Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27 November 2024

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

UK Air and Missile Defences

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK air and missile defences.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight a critical weakness in our national defences. I am sure it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I say this, but I sincerely believe that outside this place, and even among many of our colleagues, it is not appreciated that the diversity of the threat we now face from air attack, and the lack of our defences against it, is at its most serious in decades.

This debate is about defences against conventional air and missile threats, not nuclear threats—for that we maintain our continuous at-sea strategic nuclear deterrent. The world is more unstable today than at any point since the cold war, but sadly, despite a changing threat environment, I fear our defences have not been adapted quickly enough to deter or protect against it. The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee’s report published in September, which analysed the lessons we can learn from Ukraine, laid out in stark terms the significant weaknesses in European defences. Key among them is the fact that our air and missile defences are, frankly, inadequate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only brought conventional warfare back to mainland Europe, but has shown in stark terms the importance of credible and robust air and missile defences.

Nearly 12,000 missiles have been launched against Ukraine by Russia since February 2022. About 80% of them have been intercepted, thanks to different air defence systems protecting military and civilian infrastructure, but that still means that thousands of missiles have impacted, often to devastating effect. Earlier this month, over the course of just one week, Russia used more than 800 guided aerial bombs, about 460 attack drones and more than 20 missiles of various types against Ukraine.

During the cold war NATO’s air defences were a largely static system arrayed in belts around a unidirectional and well-defined threat of manned aircraft from the Soviet Union, but today’s environment is less predictable. The range of air and missile threats is larger and the threat can come from any direction. Indeed, according to reports from earlier this year, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity deemed necessary to protect allies in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack.

Unlike Ukraine, the UK has some obvious geographical protection from attacks by ground-based short-range missiles and drones, but two significant and concerning reports over recent days show once again that there is no cause for complacency. First, Russia is now prepared to use intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles against targets in Ukraine. This is the first successful use of that type of missile with conventional warheads in combat. They are harder to intercept and represent a significant escalation. The second concerning report in recent days relates to the presence of unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles around three RAF bases—Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell—between 20 and 22 November and overnight on 25 November. I do not expect the Minister to go into too much detail about that recent incident or about what counter-measures are in place at our bases, but both reports show that short-range and long-range threats to the UK are very real, very diverse, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against them.

If we look at events in the middle east, we can also see the diversity of short to long-range aerial threats. Israel has faced rocket, drone and ballistic missile attacks from Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In October, Iran launched almost 200 ballistic missiles against Israel following its previous attack involving 300 missiles and drones in April, but, unlike the UK, Israel has a sophisticated and multi-layered air and missile defence system to counter wide-ranging aerial threats. The Iron Dome intercepts short-range rockets of the type fired by Hamas and Hezbollah. David’s Sling can intercept medium to long-range rockets, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 can intercept long-range ballistic missiles. Recently, we saw the deployment of US THAAD—terminal high altitude area defence—batteries to bolster defences against ballistic missile threats.

The UK’s current air defence capabilities against such threats are primarily made up of Sea Viper on Type 45 destroyers, utilising Aster missiles, Sky Sabre ground-based air defence, and quick reaction alert Typhoon fighter jets. Typhoons on quick reaction alert at Coningsby and Lossiemouth can intercept potential hostile airborne threats, including aircraft and UAVs. The Sky Sabre ground-based air defence system can intercept multiple cruise missiles, aircraft and UAVs up to 25 km away. However, there are only about six Sky Sabre systems in service with the British Army, and at least two are deployed overseas, to the Falkland Islands and Poland. Clearly, many more such systems would be needed to provide sufficient cover to a larger number of critical military and civilian national infrastructure sites across the UK.

I know the business case for more Sky Sabre launchers has been approved, but orders have not yet been made. Bizarrely, no business case has been made for ordering more missiles for Sky Sabre, despite such orders taking longer to fulfil. Crucially, Sky Sabre cannot defend against ballistic or hypersonic missile threats—it was not designed to do so. The only defence the UK currently has against ballistic missiles is Sea Viper, which utilises Aster 30 missiles on our six Type 45 destroyers. Sea Viper can currently track potential threats at ranges of up to 250 miles, and eliminate them within about 70 miles.

I know that Sea Viper is being upgraded over the next decade, with initial operation capability in 2028. That is very welcome, but given that we have only a few Type 45s in service at any one time, the coverage that they can provide in defence of homeland targets against ballistic missile threats is limited. To defend London against ballistic missile threats, a Type 45 destroyer would have to be permanently moored in the Thames estuary, which would mean that it could not do anything else. In particular, it would be unavailable for its primary role of protecting one of our aircraft carriers from air and missile threats. That alone makes the case that some form of new or upgraded ground-based air defence system that provides protection against threats, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles, is needed.

To consider only the military critical national infrastructure that would be vulnerable to air attack and would need adequate protection, we have the three main Royal Navy operating bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Clyde; seven RAF bases, including Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby; and the major Army garrisons. We have radar sites, ammunition depots, and overseas sites, including the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which are in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, unlike sites in the UK. Major defence industrial sites would also presumably be at risk. Then there is a plethora of significant civilian infrastructure that could be targeted, including nuclear power stations, large transport hubs, industrial sites and Government buildings. We know tragically from the war in Ukraine that Russia has no compunction about hitting civilian targets such as hospitals, shopping centres or concentrations of housing, purely to terrorise the civilian population and degrade national morale.

The previous Government’s integrated and defence reviews slowly started to acknowledge the threat from air attack. The 2023 Defence Command Paper described the threat as being

“at its most acute for over thirty years”.

Clearly, the resources have not yet been put into upscaling equipment and filling the gaps in capability that we need to counter that.

Other European countries have been taking the issue seriously and placing orders. In the past decade, France and Italy have jointly developed the medium-range SAMP/T air defence system, which can intercept ballistic missiles, drones, fighter jets and other targets. In September, France ordered eight new SAMP/T NG systems, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. The first ones will enter service in 2026. Italy also ordered 10 of these new systems, which will utilise upgraded Aster 30 missiles.

Many European countries already utilise the American Patriot air defence system. To bolster that, existing operators Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are procuring 1,000 additional Patriot missiles between them. Poland has signed contracts worth £4 billion with UK industry to deliver the NAREW next-generation air defence system. Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France and Hungary are jointly buying around 1,500 Mistral short-range air defence—SHORAD—missiles. Latvia and Estonia are jointly procuring IRIS-T for medium-range interception, and Finland has ordered the David’s Sling system.

To fill capability gaps and ensure interoperability, we should be working with our European NATO partners on joint procurement. The Government have said that the UK is engaging with the European Sky Shield initiative, which seeks to establish a ground-based integrated European air defence system with anti-ballistic missile capability. There are clearly different views across Europe about which systems it should comprise to ensure not only interoperability but to develop and maintain Europe’s defence industrial base.

I am aware that the UK signed a letter of intent to launch the integrated air and missile DIAMOND initiative in October, alongside six allies: France, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Sweden. That is clearly welcome, as it shows the seriousness with which the threat is recognised, but there is no clear timetable of key milestones associated with the DIAMOND initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update.

It is not just our ability to take down hostile airborne threats that we must consider; there is also our ability to detect them in the first place. It is no secret that we have only a limited number of fixed and mobile land-based radars on UK soil, which would probably be among the first targets vulnerable to air attack. The previous Government’s early retirement of E-3 Sentry left a capability gap in airborne early warning and control, which has only been compounded by delays in the E-7 Wedgetail programme.

Airborne early warning and control will be crucial in monitoring the western and south-western coasts of the UK, where ground-based radar is limited, to detect potential submarine-launched threats. We also need to take seriously the potential for radar evasion along the east coast, particularly by UAVs or projectiles passing through wind farms. The Government are actively working on deconflicting windfarms and existing air defence surveillance systems. I would be grateful if the Minister could speak briefly about that.

Ministers will be acutely aware of everything I have said but, as I said at the start of the debate, I do not think many of our colleagues, including across Government outside the Ministry of Defence, appreciate the scale or seriousness of the issue. The defence analyst Francis Tusa has compared the current situation with that found by General Frederick Pile in 1937 when he was appointed commander of the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division. General Pile highlighted the severe lack of anti-aircraft batteries to defend civilian and military locations. His analysis led to an increase in personnel in anti-aircraft roles and the mass production of anti-aircraft artillery.

Our armed forces are among the best and most capable in the world but, unfortunately, the defence they can provide today against significant airborne threats to the homeland, such as missile attack, is very limited. We have highly capable equipment but not enough of it to protect the significant amount of critical infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country, and to defend troops deployed on operations overseas. Principally, that is because we spent most of the previous few decades focused on expeditionary overseas missions rather than active homeland defence. We have been too slow to adapt to the changing threat picture.

The lack of active homeland defence is fundamentally a strategic failure. I hope the ongoing strategic defence review will deem it such and outline how it can be urgently addressed. The first responsibility of our Government is to protect our people and defend our freedom. I fear that further delay in outlining the action we are going to take and, crucially, the budget to deliver it, brings only greater risk of catastrophic failure in fulfilling that fundamental responsibility.

Addressing that capability gap needs to be an urgent political, funding and industrial priority for Government. I hope the Minister feels that this debate helps her demonstrate the political support in Parliament for tackling it.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

10:28

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It seems only a few minutes ago that you and I were last in Westminster Hall—you brought the 4.30 pm debate to an end yesterday afternoon, and we moved on, but here we are again, within minutes it seems. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on bringing forward the debate. I spoke to him last week when I became aware that he had this upcoming debate, and he is right to bring it to Westminster Hall for consideration. We must recognise the importance of UK air and missile defences and of us in Parliament collectively making a clear pledge.

The Ukraine conflict, in tandem with the sustained attacks on Israel, has illustrated—in a way that none of us wants to see, but that has unfortunately become a reality—the need for strong and robust air defence. On Israel, I will just say that it is good news that a 60-day ceasefire with Hezbollah has hopefully been agreed. We hope that the peace agreement will stand firm and can last 60 days, and possibly longer.

As hon. Members may be aware, the leading air defence company Thales in the UK and perhaps the world is based in the constituency neighbouring mine, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), although he tells me that the majority of the workers are my constituents. I am thankful to this good local employer for not simply providing skilful, gainful employment at a very decent wage, but offering incredibly helpful apprenticeships. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and I met Thales back in August, we pushed for apprenticeships, and we were pleased that the company was approaching the issue constructively. Those who gain an apprenticeship have their student fees paid, because Thales wants to retain those apprentices for the long term. One worker, who happens to be my constituent, has won the Northern Ireland apprentice of the year award, which is an indication of how much Thales does for apprentices. The use of local suppliers also means that more people than just those on site owe their employment to Thales’s innovation and excellence. The company’s design and production of air defence capabilities in Northern Ireland directly employs more than 800 people, and contributes £81 million to Northern Ireland’s GDP.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her support for our requests for a long-term commitment. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in his place, and I know he has made numerous visits to Northern Ireland; indeed, he will probably comment on that when he makes his speech. We appreciate his past and ongoing commitment.

My gratitude extends to Thales for the security that its products offer our entire nation as we ensure that we can withstand warfare, should that be necessary. Looking back to the start of the Ukraine crisis, Thales was able to supply shoulder-held weapons that slowed down the advance of Russian armies across the whole front. That was Thales in Belfast—part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—doing its job for liberty, freedom and democracy.

A few months ago, I was pleased to learn that Thales had secured a £176 million MOD contract to produce lightweight missiles for the British Army. The order will equip the Army’s current and future short-range air defence capabilities, such as Stormer combat vehicles, and be fired by the Royal Navy’s Martlet maritime anti-surface missile systems, which are deployed from the Wildcat helicopters the hon. Member for North Durham referred to in his introduction. That is coming from us—Thales, in Belfast, in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The MOD said that these lightweight multi-role missiles, weighing only 13 kg each, provide a solution against threats such as drones, helicopters, aircraft, and small, fast maritime targets. They have been used in Ukraine to aid our allies in their ongoing struggle, and they have truly made a difference. It is right and proper that we ensure we have a decent stock and the facilities and capacity to quickly access more, should the need arise.

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

My hon. Friend refers to the stock that we require. Hopefully it never needs to be used, but we definitely require it. Does he agree that it would help if the Government were to outline in clear detail how quickly defence spending will get to 2.5%?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Minister, who is assiduous in her work, will no doubt take note of that, or her officials will and will pass forward up-to-date information on where we are. I will comment on that later on, because it is really important that we look forward.

It is my hope—I know it is a shared hope in this room—that we can shortly find a way forward to peace for Israel, Ukraine and Africa—peace in so many theatres of war. Two weeks ago in the Baptist church I attend, the pastor said in his prayers that there are 47 wars in the world; that is how many there are. The ones that feature highly are Ukraine and Israel, of course, but across the world there are wars and rumours of wars. Those 47 wars give an indication of why peace is so important.

While we hope, aim and strive for peace, we must also be prepared for war. We must ensure that our armed forces are equipped and trained on land and sea and in the air, as well as in the new cyber-space, and missiles are part of that preparedness. The UK has to prepare for Russian aggression. It was in the paper this morning—the hon. Member for North Durham referred to this—that Russian drones were looking at the east of England, and I understand that the MOD was responding to them. I know that that is a hot story—if that is the way to put it—having been in the paper for the first time this morning, but maybe the Minister can give us some indication of how we are preparing ourselves for any such incursion by Russian forces, wherever it may be in the east of England—or indeed coming through the Republic of Ireland, into Northern Ireland and ultimately towards the rest of the United Kingdom. I would love there to be a special NATO relationship with the Republic of Ireland, but we must be aware that it is a back door to Britain, so we need to be prepared and ready. What is most important is that we are doing what we can.

I welcome the news that we are again to increase our GDP spend, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to that. I know that the 2.5% is something we all want the Minister and the Government to achieve, and nobody differs in that view. What discussions have taken place with our fellow NATO countries and compatriots in battle about their preparedness to spend 2.5% for a similar reason?

I am conscious that within NATO we have our commitment to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, who are on the frontline with Russia. They have stood firm, but how can we ensure that their commitment is likewise at 2.5%? How can those that are not on the frontline, who may think they are safe because they are a way behind those countries, also commit to that 2.5%? That is something I would very much like to see. We have a change of Administration in the United States. President-elect Trump will take over on 21 January, I think, with President Biden still there until then. Have there been any discussions with the incoming President on the 2.5% commitment? If there have not been, could the Minister indicate when they might take place?

I conclude with this comment: I welcome the news that we are again to increase our GDP spend on military. This is right and proper. The production of high-level defence capacity by Thales and other UK providers must continue, to ensure that we can help our allies in need and that anyone who positions themselves as our enemy knows that our calmness and kindness are certainly not weakness. I am proud to be part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I am proud to be the hon. Member for Strangford and to ensure that we, collectively in this House, offer our support. I support the creation of these necessary arms, and I thank those who ensure that we have the capacity to continue having the world’s very best armed forces.

09:55

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for obtaining the chance to debate this vital matter, and I commend him on his comprehensive diagnosis of the threats we face.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have entered a period of global instability not seen since the cold war. First, there is Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, where the threat continues to escalate and the damage continues to spread. We must answer Russia with a European, transatlantic and UK-based response that adapts to the evolving threat of warfare—be that through technology, on land, in the sea, in the air or in space. I am proud that my constituency of Stevenage plays an integral part in the UK’s response to Putin, as the place where Storm Shadow missiles are refitted for use by Ukraine.

Secondly, there is the ongoing instability in the middle east—with the risk of escalation to an all-out regional conflict that will implicate allies around the world. We must also assess our preparation for the vastly different challenges that ongoing chaos in the region will cause.

Regardless of the conflict, and the differing threats posed, it is clear that NATO, Europe and the UK are not where we need to be to confidently say we can protect our interests at home and abroad. On air defence alone, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity needed to protect Europe from a larger attack.

This matter is of deep importance to me and my constituents in Stevenage. As a former local armed forces champion, I am proud to represent a constituency where MBDA is based. The company produces Sea Ceptor and Sea Viper, which bolster our naval-based air and missile defence capabilities and are integral to the UK’s missile defence strategy—both in protecting our ground-based assets at home, and for our blue water naval capabilities wherever they may be deployed across the world.

Primes in Stevenage, such as Airbus, also support the UK’s thriving small and medium-sized enterprise sector. One of those firms supplies MBDA with the thermal batteries that allow its missiles to sit dormant under pressure before going off quickly when activated. We must not downplay the role that our industry partners play in our air defence. Without the ingenuity of industry, such as that in Stevenage, we would not be able to maintain—or scale up—our missile response. It is the proud international role that my town plays in the defence sector that inspired me to take up a role as part of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and for the past week I have been at the NATO summit in Montreal discussing these exact issues with international partners. The consensus across NATO is clear: growing threats lead to growing strength, faster evolution and a more unified response than ever.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is clear that war in Europe—war on our continent—has fundamentally shifted defence priorities and key areas for our focus. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff’s recent comment that a key area for future investment should be integrated air and missile defence, so that we better address growing global challenges and threats?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, and I absolutely agree. We must have interoperability across all our services—not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space, which is not just the next frontier but brings it all together. We must not forget that.

Currently, the UK, alongside 22 other NATO allies, is meeting the NATO contribution requirement of 2% of GDP. I am pleased that this Labour Government have a commitment to increase that to 2.5% following the strategic defence review. In undertaking that review, the Department will be looking at the many ways in which we can develop strength where we are weak and efficiency where we are slow—and develop strength we must. It is integral to that that the UK bolsters its air and missile defence capability, especially as we saw only last week Putin’s first use of intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles in Ukraine. We must ensure that our constituents and the infrastructure on which we rely are protected from missile attack, and the threat of such attacks will continue rising for the foreseeable future.

I believe that the only way we can upscale our capability effectively is by working with both our strategic partners in NATO and our geographically-closest partners in Europe. I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and across Europe. As a third partner currently, we run the risk of not just the UK Government but our industry being locked out of discussions with our counterparts across Europe. We must work to supercharge our UK-based defence industry and give it the correct tools to work hand in hand with our European partners to keep us all safe. If that does not happen, we will not be effectively maximising either our own capability for our defence or our wider response to the war in Ukraine and to increasing uncertainty internationally.

I make this case to the Minister: keep spending, bolster our armed forces and do everything in our power to retain sovereign capability over every area of the defence sector, from manufacturing to procurement. We must speed up production and explore every avenue to develop the new technologies and systems that we need to face down modern threats and tackle global challenges. At the very heart of this all, we must prioritise the UK’s missile defence capabilities so that companies, such as MBDA and Airbus in my constituency, can contribute in an ever bigger and better way than they already are.

I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and wider Europe—one that includes an industrial pact for UK-EU collaboration on weaponry to guarantee our safety and stability while we navigate our evolving relationship with our close allies in the US.

To conclude, the rules-based order across the world is under the greatest threat since the end of the second world war. The UK has been at the very heart of creating that rules-based order, and we must do all we can to protect it. Boosting our own defences is now critical.

10:01

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I apologise for my late arrival, Mr Dowd. Two airbases in my constituency of West Suffolk, Lakenheath and Mildenhall, were recently targeted by drones; residents were concerned to hear aircraft being scrambled in the middle of the night to intercept them at the weekend. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she could give us a clear account of what happened and what the response is likely to be if that continues.

I particularly want to raise a related security concern. Concerning Russia, the director general of MI5 recently said:

“We now face…state-backed sabotage”

and

“we should expect to see continued acts of aggression here at home. The GRU in particular is on a sustained mission to generate mayhem on British and European streets: we’ve seen arson, sabotage and more.”

That is obviously a serious threat to our country. I do not expect the Minister or other hon. Members present to know the details of the proposed Sunnica solar and battery farm, but it is very close to both Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and many of the service personnel who work at the bases live even nearer to the proposed site. At that site, the proposal includes battery energy storage systems, which are especially vulnerable to acts of sabotage. BESS fires on similar sites have been caused by lithium battery failure leading to thermal runaway. That can cause explosions and the resulting fires cannot be extinguished using conventional methods.

Four years ago, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to put out, and similar stories apply elsewhere around the world where those facilities have been constructed. The fires emit toxic fumes, which means that people in the vicinity must remain indoors throughout. The risk to the bases, given the location of the Sunnica solar farm, is quite obvious. I do not expect a full answer from the Minister, but in her concluding remarks can she commit to having a meeting with me and some of her officials so we can talk privately about the issue? I would be very grateful.

10:04

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for Bolton West, which is the home of MBDA’s Logistics North production site. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate; I particularly welcome his comments on both the lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the need to ensure that our armed forces can protect us from a diverse range of threats.

All of us will have constituents who are concerned about last week’s developments between Russia and Ukraine, including Putin’s use of an advanced hypersonic missile. This is a personal issue for me. My own father was stationed in Germany throughout the 1970s as the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union loomed. The shadow cast by that period of constant existential fear is, unfortunately, a long one. The terrifying reality is that now war is not just something we read about in newspapers; it is on our doorstep. However we are not fighting on the beaches, landing grounds, fields and streets any more. The long distance missile capabilities of hostile states mean, regrettably, that war can now reach us in our own homes.

