Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15 January 2025

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water quality in rivers, lakes and seas.

Bore da—good morning. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I grew up in the countryside on a farm, and one of my favourite memories was having a friend round, going for a walk and sploshing through the streams at the bottom of the garden. We took it for granted that we could mess about in the Dorset chalk streams, and apart from annoying my mum when I came back inside sopping wet, making a terrible mess, there was never any fear that I would get sick or that I would be wading through sewage. What a change there has been, with parents now too scared to let their children run helter-skelter into the local stream, river or lake, for fear that they will get an ear infection, an eye infection or a stomach infection, or encounter a wet wipe or something much worse.

I moved to Monmouthshire 25 years ago, and it was fantastic to raise my children there, with its fantastic rivers including the Wye, the Usk, the Monnow and lots of smaller rivers criss-crossing the constituency. I have spent so many happy hours, as I am sure other Members have in their local rivers, swimming in the Usk, walking by the Wye and kayaking down it. I have seen kingfishers and heron there and introduced my kids to the amazing wildlife we have, and I have spent some of our happiest days there as a family.

Sadly, the health of our two major rivers, the Wye and the Usk, is in serious decline, and they are really good examples of what is happening elsewhere in the UK. In February 2022, Natural Resources Wales research showed that the Usk had the highest incidence of phosphate pollution of the nine Welsh special areas of conservation, or SACs, designated for rivers. In Glascoed near Usk, there was an average 85% failure rate against phosphate targets between January 2023 and June 2024.

The Wye is being impacted by high levels of phosphates, which are causing a decline in water quality and algal blooms that then starve the fish, plants and invertebrates of oxygen. That leads to biodiversity loss and the collapse of the whole web of life in the river. These algal blooms are growing larger and becoming more frequent. In 2020, a thick algal bloom extended for more than 140 miles of the river. Recovery will take decades.

Natural England’s condition assessment for the Wye SAC in 2023 was “unfavourable-declining”, which was based on declines in Atlantic salmon, water quality and white-clawed crayfish in the Lugg, and aquatic plants, Atlantic salmon and white-clawed crayfish in the Wye.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an immensely important topic, and I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, for allowing a quick intervention from a shadow Front Bencher on a matter of great constituency interest. She will be aware that I and others have tried to fight this battle for at least four years. Will she support my request that the Government look again at the plan for the River Wye and, even if they do not adopt the detail of it, at least preserve the £35 million of funding pledged by the previous Government, or something close to it, to support the restoration of the river?

[Catherine Fookes]

I salute some of the work that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to do locally on the Wye in Herefordshire, even though he is an Opposition Member, but with all due respect, the River Wye action plan was roundly discounted and felt to be not worth the paper it was written on by the non-governmental organisations in the area at the time. The Government failed to consult Wales, and the plan seemed to be rushed out before the general election. When the Minister looked at it, she found that that money was not allocated and available to push out and support the Wye. I am sure she will say later that we have had a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership, and that we are working in partnership with the Welsh Government to push forward a plan that has been developed by the Wye Catchment Partnership. I will give some more detail about that in a moment.

Unfortunately, after 14 years of Conservative failure, we have record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas. I will talk much more about rivers today, because that is what I have in my constituency, but our lakes, seas and coastal towns are also deeply affected.

Chronic ongoing diffuse pollution from agriculture also affects our water quality. In England, only 16% of all assessed surface waters achieved good ecological status, and less than 1% achieved high status. The decline in our water health is staggering, and we desperately need to take action to repair it. As I know hon. Members will agree, there are amazing NGOs, campaigning groups and citizen scientists in every one of our constituencies who have brought this matter to our attention and to the fore nationally. I pay tribute to all of them, especially those in Monmouthshire.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is talking about those who are contributing to the debate and trying to do their best, but does she agree that it should not be left to people such as one-time musical celebrity Feargal Sharkey, from my city of Londonderry, and many others to campaign on these issues? We need Government action rather than pressure groups and people trying to campaign for change.

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his intervention. That is exactly why the Government are taking action. I will come on to what the Labour Government are doing shortly. I was fortunate to meet Feargal Sharkey on the campaign trail. He endorsed my campaign, which means that I will be held to account. That is one of the reasons why this issue is so important to me and why I am pleased to have secured this debate.

I believe that the campaigning groups in Monmouthshire are some of the best in the UK. We have Save the River Usk, led by the inspiring Angela Jones, Friends of the River Wye, Save the Wye, the South East Wales Rivers Trust, the Wye & Usk Foundation and many more, and they continue to do excellent work to hold us to account.

We also have the Wye Catchment Partnership, which is a cross-border partnership of more than 70 members, including Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency and representatives of all the local authorities, the National Farmers Union and the environmental charities I have mentioned. It is a great partnership. As I have mentioned, the Minister recently had a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership to hear about the need for an action plan. I sincerely thank her for her engagement to get the Wye catchment plan phase 2 off the ground. That could be a brilliant pilot project, supported by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and consistent with the unfulfilled policy commitments of the previous Government’s plan for water. It shows how working with stakeholders across all counties and countries, and the regulators, could be a model for changing the face of our rivers. I hope the Government will support it.

Rivers know no boundaries. The Wye crosses four counties and two countries, so we need an integrated and coherent Wye catchment management plan that uses the best available evidence and a well-targeted programme of remedial measures to get our river cleaned up.

I said that Feargal Sharkey endorsed my election campaign, a key promise of which was to work in this place to clean up our rivers. That is why I am pleased that the Labour Government have done more on water in six months than the Tories and their coalition partners, the Lib Dems, did in 14 years. I am proud of the two main measures that the Government have already announced: the Water (Special Measures) Bill—I am proud to be a member of the Public Bill Committee—and the water commission. The Bill will enable the Government and regulators to block the payment of bonuses to water company executives, bring criminal charges against those who break the law, issue automatic and severe fines, and monitor every sewage outlet.

It is right that the Government have started work on cleaning up our water by tackling our water companies, which the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years, but the next big issue that we must tackle is the pollution in our waterways arising from diffuse agricultural sources. As the water commission’s remit is to look at how to tackle inherited systemic issues in the water sector to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, I am sure the chair, the former deputy governor of the Bank of England Sir Jon Cunliffe, will include diffuse pollution from agriculture in his commission’s investigations.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am keen to make sure that the water commission can tackle some of the most egregious failures of the water industry. For example, yesterday Southern Water dumped sewage into the sea alongside Ramsgate. This issue is fundamental to the environment and the economy in a seaside community such as Thanet, and it needs to be part of our overall drive for growth. The new independent water commission needs to explore different governance models and introduce local accountability, or the water companies will continue to fail as they have done up until now.

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree entirely. The Government’s mission is growth. We need to see the cleaning-up of our waterways as an integral part of our growth mission.

We know that tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture will be a hard nut to crack, with farmers already under pressure, but we have examples of good practice in the Wye. For example, Avara is already shipping out 75% of the chicken waste from its Herefordshire chicken farms along the Wye. That is to be welcomed, but it does not solve the long-term problems of too much phosphate in our rivers.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I represent Glastonbury and Somerton, and a large part of the Somerset levels and moors is in my constituency. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding, and many of my farmers are always battling flooding. Grants such as the slurry infrastructure grant helped my livestock farmers ensure that nutrients such as phosphates do not enter the watercourses. That improves the viability of our farms, the health of our soil and the cleanliness of our rivers. Does the hon. Member agree that it was wrong for DEFRA to pause access to those grants?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Lots of Members wish to speak today, so we could end up with a two-minute limit on speeches. I ask Members to keep their interventions very short, otherwise the limit will go down to one and a half minutes and then down to one minute.

[Catherine Fookes]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. To continue with diffuse pollution, Lancaster University estimates that around 83% of phosphates in the Wye come from diffuse agricultural sources, and only 15% or so from Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—assets. Indeed, Dŵr Cymru’s £80 million investment in AMP 7—an AMP is an asset management period, or the investment round that is done in five-year cycles—and the planned £150 million investment in AMP 8 will eliminate 100% of its fair share of phosphates in the Wye catchment by 2032. By 2030, over 90% of the phosphate load will be from diffuse agricultural sources. It is not sewage that is our main problem here.

I know this will be a hard conversation with farmers, but we need to start having it. We need to incentivise the right fertiliser applications and the right stocking rates in our river catchments on both sides of the border in order to ensure we remove the annual accrual and legacy surplus of excess phosphates and restore our rivers back to full health. Business as usual will not work.

Also, we need better enforcement of existing regulations by both the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. The RePhoKUs project—the role of phosphorus in the resilience and sustainability of the UK food system—at Lancaster University, which re-focuses phosphorus use in the UK food system, estimates that phosphorus leakage from land to water also causes widespread and costly pollution worth £39.5 billion to the UK economy—a huge external cost that we must try to avoid.

In summary, we have been left a very difficult legacy due to inaction by the Tories. It will take much work by the Government to clear up the mess and the water quality in our rivers, lakes and seas to fix this broken system. I am confident that, by working cross-border and in partnership with all those involved, as the current Government are doing, we can clean up our water once and for all, as the Wye catchment partnership aims to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate—although you can sit down for the minute. As I said earlier, because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, I am imposing a two-and-a-half minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to take effect right away. Bear that in mind with interventions, as I am sure you all appreciate.

09:45

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I want to bring attention to Lough Neagh in the middle of Northern Ireland, which is the largest freshwater lake in the British Isles, spanning approximately 149 square miles. It serves as a vital resource, supplying 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water, but in the last two summers of ’23 and ’24 Lough Neagh has experienced severe cyanobacteria blooms, which have been visible from space. Those blooms pose a risk to wildlife and human health, due to the toxins they produce.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has instigated 20 key measures, but we must wait for the summer to see whether they will be enough. They include enhancing monitoring and research, and other agricultural interventions. As the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said in respect of past processes, to tackle the challenges that agriculture faces with water quality, we need to work in partnership with farmers, and look to go back to allowing farmers to farm by the seasonal calendar, rather than a paper one that has seen farming practices put out of kilter with the seasons we now see.

The Northern Ireland water-quality framework is different from other parts of the UK. Northern Ireland is guided by national and European directives, including the water framework directive, which aims for all water bodies to achieve good ecological status, whatever the standards or the regulations. A 2024 report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office noted that the existing regulatory and policy frameworks have failed to adequately protect water quality in Lough Neagh.

