour, but they simply do not know where they are sourced from. Retailers need to be forced to take action to review their supply chains and take due diligence seriously. We should not allow evil to profit from British consumers. We should not let genocide be a means of increasing a company’s profit margin. We are better than that.

I would like to focus on the word “genocide” for a moment. In 2020, the world discovered that the Chinese Government’s treatment of the Uyghurs was more widespread and systematic than previously known: forced sterilisation, destruction of religious sites, torture, and detainment in re-education camps. The appeal judges in the National Crime Agency ruling stated that there was

“a diverse, substantial and growing body of evidence”

that human rights violations are taking place in the region. The horrific acts found in Xinjiang have been described in different ways, with the UN concluding that China’s actions would constitute crimes against humanity.

The Liberal Democrats agree with Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, whose independent tribunal found that the Uyghurs are being subject to genocide by China. Specifically, these actions constitute a genocide based on the description of genocide laid out in article 6 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government need to be explicit in their condemnation of these actions as being those of a genocide. In recognising that, we need to champion human rights and support survivors and the Uyghur and the Turkic people, who are being persecuted simply for their beliefs.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights and effective rules-based multilateralism at its centre. My colleagues and I will continue to stand up for people’s human rights around the globe, to protect, defend and promote human rights for all, including those persecuted for their religion and belief. Liberalism and co-operation have a vital role to play in securing peace, promoting democracy and defending human rights across the world. The UK must work with its global allies to ensure the end of the persecution of the Uyghurs and Turkic people.

The UK must introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains, to guarantee that no human is taken advantage of for a piece of clothing. I ask the Minister to support the Liberal Democrat policies laid out in my speech. Will he back Magnitsky-style sanctions on persons and entities involved in the persecution of Uyghurs and the Turkic people, under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018? Will he ensure that the UK grants asylum to those fleeing genocide—and, to reiterate, will he explicitly condemn the actions of the Chinese state as genocide?

10:15

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I suspect that this will be the final time that I speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition in an international trade debate. Following the events across the water overnight, there might be an alternative vacancy in Government that means the Minister may move on before too long. If this is the last time we face each other, let me thank him for the courtesy that he has shown during my brief time shadowing him. It has been greatly appreciated.

I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing this important debate on an urgent and deeply troubling issue. It affects not only our values and moral standing as a nation, but the integrity of our supply chains.

The evidence of the systematic forced labour of Uyghur and Turkic populations in China’s Xinjiang region is clear and undeniable. Reports indicate that over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities are detained in camps, facing conditions that are nothing short of abhorrent and genuinely disgraceful. They are subjected to forced labour under the watchful eye of a regime that seeks to erase their identity and culture. The situation is not just a distant tragedy; it is intertwined with our own economy and lifestyles, affecting the products that we import, buy and consume in the United Kingdom.

We have long recognised the importance of aligning our trade policies with our commitment to human rights. Our strategy for UK-China relations has been built on three pillars: protect, align and engage. That approach has driven us to strengthen our national security protections, deepen collaboration with our allies and engage with China where our interests converge.

The previous Government introduced measures to ensure that British organisations, both public and private, are not complicit in and do not profit from the human rights violations in Xinjiang. Those measures include the review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang, to ensure that the Government do all they can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights abuses in the region; the introduction of financial penalties for organisations in the UK that fail to meet their statutory obligations to publish annual modern slavery statements under the Modern Slavery Act; new robust and detailed guidance to UK businesses, setting out the specific risks faced by British companies with links to Xinjiang and underlining the challenges of effective due diligence there; and a Minister-led campaign of business engagement to reinforce the need for UK businesses to take action to address the risk.

We have led the international community in condemning China’s gross human rights violations. In March 2021, we imposed sanctions on key officials involved in those abuses, acting alongside 29 other countries. Furthermore, we were the first nation to lead a joint statement at the UN condemning those violations, back in 2019. This year we did so again, now with a record-breaking 51 signatories. These actions demonstrate our unwavering commitment to holding China accountable, which I know is being continued by the new Government.

In 2023, our updated public procurement rules were designed to mitigate modern slavery risks, ensuring that no taxpayer money inadvertently supports these violations. We also introduced strict measures under the Procurement Act 2023 to exclude suppliers involved in labour market misconduct, further reinforcing our commitment to ethical sourcing. However, it is essential to recognise that although we have made significant strides in previous years, huge challenges remain, particularly in how businesses engage with entities that may be complicit in these gross abuses.

Sadly, the situation with fast fashion companies such as SHEIN raises enormous concerns. SHEIN has been widely criticised for its alleged links to forced labour in Xinjiang, yet we see troubling ties emerge between the current Government and companies such as SHEIN. It is deeply concerning that the chief executive of SHEIN has recently been engaging with senior figures within the Labour party. That raises uncomfortable questions about access and influence within Government when we should all be standing firm against human rights abuses. Although we have taken decisive action, we cannot allow our progress to be undermined by those who seek to profit from exploitation.

As has been said, the European Union has taken a proactive stance against companies such as SHEIN. However, the disparity between the EU’s action and our own lack of action highlights a critical point: we must be unequivocal in our commitment to human rights and free from the taint of associations that contradict our values.

The implications of forced labour in our supply chains extend beyond ethical concerns; they pose serious reputational risks for the businesses themselves and threaten our trade relations around the world. We have a responsibility not only to protect the rights of the Uyghur and Turkic populations but to safeguard the integrity of UK businesses. Companies that choose to engage with suppliers linked to forced labour rightly risk facing a backlash from consumers who demand accountability and transparency. It is our role to make that accountability and transparency easier.

I have five questions that I hope the Minister will address in his response. First, before the election Labour promised to declare formally what is taking place in Xinjiang as a genocide. Is that still the Government’s intention? If so, did the Foreign Secretary raise that intention with Wang Yi during his recent visit to Beijing? Secondly, when do the Government plan to launch the international legal action against China on Xinjiang to get what is happening there formally declared on an international level as a genocide, as they also promised before the election? Thirdly, how does the Energy Secretary’s decision to sign off on three enormous solar farms, some of which involve companies judged to be the most complicit in human rights abuses, sit with the Government’s commitment to remove the products of forced labour from UK supply chains? Fourthly, will the Government introduce measures to ensure that the UK does not become a dumping ground for solar panels made by slave labour, as both the United States and the European Union have already done for their markets? Finally, has the Minister met with Uyghurs and Turkic Muslims and their representatives, as his Department develops its China audit?

As we move forward, all UK businesses must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour. It is imperative that we renounce any friendly or commercial ties with entities engaged in or linked to forced labour. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to human rights, standing alongside those being persecuted in Xinjiang and ensuring that we do not profit at their expense.

10:24

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) not just on his recent election, but on securing this important debate. I feel obliged to declare an interest in paying that compliment, given that I have known, campaigned with and long admired the political judgment and moral seriousness of the new Member for East Renfrewshire—I know how dearly he holds that title as a local representative of that community. What we witnessed today in his remarks evidenced not only that he will be a doughty local fighter, but that he has the kind of global perspective and moral conscience that will serve this House.

I thank all the others who have participated in our debate, which was genuinely worthy of the seriousness and urgency of the matters under discussion. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke with characteristic passion and clarity in his advocacy of the need for urgent action. I will endeavour to return to the specific points that various Members have made, but I will offer a few introductory remarks before going into more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) brought to the debate careful research, particularly on the car industry’s risk of sourcing goods produced through forced labour. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made the case with passion and force that clean energy must not mean procurement secured through slave labour—an approach with which I wholeheartedly agree. I am particularly grateful to her for sharing the deeply harrowing accounts of those she has had the privilege of meeting in recent days, and for bringing that perspective and understanding to our debate.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), the Liberal Democrats’ new Front-Bench spokesman, spoke with characteristic eloquence and raised a number of points that I will seek to address. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for his gracious words. With no disrespect to his remarks, I sense that there are much bigger issues at play this morning than the future prospects of either of us.

It was two years ago that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights released its assessment of the situation in Xinjiang. It concluded that clear evidence had been found of serious human rights violations and that the scale of the arbitrary and discriminatory detention of Uyghurs and other largely Muslim minorities within Xinjiang

“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

Multiple other bodies and independent human rights experts have since taken similar views, relying extensively on China’s own records. Those findings and recommendations detail evidence of large-scale arbitrary detention; family separation, as we heard very eloquently from the hon. Member for Strangford; enforced disappearances; forced labour; systemic surveillance on the basis of religion and ethnicity; severe restrictions on cultural, religious and linguistic identity; torture; sexual and gender-based violence, including forced abortion and sterilisation; and the widespread destruction of religious and cultural sites. The Government are deeply and sincerely concerned about those human rights abuses, and we continue to work with international partners to find ways of effectively holding China to account.

Last month, the UK signed an Australian-led joint statement at the UN Third Committee that called on China to uphold its international human rights obligations; implement United Nations recommendations; release individuals arbitrarily detained in Xinjiang; and allow access to Xinjiang for independent observers to evaluate the human rights situation. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire suggested, sunlight is not sufficient, transparency is none the less essential. We therefore want those independent advisers and observers to evaluate the human rights situation.

The United Kingdom has also undertaken direct action against those who have aided or abetted these activities. In 2021, under the previous Government, the United Kingdom announced sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity based on compelling and widespread evidence of serious and systemic human rights violations in Xinjiang. The Government also conduct independent visits to areas of major concern where possible, and continue the delicate but vital work of supporting non-governmental organisations in exposing and reacting to human rights violations.

More widely, this Government are carrying out a comprehensive audit of the UK’s relationship with China, as we have discussed this morning, to improve our ability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses in today’s world. Work on the audit is ongoing and will inform the long-term and consistent approach to China that the Government will set out. I was asked whether it is being led by the Department for Business and Trade, and whether we are therefore meeting the Uyghurs in DBT. The audit is actually being led out of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I can assure the House that efforts are being made to ensure that voices are heard as part of this comprehensive audit.

For that work, engagement with China is vital so that we can not only co-operate on shared challenges but challenge it on areas where we disagree. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights in their introductory discussions with President Xi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights with Wang Yi again in Beijing last month. The Foreign Secretary has also called on China to lift the unwarranted and wholly unacceptable sanctions on UK parliamentarians—a matter to which I will return. That will remain a top priority for the Government.

I now want to address some of the specific legislative and regulatory measures that the Government and the Department use to address forced labour, before coming to colleagues’ questions. That work is a vital part of the Government’s efforts to ensure businesses do not use forced labour or cause or contribute to other human rights abuses and violations within their supply chains, no matter where they operate in the world. The UK addresses forced labour in global supply chains under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires commercial businesses that operate in the UK and have a turnover of £36 million or more to report annually on the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. The purpose is to provide transparency and ensure businesses monitor their supply chains with rigour, are open about their risks and mitigations, listen to their workers, and act where they find issues.

We have also taken action under the Procurement Act 2023 to strengthen the rules on excluding suppliers linked to modern slavery. A number of Members asked whether our commitment to clean energy will come at the cost of the integrity of our approach to procurement. I can assure them that it will not. For instance, the Act expands the mandatory exclusion grounds that apply if a supplier or a connected person has been convicted of certain offences under the modern slavery legislation. Suppliers can be investigated for debarment on modern slavery grounds, and may be placed on a central debarment list of suppliers that must or may be excluded across the whole of the public sector.

In addition, my Department takes a number of steps to address forced labour within UK supply chains. We negotiate and implement forced labour and modern slavery provisions within our free trade agreement programme. The developing countries trading scheme allows for the suspension of preferential trading arrangements, specifically on grounds of serious violation of labour rights. UK Export Finance also reviews environmental, social and human rights risk factors for transactions in scope of its policy responsibilities.

Furthermore, our overseas business risk guidance makes clear to UK companies the risks of operating in certain regions that we have been discussing today, and urges them to conduct appropriate due diligence. The UK Government expect, encourage and support UK businesses to undertake due diligence so that human rights and environmental issues are considered in their operations and supply chain relationships, in line with the OECD guidelines on responsible business conduct and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

On supply chain due diligence legislation, the UK maintains regular dialogue with the European Union following the recent passage of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, and the Government continue to review how we in the United Kingdom can best tackle forced labour and environmental harms in supply chains. We also regularly engage with business and international partners on domestic and international tools to combat forced labour. Our trade and forced labour business roundtable allows businesses and the Government to come together to speak frankly, and it gives His Majesty’s Government the opportunity to understand how we can better support businesses than has been the case in the past in their efforts to combat forced labour in supply chains globally.

That package of policy tools goes some way towards addressing the concerns that have been raised today, but I assure the House that there are absolutely no grounds for complacency. In line with sustainable development goal 8.7 and commitments made through the G7, referenced earlier, the Government are committed to ensuring that no company has forced labour in its supply chain. With that in mind, we continue to consider actor-agnostic measures that would improve worldwide supply chain transparency and traceability.

We are aware, however, that some sectors are at higher risk of forced labour in their supply chains. A number of contributions have focused on solar supply. On solar supply chains, the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels, about which my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire spoke so eloquently, and are therefore taking robust action.

The solar taskforce has been relaunched by the Government and will specifically focus on identifying and taking forward the actions needed to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative supply chains that are free from forced labour, to support the significant increases in the deployment of solar panels needed to meet the ambition that we discussed this morning to increase UK solar power capacity by 2030.

On cotton and auto supply chains, about which a number of hon. Members spoke, we have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chains. As I have set out, there are rules in place to compel companies to publish statements demonstrating they have met their legal obligations on modern slavery.

Let me seek to address some of the other specific questions raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about the harvesting and trafficking of human organs. That is a heinous crime that deserves our complete and unequivocal condemnation. The Government are determined to stamp out that form of exploitation, by catching the perpetrators and safeguarding the victims. There are a range of offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Human Tissue Act 2004 that were extended on 1 April 2024, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable, leaving no room for this crime to go unpunished.

On the further question from the hon. Member for Strangford about sanctions, I have spoken in general terms about the approach the Government are taking. Let me be more explicit: China’s sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable. The issue will remain a priority for the Government, given the integrity and importance of our democratic legislature in the House of Commons. The Foreign Secretary has called on China to lift the sanctions, in meetings with his Chinese counterpart Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations meeting in July and during his most recent visit to Beijing on 18 October.

The sanctions announced by the UK on 22 March 2021 against four Chinese officials and one entity were based on compelling and widespread evidence of serious and systemic human rights violations in Xinjiang. Although 30 countries were united in sanctioning those responsible for those violations, China’s response was simply to retaliate against its critics.

On the point about genocide raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham and a number of colleagues, it is the long-standing policy of the British Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for the competent national and international court, rather than for Government or non-judicial bodies. Regardless of any court’s decision, this Government will stand firm on human rights, including China’s repression of Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang. That includes raising our concerns, as I have suggested, at the highest levels of the Chinese Government, and co-ordinating efforts with our international partners to hold China accountable for the actions it takes, and to account for human rights violations. For example, as I mentioned, on 22 October the UK joined Australia’s statement at the UN Third Committee on China’s human rights situation.

On whether the UK will issue sanctions against perpetrators—those accused of having forced labour in their supply chains—we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review. It is not appropriate for me to speculate about whom we may designate in the future, as doing so could reduce the impact of those designations, but I have listened carefully to the points made in the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire asked whether we would impose stricter regulations. The United Kingdom recognises the importance of ensuring that businesses are not complacent on the issue of forced labour and human rights violations. I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford that we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the existing measures about which I have spoken today, as well as monitoring the impact that other countries’ measures are having, to reach a view about the appropriate approach to tackling forced labour effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire raised the issue of GB Energy and solar. I have spoken about the solar taskforce, and I hope that that provided some comfort. We are working with colleagues across Government on the issue, and the Government are united in their determination. The solar taskforce has been relaunched to develop sustainable supply chains, and it will of course give due consideration to this issue. The solar stewardship initiative will support the delivery of the solar road map. The Procurement Act also strengthens rules around existing suppliers that are linked to modern slavery.

In relation to other issues that have been raised, I can assure Members that we will continue to work with domestic and international businesses across all sectors of the economy to ensure that their supply chains are diverse, resilient and, of course, free from human and labour rights abuses.