All that is to say that sovereign capability for missile defences here in the UK has seldom been so important. As others have already noted, we are vulnerable to advanced missiles such as the one fired by Russia last week and the one fired by Iran on Israel earlier in the year. As our armed forces and defence infrastructure were left to crumble during the last 14 years, a serious capability gap has emerged, particularly around defence against air threats and our ability to engage targets at extended range. Only in September, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee warned that the Government must

“pay greater attention to homeland defence”,

particularly to

“integrated air and missile defence…in close collaboration with our European NATO allies”.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. It is increasingly clear that enhanced co-operation with NATO and other allies will be essential in achieving air and missile defence aims in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen in the recent Estonia pact, these continued alliances will not only enhance our ability to meet procurement challenges but ensure that we are able to defend against these long-range missile threats?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will come on to that issue in the context of the recent Germany-UK defence agreement, which was signed in Trinity House only last month.

Over the weekend, there was also an intervention from former Defence Minister and former Chair of the Defence Committee Tobias Ellwood, who said that we are “woefully unprotected” and described London as “almost a sitting duck”. This issue can garner support from all sides of the House; I know that other Members will recognise the scale of the challenges ahead, which necessitate ever closer international relationships and collective defence within NATO and the European Union. With that in mind, I should say that I had the immense pleasure of talking to German counterparts as part of a delegation to Berlin in September. As the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, I enthusiastically welcomed last month’s UK-Germany Trinity House agreement on defence.

The Government’s shared objective with Germany to sustain effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by building credible, resilient defence forces and defence industries is vital if we are to work towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Europe and north Atlantic. Sovereign capability, as an enduring necessity, is something that I expect the Government’s forthcoming strategic defence review will attest to. To ensure adequate manufacturing capacity, industry must remain at the very heart of our missile defence system.

MBDA employs 1,200 people in my constituency and almost 6,000 across the UK. I am sure that colleagues will agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that MBDA represents the very best in ingenuity, working as a trusted partner throughout Europe and providing the air defence capability that we and our allies need to stand up to Russia’s unwarranted aggression. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s comments at the Farnborough International Airshow earlier this year, when he committed to

“renewing important partnerships with industry and continuing to push technological boundaries”.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he has done so already.

Scotland is a tremendous asset in defence. Companies right across the country provide enormous pieces of equipment, such as the aircraft carriers built in Scotland. Scotland also has many small and medium-sized enterprises—we have Raytheon, which provides parts for Tomahawk, and Thales on the banks of the Clyde. However, does the Minister know that there is something of a hostile environment from the Scottish Government towards companies that need to ramp up and access finance to deliver the large orders coming from the Ministry of Defence? Senior Scottish Government figures have boasted about the fact that, under their watch, money would not be given to large companies for warfighting capabilities; it would be for civilian use only. That is alarming. We will need to ally with defence companies as well as NATO.

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the importance of the defence sector across all four nations of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State also spoke at the Farnborough International Airshow about the importance of driving prosperity and creating skilled jobs across the country. But defence cannot be done on the cheap—we will have to put our hands in our pockets. It is an investment, not a cost, and I must urge the Government to reach the 2.5% of GDP defence spending target at the earliest opportunity so that the rogue states causing ongoing geopolitical instability know that their continued unlawful aggression will not and cannot win.

To conclude, the threats we face are very real, as are the resourcing, production capacity and resilience needs. I look forward to further measures from the new Government to show their resolve to stand up to Putin, invest in our defence capability and increase domestic manufacturing capacity.

10:11

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst); I know how important this subject is for not only his constituents, but mine and many others across the north-east. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) have made remarks on the importance of manufacturing and industry, and that is where I will focus my comments.

Prior to arriving in this place, and since my election, I have done some work on manufacturing and industry with the Royal United Services Institute. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the conclusion of some work it did a couple of years ago: a prolonged war will be won ultimately by the country with the strongest industrial base. That is a comment with which we can all agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned the September 2024 House of Lords report on the importance of paying greater attention to homeland defence. That is really the crux of the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. The reorientation of defence from expeditionary to homeland defence means that we must rely on our own domestic industry to secure our defence. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham also talked of the number of missiles, drones and so on that have been expended in the war in Ukraine. It is important to think of all of those missiles and drones as machines composed of semiconductors, plastics, metals, ceramics, advanced manufacturing and advanced machining, all of which we would be required to produce from our own economy in a conflict.

That House of Lords report also drew attention to the need to generate and maintain mass in a conflict. That is the ability of our economy to ensure that we can field second and third-echelon fighting forces, protect our critical national infrastructure and safeguard lines of communication to frontline troops. I know that the Government are considering integrated air missile defences in the forthcoming strategic defence review, and I am pleased that this debate and my hon. Friend’s opening remarks will raise the profile of that. However, I hope that review will also look at how we strengthen our homeland security. Particularly given the threat from Putin, we need to consider how we will grow our industrial base.

Fortunately, we are starting in a reasonably strong position: our defence industry is a global leader. That is why I believe the Government have included defence as one of the eight growth sectors in our modern industrial strategy, Invest 2035. But we need to invest further in capabilities that will deter and defeat future threats, and that will rely, beyond our defence industry, on our wider foundation industries.

I will talk a bit about the foundation industries and their role. I welcome the Government’s protection of the Coherent semiconductor plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland). But we can think of other examples such as the CF Fertilisers plant in Billingham in my constituency, which produced ammonia for explosives for over 100 years but closed last year due to an uncompetitive business environment in the UK. In the steel industry, we talk a lot about big steel centres such as Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, but a number of years ago we lost our only electrical steel capability almost without a murmur.

There is a wider issue here in Europe. Plastics demand in Europe grew by over 6% last year, but production in Europe declined by 3%. Technical ceramics are essential for all our missile defence systems, but the ceramics industry is also struggling under high and uncompetitive energy prices. The Defence Committee report earlier this year, “Ready for War?”, identified some serious deficiencies in our defence procurement practices, with the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and suppliers

“not anywhere close to where it needs to be”.

The report identified a pressing need to strengthen domestic production across the board.

If supported by a positive investment environment and a pipeline of projects, we know that the UK economy possesses a range of domestic steel producers—the sector that I worked in—and suppliers in other areas that can produce these key components. We have a great opportunity, with the combination of the defence industrial strategy, the steel strategy, which will be published in spring, and the modern industrial strategy, to set the scene for private sector investment that will enable us to strengthen these capabilities.

Finally, I draw Members’ attention to the words of former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. He characterised this debate appropriately when he said,

“without industry, there is no defence, no deterrence and no security.”

10:16

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for bringing forward this critical debate.

In 1988, The Sunday Times published a formative exposition of the integrated air defence system that protected the UK at the time. I managed to find the article, called “Can the RAF defend us?”, with the aid of the Library. It gave a very detailed analysis of the system in place, some parts of which had not changed since 1938, and it spoke of how an investment of about £10 billion on combined programmes would address that. I enjoyed reminding myself, while reading the article, of the places that were commissioned back then that I finally served in during the early 2000s. The reason for bringing that up is that, then as now, we need a clear understanding of where we are and of the degradation in our services since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

Defence has three outputs: policy, capability and operations. We must convince ourselves of the need to do some of the things that my hon. Friend spoke about eloquently earlier. On policy, we must recognise that our security problem is inherently European. The European Sky Shield initiative is fundamental, so it is critical that we enhance and recover some of our relationships with our European partners, and that we remain NATO-first. We must recognise that we will not stand alone, and that the solution to our problems and funding must have a European bent. I urge the Minister to do as my hon. Friend discussed and enhance our European relationships —specifically regarding access to funding and partnerships.

I note the article’s clear recognition that our Army was inherently European based. It is largely pointless having tanks on Salisbury plain when the threat is elsewhere. I wonder whether now is the time to reconsider where some of our Army is based. Having a deployed Army that contributes to a security problem will also need an air defence above it. We need to give consideration to the service that, at present, is prime in delivering parts of our integrated air defence system. I also welcome the discussion about Type 45s. It is imperative that we understand that the Royal Navy has a part to play in our air defences, and that Type 45s not just protect the carrier but are fundamental to ensuring the long sea track.

With policy, it is essential that, whatever solutions we come to, we ensure that we are in the grey zone right now. Defence is about deterrence, and it is fundamental that we maintain a posture that deters our enemy. We must understand that this logic has already started: our enemies have already started to encroach on some of the fundamental parts of our deterrence, including damaging the rules-based international order. I urge the Minister to take back to the Department a discussion about a deterrence policy that works around our integrated air defence—something that is discussed incredibly well in the 1988 article.

On capability, I do not wish to politicise the debate, but just as we now reflect openly on the damage that the 1957 defence review did to our industries, we must have an honest discussion about the impact of the 2010 SDSR. Critically, we must recognise what happens when we take capability holidays, and how those create long and lasting impacts on our capabilities. That is why we are in the position that we are in now. Some of the capabilities that were mentioned in the opening speech are not there because we did not support the industries that were enabled to build them. A recovery of our industrial base is essential. Readiness is about availability, capability and sustainability. The greatest damage that has been done to our defence enterprise is in our ability to sustain a response. We must have an industry that is capable of building and sustaining the stocks necessary to counter mass.

On operations, we have circa 10,000 people deployed on 250 operations worldwide at the moment. The Defence Committee was told the other day that we have about 100,000 personnel fit to fight. For it to be sustainable—not using harmony guidelines, which are complex to work out—that is a force of 30,000 people who are committed today to operations. It is also not unreasonable to assume that an amount of our forces above that are in readiness, and they should also be at a ratio of 3:1 or greater, so something upwards of 30% of our fighting force is currently deployed sustainably.

I ask the Minister to foster an honest discussion within the Department about whether that is affordable and sustainable. We need our forces at home, or on European soil, training and getting ready for the coming fight. We cannot erode our defence enterprise by doing what may be considered profligate operations that do not contribute to our future security.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making a very thought-provoking speech. In an increasingly volatile world where new global threats are constantly emerging, we must ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. That is why I was pleased to see recent progress on the new air defence laser, equipping RAF pilots with high tech to defeat missile threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that steps are taken to put us at the cutting edge of innovation to enhance our air and missile defence capabilities?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and apposite intervention. I agree that to be able to respond and counter mass, we need technology. To align that with the point I was making, it is essential that we have people trained and ready to use that technology, which is why the size and mass of our deployments is critical. If we do not allow our forces to train and recover adequately, they will not be able to exercise and be ready to use those technologies as they come online.

I urge the Minister to address the points that I have made in this honest discussion, particularly about deployment. I also ask her to look at the disparity in some of the policies we are using when our forces are deployed—in particular, those that have an impact on weapons carriage hours. There is a significant disparity in the policies that we use to sustain our stocks, and an alignment with NATO and, certainly, the US would bring significant cost savings and reductions in the size requirements of our stockpiles. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might be able to talk about that, based on his experience and understanding.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for securing this debate. I welcome the Government’s announcement last week about the removal of costly and antiquated systems. I am hopeful about the SDR, and I am very grateful that the Government value the service of our armed forces.

10:26

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this important debate on the UK’s air defence systems, and Members from across the House for their enlightening and insightful contributions.

We are all aware of the gravity of this topic, given recent events. Our armed forces play a vital role in defending the UK; I echo what others have said about them and our defence systems. The previous Government oversaw an ongoing, real-terms decline in defence spending, which has had a lasting impact on our armed forces. In January 2023, the former Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, described them as “hollowed out and underfunded”.

Given the serious dangers around the world—the war in Ukraine, comments by members of the incoming Trump Administration, and conflict in the middle east—it is more essential than ever that the UK invests in a safe future for our children and grandchildren. We have all seen the news coverage showing the devastating effects that long-range aerial attacks can have on civilians. The emergence of new hypersonic missiles poses a major strategic challenge.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the Prime Minister has given the green light to the Tempest project, in collaboration with Japan and Italy. At our Defence Committee last week, the deputy chief of the defence staff, Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan, described the global combat air programme as

“absolutely central to the UK’s defence industrial base, from combat air and jet engine to missile sensor capability.”

Working alongside our allies is essential, and we look forward to seeing how that venture opens new doors to further co-operation.

The UK remains independently protected by the Royal Air Force quick reaction alert force, by Sky Sabre surface-to-air capability and by air defence missiles launched from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet. However, the security landscape has changed dramatically in the last few years. The Liberal Democrats believe that, for the UK to remain secure, we need a comprehensive security and defence agreement with the European Union. The European Sky Shield initiative now has 21 countries involved, and the UK signed a letter of intent in 2022, indicating that it would also take part.

I was heartened to see that the recent Anglo-German Trinity House defence agreement also indicated that we would work more closely together on air defence. The last Government lacked that co-operation and the pragmatic approach to Europe, potentially jeopardising the security interests of the UK for political posturing over our relationship with European allies. By showing leadership and developing new defence technologies, equipment, systems and training programmes with our neighbours, the UK can achieve better results and enhance our shared security.

The global combat air programme will contribute to our armed forces readiness and the future of this country’s aerial defence, but it is a long-term project. Our question should be: what policy moves can we make in the near to medium term to show both allies and adversaries that we are serious? For example, in the midst of the strategic defence review, how does reaffirming the Government’s support for GCAP fit with the review’s work? Is it now safeguarded regardless of the SDR’s other findings?

I join colleagues from across the Chamber today in expressing my concern over the state of procurement in the armed forces. Over one third of defence contracts under the last Government were awarded uncompetitively. A key priority must be addressing this persistent and pressing issue, which has plagued successive Governments for too long. Inefficiencies and missed opportunities have hampered our ability to ensure that our armed forces are well equipped, supported and prepared for the evolving security challenges of any future conflict. I believe in a sustained effort to fix the problems, including integrating defence procurement into a comprehensive industrial strategy. We must create a reliable, long-term pipeline of equipment procurements, giving our armed forces the tools they need while supporting the UK’s manufacturing and innovation sectors.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. Leonardo is a key player in our defence industry and an employer in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that Leonardo, as the sole remaining bidder in the next stage of the procurement process for the new medium helicopter, represents an important step in moving towards supporting the UK’s manufacturing and innovation sectors?

[Ian Roome]

I am sure the Minister heard what my right hon. Friend said.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

He is not right hon!

[Ian Roome]

Sorry—my hon. Friend.

The introduction of flexibility in defence capital spending would mean we can focus on meeting critical in-service dates rather than simply hitting financial deadlines. Fixing defence procurement will ensure that our armed forces remain modern, capable and ready to protect us in an ever-changing world. A fresh approach has never been more essential in our lifetimes.

I would like to mention Systems Engineering and Assessment in my North Devon constituency, which won a £135 million contract to supply state-of-the art defensive countermeasure systems to the Royal Navy—groundbreaking technology that will also likely be deployed via export to surface fleets across a number of this country’s allies. We also welcome the ambition of the Secretary of State for Defence to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. However, the Government have not issued a timetable to do that, and we need clear, tangible plans outlining how the target will be achieved in practice. It is critical that the Ministry of Defence has certainty about its future funding so it can plan effectively. Can the Minister now provide more clarity on the measures the Government intend to take to increase the defence budget and ensure long-term financial security for the MOD?

Finally, by taking action now we can prevent future generations from facing the need to allocate 3%, 4% or even 5% of GDP to address challenges such as air defence that could have been anticipated and managed earlier. This is about building lasting resilience and protecting our nation for the long term. A co-ordinated approach across Government is essential. Many Members have put some very important strategic defence questions to the Minister today and I look forward to the replies.

10:34

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. My strong congratulations to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an extremely timely debate. He spoke very well—in fact, all colleagues have contributed very thoughtful speeches on this important subject. Because of what is happening in Ukraine and what we have seen in the Red sea and Israel, many now say we should adopt some form of Iron Dome. This debate is very timely and I am grateful for it.

I echo the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and the hon. Member for North Durham in asking the Minister to update us on the overnight story of drones flying over United States Visiting Forces bases in Suffolk and Norfolk, and the apparent deployment of the negation of improvised non-state joint aerial, or NINJA, and ORCUS systems—which is different from the AUKUS defence pact with our partners. It would be good to have an update on how that was used.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a key point. I launched the integrated procurement model in February, and he is right that one should not look at missile defence in silos—no pun—because there has to be a joined-up multi-domain approach, particularly for space. I strongly agree with him that that will be a decisive factor in the early stages of something we hope will never happen: existential war. We need to be interoperable with allies, and the systems we procure need to be integrated across all the domains of our defence posture.

We do still need to consider these issues at domain level. My last visit to an army base, a week before the election was called, was to Thorney Island on the south coast to the 7th Air Defence Group. It used to be regarded as quite obscure but, because it is a ground-based air defence unit, it found itself at the heart of the debate on future defence. When I visited, I was clear that we would be ordering significant new levels of GBAD, including lightweight multi-role missiles for short-range, but also Land Ceptor units. I hope the Minister can confirm that those orders are continuing under the new Government and will be scaled up. As colleagues have said, we need more scale than we currently have because of the changing threat.

In the air domain, we currently rely on the Typhoon as our backbone. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) made a good point that GCAP, which I support, is way off in the future, in the 2030s. What is going to happen to boost lethality in the near term? It would be good if the Minister could update us on E-Scan radar with Typhoon, which will significantly increase its capability. It has been intercepting drones and missiles in the middle east and remains the backbone of our air defence. We must ensure that it is operating at the most capable level it can achieve.

I am particularly concerned about the maritime threat. We are supporting Ukraine, not in the theatre, but through the supply of ordnance. In the naval situation, our own ships were threatened, along with our own British sailors. It is in the public domain that the Houthis have obtained ballistic missiles from Iran and possibly other actors. That is a very serious threat. They may not yet have the fullest capability, but there was a worrying report this week that they are sending troops to support Russia in exchange for targeting information. That is a very serious development.

Given the ballistic threat, and given that Sea Ceptor cannot currently intercept in the terminal phase, we need rapidly to accelerate the Evolution upgrade, as far as we are able. That would give us an anti-ballistic capability. We may have to consider an urgent operational requirement for the standard missile 3—a US missile on the USS Arleigh Burke—that can intercept ballistic threats. I believe that could go in our Mark 41 launchers when our Type 26 and Type 31 start entering the sea. We will have to think like that because the threat is evolving so fast.

I strongly feel that technology is where we can enhance our forces. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, spoke about laser. When I was presented with DragonFire, I thought, “Wow!” If we can get this capability into service as fast as possible, crucially—although is obviously experimental up to a point—there may be a way to intercept drones without denuding our missile stockpile. That is incredibly significant. The other directed-energy weapon we looked at was the radio frequency one, which I saw at Thorney Island. That is not an electronic warfare system; it is a kinetic strike from sound waves that can take out multiple drones at once, for something like 10p a shot. At the moment, it has a relatively limited range.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will be pursuing those directed-energy weapons. If we go at them hard and fast, and deliver them into the arms of our forces quicker than other nations, we will boost not only our lethality and capability, but our defence industry. It is not just the link with industry, but the link with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and our brilliant scientists that matters, as well as creating the integrated procurement system that I wanted. I was pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham talked about that system, which enables us to develop really quickly and remain at the cutting edge.

Obviously, as I think all colleagues have said, there is one key issue: procuring these weapons, systems and capabilities costs money. We need to commit to 2.5%, and the Conservative position was to achieve that by 2030. Now, we can go back to the 2010s, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did. He knows that I am a great fan of his; he showed me around the cockpit of an A400 and I was very grateful. He has huge expertise from his time in service, but I have to be clear that the Labour party would have cut defence spending by 25% in 2010 had they won the election. The financial position then was incredibly bleak. We now have to put the past behind us. It was a long-term decline—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, but the fact is that defence spending fell under both the Conservatives and Labour, as it had around the world since the end of the cold war, because we all thought peace was upon us. In defence, we all have to adjust to the threat picture as we see it.

This is the crucial point: when we announced our funding pathway to 2.5% in April, which the Prime Minister announced in Germany, it would have included reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size to pay for it. That is not a particularly ambitious target, but the No. 1 priority of that extra spending would have been replenishment and rearmament. By replenishment, we mean replacing the arms we have given to Ukraine, and by rearmament, we mean replacing our technological warfighting capabilities—for example, making the evolution system for Sea Viper an absolute priority.

If we have a multi-year funding path in the MOD, we can procure at scale and at pace. If we have one-off, one-year adjustments—even if it is £2.9 billion—they will not enable procurement at the scale and pace that we require, and that is a fact. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) actually made the very good point that, if we go back to the Select Committee appearance by the Secretary of State, Lieutenant General Rob Magowan of military capability said that we need “always on” production. That is what a multi-year settlement gives us. Ultimately, wars are fought on industrial capability.

I will make two more points. On our allies, an excellent point was made about DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences, an initiative that I launched—which is about having tests for missile defence, like those we have in the Outer Hebrides for cruise missiles with the Navy. We need to train to be interoperable as NATO in Europe in those capabilities. We also have to look at multilateral procurement so that we as a continent are buying together to leverage economies of scale.

My final point, which I think is absolutely crucial, is about the deterrent. The hon. Member for North Durham said at the beginning that this is about conventional air defence. We have to be absolutely clear that, when Putin starts talking about an intercontinental ballistic missile being used, he is not going to not use it because we have missile defence; the thing that will stop him using it is fear of second strike from our ballistic missiles. We hope that would never happen—it is the extreme response to the extreme threat—but, while people talk about neglecting homeland security, we have had a submarine continuously at sea since 1969 with the most extraordinary lethality aboard. The scale of what it can do is quite unimaginable, and it is still absolutely at the technological cutting edge.