Northern Ireland Water, the sole provider of water and sewerage services in the region, operates under the governance of the Department for Infrastructure and our Utility Regulator. That is why I asked, in a debate in the Chamber, that Northern Ireland Water be brought under the Government’s independent commission, which is being led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. I have been informed by the Government that that is currently restricted to England and Wales, but I think there would be a benefit if Northern Ireland was included.

09:48

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for bringing forward this important debate.

In December, the Environment Agency rehomed thousands of fish into the River Cut at Jock’s Lane in Bracknell. That stocking will provide an immediate boost to fish numbers, which will be multiplied many times when the arrivals settle into their new homes and begin to spawn. In recent years, Jock’s Lane has been better known as a sewage spot than an angler’s paradise, so this intervention is welcome. The question now is how best to protect these latest Bracknell residents from any further sewage leakage.

In 2023, Thames Water dumped more than 1,000 hours of raw and partially treated sewage into Bracknell and Sandhurst rivers. In Bracknell that was into the River Cut and in Sandhurst it was into the River Blackwater. It is not only deeply damaging to nature; it is frankly disgusting. A decade of under-investment by water companies and a lack of oversight from successive Tory Governments have led us to this.

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

In 2023, Chichester suffered 990 sewage spills in our rivers and harbour, lasting more than 17,000 hours. Does the hon. Member agree that, after a decade of Tory inaction, the Water (Special Measures) Bill is welcome, but it could go further on regulation, especially by giving Ofwat teeth?

[Peter Swallow]

I will come to just that point shortly.

The rain we saw earlier this month is another reminder of the problems we are facing. It led to another bout of sewage dumping in my constituency, including from the recently upgraded Ascot sewage works, which I visited back in December. Since 2020, executives of the water companies overseeing these incidents have been paid £41 million in bonuses and benefits, and it is reported that over the last two years water companies have paid out more than £2.5 billion in dividends. Meanwhile, the current maximum fixed penalty notice—the monetary penalty—that regulators can impose on water companies for the majority of water sector offences is £300. It is little surprise, then, that a recent survey by Ofwat showed that only a quarter of customers see companies as acting in the interests of the people and the environment.

During the general election, I campaigned on the promise that Labour would get tough on water companies and cut down on the horrific pollution they are causing. I promised that a Labour Government would put failing water companies under special measures, blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and ensuring the monitoring of every sewage outlet. For that reason, I am delighted the Government have brought forward their Water (Special Measures) Bill, and I am proud to have supported it on Second Reading.

I used to be a teacher, so I know what marking your own homework looks like. The requirement for water companies to publish information on discharges from emergency overflows in near-real time will create unprecedented levels of transparency, giving regulators and the public regular insight into the around-the-clock operations of water companies. Meanwhile, making it a statutory requirement for water companies in England to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans will force water companies to set out clear, transparent actions. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on whether that monitoring will be truly independent. How much of a role will Ofwat or other relevant bodies have in producing, monitoring and assurance-testing the production of the data?

09:52

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

Tewskesbury is characterised by its waterways, and most commonly known for its propensity to flood. It floods because, from north to south, the western boundary is the River Severn, and the River Avon also flows into Tewkesbury town. Tributary waterways course across the constituency. I will return to flooding shortly.

According to The Guardian, among other sources, the River Avon is one of the worst-polluted rivers in England. There were 6,573 sewage spills in 2023, registering the River Avon as the third most-polluted river in England. In the same year, sewage was released into the River Severn for more than 30,000 hours across 3,057 spills, registering the Severn as another of the worst-polluted in England and Wales.

Since the general election, I have been working with Tewkesbury Friends of the Earth and Safe Avon, two dedicated groups of local environmental campaigners. In November 2024, I joined both groups at the Abbey mill in Tewkesbury to draw water samples from the River Avon. The samples we recovered tested consistently with the findings they have been recording since June 2023: they contained very high nitrate pollution and high phosphate pollution. Such levels of those pollutants stimulate algae growth, which absorbs the oxygen in the water and suffocates wildlife.

The pollution levels are also dangerous to people. Please take a moment to consider what it is like for thousands of my residents whose kitchens, dining rooms and living rooms are swamped with this filth on an annual basis. Severn Trent Water’s chief executive officer was paid £3.2 million last year, while my residents’ water bills are due to rise by 40%. To add insult to injury, the Environment Agency awarded Severn Trent its highest grade for environmental performance. That, in and of itself, is a scandal.

The Liberal Democrats want to stop overseas shareholders drawing money out of private water companies that are already struggling to stay solvent. Rather than nationalise these companies, we want to see them turned into public benefit companies. I call on the Government to prevent CEOs from drawing huge bonuses while this scandal continues, and to fine them according to the mass of sewage discharged.

09:54

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Hidden River Cabins is a wonderful local business in my constituency that offers secluded wooden cabins, tucked away in the beautiful Cumbrian countryside to the north of Carlisle. It is, quite frankly, a breathtaking place. As well as providing the perfect spot to unwind and relax, it has become hugely popular as a wedding venue. Part of its charm is the River Lyne, which runs nearby. I suspect that many newlyweds have taken a late-night dip in its lovely waters; I myself have swum near the cabins and can testify to the river’s restorative effect.

Fortunately for locals and visitors, that stretch of the Lyne is one of the few places in my constituency where it is relatively safe to swim. That is not the case elsewhere in Carlisle and north Cumbria. In total, some 40 sites across my constituency were polluted in 2023, and it is fair to say that few people would look to start a cosy cabin business beside a sewage spot. That draws attention to another of the pernicious problems caused by pollution that the last Government allowed to flow unchecked under their watch.

Sewage, of course, poses health risks to users of our waterways, and to the wildlife and plant life that relies on those waterways, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) mentioned, there is also an economic cost. When our rivers are clean, people will want to visit them and spend time there, and entrepreneurs will want to start businesses, creating jobs and boosting local economies. We are blessed with many beautiful rivers, lakes and seas in this country. Each of them could be lined with flourishing businesses; instead, they are off limits, their utility reduced to just how much sewage they can accommodate.

Thankfully, our Government are getting on with tackling the issue. The Water (Special Measures) Bill, which the Minister is currently piloting with such passion and grace, will give us increased powers to hold rogue actors to account. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing the debate; I share her hope that our rivers will soon be places where everyone can enjoy themselves.

09:57

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing the debate. Like her, I am privileged to represent a constituency that is home to some of the UK’s most powerful rivers, including the Rivers Wye, Usk and Towy. However, these national treasures are drowning under a barrage of pollution.

The Wye, Usk and Towy are heavily polluted, harming the environment and local wildlife, and jeopardising industries such as tourism, leisure and angling. I fully support the concerns raised about the previous Conservative Government’s failure to tackle water pollution. Conservative neglect allowed water companies to pollute rivers with impunity while siphoning off profits to pay excessive bonuses and dividends. People want swift action now.

As the hon. Member for Monmouthshire mentioned, the previous Government had several roundtables on how to clean up the Wye, but what happened? Very little. The impact of the inability to clean up our rivers is hurting local communities in my constituency. We know there is a housing crisis, caused by a shortage of affordable homes. In Talgarth, a moratorium on new homes has been in place since 2022, meaning several much-needed housing schemes are frozen. Oversight from the Welsh Labour Government has fallen short.

Although it is a non-profit organisation, for years Dŵr Cymru failed to invest in infrastructure and still diverted funds into executive pay, and it is one of the worst offenders on sewage dumping. There is widespread agreement that stronger regulations on water pollution are needed, a stance that I support fully, but regulations are effective only if they are enforced. In Wales, enforcement is severely lacking. Natural Resources Wales, our environmental regulator, has faced a decade of cuts under the Welsh Government, and is currently operating at least 50 staff members short of the number needed to do the job effectively.

09:59

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on securing and ably leading this important debate.

The health of our seas and waterways is a pressing issue that affects each of us, and we have a collective responsibility to tackle this issue. Waterways are incredibly important to the soul of Mid Cheshire. My constituency is intersected and surrounded by waterways, including four rivers, three canals and a smorgasbord of meres and flashes—a legacy of our history of salt extraction. Indeed, Northwich played a particularly important role in the development of the inland waterways in Britain. At one time, Lawrence of Arabia was based there to oversee the spy ships that we built. Of course, Mid Cheshire’s waterways are not as important as they once were for powering our industry, but they remain vital ecosystems that support a rich tapestry of life, contribute to our economy and provide us with recreation and essential resources.

A consistent theme of this debate has been the alarming frequency of sewage discharges. For the sake of brevity, I will spare Members the statistics, but they represent the chronic under-investment in our sewerage infrastructure over a sustained period. That is a feature, not a bug, of how the water industry has been set up. If that was not evidence enough, we have only to look at the last two floods of Northwich town centre, which were caused not by the river’s flood defences overtopping, but by insufficient capacity in our drains to deal with the volume of water.

As stewards of our environment, we have a responsibility to act and it is good that the Government is doing that, not only through the Water (Special Measures) Bill, but through the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system. We must continue to advocate for the transformation of how the water industry is run, and seek to speed up the delivery of upgrades to our sewage infrastructure to clean up our waterways for good.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The River Mole flows through my constituency. In 2024, it suffered over 2,000 additional hours of sewage discharge in comparison with 2023, despite similar rainfall. Does the hon. Member agree that despite recent efforts to protect our waterways—we appreciate what the Government are doing—the problem continues to worsen, and the Government must be more ambitious in their action to hold water companies to account?

[Andrew Cooper]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. We are certainly at the start of the journey, not the end, so there is more to do to get the issue under control.

I will highlight the importance of citizen science initiatives and active involvement from communities and campaign groups such as Restore the Weaver and Northwich River Heroes, which often provide invaluable data that complements the work done by organisations such as the Environment Agency. It is a shame, however, that the EA has had to rely on such people, rather than being properly resourced for the task at hand.

I am pleased we now have a Government who have swept away the inertia, neglect and failure that characterised the previous Government’s approach to the activities of water companies and the protection of our waterways. Like my Labour colleagues, I have hope for a future in which we can look on poor river quality as a thing of the past.

10:02

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for setting the scene. I am aware that the Minister serves on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee and has been a sterling voice in examining the legislation aimed at safeguarding our rivers and improving water quality.

I remember that wee song “Messing About on the River” from when I was a child—which was not yesterday, by the way. I will not sing it now, because if I sing there will be thunderstorms outside, but I am conscious that water has featured in all our lives from an early age. I will give the Northern Ireland perspective, where we have the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Jim Shannon, please carry on.