Finally, I should address the issue of direct cargo flights from Ürümqi to Bournemouth, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire. Border Force does not assess whether goods on freight entering the UK may have been made using forced labour, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to working with partners to ensure that we can best tackle forced labour in supply chains.

As I say, we are continuing to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the steps that we have taken and will continue to take. The Government will continue to assess emerging policy tools, such as the import bans introduced by international partners, to understand their effectiveness in tackling forced labour in supply chains. That includes our better understanding the potential impacts here in the United Kingdom of the operation of the US measures, about which a number of hon. Members spoke, and the implementation of the EU forced labour regulations.

Summarising the sentiment and approach of the Government, I find that we are in broad agreement with the points made about the character of the forced labour crisis, as well as with hon. Members’ sincere and genuine desire to address these issues. Thankfully, the United Kingdom is still a leading voice in international efforts to defeat modern slavery and end human and labour rights abuses in public and private sector supply chains, and we will continue to assess the most effective ways to address these issues.

I can assure colleagues that we will continue to stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities. That includes raising our concerns at the highest levels with the Chinese Government, as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done, and co-ordinating our efforts in international fora such as the G7 to identify, expose and hold China to account for serious and systemic human rights violations.

May I thank you again, Mr Dowd, for your service to the House today, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire for raising this urgent topic? I assure him and other hon. Members that the Government are sincerely committed to tackling these issues. We will continue to work to ensure that UK supply chains are free from forced labour and to speak out against human rights abuses, no matter where we find them.

10:44

[Blair McDougall]

Thank you, Mr Dowd, for the opportunity to close the debate. I thank hon. Members for speaking up on behalf of the dignity and humanity of Uyghurs and other Muslims in this situation. I thank them for not using sanitised language in describing what is going on in the Uyghur region, which I was potentially guilty of myself. We talk about “labour transfers” when we are really talking about slavery. We talk about “sexual violence” when we are talking about women being raped. We talk about “re-education centres” when we are really talking about concentration camps. We talk about “the removal and transfer of children” when we are talking about state kidnapping.

I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In the short time I have been in the House, I have been in the room countless times when he has spoken up on behalf of religious freedom. He made a point essential to understanding the nature of what is happening in Xinjiang: it is religiously motivated. He mentioned the small infractions for which people can end up in the internment camps. I would add that having a beard, going on a pilgrimage to Mecca or simply travelling to another Muslim country is enough for someone to find themselves in a camp.

Sometimes, in politics, the word “Orwellian” is used. It has become a hyperbolic cliché that we turn to, but I do not think that there is a more appropriate word to describe what is happening in the Uyghur region. I have heard stories of people phoning home on FaceTime or video calls to find a uniformed Chinese state security person answering their relative’s phone, stories of artificial intelligence being used to identify particular ethnicities, and stories of the collection of biometric information on millions of people. It is almost impossible to imagine the traditional approach to forced labour and due diligence working where the oppression of people is so intense and so pervasive.

In Parliament, the causes and intent behind human rights issues are often a matter of nuanced debate. When it comes to the situation of the Uyghurs, it is incredibly clear what the intent, plan and motivation are. My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) both hit the nail on the head: the political and economic power of China is driving the forced labour crisis. The longer it continues without being challenged, the deeper the problem becomes. Others in the debate have spoken about how pervasive it is, from the cars we drive to the clothes we wear. It is also in the food we eat, whether it is tomatoes or seafood. Our moral complicity grows, and the longer it goes on, the more our own economic ruin grows as well. We cannot possibly compete with industries that have no labour cost.

Some of this is about international action as well as the action of individual Ministers. We know that authoritarians are increasingly organised, and those of us who believe in the rule of law and in basic standards have a responsibility to pursue the same multilateral actions. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and others named and shamed some of the companies that are involved in this process. The awful truth is that some companies are literally shameless. They are more motivated by the bottom line than they are by public reputation and international opinion.

I thank the Minister for showing such moral clarity. Given China’s economic power, all Governments have to work with it, but to hear the Minister give such clear and unambiguous condemnation of the attacks on Uyghurs is important. From my time working with Uyghurs, I know that they often feel forgotten and unheard. Many of the things that hon. Members have spoken about today that happen to them, happen unseen. Today, we have shown that they are not happening unheard. That is incredibly important.

I welcome the Minister’s use of the word “innovative” about the approach to supply chains, which is essential given the dominance of China in the polysilicon matter. I also welcome his commitment to continue to assess, monitor and learn from the approaches that other countries have taken. He knows that other Members and I will continue to press him to do that at speed.

I close by paying tribute to those who, at considerable risk to themselves, ensure that the story of what is happening in Xinjiang escapes an increasingly closed society—to the Uyghurs who have lost contact with their families and risk imprisonment when they travel. I also pay tribute to civil society organisations such as Anti-Slavery International and the World Uyghur Congress. Uyghurs often feel forgotten, and if this debate has done one thing today, it has shown the world that we will not forget them and that they have a voice within our Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK supply chains and Uyghur and Turkic Muslim forced labour in China.

10:51

Sitting suspended.

Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before I call Lisa Smart to move the motion, I inform hon. Members that the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming during the debate. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, the Member in charge of the debate will not have an opportunity to wind up.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for Peak Forest and Macclesfield canals.

I rise to speak about a subject close to my heart: our beautiful canals, including the magnificent 16-lock flight in Marple. Our canals are not just waterways. They are part of our national story and are deeply woven into the fabric of our community. They are remarkable pieces of living heritage that we must protect, and protecting them is one of my three asks of the Minister today.

I want us to protect our canals as precious green corridors and as a direct link with our nation’s and my community’s proud industrial heritage. I want our canals to be funded as a critical part of our infrastructure. I want us to value our canals. We should look at them as assets to be cherished, not simply as liabilities to be managed.

The Peak Forest canal, one of Britain’s most scenic waterways, runs alongside the River Goyt for much of its length. The Macclesfield canal is a historic link between Manchester and the midlands. They are both jewels of our waterways. They are where they are because of the Stockport mills—notably Mellor mill, which was the largest cotton-spinning mill in the world in its time—and the Derbyshire quarries. We can still see that heritage along the canals, with Unity mill in Woodley, Romiley board mill and Goyt mill in Marple.

As the canals cross through Marple, they make up 5 km of designated conservation areas. Each lock on the Marple flight is grade II listed, meaning that it is protected as an area of special interest. The Marple aqueduct, itself a historic landmark, is the highest in England and is a grade I listed structure. Protecting these landmarks costs money. With 16 locks, and with lock gates costing approximately £150,000 each because they have to be hand-crafted, the bills quickly add up.

Back in 2012, all British Waterways’ assets and responsibilities in England and Wales were transferred to a newly founded charity, the Canal and River Trust. Unfortunately, these heritage and community treasures now face an uncertain future. Alongside the regular care and maintenance of the canals and the 71 large reservoirs that feed them, the CRT has had to tackle significant work such as the extensive restoration project for Toddbrook reservoir, which supplies both the Peak Forest and Macclesfield canals. After a partial failure in 2019, the repairs came at a hefty cost of £15 million. Such massive efforts highlight just how vulnerable this vital infrastructure is.

Funding changes made by the previous Conservative Government, which will mean cuts of 5% a year for 10 years, will drain nearly £300 million from the trust. Those reductions will undoubtedly undermine the trust’s ability to sustain the canal network. I fear that that will make the closure of those treasured public spaces sadly inevitable, unless something changes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She is presenting a lovely visual account of her constituency. Based on what she says and on what I observe, the potential for tourism, for the betterment of the environment and for people living across the community has not yet been realised. Does she agree that there is so much to gain that perhaps the Government should search their pockets and find the extra money?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point about potential not yet realised. I will highlight later in my speech some of the uses of our canals, but there is an awful lot more that we could be doing. I encourage the Government to look at the canals in the round and consider what they could do for the environment, for tourism, for health and for our communities, as well as how they make it easier for people to walk to work the most direct way. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I am a proud and long-standing trustee of the Stockport Canal Boat Trust for Disabled People; I refer all colleagues to my registered interests. I cannot overstate the joy, the serenity and the community value that can be found in spending time cruising at a maximum speed of 4 mph. The trust operates the New Horizons, a fully accessible 72-foot narrowboat run by volunteers that offers passengers of all abilities time to enjoy our canals. While cruising, we see families walking their dogs and enjoying nature. We see joggers, we see cyclists and, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, we see people simply using the towpath as the most direct route to walk to work.

Beyond their cultural and historical significance, the waterways are crucial for nature, for wellbeing and for combating climate change. They provide a vital habitat for wildlife and serve as a natural green corridor connecting diverse ecosystems that are bursting with biodiversity. Canals also play a really important role in water management, reducing flood risk and increasing climate resilience. Problems with reservoirs are problems for all of us.

For health and wellbeing, canals offer an unparalleled sanctuary. Our waterways are freely accessible and provide opportunities for walking, cycling and relaxation in green spaces. At a time when public health concerns are high and when such spaces in urban and suburban areas are scarce, they deliver a cost-saving gift to the NHS. Research suggests that that gift amounts to more than £1 billion a year.

Our canal towpaths are often flat by design and can offer accessible physical and mental health benefits to many, as my constituents in Hazel Grove know well. After securing this debate, I asked for stories about how the canal had touched their lives. I was moved by the overwhelming response: I received more than 100 messages in only a couple of days. Older community members shared how they find solace and companionship in walking along the towpaths. Parents and grandparents spoke of the joy of exploring the canals with their children and grandchildren. One resident shared how walks along the canal were crucial to recovery after a heart attack and a major cancer operation: the serenity and beauty of the canal were key to their healing.

For many, the canals are an escape from traffic pollution and noise. They are a sanctuary of peace amid a busy world. Imagine looking at them as part of the solution—as a way to encourage people out of their cars, rather than as problems to be managed and towpaths to be fixed.

I want to make the case for the 16-lock flight in Marple to be designated as a world heritage site. It is an extraordinary testament to our industrial and engineering heritage that represents a pivotal era in Britain’s industrial past. Such recognition would not only attract global interest and boost local tourism, but ensure that the locks are protected and celebrated for generations to come. I am committed to working closely with our local community, with heritage experts and with international bodies to make that vision a reality and ensure that the locks get the recognition they truly deserve.

I ask the Minister to protect our canals, to fund our canals and to value our canals. They are assets. With a bit of creative, holistic thinking, they could do so much more: they could save money for the NHS and for our transport budget, instead of simply being liabilities to be managed.

11:08

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Thank you for your service in the Chair today, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this important debate on a valued public amenity.

The Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals both mean a lot to me, not just because they are in my constituency, but because I am familiar with them from childhood—from walking my first dog down by the Peak Forest canal in Disley, plugged into my Walkman and listening to the Spice Girls, to using it now for rest and relaxation after a trying week here in Westminster. It matters to many of my constituents as well. A third of Macclesfield sits within the Peak District national park, and the canals that run through our countryside add to the beauty of the area that I represent.

The Macclesfield canal is the first in the world to receive the coveted Green Flag award under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s scheme to recognise and reward well-managed parks and green spaces. The award is judged on eight strict criteria, including environmental standards, cleanliness, sustainability and community involvement. It is no wonder that the Macclesfield canal has hit that high standard, especially considering the tireless hours that volunteers put into maintaining it. I pay tribute to the volunteers involved in maintaining our wonderful canals.

The beauty of the canal is further enhanced by the impressive and historical buildings and places of interest located alongside it. The hon. Member mentioned some of them, but I draw attention to those in my neck of the woods, including the Clarence and Adelphi mills in Bollington and the famous Hovis mill in Macclesfield, and my mum would be disappointed if I did not mention her home, which sits alongside the Peak Forest canal. Our canals are not only beautiful green spaces; their significance as a network that provides jobs, homes, transportation and a thriving habitat for wildlife cannot be overestimated.

What is especially heartbreaking is the threat that our canals face because of the ongoing financial strain on the Canal and River Trust, which is a legacy of the last Conservative Government. Cuts to CRT funding by 2027 will amount to more than £300 million. That is against a backdrop of mixed performance and some boater dissatisfaction with the CRT. Boaters in my constituency have raised real concerns with me. They deserve to be treated fairly and to receive the services they need.

The increase in the cost of boat licences and surcharges for those without a fixed home mooring risks a way of life that thousands have chosen. Continuous cruisers often have the lowest incomes, but are being asked to pay more. I am sympathetic, as I know other hon. Members are, because the costs that the CRT is passing on are a result of austerity. Sadly, as we have been discovering since the election in July, there are pressures across many aspects of public life that are a consequence of the inheritance from the last Government.

I am pleased to have been appointed last month to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which had its first meeting yesterday. I know that canals are high on the Committee’s agenda and that we will be speaking to the CRT in the coming weeks and months. I am grateful to be in a position to advocate for canals and for rural communities, both in general and for my Macclesfield constituents in particular, to ensure that rightful environmental concerns are heard and that we protect our cherished countryside and our amazing canals. I commend the hon. Member for Hazel Grove again for securing the debate.

11:12

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) both on her election and on securing this important debate. Similarly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on his election and on his excellent participation today.

We have heard a lot this morning—both hon. Members articulated it so eloquently—about the many benefits that the two beloved canals bring to so many people in Hazel Grove and Macclesfield. I was particularly interested to hear about the work done by CRT with the New Horizons canal boat, widening access to the canal, importantly, for children who are landlocked in the centre of the country and might not have had much access to the water. That is bringing water closer to the people.

As I was listening to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I was thinking about how our canals helped build our country and how our mills helped clothe not just our country, but the world. They are a vital part of our industrial heritage. I had a wry smile when she spoke about lock gates and the flight locks, because the last remaining lock gate maker is in Stanley in Wakefield, my former constituency. They are a very precise piece of manufacturing and an incredibly difficult thing to engineer. When the hon. Lady was bidding for world heritage status for the lock flight, which I am sure is an incredible piece of engineering and which I hope to visit one day, I was thinking about the canal at Marsden by Huddersfield near my old constituency. That canal has what was the longest, deepest and highest canal tunnel in the world, a real feat of pre-Victorian engineering, starting on one side of the hill and going through to the other with fingers crossed that everyone would meet in the middle, which thankfully they did.

Our canals and inland waterways are a real asset to our country. They are important for heritage and provide many public benefits. People live on them, love being by them and use them for leisure, recreation and, as the hon. Lady said, to cycle to work. They are an important part of our natural environment, providing green corridors along which nature can flourish. I know that she has kingfishers on her canal, a rare and vanishing species in our country. Canals and inland waterways also contribute to the growth of local economies through domestic tourism, about which we have heard a great deal this morning.

In my constituency is the Oxford canal, which runs through the north of Coventry. It fed and took the silks away from the old Cash’s factory, which then became the factory for Courtaulds, which invented rayon— the rest is history, as they say. As well as being really popular for walkers, joggers and cyclists, it is a nationally important site for river voles—Ratty, for those of us who loved reading “The Wind in the Willows” to our children. I feel proud that we have a nationally important site for river voles in my bit of Coventry. It is very incongruous: if you saw the site, Mr Dowd, you would not think it was a little haven for nature. Canals provide really important biodiversity corridors.

We have two navigation authorities, the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency. The CRT reports that there were nearly 860 million visits to its canals last year, many of which were repeat visits, with around 10 million individual users each fortnight. That gives a real sense of the scale of the popularity of our canals. Our navigation authorities have a vital role to play in the future. They must help to ensure that this part of our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change, and they will help to meet net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation and contribute to water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers.

The trust is a charity independent of Government, and Ministers do not have a role in its management or operational decisions. Because it is a private sector organisation, it is free to set its fees and charges accordingly. However, we expect it to engage constructively with the boating community and take account of issues of concern it raises, such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned.

On the funding of the Peak Forest and Macclesfield canals, about which we have heard much today, it is the Canal and River Trust that manages the canals, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove observed. It was set up in 2012 as a charity independent of Government to replace the publicly owned British Waterways. It owns and manages a network of 2,000 miles of canals and rivers in England and Wales, including the two that are the subject of our debate. The trust is free of public sector financing constraints, so it can source alternative revenue streams, including charitable donations and legacies, charity tax relief and third-party project funding, and it can borrow on the financial markets.