My point is this: we must not take that for granted. It must still be the cornerstone of the SDR; it is our No. 1 defence and it is ultimately the reason why countries will not, I believe, be tempted to launch conventional missile attacks. After all, if they attacked London with conventional missiles, that is a declaration of war under article 5, and a country doing that would ultimately have to be prepared to risk a nuclear response—that is what would be at stake.

That is not to say for one moment that we should not be considering how we upgrade our air defence— I totally agree with everyone who has spoken about the importance of that—but in the SDR, the nuclear deterrent should still be the No. 1 priority because it is the fundamental way in which we defend ourselves. Again, that means a multi-year funding settlement so that we can invest in infrastructure and the expensive capabilities that come with it.

We have heard some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about the need to get to 2.5% as soon as possible. The Conservatives strongly agree with him, and we hope the Minister will still be pushing for that.

10:44

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on obtaining this debate and making such a superb contribution—very knowledgeable and incisive. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on one thing: the quality of this debate has been superb, with excellent, knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I want to answer some of the questions that I was specifically asked before getting on to the meat of what I want to say.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) made an important point about concerns in his constituency, which contains Lakenheath and Mildenhall. He also referred to a nearby site at which developments are worrying local people. As far as I am aware, we do not have concerns in the MOD about that development, but I fully acknowledge that his constituents do. I am more than happy to offer him the meeting he seeks, so I can understand more fully the concerns that have been raised with him and so we can engage to make sure that he is reassured, to the extent that that is an accurate thing for him to be.

Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about the commitment to 2.5%. I make it clear that that is our commitment. The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make sure that I do not resort to saying that the last time the country spent 2.5% on defence was at the time of the last Labour Government, but I will disappoint him: that is, in fact, accurate. I can understand why the party that has just left office after 14 years does not necessarily want to talk about all aspects of its record. None the less, the record is there.

We are committed to setting a path to 2.5% in the spring. As Members across the House know, the strategic defence review will report in the spring. When we have a full strategic sense of what we ought to be spending the money on that we are going to be committing in order to meet the current threat, rather than operating on the basis of an industrial strategy and a defence and security review that, even with its refresh, did not take into account—

[James Cartlidge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will when I finish my sentence. Even with its refresh, the review did not take into account what was happening with Ukraine. At that point, we will be in a position to know very clearly what we ought to be spending those increased resources on.

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will just say this: last week the Government announced very significant cuts to defence capability without waiting for the SDR, so why do they have to wait for the SDR to realise that we need to go to 2.5% to replenish our munitions as a matter of urgency? They must know that, no matter how many SDRs they undertake.

[Maria Eagle]

Last week, the Secretary of State made a statement that dealt with withdrawing six capabilities. It would, in fact, save some money—£150 million over two years and £500 million over five years—but the primary purpose is to ensure that we do not continue to spend money on capability that will not actually provide modern defence. It is a rationalisation. It is fairly clear that with some of those announcements, it was just necessary to get on and make the decision. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% in the spring, along with the SDR, which I think is the right way of doing it. We are committed to it and we will get there. That, I think, answers the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about getting to 2.5%.

This has been a timely and excellent debate across the Chamber. If the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was to show that there is support across the House, he has succeeded. It will be clear to anyone who reads the debate that there is no real distinction between the concerns that we all have across the parties. As we were reminded last week by Russia’s reckless and escalatory use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which my hon. Friend and others mentioned, the global air and missile threat is advancing, proliferating and converging.

Given the increasingly volatile and contested threat environment, we must ensure that we have the capability and capacity to counter threats in the most appropriate way. In this uncertain future, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence. We have to ensure that we provide the right level of deterrence through the joint effort of land, sea and air power. To do so, we must properly consider the range of threats, from the low-cost drones that we see affecting the UK today to the strategic long-range weapons that Russia threatens to use.

This might be an opportune moment to deal with the points that hon. Members made about the drone situation. Obviously we are aware of recent reports of drones flying in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and elsewhere. Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures. I will not say here precisely what has been employed and where; for security reasons, I will not go into specifics, but the Chamber can be assured that we are taking steps. We are aware of what is going on and are doing our best to deal with it.

The House will be aware that through the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes in the UK are protected under the Air Navigation Order 2016 by uncrewed air system flight restriction zones. We will be making sure that anybody we manage to catch engaging in such behaviour is shown the full force of the law for their illegal activities. That is about all that I can say at present. Obviously, the Chamber would not expect me to go into too many details, but we are fully dealing with the matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, our geography makes the threats facing the UK different from those facing many of our allies. Solutions preferred by some will therefore not necessarily be suitable for us. However, our geography should not and does not make us complacent. We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence and protect the UK homeland, but we must also ensure that we become increasingly interoperable with our NATO allies.

Let me be clear that although the threat is evolving, the UK is not defenceless. We have a very broad range of capabilities contributing towards our integrated air and missile defence approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, we have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day. The Navy has proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 against various air threats. Although it is right that we do not predetermine the outcome of the strategic defence review, the Chamber can be clear that a key part of it will be to look at how we can deal with preparedness against air and missile threats.

It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the Government are therefore not taking any action. We have recognised the vital importance of integrated air and missile defence, which is why we are not just passively reviewing our own capabilities but actively leading the way internationally with initiatives such as DIAMOND, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk did indeed initiate during his time in office. It aims to improve air defence integration across Europe, boost interoperability and strengthen NATO integrated air and missile defence. It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do.

That is all going on now, and it should put us in a better position to understand how to go forward and spend the money wisely on the right things, not the wrong things. The Secretary of State announced at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers last month that the UK will lead on some of that work. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on defensive and offensive missile capabilities to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine. We still have to double down on supporting Ukraine and ensure that we boost it as best we can to defend it against the appalling aggression that it faces.

Boosting industrial capacity is another key part of the debate. It is a certainty in our strategic way forward. We have boosted the money that we will be spending. Members present will recall that at the recent Budget we got an extra £2.9 billion for defence over the next year. There is no way that all Government Departments are as happy with their settlement from the Treasury as the Ministry of Defence is. That is a down payment on the support that we need.

We have to do more to improve co-operation in Europe. We are boosting bilateral engagement, for example. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement. We committed to improve and enhance bilateral defence co-operation with a shared objective of sustaining effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by sharing plans on integration of capabilities, taking more steps together to procure the right kind of equipment, supporting implementation of NATO-agreed common standards, and ultimately working towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area by having sufficient deterrence to prevent any aggression.

We also work closely with France. Co-operation in the field of defence capability and equipment is a vital pillar of the Lancaster House treaty. We intend to ensure that that gets a boost and works better and faster towards improving our defence co-operation in areas such as integrated air and missile defence. We have a substantial range of equipment and capabilities across all domains, and we continue to work closely with the French and the Germans.

One of my hon. Friends—I cannot quite recall which—suggested that we need to focus much more on boosting our relationship with Europe and with the EU. We are also doing that—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, Minister, but I want to give the Member in charge the opportunity to wind up. You have a minute left.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. All the screens are showing different times. I am perfectly happy to conclude my remarks.

10:58

[Luke Akehurst]

Actually, I think it is appropriate that the time has been used by the Minister, because getting those reassurances is extremely important. That is what we all wanted to hear. I am particularly pleased that she recognised that the purpose of the debate was to demonstrate the support across the House, as well as the knowledge of the set of threats. I welcome her saying that a key part of the SDR will be to look at preparedness against missile threats.

I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that he need have no concerns about support for the nuclear deterrent. A recurring theme of my entire political life has been getting stuck into the arguments for the sustaining and renewal of the nuclear deterrent. It is part of my political brand. I am sure we can have that debate another time.

I thank all hon. Members who contributed. There were important contributions from Members who have an industrial interest in their constituency. From Thales to MBDA, we have some excellent technologies around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) made an excellent contribution about the wider industrial concerns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made another insightful contribution, based on his service in the armed forces—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Devolution: Lancashire

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a devolution deal for Lancashire.

It is a pleasure to serve under the chairship of a fellow Lancastrian Member of this House, Mr Dowd, on this very special day. I begin by wishing everybody fortunate enough to have been born in the red rose county, and those who have chosen to make it their home, a very happy Lancashire Day. Very shortly, schoolchildren across Lancashire will be tucking into their special school lunch, which I believe includes a favourite of mine, butter pie. I can highly recommend it with some nice warming baked beans on the side, washed down with Lancashire’s finest soft drink, Vimto.

The county of Lancashire was established in 1182 and came to be bordered by Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire and Cheshire. An awful lot of history happened between 1182 and the 1970s. Since we only have half an hour, I will not go into that now, but if Members are keen perhaps we can apply for a longer debate on it. By the census of 1971, the population of Lancashire and its county boroughs had reached over 5 million, making it the most populous geographic county in the UK.

I suppose that is partly why, on 1 April 1974, under the Local Government Act 1972, the old county was abolished, as were many county boroughs. The urbanised southern part largely became part of the metropolitan counties of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, with Lancashire over the sands to the north becoming part of a newly formed Cumbria. It is a great pleasure to have members from the Cumbria, Merseyside and Greater Manchester parts—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cat Smith]

I give way to my friend from Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. I want to add my support for the Lancashire Day celebrations. My connection is with the hon. Lady—I have always attended to support her debates, and I want to continue that tradition. I wish her well in what she does. Lancashire is an integral and important part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we thank her for the opportunity to discuss it.

[Cat Smith]

I thank my friend for that lovely intervention and celebrate the links between the west coast of England and Northern Ireland—long may they continue and prosper.

The outline of the 1972 boundaries looks much like the Lancashire of today. The ceremonial county of Lancashire is divided into 14 local government districts. Twelve are part of our two-tier non-metropolitan county of Lancashire, which is administered by Lancashire county council—the 12 districts of the non-metropolitan county are Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre—but Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen are unitary authorities formed in 1996, before which each district was part of the non-metropolitan county of Lancashire.

Lancashire has 16 Members of Parliament, and I consider myself honoured and privileged to be one of them. I served the Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency from 2015 until the last general election, when I was re-elected to serve the newly created—or potentially recreated, depending on how far people’s memories go back—Lancaster and Wyre constituency. As part of my work getting to understand my new patch, I tried to work out how many local councillors I had with a shared geography in my constituency. Unfortunately, I quickly became overwhelmed, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to the House of Commons Library for its assistance. I asked the Library for the number of county, district and parish councillors who represent areas within the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, but it turned out that even it did not have access to a complete dataset of the number of councillors in each of those types of area. However, it did provide me with an analysis of the number of county electoral divisions, wards and parishes in the constituency, which got me started.

I ask Members to bear with me, because not all the geographies exactly match up, as I explained, but this will give some idea of the number of councillors at play. When it comes to elected representatives, we have one police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, who covers the whole of Lancaster and Wyre. There are eight Lancashire county councillors elected to serve across eight divisions, including Lancaster Rural East, about a quarter of which is in my constituency.

Turning to district council wards, all eight of the Wyre district council wards are within the constituency boundary—that is nice and neat—along with 11 Lancaster council wards, including Skerton, half of which is in a different constituency. In total, that makes 19 wards. However, wards in Wyre and Lancaster can be represented by one, two or three councillors. This is where hon. Members might need to start making detailed notes if they are trying to add up how many councillors I have. There are 27 Lancaster city councillors and 15 Wyre borough councillors in the constituency, which totals 42 district councillors for Lancaster and Wyre.

Much of the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, and indeed much of Lancashire, is parished. Many parish councillors—I pay tribute to them—are incredibly active and engaged with their communities. There are 27 parishes within the boundaries of my constituency: seven in the Lancaster area and 20 in the Wyre area. That figure includes two Lancaster parishes that are only marginally within my constituency, with the majority of the parish in a different constituency.

The parishes in the Lancaster part of my constituency are Aldcliffe-with-Stodday, Cockerham, Ellel, Heaton-with-Oxcliffe, Morecambe, Over Wyresdale, Scotforth and Thurnham. The parishes in the Wyre part of my constituency are Barnacre-with-Bonds, Bleasdale, Cabus, Catterall, Claughton, Forton, Garstang, Great Eccleston, Hambleton, Inskip-with-Sowerby, Kirkland, Myerscough and Bilsborrow, Nateby, Nether Wyresdale, Out Rawcliffe, Pilling, Preesall, Stalmine-with-Staynall, Upper Rawcliffe-with-Tarnacre, and Winmarleigh.

Looking at the websites of those parish councils—I had to assume that they are not carrying any vacancies—I found that there were 194 parish councillors in Lancaster and Wyre. I quickly realised it would take me a long time to have a cup of tea with all of them. If we add those to the 42 district councillors, eight county councillors and one police and crime commissioner, we discover that the Lancaster and Wyre constituency has not only one elected Member of Parliament, but 245 other elected officials who can claim to represent it. If that was replicated across Lancashire’s 16 other parliamentary constituencies, we would have almost 4,000 representatives across the red rose county. I am not sure how many elected representatives the Minister serves alongside in his constituency, but I will guess, given its metropolitan nature, that the number is not quite so high.

Why does Lancashire have so much local government, and is it a good thing or a bad thing? To be fair, I think there are pros and cons. Sometimes, my constituents can get confused about which councils are responsible for what. The district council collects their waste and recycling, but the county council processes it, and that can seem quite muddled to a lot of folk. But it is not just my constituents who get confused and frustrated; I confess that I, too, have been known to exclaim in the office that some trees are pruned by the district council and others by the county council. When I have an angry constituent frustrated by a tree on the end of the phone and am not clear which council is responsible, it is no wonder our constituents get frustrated too.

The upper-tier local authority, Lancashire county council, often generously, shall we say, offers to relinquish its responsibilities to parish councils. I have seen that trend more and more. That may take the form of the county council giving up the maintenance of assets from its estates department, such as the Esplanade shelter in Knott End—which it has just realised, after 113 years, that it does not formally own—or asking parish councils, instead of its transport department, to buy their own electronic speed indicator devices. It feels grossly unfair that residents are doubly charged, through council tax and parish council precepts, for the same maintenance and transport services.

But is the answer pushing a one-size-fits-all model of local government that works for England’s metropolitan areas on to a rural county such as Lancashire? Lancashire’s local government looks the way it does because it has evolved to meet the needs of the communities across our vast and diverse county. I mentioned the commitment and enthusiasm of parish councillors. Those are completely unsalaried posts. Passionate volunteers give up their time to organise village gala days, Christmas lights, Remembrance Sunday parades and so much more. We would be foolish to underestimate the dedication of our parish councillors and their commitment to the communities they call home. Similarly, district councils help residents feel more connected to local government in a county that has many towns and villages with distinct identities. They do not always have strong transport connections between them, and are separated by vast swathes of countryside.

I can see the attraction on the part of the Government to neatly divide the whole of England into broadly equally sized unitary authorities, with metro mayors sitting above them. It makes the Government’s job easier to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I proudly acknowledge that I too am a Lancastrian, and my constituency includes vast amounts of Lancashire over the sands, which it is my privilege to represent. The hon. Lady says that local government reorganisation is sometimes done by the Government to suit the Government, rather than the communities that councils are meant to serve. In Cumbria, we had a unitary reorganisation only last April. Does she understand why businesses and residents in Westmorland and the rest of Cumbria are heavily opposed to the idea that a mayor might be imposed, and another reorganisation carried out barely five minutes after the last one?

[Cat Smith]

I understand very well why the hon. Gentleman’s constituents feel that way. I was very involved in the consultations around the reorganisation in Cumbria, not least because there was a strong bid by the Lancaster district within Lancashire and a desire to go in with South Lakeland and Barrow councils to form a bay authority, which would have matched what the community looks at and where its identity lies. The north of Lancashire has always looked to the north, into what we now call Cumbria—which, of course, was fictitiously created in 1972, as I alluded to earlier. In my opinion, much of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to this day remains part of the red rose county, but I would certainly not support his constituents being further inconvenienced by a local government reorganisation. I think he will enjoy the arguments I am about to make about a mayor for Lancashire. We may find common ground on which we can form an alliance.

We need something that works for communities. The communities represented by these structures should feel that they represent them and work for them. It is hard to see how a rural county that stretches from the edge of Merseyside and Greater Manchester right to the edges of the Lake District national park—from the Irish sea to the Yorkshire border—can truly be represented by just one man. I make no apology for saying “man”. The vast majority of mayors elected have been men, and I see no evidence to suggest that Lancashire might suddenly buck the trend. Since 2012, Lancashire has elected a police and crime commissioner; it is the only post elected across the whole of Lancashire, and it has only ever been held by a man. Clive Grunshaw served from 2012 to 2021, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) served from 2021 to 2024, and since May this year Clive Grunshaw has been in post again. I must declare that I have a good working relationship with both men. Clive was my constituency Labour party chairperson for many years, and the hon. Member for Fylde is now my constituency neighbour, and we are finding common ground on many constituency issues. My issue is not with those individuals, but the point is that they are both men.

In fact, no woman has ever stood as a political party’s candidate for police and crime commissioner. That does not bode well for a future mayor of Lancashire. In 2012, there were four candidates for police and crime commissioner—Labour, Conservative, UK Independence party and Liberal Democrats—but all were men. In 2016, there were again four candidates—Labour, Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. In 2021, there were four candidates—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Reform—and all were men. In 2024, there were three candidates—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. Asking Lancashire to adopt a mayoral model of devolution is asking us to devolve power from women council leaders, roughly half of whom are women, to a man, as mayor.

After all the progress the Labour party has made in increasing women’s representation in Westminster, we have more women MPs than ever in Lancashire—six out of 16, so there is still work to be done—we risk undoing that progress. There are women council leaders at Lancashire county council; at one of our two unitary councils, Blackpool; and in six of our 12 districts—Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Rossendale, South Ribble and West Lancashire. There is clearly something about this model of local government that seems to create a more equal gender balance among leaders, and I fear that we are taking power away from those women leaders and regressing to a model that favours men.

So here we are: Lancashire Day 2024. We are a county that has changed and embraced change many times before. We have a rich history, a strong cultural identity and a diverse range of cities, towns and villages across the rich landscapes of our red rose county.

Local councillors and I have questions for the Minister, which I hope he can address.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate on this historic day, which we celebrate as Lancashire Day—a day that promotes and preserves the true identity of Lancashire. I support the devolution of powers and funding to Lancashire. Lancashire includes Blackburn, which is, incidentally, the best-run unitary authority in the area, and which has more than 25 years’ experience of managing children’s and adult social care services. I am working closely with that authority. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to the powers given to local authorities must be made in close consultation with authorities such as Blackburn with Darwen borough council?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. Devolution must not be done to Lancashire; it must be done with us. We have examples of successful councils, as he outlines, and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all want to see Lancashire move forward, be successful and embrace change, but not in a one-size-fits-all way.

The Minister will be aware that I sent him an advance copy of my questions, and I hope that we can get some clear answers. My local councillors want to know whether politicians or civil servants will decide what can and cannot happen in this round of local government reorganisation, as well as how much weight will be given to community wishes and voices—that is a feeling not just from my local councillors but from hon. Members present. They also want to know whether current district authority boundaries are fixed, or whether, should Lancashire be divided, an authority can be split into two unitary authorities. Which is more important in local government reorganisation—ceremonial county boundaries or functional economic areas? What weight will be given to the mirroring of health and NHS footprints? Often the NHS is organised in a far more practical way than is local government.

What reassurance can my constituents have that their local council will not suddenly feel a million miles away from where they live, and that it will still be relevant to their lives? When it comes to a representative democracy, how can we ensure that Lancashire’s representatives continue to look more like the people we represent? How can we ensure that both rural and urban voices are heard, and that coastal communities are not forgotten? How can we ensure that we continue to make progress towards 50:50 representation of women and men in elected office? I continue to be of the belief that Lancashire is the finest of England’s counties. We are everything. We are diverse and we are beautiful, and we have a proud history going back 842 years. I want to progress with a future as bright as our past. Happy Lancashire Day.

11:20

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

As a fellow Lancastrian—I am from Oldham—I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing this debate on this special day, Lancashire Day. If you go into Lancashire county hall, you will see Oldham’s crest emblazoned on the wall, pointing to our historic ties to the county of which we are very proud. This is a special day, and I am pleased to see the flag flying in New Palace Yard in recognition of that.

I welcome this debate. This is an important moment, as the English devolution White Paper is due to be published before Christmas. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will wait for the White Paper to be published before discussing a number of aspects of that framework. However, I am certainly happy to talk about Lancashire, the agreement that has been reached and the next steps forward; that may address some of her points more directly.

This Government were elected on a platform to widen and deepen devolution across England. As part of our central mission to drive economic growth and improve living standards, we want to move power out of Westminster and back into the hands of those who know their areas better, giving those with skin in the game the tools to get the job done. In September, the Government agreed to the Lancashire devolution deal, which marked a significant step in delivering on that mission for the region. The agreement will help to reshape communities and unlock the economic growth potential of the region to benefit all residents by returning power from Westminster to local communities. Specifically, the devolution agreement means that a county combined authority will be established with Lancashire county council, Blackpool council and Blackburn with Darwen borough council as its constituent members.