[Jim Shannon]

I was not sure if I could give way, Mr Dowd, because I am conscious of the time.

Some of the main pollution sources include agricultural run-off containing fertilisers, pesticides and animal waste. The National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union have committed to reducing their fertiliser use. Has the Minister had a chance to discuss that with them?

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) referred to Lough Neagh, which is the largest freshwater lake in Northern Ireland. It drains around 40% of Northern Ireland’s land, of which three quarters are agricultural, and also supplies the water quality for the best part of Northern Ireland. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss that with the relevant Minister back home in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir, to ascertain his opinions about what would be possible?

DAERA has water quality improvement strand funding, which has been running since 2020. It has benefited 47 local projects and provides some £900,000 each year. That scheme has benefited Northern Ireland. Has the Minister had a chance to discuss that with the DAERA Minister?

The Government are committed to improving water quality, and, for Members such as myself, who represent coastal areas with seaside villages, such issues are of major importance to many constituents, and more must be done to ensure adequate water quality. I would like the Minister to commit to further engagement with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that we can all pave the way to having healthy and decent water quality.

10:05

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My constituency is the beautiful, historic town of Shrewsbury, and we are famously surrounded by what we affectionately call “the loop”—the River Severn. In the past, we enjoyed the benefits of having such a beautiful, natural resource flowing through our town centre; it is fabulous for tourists and other people who enjoy walking along its banks.

However, after the last 14 years of illegal sewage dumping by Severn Trent Water, to which the last Government turned a blind eye, we have been left with a toxic, filthy river that poses a health risk to my residents. Our abundant wildlife has declined, our annual fishing contest has been cancelled and infection rates of diseases such as E. coli are on the rise among wild swimmers, paddle boarders and rowers. That affects our tourism industry and local businesses, as well as the quality of life for our local residents.

The huge volume of sewage dumped in our river by Severn Trent Water arrived not just through the 32 sewage outflows in our town centre, but, far more worryingly, through manholes on the pavement of our river paths. Sewage outflows are monitored, but manholes are not. Families, schoolchildren and dogwalkers have to wade through human excrement, sanitary products and wet wipes.

This disgraceful state of affairs is completely untenable and must be tackled urgently, so I wholeheartedly welcome the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which this Labour Government have brought so quickly to the table. It will ensure the increased accountability of private water companies so that they step up in their responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure that will better manage the sewage, rather than allowing it to pollute our watercourses.

In Shrewsbury, as in most constituencies, much of the scrutiny work is carried out by my local volunteer campaign group Up Sewage Creek—a brilliant group with a brilliant name. It recently raised its own funds to purchase more water testing kits so it can prove the impact of the overflowing manholes, which, as I said, are not already monitored. Many of my campaigners have become so frustrated that they are now pushing for nationalisation, and I understand their frustration.

[Cameron Thomas]

Will the hon. Lady join me in celebrating the activities of local campaigners who do so much to bring this scandal to light?

[Julia Buckley]

As I was saying, many of my campaigners have lost all confidence in those water companies. Although I understand their strong feelings, especially given that Severn Trent Water has given out large bonuses and is about to increase our bills by 46%, I also recognise that the Water (Special Measures) Bill will do exactly that: it will put the water companies into special measures. It puts them on notice by scrutinising them and pushing them into corrective action with transparent governance scrutiny.

I would go further still, so my message to the water companies is that this is their last chance saloon. All eyes are on them, and the water commission will look at alternative governance mechanisms. Both for my wildlife and the health of my residents, time is running out.

10:08

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this important and timely debate. Not a single stretch of river in my constituency is in good overall health—what a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ failure. Instead of fixing the sewage scandal, they passively allowed it to persist. It is interesting that only one Conservative Member is present.

Last month, Ofwat permitted Thames Water—the company responsible for sewage in Wokingham—to raise water bills by 35%. Thames Water has been a disaster for our water quality in Wokingham. In 2023, it was responsible for 130 sewage spills, which lasted for 943 hours. It is failing Wokingham’s rivers, which includes the beautiful River Thames and the River Loddon.

Ofwat has allowed Thames Water to charge my constituents 35% more on their water bills for the next five years, and for what? This morning, the Financial Times reported that Thames Water intends to circumvent Ofwat’s cap on bosses’ bonuses by gifting its executives huge pay rises. Neither I nor my constituents will stand for our water bills being hiked during a cost of living crisis only for our money to go into the pockets of the most well-paid company directors.

Does the Minister honestly expect us to trust Thames Water to behave responsibly with even higher bills, when it feels like a new story is published every day about its mismanagement of our waterways? Will the Minister make it clear to the Secretary of State that a special administrative regime is absolutely needed—and needed now—to reset this unsalvageable mess; to ensure that the existing situation, where more than a third of customer bills go towards paying interest on Thames Water’s debt, ceases; and to ensure that the money is instead spent on infrastructure improvements? For too long, customers have been asked to pay the price for the company’s failures. That has to stop.

10:11

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this vital and important debate.

The quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is a concern not just for my constituents in Hexham, but nationally. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members, from most parties, in the Chamber today to share our commitment to protecting and improving water quality throughout the country.

The alarming and extremely dangerous threat of pollution and sewage not only harms our wildlife and ecological systems—our rivers are flooded with sewage on a daily basis, which cannot be ignored—but dramatically damages the tourism business in my constituency of Hexham, which is home to some of the most beautiful landscapes in the country and to most of Northumberland national park, which I invite all hon. Members to visit. I am extremely proud that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill is taking the necessary first steps towards addressing the poor performance of our water companies by increasing regulation over them and criminalising the sewage pollution of our waters. The Bill is a vital step to effecting broader change across the sector. I know that the Minister sees it as a much-needed first step in challenging those practices after 14 years of neglect.

I pay tribute to groups such as the Wylam Clean Tyne group, which found in 2022 that pollution in our River Tyne exceeded safe levels by over 15 times, a shocking indictment of the previous Government’s legacy. From the River Tyne to Kielder Water and Derwent reservoir, and hidden waterfalls such as Linhope Spout and Hareshaw Linn, near Bellingham, my constituency has some of the most idyllic waters in the country. We also have wildlife: woodpeckers, spotted flycatchers, wood warblers and badgers can all be seen in my constituency, as well as a number of freshwater fish—since I was elected, some Members have told me that they occasionally go fishing in my constituency. We need to protect the quality of those waters not only because it is the right thing to do but because of the fundamental difference that would make to my constituency and its local economy.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire for securing this debate, and thank the Minister for her work. I join all my constituents in calling for the Government to go further to make sure that our rivers are properly protected.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I gently remind Members that referring to who is and is not present is the road to perdition.

10:13

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this debate on a hugely important issue that is of deep concern to residents in my constituency of North Herefordshire, which, like hers, is in the Wye catchment. The Lugg, which runs through the centre of my constituency, is a tributary of the Wye. The tributaries of the Lugg are also particularly heavily affected by water pollution, which is one of the reasons why I founded the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution on entering this House in the middle of last year.

Water pollution has terrible effects on wildlife, on people’s ability to swim in and use rivers, and on the economy. Hundreds of millions of pounds of damage have been caused to the Herefordshire economy because the levels of pollution mean that we have had a moratorium on house building since 2019—that is really serious damage.

It is not just a local issue; we have heard today about what is happening all over the country. The Office for Environmental Protection in its report last year, on our prospect of meeting the legally binding 2027 target, said that we are “off track”, and it is deeply concerning that we are failing to meet that target. We need additional measures, including additional local measures, so I call on the Minister, when she winds up, to tell us what additional measures she will take to tackle water pollution.

When I have pressed Ministers on this topic—including this Minister and the Secretary of State—in the House, they have referred to the water commission. I have read its terms of reference several times, but can the Minister tell me where they refer to the problem of agricultural pollution? They do not—I have read them very carefully. The commission does not tackle the elephant in the room. Agricultural pollution is responsible for more pollution across the country than sewage is. In constituencies such as mine, in the Wye catchment, it is the large majority.

We know what the solutions are. We need a plan and proper funding for the Wye catchment plan. We need proper funding for nature-friendly farming, because farmers have the solutions to this issue at their fingertips, but they need the Government’s support. We need the Environment Agency to have the funding and teeth it requires, including to level on-the-spot fines. Fundamentally, we need Government to grasp the nettle and to tackle agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution.

10:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this important debate.

The title is exactly right: if we are to properly tackle water pollution, it must be from the source to the sea. I rise to talk about River Esk, the beautiful 20-mile long river that flows through my constituency to reach the North sea at Whitby. It is widely used for bathing and recreation, and the species found in it are important, ecologically and commercially. Its coastal waters are home to the European lobster and brown crab, while the tidal river is home to the freshwater pearl mussel, Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel.

The pearl mussel is critically endangered, and the last population in Yorkshire is to be found in the River Esk. It is dependent on the salmon and trout populations in the river during its lifecycle. The Esk once teemed with Atlantic salmon, whose numbers were a key indicator for clean water—but no longer, sadly.

The pearl mussel breeding project receives funding from Yorkshire Water, yet one of the key threats to it and to the salmon in the Esk comes from sewage discharges. Eighteen storm overflows discharge into the Esk. In 2023, there were 637 sewage spills from those overflows, with a combined duration of 2,757 hours.

However, the infrastructure—both material and regulatory—to keep the River Esk clean is crumbling and unfit for purpose. I recently visited the Yorkshire Water treatment plant at Egton Bridge, where the bank it is on is clearly subsiding into the river, and nearby manhole covers explode due to the water pressure when there is heavy rainfall. The company responsible for all this—Yorkshire Water—has paid out dividends worth £525 million since 2018.

I therefore warmly welcome the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will require independent monitoring and hit polluters such as Yorkshire Water where it hurts—in their bank balance. Water company profits come at the expense of communities such as mine.

10:18

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Dowd. Like our rivers, lakes and seas, our chalk streams are choked with a cocktail of chemicals and sewage. Water shortages are already becoming critical. That is the case in my constituency, which is home to precious chalk streams that are under threat.

The Conservative Government failed to stop water companies dumping raw sewage, and Ofwat continues to fail to regulate them. There was some hope that river basin management planning would achieve an overview and a strategic framework for managing our waterways’ different uses and challenges. However, as has been mentioned, the Office for Environmental Protection was clear that there are not enough specific, time-bound and certain measures in the river basin management plans to achieve environmental objectives, and that there had been insufficient investment in measures to address all major pressures. Yesterday, the Government said in their response to the OEP’s report on progress in improving the natural environment that the issue will be addressed by the independent commission into the water sector regulatory system led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. It is critical that the commission takes a holistic look and includes chalk streams in its review.