The Canal and River Trust is also endowed by the Government with a significant property and investment portfolio from British Waterways, which is now worth around £1 billion as a result of the trust’s sound management, on which I congratulate it. To provide support and certainty for the trust, a 15-year grant totalling around £740 million was provided when the trust was set up. The grant was inflation-adjusted in the first 10 years and then fixed in the final five years. It is now set at £52.6 million a year until the grant ends in 2027, representing about a quarter of the trust’s annual income. Returns from the investment portfolio provide another quarter of the annual income, which means that the trust now successfully raises half its annual income from other sources.

An important part of the transfer from British Waterways was an agreed objective that the trust would move progressively towards greater financial self-sufficiency and reduced reliance on public funding. With a reported increase of £12 million in total income last year over the previous year, the trust is already making good progress towards that objective.

A review of the current grant funding concluded that the trust was performing well and delivering value for money, and, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed directly to the trust this summer, a further substantial grant funding package of £401 million will be provided by the Government over 10 years from 2027. Given the tough fiscal climate in which all Government spending is being closely scrutinised, and the financial black hole in which we were left by the previous Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, the new funding is a clear sign of the importance that this Government place on our inland waterways.

With all the benefits of canals that I outlined, the Government are supportive of canal restoration generally to bring those benefits to even more people. Bringing canals back into active use contributes to the regeneration of areas that have been in decline. We have seen that in urban settings and in more rural areas, where there has been growth in local economies through increased tourism. However, although we are sympathetic towards the many restoration projects under way around the country, no general Government funding is available for canals. I pay tribute to the local volunteers who come out on a Sunday morning, do the litter picks and help with the restoration, because their commitment and general surveillance of canals is an important part of making them a safe space for everyone. The navigation authorities, local authorities and canal societies, such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, can work well together to preserve the canals for which they are responsible, including through fundraising and on restoration and maintenance work. Successive Governments have encouraged greater local community involvement in their waterways in that way.

I hope I have reassured hon. Members that the Government very much value our inland waterways and the many, varied benefits that this blue and green infrastructure brings to so many people up and down the country. We have demonstrated our commitment to ensuring that this fantastic national asset is able to thrive by providing both the trust and the Environment Agency with substantial funding over the years and into the future with a further significant new 10-year grant funding settlement for the trust.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Fuel Poverty

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policies on tackling fuel poverty.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. A household in fuel poverty is defined as one that commits more than 10% of its income on energy to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. Fuel poverty includes three elements. The first is the household’s income, from which we compute that 10%; the second is the household’s energy requirements, on which the quality of the housing stock and the availability of cheaper tariffs have an influence; and the third is the fuel prices themselves. It is sobering to think that across the United Kingdom as a whole, no fewer than 6 million households are living in fuel poverty. In Scotland in 2022, some 791,000 households were fuel-poor.

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

I have recently received more than 200 emails from pensioners in Glastonbury and Somerton who do not know whether they can afford to turn on the heating this winter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should provide targeted energy discounts for vulnerable households, to reduce the number of people living in fuel poverty?

[Mr Carmichael]

It will be the first surprise of the day for everyone that the answer is yes. I very much agree that we need that—or if not that, something of the sort. Meaningful action that is fit to meet the needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom is long overdue.

While households in fuel poverty are committing more than 10% of their income, households in extreme fuel poverty are committing more than 20% to meet their energy needs and keep their home warm. In Scotland, there were 311,000 such households in 2019. By 2022, the figure had risen to 472,000.

This issue is particularly acute for us in the northern isles. In Orkney and Shetland, 31% of households live in fuel poverty; the Scottish average, which is higher than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is 24%. It is not difficult to see why fuel poverty is particularly acute in the northern isles. Winters are longer, darker and colder than in other parts of the country. We are off the gas grid. Most of our homes are heated using electricity, oil and sometimes liquefied petroleum gas or solid fuel. Yes, an increasing number of people are able to use photovoltaics and ground or air-source heat pumps, but the bulk of our heating still comes from conventional sources.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I recently visited the home of an elderly pensioner in my constituency. I sat in her freezing cold living room with her for more than an hour while I took instructions on a matter. She was wearing two jumpers, a scarf, thick trousers and boots. She was dressed in that way because she was too afraid to put the heating on, as she did not think she would have the money to pay the bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s cruel cut to the winter fuel allowance will have a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of some of our most vulnerable people?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sad to say that I do agree. I have seen the same thing time after time in houses across my constituency. I have seen people sitting with two, three or four layers on and a blanket over their knees. If there is any heating, it might come from a single bar on an electric fire or something of the sort. With the winter fuel payment, we have to understand that there is a generational difference: the people who were getting that payment were in large part brought up in an age when people did not borrow; they lived within their means. Taking away that money puts them more acutely at risk than people of other ages. When we devise policy, we sometimes have to look at the social and psychological impact as much as at the political and the economic. The hon. Member makes a good point.

In communities such as mine we have older, much less energy-efficient housing stock. Some elements of last week’s Budget may mitigate the worst effects. It did not have the comprehensive strategy that I wanted, but in the interests of fairness we should acknowledge that if the increase in the minimum wage leads to increased household incomes, it will have an impact on some people living in fuel poverty. The retention of the state pension triple lock will also provide some mitigation. To that extent, those things are welcome, but in the context of the wider influences on fuel poverty, they will hardly hit the sides. The energy price cap has now been put up to £1,717, which is an increase of £150, and it seems likely that there will be a further increase come January. The situation among the fuel-poor is only likely to get worse, which is where the hon. Member’s point about the winter fuel payment comes in.

It is true that the mechanism of pension credit is there to mitigate the worst effects, as I anticipate the Minister will say, but we have known for 20 years that there are problems with all the tax credit schemes and with the variation in uptake across the board. Again, it is a generational thing. Knowing the community that he comes from, the Minister will know that among older people in parts of the country there is still a real stigma attached to a means test. They will always be less likely to apply for something that they could otherwise have been given by right. For those who live in fuel poverty, it now feels as though anything given with one hand is being taken away with the other.

What can we do? What tools have we at our disposal? We have the warm home discount and the energy company obligation scheme, to which I will turn in a minute, but I first wish to raise a couple of more specific issues that relate to tackling fuel poverty in communities such as mine.

The Minister has already heard me raise the question of an isles tariff; in fact, we met earlier this week to discuss it. Orkney and Shetland has been at the heart of supplying the nation’s energy needs for the past 40 or 50 years, as we have played host to the oil and gas industry. Shetland now has one of the biggest onshore wind farm developments anywhere in the country, but in the shadow of the turbines are some of the greatest and most acute problems with fuel poverty. That is now generating genuine frustration. As we play host to major energy developments—latterly renewables—there is very little or no community benefit for those who host them.

Serious attention now needs to be given to the question of an isles tariff. It does not need to be an isles tariff; it could be something that applies across the highlands and islands and in other areas that are particularly badly affected. I am pretty sure that Ofgem will not be keen—as far as I can see, Ofgem is never keen on anything that will actually make a difference—but if it can accept the principle of differential treatment through a social tariff, which is now the subject of a consultation, a geographical tariff should also be given serious consideration.

Many of my constituents rely on electric storage heating. Access to “total heating with total control” tariffs, which were designed by the former hydro board specifically with communities like mine in the highlands and islands in mind, still provides them with the best and cheapest available source of heating. However, it does not allow them to take advantage of different tariffs when switching or other ways of saving money are available. It requires two meters, one of which has two readings. As smart meters are rolled out, it appears that although they may be smart, they are not smart enough to do something that the old technology did quite easily.

There is then the question of the radio teleswitch, which is the delivery mechanism for many tariffs. It is due to be switched off in 2025, as the last of the BBC analogue signal is decommissioned. We all need to cross our fingers and hope it lasts until 2025, because it could quite easily fall over at any point. When it does, the string and chewing gum that are keeping it going at the moment will simply no longer be enough.

Will the Minister give me an update? Before the election, his predecessor agreed to hold a roundtable. The election intervened, but I am pleased to hear that the roundtable went ahead and that the different players were brought together in the room. It appears to have made some progress, but my constituents would be keen to hear the details.

The Government’s manifesto promised a strategy with a warm homes plan, whereby £13.2 billion would be committed to address fuel poverty. The Budget last week allocated £3.4 billion over three years. That is a sizeable chunk of money, but it is not the £13.2 billion that we were promised. Presumably the remaining £9.8 billion will have to come in years four and five of this Parliament if the Government’s commitment is to be met.

I have two problems with that approach. First, it will leave a lot of people in fuel poverty for another three years while they wait for the money to come. Secondly, if the money comes at all, we will be shovelling it into wheelbarrows to get it out over the two years, a situation that always brings the law of unintended consequences into play, as we have seen time and again with energy efficiency measures, renewable energy development and so on. There is money that must be spent within a target time, but there is neither the existing labour force nor the skills base to deliver the work, so a whole load of fly-by-night companies are set up that come into our communities from outside, do substandard work, go away and eventually go bankrupt while constituents are left to pick up the pieces.

It is obviously for the Treasury to decide how the money will be spent, but looking towards years three, four and five of this Government, can the Minister give me some assurance that there is a view towards a strategy that will use the money that is currently committed, that we will have a clear idea, and that we can start planning now how to use any money that comes in future?

The two existing vehicles for alleviating fuel poverty—the warm home discount, which reduces bills by £150 a year for those who qualify, and the energy company obligation, which assists people with energy efficiency adaptations, renewable energy adaptations and so on—are both means-tested, which takes us back to the question of cliff edges. Most concerningly of all, those measures are due to end in 2026 unless they are renewed by the Government. The Minister will have an easier conversation with the Treasury if he bears it in mind that the funding for the schemes comes not from the Treasury but from the energy companies.

We need to know that there is a plan for the continuation of those schemes or for something that will seek to achieve the same end. It would be good if that plan could come as part of a Green or White Paper outlining a strategy. That is what is lacking at the moment: we have a scheme here, a scheme there, an idea of this and an idea of that, but there is no overarching strategy to ensure the best possible delivery. At the beginning of this debate, I gave the stat that 6 million homes across the whole United Kingdom are living in fuel poverty. That is not something that we should be prepared to live with.

14:46

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate on fuel poverty.

I would like to highlight the impact of poor-quality housing on fuel poverty. I am acutely aware of that in my constituency of Shipley. We have some really poor-quality housing. As is typical for a northern town or city, we have a higher proportion of homes that are non-decent, which means that they do not meet the standards for a warm and dry home. That has knock-on effects for people’s health and wellbeing. As I know from my work, older people are more likely to live in those non-decent homes, which can have significant impacts.

Data from Friends of the Earth, shared with me, shows that in Shipley alone there are 17 energy crisis hotspots. Those are neighbourhoods that have below-average household income but above-average energy bills. We need to use those sorts of data to focus our efforts to tackle fuel poverty, and the excellent work that the Government are doing to invest in home insulation, on those energy hotspots. I am very proud that the Government are looking to invest in new homes, but it is critical that those homes are warm and energy-efficient so that we can reduce the incidence of fuel poverty in future with new social housing. I was pleased to see that the Liverpool city region is working with Octopus Energy and with home manufacturers to create homes that will be guaranteed zero bills for at least 10 years. They could do that at scale because of the new methods of manufacturing. In addition to home insulation, there are some huge opportunities to address fuel poverty as the Government embark on the housing programme.

There are clear links between fuel poverty and pensioner poverty: the two go hand in hand. It is a scandal that between 2010 and 2024, under the watch of the past Conservative Government, the number of pension credit claimants halved from 2.6 million to just 1.35 million. Sadly, over the same period, pensioner poverty rose from 12%, or 1.2 million people, to 16%, which is 2.1 million people. That is a real scandal.

I agree that we should be targeting winter fuel support to the poorest pensioners, but we must also do all we can to ensure that those who are eligible for pension credit, and thereby for a winter fuel payment, are brought on to pension credit. The Department for Work and Pensions estimated that almost 900,000 eligible households were not claiming that benefit. It is fantastic that colleagues in government are working to raise awareness of pension credit among our poorest pensioners and to ensure that support is available.

I pay particular tribute to local organisations in my constituency, such as Age UK Bradford and Citizens Advice Bradford, that support pensioners who experience fuel poverty. I also thank housing associations and Bradford council, which provide both advice and direct support to tackle fuel poverty and to ensure that people have the right advice and benefits. I hope that the Government will continue to make efforts to ensure that the poorest pensioners receive the support available to them.

Obviously not everyone in fuel poverty is a pensioner and not every pensioner is in fuel poverty, so I am glad that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is holding this broader debate on the subject. We must recognise that fuel poverty affects not just older people, but families of all ages.

A lot has been done through the Budget to raise people out of poverty by increasing the national living wage, but we must also target bills. Families who care for someone with a disability or a chronic condition can use much more energy, and therefore have much higher energy bills. For those families, it is really important that, through GB Energy, we invest in clean energy to get bills down.

This debate is really welcome. We must recognise that tackling fuel poverty requires a comprehensive approach that takes housing into account, lifts people out of poverty and gets bills down. I hope the Minister will outline how those actions together will reduce fuel poverty for people of all ages.

14:52

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate at this crucial time as we head into winter.

Last week, I spoke in the debate on NHS winter preparedness. We know that our A&E departments, doctors and other health services are particularly busy in winter. People living in fuel poverty end up contributing to that, because if you are elderly, vulnerable or ill and you cannot afford to turn on your heating, you are more likely to suffer complications, get sick with flu or covid or be admitted to hospital with hypothermia. The NHS spends about £1.4 billion every year to deal with the consequences of people living in cold or damp homes. It is worth noting that this is about the impact not just on an individual’s finances, but on the resources of the health services.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

In Harpenden and Berkhamsted and, I am sure, across the country, local charities and even local district and county authorities are looking at how they can support those who are falling off a cliff edge after the winter fuel payment was scrapped. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact he mentioned is not confined to the NHS? Charities and councils are picking up the slack created by fuel poverty’s not being dealt with properly.

[Dr Chambers]

That is a good point. Citizens Advice Winchester told me that it spends a huge proportion of its time dealing with people who have issues with energy bills, particularly at the moment. A variety of organisations are being drawn into this.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned housing quality. It is worth noting that the UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe: 38% of houses in the UK were built before the 1940s, compared with about 11% in Spain. Those houses were obviously not designed with particularly high energy standards. One thing the Liberal Democrats were calling for during the general election was an emergency home energy upgrade programme for people who are living in poverty, people in social housing and people who cannot afford their bills. Retrofitting insulation is good not only for people who are struggling and the NHS, but for the environment. We urge the Government to double down on retrofitting and improving the quality of our old housing.

Directly linked to that issue are buildings’ energy efficiency standards, which were reduced under the last Government. New builds should be net zero; they should be hugely energy-efficient. There is no excuse for any new house to have occupants who live in fuel poverty, and we should do everything we can to ensure that that does not happen.

I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere, and I represent a large area of the Meon valley, which is very rural. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, many rural villages, farms and houses rely on solid fuel heating—they are not on the gas grid—and have to have electrical storage heaters. That is hugely expensive. Rural areas also have a slightly higher proportion of elderly people. I have had a huge amount of correspondence from people living in rural areas and elderly people who are particularly worried about the coming winter. I heard from someone called Julia, who has osteoarthritis and osteopenia and has to walk with crutches. She is on a waiting list to be transferred to more affordable accommodation. She often has to skip meals to make ends meet and she dreads turning on the heating because of the cost. With poor circulation, she frequently loses feeling in her feet from the cold.

I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Shipley said: not all elderly people rely on the winter fuel allowance to heat their homes—we know that—but because the removal has been brought in so quickly, right before winter, a lot of elderly people were not expecting it and will be plunged into crisis. Julia emailed me with a clear ask for the Minister: if the Government are removing the winter fuel payment, will they consider expanding qualifying benefits to include housing benefit, council tax support, disability benefits and attendance allowance? That would be a lifeline for her and many others who face similar hardship.

14:58

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate, which gives us all an opportunity to participate. To be perfectly honest, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has ever had a debate that I have not come along to: he brings forward issues that I am very interested in, and I thank him for that.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, which I hope will illustrate exactly what the issues are. Others have given theirs, and I am sure that those who follow will back up the theme. Reports on fuel poverty in Northern Ireland certainly make grim reading. Northern Ireland Fuel Poverty Coalition highlights comparative statistics showing that fuel poverty levels throughout the United Kingdom are as follows: 21.5% in Northern Ireland, 10.4% in England—people might be pretty lucky to live in England, but those in fuel poverty would not say that—26.5% in Scotland and 23% in Wales.