Local leaders through that body will take responsibility for services delivered at a strategic level, giving them more control and influence over the levers of local growth. For example, local leaders will take control of the adult skills fund, allowing Lancashire to better shape local skills providers. The Lancashire local enterprise partnership will be integrated into the new body, ensuring a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to business support. The new body will take on the status of the local transport authority, meaning better integration for local transport in the area to make it easier for local people to get from A to B. There will be new land assembly and compulsory purchase powers, enabling housing and economic development to flourish in the future.

Yesterday, a statutory instrument was laid before Parliament to enable the combined county authority for Lancashire, and I look forward to debating that in more detail. The SI gives local leaders the powers I mentioned over transport, housing and economic development; powers over adult skills will follow. A locally run consultation demonstrated widespread support, including from the business community, for the area’s taking on these new powers.

Investment matters. That is why the devolution agreement also sees the release of £20 million of capital funding to support local growth priorities identified in the area. That could include projects such as the National Cyber Force headquarters, the innovative low-carbon data centre at Blackpool airport, the civil service hub in Blackpool, the Blackburn innovation quarter and the cosy homes project to deliver better quality, more efficient homes in the area.

I recognise that there have been live discussions on the role of district councils in the combined county authority, and it is my firm belief that district councils will continue to play a key role in the success of devolution in the area. We expect effective levels of collaboration to be demonstrated between upper-tier, unitary and district councils. In the end, it is the place and the people that matter, and we expect councils to work together in that endeavour.

The devolution agreement that we have reached with Lancashire, which is being implemented at the moment, to be the start, not the end of the devolution journey. Essentially, it is the first step. It is a down payment made in good faith to work toward a mayoral combined authority. The discussions that we have been having in that area are not only about realising the potential of Lancashire, which is important, but enabling the north of England to realise its full potential. The way to achieve that is by taking power, decision making and resources away from the centralised model that we have in this country and bringing it closer to people and the communities where they live. We believe that where mayors are in place—and they are working together now, as a unit through UK Mayors, and on the Great North project where they are organising—they are beginning to make a significant difference and showing collective leadership for the north of England in particular, and we want to see all of England benefit from that. We do not shy away from that ambition.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and myself around Cumbria and Lancashire, which are very rural counties? Does he have any thoughts on the challenges of being a mayor in a disparate and spread-out area rather than a neat metropolitan area?

[Jim McMahon]

It is important to separate out the different roles and responsibilities. We do not see mayors as being super-councils. We see mayors as regional leaders that have a strategic responsibility. That is very different from councils that provide a public service delivery responsibility. We are seeing mayors begin to make a difference where they are in place. For instance, York and North Yorkshire is highly rural, with one of the biggest geographical combined authorities in the country. We have just agreed a mayoral combined authority for Greater Lincolnshire. There is a significant rural population there, too. Of course, Hull and East Riding will have a mayor next year as well.

These devolution deals are being rolled out across the country in both urban and rural areas. In the end, it is about political leadership, accountability and getting powers from here. If people feel as though somebody down the road is distant, people feel much more that this place is distant. We have got to break the centralised model of command and control that we see here. In many of the questions that have been raised are the issues that we wrestle with—how do we balance a functioning economic area with a public service foot- print with people’s locally and strongly held identity and sense of belonging in a way that balances all those out to get to a settlement that can be supported and accepted?

Those are all issues that we face in the English devolution White Paper and will continue to form part of the agreements that we have reached. On all of those tests, Lancashire is the ideal model. It is a modern county outside of our historic roots. It has units of local government that speak to that footprint. It has units of public service delivery that speak to that footprint. It has a police and crime commissioner that speaks to that footprint, and is a functioning economic area that speaks to that footprint, too. On that basis, I think that Lancashire is a very good candidate; and I think the people of Lancashire have a lot to gain from the mayoral model of devolution.

This is worth facing head-on. In the discussions that we had in Lancashire—to refer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain)—we recognise that we want to see district councils represented, but local government reorganisation is clearly part of the conversations that are taking place. We get representations fairly regularly from council leaders and Members of Parliament, and we recognise that those are live discussions. They are separate discussions that might come together at a point in time, and we need to allow both processes to run and to be worked through in more detail.

Finally, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for securing the debate. Although we have an overarching national ambition to see devolution across the country, it is fundamentally a local issue about how best to shift powers to communities and deliver real change on the ground. We look forward to that ambition being realised in Lancashire.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Violence against Women and Girls

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick in the Chair]

14:30

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. Violence against women and girls is one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: globally, almost one in three women has been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their lives. It damages health and wellbeing, and undermines our democratic freedom and pursuit of equality.

The phrase “tackling violence against women and girls” is now frequently used, but there is often a gap—a vast gulf, even—between the good intentions professed in this place and the reality of our lives. Urgent and immediate action is overdue. As survivors, we are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down. I therefore aim to set out why there is a need for a multifaceted approach. To address perpetrators and empower survivors, we need a comprehensive and cross-departmental strategy that goes beyond criminal justice to social security, housing, employment and health. I place on record my recognition of the Minister’s work in this area, and I know that she has indicated her commitment to rolling out a plan in the new year. I welcome the opportunity to continue to engage constructively with her in the interests of survivors everywhere, and today’s debate aims to be a part of furthering that common interest.

Although much of my speech will be about responses to the problem beyond the criminal justice system, there can be no question that the system woefully lets down survivors. There are abysmal prosecution and conviction rates, with perpetrators being released too early from prison. There is a crisis in legal aid and a lack of independent legal advice for survivors, and it is estimated that the majority of women in prison and under community supervision have experienced domestic abuse.

Mistrust of the police is at an all-time high. Obviously, not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. As Women’s Aid continues to emphasise, policing reforms are urgently needed to rebuild public faith in the institution that is supposed to protect us, but the Government’s announcements so far do not address the scale of the problem.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Constituents have made me aware of problems when the family courts have not understood that they can be used to perpetuate the abuse of the violent partner. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater understanding in the family court system so that people fleeing violence do not see that abuse continue?

[Apsana Begum]

I agree with the hon. Lady that every parliamentarian could understand the situation in the family courts better. The law is often used and misused by perpetrators to further the suffering of their victims.

I draw Members’ attention to the recent work of the Home Affairs Committee on rape investigations, prosecutions and non-contact sexual offences, which highlights the need to ensure that victims feel confident in reporting offences knowing that they will be supported and taken seriously. Likewise, the London Victims’ Commissioner’s recent stalking review makes a number of stark findings on both victims’ experiences and the response that they receive. Its evidence of the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors is also profound. For example, police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood.

Ending impunity by holding perpetrators accountable and establishing zero-tolerance of violence against women and girls is imperative. That requires providing support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system, yet not only do the law and court systems let us down, they can even be used by our abusers. I will not say much more about that today as last Thursday there was an opportunity to address my and other women’s experiences of lawfare in that regard. However, just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must be the solution. A whole-system approach is therefore vital.

On Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I said that domestic abuse can have an impact on an individual’s working life: unexplained absences, lateness and a negative impact on performance. For about one in 10 survivors, abuse continues in the workplace, often because their partner is turning up there, is stalking them outside it or is an employee there. The statutory guidance in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be by providing, for example, flexible working or paid leave. It is undisputedly the case that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure their rights, and that is certainly the case for survivors.

The cost of living crisis is especially dangerous for those faced with a choice that is no choice, really: remaining in an unsafe environment or facing destitution or homelessness. Lower incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents mean that people feel trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls who are escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is absolutely essential. In fact, domestic abuse is by its very nature a housing issue, with perpetrators often creating a context of fear and curtailed freedom, usually within or in association with the home. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters are still so focused on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media in that regard all these years after the vexatious case pursued against me about my housing arrangements.

It is no coincidence that the current crisis of violence against women and girls comes after 14 years of attacks on social security. Women are more vulnerable to poverty because they are more likely to have lower incomes and wealth and to have caring responsibilities. That leaves them more reliant on social security and public services and means that they are impacted more severely when public services and social security are cut. Disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse, which is why it is crucial that disabled people receive the support that they need.

The Women’s Budget Group has argued that economic violence has disregarded the needs of women, reduced the already inadequate services that they rely on and deprioritised their safety and wellbeing. Oxfam’s publication “The Assault of Austerity” argued that the most common austerity measures have been shown to precipitate both direct and indirect forms of violence against women and girls. There is no doubt that the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Women are dying every day while support services continue to be cut. Refuges, community-based services and specialist support on a broad range of needs are critical, and the funding of such services can literally be the difference between life and death, hope and despair, and imprisonment and empowerment.

It is a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule is scrapped and that there is an end to the hostile environment. The current political climate has created a toxic, dangerous atmosphere for migrant women. Immigration status and the fear of deportation are used as control tactics by perpetrators. That is why there needs to be a firewall between all public services and the Home Office so that every survivor can report abuse and perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. Migrant women, including those who are pregnant, are being detained in immigration detention centres as I speak, despite centres such as Yarl’s Wood being the subject of considerable political and media attention due to the high-profile allegations of sexual abuse and mistreatment over the years.

Globally, violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence, and the reports of mass rapes in Sudan are horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being bombarded, killed and starved, so tackling violence against them must include a ceasefire and an end to all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else where they are used to kill women.

It is important to understand that violence against women and girls can affect individuals from all backgrounds, but sadly society does not treat all survivors equally. The power and control that abusers wield to perpetrate abuse can interact with a range of experiences of oppression, and systemic discrimination can make it harder for individuals to seek help.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Following White Ribbon Day, and during Islamophobia Awareness Month, we must address the unique challenges faced by Muslim women, who often experience a triple whammy of gender-based violence, Islamophobia and discrimination. Those intersecting issues can prevent women from seeking help. Will she join me in stressing to the Government that services should be equipped to address those barriers and challenge the harmful stereotypes that perpetuate violence and discrimination?

[Apsana Begum]

I completely agree, and I greatly value my hon. Friend’s raising that issue during Islamophobia Awareness Month.

Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by incidents in which people have been denied assistance and access to services. Black and Asian survivors are more likely to mistrust the police. Although black and Asian people are over-policed for certain crimes, domestic abuse tends to be under-policed in minority communities because of so-called cultural sensitivity. When speaking out about my experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to perpetuate tired racist tropes about Muslims. We need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, causing the voices and lives of ethnic minority women to be overlooked and devalued. It is fundamental that any violence against women and girls strategy is actively anti-racist.

It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time that I have today. Nevertheless, I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side issue or separate; at its core, it is about inequality and the type of world we live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions. As such, it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives.

As hon. Members are aware, this week began with the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I want to take a moment to draw out the term “activism”, because the history of challenging violence against women and girls has always had pioneering activism and the fight for social change at its heart. The movement has been driven by the bravery of so many who have spoken out and organised, despite the challenges they faced. It is that that keeps me going. Because of those activists and survivors from around the world, I will never, ever allow my voice to be silenced. Human rights are fundamental. Ultimately, tackling violence against women and girls is about the hope of a future in which everyone is able to live freely in dignity, with joy and pride.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate. Everybody can see that we have a large number of people here. We have less than an hour now, given that the mover of the motion has already spoken, and the Government and Opposition spokespeople get 10 minutes each. You do not need to be a maths expert to work out that you are going to get less than two minutes each. Please have cognisance of the fact that any time you go over that, you will be taking time off somebody else. We will be extremely lucky if everybody who has indicated that they wish to speak gets to do so. I call Jim Shannon.

14:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Mark—it is not often that I get called first. I will do my best to outline the issues before the two-minute deadline. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing the debate and for the personal story that she told us last Thursday in the Chamber. There is not one of us that was not moved by it.

The Minister has a special determination to do things in Northern Ireland—I know that that is already in motion. In the last year six women have been murdered in Northern Ireland; there have been 33,071 incidents of domestic abuse; 800 women and children have been referred to Women’s Aid, and 10 babies were born in a Women’s Aid refuge. I have referred people to Women’s Aid for help; I want to put on the record my appreciation and thanks for all that it does. The Northern Ireland Health and Justice Departments have launched a domestic and sexual abuse strategy. An abuse incident is reported to police every 16 minutes in Northern Ireland and a sexual offence every two hours. It is absolutely horrendous.

When women come into my office with black eyes or unexplained injuries, it is clear what is happening and clear that we must respond quickly. So what do we want to do? We must support the victims, strengthen the children who are impacted by the abuse, and seek to raise generations of young women who know what to accept and young men who know how to act with women. Violence will not be tolerated and hidden by the darkness. We come into the light to say that the nation will not turn away and will not stay silent. We will work to secure a safer future for my granddaughters and all the women and children in the UK.

My wife Sandra and I strove to raise sons who respect women, and all three have settled down with equally strong and lovely young women. I am very pleased that we are having this debate. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse deserves congratulations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and the shadow Ministers as well. I have left about nine seconds for somebody else.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

It would be great if everybody could follow Mr Shannon’s example. I call Steve Witherden.

14:46

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate and for her exceptional dedication to tackling violence against women and girls.

UN Women’s latest femicides report reveals that globally the home is now the most dangerous place for a woman to be. For far too long, domestic homicide has been treated as an unavoidable tragedy. In the UK a woman is murdered by a man every three days; 62% of those women are killed by their partner or ex-partner, often in brutal and unimaginable ways, and many of them in front of their children. Given those harrowing statistics, the Government must confront domestic homicide for what it truly is: a national emergency. I fully support our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. Education must play a vital role in achieving that and raising awareness of domestic violence in schools is crucial.

For decades, road and fire safety has been taught in schools, yet the harsh reality is that women are 50 times more likely to be injured by their partner than in a house fire, and more than three times as likely to be killed by a partner as by not wearing a seatbelt. Despite that, research from Women’s Aid shows that four in five people in Britain do not believe that the scale of domestic abuse in the UK is greater than that of car accidents or house fires. Educating young people about the true severity of domestic violence is a key part of prevention work. The culture of inequality and misogyny, often rooted in harmful masculine norms, contributes to the widespread tolerance of domestic abuse.

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

As a family lawyer for many years before I came here, I found that some children—some as young as 13—felt it absolutely normal to be hit by their boyfriends. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that educating our young people, girls and boys, about the importance of respecting themselves and others is a key part of eradicating violence across the board?

[Steve Witherden]

Yes, I 100% agree. The role of education cannot be understated; it is fundamentally important.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Before we continue, I would appreciate it if people would desist from interventions, because they take a lot of time away from people whose names are down to speak.

[Steve Witherden]

Schools must be equipped to teach boys and young men to hold themselves accountable to women and each other. That is essential to beginning the work of dismantling those toxic cultures and creating safer environments for all. Empowering young people with the knowledge and skills to challenge inequalities and change harmful norms would enable meaningful progress in preventing domestic violence. What discussions has the Minister, who I know is deeply committed to ending violence against women and girls, had with colleagues in the Department for Education about making awareness-raising and prevention work on domestic violence and domestic homicide a priority in schools? How are the Government supporting schools to tackle domestic violence at its core?

14:50

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a fact that sexual harassment and violence happen in the workplace, yet protections for workers are limited. The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) 2023 is a laudable effort in creating a preventable duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, but as enforcement can only take place after an experience of sexual harassment, the Act is limited in its protection of workers from different forms of violence. We need more robust measures and better employer accountability. The brilliant teams at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women agree, and together we are presenting a Bill that seeks to do just that—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill.

My presentation Bill would address a gap in the law after the UK ratified the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 in 2022. It introduces clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment through risk assessments, policy development and training. It brings sexual harassment and violence into protections already in place for health and safety at work and under, importantly, the regulatory oversight of the Health And Safety Executive, which will be mandated to create an enforceable framework, holding employers to account.

All means should be at our disposal to both mitigate and ultimately stop gender-based harm. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 already places a duty on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees at work, but it is 50 years old and does not explicitly mention gender-based violence. Harnessing the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace would establish a structured approach to safeguarding women at work and make a tangible difference. I should be very grateful if the Minister would respond at the close of this debate to that proposed Bill.

14:52

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate. On Monday, we marked White Ribbon Day, a global campaign to end violence against women and girls. The statistics are stark: every 10 minutes a woman is killed by a partner or family member somewhere in the world, and in the UK a woman is killed by an abusive partner every five days. The police receive a call related to domestic abuse every 30 seconds, and by the time that I finish this speech, four women will have made that call. The data paints a clear picture. Everyone in this room will know a woman who has been affected by this issue, and sadly it is on the rise. The theme of this year’s White Ribbon Day is “It Starts with Men”, and it starts here with men calling out unacceptable misogyny and violence.

In Gloucester, domestic abuse and sexual assault reached record levels last year, and across the county we saw an increase of nearly 2,000 more domestic abuse-related crimes. Earlier this month, I held a roundtable with local organisations, such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust, FearFree and the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service, to discuss how we can tackle violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and stalking in Gloucester. The issue is complex, but we must prevent violence against women, ensure that women are supported to leave domestically abusive relationships, and provide the support needed for women facing all types of gender-based violence and stalking.

I am pleased that the Government are committed to halving violence against women within a decade, and I am pleased that they are working to improve police responses and ensure faster justice for survivors. As well as the recent introduction of workplace sexual harassment laws, I welcome new protections for victims of stalking, and to make spiking a criminal offence—something that my predecessor worked hard on. All those measures will help keep my constituents safe and ensure that the women of Gloucester feel safe and supported. Together, we can create a society where women and girls are no longer subjected to fear, abuse or violence. Together, we can end violence against women and girls.

14:54

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a very important debate in which we have acknowledged the scale of the issue and the epidemic of violence that women face every single day. Because of time, I will just highlight three crucial points domestically and reflect briefly on the international situation.

First, we have to invest in organisations on the frontline and support them. In Norwich, there are many excellent local organisations that are working on this issue, including Leeway, the Sue Lambert Trust and Dawn’s New Horizon, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I pay tribute to them, and it would be good to hear from the Minister how we are supporting those organisations.

Secondly, on the criminal justice system, last week in the House I raised the unacceptable waits that women in Norfolk are facing. We all know the pain and distress that that causes and the impact it can have on the outcome of court cases. I want to welcome the focus that our police and crime commissioner Sarah Taylor has put on the issue. Thirdly, we must have a holistic approach that tackles misogyny at its root—including in schools and by tackling the hosting and promotion of harmful content online. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in that regard.

I turn finally to the international context, having worked in international development for many years before joining Parliament. Violence is happening everywhere, as the United Nations has highlighted. Reports from Afghanistan have highlighted the scale of gender-based violence under the Taliban. As the Malala Fund has highlighted, Afghan women and girls find themselves being denied the basic freedoms of going to school, walking in the park and getting a haircut. The fund, alongside many experts and activists, is calling for this situation to be recognised by world leaders as gender apartheid. I know this is not specifically the Minister’s area, but I urge us to do everything we can, because the international community is letting women and girls down.

On Sudan, this week the UN humanitarian chief highlighted an epidemic of sexual violence. I am a member of the International Development Committee and we heard that reiterated this week. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in this regard, with the doubling of our aid package, but we must do more. To conclude, we need a multifaceted approach, and we need to be bold and tackle violence against women and girls wherever it occurs.

14:56

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this important debate.

Having worked for charities supporting women and girls for the best part of a decade, I am undeniably passionate about this issue. All of us who are present know why it is so important. We have all met victims and survivors—those abused by the ones they love, the girls who shake off the unwanted sexual images sent to them on the way to school, and the women who are trafficked and pimped into prostitution. We know the situation we face, and I am glad that the Government have made a landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls.

I am conscious of time, so I wish to raise just two issues that I hope the Minister can address. First, I remain concerned that vulnerable women who have fled their abusers and found a new home in a refuge continue to have their addresses disclosed through court documents. That opens them up to be tracked down by their abusers and can force refuges to close. I believe this was a measure that the previous Government, to their credit, tackled; but the problem appears not to have gone away entirely.

Secondly, I am concerned about the financial situation facing local specialist charities, many of which have been forced to close due to lack of funding, and the huge gaps in support as shown by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s mapping report in 2022, which found that most victims could not access the support they wanted. We need a new statutory duty to commission services for domestic abuse and sexual violence victims, both adults and children, in order to end the postcode lottery and ensure that vulnerable people are not left to fend for themselves. The same applies to interventions for perpetrators. To halve violence against women and girls, we need to focus on the root cause: men’s violence against women and girls.

I know how dedicated the Minister is and for how long she has campaigned to end VAWG. I look forward to working with her, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse who obtained this debate, and colleagues from all parties to make our commitment to halving VAWG a reality.

14:58

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate.

In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, Scarborough has the highest rate of domestic incidents per 1,000 head of population, at 15.7 recorded in North Yorkshire. A constituent, who I will call Anna—not her real name—came to see me to tell me what happened to her. I commend her for her bravery and honesty. Anna suffered abuse of the most extreme kind from her ex-partner, including an attempt at strangulation. She applied for and was granted a restraining order, but it was ignored by the perpetrator and the order was not enforced.

At a pre-trial hearing, the judge came to an agreement out of court. Despite Anna’s passing out, it was decided that it was pressure on her neck, not strangulation. Anna’s attacker was given a suspended sentence in order to undertake a relationship-building course with the probation service. Anna lives in fear of what he might do to her or other women at his workplace, who of course have no knowledge about his violent past. Anna’s experiences of the criminal justice system have taken a toll on her, leaving her without the strength to ask for a review from the court or the police.