Storm overflows and untreated sewage regularly make headlines, but they are just part of the problem. As we have heard, phosphorous pollution is the most common reason why water bodies in England fail to achieve good ecological status, with over half of rivers failing targets. Phosphorous in the water environment comes largely from the continuous discharge of treated wastewater by the wastewater industry, with that effluent responsible for around 70% of the total load. That is endangering our chalk streams, which are a natural treasure and among the rarest habitats on earth. They are our unique heritage—as precious as the Great Barrier Reef is to Australia or as the Amazon rainforest is to South America.

The rare and beautiful chalk streams in my constituency are like a song, and the singers are the river groups that protect them: the friends of the Rivers Mel, Rhee, Granta, Shep, Orwell and Wilbraham and of the Cherry Hinton Brook, and the Cam Valley Forum. These chalk streams are under siege. Enough is enough: we need to give them specific protected status now.

10:21

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this vital debate. I will focus my speech on the protection and restoration of our country’s precious chalk streams—precious because of not just their unique ecology but their unique association with the English countryside.

There are estimated to be only around 200 chalk streams in the world, and the vast majority are in England. I am proud that two of them—the Pang and the Kennet—run through my constituency. Not only are their nutrient-rich waters home to a rich diversity of species, but they are beloved by local anglers, dog walkers and families. Their beauty has inspired many, with the Pang said to be the inspiration for “The Wind in the Willows”.

However, the Pang and the Kennet have seen a devastating decline in recent years. According to Environment Agency data, the Pang’s ecological status has gone from good in 2016 to moderate in 2019, and it is now rated as poor. Last year, I tested the Pang with local campaigners from the Angling Trust and found that phosphate levels were three times what they should be. That leads to increased algae, depleted oxygen and significant damage to wildlife, plants and fish. Action for the River Kennet has estimated that Thames Water’s sewage works account for 52% of the phosphate pollution in the river, but Thames Water has so far refused to include phosphate stripping in its plans for the sewage works at Hampstead Norreys. It has said it will review the issue, but that is not good enough: we need real action, and I call on Thames Water for just that.

I welcome the actions the Government have taken to tackle the water companies that have been acting without accountability for too long. The Water (Special Measures) Bill will finally penalise water bosses who pollute our water. I am looking forward to working with the Minister to clean up the Pang, the Kennet and all our chalk streams—an ambition I know she shares.

The beautiful west Berkshire villages nestled along the banks of the beautiful River Pang have suffered terribly as Thames Water has pumped raw sewage into the river. In Hampstead Norreys, raw sewage ran for months down the main street; in Compton, residents had to erect a sign to ask drivers to drive slowly so that they did not splash schoolchildren with putrid water.

Enough is enough: we must restore our chalk streams to their former glory, so that the Pang—captured so wonderfully by Kenneth Grahame in “The Wind in the Willows”—can continue to be

“a babbling procession of the best stories in the world, sent from the heart of the earth to be told at last to the insatiable sea.”

10:24

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on securing this debate. There are two chalk streams in the Winchester constituency—the River Itchen and the River Meon. The River Itchen flows through the heart of our city; it is not just a beautiful part of our environment but part our cultural heritage as well.

There has been a lot of talk about chalk streams in the Chamber today, including in the eloquent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). However, we must remember never to take these streams for granted. There are only 210 chalk streams in the world, and 85% are in southern England. The biodiversity and ecosystems of some of them are completely unique, and these streams have been designated as sites of special scientific interest. In the southern chalk streams, for example, the Atlantic salmon are genetically distinct from those in the rest of the ocean. In that respect, dumping sewage and other pollutants in sites of special scientific interest is not only morally wrong but an act of ecological vandalism.

Although we support many of the measures the Government have brought forward, after the last Government ignored sewage dumping for so long, we have a couple of specific concerns about chalk streams. One is about the recent statement confirming plans by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to scrap the chalk stream protective pack, without anything else being announced specifically to replace it. Chalk streams form over millions of years and are a unique part of our heritage. The Government need to recognise their importance and not merely lump action on them in with other protective measures. Will the Minister therefore please discuss the Department’s plans to put together a chalk stream-specific recovery plan and to achieve special protective status for all chalk streams?

To finish off, I congratulate and pay tribute to all the community groups in Winchester that work so hard on chalk streams—the citizen scientists, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, and the river keepers. They are really working hard, and we and the Government need to support them in every way we can.

10:26

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr. Dowd, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this important debate.

South East Cornwall is known for its beautiful environment, both on land and at sea, which attracts millions of visitors every year. Yet we face a growing water quality crisis, which threatens our environment, public health, livelihoods and local biodiversity. South East Cornwall has been ranked 14th in the UK for the number of hours of sewage dumping in 2023. In Duloe, residents and the parish council have been instrumental in raising awareness. They came together to campaign against the high levels of sewage being dumped in the Looe river, and through their efforts achieved improvements in the river’s water quality.

Good water quality in our rivers, lakes and seas is vital to rural and coastal communities such as mine. Tourism is essential to Cornwall’s economy, but it relies on clean beaches and safe waters. Poor water quality deters visitors, which really impacts the small businesses that depend on them, as well as wild swimmers, some of whom have reported illness, including members of my own wild swimming group.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The hon. Lady talks about swimmers falling ill because of sewage dumping, and the same thing has happened to groups of teenagers in my constituency. The most recent issue with sewage dumping in my patch involved a flooded field, and I am grateful to all the constituents who sent me photos of the raw sewage in that field. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that the Water (Special Measures) Bill is a real opportunity to move forward and tackle some of these issues, but does she also agree that we need to go even further, possibly by having a sewage tax—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

[Lisa Smart]

—to make the water companies pay for the damage they cause?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Will people pay respect to the Chair’s decision? When I ask you to sit down, would you please do so? Thank you very much.

[Anna Gelderd]

Thank you, Mr Dowd, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

I thank Feargal Sharkey, who visited my constituency last summer, and I thank the Minister for all her work on this important topic. Feargal Sharkey met local residents with me and heard the strength of local feeling on this issue. Our fishing communities suffer from poor water quality, which can cause habitat degradation and put our commercial catches at risk. Research by the Marine Conservation Society and the University of Portsmouth has shown a worrying increase in chemicals such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in seaweed. PFAS, which are known as forever chemicals because of their highly persistent qualities, do not break down in our natural environment. They accumulate in the environment and in our food chain, impacting biodiversity and public health. This is a serious concern, and I look forward to working with the Minister to do more to address it.

Labour’s Water (Special Measures) Bill is a much-needed first step towards improving the accountability and performance of water companies, which is something I welcome and I congratulate the Minister on. It is time to ensure that water bosses can no longer sell us down the river. Customer service, environmental protection and investment in infrastructure must be prioritised over profit in relation to what is fundamentally a public asset.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to intervene, because we are right up against it. Thank you.

[Anna Gelderd]

I know my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) is an important champion for Cornwall as well.

South East Cornwall’s beautiful, natural environment is priceless, and I applaud the determination of my local residents to make a difference. We also have the national leadership that is so essential to tackle this crisis. The Government are already taking action to clean up the mess that we inherited, and we know that the Water (Special Measures) Bill is a vital first step to support constituencies such as mine, and local campaigners in them. I look forward to working with the Minister to restore water quality, protect our environment, improve public health and secure livelihoods in South East Cornwall.

10:30

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. Diolch yn fawr to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this debate.

There has been a lot of talk today about the issue of sewage dumping and the important Water (Special Measures) Bill, which I fully support. However, I am here to talk about Bown Pond in Fradley, a village in my constituency. On 11 December last year it had a serious pollution incident involving not sewage, but some form of hydrocarbon—probably an oil, but we are yet to see the result. The lake is well respected by local residents and it is a huge amenity for the village, but when the foam discovered on the surface of the pond was identified, that was followed by almost all the fish in the pond dying and a whole family of swans needing to be transferred to Linjoy Wildlife Sanctuary in Burton. I really commend the sanctuary for its work, but unfortunately it was unable to save the cygnets and had to put the swans to sleep, because whatever was in the water had burned the swan’s tongues, leaving ulcers. That was a real concern to residents in Fradley and me, and a very distressing incident for everybody concerned.

I know the Environment Agency is working hard on it, but almost a month later we have not yet had the results of the investigations into the water. At this point, I ask the Minister: can we look very closely at the resourcing of the Environment Agency? After 14 years of cuts upon cuts, we need to make sure that we are giving that vital piece of our regulatory framework the resources that it needs to investigate such incidents and make sure that prosecutions follow up where necessary.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I would like to give Catherine Fookes a minute or two at the end to wind up, so I hope the Minister and spokespersons will bear that in mind.

10:32

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

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), who made a great speech, and has introduced this important issue to this place this morning. I pay tribute to all Members who made remarks during this debate, including, of course, the references they made to the issues that they face in their communities. This is a nationwide issue, which the Liberal Democrats have chosen to champion—we are so committed to cleaning up our waters that our leader refuses to stop falling into our waterways until this matter is resolved.

We are talking about lakes, rivers and seas, and I have them all in my patch—well, not all of them, but a large chunk of them, as the Member of Parliament for the English lake district. I will not list off all the lakes and rivers, as I have been known to in the past, because we only have so much time. We are all proud of our constituencies, and it is a huge privilege to represent mine, but we recognise that in our communities we are there to be stewards of, and to preserve, the lakes, rivers, becks and tarns, and Morecambe bay in my constituency —not just for us, but for everybody else.

Those are national parks, and the lake district is even a world heritage site, so while what happens in our waterways is deeply personal to us, we also recognise it is of great significance to the future of our country and indeed even of our planet. The impact on our ecology, biodiversity and water quality is important, but let us not forget—as has been mentioned by other Members—the importance to our tourism economy. Some 20 million people visit the lakes every year and they deserve to visit a place that is as pristine as it should be.

I will run through some of the issues affecting our communities. Just last year, the Shap pumping station released sewage for 1,000 hours into Docker beck and sewage was dumped into the river Lowther at Askham water treatment works for 414 hours. In November last year, we found that the number of poor bathing waters had risen to the highest level since the introduction of the four-tier classification system. That shamefully included Coniston Water. Windermere had sewage dumped into it 345 times, totalling 5,259 hours over the course of 2023.