We should try to figure out exactly what those stats mean. A recent Northern Ireland Housing Executive report indicates that if the measure is based on 21° heat in living rooms, the figure for Northern Ireland is closer to 30%. In other words, it is the highest in the United Kingdom. It gives me no pleasure whatever to say that, but it gives an idea of where the problems are.

I should have said at the start—I apologise for not doing so—that it is nice to see the Minister in his place. I look forward to his response. I also look forward to the contribution by the shadow Minister, ever my friend.

The fact is that people have got used to dressing for outside when they are living in their house. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland illustrated that incredibly well in his introduction, but that is a fact for those people. The hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is no longer in her place, also gave an illustration, describing a constituent she visited who was wrapped up almost like a teddy bear, with all the clothes that she had on. The fact is that if she had not had those clothes on, that lady would probably have been fairly close to hypothermia.

[Victoria Collins]

We all have those stories, and I am always heartbroken when they come in. One constituent told me:

“I live alone on my pension and will either have to stay in bed all day or keep a coat on and hot water bottle it, if I can afford the electricity to keep boiling the kettle.”

It is a very sad state of affairs, is it not?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady illustrates a point that she rightly says is replicated regularly among all our constituents. This debate today is about them, and that is why we are here. We are here to make a point on behalf of our constituents who are in those predicaments and under other incredible pressures.

From a quick survey I did in my own office, one staff member sets her heating temperature at 21°C, while the rest of the staff would set it at less, as they would just take the chill off by sitting under blankets. Fuel poverty may affect more people than perhaps the Minister, shadow Minister or anyone really understands. That staff member said that she has to do so because she has children, so she has to prioritise heat. That is understandable: if there are children in the house, we would want to keep them warm.

Here are some stats and figures, which are quite stark: the staff member’s gas statement showed that last November she topped it up with £294. She did the same in December and January, and then in February it was down to £245. For her, in that four-month period, the gas cost £1,127. If we add that up over the year, it is almost £3,500 for the energy, just to keep the house warm. Thank the Lord for summer and the heat that it sometimes brings—maybe it is not as much as we wish, but none the less it brings heat and we can have the gas on less.

My example illustrates the problem. My staff member is not in the house from 8.30 am until 5.30 pm, but for those months she is still in fuel poverty. By the way, she is well paid; I say that to make the point that many people find themselves in a predicament on this issue. How much more so for our pensioners, who are not out of the house and warm in their workplace—for the stay-at-home parents, for our disabled, or for all those people who have different pressures? I often think that when we illustrate something with an example, there are so many other examples of people who are in different circumstances but under the same pressures.

We have told people for years to get rid of the fire and get a cleaner heater that uses oil or gas. Now people cannot afford to turn it up, and that is all before we take into account the crushing blow of the removal of the winter fuel allowance, which affects millions in the UK. It particularly affects my constituents in Northern Ireland, who are so reliant on oil as their method of heating.

[Anna Dixon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the solution is building more higher-quality housing for older people? In many of our communities, people are living in unsuitable homes that are cold and damp, but they do not have affordable alternatives to move to within their own communities. Does he agree that part of the solution is providing more high-quality but affordable housing to give older people, such as those he was describing, opportunities to move into much better-insulated homes that are easier to heat?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right. Others have illustrated the issue of house building. We live in older houses: that is a fact. The Government have committed themselves to 1.5 million new homes in this Session, and I wish them well in that, because I want to see that happen. We can only hope that those homes will be energy-efficient. I chair the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group, and one of the things we are pushing for is to ensure that whenever new homes come through, they will be energy-efficient and enable people with disabilities, vulnerable people or elderly people to have that quality of life in their homes. Within that, we must also look at upgrading older homes that do not have all the things rightly asked for by the hon. Lady, which we also try to bring forward.

By way of comparison, the figures in the latest census indicate that 62% of households in Northern Ireland use oil. Every time we have a war, we become incredibly worried, because oil prices will go up and the cost of oil in our central heating will therefore increase. Every time that happens, it affects 62% of households in Northern Ireland. The cost of oil is down a wee bit now, and it is good to have it down, but it is still an incredibly expensive way to heat a home.

Many houses in Northern Ireland depend entirely on oil, whereas the percentage of households in England and Wales was just 4%. Again, that illustrates the pressures that we have in Northern Ireland compared with other places. Oil can be expensive and inconvenient for Northern Irish consumers while also having high associated carbon emissions. Although the use of gas has expanded since 2011 to around 200,000 households, the usage of gas is still firmly behind that of oil, which has led to higher levels of fuel poverty.

Northern Ireland is currently preparing an energy strategy. The Minister is diligent, and he may have had the opportunity for discussions with his compatriots in Northern Ireland. Has that happened and what was the outcome? The energy strategy is due for release in 2025, so the skeletal story of what the energy strategy will be is probably there already, although it has not been released just yet. I quote its aim:

“Alleviating fuel poverty will have a positive impact on both mental and physical health,”—

the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to that earlier—

“especially for more vulnerable populations. In addition, making our homes more sustainable and easier to heat”—

as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said—

“will help fight climate change”.

The issue of climate change cannot be ignored either. It is all part of the strategy that the Government try to bring together, and it will lead to a more just transition. We all have aspirations, my goodness, but along with them we need factual, actual, physical help to make them happen.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to attendance allowance forms. I was on the election trail back in July and knocking on doors, as I do. I am of a certain age now, so I resonated with the pensioners, and I recognise that we can do things to help. During my time on the doors, I managed to get slightly over 80 of those applications filled in. They take an hour and a bit to do, and it took us quite some time to get them cleared up, but it helps those who have had their winter fuel allowance removed. If they are pensioners, have disabilities and are on medication, it is quite possible, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, that they will qualify for that attendance allowance. That is just a thought, but we should have a more positive reaction from Government to address those things and let people know their rights.

The fact is that words on paper have no impact on the pensioner who did not know that they could have saved more of their pension to get their oil this year, but they expected to have help with the winter fuel allowance that they relied on. I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility—it is for the DWP—but I believe there is an onus on Government to introduce that option to as many pensioners as will qualify. The pensioners who I know had no time to prepare and save their pennies, and the outcome will be an uplift in cold-related illness and perhaps even cold-related death.

I will conclude, as I realise that I have gone on a wee bit longer than I thought. I seriously urge Government to do the right thing, even at this stage, and to reinstate this much-needed help for pensioners in the country. We discuss fuel poverty in this place, and yet Government then take help for warmth from them. I do not know about anyone else, but that certainly leaves me a lot colder and a lot poorer in spirit.

15:10

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this very important debate. I am pleased that the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), are present to listen.

My colleagues are exactly right: tackling fuel poverty needs to be a priority for the Government. Progress has stalled under the Conservatives, with no notable decrease in the percentage of households in fuel poverty since 2019. The situation in the country is pretty dire and we need action now. UK homes are among the least energy-efficient in Europe, making fuel poverty worse given the cost of heating. A Resolution Foundation study noted that UK housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy.

I was particularly shocked, like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), to read that British housing is the oldest in Europe, with 38% of homes built before 1946. That is particularly noteworthy given that four years before that date, in 1942, Sir William Beveridge, the Liberal economist, politician and true father of the NHS, published his report uncovering the five great evils that plagued British society. One of the great evils in his report was “squalor”. He was shocked by the condition of housing, with its link to ill health and the discomfort that brought to inhabitants. More than 81 years later, however, he must be rolling in his grave.

We still find ourselves failing to do the basic duty of a welfare state: we are unable to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That has a tangible impact on people’s lives. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said, the NHS spends an estimated £1.4 billion annually on treating illnesses associated with cold and damp housing. When wider societal costs are considered, such as healthcare, that figure rises to £15.4 billion. With that information in mind, I am perplexed about why the Government axed the winter fuel payment and allowed the greater evil of squalor to grow deeper into our communities.

In my constituency of Wokingham, vulnerable pensioners continue to express concerns that they are not being considered by this Government. Age UK’s data shows that the vast majority of older people in poverty, or those just £55 a week above the poverty line, will not be protected from the cuts to the winter fuel payment. We need to ensure that they are protected, especially at a time when energy bills are set to rise yet again this winter.

With 16,577 pensioners in Wokingham expected to be affected, yet again I make clear my complete and total opposition to the cut in the winter fuel payment. That is why I voted against the Government’s decision to scrap it, and why I have suggested in the main Chamber alternative means by which the Government could have paid for reversing the cuts, without any additional burden on the Exchequer. Despite overwhelming opposition from all over the country, however, the Government clearly intend to press ahead with their cuts. I therefore join my Lib Dem colleagues in calling on the Minister to set out how the Government intend to support households to cut their energy bills, and especially how they will ensure that pensioners are protected from fuel poverty.

15:14

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing it.

The two big issues facing rural Scotland, and the highlands in particular, are the care sector and fuel poverty. I am sure hon. Members have not spent too much time worrying about this, but although the mean daily temperature in London is 16°C, it is 9°C on the island of Skye, where God comes from. On Skye we have longer nights, colder weather, windier conditions and older, draughtier houses. In June this year, the daily standing charge for electricity was 61.1p in the north of Scotland and 40.8p in London, so in the north of Scotland we pay 50% more to be connected to our electricity. That is shocking.

[Mr Carmichael]

Standing charges, which vary massively and randomly across the country—from memory, I think the worst area is actually north Wales—are one thing, but just a couple of weeks ago OVO Energy announced that it would start charging its customers £1.50 every time it sends them a paper bill. Is that not just—I say this, Sir Roger, for the purposes of staying on the right side of you—taking the mick?

[Mr MacDonald]

What is absolutely clear is that the electricity companies are not losing money. Their total profits add up to tens of billions of pounds, but the costs are being borne by the poorest people in our society.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore join me in congratulating the Chancellor on increasing the windfall tax on gas and oil companies in recognition of the excess profits they are making? That money is being invested in some of the priorities that we have been talking about, such as home insulation.

[Mr MacDonald]

That is also Liberal Democrat policy, so I am pleased to support that.

Interestingly—I know you will find this interesting, Sir Roger—France, Italy, Ireland and others have an equalisation of standing charges. Ofgem’s reluctance to reform standing charges has been raised many times in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, so we need to get proper answers.

Town gas is by far the most affordable way of heating a house, but 60% of houses in the highlands do not have access to it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland says, kerosene, bottled gas, electricity, wood and coal are very much more expensive, but people in the highlands have no option but to use them.

It is easy for us to have a go at the policy of stopping the winter fuel allowance. I do not understand why the figure was set at £13,000, rather than at the average household income of £34,000. That would have been a huge relief to many of the people who have been most affected, and it would probably have been much more popular for the Government.

In the highlands, incomes are much lower than in the rest of Scotland and Britain as a whole, and we have a much older population. The cost of living is between 15% and 30% higher than in the rest of Scotland, according to the Scottish Affairs Committee in 2021. We have a substantial depopulation problem and the highest cost of living in the UK, to which fuel is a major contributor.

I know the Energy Minister has heard this from me before, but community benefits from renewables are potentially the biggest saving grace from this. My No. 1 call is for fuel vouchers to be given to affected locals, and of course in the highlands we have lots of renewables. That would make a very big difference. The second thing the Minister could do is to get Ofgem to review standing charges. I estimate that if they were equalised, there would be a £75 a year saving at no cost to the Treasury. Thirdly, we should concentrate the winter fuel allowance on the most deserving people, who tend to be the older, the poorer and the more remote.

15:19

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and raising the issue of geography and the urgent need to support people living in extreme weather. That was backed up by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is of course present, as he is for every debate in Westminster Hall, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald).

Those of us who live in the south can be similarly affected, where many of the homes have solid walls and thatched roofs, which are incredibly difficult to insulate or upgrade, although I do accept that it is slightly warmer down south. It is shameful that in a modern society many families are being forced to choose between heating and eating. Food banks hand out not only food parcels, but hot water bottles for people to stay warm. In Dorset, the Help for Warmth scheme, alongside some of the major energy suppliers, is now providing households with air fryers to help them reduce energy costs this winter.

Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of the household support fund and the added flexibility given to allow councils and delivery partners, such as Citizens Advice, to use some of the funding to address the causes of poverty. Although it is welcome, giving households funds simply to pay the bill is putting a sticking plaster over the problem, which is rising energy costs.

For the sake of people’s health and wellbeing, for their financial stability and the future of our planet, we need to move to a position where we reduce demand. As has been mentioned by my colleagues, UK homes are among the worst insulated in Europe. That is why the Liberal Democrats have focused for so long on upgrading the homes that we have and building low-energy homes for the future. It is disappointing that the Government rejected the amendment to the Great British Energy Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), which would have ensured that the new body facilitates a home insulation programme, following on from our general election manifesto commitment for an emergency programme that would provide free retrofits for low-income households, as was flagged by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).

It is also shocking that new homes are still being built without basic low-energy measures. I welcome the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill, a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson)—the sunshine Bill, which we hope will see solar PV installed as standard on new homes. Residents in my constituency have written to me completely bemused that they are expected to welcome vast solar farms on what they see as open farmland, when the rooftops in Wimborne and Merley are not being covered in solar panels. The Government said that they would unleash a solar rooftop revolution; we need to see it happen. Analysis from Solar Together has shown a drop in uptake.

The developers’ claim, made under the previous Government, that such measures would add significant costs to housebuilding is spurious. When I served on the Local Government Association’s environment, economy, housing and transport board, we spent many hours collating the views of councils everywhere. I pay tribute to the former leader of Barking and Dagenham council, who chaired the board. He eloquently made the case that if councils were funded to cover the rooftops of social housing and public buildings with solar PV, we could transform the sector.

The scale of the investment would enable colleges to deliver courses in green skills, and the supply chain would be developed. It would further reduce the cost for homeowners to invest in their properties, so it is not the preserve of the wealthy. The Lib Dems would balance that with policy that would allow homeowners to offset spending on insulation, low-carbon heat sources, EV charging points and climate adaptation measures against income tax bills. We already know some providers of green mortgages are providing beneficial terms for such investments.

Fuel poverty is a trap. Once households are stuck in a place where they are simply feeding the meter to stay warm, they cannot look beyond to plan for the future. We need social tariffs for those who are struggling and we need the Government’s response to the consultation on standing charges to progress more quickly. It is reassuring to know that Ofgem is looking at that, but I ask the Minister to provide an urgent timeline for that.

On social tariffs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire referred, it is worrying that the reliance at the moment is on the warm home discount. I visited the staff at my local Citizens Advice in Wareham, who consider that the warm home discount needs total reform, including a requirement for all energy companies to be included in the programme. It feels rather ironic that our local water company, Wessex Water, offers a social tariff but the energy companies do not.

While talking about supply, I cannot miss the opportunity to remind those present that Liberal Democrats believe that the windfall tax must go further. The super-profits of oil and gas producers and traders should help to fund not just the renewables sector but the upgrade of homes, so that no one need use as much energy to heat their homes.

I could not wind up without referring to the winter fuel allowance, as every Member has done so far. My team tells me that close to 500 residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole have written to me about this. Colette from Poole told me:

“I cannot afford to get cold as I have 3 lung diseases. I will likely die as the NHS is crumbling under the strain and others will be taking up the beds.”

Glynis from Corfe Mullen, like the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), said that she would stay in bed longer. Steven from Wimborne said he would have to hug his dog to keep warm.

I am glad that hon. Members have mentioned the councils’ role in this. Every time I visit a library or community centre, I am told that those places are now being used by people relying on them to stay warm. I have also heard that my bus company is concerned about people riding the bus all day to avoid putting the heating on at home. However, buses are not running in many places because rural areas do not have them, and more and more councils are having to close their libraries. What happens then?

I do not think the risk of fire has been mentioned. The strategic assessment by Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has even listed fuel poverty as a risk. It states that

“there has been a rise in alternative heating methods, increasing the risk of fire in the home.”

In conclusion, Liberal Democrats believe that people in fuel poverty need support now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, they cannot wait three more winters. The most effective way to end fuel poverty is to invest substantially in renewable technologies and give councils and communities the power to develop community energy schemes, including delivering housing efficiency measures street by street. I look forward to a commitment from the Minister to some of those measures.