My constituent’s case is far from untypical. A study by Women’s Aid on the family courts published last week found that survivors overwhelmingly felt that their experiences had been made worse by the justice system. We must do better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we can support people like Anna, whom I commend for her bravery in speaking out.

15:00

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I commend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing a debate on this extremely important subject, on which she speaks with real authority. This is a pervasive problem that we cannot afford to ignore. It is our responsibility to tackle it head on. We must use every lever available to target the perpetrators and address the root causes of this heinous abuse and violence.

That requires a comprehensive approach that does not centre on punishment alone. We must implement a holistic response that delivers justice and protection for survivors, effective prevention, and education that challenges the harmful social attitudes, inequality and discrimination that underpin the abuse that women and girls face. That is essential if we are to achieve our landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade and break the cycle of violence.

In the time I have, I would like to focus on stalking. We must recognise that stalking is a form of violence that can have devastating effects on victims, both physically and emotionally, and has not been treated with the seriousness that it deserves in recent years. It is imperative that we elevate our response to stalking, ensuring that victims feel supported and protected, and that appropriate interventions are provided to perpetrators.

I am proud that Winsford in my constituency is home to the Cheshire harm reduction unit, which enables police, health professionals and the Probation Service to work collaboratively, within an integrated multi-agency unit, to manage the risks associated with stalking and to support victims. I visited the HRU last week with my hon. Friend the Minister. We saw at first hand the nationally leading specialist work undertaken by the unit to support victims of stalking and bring offenders to justice, as well as the preventive measures it takes to try to reduce offending in perpetrators.

The HRU epitomises the best-practice response to stalking. I believe it is vital that its work is replicated and rolled out to every police force area across the country, and is extended to include the Prison Service, so that the work of changing behaviour continues before offenders are released.

15:02

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate.

In my constituency, we know all too well the terrible consequences of the misogyny and rape culture that enables the perpetuation of violence against women and girls. In 2022, our neighbour Zara was walking home from Ilford town centre when she was brutally murdered, just minutes from her front door. Zara was much loved by her friends, her family and the community as a whole. She had a bright future ahead of her, which was so callously stolen from her. Nothing will ease the pain and suffering of all those who loved Zara but, in her memory, her family have fought relentlessly to prevent further violence against women and girls. No one should have to endure what Zara endured.

The stark reality, as has been mentioned, is that one woman is murdered every three days in the UK. Every single day, women and girls are suffering from a systemic rape culture that normalises, overlooks and excuses sexual violence and the abuse of women. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. We know that violence does not exist in a vacuum. Society tolerates harassment, leering, casual misogyny and sexist jokes, which creates an environment that fosters the hatred of women, normalises abuse and ultimately leads to violence.

Jordan McSweeney, who murdered Zara Aleena, had accrued 28 convictions for 69 separate offences, dating back 17 years. Despite his history of violence, he was categorised as medium risk and allowed to roam the streets seeking another victim. McSweeney’s categorisation as medium risk is a stark reminder of the grave consequences of underplaying this serious crime. Will the Minister please agree that violence against women and girls is a national emergency, and that we must tackle the misogyny and rape culture that leads to abuse?

15:04

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

My constituency is classed as the most dangerous major town in Nottinghamshire, and by far the most common crimes are violence and sexual offences. Like much of the rest of the UK, Mansfield is victim to deeply rooted misogynistic beliefs and social norms that allow violence against women and girls to proliferate.

In the time I have, I would like to welcome some of the valuable work and initiatives already ongoing in my community, particularly the work by Mansfield district council and Nottinghamshire police in relation to their Safer Streets initiative, and the police and crime commissioner’s strategy for tackling violence against women and girls.

As a proud father to three women, I recognise the privilege I have had throughout my life. Simply being a man has protected me from having to navigate the gender-based challenges that are ever present in the lives of girls and women. For example, I do not know the feeling of silently suffering sexual harassment in school and the effects that it could have on my education, or of being scared to walk alone at night, with the constant need to check over my shoulder. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me not only that there is great value in putting the voices and experiences of women and girls at the centre of our work, but that equally every one of us has to acknowledge the responsibility that we have for tackling this issue?

15:06

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this really important debate. Tackling violence against women and girls is one of the most important issues of this generation. Globally, one in three women will face domestic abuse. In the UK, 97% of young women have been sexually harassed, and more than 1 million VAWG-related crimes were recorded by the police in 2022-23. That equates to about 3,000 offences each day.

Everyone will know someone who has been affected, and people may even have their own stories to tell. We must tackle the root cause of violence against women and girls if we are ever to reduce or eradicate it. That starts with social norms and attitudes towards women. It means tackling catcalling, hatred of women, sexist remarks, the normalisation in the media of violence against women, harassing and stalking—I could go on.

Tackling violence against women and girls can sometimes feel like an endless task, but I want to raise some of the amazing work happening across the country, including in Nottinghamshire. Communities Inc and Nottinghamshire Women’s Aid have developed the Stand by Her programme, focusing on exploring attitudes and behaviours that contribute to harassment, abuse and violence against women and girls. Stand by Her aims to change social norms and prevent men’s violence against women in Nottinghamshire. Training has been carried out across schools, workplaces and other organisations, and by the end of the year 4,000 officers and staff members in Nottinghamshire police will have been trained.

We all must play our part in prevention. That means stopping violence against women and girls before it occurs, by tackling the root cause of the problem. Women and girls should not live in fear. Violence against women and girls is never acceptable, never excusable and never tolerable.

15:08

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Every woman has a story and every woman knows how to carry her keys as a weapon. Any other extremism and murder on this scale would be front-page news every single day, but what we see instead is language like “incels” and “red pill”, which hides what is actually going on with our young men and boys.

I am thinking of people like Andrew Tate, who very openly says:

“If you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bear some responsibility.”

In a video viewed 1.6 million times, he discusses how you should fight a woman, saying that you should

“grip her up by the neck.”

Eight out of 10 boys aged between 16 and 18 have read, listened to or watched Andrew Tate, and they have a positive view of him. They think that he wants them “to be real men” and that “he gives good advice”.

This is the core of the issue. Some people will say that this has always been the issue. It has, yes, but not at this scale. Young men’s attitudes are more misogynistic and violent than their elders’. Only half of young men between 18 and 24 recognise that rape can still happen if the victim does not resist or fight back. Less than half of them think that if a man has been drinking or taking drugs, then he is still responsible if he rapes someone. If someone says they want to meet online, most young men think that they deserve sex as a result. Yes, our 16 days of activism starts with men, but it is also for men’s sake—because this toxic masculinity is causing problems across our society—and for the lives of our women and girls.

15:10

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this incredibly important debate.

I am ashamed that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive male partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. This violence has to stop and we must all play our part—especially men. I want to think about this issue in relation to the attitudes of young men, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has just done. I am the father of two boys and I am deeply concerned by the social media influencers and YouTubers who promote misogynistic attitudes and behaviours towards women. Algorithms push this vile material on to impressionable young minds and, as my hon. Friend just said, notions of consent to sex have been entirely distorted.

Obviously, we need to understand better the causes of misogyny but, in my view, the concept of masculinity needs to be rescued from the toxic clutches of self-interested and corrupt influencers such as Andrew Tate. The popular idea of masculinity must include the qualities of compassion, empathy, solidarity and co-operation. All too often there is a chain reaction where isolated young men become manipulated by influencers.

I also want to raise the question of women who lack the right kind of immigration status, or who do not have any status. The system currently makes it much harder for those women to leave an abusive situation, because the policy, the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, excludes many domestic violence survivors from its protection based on immigration status. I pay tribute to the Southall Black Sisters, who have tirelessly campaigned on this issue and with whom I have worked on it.

I thank the Minister for her many years of work on this issue and ask her what the Government intend to do to level the playing field for that group of women, as well as what steps the Government are taking to educate young men about the causes and consequences of misogyny and to call it out.

15:12

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on bringing forward such an important debate.

I want to touch briefly on the example of a young woman in my constituency who told me that during one walk across town she had been subjected to two separate incidents of catcalling. She was angry and upset, and she felt there was nothing that she could do. Rather like the concept in law that someone can be a victim of assault when attacked with words, not just physical force, so—I am sure we would all agree—we should consider the catcall as a form of sexual violence against women and girls.

I know that the Minister wrote earlier this month to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to confirm that she supports research into the potential links between a broader range of non-contact sexual offences and subsequent offences. I am confident that the Minister will agree that we must engage in both a shift towards proper enforcement, despite evidential challenges in this area, and a cultural shift among men. Catcalling is not a low-level offence and it is certainly not a bit of harmless fun. The men who do not catcall must also take action—we must call out catcalling.

Enforcement and cultural improvements are linked. When the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 comes into force, I hope that there will be some prompt convictions. I do so because I hope that that will send a strong message, like our announcement today on antisocial behaviour, that men will no longer be able to create a toxic, demeaning, and threatening environment for our women and girls going about their lives. It is those women and all law-abiding citizens who own the streets, not catcalling misogynists.

15:14

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate, and for her bravery.

Domestic violence is a massive issue in Knowsley: more than 3,500 incidents are reported each year, and we know that many more are not reported. More than 85% of the victims are women, and the majority of perpetrators are men. Those women often turn to people and institutions they trust, such as doctors, teachers and others who work in frontline services. Does the Minister agree that we need to break down the silos between Government Departments so that public bodies and agencies can spot the signs of abuse and train their staff to offer help to victims at the point they are ready to receive it?

15:15

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate.

“I’ve been told online I’m not pretty enough to be worth raping. I don’t go into some bars in Bournemouth because I don’t feel safe.”

Those were the words of a young woman I met last week at a Bournemouth University students’ union question and answer session.

“I wear headphones when I walk at night with one AirPod in so I can talk to my mum on the phone”,

in case anything happens,

“and the other out so I can hear what is going on”.

Those are the words of a young girl I met last Friday from 22nd Bournemouth Girl Guides and Rangers.

“I wear my hair in a ponytail but my hood up because I don’t want someone to grab my ponytail, pull me into a hedge, and rape me.”

Those are the words of another young woman from Charminster I spoke to recently.

Alison from Moordown feels unsafe as a woman in the town centre. Desiree from East Cliff does not go out once it gets dark because she is too vulnerable. Fifty per cent of the population of Bournemouth and Britain are being forced to change who they are and how they live their lives. The response to a new social media video by AFC Bournemouth has been striking. It shows how a walk home from the football might not be the same for everyone, because the street lighting can be so low. Enough is enough.

The latest annual figures show that 723 offences of the rape of a female took place in Dorset, yet in the year ending June 2024 there were 36 prosecutions and 14 convictions for rape. That is not acceptable in any way, shape or form, and we have to stop it. I commend the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole organisations working to support victims of domestic abuse, including the Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, the Waterlily Project, Victim Support and STARS—Sexual Trauma and Recovery Services.

The focus should always be on the victim—the survivor —and the children who live with domestic abuse every day. We who have worked in the world of domestic abuse know that if public policy continues to ignore the abusive partner, we cannot address the roots of abuse, so what will the Minister and her Department do to provide more perpetrator programmes in our country as part of her new VAWG strategy? I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to halving the incidents of violence against women and girls, but that will be the tip of the iceberg, because as more people report crimes, many more will need to support.

15:18

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this debate. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of launching a new report, “Why Should Our Rage Be Tidy? Minoritised Survivors’ Experiences of Mental Health in the Context of Violence-Abuse.” I hope the Minister has a copy—if she does not, I will make sure she gets one—because it contains some excellent recommendations. It was produced by Imkaan and the Women and Girls Network, and it has received UK Research and Innovation funding. When we hear the statistics, such as one woman killed every three days, we think: “When is that going to change? How are we going to change it?” That report will help.

I also want to highlight the Level Up campaign, which calls on the Independent Press Standards Organisation to introduce an amendment to the editors’ code so that when the press reports on domestic abuse and the murder of missing women, it does not sensationalise them as it normally does. That needs to change. It is inaccurate and undignified, and it prioritises sensationalism and negatively frames the victims—it suggests that they deserved it. I want to see words such as “sexism”, “misogyny”, “extremism” and “terrorism” used to describe violent men; “jilted partner” just will not do. I hope the Minister looks at that report so that we can work together and begin to move in the direction of eradicating violence against women and girls.

15:19

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate during the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.

Due to the nature of domestic violence, the data available to us will never fully record the extent of the abuse, but we know that there was a minimum of 2.2 million victims last year. To me, that number is clear evidence that the issue is endemic. I am sick and tired of seeing women and girls facing the same threats of violence and abuse every day. It is often framed as a women’s issue—something that we need to be aware of in case our actions are somehow responsible for men’s behaviour. And I say men, because the reality is that the vast majority of violence against women is clearly committed by men.

I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and I am pleased that Ministers are treating it as a cross-departmental problem and have established a ministerial board on tackling violence against women and girls. Combating the epidemic will require specialist local services and charities but, as every Member knows, our councils face extreme budgetary pressures thanks to austerity. When faced with such a grim economic future, the vast majority of councils’ spending goes towards fulfilling the provision of their statutory legal obligations.

I wanted to speak about a charity called Vida Sheffield, which is very close to my heart and had been running for nearly 30 years. Sadly, Vida Sheffield recently announced its closure. It had been relying on an emergency grant from the National Lottery these last few months, and had applied for funding from the Home Office and the suicide prevention grant fund to continue its work. Vida estimated that it saved other services about £50,000 a month through its complex mental health service. I fear that the burden of the surviving mental health and therapy services in Sheffield will only increase with the loss of Vida.

The barriers are only more pronounced for those women from minoritised communities. I have total regard for the Minister, and I know how tenacious and committed she is. I am sure she will listen to us all and come back with good responses.

15:22

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this debate.

This week in the main Chamber I highlighted the vital work carried out in my constituency by independent sexual violence advisers, who are on the frontline tackling increased violence against women and girls. However, not everyone is able to access support when they need it the most. Black and minoritised women, including women with disabilities and from LGBT+ communities, often face further barriers when reporting crimes to the police and accessing support from statutory services, including discrimination, language barriers or immigration status.

There is a real need for lived experience to inform the designing of services to ensure that they are run by and for marginalised women, to provide the vital culturally specific support that is often lacking in mainstream services. That support is desperately needed because, for example, deaf women are twice as likely to experience domestic violence as hearing women, and deaf children are three times more likely to than their hearing peers. Many of the perpetrators of that violence are also deaf, meaning that survivors are often left isolated, even within their own community.

SignHealth is the only by-and-for deaf domestic abuse service, and it provides all its support in British Sign Language. However, deaf domestic abuse services are generally small-scale, often with limited staffing and geographical reach—the ultimate postcode lottery. It is vital that deaf women and children have access to support from professionals who speak BSL as a first language, and I hope to see that sort of accessibility consideration in the Government’s plans for tackling violence against women and girls.

Research from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that by-and-for services are six times less likely to receive statutory funding, which leads to minoritised women being locked out of support. They recommended that a minimum total of £178 million from the overall funding settlement is ringfenced for specialist services, led by and for marginalised women. I know that the Minster is the biggest champion we could have in the Department. I hope she will work with organisations such as Refuge to ensure that specialised services are available for all women.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I commend Members on keeping their speeches brief. We now move on to the Front-Bench contributions.

15:24

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate, and I pay tribute to the Minister for her work over the last few years in raising awareness of the tragic cost of violence against women and girls.

I want to draw attention to an issue that I believe is a critical front in the overall struggle to end the epidemic of violence against women and girls—an issue that far too often goes under-reported, unrecognised and unappreciated. It is the crime against women and girls of stalking, which the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) spoke about. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that will affect approximately one in five women. It is an insidious crime that can shatter lives. I have heard from stalking victims who feel trapped, are too afraid to leave their homes and are constantly looking over their shoulder on their way to work.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this incredibly important debate. Violence against women and girls on trains has risen by 50%, and figures from the British Transport police show that over a third of women using the rail system are likely to be assaulted. That is clearly unacceptable. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend agree that a more holistic system is needed to deal with the problem and to help the British Transport Police to get not only a conviction, but a suitable conviction for perpetrators, as well as increase the perception of safety on our rail network overall?

[Luke Taylor]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Victims of stalking often find themselves cutting ties with loved ones out of fear of repercussions and putting them in danger. Even years after the harassment ends, stalking survivors are often left with lingering anxiety, trauma and pain. In the most extreme cases, stalking can escalate to acts of physical violence, such as rape and, most tragically of all, murder. It is a crime that thrives on control, leaving victims in a constant state of fear and uncertainty.

What makes stalking so dangerous is that it is often difficult to detect. A victim may not immediately notice someone following them, watching their movements or infiltrating their personal space online. The harassment might appear subtle at first but can persist for years, eroding the victim’s sense of safety and security.

We cannot continue to leave the current legislation on stalking outside the scope of public debate. As it stands, the legal framework is not robust enough for victims and, at a more fundamental level, we must change the way we think and talk about stalking to recognise its severity. I have heard harrowing accounts from women who, when they confide in friends, family or even the police about their experiences, are often met with dismissive responses. Too often the perpetrator is written off as nothing more than a clingy ex-boyfriend who simply cannot move on.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, stalking offences are categorised under two distinct sections, 2A and 4A. Those sections have created ambiguity as to how stalking is understood and prosecuted. Under section 2A, it is defined as pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to stalking. That is considered a lesser offence, carrying a maximum sentence of up to six months in prison upon conviction. Under the more serious 4A offence, the perpetrator must be proven to have caused the victim fear of violence, or significant alarm or harassment that disrupts their daily life.

It is clear that there are cracks in that framework. The two separate offences fail to recognise the total scope of stalking and its impact on victims’ lives, and there are real barriers to pursuing a section 4A offence. Victims are often left with the burden of proving the scale and severity of the stalking to convict perpetrators under the section 4A offence, and they must also meet an unreasonably high threshold of evidence, demonstrating that the crime has disrupted their life to a terrifying extent just to secure an appropriate sentence for the perpetrators. That process can take years, leaving victims trapped in fear while their tormentors remain at large.

The burden placed on victims to provide extensive evidence often leads many who pursue a section 4A offence to lose faith and withdraw from the criminal justice system altogether. In London alone, the 2024 London stalking review found that 45% of stalking victims felt compelled to abandon their pursuit of justice. That is just not good enough. I therefore urge the Government to reform the current legislative framework and take action to address that gap in our justice system. A new, singular and well-defined stalking offence must be created with victims in mind. We cannot continue to allow years of harassment to persist before victims are able to seek prosecution.

The London stalking review revealed another chilling statistic:

“39% of the recorded stalking experienced by under 18s was the more serious Stalking 4a”.

That throws into sharp relief the importance of defining stalking laws as they pertain to social media, which many perpetrators use to harass and exploit young victims online. As I have said, many young girls may be entirely unaware that they are being stalked at first. Disturbingly, the ability of stalkers to hide behind anonymous accounts and leave few digital traces of their stalking makes that worse. It allows stalkers to hide and to commit crimes in ways that can easily be overlooked compared with in-person harassment.

I recently met a brave woman in my constituency who, as a victim of stalking, shared her fears about young girls in her family using social media platforms. These platforms enabled her perpetrator to harass her for years. She worries that her family members could fall into similar traps due to a lack of awareness around recognising such behaviours. We must urgently raise awareness about how young people, especially girls, are targeted online. As has been said, educating them in schools about the warning signs of online stalking is critical to preventing this crime from escalating into more severe forms of harassment.

I have focused today on one aspect of violence against women and girls, among many others that demand our attention. I was appalled to read the national statement from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, which highlighted the staggering scale of this issue. Every day, 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded in this country. That is simply unacceptable and we should call it out for what it is: an epidemic of coercion, control and violence that has no place in our society.

I welcome the Government’s pledge to halve the numbers over the next decade. I look forward to working cross-party to explore how I and the Liberal Democrats can contribute to meaningful changes in the law on stalking and other acts of gendered violence, so that, within our lifetimes, we can stamp out this epidemic once and for all. No one can truly be free if they are forced to live in fear, and no women or girl can live their life to the fullest while this scourge goes unchallenged.

In the words of the White Ribbon campaign group, which has done such an admirable job of putting and keeping this issue on the agenda, this starts with men. The men in this room, me included, must recognise our responsibility, hold ourselves accountable, challenge the warning signs and dangerous societal norms that we see around us, and act now to protect women and girls across our country.

15:32

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), both for securing this debate and for her courage in consistently speaking out on her experiences. It is an incredibly brave thing to do, and I hope that she is receiving the support she deserves but which she feels has not been forthcoming in the past, because she warrants it.

It is vital that women feel able to share our stories, because too often society still attempts to afflict shame on us, as though there is some fault, some responsibility, on the survivor. There is not. Male violence against women and girls is an act of cowardice, and every woman in this room—indeed, in this country—has a memory that makes us shudder; a moment in time in which we felt unsafe or under threat. Those memories stay with us and shape us, and we cannot shake them. It is therefore our duty in this place to do everything we can to prevent future generations from experiencing the same feeling that we all describe differently, although we all know exactly what it is. It is our duty to give our voices to all survivors, particularly to women like Gisèle Pelicot, who has stood in strength and demanded that the videos of men raping her were shown in open court. As she said, it is not us who should feel shame, but them, the perpetrators.