I will say a quick word about pollution in lakes. A drop of water that enters Windermere at the north end takes nine months to work its way through, so the impact of sewage on bodies of water such as lakes and tarns is even greater than it is on our rivers and seas. The impact on Morecambe bay is hugely significant as well. We saw 757 sewage dumps there just in 2023. One of the things that is so grievous is the impunity with which those things take place. In 2021, there were 500,000 sewage dumps across the United Kingdom, and a grand total of 16 of them were deemed liable for prosecution. Of those, eight attracted fines of less than £50,000. In other words, it was worth the water company’s while to dump that sewage, because there was no way of holding it to account.

I have said this before, and it is so important: we speak with such passion on all sides about this issue, yet thousands of people are working in our water industries—for the water companies, for Ofwat, for the Environment Agency and for various other bodies—and I pay tribute to them. The temperature of this debate can often be high, and I want them to know that they are valued, and that we do not blame them; we blame the system within which they work. Radical change is needed.

It is a privilege to serve alongside the Minister and others in this place on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), we have tabled 44 amendments to that Bill; not one of them has been accepted so far, but we have one more day to go, so here’s hoping. That demonstrates our commitment to trying to engage proactively with this issue. We think it seriously matters. The issues we have sought to highlight through that Committee include the need to create a new clean water authority, to have special priority for waterways in national parks and for chalk streams, to protect our rivers and drinking water from forever chemicals and to put environmental experts on the boards of water companies.

The Government—I praise them for this—are rightly putting citizen science at the heart of monitoring. They need to do two things if they are serious about that, and one is to make sure that they equip, support and resource those citizen scientists. I pay tribute to Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent campaign, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Eden Rivers Trust and many others in our communities, but those people need to be on the boards and committees so that they can influence decisions, as well as being equipped to hold people to account. We need radical change, and I fear that this Government are not quite proposing it.

We have a real problem when it comes to regulation. In the end, we have a fragmented regulatory framework. Ofwat, the EA and other bodies are under-resourced and underpowered and the system is fragmented, so the water companies simply run rings around them. The evidence of that is that Ofwat levied £168 million of fines nearly four years ago against three water companies, and it has collected a precise total of zero pounds and zero pence from them, because it simply does not have the culture and powers it needs. Before Christmas, it sanctioned a more than 30% increase in our water bills. In the north-west alone, 11% of all our water bills is going to service the £8.9 billion debt of United Utilities, and it is far worse with Thames Water and in other parts of our country.

People have mentioned farmers and farm run-off. One of the major problems with the agricultural impact on pollution is the past Government’s and this Government’s botching of the transition to the new farm payment scheme. This Government taking 76% out of the basic payment this year will push a load of farmers to move away from environmental action altogether. It will be massively counterproductive. Back our farmers and they will help us to clean up our environment.

In short, we in the Liberal Democrat corner of the Chamber—well represented this morning, as always—are impatient for change. We welcome and support the Bill. As a bit of an old-timer, I neutrally observe that Labour Governments tend to fall into one particular trap: they always assume they will be in power for longer than they actually will be, and they drag their feet and do not do the radical things they should. I say to them: “You’re already at least 10% of the way through this Parliament—get on with it!”

10:39

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on securing this really important debate. Improving water quality is something that we all care about, on all sides of the House. Making sure that all those who pollute are held—in the strongest possible terms—to account and that those who need to carry out improvement measures to improve water quality are incentivised to do so matters to us all. That is why, when the Conservatives were in Government, we took action.

The narrative that has been put across by many hon. Members in their contributions to this debate, that the last Conservative Government did nothing, is for the birds. We brought in the Environment Act in 2021; we introduced a plan for water that was about more investment, stronger regulation, and tougher enforcement. Of course, it is vital to understand where the problem lies, which is why we increased monitoring. Back in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. We are now at 100%.

We have also seen designated bathing water sites improve their water quality status from 2010, when only 76% of bathing water sites were classified as good or excellent. We are now at 90%, despite stronger regulation having been brought out in 2015. We introduced the ban on water company bosses’ bonuses. We linked dividend payments to environmental performance. We removed the cap on civil penalties from £250,000 per incident to an unlimited amount. We also brought forward the largest infrastructure programme, with £60 billion allocated to revamp ageing assets and reduce the number of sewage spills, allocated funds specifically for our farmers to store more water on their land through water management grants and rolled out the slurry infrastructure grant.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member mentions the monitoring of overflows. Will he put on record for the House how many emergency overflows were being monitored under his Government?

[Robbie Moore]

I come back to the point that monitoring is incredibly important. This is why we brought out a requirement for all water companies to specifically carry out more monitoring: before 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. That is completely unacceptable. We needed to understand the problem so that we could not only use our regulators to enforce water companies to carry out the level of investment we would expect of them, but strongly hold those water companies, and indeed all polluters, to account. I encourage the Government to keep going with that, which is why we have taken a constructive approach to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that is working its way through the House.

There are three points which I want to focus on and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in her response. First are the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), to do with the £35 million allocation to the River Wye action plan, announced earlier this year. The River Wye action plan was specifically designed to address those challenges to do with pollution from our farmers. The plan set out a range of measures to begin protecting the river immediately from pollution and establish a long-term plan to restore the river for future generations. That included requiring large poultry farms to export manure away from areas where they would otherwise cause excess pollution and providing a fund of up to £35 million for grant support for on-farm poultry manure combustion combustors in the River Wye special area of conservation. The plan also appointed a chair.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister why the plan has been dropped, despite those things having been put in place? Where has the £35 million been reallocated? We are now six months into this Labour Government, but yet there has been no announcement on the River Wye and I fear that there will be no action taken. We are almost coming up to a year since that plan was worked on. If the Minister could update the House on that, it would be greatly appreciated.

The second point is the water restoration fund, which was specifically designed to ringfence money that had been collected from those water companies that had been polluting, to focus specifically on improving water quality. The fund, when it was announced, allocated £11 million-worth of penalties collected from water companies to be offered on a grant basis to local support groups, farmers, landowners and community-led schemes. Hon. Members have talked about how good their local campaigners are at utilising funds that are provided to them, and I absolutely endorse that, but that fund was specifically ringfenced for penalty money reclaimed from water companies to be reinvested.

The Government are not taking the water restoration fund forward, so will the Minister accept the Conservative amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill on that point? The water restoration fund came exclusively from water company fines and penalties, which are in addition to any other work the company must carry out to repair breaches that it has caused. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not continuing the fund, and why she does not think it is important that water companies clean up their own mess when money has been collected from them?

[Andrew Cooper]

The previous Government cut the environmental protection budget for the Environment Agency from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20. Does the shadow Minister accept that some of the actions that he has spoken about might not have been necessary had the Environment Agency been funded properly to carry out the important work that it was doing?

[Robbie Moore]

We all have to acknowledge that water companies have not been meeting their environmental obligations for far too long. That is why we implemented the monitoring. Regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency—need robust powers so that they can carry out enforcement.

The water restoration fund ringfenced money collected from the water companies and that allowed farmers, landowners and the many great campaigning organisations that want to carry out nature-based solutions to improve water quality, and there was the additional expectation that water companies put in place their own improvement measures. I ask the Minister: why on earth would the Government not want to continue that approach?

My third point is about bathing water designations, which are a fantastic way of reassuring those who want to bathe in specific areas, whether our lakes, rivers or coastal environments. They also put a greater obligation on the Environment Agency and water companies to carry out additional monitoring.

In May 2024, I was delighted to announce 27 new bathing water sites ahead of the 2024 bathing water season. That brought the number of bathing water sites across England up to 451. In addition, I announced a review of the bathing water regulations, which I had been advocating for some time. Our constituents do not just swim at bathing water sites, but use them for other activities, including canoeing, kayaking and other water-based activities. I very much wanted to see the review of the bathing water regulations, and we announced the change to increase the user basis. I also wanted to see an increase in bathing water designations beyond May to September so that all-year monitoring could take place, and the removal of the automatic de-designation of poor sites so that sites that had been consistently rated poor could keep their designation to keep up the pressure on the water companies and the Environment Agency to continue monitoring. Will the Minister update the House on what is happening with that announcement, which was made last year? What is she doing to ensure bathing water regulations are enhanced and improved?

In the run-up to the general election, Labour made huge promises about what it would do to improve water quality. I feel that it is falling far short on its promises to the electorate. Although we will work constructively with the Government to improve their measures, campaigners—it is not just me—feel that the Water (Special Measures) Bill does not go far enough, and investors feel that they are being penalised while the Government expect them to carry out improvement measures. The Government are penalising our farmers, not only through the family farm tax, but by not providing water grants to them to carry out improvement measures.

10:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) not only for securing this debate but for her work on the Water (Special Measures) Bill. I thank all the campaigning groups and environmental groups that have been mentioned throughout the debate for the work they do in our communities. The number of MPs who have attended the debate—or at least, the number on the Government Benches—shows how popular and important it is.

As I listened to the comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), I felt a little confused, because he does not seem to recognise or understand the level of anger and resentment towards his Government on this issue. He listed all the amazing achievements of the previous Government. I wonder how those stack up against the facts we have heard in the debate about the level of sewage that is being pumped into our rivers, lakes and seas, the ecological standard of many of our rivers, lakes and seas and the fact that people are so angry about the situation. I gently suggest that, rather than try to rewrite history or place alternative facts on to the record of Hansard, he would do better to acknowledge the fact that his Government got this issue so dreadfully wrong. That is why—as we have in many Departments and on many issues—we have had to come and, in this case, literally clean up the mess we have been left with.

The quality of our rivers, lakes and seas and our water is essential for supporting ecosystems, providing clean drinking water and producing our food, and of course, as Members have said, our beautiful rivers, lakes, seas and beaches are a source of pride for our communities, and we want to restore them to that. Maintaining healthy and clean water sources is vital to achieving this Government’s mission for economic growth, and the £104 billion of investment in the next five years in the water sector will help to clean up our waters and with very important job creation up and down the country.

Water systems are under massive pressure, no thanks to the 14 years of mismanagement that they have just gone through, and water bodies such as the River Wye and the River Usk in Monmouthshire face significant challenges due to agricultural run-off from intensive poultry farming, leading to high phosphate levels in our water. More broadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire is right to question the quality of our water due to increasing pressures from pollution, climate change and unsustainable practices.