15:26

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger, and to join so many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for an incredibly important debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it.

It has been great to hear from colleagues. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the removal of the winter fuel allowance and how the push to get more pensioners on to pension credit is incredibly important. However, when the figures suggest that the push for pension credit will actually offset the money being saved by the apparent removal of winter fuel allowance, I wonder whether the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have thought their plans through. The comments by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about the knock-on impact of fuel poverty on the NHS and charities were well made and should have been listened to carefully by all in this room and beyond.

As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a friend, made powerful points about the unique situation facing residents in Northern Ireland, where so many more houses than in Great Britain are off grid and rely on LPG and oil for their heating. Households over there face unique challenges when combating fuel poverty. As he said, the removal of the winter fuel allowance is a crushing blow for pensioners facing a cold winter this year.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) raised insulation. I completely get his point. We need to go further and move faster to insulate more homes. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record on that. We inherited a situation in which only 12% of households had an insulation EPC rating of C or above. When we left office earlier this year, it was up to 41%—a near 30% increase. Could we have gone further? Absolutely. Could we have done more? We absolutely should have. But that was a near 30% increase on the situation in which we found ourselves when we came to office, and that is something about which I am very proud.

[Mr Carmichael]

Is EPC not something else that we could reform? The way in which EPC bandings are rated seems to be utterly random and occasionally quite counter-productive.

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree. I would love to see the Government commit to a review of EPC ratings and how homes are judged. Maybe the Minister will speak to that if there are any plans coming through the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, or indeed any other Departments that would be responsible for that as well.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald)—it is taking time to get used to that constituency name—raised some very interesting points and concerns that I share, as I represent a vast rural constituency myself. However, he is entirely wrong: God, of course, comes from Aberdeenshire, not the Isle of Skye, although Skye probably comes a close second.

I wonder what the constituents of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as companies reliant on the oil and gas sector, think of the Liberal Democrats’ support for the extension of the energy profits levy—something also raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). As we will be voting on the Budget resolutions in a few hours’ time, they may go away and reconsider their support for those Government measures. The Conservatives will certainly be voting against any extension.

Keeping homes warm this winter will be at the forefront of people’s mind in many households across the United Kingdom. We can feel the temperature falling outside as we speak. As a consequence of various pressures such as Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing instability in the middle east, the cost of heating homes has risen and has hit many families hard.

Myriad factors contribute to fuel poverty, including energy efficiency, income, housing costs and energy prices. That is why the Conservative Government took steps to support families to keep their homes warm. Through the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee, we supported households the length and breadth of the UK at the height of the energy crisis. The steps we took amounted to approximately £1,500 for a typical household, covering about half the energy bill of every home in Britain. The warm home discount scheme meant support for 3 million households at risk of fuel poverty: that was 3 million families who could afford to keep warm and keep more of their money in their pocket. We stepped up support for our pensioners, delivering up to £600 in winter fuel payments and pensioner cost of living payments to 11.8 million pensioners. Some 1.1 million cold weather payments, worth £29.6 million, were paid out last winter alone. Those were all steps to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society in the cold weather.

[Anna Dixon]

Despite all the measures that the shadow Minister says the previous Government took, The Lancet and the Institute of Health Equity have estimated that 102 excess winter deaths in the Shipley constituency alone were due to cold homes. It seems to me that those are shocking figures and that nothing the last Government did actually reduced fuel poverty or deaths from cold homes.

[Andrew Bowie]

One death from fuel poverty or from living in a cold home is one too many, let alone the number that the hon. Member gave for her constituency. We must all look at what more we can do to ensure that homes are better insulated and that pensioners and other vulnerable people in society can keep their homes warm through the winter, but I am proud that over the energy crisis last year the Government stepped up and paid half the energy bill of everybody in this country. That was important, as were the other measures we brought forward to support so many people in this country. Could we do more? One person living in fuel poverty is one too many, but it is important that we recognise that the previous Government took steps to ensure that fuel poverty was addressed and that people could keep warm last winter.

I have no doubt that Members on both sides of the House will have heard from elderly constituents and their families how worried they are that the winter fuel payment is being taken away. For pensioners in my constituency and in other vast rural northern constituencies represented in the Chamber today, it is particularly alarming. They understand what it is to live in parts of rural Britain during winter. As I have mentioned before on the Floor of the House, Braemar in my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine holds the coldest UK temperature record of minus 27°C; I believe it shares that record with Altnaharra in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

It is in such rural communities, which face the coldest temperatures more frequently, that support is so needed. That is why it is so regrettable that the new Government made the political decision not only to take critical funding away from those vulnerable pensioners, but to do so at the same time that they found an extra £11 billion from somewhere to hand out inflation-busting pay rises to public sector workers. That is a political decision that Age UK has said

“will leave millions of struggling pensioners without money they rely on”.

Without the lifeline that they so badly need, many pensioners will be left in serious trouble.

In February this year, it was estimated that fuel poverty would fall over 2024. In choosing this path, the Labour Government risk reversing that, pushing more vulnerable households into choosing between heating and eating. I never thought that I would see a Labour Government take such a decision. Prior to the debate, I had a look over the Labour manifesto—something that Government Ministers must have failed to do, seeing as they keep breaking the promises in it. Interestingly, there is a quote in that manifesto from a pensioner called Gary, who talks about the challenges of keeping on top of his energy bills and how apparently only Labour has a plan to help him. I wonder how Gary feels now, knowing that this Labour Government have taken away the support that pensioners like him are reliant on. Gary also talks about GB Energy. We heard a lot from the Labour party about how GB Energy would reduce bills by £300; we do not hear much talk about that any more.

Politics aside, all of us in this debate and in this building—across all parties and all parts of this United Kingdom, which are represented quite well in this room—want to see fuel poverty eradicated. I have visited the wind farm on Shetland that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned. I, too, represent a rural constituency that also hosts a number of wind farms and associated energy infrastructure and that has too much fuel poverty, both because it is incredibly rural and because many people rely on oil and LPG to heat their homes, so they are far more exposed to wildly fluctuating prices. I do understand the challenges and I do understand why we must get a grip on this.

Six million people living in fuel poverty is far too many. One person living in fuel poverty is too many. Politics aside, despite what I have said in leading up to this, I assure the Minister, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and all hon. Members that His Majesty’s Opposition will work as constructively as we can to find solutions and find a way forward to tackle fuel poverty in this country and ensure that nobody has to choose between heating and eating.

15:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in the debate. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for his commitment on this issue in debates over many years. I know that it is a considerable issue in his constituency, where I think 31% of households are in fuel poverty, and he is right to raise it in this House. I always appreciate conversations with him, including our recent conversations on many of the topics that have been raised today.

I agree on the importance of this debate on tackling fuel poverty, although I should say at the outset that fuel poverty is devolved across the UK. Certain things that I will speak about relate to the UK Government’s responsibility for fuel poverty, which focuses on England. In the Budget last week, a considerable amount was assigned to the devolved Administrations, including one of the biggest devolved settlements for the Scottish Government in many years. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will raise these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to get much-needed funding to projects in Scotland as well.

On devolution, it is also important to say that we measure fuel poverty in very different ways across the country, with different metrics and targets for how we identify it. In Scotland, the metric for fuel poverty is the same as that used in England to measure energy affordability. It includes deeming a household fuel-poor if it has to spend a certain proportion of its income after housing costs on energy, which is a slightly different figure from the one used in Scotland.

Nevertheless, much of what we have heard today is true across all parts of the UK. Many hon. Members made the point that the choice between heating their home and feeding their family or paying other bills is a stark one for any family. In a country as wealthy as ours, that should not be a choice that families have to make.

I welcome the point made by the shadow Minister and others that we can all work together to move forward on the issue. However, we need to take more action than has been taken in the past 14 years. That is why our manifesto committed to slashing fuel poverty and delivering our warm homes plan. We have already taken the first steps in delivering that. In the Budget last week, the Chancellor committed £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes, helping over 225,000 households to reduce their energy bills by over £200. We have announced that we will consult this year on increasing the minimum energy standards in the domestic private rented sector: 35% of all those in fuel poverty in England are in the private rented sector, so it is vital that we provide as much support as we can.

I will pick up on several points raised during the debate, but the critical point was about trying to bring all the different policies together into a cohesive fuel poverty strategy. That is indeed what the Government have committed to publishing in due course, to ensure not only that we have a clear focus on tackling fuel poverty but that the whole Government are aligned on delivery. That is the approach that the new Government have taken on a range of issues; in my Department that includes clean power by 2030. We making sure that all Ministers, wherever they are—in whichever Department and with whichever responsibility—come together to make the situation better.

I want to provide a little bit of context. I repeat that much of fuel poverty policy is devolved. In 2023, an estimated 13% of households—just over 3 million—were in fuel poverty in England, under the metric that is used here. That remains effectively unchanged since 2022. The Committee on Fuel Poverty, which advises on the effectiveness of policies and scrutinises them in England, stated that progress towards tackling fuel poverty has effectively stalled. In England, the target is to ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as possible achieve the minimum energy efficiency rating of band C by 2030, but 46% of all low-income households in England were still living in a property with a fuel poverty efficiency rating of band D or lower. That shows the sheer amount of work we have to do on the issue.

We are therefore working on a number of policies. In reflecting on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), I accept that there is an urgency to moving forward on all these issues. We have inherited quite a lot of issues that require urgent action. I ask for just a little patience, but I absolutely recognise the point that for someone living in fuel poverty, the impending winter is a crisis. The Government are therefore moving as quickly as possible on the issue.

The warm homes plan, which we announced in our manifesto and on which we are moving forward, is about transforming homes right across the country by making them cheaper and making energy clean to run, rolling out upgrades from new insulation to solar and heat pumps. We will partner with local and combined authorities, and the devolved Governments where possible, to roll out the plan. That was in the Budget speech last week, in which an initial £3.4 billion was announced towards heat decarbonisation and household energy efficiency over the next three years. That includes £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes, which, as I said, will help more than 225,000 homes.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised several points. He rightly notes that the radio teleswitch service situation will be a worry to many people, particularly in rural communities. As he said, a roundtable was held, which was important and brought together the key stakeholders. Ofgem has updated its action plan to make sure that we are pushing forward and in particular that we are putting pressure on the energy companies responsible for delivery, to make sure that the upgrades are made and that targets are in place, including some key milestones that they must meet early next year.

Several hon. Members mentioned community benefits. This is a debate that we have had in this Chamber and across the House before. It is extremely important that if communities are hosting energy infrastructure such as the Viking wind farm in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which I visited not long ago, there should be some benefit. We certainly do not want the communities that host vital energy infrastructure to be those that are most likely to be in fuel poverty. We are therefore doing a lot of work, building on the previous Government’s consultations, on what community benefits might look like. We want to make sure that communities and individuals get a genuine benefit, because some community benefits do not currently deliver quite the change that we would like.

[Mr MacDonald]

Will the Minister allow humble servants such as myself to get involved in that? I have spent several years working with the Highland council and others on community benefits, and I would appreciate a meeting.

[Michael Shanks]

I am always willing to take help from any Member. If the hon. Gentleman can take some of this work off my plate, I will be very happy to work with him. Of course, we will first have to work out the answer to the question of where God comes from, but if we can settle on the fact that it is self-evidently Rutherglen in the central belt, I will be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman. That spoils the joke I was going to make about his comparison of temperatures, which is that seeing him wear a very woolly jumper this morning in London made me wonder what he wears in Skye, but that is for another debate.

Genuinely, though, we want to have an open and collaborative approach, and we want to make this work. The consultation that the previous Government carried out and the feedback we have from a number of partners show that there are really good examples of community benefits working well, along with a lot of examples where they are not working well. If we could build on that approach together, I would very much appreciate it.

While we are discussing the hon. Gentleman, he made a very good point about remembering the different types of fuel that households use, and the real issue for off-grid homes—particularly in the north of Scotland, but right across the UK. Again, fuel poverty is devolved, so some of those questions are for the Scottish Government to answer—I know that the questions will be put to them—but we are aware that in England, for which the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible, 12% of rural households are in fuel poverty, and those are the ones with the largest fuel poverty gap. Tackling those particular challenges in the rural context is therefore really important.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

Ah! I was just going to refer to the hon. Member.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very much listening to the Minister, who was perhaps about to tell us what will happen in Northern Ireland, where 62% of households are dependent on oil. In comparison, the proportion for England—I say this gracefully, Sir Roger—is only 4%. The greater emphasis on Northern Ireland will therefore fall upon us. The Minister says that this is a devolved matter and that money has been set aside by Labour to help, but the differential is massive and cannot be ignored.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman, as always, makes a very good point, although I noticed that he called the shadow Minister his friend but not me. But, over time, I think we will build on that and—

[Andrew Bowie]

Aspire to that.

[Michael Shanks]

I aspire to that—quite. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a number of important points, and I have to confess that I was not aware of the statistic that he cited. That puts the difference into stark contrast, so I absolutely take the point.

The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about engaging with the Northern Irish Executive. I have met both Ministers with responsibility for different parts of the energy policy—most recently, in fact, in the inter-ministerial working group across all the devolved nations. One of the key topics that we discussed was decarbonisation, particularly of such households, so we absolutely are taking that issue forward.

I am conscious of time, Sir Roger, so I will just pick up on a couple of other points that hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) tempted me to be drawn into Beveridge’s “five giants”. Actually, I think that is an important statement about where this Government have come in, because it feels to me like want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness are yet again the five giants that we have to tackle as a country, and we are tackling them all as quickly as we can. I take his point, but it brings into stark contrast the fact that we have come in with some really tough decisions to make. There are pressing needs in the NHS, the education system, housing and energy, and we are doing what we can to improve all those. The Budget last week was about fixing the foundations and investing in our public services again. We can undoubtedly do more, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can.

I want to touch on consumer protection, which a number of Members have raised, and the point of the regulator. The ministerial team in the Department have had a number of meetings with Ofgem over a variety of issues, but there is no doubt—Ofgem shares this view—that suppliers could do much more to protect customers and provide them with a better quality of service. We are therefore looking at how we strengthen the regulator—a consultation is under way—so that it can hold companies to account for wrongdoing, require higher performance standards and ensure that there are much better levels of compensation when providers fail.

Last year, Ofgem introduced much more stringent rules around the involuntary installation of prepayment meters, an issue that I raised in one of my first questions after I was elected to Parliament. That was a shocking situation, but much more stringent requirements are now in place. We continue to monitor the situation to see whether much more is required.

I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. There is agreement across all parties that this issue is extremely important. Progress has stalled in recent years, and we now need to make significant advances. The Government are committed to slashing fuel poverty. We will do that through the fuel poverty strategy for England, and also, we will look across the whole of the UK at what we can do with our energy system to reduce bills and provide more secure energy for everyone, and to improve home standards. We will do that by protecting low-income and vulnerable consumers and by trying to raise households out of poverty across the board. Our strategy on child poverty, the raising of the minimum wage and other factors combine to support households struggling in fuel poverty.

We will no doubt return to this topic again. We do not pretend to have all the answers, so we are open to any ideas from hon. Members right across the House. Together, we can tackle this issue, but it needs concerted effort and investment, and this Government have started that.

15:50

[Mr Carmichael]

This has been an exceptionally good debate, and I have been encouraged by the degree of consensus. We have to approach a subject such as this with humility and recognise that nobody has ever found the answer to these fairly intractable problems.

I did not anticipate that the main point of contention would be where God came from. Of course, as the theologians tell us, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, so all those who have claimed that He is from their constituency are able to do so quite accurately. A point that I think is beyond any debate is that He is happiest, if not necessarily warmest, when he is in Orkney and Shetland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policies on tackling fuel poverty.

Energy Rebates: Highlands and Islands

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

15:52

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of energy rebates for the Highlands and Islands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am here to address a matter of critical importance to my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and indeed to residents across the highlands and islands: the vital need for a highland energy rebate. I first pay tribute to my predecessor, Drew Hendry, who played a leading role in the campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), who has been involved in the campaign since its inception.