Male violence is found in our homes, schools, universities, outside clubs, in the streets—there is almost no space where it is absent. I should make it clear that I use the term “male violence” because VAWG excludes the role of the perpetrator. It shifts the focus from the individual who should feel ashamed and guilty and on to women and girls. Male victims also overwhelmingly experience violence at the hands of other men.

Much of this violence comes from a sense of entitlement; a man’s belief that they have an entitlement to a woman’s body or to control her. But they have no entitlement. I thank all colleagues here today for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents. I mention, in particular, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), because he is right that there is a crisis of masculinity. We have to work harder on this, but it comes from parenting and the decisions that individuals make in their home. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also touched on that. There were comments about the media and the way they talk about women, whether that is when they are missing and it is suggested that that is due to their menopause, or whether they are facing an attack. It is wrong. I also welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) about women who are deaf.

Fighting for girls and women in our communities is one of an MP’s most important acts, and it breaks my heart every time I meet a victim or survivor. But every time, my team and I—especially Lisa—fight to get those women to safety and to help them navigate the system and secure prosecutions. We can do that as MPs. Individuals are now in prison because MPs have referred cases to the police for people who did not have the guts to do that before, because they did not feel listened to.

We must work together in the House on this issue, and the previous Government took it extremely seriously. I pay tribute, in particular, to Baroness May for her work as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister, to my friend, Laura Farris, the former Member for Newbury, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). Over the last 14 years, we have brought in offences to better protect women and bring perpetrators to justice—in relation to stalking, ending the rough sex defence, the vile sharing of intimate images or revenge porn, the non-consensual taking of images of a women breastfeeding, and upskirting—while raising the maximum penalties for harassment.

We also supported survivors to give evidence behind closed doors, and to be cross-examined without having to wait for trial. I am grateful for the part that I was able to play in 2012, as a civil servant at the Ministry of Justice, in bringing in the first victims service and more support for people, particularly those coming from slavery, and introducing the first domestic abuse service for gay men. We also developed and rolled out Operation Soteria across all police forces in 2023. That project led to the development of the first national operating model for the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences. On that matter, has the Minister assessed the performance of the roll-out, and will she continue to develop the operation?

We also passed the world-leading Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That created a legal definition of domestic abuse, encompassing financial, verbal and emotional abuse, as well as physical and sexual, but it also recognised that abuse is a pattern over time. Importantly, it recognised that children are explicitly victims if they witness abuse. We relaunched the flexible fund in January, with a further £2 million investment to help remove barriers to domestic abuse survivors leaving their abusers. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the funding for that important programme will continue.

I have highlighted that we took important actions, and although they were necessary, more still needs to be done. There continues to be an epidemic of male violence in our country and across the world. It is no surprise when the rape of women, but never of men, is normalised on our TV screens as a storyline. Even in this place, some people diminish their acts and demonstrate a lack of responsibility for the actions of their past, which serves to retraumatise the survivors.

Globally, women’s bodily rights are under attack. Gender apartheid is under way in Afghanistan and femicide is taking place in Iran. Knowing the Minister, I am absolutely certain that she will do everything she can to better protect survivors and to crack down on male perpetrators. If anything, this is her life’s work, and I am pleased that she now has the opportunity to lead on the area that she cares about so passionately.

The Government’s proposal to cut the rate of violence against women and girls in a decade is a significant target that could transform the lives of so many. Last week, the Home Secretary stated that the policy was ambitious and that no other country had set it before. However, as I understand it, the Government are still determining how to measure progress, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out precisely what metrics will be used to measure the rate of violence against women and girls.

I also welcome the Government’s focus on spiking that was announced over the weekend. We fully support the commitment to create a separate criminal office, which we had hoped to bring forward in the Criminal Justice Bill. I stress to any victims out there that spiking is already a criminal offence. The reason for creating a new spiking offence is so that we can better understand the picture of spiking nationally and get more prosecutions. At the moment, the police are recording it as an offence against a person, or as sexual violence or assault, which means we cannot make the necessary interventions.

I would be grateful if the Minister could share her thoughts on a few other issues. The first one, which others have touched on, is the prevalence of violent porn and its impact on young boys and men. The increasing normalisation of violence during sex for young people worries me greatly. The viewing figures of porn are concerningly high, with children being exposed to content without searching for it, even porn depicting rape. Although the Online Safety Act 2023 goes some way towards better protecting children, access obviously continues into adulthood and continues to shape the attitudes and behaviours of young men, so what actions is the Minister considering taking across Government to tackle that content?

I finish by thanking all the organisations across our country, and particularly in Rutland, Stamford and the South Kesteven and Harborough villages, for all they do to protect women and girls from violence. I also want to thank my father, and all the fathers out there, who are the ultimate feminists, and who raised me and women across this country to believe that violence has no role in relationships or in the home. Shame lies with the perpetrator alone, and we must never accept the status quo while women and girls continue to suffer.

15:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for her impassioned speech. However, I must give the biggest credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for bringing forward a debate on such an important issue. I have handled a lot of cases in my life, and have seen almost every way that the systems that are meant to protect us, such as the courts system, are used against victims in a patriarchal system. However, I have never seen a case that compares to the one that my hon. Friend spoke so bravely about, where our very democracy is used to allow a perpetrator to control. As in the case of Gisèle Pelicot, whose name has been mentioned today, it takes a huge amount of bravery to try to shift the shame elsewhere and keep speaking up. It has been a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend over the years, and long may that continue.

I am going to do something that did not always happen when I was on the other side in a debate: try to answer Members’ questions—that was not always my experience. Please bear with me if I jump around a bit. First, my hon. Friend is exactly right that we must make this issue everybody’s problem. By “everybody”—others mentioned the issue of silo Government—I mean every Government Department. I joked this morning that I was struggling to connect the issue to solar panels, but give me time.

To the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, I say that the Conservative Government had a good track record of changing legislation, but what did not change at the same pace were the systematic processes that ensure that the legislation means something on the ground. Today we launched domestic abuse protection orders. The previous Government passed those into law, and three years after the fact, the first one was handed out this morning.

It will take a huge amount—a lot of different Departments and people having the will—to make things happen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse is exactly right about that. A cross-Government strategy must not be just a piece of paper that sits on a shelf, and we say, “We’ve ticked that box.” It has to be targeted, and it has to have the will of everybody. As she said, that is what we will do. That will be out next year.

A number of people, including my hon. Friend, mentioned the concerning issue of non-contact sexual offences. Part 1 of the Angiolini review, which followed the death of Sarah Everard, made a huge number of recommendations with regard to how the police handle non-contact sexual offences. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). Frankly, it is not good enough, is it? It is woeful. I picked up a case just this morning, funnily enough, involving somebody sending naked images of themselves to someone—I will not use the colloquial term, even though I am sure everybody would expect me to; I am a Government Minister now.

These things have to be taken seriously. The Home Office is looking into the evidence about the escalation of non-contact sexual violence to contact sexual violence, because that evidence base does not currently exist, even though common sense would lead us all to assume it does. We need to ensure that we are continuing to work on that.

The issue of migrant women came up a number of times; my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) raised it, as did my hon. Friend the. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. Quite astutely, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe reminded me of all the things I have said in the past on this issue. Although I now find myself in a different position, my heart is exactly in the same place. The issue of how migrant women are supported in our country is one that we are currently giving huge attention to. I do not care what stamp is in someone’s passport; if they have been abused on these shores, they deserve protection on these shores. That is what we will continue to strive for.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right to say that I have a special interest in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that I do not love Wales and Scotland as well, because I do, but my father, who also raised me to be a feminist, makes my loyalty to Northern Ireland a tiny bit stronger than to elsewhere.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Minister and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may welcome the information that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will hold specific hearings on violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland in the next few months. I am sure we will share with them in the next few months the outcomes of those hearings.

[Jess Phillips]

Yes, I had heard that from the Chair, and I am very pleased about it. For the now finally formed Government of Northern Ireland—we were all delighted to see that happen—one of their top priorities, in not a long list for government, is violence against women and girls. I will go over in January to work with the devolved Government and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to see how we can help each other to make this issue better.

Another point to make is about women’s experiences in post-conflict areas. Lots of people have mentioned conflict zones, but the women’s experience of violence in conflict zones, and then post conflict, does not get discussed when we talk about peace treaties and what needs to be put in place to rebuild infrastructure. We must not lose sight of that either.

Staying on the theme of the international stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) said that this might not be my area to talk about with regard to Malala Yousafzai, so I will take this moment to shamelessly say that it is literally my area, because I am her Member of Parliament. I feel pretty proud that it was my city that took Malala in when she really needed refuge. I once had to lecture her school class about activism and how to be better activists, and this was after she had won the Nobel peace prize. That was a moment in my life that I felt slight shame in, but I hope they took something away from it.

I met with Malala recently on the very issue, as touched on by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, of the experiences of women in Afghanistan and the regime they are—I cannot even say “living under”—under. In fact, I met some of her people yesterday and will be continuing those conversations, and when I met with Malala herself it was with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers, so those conversations are ongoing.

The issue of funding was mentioned by many, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned a statutory duty in her comments. This links to the point about Cheshire. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and I visited Cheshire police, we saw NHS-funded posts, probation-funded posts, police-funded posts and police and crime commissioner-funded posts sitting in a room together working tirelessly, and this goes to the point from my hon. Friend about rolling this out, as it is in London with the Metropolitan police and only two other areas. It is all well and good the Government saying, “I’m gonna have this fund and that fund”, but we will never solve this issue unless violence against women and girls is specifically mainstreamed into funding programmes in every locality, in every Department. This cannot be just a nice-to-have on International Women’s Day, and the example in Cheshire is a fantastic one, so we know it can work elsewhere. This is about the Government seeing what levers we can pull to ensure that that can happen.

[Dan Norris (North East Somerset and Hanham) (Lab)]

Many social workers and police officers have kind hearts and great practice. How will the Government reach out to encourage their best practice while at the same time dealing with the bad practice?

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, because trusting police officers comes up quite a lot, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about how trust in police was at its lowest. What I would say is that the women who I have worked with over the years do not have the privilege of having an alternative to trusting the police; they have to trust them, because in most of their cases that is the only option they have. We also must work to ensure that, as my hon. Friend suggested, we do not demoralise the workforce with review after review, which sometimes demoralises people and makes this process a sort of check-box exercise of, “I did everything I should have”, rather than people’s response being, “Are you all right, love?”

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the Government will have a fierce regime for standards in policing, but we will always celebrate good practice. This morning, I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor)—well, I was not in his constituency, but I was with his borough command, as Sutton and Cheam will be one of the first areas to have the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders. I met dedicated staff from Sutton Council who work on domestic abuse and the police officers working in that borough command to make sure the roll-out happens. I could not have asked for better examples of police officers; they were totally dedicated. We need to do both things; celebrate the good and punish the bad.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) on Anna’s case that—I am sure my officials will get annoyed with me doing this every time—I am personally happy to help Anna. I cannot listen to that story and not think that something has to be done about Anna’s specific case. However, we cannot just change things for Anna; we have to change them for everybody. We have to make sure that such stories—I do not want to sit and listen to such stories for the next five years. However, changing things will take quite a lot of time.

Several Members mentioned employment. I would be happy to have a conversation with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), as I have already had many times, about exactly what she is seeking to achieve. The tackling violence against women and girls strategy is a cross-Government strategy and women will absolutely have a role in it. I mean, women do go to work; indeed, that feels like all I do. But women being safe at work was one of the things that she and I discussed while we were fighting for the domestic abuse protection orders to cover a woman’s workplace, when we served on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee. As I say, I am more than happy to work with her, and workers’ rights and how we deal with people’s employment will absolutely be part of Government strategy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) talked about Zara Aleena’s family, who I know well and have worked with over the years. We absolutely must ensure that we do not hear such a story again. My hon. Friend told the story of Zara Aleena and her perpetrator. The failings in Zara’s case show exactly what I am saying about a crippled system; we could make better law, or better rules, but the system of probation had been so crippled that that was the outcome. I feel immensely upset about Zara’s case.

Many Members mentioned education; indeed, somebody asked me directly if I speak to the Department for Education. My officials or I speak to the DFE daily. Apart from the Ministry of Justice and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), with whom I work very closely, this mission focuses most on the Department for Education, because prevention is vital.

Many Members have spoken about boys. For example, as the mother of sons myself, I was affected by the harrowing stories that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) told about boys’ attitudes. We have got to prevent this—I am sick of just putting bigger plasters on cuts. We have got to work very closely on prevention and on perpetrator work to prevent those who are already showing signs from escalating, and we will absolutely do that.

To answer the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, Operation Soteria, having been rolled out, goes into a new phase in January where police forces have to tell us how exactly they are going to be doing it. There is no proposed end to Operation Soteria. I continue to see its benefits and work closely with the academics and police forces that undertook the work on it.

On the point about measurements, the overarching measurements we will seek to use will be just one thing. I refuse to make a target and miss a point. It is quite easy to juke stats anyway, isn’t it? Many different metrics sit underneath the overarching measure. The exercise on exactly what that measure will be is currently ongoing. The measure currently used in this instance is the crime survey of England and Wales. But we have to look at many other metrics, whether they are attitudinal, about femicide, or about issues with delivery in schools. It is not just the Home Office working on that; every Department is currently busily working on what their metrics might be. When the measurements are properly announced, I am determined to make sure that they do not just hit a target and miss a point.

On the flexible fund program, I am not going to commit to any funding anybody has asked me about today. I literally cannot, as that process is currently ongoing. However, I have seen the value of the flee fund over the years.

The pornography review is due, I think, very early next year. It was started by the previous Government and we will be working on it. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said, the Online Safety Act only goes so far. I do not know how apocryphal this is, so I apologise if I am misleading the House, but I saw in a news article that Pornhub had said it had found some sort of workaround to the Online Safety Act. It was somehow going to make out like it was not a pornography site, so I assume we will all be going on Pornhub later to buy books. Is it that what they are offering? The use of graphic pornography in society has caused many of the things people have talked about today.

I am meant to have said all these things the Government are going to do and are currently doing. I think I have said most of them in answer to the questions. I will finish by saying that I wanted to cry today when I was with the police force in south London and the first domestic abuse protection order, something we had waited so long for, was handed out. The police officer was so delighted, and I felt like a new dawn was coming.

15:59

[Apsana Begum]

I thank the Minister for her comments today and her ongoing work in this area, and reiterate my commitment to work with her constructively in the interests of survivors everywhere. I am most grateful for all 20 contributions on a range of topics. They have provided insight from all over the UK, including Northern Ireland, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and emphasised the scale of the problem and its wide-ranging impacts. This week and next, as we raise awareness through events in Parliament, events in our constituencies and debates such as this one, it is important that we do so with a sense of sadness at the loss and tragedy and anger at the injustice, but I hope we also have resolve and hope for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.

Rail Connectivity: Oxfordshire

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

14:49

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I will call Charlie Maynard to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. Interventions, however, are permitted. I call Charlie Maynard.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford.

I am here to argue the case for bringing back the railway that connected Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, but was torn up 50 years ago. That would cut journey times by 70%, connecting Oxford with Eynsham in roughly 11 minutes, with Witney in 16 minutes and with Carterton in 22 minutes. I have worked for the last four years with many parties, and I am deeply grateful to them all for their help. They include Oxfordshire county council; the district council in West Oxfordshire; town councils in Witney and Carterton; parish councils in Eynsham; the RAF; various landowners and developers, including Grosvenor at Salt Cross garden village; and England’s Economic Heartland—the list goes on and on.

The reason why I put so much blood, sweat, tears and toil into the issue is that we have two huge problems in West Oxfordshire—there are probably others as well, but the two big ones are transport and housing. They are two sides of the same coin. In transport we have the A40 corridor, which links Oxford and points east with Cheltenham and Gloucester and points west. Oxford city is at the centre of that web; it is one of the strongest growing cities in the country and is putting enormous pressure on Oxfordshire. To the west is some of the worst-served infrastructure in the whole county. There is no major railway station apart from Hanborough, which is very small with one train an hour, and there are just a few miles of dual carriageway—yet enormous housing is coming into the district.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree with me that the misery experienced by my constituents in Eynsham and Cassington as they travel on the A40 each day will only be made worse by the new housing developments, unless we find a way of alleviating that pressure? The railway on which he has done so much to campaign is one important solution, along with improving the road, that will make those journeys much easier and open up opportunities to the west of Oxford.

[Charlie Maynard]

I very much concur.

I want to quantify the housing and the scale of what is going on now. Since 2000, the population of Oxfordshire has increased by a quarter. In the 2018 local plan we were signed up for 16,000 homes over the period through to 2031, increasing our housing stock by a quarter in just 10 years. On top of that, as per the new national planning policy framework, there is a 62% increase on our current local plan.

I move on to transport. Our road is under very severe pressure. Some hon. Members might have spent time on the A40; probably more than they would have liked. It is an extremely constrained corridor, which, according to AECOM’s 2021 study, is going to be 30 minutes slower by 2031, which is seven years away—30 minutes slower between Witney and Oxford by 2031. That assumes that the disastrous bus lane project will have been completed, although that is not going to happen because there is not sufficient money. That was something that the previous Conservative Administration signed up for: £180 million for four miles of bus lane, which has turned into two miles of bus lane and a park and ride —not a good investment.

We need a long-term transport policy, which will deliver a number of things: journey times cut by up to 70% and a plan for housing. Many constituencies, including mine, support housing. We all recognise that people need somewhere to live. We want to be grown-ups at the table coming up with a solution, rather than scattering houses willy-nilly around the district with no coherent plan. There is no plan without a transport solution.

We support putting the houses that we will have to take anyway around the railway stations. Just as our Victorian forebears did many decades ago, we will use those houses to fund the railway. That would solve housing; then it would solve the economy. Our economy in West Oxfordshire really suffers. One would think that lots of good employers would come to West Oxfordshire, because we are only 10 miles west of Oxford, but they do not. There are some good employers, but very few now come in, because they know that the transport is completely unsustainable.

The concept is logical: Oxford is at one end with the best universities in the world, and at the other are places such as Witney and Carterton with excellent skills, particularly in the aerospace and aviation sectors because of RAF Brize Norton. Connecting those places with a fast, reliable transport corridor would allow businesses to locate in West Oxfordshire. That would mean less need to commute and jam up our roads. That is a big opportunity.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Railway connectivity is also fundamental to my constituency. Heathrow is a rarity among international airports: large parts of its catchment simply do not have any direct rail access. We need a western rail link to Heathrow. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 30 million fewer road miles every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that rail is crucial for decarbonisation?

[Charlie Maynard]

Well said—I very much agree. Following on from that, transport is one of the hardest nuts to crack in that decarbonisation agenda. Without a large-scale mass public transport solution, we are not going to get there. That is at the core of Oxfordshire county council’s strategy and this would help to deliver it, just as my hon. Friend’s project would in his constituency.

I have two more points. Vast numbers of people living in West Oxfordshire have to get to hospitals in Oxford for secondary and tertiary care. The unreliability of the road puts enormous stress on their lives; they—including members of my family, as it happens—often have to go backwards and forwards a number of times a week. People have to leave home for a 10-mile journey sometimes two or three hours in advance, because they are scared about missing their appointment. That is only set to get worse on current plans.

Finally, on defence, RAF Brize Norton is the biggest RAF base both in the country and internationally, with 7,500 people working there. It was built there because it had a railway connection, but that connection was ripped up 50 years ago. We must bring back that railway connection now. In times of peace, the lack of the connection is bad news, but in times of war it is truly terrible. Is that really how we want to run our country? The biggest airbase in the country, which runs all our international transport, does not have even have a railway connection. That is a disaster.

What has been going on to date? I give real thanks to the Witney Oxford Transport Group, which really took the charge on this issue in 2014, before I showed up. I am immensely grateful for its having made me chair in 2020. Since 2020, we have conducted a number of technical studies, particularly on defining a route that goes not only from Oxford to Carterton but through the Salt Cross garden village. Those studies gave the county council enough comfort to commission a feasibility study, which was published last November, and this year Lichfields is carrying out an economic analysis. That is all working towards the new local plan for West Oxfordshire, which is being worked up now. As a district councillor, I am working closely with my district council colleagues, as well as Sasha White—the planning and land use silk of the year; many thanks, Sasha—to work the railway line into our local plan. If the line is in there, we have a real chance of getting this railway built.

I used to work in business and I understand that there is really one thing that counts here: money. A key part of our work has been on the funding, and shaking a tin at the Treasury and waiting 50 years is not what we have in mind. Who have we been working with? It has been E-Rail so far, which has just funded 30% of the Ashington-to-Blyth line by going up to landowners and developers along that track and saying, “If you want to bring back a passenger rail line here, sign some voluntary, legally-binding contribution agreements, which will allow you to build houses around those future railway stations. Bluntly, the reason why you should do so is that you will make more money.” They will make more money for three reasons. First, the local plan will allow them to have houses sited around that railway station that would not otherwise exist. Secondly, they can build at higher density around a railway station. Thirdly, each of those houses is worth more because it is next to a railway station.