The Government are prioritising water quality as a key element of their environmental and public health agenda. Significant steps are being taken to address pollution, enhance infrastructure and ensure clean and sustainable water sources for future generations. In his first week in office—it is slightly amusing that we are criticised by the Opposition for not solving all the problems in our first six months—the Secretary of State secured agreement from water companies and Ofwat to ringfence money for vital infrastructure upgrades, so that it cannot be diverted to shareholder payouts and bonus payments. The Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill, which has been in Committee this week, sets out measures to crack down on water companies failing their customers, and the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system was launched by the UK and Welsh Governments in October 2024, as the third stage of this Government’s water strategy to clean up the mess we have inherited.

I will quickly respond to some of the contributions from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) is right to share his upset and anger at the number of sewage spills damaging his constituency, which have continued for the past 14 years. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Bill. Monitors will be installed and then verified independently. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is a brilliant champion for her area, on both flooding and sewage, and I agree that we are blessed with many beautiful rivers, lakes and seas. I quite like the sound of that hidden river cabin; maybe that is worth a visit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) mentioned the chronic under-investment in sewage infrastructure, and he is absolutely correct. That is why we need the £104 billion investment, to clean up and deal with the mess we have inherited. I will speak to the farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and get a precise answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I count him as an hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about how appalled she is by sewage coming up through manhole covers. That sounds dreadful and I am happy to discuss that with her after the debate. I like the sound of Up Sewage Creek—that is a catchy name for a local campaign group. I thank her for her work, not just in this area. We have had many conversations and she is standing up for her community, as has been noticed and recognised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) is right to highlight the damage to tourism in his beautiful constituency, and the work being done by local campaign groups. I thank him too for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Bill that will bring forward the reforms we desperately need.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) highlighted the decline in fish stocks, in an area near my constituency that I like to visit, and the need to tackle sewage and pollution. I thank her for her support. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) highlighted the important issue of phosphate pollution, and I am happy to support her work pushing Thames Water to tackle that.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) championed her beautiful area of the country and highlighted the damage done by sewage. Having listened to the speeches given by Conservative Members, one might have imagined the problem had already been solved, but in reality it has not and it is damaging her beautiful area. She also raised the dangers caused by PFAS. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about an incredibly concerning serious pollution incident. I am happy to look into the issue and find out what is happening with the EA investigation.

The theme of agriculture came up during the debate. Working with farmers to reduce agriculture pollution is key to delivery against the Government’s priority to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. The Environment Act 2021 set a legally binding target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment contribution from agriculture by at least 40% by 2038. Alongside developing a new statutory plan to restore nature and meet those targets, this Government are enforcing key regulations, such as the farming rules for water, and have carried out thousands of advice-led inspections through the Environment Agency.

Investment is directed to environmental land management schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive, and supported by the catchment sensitive farming programme, which are designed to help farmers protect water quality and adopt sustainable practices while maintaining viable businesses. The Secretary of State announced just last week at the Oxford farming conference that we will ensure permitted development rights work for farmers, so we can support them to reduce water pollution through improved slurry stores, anaerobic digesters and small reservoirs.

In my remaining time, I will respond to the main points raised about the River Wye. This Government are actively progressing the next steps for the River Wye, including building stronger ties and working collaboratively with the Welsh Government, the Environment Agency and Natural England, as well as local MPs, farmers and ENGOs who are already doing great work to tackle pollution. Indeed, when I held a meeting with the River Wye partnership, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and others attended, and mentioned that we would not be continuing with the previous Government’s plan, those present applauded, such was their condemnation of that plan. I do not wish to test hon. Members’ knowledge of geography, but one of the main problems with the previous Government’s plan was that it did not involve the Welsh Government. I would suggest that any plan to tackle the River Wye’s problems ought to include consulting the Administration responsible for where the river starts and ends.

[Ellie Chowns]

Does the Minister agree that the problem with the way the £35 million was previously supposed to be spent was that it was the opposite of the “polluter pays” principle, because it was essentially a subsidy to the most polluting industry? Will she agree to find £35 million to support nature-friendly farming in the Wye catchment to solve the issue?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I have been told I have 15 seconds left. We will develop a plan for the River Wye and I will let hon. Members know about it as soon as possible.

The unacceptable destruction of our waterways should never happen again and we are working to tackle the challenge. Efforts are already underway locally and nationally that will support restoration of rivers. The independent commission will report in June 2025. I look forward to working with hon. Members to take this important agenda forward and clear up the mess that we have been left.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I call Catherine Fookes, who has maybe 30 seconds to sum up.

10:58

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions that demonstrate the strength of feeling in the House, especially from Labour Members, about the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas. We have had a tour, from Cornwall to Hexham, Whitby and everywhere in between. We heard about the idyllic sounding hidden river cabins and the not so idyllic sounding Up Sewage Creek in Shrewsbury. I thank the Minister for explaining what she is doing to work with us on the Wye catchment partnership. I look forward to all of us continuing to work to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, so that we restore them to the wonderful quality they should have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water quality in rivers, lakes and seas.

Town Centres: Stoke-on-Trent

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

11:00

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I will call Gareth Snell to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for town centres in Stoke-on-Trent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this debate, Mr Turner, and to see Mr Dowd offering you a skilled hand.

This year is the centenary of Stoke-on-Trent, which was founded as a city in 1925, following the federation of the six towns in 1910. It is a city based on a partnership of equals: there are six towns, of which I have the pleasure of representing three and a half; I share one of them with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). As we look forward to the next 100 years, our city has to consider the future of its town centres, what we hope to achieve in them, and what role they can play in delivering the Government’s ambitious programme of growth, housing and economic regeneration.

The past 14 years have been tough for my city. Had the last Government simply kept our revenue grant at its 2010-11 level in cash terms, there would have been over £400 million extra to spend in over that time. As it happens, they did not, and year-on-year cuts by the last Government have left the city in a perilous financial state. That has led to an undignified situation in which Stoke-on-Trent is forced to bid against our neighbouring cities simply to have a share of any prosperity fund, levelling-up fund or other fund—an undignified beauty parade that fails to recognise that every town and city centre in this country deserves to thrive.

Town centres are more than places for shopping. The town centres that I represent in Fenton, Hanley, Stoke and a part of Longton are about pride, community and dignity of place. They not only have an economic benefit, but are the mesh that holds society together in our city.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the fantastic work of the Longton Exchange team and Urban Wilderness in their commitment to regenerating Longton town centre? Does he also agree that we need much more work and investment to return Longton to its full glory?

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend has basically stolen one part of my speech, because I was going to congratulate Longton Exchange on the mini-renaissance that is taking place in that town, and in particular the work it does on the Longton carnival and the pig walk—unfortunately, I was unable to make it last year, but I very much intend to be there in April for this year’s. It is those sort of small cultural events—and the small but determined work of dogged individuals who love where they live and have pride in the place they call home—that will deliver the upturn and improvement to our town centres.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. There will not be a town centre in this great United Kingdom that does not suffer from the problem of online shopping, which takes trade away from the town centre. Does he agree that one of the things that could be done—we look to the Minister on this—is to help micro and small businesses in city centres with start-up funds? Those businesses bring people in, bring employment in and help the economy.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman, as always, is absolutely right. He has hit the nail on the head. Whether it is Strangford or Stoke-on-Trent, the town centres and small and medium-sized enterprises, whether they are a service, a community organisation or retail, are sometimes the places that people have most affinity with because they have a personal relationship with the owner. In Stoke-on-Trent we find that the microbusinesses that can be run from someone’s garage or back bedroom thrive.

The big stores tend to be able to weather the economic climate that we find ourselves in, but for mid-sized shops the high street is probably just outside of financial reach because of business rates and because the footfall is not there. The high street is struggling because of the decisions of the last Government. Regardless of fault, things need to be addressed by the present Government. I have absolute confidence that the Minister and his team at the Department will do that.

I want to focus mostly on Hanley city centre, but I also want to pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, to the amazing work in Longton. I will not repeat what she has already adequately and wonderfully put on the record, but I want to briefly talk about Fenton and Stoke. Fenton is a town that Arnold Bennett did not really forget. He took it out of the books because he did not like his mother-in-law, but that is an entirely different debate.

The work being done around Fenton town hall to turn the area into a vibrant community hub is fabulous; I am thinking of Ben Husdan and the community interest company that he works with, and Restoke, which runs the town hall, and the Step Up Stoke charities. I hold my surgeries in the café there and when I have time off I go there to enjoy the city that I live in and call home. The events run there draw people in from all over the west midlands; they have demonstrated that, with determination and a little bit of community spirit, something wonderful can be achieved. A model has been put together that could be used in other parts of Stoke-on-Trent.

I also want to pay tribute to the work being done by Jeff Nash and his team at the Spode site in Stoke. A hub is emerging there with support from levelling-up funds. To give credit to the last Government, they put some money in, as did the city council. The site demonstrates that the heritage buildings in my constituency, which are sometimes considered to be part of our past, can actually be part of our future. And that demonstrates that with a bit of imagination and a bit of support, which I know the Government are committed to, we can deliver real regeneration, new homes and good quality jobs for the new future for the city that I think is there.

I turn to Hanley—possibly the most challenging town centre of the six towns that make up Stoke-on-Trent. The Minister is aware of that because he kindly met me, along with Councillor Jane Ashworth, leader of Stoke-on-Trent council, chief exec Jon Rouse, and Rachel Laver, the wonderful chief executive of the Chambers of Commerce. For many years Hanley has been a challenge. It has been seen as, “If we fix Hanley, we fix everything else”, and there is an argument that that is correct. But the solutions have always dwarfed the scale of the challenge.

Like Hull, Mr Turner, Stoke-on-Trent deserved more from the last Government. We were given levelling-up funds, but the last Conservative council decided that the best thing they could do with the support offered was to build a car park. An economically deprived city’s working age people in in-work poverty were told that their lives were going to be levelled up with the building of a multi-storey, colourful car park on the edge of the city centre—and “That’s your lot!” That car park, ironically, is now costing the council money because it was so poorly planned and executed that the revenue it should have generated is not there. It is now a loss for the council, which is a demonstration of the legacy of the last Government.

On top of that, the last Conservative council made grand aspirational plans for arenas and shopping centres. On paper, they looked wonderful—what the artist’s impression showed would be wanted in every town centre. But there was no plan, no money and no intention. That is something that the council learned from the last Conservative Government when it comes to economic regeneration across this country.