Our region’s unique energy challenges would be met by a highland energy rebate—a solution that is as equitable as it is necessary. First, let us acknowledge the glaring inequity and downright discrimination in our energy landscape. The highlands and islands contribute disproportionately to the UK’s renewable energy supply, yet we bear the highest energy costs. That is particularly unjust considering that our region generates about 5.5% of the UK’s total renewable energy, while our population constitutes only 0.4% of the UK total. Despite the fact that we power homes across the UK, our residents face some of the highest fuel poverty rates in the UK.

That regional discrimination has been compounded by the removal of the winter fuel payment from so many vulnerable people in some of the coldest parts of the UK, in communities such as Aviemore, Kingussie, Newtonmore, Grantown-on-Spey and Tomintoul in the Cairngorms in my constituency, and many others across the entirety of the highlands and islands and Moray. For decades, these communities have paid far more than most for the basic human need to stay warm. People living in the north of Scotland quite literally have energy generated within sight of their homes, but it is transmitted hundreds of miles away so that other consumers can pay significantly less to heat their homes.

This situation is simply a legacy of long-standing structural failures in the energy regulation system, and a lack of action by successive UK Governments and the regulator, Ofgem. In a previous debate, the Minister mentioned giving Ofgem more teeth to deal with energy suppliers, but who deals with Ofgem’s failings? We need to tackle that. As a result of the situation, our residents, especially those not connected to the gas grid—representing the vast majority—rely almost exclusively on electricity for heating. That electricity comes with elevated standing charges and higher unit rates compared with the rest of the UK.

What are the consequences? The impact on the quality of life and economic wellbeing of our communities is severe. Recent data from the Highlands and Islands housing associations’ affordable warmth group reveals that households in our region pay about 40% more than the UK average for energy. To highlight the disparity further, daily standing charges for electricity in northern Scotland stand at 61.98p, compared with 41.59p in London. That, coupled with higher per-unit rates, translates to energy bills that burden our residents and, for many, make basic heating a struggle to afford.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I recall the two Members to whom he referred, including a former colleague, and their campaigns. In the previous debate, I also referred to the 26.5% of people in fuel poverty in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman see a methodology to get help with an energy rebate based on temperature, or would he base it on the cost, where it is higher for fuel, in the circumstances that he is referring to?

[Graham Leadbitter]

The basic issue relates to the regional inequity, which has to do with the regulation of the system and of how distribution charges are applied and basic unit prices charged. Those are generally much higher. It is more than just the temperature issue; it is about the whole structure of the energy system.

Fuel poverty rates in our region are stark: 39.8% of households in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, 32.9% in the highlands and 31.6% in Moray experience fuel poverty. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar alone, 24.3% of households face extreme fuel poverty, a rate that is unmatched across the UK.

The highland energy rebate would represent a fair solution. It would be an actionable, just and necessary response to the challenges. The rebate would provide essential financial relief to those burdened by the high cost of energy. Such a measure would help to alleviate the financial pressure on families and individuals who already endure the highest levels of fuel poverty in the UK. Beyond the immediate household impact, a rebate would boost the local economy and reinforce the economic stability of the highlands and islands. By lessening the financial burden of energy costs, we can empower residents, enabling greater participation in our communities and stimulating local economic activity.

What can we learn from the existing frameworks? Critics may argue that implementing such a rebate is complex or costly, but let me be blunt: people who live in fuel poverty and face the choice of heating or eating on a day-to-day basis have a day-to-day existence that is also complex and costly.

Similar rebate frameworks exist not only in various countries across Europe—Norway and Denmark, for example—but here in the UK. The hydro benefit replacement scheme was well intentioned, but it fell short of supporting our vulnerable consumers adequately. In 2022, a brief review noted that the scheme

“does not…provide an efficient or effective way of”

supporting

“vulnerable consumers”.

Given the additional £49 million paid by highlands and islands energy consumers over the past three years, our communities cannot afford continued shortfalls in targeted support. We deserve a scheme that is equitable, modern and regionally tailored. The recently proposed household energy rebate of £10,000 over 10 years for those living near new energy infrastructure underlines the precedent for providing regional support. A highland energy rebate would take us a step further, applying it to areas where renewable energy infrastructure already exists, and supporting the nation.

In conclusion, this is a matter of fairness, equity and regional support. The highlands and islands play a pivotal role in the UK’s clean energy production, yet we bear the highest costs. The highland energy rebate would be an acknowledgment of the contributions of our communities and would ensure a share in the benefits of the energy they help create. I urge everyone here today to support this campaign for a fairer energy system and for economic justice for the highlands and islands, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide an assurance that the new Government will take this matter seriously and act quickly to address the inequalities in our energy system and lift people out of fuel poverty.

16:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for securing this incredibly important debate. He has the pleasure of representing one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland, to which I enjoy going on holiday often. It is great to be discussing this long-standing issue for the highlands and islands of Scotland, which, as he mentioned, was also raised by former Members.

The context of this discussion is important. Energy bills are too high for too many people right across the country, not just in the highlands and islands. This Government have made it clear from the outset that we want to put in place an energy system that delivers lower bills permanently; removes the price spikes that all our constituents, including those in the highlands and islands, have faced over the past few years; and speeds up the transition to home-grown clean energy.

The hon. Gentleman made the point, as have others, that the north of Scotland plays an important role in delivering clean energy at the moment. That brings us back to a conversation that we have had in this place a number of times—indeed, in the previous debate, I recruited the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) to help me with it—on community benefits. We need to do much more for the communities that host this nationally important energy infrastructure and the network infrastructure that goes with it to get power across the country. They should feel benefits from that in their bills and their local communities, and we are looking at that.

The creation of Great British Energy, the first publicly owned energy company in this country for 70 years, is about harnessing clean energy and investing in communities, and of course it will be headquartered in Scotland. I know that the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey and his SNP colleagues did not support the Great British Energy Bill, but I hope that in time they will see the benefit of Great British Energy delivering a greater quantity of cheaper energy right across the UK, which will bring down bills for everyone, wherever they are.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about locational pricing. If we were to design an energy system from scratch, we would not design the system we have at the moment, which is the legacy of electricity infrastructure being built in different places, at different times and in different ways across this country for a century. Our ambition is to deliver a lower-cost, renewables-based energy system, so we are considering what reforms to the energy market will look like to enable electricity prices to better reflect local conditions. That could have a significant impact on communities like the one the hon. Gentleman represents, recognising that there should be some relationship between where energy is generated and the price people pay for it.

There are potential reforms on the table. The previous Government started the consultation and we have picked it up. Many hon. Members will be aware of the options. They include the possibility of zonal pricing, but it is important that we balance such options with potential capital investment impacts, so there is detailed work going on before we reach any decisions. Reform of the electricity market does not have to be defined simply by locational pricing; we will look at a number of other reforms to the national pricing model, and we continue to work closely with the regulator, Ofgem, and the new publicly owned National Energy System Operator to look at how they might work.

The hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission and distribution costs comes up in debates inside and outside this place. It is important to recognise the difference between the two. Electricity network charges are paid for connecting to, and using, the electricity network. They are paid by consumers across the country, both industrial and domestic, through the standing charge on their energy bill. Transmission charges are based on the costs that users impose on transmission by connecting in different locations, which means that there are higher charges for those areas that require energy to be transmitted a long distance. However, as we have discussed, transmission costs are generally lower in the highlands and islands than in other parts of Great Britain because Scotland is a net exporter of energy.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the difficulty comes with the distribution cost, which is the cost of supplying households in each area with electricity. It is based on the complexities of how we get electricity to individual households, so places like the highlands and islands face higher distribution costs, for obvious reasons: the mountainous terrain, sparse population, distance between houses and poor weather conditions all contribute to those costs being some of the highest in the UK.

[Graham Leadbitter]

On the point about transmission charges versus distribution charges, transmission is, in effect, distribution to the rest of the UK. Energy is transmitted for people to purchase at the other end. It does not cost any less to do that—in fact, it costs more. Purchasing energy hundreds of miles away from where it is created, but paying less to receive it, seems completely inequitable.

[Michael Shanks]

I think that would be true if transmission charges were higher in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, but that is not the case. Distribution charges might be lower in certain parts of the rest of the UK, but the transmission charges are higher, taking into account exactly that point.

We would like to get the grid into a place where we have much more generation capacity being built next to population centres, as well as the investment in the highlands and islands and the North and Celtic seas, but there is no doubt that the grid we will need to build in the future will be very different from the one where we built a gas or coal power station next to a city. We do have to wrestle with these questions of how we get power to the right place.

We also have to take into account how to build in capacity for when renewables are not generating. Parts of Scotland may well generate more electricity than they can use, but not always—not 24/7, 365 days of the year—so the whole grid has to be part of the answer. As the hon. Member referred to, one solution is the hydro benefit replacement scheme. It provides annual assistance of about £112 million to reduce distribution costs for domestic and non-domestic customers in the region, which works out at around a £60 annual reduction in household bills.

Many hon. Members have raised the really important point of standing charges, which are considerably higher in the highlands and islands than in many other places. The setting of standing charges is a commercial matter—they are not fixed by Government—and is regulated by Ofgem. However, the Government have taken the view, as we made clear during the election and in subsequent weeks, that the burden of standing charges on energy bills is far too high. We have had a number of conversations with Ofgem and others about that, including on the amount of variance between standing charges across the UK.

We are committed to lowering standing charges overall, and we have been working constructively with Ofgem on that. In August, Ofgem published a discussion paper addressing many of the issues on standing charges. It sets out the options for how we can reduce them, including moving some supplier operational costs off the standing charge and on to the unit rate, which would rebalance some of the issues raised by the hon. Member; increasing the variety of tariffs available to consumers in the market; and, in the longer term, reviewing how system costs are allocated. That will affect consumers in many ways, but in the meantime we want to work with Ofgem on any practical steps we can take to reduce standing charges as much as possible.

Before this debate, we had a debate on the wider questions around fuel poverty. I will not go over many of those points again, but I will just make the point that many aspects of fuel poverty are devolved to the Scottish Government, which in the autumn Budget last year received the biggest settlement since devolution. We have also announced £1 billion through the warm home discount, which provides an annual £150 rebate off bills for low-income households. That has a Barnett impact and there is therefore money for the Scottish Government to invest if they wish to do so.

The household support fund is an England-only scheme to provide support for those most in need. Of course, it is for the devolved Governments to decide how they want to allocate the additional funding, and the Scottish Government have not implemented a like-for-like scheme, but they do have a wide range of support for households in response to the cost of living crisis.

As I said, we had a very good debate just before this one on fuel poverty. The Government are committed to tackling it. Policy in this area is devolved in Scotland, but this is one of many questions about how we bring down costs for all consumers right across the UK. In our plan for clean power by 2030, we commit to delivering what will be cheaper energy—that was confirmed by the NESO this week. It will require a huge amount of effort, but as part of that we are committed to looking at the review of energy market arrangements as well.

This is a complex issue with a number of layers to it. I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey for raising it again. The challenge of how we lower bills for all is part of the energy trilemma that we are facing around how we demonstrate climate leadership, improve our energy security and lower bills in the long term. It is one that we are tackling head on, and we are determined as a Government to ensure that we do what we can to lower bills for all households across the country—in the highlands and islands, and right across the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

16:11

Sitting suspended.

Furniture Poverty

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

This is a one-hour debate. Four Members, in addition to the Member in charge, have already indicated that they wish to speak. We are pushing the clock a bit, so anybody who has not already so indicated is unlikely to get called, although that depends on how long Members speak for. Members may wish to consider intervening rather than trying to make a speech.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered furniture poverty.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am delighted that many colleagues have come to this debate, as furniture poverty often flies under the radar. Other colleagues have been campaigning on it for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) asked a question about it recently, and I noted a written question about it from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Soon, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) is hosting an event in Parliament on the subject, and I encourage colleagues to attend.

Furniture poverty is the lack of essential furniture items to make a house a home. That typically means a bed, a mattress and bedding; a table and chairs; a sofa; a wardrobe or chest of drawers; carpets or other flooring; curtains or blinds; a washing machine; a fridge and freezer; and a cooker or oven. In no way is it about want. It is about need—the furniture needed to attain a socially acceptable standard of living. Without all those items, it is difficult to achieve that. For example, living without a proper bed leads to poor sleep and difficulty focusing at work for adults and at school for children.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In my constituency it is estimated that around 1,500 children do not have a bed to sleep in at night. Given the monumental impact on their education and mental health, does my hon. Friend think that there is a special case that needs to be addressed, particularly to support children in my constituency and others?

[Sam Carling]

My hon. Friend makes his point well. Lots of children are affected in a number of constituencies around the country. I have some statistics on that later in my speech, and I am grateful to him for highlighting the situation.

Living without a cooker means more ready meals and takeaway food, which is less nutritious and more expensive. No cooker means an average of £2,100 extra for a family of four per year on their food bill. No fridge or freezer tacks on another £1,300 to that food bill, due to an inability to buy in bulk or store food safely for future use. To avoid damp or dirty clothes without a washing machine, going to a launderette—of which there are few—adds just over £1,000 to the household bill. Those figures are from April 2023; increases in inflation and to energy bills since then mean that costs are likely to be higher now.

This is a poverty premium. Furniture items are a huge initial expense, and many low-income households simply do not have the money to shell out for them. However, their absence is far more expensive over time.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, although I am sure he agrees that as the sixth richest economy in the world, we should not be having it. End Furniture Poverty has worked with local authorities in Liverpool to ensure that at least 10% of registered social landlords’ properties are furnished. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that that is not good enough. Will he join me in calling on local authorities to find more resources to ensure that we do not have people living in furniture poverty?

[Sam Carling]

I am going to mention End Furniture Poverty later in my speech. It is an excellent organisation that is doing good work, particularly with Liverpool city council in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She makes her point well.

Furniture poverty has a huge impact on both physical and mental health. According to a National Centre for Social Research survey of people experiencing furniture poverty, six in 10 reported that it caused them physical pain, while nine in 10 felt stressed or anxious living without essential items and, crucially, worried that they would not be able to replace items should they break. The anxiety is constant. Seven in 10 reported feeling ashamed or embarrassed by their own home, reflecting a social stigma around furniture poverty that leads those suffering to invite family and friends around less, increasing isolation.

Upsettingly, seven in 10 people surveyed who also had long-term conditions or disabilities said that living in furniture poverty made their condition worse. For those coming from homelessness, it is especially difficult. In my region of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, I know of a resident who was finally offered a flat, after living in her car for months. Although that was a relief, not having anywhere to sleep in the unfurnished flat significantly undercut the benefits, as did the lack of other essential items.

As many as 9% of UK adults are missing at least one essential item, and more than 1 million are living in deep furniture poverty, which is defined as missing three or more essential items, while 1.2 million children are in furniture poverty. This issue also disproportionately affects those from minority ethnic backgrounds, with 16% missing essential items, compared with 7% of white British people.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. There are two wards in my constituency where child poverty is at 63%. That cannot be allowed to continue. In the past 10 years, from 2014 to 2024, it has increased considerably. We need to take action and ensure that that increase declines. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do that.

[Sam Carling]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. He cites the specific statistics in his constituency; I am sure we will hear more in the Minister’s response about the Government’s plans to address that situation.

Starkly, if someone has a disability, they are three times more likely to be in furniture poverty than non-disabled people. The issue is at its worst in the social rented sector. Only 2% of social properties come with any furniture at all, meaning that most people move into an empty box, not a home. That means that more than a quarter of social tenants are in furniture poverty.

Landlords also often throw away any furniture that is left when tenants move. That extends, most absurdly, to flooring. Nearly 760,000 adults in the social rented sector are living without flooring. That means walking around on cement, wood with nails sticking out, or dirty underlay. That is often because it is ripped up by landlords when previous tenants leave, supposedly because the floor might be dirty. In most cases, perfectly good flooring is removed just because it is the quickest and easiest thing to do. That means that tenants have to put in flooring themselves. Data from May this year show that 83% of residents self-funded floor coverings, with only 1% receiving support from their landlord.

Very few charities or local welfare schemes cover flooring, meaning that many just have to make do with nothing. Beyond being a hazard, a lack of carpet or adequate flooring makes a property far colder in winter, increasing heating costs. The Welsh Government recently took the extremely welcome step of requiring social rented homes to provide flooring from the point of let, regardless of whether properties are considered furnished or not. I strongly encourage the Government to follow the lead of our Welsh colleagues by bringing in a similar measure, as we review our own decent homes standard.