That might sound radical, but it is what our Victorian forebears did 150 years ago. It is what Japan, Korea and Hong Kong do, and what much of northern Europe does. That is how they fund their public infrastructure, and I would argue that case. Labour sometimes mentions land value, and I really hope that it looks into the issue because it is a way of using private and public funding to get things moving quickly—as opposed to just sticking it to the taxpayer, which is what we have had to do up to now. I really ask for the Minister’s help in exploring that. That would fund about 50% of the railway line, and the other half would come from Homes England. We would be delivering on our side of the bargain by getting all those houses into West Oxfordshire in a coherent and sensible way. Without a railway line, we will not have that solution and we will have an unsustainable, long-term problem.

16:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate on railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. It is clear that he has been a passionate advocate for restoring the rail link, and I thank him for the important points that he has made and other hon. Members for their contributions.

The Government recognise the significance of Oxfordshire and the wider Oxford economic region. It is a global centre for research, learning and healthcare, and one of the most productive economic regions in the UK, so continuing to invest in the region and work with those who represent it is vital. Its transport network is clearly important for providing the connectivity to support economic development, as well as planned housing and employment growth. That is why significant investments are being made in road, rail and sustainable transport improvements. As the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) made clear, housing and transport connectivity must go hand in hand. It is vital that the local transport authority, which knows its local area, can develop and prioritise transport investment projects that support those aspirations.

The Government’s housing infrastructure fund has approved £126 million to Oxfordshire county council for its A40 smart corridor scheme, which will provide infrastructure for better bus travel, and safer walking and cycling along the A40 route between Eynsham park and ride and Oxford. That kind of multimodal approach will be really important. In addition, since 2014, £118.4 million from the Government’s local growth fund has been used by the Oxfordshire local enterprise partnership to invest in the transport network. That included £35 million to deliver the second phase of the A40 Oxford science transit scheme, demonstrating Government’s commitment to investing in this key corridor. I agree that public transport has a vital role to play in improving connectivity and relieving congestion on our road network, and the hon. Member for Witney quite rightly points out future projections and the importance of thinking for the long term to ensure we can cope with rising population in the area, and with the demand for more housing and more growth.

A strategic vision for rail investment in the county was set out in the Oxfordshire rail corridor study report, which was published in 2021. It brought together the views of local stakeholders and the rail industry to assess the impacts of planned growth in Oxfordshire, and identified key investments in the rail network to deliver economic growth and meet the changing needs of the county. An early output from the rail corridor study has been the Oxford station project, which will undertake a series of investments to support new rail services into Oxford, and enable faster passenger and freight journeys.

An early deliverable of the project is to widen the rail bridge over Botley Road, which has been closed since 2023 to enable a series of utilities diversions. I expect that hon. Members will be aware that Network Rail has experienced significant difficulties in delivering those works, which have had an unacceptable impact on the residents and businesses in the area—and on Members’ constituents who commute into the city, no doubt. I can only offer my sincere apologies to those affected. Network Rail has been tasked with developing a plan that enables the reopening of Botley Road, and the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, will be meeting stakeholders and local representatives to discuss that in due course.

The Oxfordshire area also benefits from connectivity through the East West Rail programme, although I appreciate that that is to the east of the city rather than to the west. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed Government support to accelerate works on the Marston Vale line to deliver services between Oxford and Bedford from 2030.

Let me turn to the specific subject of today’s debate: a reopening of the line linking Carterton, Witney and Eynsham to Oxford. I welcome Oxfordshire county council’s recent publication of the feasibility study into reopening the line, and recognise the local and regional benefits it sets out. It is a really good example of why this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best which projects to pursue; these bodies are best placed to decide on and take forward transport schemes that will most benefit their local areas.

There are a number of significant challenges associated with the proposed reopening, the most significant of which is funding the estimated costs of £700 million to £900 million. I appreciate that the proposed scheme is described as a long-term project, but it is dependent on other projects that have not yet been funded or delivered; given the associated costs, other options for increasing connectivity in the area may present better value for money. I am sure that the hon. Member is in conversation with the county council about thinking in that way.

[Charlie Maynard]

Just one small correction: from Oxford to Carterton North is £600 million only—we do not need to build out to Carterton West necessarily; that would just be a nice-to-have—and, of that, land value capture would allow something like £300 million. That is the broader scheme of it.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification. However, he will appreciate that £600 million —even with a significant private sector contribution —is not an insignificant amount. I understand that delivering the scheme would require funding from central Government—I guess that is the purpose of his debate—but he will also know that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to look again at the economic inheritance left by the last Government.

The Secretary of State has announced her intention to conduct a thorough review—indeed, it is ongoing—of the previous Government’s transport plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for money for taxpayers. We are having to look at a number of schemes that are closer to deliverability within that portfolio. Decisions about individual projects will be informed by the review process and confirmed in due course.

I encourage the hon. Member for Witney to continue to work with his local authorities and stakeholders to develop the proposal further. I commend his work to pursue alternative funding sources and to think in the round about how best to meet the aspirations that his constituents rightly have to improve connectivity.

I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on rail connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the matter to him, to his constituency and his many constituents, and to those in the wider West Oxfordshire area; this Government recognise the requirement for connectivity in the region, and we stand ready to work with them to meet their aspirations. I hope that I have been able to provide some clarity on the Government’s position on being able to fund the development of such proposals currently, but I am sure we stand ready to have further discussions in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

16:22

Sitting suspended.

World AIDS Day

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered World AIDS Day.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am proud to have been elected on a manifesto commitment to end new cases of HIV in this country. Indeed, that goal, which crosses political divides, was a clear commitment from the last Government too. Only 20 years ago, that ambitious target would have been completely unthinkable. It has the power to change countless lives.

That such a goal is even possible is a testament to the long, hard work of thousands of activists and researchers, going back over 40 years. We are living in an era when HIV is no longer a death sentence, transmissions can be prevented and people with HIV live long, happy and healthy lives. We all stand on their shoulders.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening so early. Quite rightly, there will be many important policy asks in this debate, but on the point that my hon. Friend raises, can we take a moment to pay tribute to the grassroots campaigners who have been part of the history of the fight against HIV and AIDS? I am hugely privileged to have Martyn Butler, the co-founder of the Terrence Higgins Trust, as a constituent. He used his own home phone line as the first helpline for AIDS. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we should pay tribute to those people.

[Danny Beales]

I definitely pay tribute to Martyn Butler and to everyone like him who has tirelessly campaigned for change. It is the perfect example of progress being made through the sheer determination of those affected by HIV and of their loved ones—those who unfortunately they left behind. My hon. Friend and I have had the pleasure of meeting many tireless campaigners and fantastic organisations such as THT.

Before entering Parliament, I worked for the National AIDS Trust, another fantastic organisation in the sector, campaigning to end new transmissions of HIV and improve the lives of those who are already living with HIV. That included working on a campaign for equal fertility rights for people living with HIV. I was delighted that just last month the law was finally changed to allow equal access to fertility treatment. That life-changing development means that people I met during that campaign can now have a family. It is not often that we can say that children will be born because of a statutory instrument, but in this case it is true. I thank the Minister for his swift leadership and action on the issue and every single person who campaigned to make that possible—thank you.

The first project that I worked on at the National AIDS Trust was a collaboration with the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Terrence Higgins Trust: the independent HIV Commission. It heard from experts and from those with lived experience and toured the country to look at good practice. Its recommendations laid out a framework for turning into a reality the goal of ending new HIV cases in England by 2030. One of the independent commissioners was a little-known, shy and retiring Back-Bench Labour MP who is now my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). He went on to somewhat bigger and better things in the world of healthcare.

A lot has changed since 2021 when the report was launched. Unfortunately, when it comes to progress on ending transmissions, a lot has not. To their credit, the last Government should be proud of the investment that they made in piloting opt-out HIV and hepatitis testing in emergency departments in London, Manchester and Brighton—the one key action in the last HIV action plan that was delivered on. That investment has changed many, many lives. In my constituency, opt-out testing at Hillingdon hospital has picked up 15 new cases of HIV, 28 of hepatitis C and 140 of hepatitis B. Those are people whose lives have been changed and who now have access to vital treatment. The story is the same across all the hospitals delivering that amazing programme.

The programme is working, but it is facing a funding cliff edge. I welcome the commitment to expand the programme further to other towns and cities, but I hope that the Government will commit to continuing the pilot where it is already in place and working.

We now know for certain that opt-out testing works. We cannot find everyone with undiagnosed HIV if we rely only on a system of people thinking that they may be at risk and then actively seeking out a test, navigating the complex system and overcoming the stigma of HIV to ask for a test. Instead, we must test, test, test. We need an opt-out testing programme that goes right across the health service and into primary care.

Unfortunately, the reality is that despite the success of the testing programme, overall progress towards ending HIV transmissions has been far too slow. Recent figures suggest that this year we are potentially moving backwards. Recent data showed an increase in cases; we have seen poor outcomes around late diagnosis; and the disproportionate outcomes for women and people from black and Asian backgrounds continue. The gap has not closed.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is quite right: a disproportionate number of black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are becoming infected with HIV. Does my hon. Friend think that it is right to raise awareness of things like PrEP in communities that may be disproportionately affected, so that we can put them in the same position as the majority of the country, whose infection rates are declining?

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that vital point. HIV is a condition that knows no boundaries. It does not affect any one type of person: there is no one community that is alone affected by HIV. It knows no boundaries; it affects everyone.

After 14 difficult years for the health service, we are not on track to reach the 2030 goal. At every single stage of the HIV treatment process, we are missing critical opportunities to get people on PrEP, test for HIV and ensure that everyone living with HIV has the support that they need.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis—we can see why it is called PrEP for short—is an incredible advance in HIV prevention. It is a simple daily pill, now in generic form and therefore incredibly cheap, that prevents HIV completely if taken correctly. I have spoken before about how life-changing a drug it is in removing the fear and stigma of HIV. As a gay man who grew up in the 90s and noughties, the legacy of HIV has always weighed on me and, I am sure, on many others like me. Our sense of self, our sexuality and our relationships were always intertwined with the stigma and presence of HIV. Being able to take PrEP is game-changing, and not just for the individual and their wellbeing: it has a massive public health benefit. It has driven the significant falls in new transmissions, particularly among gay men, who have largely been the people who have accessed the drug to date.

It is unacceptable that the drug is not being accessed by everyone who could benefit. The average wait list for this preventive medicine is 12 weeks. We know from research that people have acquired HIV while waiting to access the drug. That is a significant failure that I hope the new HIV action plan will address, as well as turbocharging access outside sexual health services—the only place where it can currently be accessed. It is entirely wrong that NHS silos are holding back access to PrEP in primary care, including in pharmacy and other settings.

It is also unacceptable that people cannot get a postal test for HIV and sexually transmitted infections in 30% of rural England. It makes no sense that my borough of Hillingdon—not so rural, but on the edge of London—has a completely different postal testing system from the 30 other London boroughs that have their own system. Far too often, the patient is left to navigate complex systems. What test they get will vary depending on where they live. In vast swathes of the country, there is no option to test at home, although sexual health services are often inaccessible and chronically overwhelmed. Far too often, the individual has to fight for an appointment, and only those with the sharpest elbows, or persistence, get access to the sexual health services that they need.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. The point he makes is really important: in rural and coastal communities, testing services and public health awareness can often feel particularly remote. Looking at how we use primary care, particularly community hospitals and GP surgeries, will be essential to improving testing and public awareness. Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing this out into communities is essential to ensuring that take-up is just as good in a rural or coastal community as it is in a big town or city?

[Danny Beales]

I completely associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments. Particularly in rural settings, if getting to a sexual health service means travelling for miles and sometimes for hours, a lot of people, especially on the lowest incomes, will put off getting the test until another day. Unfortunately, we are seeing persistent rates of late diagnosis and of undiagnosed HIV outside major cities. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

What about those who make it through the complex online systems—the 8 am call queues, only on a Thursday—and actively go out and seek a test, or those who are fortunately now being found in our amazing opt-out testing pilot? If they are diagnosed with HIV, they are not always getting the support that they need to access HIV treatment in the long term.

We have some of the best—if not the best—HIV treatment and specialists in the world. HIV is now a treatable long-term health condition. “U = U. Undetectable = untransmittable.” We need to say that over and over again. In simple terms, it means that when someone is on HIV treatment, they cannot pass HIV on. That is a powerful and life-changing message. Despite the advances, 14,000 people living with HIV in England are essentially lost to the health system. They have been diagnosed with HIV but are not being seen by their clinic because of stigma, poverty and other barriers that are holding them back from getting that life-changing treatment.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for calling this debate and for his powerful speech. Does he share my concern that the communities that we need to come forward are the very same communities that are not accessing treatment because of that stigma? Organisations like the Fast-Track Cities network, Sophia Forum and One Voice Network are doing fantastic work reaching black women and other black and minority ethnic groups.

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and for her leadership on the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, on which I know she has been championing that issue and many others; I think she helped to host the important meeting and discussion about the recent report on disproportionality by the One Voice Network and the National AIDS Trust. If we look at the figures, the disproportionality of HIV is stark. We have made so much progress, including in access to PrEP, testing or treatment, but not all communities are benefiting in the same way. Particularly among black African and Caribbean communities in the UK, the rate of late diagnosis is far too high and the rate of accessing PrEP is far too low. It is completely unacceptable. We have to take on that disproportionality, those inequalities and the stigma that persists in holding people and communities back from accessing those vital measures.

From a public health perspective, the people who are not accessing successful treatment are potentially also passing on HIV and are at risk of getting seriously ill. Many already are. The rates of people not in treatment and not going to their clinic appointments have increased through the covid period. I hope that the future action plan will fill in the gaps in the last plan. One major omission was action on that very challenge.

There are already lots of examples of successful local projects that we can learn from, such as amazing outreach services with nurses going out to find patients lost to care. The value of consistent peer support comes through, time and again, from people living with HIV. We must ensure that every HIV team is proactively finding everyone lost to care and supporting them in a holistic way to overcome the barriers to continue with HIV treatment.

All of this, it must be said, takes place against the backdrop of a wider crisis in our national health service, which is putting historic strain on health services and affecting outcomes across the board. Our task is an immense challenge, but it is not insurmountable. Although we are not on track, it is still possible to end the epidemic in this country by 2030. We already have all the tools we need. This week, my old colleagues at the National AIDS Trust released a report with THT and the Elton John AIDS Foundation with some clear recommendations for the new HIV action plan in England. I am pleased that the Minister has already engaged with them, welcomed them and attended the report launch, which I am sure was much appreciated. It is a clear sign of leadership on the issue.

None of this is rocket science. We are talking about simple, deliverable actions. First, there should be a nationwide, year-round online HIV and STI postal testing service, which would be cheaper than the current patchwork of services that vary from place to place. Secondly, opt-out testing in all emergency departments should be expanded to other health settings, such as GP practices and termination-of-pregnancy services, and elsewhere so that we can find everyone living undiagnosed with HIV. Thirdly, we should broaden access to PrEP beyond sexual health services, starting with a digital service to ensure that those on long-term prescriptions get timely access to the medication. That will then reduce demand on sexual health services for appointments. Fourthly, we need an NHS England programme to find everyone already living with HIV and support them back into care, with proper care co-ordination, peer support and appropriately trained staff. None of this is unprecedented: it is happening or being piloted somewhere. We have all the tools we need; we must now implement them everywhere consistently.

I emphasise that it would be an incredible achievement to meet our 2030 goal and become the first country in the world to end new HIV cases. Of course, that achievement would occur in the context of a deeply concerning global picture—with 1.3 million new cases in 2023 and 650,000 deaths from what is now a treatable long-term condition, as has been said. Much more work clearly needs to be done on the international front, so international development funding is vital.

Ending new cases in England would make a remarkable contribution to the global effort to eradicate HIV by providing a replicable road map to prevent transmission elsewhere—learnings that can be exported and shared. It would also simply show that it is possible. Britain has historically been a world leader on HIV treatment and sexual health. Now let us be a world leader on this too.

One of this Government’s key missions is to rebuild our NHS so it is there for everyone when they need it. Fixing HIV care and ending new transmissions must be an integral part of that vision. I am pleased that the public health Minister is already working on a new HIV action plan. I have seen at first hand the passion and determination of those working to make this happen—from campaigners to clinicians and MPs across the House. We now need that same determination from the new Government. The Government have a unique opportunity to make history, and I hope that they will seize it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate? I also noticed that one or two Members arrived after the first speech had already begun, so they will not be allowed to speak. I think that those who want to speak will end up with about two minutes each, so I would be grateful if Members did not go on beyond two minutes and if they could desist from interventions, otherwise not everyone who wants to will be able to speak.

16:48

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is the second time that I have been called first in a debate in one day, so thank you very much for that, Sir Mark—I will pick my six numbers for Saturday night now.

It is a pleasure to be here. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for leading today’s debate and for bringing his knowledge to the Chamber. Every new MP brings their own knowledge and particular interests, and I thank him for sharing his. It is also good to acknowledge these issues to help us support and promote positive living for those suffering with HIV and AIDS.

There were 6,008 new HIV diagnoses in England, which is a 51% increase—a really worrying trend. I ask the Minister—it is lovely to see him in his place, as always—what can be done to reduce that figure? Whether people are more reluctant to go for tests or whether it is about the lifestyle that they are leading, it is clear that something needs to be done. The Government committed to achieving zero new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030, but if the number of new diagnoses continues to rise, that target will not be met.

I want to refer to Northern Ireland’s only HIV charity, Positive Life, which has been instrumental in making a difference to the quality of people’s lives for over 25 years, after beginning as the AIDS telephone helpline in 1986. As a city centre facility, it now has a range of services that extend across Northern Ireland. In addition, it helps to prevent the increase in the number of in HIV infections through training, education and raising awareness, as well as campaigning and lobbying.

In Northern Ireland, about 1,000 people were living with HIV in 2016. The figure is now up to 1,325, so there is still a need to address that and the 30% increase in eight years. The latest figures show that the rate of HIV diagnosis in Northern Ireland is falling, but there are more HIV diagnoses among people of a heterosexual orientation.

This World AIDS Day, let us do more to remember those lost to HIV-related illnesses. Steps are being taken through the Government’s HIV action plan so that more can be done to end new HIV transmissions in England and across the whole United Kingdom. I ask the Minister: will he commit to ensuring that the devolved nations can play their part in ending new HIV transmissions by 2030? I know the Minister is committed to that, but I ask him again for the record.

16:50

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this debate ahead of World AIDS Day on 1 December. With his background as the head of policy for the National AIDS Trust, he brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to this debate. In the short time since his election to this House, he has made a powerful difference on this issue. I also thank the public health Minister for being here and the swift leadership that he has shown since the general election.

With 105,000 people across the UK and more than 38 million people worldwide living with HIV, it is important that we take this moment to celebrate our successes in fighting the virus, but also to recognise the challenge that lies ahead. It is important to understand that constant action is required or we will fall back in our battle against HIV and AIDS. I agreed to become the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, because this is a fight that we can and must win. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my fellow co-chairs on the APPG: my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and Baroness Barker for their leadership on this issue.

AIDS is no longer an unrelenting reality that we have to endure, but a consequence of our collective failure to share the necessary knowledge, protection and medication with everyone who needs it. That some 38 million people are living with AIDS worldwide is a policy failure, not an inevitability. We can see the impact of sustained intervention over time. Since 2014 in the UK, there has been a 68% drop in new cases among gay men and a 12% drop in new cases among black African people, and there has been a 40% increase in the number of people on PrEP since 2021. In total, since the peak in 2014, there has been a 36% decrease in new cases, but we cannot and should not rest easy. The fight against HIV and AIDS is ongoing.

There is good news in the data, but there are warnings too. More than 42 million people around the world have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic. In 2022 the number of new diagnoses increased for the first time, predominantly driven by an increase in cases among heterosexual women—the highest number of cases ever in my constituency of Gedling. We must seek to understand why and tackle the root causes immediately because one life affected by HIV and AIDS is one too many. But we should recognise that the life with AIDS that people suffered through the 1980s is no longer an inevitability; the fear that came from the unknown can and should be expelled. Treatments have improved and now people can live a long life with an undetectable and untransmittable HIV diagnosis.

We have reached this point because of the hard work of so many who came before us. I pay tribute to Terrence Higgins, one of the first people in the UK to die from AIDS. His legacy is the success that we see today. Sir Elton John led the way in breaking the stigma around AIDS, publicly stating that his sex life put him at risk and raising millions for AIDS charities. I also pay tribute to the scientists who worked to make drugs such as PrEP a reality and the activists who campaigned to keep AIDS on the agenda through the ’80s, ’90s and 2000s. We stand on their shoulders today. I hope we can do justice to their legacy.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members to please try to keep to two minutes if they can.

16:54

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Mark. I will simply agree with what both the previous speakers have said. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this debate and for his work with the National AIDS Trust. I positively support its report, along with the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, “Getting on track”, and I am pleased that the Minister has engaged with that report already. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I will focus on the global issues. We have already heard that there were 1.3 million new transmissions last year, and in sub-Saharan Africa, 62% of those infections were among women and girls.