We look to the Government not to solve our problems for us—I want to be clear to the Minister that I am not here with a begging bowl to ask for handouts; I firmly believe that the future of our city has to be driven by our city—but for them to join us in a new partnership by putting the governmental shoulder behind our municipal wheel. If we are able to forge a new partnership for the city centre, we will meet the housing demand. We can more than meet the demands placed on us by Government, and then some, if we have the land consolidation powers that Homes England executes, and if we had a self-replenishing fund for the pump-priming work, and could look at remediation of brownfield sites.

We have the building blocks in the city centre. The work done by Richard Buxton, Jonathan Bellamy and Rachel Laver, through the city centre’s business improvement district, is phenomenal. They almost always have a bright idea about something we could do in Stoke-on-Trent to bring people into the city, whether that is food markets or their work on supplementing the municipal support they should have had from a council suffering budget cuts. That is the wardens, street cleaning and street scene work.

We have good policing led by Sergeant Chris Gifford, doing their best to ensure that the city centre feels safe. That is also a challenge because of the reduction in drug and alcohol support services that the previous Government thrust upon us, meaning that people who need help cannot get it, so they gravitate to our town centre, causing a social problem.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for this important debate. He notes that crime and antisocial behaviour is an issue that can put off people coming to our town centres. I hear the point about how we use levelling-up funds or certain types of funds to make our town centres better. A key to that is how we engage with local community leaders and retailers to ensure we get the plans right. We got £20 million, including £6.5 million to make improvements to Burslem, Tunstall and Middleport, and we are looking at how we—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Gareth Snell]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but in a half-hour debate I do not have time to address all his points. He is right that reduction in crime in the town centre helps people feel safe and brings in more people to spend money there. There is a virtuous circle of activity that is not just about getting more shops on the high street, but making people who come feel safer.

That also links to public transport. One of the conversations being pursued locally, through the bus improvement partnership and the work we hope might come from future reorganisation and devolution, is that we can massively improve our public transport network, so we can get the people into town centres who want to shop there. At the moment, we have a perverse situation in which the bus station is far away from the shopping centre. Walking down the hill to get there is fine, but walking back up the hill is far too much for some—particularly older members of my community, who simply cannot make the journey and do not go there. It is those small things we can do that will massively impact on economic benefits.

I want to pitch to the Minister something he knows we aspire to. The challenge we now face in Stoke-on-Trent is that we cannot do it alone. We are not asking for it to be done for us, but we cannot do it alone. We would like to explore, with the Government and some form of urban development company, a delivery vehicle that allows the master plan being put together by the city council and the chamber of commerce to have cross-governmental support, demonstrating to businesses in my city that we are taking this seriously.

The other problem we have had, which you will probably have experienced in Hull, Mr Turner, is that plan after plan is written, presented, goes on the shelf and is never seen again. People’s confidence that we can deliver the things we promise has been dented. By demonstrating that this partnership could exist between government locally and nationally would go a long way to getting the business buy-in, which is crucial to the regeneration of our city centre and high streets.

I also want to pitch to the Minister that certain powers come with that. We have brownfield sites across the city in our three constituencies that are ripe for development. But they are owned by people who have no interest in my city. They are often passed through different shell companies and corporations, because they are an asset that is traded, as opposed to being an asset of value to the city. Being able to access compulsory purchase arrangements that Homes England has for land consolidation, would mean we could parcel up those bigger sites for development.

That would allow us to develop city-centre living, for which there is a demand. The Clayworks development in the middle of Hanley has been so successful it has had a 90% occupancy rate from its first day of opening, which is completely unprecedented in the city. It is high-quality, affordable housing for young and aspiring professionals in a trendy setting. More of that in our city centre would bring people who have a disposable pound in their pocket to come and live, shop and work there. We also have two fabulous universities, which are clearly desperate to take some of the work they are doing to attract people to north Staffordshire to give them a night-time economy offer.

Some of the work, which the Minister is aware of, that we wish to do in the city centre links not only to the day-time retail offer, but to how we can turn our city centres into a night-time economy that people want to come and visit. That would support our restaurants, bars and wonderful theatres across the conurbation, and also links to the policing work so that people feel safe at night.

I welcome the work that the Government have already laid out. That includes the additional community policing that we will have in the town centres, which will absolutely reduce some of the latent antisocial behaviour and crime and is a deterrent, as well as the work we are doing on devolving bus powers so that we can have an integrated transport network to get people to where they need to be. I welcome the fact that this Government recognise that high street theft from shops—shoplifting—is a real problem. We will take it seriously and remove the arbitrary cap of £200, so that, if someone commits a crime in the city centre, we will come for them.

I also welcome the investment in drug and alcohol services, so that those in our town centres who are desperately seeking support from the very generous people of my city can get that support in a much more structured and maintained way. We must also make sure that our really ambitious housing targets are achieved in our town centres, so that we can bring people back to our town centres, invigorate them and bring them back to life, and also demonstrate—as we look toward the next 100 years of Stoke-on-Trent, in this, our centenary year—that we have a bright and prosperous future, driven by a partnership between the Stoke-on-Trent city council and this Labour Government.

11:16

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, as well as the reassuring presence of Mr Dowd at your side, stewarding the debate along. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for securing this very important debate in Stoke-on-Trent’s centenary year.

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituency. Although the city, as he rightly said, has experienced hard times over recent years, his constituents should know that, from the outset of this Government coming into office, he has been pressing me on what more this Labour Government can do, in partnership with local leaders and my hon. Friends, to ensure that we maximise the opportunities in the city as we go forward. I share his passion to support the regeneration of the town centres of Stoke-on-Trent and to create better places to live, work and play across the city.

My hon. Friend referenced the meeting we had just a few weeks ago, alongside members of the council, to discuss their plans for a comprehensive regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent city centre. It was clear from that meeting that they are keen to make sure that the city plays a full role in delivering on the Government’s growth strategy, including delivering on a substantial number of new homes, as part of our Plan for Change milestone to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.

Stoke-on-Trent city centre is facing the same problems as many town centres across the country: lower occupancy rates and footfall due to consumer habits changing, which make a retail, office-led city centre strategy difficult for the future. I have been pleased to see, in the case of Stoke-on-Trent—as well as other cities across the country where Labour Members and Labour local leaders are in place—that the new Labour-run city council, under the leadership of Councillor Jane Ashworth, has brought forward a committed and energetic programme and a serious plan for Hanley to take things forward, which will see a radical shift to a residential-led model, aiming to create a revitalised city centre that can play a strengthened socioeconomic role and unlock the development of thousands of new homes, through the process that we discussed.

It has been good to see that so much of the regeneration in Stoke-on-Trent is already well under way. My hon. Friend has referenced a number of the very positive changes that are taking place, including the Smithfield Quarter, a fantastic mixed-use development that pays homage to the original Smithfield bottle works on the site and is an excellent example of intertwining cultural heritage while also looking to the future needs of the city.

The Government have supported this vital regeneration work through Homes England, which has been working successfully with the council for many years. In 2022, a partnership agreement was signed with the council to accelerate the delivery of high-quality, place-making, housing-led and mixed-use developments in the city. The partnership aims to unlock, as my hon. Friend is aware, 4,000 homes across a range of sites within the city, and has to date supported 607 homes across several sites.

The city has also been in receipt of considerable capital investment from Homes England over recent years, including £22 million of affordable housing programme investment and £10 million of housing infrastructure grant investment to unlock a combined 1,500 homes. Through that partnership, significant strides have been made to progress 13 priority sites in the council’s pipeline, and support the council’s local plan review.

Homes England has also provided around £800,000 in revenue funding to support the delivery of priority sites. As my hon. Friend will be aware, some of the key interventions that have taken place include: Homes England acting in collaboration with the city council, procuring and jointly leading the production of a city centre masterplan, providing a connected vision for Stoke and Hanley; and a serious delivery plan—I think that is the point—with clear evidence steps for the development of that key strategic corridor.

We have also seen progress on several flagship sites across the city, providing a catalyst for the regeneration that needs to happen and that I know my hon. Friend is working hard to see delivered. Etruscan Square, for example, is a major city centre development to regenerate the former bus station site in Hanley, which has secured outline planning permission for a 300-home mixed-used development, following on from receiving £20 million of Government funding in 2021. The North Shelton opportunity area is a collection of three brownfield sites; through our brownfield land release fund, the council has been rewarded money to remediate the site and make way for up to 50 homes.

To reiterate the point that my hon. Friend made, we need to see that partnership working continue. I urge local leaders to continue to press forward with that ambition across the whole city, and I have impressed on Homes England the need to continue supporting Stoke-on-Trent with the necessary skills, powers and investment needed to bring forward development, including on known complex brownfield sites in Hanley town centre, at the nearest possible opportunity. As my hon. Friend knows, I am committed to working with him and others to ensure that we are utilising all the powers that are already available, or that the Government intend to bring forward, to ensure that we realise the full potential of the city, including powers in relation to compulsory purchase orders, as was referenced.

Despite the previous Administration making a number of unfunded commitments to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities, at October’s Budget this Government confirmed that the majority of local growth projects have been protected, and that the UK shared prosperity fund has been extended for another year, providing much needed certainty for places to deliver locally. My hon. Friend will also be aware that Stoke-on-Trent received £56 million towards key regeneration sites across the city through the levelling-up fund, supporting both housing and broader economic development.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point about funding, we got £8 million in the recovery fund, and I am reliably informed by the Minister’s Department that this was the second largest recovery fund settlement anywhere in the country. I thank the Department for that, because it is a huge recognition of the financial challenges we have had in the past and a down payment on what I hope and believe to be the interest that the Department will take in Stoke-on-Trent going forward.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will pass on my hon. Friend’s appreciation to ministerial colleagues in the Department who oversaw that decision. He can take as given that the funding awarded is a recognition of the importance we place on revitalising cities such as Stoke-on-Trent.

The Goods Yard is another great example of creating new city centre living opportunities, with new apartments alongside work and leisure spaces and next to the main train station. I look forward to overseeing the opening of that in the coming months. More recently, £6.5 million of additional Government funding has been agreed to support public realm regeneration in Tunstall, Longton, Stoke, Burslem, and Middleport, as part of Stoke-on-Trent’s levelling up partnership. In Tunstall, I have been heartened to see the planned artworks to celebrate the town’s heritage and brighten up the area.

I will touch briefly on planning reforms. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government consulted on changes to national planning policy, and other changes to the planning system, last year. Having reviewed the available evidence and feedback from the consultation, we published our formal response and a revised national planning policy framework on 12 December.