In the private rented sector, things are better, with 29% of properties let as furnished, which provides tenants with choice. However, there is ambiguity over that figure. It could include serviced flats for those with higher incomes. There is also no legal definition of a furnished property, meaning that what counts as furnished can vary from landlord to landlord and property to property. Some properties are advertised as furnished, only for tenants to arrive and find they do not have a mattress, cooker, fridge or another essential furniture item.

I have personal experience of that. When I moved into a new flat in August, I arrived to find there was no mattress to sleep on. I had to order one myself at short notice, but I am lucky to have been able to do that. So many people are not able to deal with significant unexpected expenses like that. I firmly believe that we need to define formally what “furnished” means, to empower tenants to challenge landlords who misleadingly advertise properties as furnished.

We have unfair trading regulations that should protect tenants but, when landlords are able to define “furnished” however they please, and with many not providing inventories of properties until a lease agreement has been signed and a tenant has been locked in, tenants cannot use those regulations effectively to challenge misleading practices. Other countries already have a legal definition—France, for example—so it would not be an unusual step. There are ample opportunities for us to do it, either through the decent homes standard, as we review it, or in secondary legislation arising from the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Other problems in the sector can exacerbate furniture poverty, with the sheer levels of rent people pay in the private sector being a major one. Private renters spend on average more than the recommended maximum of 30% of their wages on rent, which can make it difficult to buy or replace costly items. It is also possible that replacement furniture items are required more often in the private sector, due to mould and damp, given that a higher proportion of homes in the sector do not meet the decent homes standard compared with other forms of tenure. I welcome the fact that the Government have already taken steps to address that situation in the Renters’ Rights Bill.

I want to highlight some of the work done by charities and local authorities. End Furniture Poverty, a charity based in Liverpool, is the leader on research in this area and I have drawn on its useful statistics throughout my speech today. End Furniture Poverty has worked with councils up and down the country, including Liverpool city council; in Liverpool more than 50% of social landlords have pledged to start a scheme to tackle furniture poverty. It has also worked with Cambridgeshire county council. Next week at its parliamentary event, I look forward to the presentation of End Furniture Poverty’s work and to hearing how that will affect my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire.

However, although charities do good work, they cannot do it all and they have been impacted by the difficulties in local government finances under the last Government.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure the hon. Member will join me in celebrating Second Chance Chichester, which in my constituency is working with an organisation of crafters to restore furniture, in order to make sure that local families have access to the essential furniture they need. However, because of pressures in local government, it is becoming increasingly hard to get grants for the charitable work that it does. Does he agree that the local government settlement cannot come soon enough?

[Sam Carling]

I have been a councillor myself for a number of years, so I am very much aware of the difficulty that local government is facing and I agree that we need to see improvements in that regard. The situation is extremely difficult for the Government, of course, given the horrendous inheritance that we have had from the previous Government on this issue and on the broader economy in general. However, I certainly look ahead, especially to the multi-year settlements that the new Government have pledged to bring forward, which will be incredibly useful for councils.

In February, three in 10 charities that work with local authorities said that they expected their funding to fall, but even charities that derive no income from local government felt that challenges in local finances would affect them, with 33% of them saying that there would be a knock-on effect for their organisation.

What can be done about furniture poverty? There is a case for some work to be done on local welfare assistance. These schemes are an ideal source of support for people who require one or two essential furniture items. They also provide vital assistance for food and fuel, and many of them offer a wide range of other support. However, budgets for local welfare assistance have dwindled over the past decade, after responsibility for schemes was devolved from central Government to local government and as local authority budgets have been greatly reduced. That is the key point. Devolution is not a bad thing, but it must come with the funding to deal with the new powers.

Right now, 36 local authorities have closed their local welfare scheme, meaning that whether people can get the support that they need has become something of a postcode lottery. That is no huge surprise given the perilous state of local government finances after the last Government’s failures. The new Government’s extension to the household support fund in the Budget is very welcome and will be vital to so many people who need it.

What will be key is effective regulation of the social and private rented sectors. The statistics from the social rented sector are stark. Social landlords need to provide more of their stock as furnished, and I believe that potential legislative routes to achieve that should be considered. In the private rented sector, the Renters’ Rights Bill does much to tackle the overriding issues that exacerbate furniture poverty for renters and shows how important regulation is. I encourage the Government to consider the small, additional regulatory changes that I have outlined in this speech, which could make a real difference to people in furniture poverty.

I appreciate that because this issue is a cross-departmental one, the Minister may not be able to respond to all of my points, in which case I ask her to raise any outstanding points with the relevant Minister and ask them either to write to me or to meet me to discuss them. That would be very helpful.

I will end there and defer to colleagues, who I know have lots of valuable contributions to make.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. If we can keep contributions to about five minutes each, we might be able to get everybody in.

16:43

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on securing and introducing this debate. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I often do, and say what we are doing in my constituency.

End Furniture Poverty has stated that 9% of all UK adults over 18 are missing at least one essential furniture item. Furthermore, 1 million adults are in deep furniture poverty, meaning that they are missing more than three essential furniture items. Those items can include a bed, a wardrobe, a cooker, blinds or curtains, or indeed a fridge-freezer. Those things are absolute necessities for all homes.

End Furniture Poverty estimates that at least 6 million people in the UK are experiencing some sort of furniture poverty. In addition, in the year 2022-23 the number of people living in absolute poverty increased by half a million people before housing costs and by some 600,000 people after housing costs. Further analysis has revealed that at least 1.2 million children, or at least 9% of all children, are experiencing furniture poverty within those households. The average cost of an item is some £250, which means it would cost approximately £2.25 billion to end furniture poverty. That is quite a challenge.

We often forget about the different types of poverty and how they can affect families across the UK. The debate today on furniture policy is so apt and important for our constituents, as I will illustrate.

I am very fortunate to have a number of churches in my constituency that help with furniture poverty. I would like to mention one in particular that I deal with regularly simply because it is available and very attentive to any requests that we put forward. My office has a great relationship with the St Vincent de Paul organisation, a UK charity that supports those who are on the breadline and at risk of being plunged into absolute poverty, and which estimates that almost 1 million people—a massive figure—experience enforced deprivation. St Vincent de Paul has been fantastic, working with my office to provide direct support for household goods, and it does so regularly without any questions whatsoever. Each week in the office, we deal with people in desperate need.

It is also great to hear that other organisations in Northern Ireland have schemes to support people with household goods this winter. We are at that time of year again; Christmas time brings it home very clearly. Today’s debate comes at a time when many of us are focused upon this very issue, as so many people are struggling with rising energy bills, the cost of living, and cold weather on the horizon. We are often reminded that individuals and families out there are really struggling, and it is important that there is support for them out there.

I will conclude now and hopefully allow others a few minutes to participate. It is critical that provision is made to ensure that families have the best support. This debate gives that opportunity. We look forward to the Minister’s contribution and that of the shadow Minister. Furniture poverty has proven to be a real issue, which so many people are experiencing, given the dire statistics that I have mentioned. We must do more to support the charities. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, I think there is an opportunity for us to work hand in hand with charities. That should be done as a matter of course. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point, and perhaps together we can provide support for the people who need it.

16:46

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this important debate. We can see from Members’ interest the importance of the subject to everyone.

This topic is also quite dear to my own heart, as I have discussed before. Growing up, my mum and I were unfortunately homeless twice. After moving to hostels, B&Bs and temporary accommodation, we were finally given the keys to a new council house—but with no curtains to keep out the daylight and give us privacy, and no bed, only a duvet, and then eventually a shared mattress on the floor to sleep on, so although we had a roof over our heads, we certainly did not have a comfortable and warm home. Unfortunately, experiences like that are all too common in 2024.

For families like mine when I was growing up, who have been made homeless or squeezed out by the precarious private rented sector, it is rare to be able to afford to furnish a property. Colleagues will have seen properties in their constituencies with furniture dumped outside, as people have to quickly leave their private rented sector property with nowhere to go. That challenge has been compounded by the cost of living crisis: we have seen a 31% increase in the cost of furniture between 2020 and 2023.

When my constituents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip are evicted from their homes—my inbox is a testament to the fact that that is an all too common occurrence—they have no idea where they are going to sleep that night. They are told by the council to fit all their belongings into one black bin bag and to turn up at the civic centre. Clearly, one bag of belongings will not contain a bed frame for their children to sleep on, an oven to cook their meals or a fridge to store their medication. These families are also clearly unable to afford storage, which is very expensive, or transport to move their belongings to whatever temporary accommodation they are eventually given. They have to throw away vital belongings or leave them behind, leading to further distressing and life-changing impacts, on top of their homelessness.

Should a family eventually be fortunate enough to get a permanent house, as we have heard today and from the excellent work of charities, only 2% of social housing is furnished—significantly less than in the private rented sector. Many are left without the essential items that we all need for a constructive and healthy life. As we have heard, this issue affects 26% of people in social housing, and a significant group are in deep furniture poverty as they lack three or more essential items. That particularly affects the most disadvantaged, the disabled and people from ethnic minority communities, who have a higher rate of furniture poverty.

The impacts of furniture poverty are scarring; they are often lifelong and life-changing. There is a health impact if a young family cannot get the nutrients they need from a balanced diet because they cannot afford an oven, or even a microwave to heat up a ready meal. If children are unable to get a good night’s sleep because they do not have a bed, or if they cannot do their homework because they do not have a desk like their peers do, there will be a lasting impact on their development. Great research from the End Furniture Poverty campaign, about which we have rightly heard fantastic things, shows that there is a significant extra financial impact on families, through their food and heating bills, if they are not able to afford those basics.

Lacking the necessary furniture items is a trap. It often forces families already facing financial hardship and homelessness to approach unscrupulous loan sharks, take out further debt or borrow money from friends and family if they can, and that leads to a cycle of poverty and destitution, which leads to rent arrears and higher eviction rates—and the cycle begins again.

The good news is that we can end furniture poverty. Since taking power, the Government have shown that they understand the importance of working with local government, where many of the solutions lie. We need to empower and support local authorities to tackle this issue. There are many good local initiatives—we have heard about some in Liverpool—but we need more. We need to work with local and regional government on regional reuse hubs, so that furniture and appliances left behind in properties can be reallocated to the families most in need. Local recycling centres often have furniture that people do not want to see go to waste. Why can we not reuse it for those in social housing and furniture poverty?

We need to look at the household support fund, to which the Government made a strong commitment of £1 billion in the Budget. Unfortunately, a lot of that funding is used not for household items, but for other issues. Can the guidance for the fund be strengthened to highlight the importance of tackling furniture poverty?

As has been said, we need to work with housing providers and registered social landlords to help them reach the key goal of 10% furnished social housing stock. We are rightly updating the decent homes standard, but it must include both the inside and the outside of a home. Furnishings are part of decent housing. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the homelessness strategy and the child poverty taskforce. Those welcome and much-needed pieces of work could play convening roles in tackling this issue.

Tackling furniture poverty will also address the strain on the public purse. We know about the impact on poverty, health and education. Although there is a cost to tacking this issue, it will ultimately lead to savings for health, education and special educational needs bills and for the welfare state.

I thank the charities for their fantastic work on this issue. They give much-needed support to families in our communities—Trinity Homeless Projects in my constituency does fantastic work—and provide advocacy and action in this space. I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward to hearing from the Front-Bench team and working with them to tackle this issue, deliver the change that people in this country not only want but desperately need, and end furniture poverty for good.

16:54

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in my first ever Westminster Hall debate, Sir Roger. I am very grateful to be here. It is an honour to follow some fantastic contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for raising this issue.

As has been said, 6 million people in the UK live in furniture poverty, which means that nearly 10% of the UK population do not have access to at least one essential item of furniture. As my hon. Friend said, that definition is not clear. Even though I have become interested in the issue since joining the House and witnessing the advocacy of some great organisations, when I speak to my friends about furniture poverty they think it is about cookers and fridges. In actual fact, a big part of furniture poverty, and what I want to focus on today, is fabrics: carpets, floor finishes and window coverings.

To pick up on some of the points that have already been made, furniture poverty more generally has a much bigger societal impact than just that direct impact on families. There is a link between families in insecure homes, their health outcomes, and the pressures placed on their local authorities and care organisations. Families who do not have good fabric in their homes—carpets or window coverings—typically have higher energy bills, and the insecurity that furniture poverty creates causes social and other issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire mentioned that 70% of people feel socially isolated due to the impact of furniture poverty. That leads to shame, with people, including kids, not having their friends round when they want to, causing families and older people to become isolated as they struggle with stress and anxiety. It was also mentioned that 60% of those in furniture poverty struggle to maintain healthy eating habits, which has a knock-on effect not only on the individual but on our health system and the health of our nation.

I want to talk a bit more about carpets and window coverings. I have joined the House from the construction industry and found that this Government have a big focus on housing—it is fantastic to see that that is one of our five missions. There are 1.2 million people living without suitable floor coverings in their homes and about three quarters are in social housing. Similarly, about 870,000 people are in homes without appropriate window coverings, and about half of them are in social housing. Although this is a big issue for the social housing sector, it affects not just people in that sector, but everyone. Indeed, we have had representations today from Northern Ireland to the north of England and even down to London, showing that this is clearly an issue that affects the whole UK.

From an environmental perspective, the lack of suitable floor and window coverings means we see significant heat loss from properties, which ultimately raises people’s energy bills and can compound the impact of cold winters on elderly people. With rising temperatures in the summer, particularly as a result of climate change, we also see an impact on the ability of older people and families to keep cool in the heat. End Furniture Poverty recognises, and has fed back to me, that the issue also creates hazards for those with mobility challenges, particularly where floors are not suitable for the use of mobility equipment.

I welcome the fact that the Government have extended the household support fund, because one of the big things we can do is make sure that funding is available for people, particularly where there is no local welfare scheme in place. My constituency of Northampton South is part of the West Northamptonshire council unitary authority area, and there is no local welfare scheme there, so people rely on the household support fund. Frustratingly, despite my council having a cross-party anti-poverty taskforce, I have yet to see a focus on furniture poverty. When I meet the council leader in a few weeks’ time, it will be on our agenda to discuss how, of the £5.2 million from the household support fund given out by West Northamptonshire council, only £168,000 went towards alleviating furniture poverty, despite massive levels of it in my constituency. We have heard similar cases, and I am sure we will hear more from others.

I will end by asking what the solutions could be, and hopefully help the Minister to address this challenging situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) rightly talks about furniture reuse, and although that is a solution, it is becoming increasingly difficult. Fire retardants used in older furniture are now proven to be hazardous, and the Furniture Industry Research Association, which tested furniture that could potentially be used in social housing, found that only in one in six passed modern standards, showing that sometimes when we reuse furniture, we are actually passing on the problem. Ultimately, the problem of social landlords’ liabilities is exacerbated if they encourage furniture reuse but cannot prove that it is safe for families, children or older people.

Design for reuse is also important. We are seeing an economy and a society where there is more disposable furniture that is used only once or for a few years, or bought on the cheap and then chucked away. If we are to drive up the reuse of furniture, we have to do more to encourage industry to address that challenge in the way it designs furniture for reuse.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned, we see many furnished tenancies in some areas such as London, and fewer in constituencies such as Northampton South. End Furniture Poverty has advocated for a 10% target for social landlords. I agree in principle that that is a good idea, but without the funding and support for social housing—particularly, in my constituency, for Northampton Partnership Homes—that would put real pressure on services and is not a viable solution. I know that the Government are working hard on getting that funding right.

We can also design out the need for reuse in the way that we design our buildings. The Government committed to a council house building revolution to design out the need for temporary floor coverings, and to design windows, fixtures and fittings to allow for the easy replacement of curtains and blinds. The way that we design our buildings in the first place can make it easier for social landlords to replace things cheaply and efficiently when they run out.

The corporate social responsibility of carpet manufacturers has piqued my interest. It is a niche issue, but Northampton South is the home of the UK’s only carpet recycling centre for non-wool based carpet. Through a small innovative business in Duston in my constituency, we can take old carpet cut-offs from carpet manufacturers, break them down through electrolysis, and turn them into pellets that make car bumpers.