I have three asks of the UK Government. First, I ask that they continue to be a major contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Since 2002, the UK has committed over £5.4 billion, making it one of the largest donors, and it is extremely important that it continues to do so. Secondly, the UK needs to focus on expanding access to antiretroviral therapy—ART—for people living with HIV. ART is a lifesaving treatment that not only improves the health and quality of life of individuals but reduces the risk of HIV transmission.

Thirdly, the UK needs to be a leader in confronting anti-LGBT+ legislation globally. We know that the risk of arrest and criminality leads people to hide their sexuality, avoid testing and eschew treatment, because they are evidence of so-called subversive or criminal behaviours. Such laws are an impediment to progress and undermine the efforts of the UK to assist health systems. We must stand up against them, and I hope the Minister will confirm that.

16:56

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for bringing forward this crucial debate. I will start by commending campaigners and activists who have worked tirelessly to ensure that we have international awareness of HIV and AIDS.

The legacy of racism surrounding the AIDS pandemic casts a long and enduring shadow for communities such as mine in Lambeth, and indeed across Africa and the Caribbean. Although the impact of the virus and our understanding of it has evolved, the legacy of racist attitudes towards AIDS continues to have consequences for black communities in the healthcare system. HIV-related racism and stigma increases vulnerability to infection in black communities, and those who are HIV-positive are less likely to come forward to be tested or to access treatment and health services.

Last year, more than one in three HIV diagnoses in Lambeth was classified as late, meaning that the immune system had already suffered damage. Across England, 44% of diagnoses are late and women are 51% more likely to receive such delayed diagnoses. Early detection saves lives, offering effective treatment that ensures that those living with HIV can lead long and healthy lives and not pass on the virus once it is suppressed.

People who are not infected are still at high risk because HIV stigma can prevent them from accessing information and education. Cultural taboos linked to sex and sexually transmitted diseases in black communities can also have an impact on people’s access to HIV prevention and education, which directly increases the vulnerability of those who are not infected.

Racist assumptions around HIV and AIDS have also had consequences in other areas of the healthcare system. As recently as 2021, the NHS had a discriminatory blood donation ban on black donors due to flawed science around HIV. The ban had a direct impact on sufferers of sickle cell, an illness that predominantly affects black communities. Treatment is dependent on blood transfusions, particularly for a rare blood group such as Ro, which is common in black people.

The legacy of those rules has resulted in a reluctance among the black community to come forward and donate blood. That is why I commend the work done by organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, which makes a concerted effort to combat outdated and discriminatory policies and all the damage that they cause. I could not allow this opportunity to pass without mentioning the new Brixton blood donation centre in my constituency, which is opening in a few weeks. I extend an invitation to the Minister, and all Members, to come and visit the new clinic and to open their veins and donate. It is so important that we challenge the misgivings around blood donation and encourage people to donate.

Ending new HIV cases is not just a medical issue; it is a social justice issue. We have to challenge the racism and discrimination that prevents individuals from accessing care, education and support.

16:59

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I wish to speak about the 1980s in Britain to reflect a perspective that may be more common in this place since the general election. I recently asked the Library what was the average age of Labour MPs first elected in 2024, and the answer is 43 years—it was quite a relief to hear I was below that.

For so many of us in this place, the 1980s made us who we are. For those of us who are gay, either we or the gay people we knew grew up with the legacy of stigma and a deficit of self-acceptance. Thankfully, where we lacked a political language, there were ways to weave together the grief, fear, shame, anger and regret that was forced upon gay people by homophobia, some of which was on the part of the state, some of society, and some of the tabloid press in the era defined by Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. Too often the response of gay men was:

“Run away, turn away, run away, turn away”

because

“the answers you seek will never be found at home

The love that you need will never be found at home.”

For many young gay men, they were the smalltown boys who Jimmy Somerville sang about, and they ran away to places such as London, Manchester or Bournemouth.

One man who left for Bournemouth was John Eaddie. Until very recently, we have known very little about John. We know he was gay. We know he ran a guest hotel that was a haven to meet and drink in the late ’70s and early ’80s. We know he was charming and friendly. We know he was not the kind of guy to throw himself in front of the camera—in fact, he would be the one taking photographs. We know it was not in a big city but by the seaside where John presented doctors with the first signs of a mystery illness in 1981. We know he quickly deteriorated and ended up in hospital. We know that his carers in Bournemouth, baffled, sent him to the Royal Brompton in London, where his immune system was rapidly collapsing. And we know that he died in his tenth hospital day on October 29 1981. His cause of death, at the age of 49, was recorded as “pneumonia”.

John’s death is in fact the first recorded AIDS death in Britain. His story remained a mystery for 40 years, and we only know now because of a research team, which involved Paul Brand, Nathan Lee and Mark Jordan wading through thousands of death records. I want to thank that remarkable research team, as well as Paul Brand for his help with parts of this speech. As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I am honoured to put the name of John Eaddie, a former Bournemouth resident, into the official parliamentary record. No longer, I hope, will he be known as “Patient Zero” or the “Brompton Patient”. As a gay man whose generation was being born as John’s was being devastated, I am honoured to remember John and his story, and to help alongside others to contribute to the eradication of the stigma of HIV and AIDS.

Many of those who died of AIDS did not have children, and their older relatives are dying, so before this period passes into the past, we must tell their story. We must hold it here, thank the doctors and nurses in the LGBT community and allies who went far beyond every call of duty to care, and honour everyone who suffered and died, or anybody who lived in shame and died in secrecy. No longer will the last record of John Eaddie be in The Lancet medical journal, where even in that record there was no mention of AIDS as his cause of death, because it had not been invented as a term at that point. Known for much of my lifetime as “Patient Zero”, I believe we can now finally honour the man by his real name: John Eaddie. May he rest in peace.

17:03

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on securing this debate to mark World AIDS Day. Colleagues have made important points about the huge progress, both medically and socially, that we have made as a nation over recent years, but of course there is always more to do. In 2023, there were 132 people in Exeter diagnosed with HIV and accessing HIV care. It is estimated that around 5% of all people living with HIV in England are undiagnosed, so there will inevitably be people in Exeter living undiagnosed today. I therefore welcome the continued roll-out of opt-out testing to identify and support those people.

I want to touch briefly on two points. First, on the international picture, addressing inequalities in global health requires a country-led approach that puts grassroots communities in the driving seat. It is important, however, that such an approach includes an unflinching commitment to defending and extending human rights. The global HIV pandemic has demonstrated the importance of addressing human rights violations as a central tenet of driving down HIV rates. Today, UNAIDS releases its report into human rights and HIV/AIDS. The report, which includes a foreword by Sir Elton John, demonstrates that the world is not on track to end the HIV crisis, neither is it on track to meet the UN’s targets for societal enablers, which aim to reduce the social and legal impediments that limit access to lifesaving HIV services.

LGBT human rights are increasingly under attack from authoritarian Governments and otherwise democratic Governments whose elected leaders choose to vilify minority groups for political gain. That is becoming a central tenet in the playbook of extremist forces, which makes it all the more important for the UK Government to take a global lead in advocating for human rights if we want to reach our commitments on eradicating HIV transmissions.

Secondly, and very briefly, I want to use this opportunity to thank the many volunteers and activists across our country and around the world who have worked so hard to get us to the position we are in now. From caring for friends and relatives to protesting and setting up activist organisations, the fight against HIV and AIDS has always been led by committed individuals.

In particular, I want to recognise the work of Nick Perry, a much-loved and admired resident of Hackney who sadly and suddenly died recently. Nick was a polymath, an expert amateur historian, a keen advocate for good planning and place, a volunteer for London Pride and, importantly, an HIV education advocate who volunteered with the Terrence Higgins Trust. I recommend to everyone his comedy stand-up segment at Nerd Nite London, available on YouTube, which tackles HIV issues and sexual health in a very accessible way. He was incredibly generous with his time and was a great mentor to me and many others, and will be very much missed by everyone he met. My condolences remain with his husband, Andrew Grace.

People like Nick and many others in this country and around the world will always be the key to our collective ambition to end all new HIV transmissions. We must do everything we can as a Government to support them.

17:06

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this important debate. All the words we have heard today have been poignant and impactful.

I want to speak about the impact of AIDS on women. In the UK, women make up a third of people living with HIV and just over a third of new HIV diagnoses. It is crucial that any strategy for AIDS does not forget women and their unique experiences of this disease. Often, women with HIV are some of the most disadvantaged members of society. The Terrence Higgins Trust estimates that almost half of women living with HIV in the UK live below the poverty line. It also estimates that over half of women living with HIV have experienced violence because of their HIV status. I spoke earlier today in a debate on tackling violence against women and girls, and this is yet another opportunity to highlight the actions we need to be taking to ensure that women in the UK do not have to live in fear.

I also want to raise the importance of women getting tested for HIV, as it can often feel like there are too many barriers in place. We have made great strides in the treatment of the disease; it is vital that women can also access those treatments.

It is also important to raise the fact that often, black, Asian and ethnic minority women face worse outcomes and experiences in our healthcare services than white women. That will no doubt also be seen in how those women access HIV care.

I will finish by saying that we must strive so that all those living with HIV are able to do so with freedom from HIV secrecy, knowing that they are accepted and that HIV is not a label, and are free to pursue their dreams, faith and relationships free from stigma and discrimination.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for their brief contributions and for giving time for the Front Bench speakers.

17:08

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark, and indeed to represent the Liberal Democrats for World AIDS Day. I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his excellent introduction to this topic and for securing the debate. There have been so many brilliant contributions. I want to leave plenty of time for the other Front Benchers to speak, so I will not go through them all, but I am very impressed that in such a short time we have covered so much ground, and so eloquently. I particularly want to pick up on the speech by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who powerfully told us the story of John Eaddie, and thank him for that contribution.

AIDS is one of the globe’s biggest killers, as we all know, despite being entirely preventable and treatable. In 2023, nearly 40 million people across the globe were living with HIV, 1.3 million of whom became newly infected within that year. Given that it is entirely preventable and treatable, we can aspire to bring that number right down to zero.

In the United Kingdom the fight has been serious and ongoing since the 1980s, and yet since 2021 the numbers diagnosed have been increasing, while the numbers tested have been decreasing. We absolutely have to ensure that that is turned around rapidly. Testing is still 4% lower than pre-covid levels, and that has been driven by a drop among heterosexual men, where the testing rates are 22% lower than pre-covid. The most recent UK-wide estimates have about 5,000 people as undiagnosed and not aware that they are living with HIV. Again, that shows that the importance of testing—I entirely support the call for opt-out testing—is paramount to bring such people into the healthcare that they need and deserve, and to prevent the disease spreading.

Internationally, good progress has been made, but the picture is still extremely concerning. I want to pick up on the inequality in that picture. Every week, globally, 4,000 adolescent girls—young women aged between 15 and 24 years—become infected with HIV; in 2023, 3,100 of those infections occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Poverty and displacement drive those higher rates of infection, and there is a worrying link between conflict, sexual violence and HIV. That is something we need to address.

I want to be brief, so to summarise the policy ask, the Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure universal access to HIV prevention, such as PrEP, and treatment. I have mentioned the importance of opt-out testing. We still need to work to eliminate the stigma and the discrimination linked to HIV, especially the racist element highlighted so carefully earlier. We press on the Government the importance of restoring the public health grant, which the Conservatives have cut by a fifth since 2015, to deliver better access to sexual health services. On helping globally, it is important that we restore, or at least set out the path to restoring, the 0.7% of gross domestic product for international aid, to enable issues such as AIDS to be prioritised in accordance with our requirements. With that, I will leave time for the other Front Benchers.

17:12

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.

As we mark World AIDS Day, we are called to reflect on the progress that we have made, on the challenges that remain and on the road ahead in our collective fight against HIV and the stigma so often associated with it, especially in the past. The UK has much to be proud of in that effort. Through the introduction of an HIV action plan, we set ambitious goals, such as an 80% reduction in new HIV infections by 2025. Remarkably, we achieved the UNAIDS 95-95-95 target back in 2020: 95% of individuals were living with HIV diagnosed, or presumed to be living with it diagnosed; 99% of them were on treatment; and 97% were achieving good viral suppression. Those figures reflect the dedication of our healthcare professionals and the effectiveness of our public health strategies. When diagnosed early, people with HIV in the UK can now expect a relatively normal life expectancy. The disease is no longer the death sentence it once was. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke about that.

Sadly, that is not the case worldwide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) highlighted the starkness of the global picture. Last year, AIDS-related illnesses claimed as many lives as did the sum total of all wars, homicides and natural disasters that ravaged our planet. In parts of southern Africa, in countries such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, more than one fifth of the adult population live with HIV. Such figures remind us that the global fight against AIDS is far from over.

Troublingly, within our own borders, we are starting to witness a reversal of hard-won gains. A long and steady decline of HIV rates in the UK has suddenly and sharply risen in recent years. HIV diagnoses in England doubled from roughly 3,000 to a little more than 6,000 between 2020 and 2023, unfortunately reversing more than a decade of progress and throwing the Government’s goal to end HIV transmission by 2030 into some jeopardy.

We must focus on what is driving that resurgence. One key factor is a worrying trend identified by the World Health Organisation: a decline in condom use, especially in younger populations. Between 2014 and 2022, a survey of nearly 250,000 adolescents across Europe found that only 61% of sexually active young men and 48% of young women in England reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about the success of PrEP, its greater availability and how it is an important tool in preventing HIV infections. It has undoubtedly saved lives. The Minister therefore has a complex challenge in how he will continue to promote lifesaving interventions such as PrEP while reinforcing the importance of safe practices such as the use of condoms. I am interested in the Minister’s plans to achieve that.

Another part of the answer is an effective testing strategy. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said—to quote more of his speech—it is about testing, testing, testing. I know that the Labour party like to have the same word three times in a row. Successive Governments have been working very hard to reduce stigma and normalise HIV testing through campaigns such as the “I Test” programme, which helped to normalise HIV testing as something routine and beneficial, both for the individual concerned and wider society. Such campaigns have largely been targeted at communities with a higher HIV presence.

The Conservative Government introduced opt-out testing, which has had a significant impact and is now available in 34 emergency departments across the country. It has identified hundreds of people who were previously undiagnosed or had been lost and followed up with treatment of HIV and hepatitis B and C. The identification of those cases helps the individual concerned and also helps to reduce transmission among the wider population.

What plans do the Government have to expand the testing into more areas of the country and into A&Es across the country so that we can find out what other undiagnosed cases might be out there? Between 2019 and 2021, the estimated number of undiagnosed cases in England declined, but opt-out testing has suggested that there are more cases than we realise. Does the Minister have plans to re-estimate the number of cases of undiagnosed HIV that may be out in the community waiting to be treated?

When one studies the statistics of new HIV diagnoses, it is clear that there has been a rise driven more recently by the migration of individuals who are HIV positive. I wonder what considerations the Minister has given to HIV testing for this population, and what plans he has to target measures to reduce HIV within that group.

Finally, I want to talk about education, which has been and remains a key pillar in protecting young people from HIV and AIDS and reducing the stigma associated with testing and living with HIV. We must recognise the extent to which the pandemic disrupted health outreach programmes and traditional learning, leaving many young people without access to vital information. It is important that young people feel comfortable seeking advice and accessing resources. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the tireless work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and local sexual health clinics, who have continued to provide lifesaving services under incredibly difficult circumstances. However, those organisations cannot tackle the crisis alone. Indeed, with the Government’s new Budget, they face high charges for national insurance contributions. The Terrence Higgins Trust employs more than 200 people. What conversations has the Minister had with the Treasury about exempting such charities from paying national insurance on their employees so that they can continue their good and lifesaving work, rather than just paying more tax into this Government?

We need to ensure that those charities have the funding and resources to expand their outreach, particularly in underserved and high-risk communities. On this World AIDS Day, let us reaffirm our commitment to ending this epidemic. Let us celebrate the progress we have made while recognising that there is still much work to be done. Let us ensure that future generations can live in a world that is free from the shadow of AIDS.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am extremely honoured to have the opportunity to speak today at the first dedicated debate on HIV and AIDS in this Parliament. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing the debate on a topic that is close not only to both of our hearts but to the heart of this Government.

We are a Government who are committed to ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030. With World AIDS Day fast approaching on 1 December, the debate is a welcome opportunity to highlight the importance of our new HIV action plan, which we aim to publish in summer of next year. Achieving that goal demands collaboration and that is why dialogue and engagement with every part of the system will be crucial as we progress with the development of the new plan.

I am delighted to have the continuing support of colleagues from across the House, and like many speakers today I commend the engagement of fantastic charities and organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among many others. I also pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to the debate. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, as the Minister responsible for public health in England, I will liaise closely with my counterparts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that we are all on track to end new cases of HIV in our respective jurisdictions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) spoke powerfully, and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) both raised the issues of global inequality, stigma and the pervasive legislation that still exists in far too many parts of the world. I assure them and the whole House that this new Government will continue to be a major contributor to the Global Fund. Our obligations on the international stage are clear: we are not just about tackling HIV in this country, but around the globe. On human rights and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, this Government and this country will always stand for equality, human rights and justice across the world, as well as at home.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke specifically about issues within black and minority ethnic communities. I would love to come and visit the new clinic she mentioned; consider it a date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a lovely and loving contribution to the debate. On behalf of the British Government, I thank him for putting the name of John Eaddie on the record. John is no longer just a statistic; he is a human being who happened to die of AIDS. We pay tribute to John and to those who died after him, ahead of all the drugs, treatments and advances in technology that we now have. However, their death was not in vain, because we remember them and the sacrifices of their friends and families to support them in really difficult times so that we have a better world ahead of us today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, also contributed to the debate. I assure the hon. Lady that this Government are committed to public health and prevention and although I cannot circumnavigate the Budget process, we will do all we can to restore the public health grant across this Parliament and into the future, because public health and prevention matter. They are a priority for us all.

On Monday, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the voluntary and community sector report produced jointly by the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, where I offered my reflections on its valuable recommendations. I welcome the report and its recommendations, and I look forward to developing the HIV action plan alongside such a vital sector. We remain committed to hearing from those whose frontline expertise, grassroots connections and powerful voices will ensure that our plan is not only ambitious but grounded in the lived experiences of those it seeks to support.

Let me be clear: getting to zero new transmissions means smashing stigma. World AIDS Day is a stark reminder of how far we have come since the 1980s, but this year’s theme of tackling stigma starkly shows how far we have to go. It calls on all of us, not just as lawmakers but as members of our communities to reflect on the prejudice that people living with HIV have faced through not only a life-threatening illness but alienation, misinformation and discrimination. I have been thrilled to see the innovation and effectiveness of stigma-reduction strategies across the country. I am keen to build on that knowledge and work closely with the UK Health Security Agency as it continues to monitor stigma data through the “Positive Voices” survey report, to ensure that addressing stigma is a key priority for our new HIV action plan.

The experiences of the 1980s should remind all of us that stigma thrives in ignorance and silence. That is why we are determined to address it head-on, as part of honouring the legacy and work of so many others who went before. For the avoidance of doubt, we will not be satisfied until the number of transmissions reaches zero, yet there remain differences in the rate of diagnoses between demographics.

As the numbers move towards zero, we must work together to reach those communities that have not been captured thus far. That means including and empowering those voices, not essentialising them. It means cultural competence, innovation and collaboration. That is why we are hosting engagement sessions and roundtables in parallel with external stakeholders, including people with lived experience, the voluntary and community sector, professional bodies, local partners and others. We are working alongside UKHSA, NHS England and a broad range of system partners to inform the development of the new action plan, which will build on the progress made on the existing plan and guarantee that it is robust, inclusive and evidence-based.

Central to that effort is the importance of testing. That is a message we cannot repeat enough. I apologise to the shadow Minister, but I am going to repeat it: test, test, test. Testing is the gateway to prevention, treatment and ultimately ending new HIV transmission. We know that HIV opt-out testing works well. Over the past 27 months, more than 2 million HIV tests have been conducted, reaching those who do not typically engage with sexual health services.

Tomorrow, UKHSA will publish its opt-out testing report, providing us with the latest data. That will inform the next steps for the expansion of opt-out testing. We will also use that as a foundation to explore how our action plan can build on those successes—successes such as the national HIV testing week, yet we know that lower levels of testing persist among black African and heterosexual groups. We have seen that trend intersect with women, too. That requires tailoring our approach to reach those people living with undiagnosed HIV, who have been overlooked.

PrEP plays a vital role in the combination approach. Breakthroughs in science and medicine mean that, with the right treatment, people living with HIV can now lead long, healthy lives. The PrEP road map was published by the HIV action plan implementation steering group in February this year, identifying barriers to access for under-represented groups. That road map will guide our efforts to improve access, uptake and the use of PrEP among those most at risk of HIV.

In closing, I want to say that we are determined to reach zero HIV transmissions. On World AIDS day, let us honour those we have lost by recommitting ourselves to a future free from fear, misinformation and discrimination. The “Don’t die of ignorance” slogan is sadly as relevant today as it was on release. Together with science, compassion and unity we can achieve a future of zero new HIV transmissions, with stigma consigned to history.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. In the 20 seconds we have left, I leave it to Mr Beales to say a few words.

17:29

[Danny Beales]

Thank you, Sir Mark. I will be brief, because I have to be. I thank the Minister and everyone who contributed. It is clear there is cross-party support for this action. The Minister will have our full backing in taking this plan forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered World AIDS Day.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.