I am interested to check what happens to wool based carpets that cannot be recycled through that process. If Tapi Carpets and those other big manufacturers get to the end of the line and they cannot sell the carpet, where does it go? How can we get it back into the system, potentially through social enterprises? There is an interesting social enterprise in my constituency called Goodwill Solutions that may have a solution for how we can reuse it and get it into the homes that desperately need floor coverings.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said, I recognise that we must end furniture poverty. I am confident that the Government understand the issue and that we will address it in our drive to improve housing standards and, hopefully, through the decent homes standard and the housing quality standard in Wales.

17:02

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on securing the debate. I will share my experience and reaffirm my incredible admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales): every time he tells the story of his upbringing and the challenges that he has faced, I am grateful to consider him a colleague in the House and grateful that he has shared his message with the Chamber.

I admit that I had a fortunate and comfortable childhood. I had a stable home with everything that I could ever need to do my homework, organise my things and get a good sleep—things that I shamelessly took for granted. It was not until I left primary school that I realised that many of my friends faced different challenges and experiences at home that I could not have even imagined at such a young age. It was then that I first understood the detrimental impact that furniture insecurity had on the lives of many of my friends. I remember visiting one of my closest friend’s houses for months, with the washing machine broken and their parents frantically hand-washing every evening while we played video games and ate pizza.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I want to raise a point about washer-dryers, as opposed to washing machines. As a mother of three, I spend a lot of time doing the washing. It sounds like a trivial point, but in north-west England it is incredibly difficult to get washing to dry—it starts raining in October and keeps going all year. It is all well and good if the household support fund provides washing machines, which are great and a good start, but that will not solve the whole problem. I implore the Minister to raise the point about dryers. Of course, there are other problems about affording the electricity to run them, but we will create damp in homes if people cannot dry clothes in them.

[Chris Bloore]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

At the time, I did not know that both my best friend’s parents had lost their job and had gone for months without work, which meant that their important savings were going towards keeping a roof above their head, rather than on a new washing machine. I remember suddenly not being able to visit my friend or to stay over. Later, I learned that that was because his bed was broken and he was too afraid to let me sleep over, as I would see him sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor. Only thanks to donations from family friends were the issues resolved. In those years, the economy was in a relatively good position. Now, in my constituency, almost 1,000 children will sleep without a bed.

I am trying to be quick, but I will mention NewStarts, a community reuse social enterprise that was based in my county council division in Bromsgrove and has now opened a second branch with partners in my constituency in Redditch. For more than a decade, the chief executive Marion Kenyon, her staff and team of volunteers have provided free furniture, emergency food and household supplies to families and individuals in the greatest need, whether they are on low incomes or in financial crisis. Their dedication and compassion are unmatched. I look forward to visiting the branch next week. Their work, however, shows that furniture poverty is not an acute but a chronic problem, often the canary in the coal mine alerting us to many of the problems facing households.

Furniture poverty is absolute. It is a heartbreaking indictment of how all of us in politics must do more to support those who need support the most. Many of the ways that we can support those people were listed by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire, for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

I am happy to be a signpost. My excellent office team of Theresa Deakin and Monica Stringfellow are doing great work to link those who need support with existing organisations and funds, such as the household support fund, but that is not enough. I welcome the contents of the Renters’ Rights Bill, but it is time for a radical look at our welfare system and how we reward work and recognise when the system is not working. I am pleased that the Minister is present and that she has promised to reform our welfare system, but right now 10% of all adults live in furniture poverty. When I walk around my constituency, when I visit my schools and when I talk to careers advisers and teachers, it is the same children who are deeply affected by this issue. It is their life chances that we are talking about, and it is their dreams that have been broken by the fact that as a country we have not come to grips with this problem.

I implore the Minister to act. She has been a hero of mine for many years, outside this House, but the children who will staff our NHS, who will be the next generation of teachers, and who will rebuild this country and fix our foundations, are the children that need the Government’s support now.

17:07

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this important debate.

No one should fear for their future, struggle to put food on the table or worry about heating their homes. The cost of living crisis has been a huge financial hardship across the country and has restricted the lives and chances of millions. Furniture poverty is particularly common in social housing, and it is a scandal that only 2% of social housing is fully furnished. As a new MP, like the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, I have already experienced two examples where I helped constituents out of homelessness and into social housing, only to find that they moved into homes that were not furnished. Unfortunately, that is all too commonplace.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for sharing his personal experience of homelessness and indeed of furniture poverty. Unfortunately, I must agree with him that the experience is sadly commonplace. In my constituency, we see it regularly.

The End Furniture Poverty group considers flooring to be an essential item and with good reason. Without flooring, as we have heard, it is hard to keep a property clean and, if the property is old—in particular, if it was built before the 1980s—not having flooring will make rooms difficult to heat. As the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire mentioned, that flooring is often thrown out, which makes it even more ridiculous.

Vulnerable members of our community, when they move into a home that should be a new start, should not feel as if it is still under construction, but that is often how they feel. Like the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), I have a background in construction, and I was grateful to him for sharing his insights on the fabrics, in particular his point about the lack of flooring being the cause of various environmental issues. We should not feel as if that is happening. One point that I would make is that wool carpets can be composted.

We still have 1.2 million people in the UK whose lives and homes are without flooring. In my constituency, where more than 44,000 people are struggling with fuel poverty and 17,000 pensioners are due to lose their winter fuel allowance, many people are forced into choosing between heating their homes or visiting and having friends. I take the very clear point that people suffer from social isolation due to lots of these issues, and they do not dare to let people into their homes. I am sure we have all seen that when canvassing, when someone hardly opens the door because they are scared to let people see what is behind it. That is bound to cause all sorts of quite serious issues.

For the record, I note that Wiltshire Money in my constituency has held focus forums on the subject of furniture poverty, and I applaud the charities working across Wiltshire that have worked so hard to find ways of alleviating poverty in all its forms. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the churches and charities are working hard, but the burden should not fall on them alone, and we are not doing enough.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire on securing the debate and on raising this important issue. The Liberal Democrats are happy to support hon. Members on both sides of the House in any efforts to end the cost of living crisis and address furniture poverty as part of that goal.

17:11

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and for his thoughtful speech that I learned many things from. We also had contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, and from the new hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who made an interesting point about home design. I agree with the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), about charity. The challenge is that “Hello, I’m from the Government and I’m here to help” is not always the right approach, but there has certainly been much to consider in this flooring debate.

I thank the new hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for sharing the impact on him. I lost my home when my dad was made disabled, and I certainly did not have people round, due to his disability. We may have different approaches in this House to fixing things, but many of our experiences are similar. I thank him for sharing that, because these things are never easy to do.

The outgoing Conservative Government, certainly when I was in the Department for Work and Pensions, found furniture poverty to be a hidden issue. I will welcome hearing from the Minister, because we have often debated together and it is a pleasure to be in the Chamber with her. I believe that we had a strong record of understanding in this area in the DWP—I recognise some of the officials in the Chamber this afternoon—but the challenge is always about how to approach such matters.

Despite our delivering the fastest-growing economy in the G7—the economy was mentioned—the challenges around the pandemic and the war in Ukraine meant that supporting the most vulnerable was often a crucial challenge in the last few years. Benefits were rightly uprated with inflation, however: the state pension was uprated by 10.1% in 2023 and again by 8.5% this year. I was also proud to work on the £94 billion cost of living support, which I am sure the Minister will mention, and I was the Minister who delivered the key cost of living payments to 8.3 million people in 2023. That was no mean feat for the Department for Work and Pensions. I also signed into law the regulations to provide 6 million people with extra cost disability benefits—an additional £150 for disabled people.

The report by End Furniture Poverty is stark, showing that 55% of adults in fuel poverty have a disability and therefore need those extra payments. In fact, I have seen for myself some of the furniture poverty support that we provided as a Government, particularly in Wolverhampton. It was clear that fuel poverty is as much about materials and fabrics as it is about beds. I thank End Furniture Poverty for its report, and I appreciate that this is an issue that the Department is seeking to understand.

I also appreciate that the Minister and the Labour party have a somewhat complicated relationship with universal credit, but we know that universal credit works in getting support to those people who need it; it particularly worked during the pandemic. The move from a paper-based process was a key change that we certainly leaned on during the pandemic.

When I was a Minister, we were able to allocate £900 million from the dormant assets scheme to projects across the UK to alleviate wider poverty and to support the charity sector. I know that many local authorities understand the challenges and needs of their communities best, which is why I absolutely support the extension of the household support scheme. When I was a Minister, we really worked on flexibility in guidance for local councils. Whether it was about buying an air fryer, supporting people with energy bills, or buying a washer and a dryer, it was absolutely possible. In the first tranche of funding, £3.8 million and £4.8 million were awarded to my own local authorities in East Sussex and West Sussex respectively.

As I say, I have seen that funding in action in Wolverhampton. I have also seen the support that has needed to be given in libraries through the Citizens Advice services in East Grinstead and Uckfield in my constituency. I am glad that we are close to this need on the ground. I applaud the Government for supporting this, and I hope that alongside the uplift to the local housing allowance on which we were able to deliver, the Minister can persuade the Treasury that this is important work to continue with.

The Government’s decisions in the Budget will certainly add to the challenges. It is frankly shocking, as I think the Minister would agree, that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has concluded that the average family will be £770 worse off in real terms by October 2029 than they are today because of the Budget. Our constituents need to know where the £300 of energy savings will materialise from.

There were also the shameful changes to pensioner payments for 10 million pensioners. It is really important that the Government respond to the Social Security Advisory Committee about the potential poverty impact. I ask the Minister to explain how furniture poverty will be affected. We have heard about the choice between heating and eating, which is certainly something that I worked to alleviate.

I would also love to hear from the Minister on the point about disabled people, including on the future of the cross-Government work of the disability champions, which I understand has been somewhat sidelined. Their work meant that each Department had a particular focus when it came to disability and poverty.

Taking all this together with the impact of the Budget of broken promises, and looking to the future, I hope that the Government will ensure pensioners can keep warm this weekend, and that they will continue to work with local authorities and the Treasury to help people who find themselves affected by furniture poverty. Some very practical ways of alleviating the issue have been mentioned today. The Opposition will work with the Government and with all Members to ensure that we support any changes that are possible, but I say to Government Members that when they troop through the Lobbies this evening to vote on the Budget, I hope they will remember this debate.

17:19

[The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)]

As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and for the very important work that he has done to support the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will make a big difference to the experience of people living in privately rented homes.

On behalf of us all, may I congratulate the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) on her new appointment? She is right to say that she and I have debated these issues many times. I will miss doing so, and I know that many of my colleagues in the DWP miss her. We wish her all the very best in her new role.

The current level of poverty is unacceptable: 1.3 million more people are in poverty than in 2010. Poverty damages lives in so many ways, as we have heard this afternoon. People simply cannot fulfil their potential when struggling to pay for basic essentials, or in many cases going without them. I am determined that we will take steps to put that right.

Good work will always be the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty. Hon. Members will know that we had a manifesto commitment to bring forward changes in this area. We will shortly publish the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which will announce our reforms in that area. We will have a new service to support more people to enter, remain and do better in work, and a youth guarantee, with increased join-up of employment and health, which are causing so many challenges in this area. Through our plan to make work pay, we will ensure that we create opportunities for all by tackling low pay, poor working conditions and job security. This is a truly ambitious agenda to empower working people and grow our economy.

We want to protect living standards, and wages are important in doing that. The national wage introduced by the new Labour Government back in 1999 has had a transformative effect on the fortunes of working people. In last week’s Budget it was announced that the national living wage will rise to £12.21 an hour from next April, boosting the pay of 3 million workers. That is an increase of 6.7%, worth £1,400 a year for a full-time worker, helping us to make progress towards a genuine living wage.

Hon. Members have mentioned the child poverty taskforce. I will take today’s debate as a submission through the child poverty taskforce process, because we have shown how interconnected many of the issues are. It is shameful that in a rich country such as the UK, 4 million children were living in relative poverty last year, and that 800,000 children have used a food bank in the past 12 months. As has been said, the End Child Poverty campaign has suggested that 1.2 million children were in furniture poverty in 2022. That is just unacceptable. It scars children’s lives now and can damage their long-term health, education and employment outcomes. It holds our country back, and we are determined to see change.

I hope it is helpful to hon. Members if I give a brief update on the child poverty taskforce, which is working to publish a comprehensive and ambitious child poverty strategy in the spring. Last month, we published a framework to set out how we will develop the strategy, harnessing all available levers because, as so many Members have said, policy in one area affects another. We want to develop the strategy with exactly that in mind. We have four key themes: incomes, costs, increasing financial resilience and getting better local support. On that note, I recently visited Glasgow, where the city council is doing excellent work to join things up locally, as Members have suggested.

Later this month, the taskforce will meet employers, trade unions and think-tanks to discuss options to increase incomes and financial resilience in low-income households. We want to ensure that the strategy addresses poverty in every corner of the land and that we hear and learn from families in poverty as we shape it. We will be holding engagement events across the UK—I have already visited various constituencies myself—bringing together a diverse range of voices and setting up a new forum for parents and carers to ensure that the experiences of our kids are included at the heart of the strategy.

The Government believe that a wealthy country like the United Kingdom should have a social security system that meets the needs of people who are unable to fully support themselves through work. We know that for many, the system we inherited is not currently achieving that. We are determined to fix the fundamentals so that low-income families can afford the basics. We have inherited a number of policies and a challenging fiscal climate that have left us with difficult choices.

In response to the shadow Minister’s point about universal credit, it is fair to say that the policy has been on a long journey. Some of the points she made about the responsiveness of social security during the pandemic are important. We must learn from that and try to address the challenges we now face. That is why we have committed to reviewing universal credit and will listen to a full range of views on potential changes to make sure that it is doing its job now.

As a first step, the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget that we will introduce a fair repayment rate. That will help households on universal credit who are having deductions made from their benefit, perhaps because they had a loan of some kind or moved into a new home and needed to buy furniture or other items. We will ensure that they can retain more of the money from their benefit to help them to budget for essentials like this. Over 1.2 million households on universal credit will benefit from the changing of the deduction cap from 25% to 15%. It will mean an average of £420 a year, which is a good down payment on a future plan.

I turn to the specific issue of furniture affordability. Most of us will experience large one-off costs or unexpected expenditure at some point. As hon. Members have explained fully, these costs can be difficult to budget for, and we do not want to drive people into debt.

[Jim Shannon]

I mentioned the significant work done by charities and particularly churches, including St Vincent de Paul. What are the Minister’s thoughts on that?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. Let me respond briefly to questions that Members have raised. I will ask the relevant Minister to write to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire about the regulatory changes arising from the Renters’ Rights Bill, on whose Public Bill Committee he served ably. I reassure him that the DWP will work across Departments, because these areas cover different departmental responsibilities. We will include all those points in the child poverty taskforce. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right about charities—Wirral Repair Café in my constituency does a fantastic job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) made an excellent speech on household support fund guidance. I encourage him to be part of that conversation. I will take away what he has said, but he might want to write to me with more detail. To other hon. Members, I say that we are looking at all the ways in which poverty is now affecting people, given the spikes in energy prices and other issues. The comments were about the construction of homes and how we can limit the cost of energy are very important. I encourage Members to keep bringing those points forward, because now is the time to address them.

Hon. Members will know that the social security system has always made provision to help people on low incomes without adequate savings, and we do consider the impact of budgeting loans, advances and other measures. I mentioned the change in deductions. We know that while there will always be people who struggle to meet unexpected costs, no one wants a system in which large numbers of people are relying on crisis support to help them to feed their families or pay for heating and other day-to-day essentials. We want the system to genuinely respond to this as a crisis, not a chronic problem.

To support the upcoming child poverty strategy and address the demand we face, as the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield mentioned, we are continuing to provide substantial funding for crisis support through the household support fund and discretionary housing payments. We will invest £1 billion, including the Barnett impact, to extend the household support fund in England for an additional year until 31 March 2026 and to maintain the discretionary housing payments fund for a further year. This will ensure that the current targeted support is available for the most vulnerable.

In the end, we know that there is no quick fix. The issues that we have in this country are deep rooted and complicated, but that can never be an excuse for not trying to tackle them. We have taken the first steps, and there is more to come in the child poverty strategy and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper. I look forward to working with all Members here to get this right.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered furniture poverty.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.