The revised NPPF supports the role of high streets and town centres, by expecting local plans to create a positive framework for their growth and adaptation. It also expects planning applications for town centre uses—defined as retail, development, leisure, entertainment and more intensive sport and recreation uses, as well as offices, arts, culture and tourism development—to be located in town centres where possible, to support their viability and inhibit trade from being drawn to other locations.

The planning and infrastructure Bill, which will be forthcoming later this year, will speed up and streamline the planning process to build more homes of all tenures and accelerate the delivery of major infrastructure projects, aligning with our industrial, energy and transport strategies. The Bill will make improvements at a local level, modernising planning committees and increasing local planning authorities’ capacity to deliver the type of interventions that I have referenced today and deliver an improved service. It will also support more effective land assembly for development in the public interest by reforming the compulsory purchase process. I know that in many parts of the country—Stoke is a great example of this—fragmented and complex land ownership can be a real barrier to development.

[Gareth Snell]

What the Minister has just said is music to my ears, because this is not just about compiling the land that we know is available for development; it is about the consequential impact of that. If we can bring that land together in Stoke-on-Trent, we will be able to protect our greenfield sites from unnecessary development. The more we can do to put houses in Hanley, the greater our chances are of protecting Berryhill Fields, in the middle of my constituency, which are the green lungs of north Staffordshire.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. In all instances where it is possible, we want to see brownfield development prioritised and accelerated, and we are making a number of changes to ensure that is the case. These include not only some of the revisions we made to the NPPF, but the proposals that we have outlined in our brownfield passport working paper, which will feed into the development of national development management policies, which we will consult on later this year. All of these interventions are to ensure that, wherever possible, we can get brownfield-led development.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in many parts of the country that fragmented ownership of land is a real barrier. We want generally to see more coherent land assembly and master planning of large sites to ensure that we can maximise their potential, not least in terms of density and getting the number of homes we need on site. In that way, in many parts of the country, it will be possible to avoid having to look at green belt release, although we are clear that where green belt does need to be released—and grey belt as a priority release within that—that does need to take place to meet local housing targets.

To conclude, I again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House today and for his ongoing engagement. I would like to assure him and the city council that the Government recognise the vital role that Stoke-on-Trent will play in our growth mission. We want to see councils across the country working in collaboration and partnership with the Government to create a sustainable and suitable housing supply for those who live in and commute to town and city centres. I very much look forward to working with him and my hon. Friends to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: e-petition 700765, Introduce a compensation scheme for WASPI women; and e-petition 660682, Hold a Public Inquiry into state pension age changes for women.]

14:30

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

We are massively oversubscribed. It is plain that we are not going to get everybody in. I remind those who wish to speak that they should bob. I also ask that, voluntarily, Members restrain themselves to two minutes. If we do that, we will get most people in, but not everybody.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this Chamber and, as I often do, to draw a very substantial crowd. The genesis of betrayal is trust—the kind of trust that underpins the democratic legitimacy of Parliament and on which the authority of the Executive is founded, and the kind of trust that our constituents, when they send us to this place to exercise our judgment on their behalf, rely upon. Their faith in us is that we will honour what we say we will do and that when we make pledges, they are not empty pledges but are meaningful. When trust is breached and broken, the whole of that legitimacy is undermined.

That is precisely what has happened in the case of the so-called WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. I will use the acronym, because it has become a familiar one to any of us who have taken an interest in this matter, as I have over some time, and as have the public. This campaign is a campaign for no less than justice, to restore trust.

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

The right hon. Member is speaking eloquently about trust. Does he agree that it is really important for the Government to help us to have trust in institutions such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by adhering to decisions made by it?

[Sir John Hayes]

Although that intervention was not orchestrated by me or choreographed by either of us, it leads me neatly to my next point, because there is an ethical case to be made of the kind the hon. Lady describes, there is a constitutional case to be made, and there is a practical case to be made. In the short time available to me—I know that many others want to contribute to the debate—I will try to make all three.

First, the ethical case is, exactly as the hon. Lady said, about honouring the pledges that were made and fulfilling rightful expectations. Not all expectations and hopes are well founded, but when people have worked all their lives and been told that at the end of their working life, they will be paid a pension at a particular time, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that that will come to pass.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

[Sir John Hayes]

I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.

I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.

I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.

I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.

However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.

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

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Having said that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]

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

The words “liberal bourgeoisie” made me think. I represent the mainland constituency that is furthest away from Westminster, and I will just point out that this issue affects women from all over the UK, be they “liberal bourgeoisie” or not. In my constituency—that far away—370 people have signed the petition. This issue is huge all over the UK.

[Sir John Hayes]

I meant no slight on the hon. Gentleman. He is right: it does affect women across the whole of the kingdom—and of course, he is much posher than bourgeois, so he could not be slighted by my remark.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak as a WASPI woman myself, and I am very proud to associate myself with this campaign. I know that many people feel that perhaps we should perhaps not be entitled to compensation, because we were able to get mortgages and buy our own homes, we were able to generate more capital wealth, and many of us have private pensions. However, I personally had to stop work because my husband became ill, and I was looking forward to a retirement where my only income would have been the state pension. I am very thankful for my health; I knew that the retirement age had gone up, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks about skills and abilities—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Susan Murray]

I am sorry, Dr Murrison.

I was able to use my skills and abilities to become a councillor in 2022, and I am now looking forward to a much better retirement. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do a U-turn and implement the ombudsman’s recommendation?

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady’s intervention, though not pithy, was pertinent, because she is one of the 3.8 million women, of all kinds and types, who were affected. Many were not well-off; many did all kinds of jobs that could not be described as highly paid; and many found themselves in a position of financial hardship. That is why I stand here today—because this injustice affects all kinds of women, and it has been mischaracterised by some who do not want to face that fact. That makes me angry and righteously indignant, as I always am in the cause of the disadvantaged.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very kind in doing so. In Upper Bann and indeed across Northern Ireland, thousands of women feel absolutely betrayed by this Government. Does he agree that those women are in financial hardship today because of that betrayal? It is morally indefensible that not a penny has been made available to these women.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, I agree. Some women were forced to carry on working, even when—as an earlier intervention suggested—they were not really in a position to do so, even when they had extra responsibilities, and even when they were not really fit to do so. That is just not acceptable. It is not right; it is not just.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s righteous indignation, but I question where it was in 2016, when the SNP tabled a motion in support of the WASPI women and he voted against it. Is he not really just a Johnny-come-lately, despite what he said earlier in his speech?

[Sir John Hayes]

I have been in this place a long time, as the hon. Lady knows, and she is here having first been endorsed by the electorate, then rejected, then re-endorsed. I have not had that difficulty myself; none the less, she will know that one learns and grows in this place. As I became more familiar with these arguments—I repeat this—I challenged the Conservative Government, my own party, on this issue, on the record, on the Floor of the House. It is not about this Minister; this is about any Minister who fails to recognise this matter.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

If I might make a little progress, then I will happily give way.

It is important to set out some of the detail. Some of the worst-affected women received just 18 months’ notice of a six-year increase in their state pension age. Just under 2 million women fall into that category. The WASPI campaigners acknowledge that some were going to retire only a matter of days, or perhaps weeks, later than expected, whereas those who were given very long notice were clearly in a rather different circumstance. The campaigners are not unrealistic about that. Having met them and discussed it, I know that they are very realistic about the difference between those two groups, and they therefore simultaneously recognise that the Government response needs to be tailored, and measured in the way it gauges the responsibility. The breach in trust is common, but the effect of that breach in trust is different in different cases.

I do not advocate a response to this problem in which every single case is dealt with individually, so that there are as many different settlements as individuals. That would be impractical and delayed, and I emphasise delay because one of these women dies every 12 minutes. There will be another WASPI woman lost during the course of my speech. That is the reality. These bald statistics mask lives—lives altered, lives damaged and lives restricted by this matter.

[Warinder Juss]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

That is what inspires me to speak today and, I am sure, inspires the hon. Gentleman, who is about to intervene to say just how much he supports me.

[Warinder Juss]

A lot of us have previously publicly supported the WASPI women, including by posting photographs on social media. The Government have acknowledged that there has been maladministration, but to have that acknowledgement without some kind of financial backing, even if minimal, not only undermines the process of the ombudsman, who so many of us rely on, but may undermine public confidence in politicians in general.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right and he encourages me to turn to the ombudsman’s report, which I have before me. Members will be pleased to note that, although I have inserted many tags into my copy of this report and the previous one, I will not refer to all of them. That would take forever.

Suffice it to say that the ombudsman found

“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.”

The ombudsman’s remedy is set out at the end of the second report. Ombudsmen recommend recompense on a scale—a series of levels, from 1 to 6. The report is here for everyone who has not studied it in detail to see: the ombudsman recommended a level 4 response. That means

“a significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life.”

It suggests that the recompense might be between £1,000 and £2,950.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a second.

That suggestion seems to me to be a pretty modest response. It is not extreme, extravagant, unrealistic or unreasonable. It is a modest, measured response borne of the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration. I have read the two reports. Having been in this House for a long time, been on the Front Bench of my party for 19 years and been a Minister in many Departments, I have rarely seen an ombudsman’s report as clear as this one about maladministration by a Government Department. On that note, I give way.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendations for the compensation of WASPI women undermines the role of independent bodies in holding the Government to account? If we cannot rely on the Government to implement such findings, what message does that send to the public about justice and fairness?

[Sir John Hayes]

That brings me to the constitutional point that I said I would make. I have established an ethical case, but there is a constitutional issue about the ombudsman. Over the years, we have developed a number of ways of holding the Executive to account. Parliament does that, of course, but there needs to be other means of doing so on particular and specific issues. That is why the Select Committee system emerged: as a way of studying what the Government were doing and making recommendations accordingly. That is also how ombudsmen began. They are an additional mechanism through which Government can be held to account, but for Select Committees and ombudsmen to have meaning, they must have teeth.

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

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that this also undermines our roles as Members of Parliament? As a Member of Parliament, I supported the referral of this case to the ombudsman. Does it undermine our roles if when the report comes back it is just dismissed?

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes. My right hon. Friend is a refined Member of this House. To make a more refined argument in tune with his, I should say that the ombudsman’s report is, as he suggests, to Parliament. It is for Parliament to discuss, debate and make a decision on. The ombudsman’s report is about Government, but it is, exactly as he describes, to Parliament. I am grateful to him for refining my argument in that way.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for a number of years, and not just today. He will know that in July 2022, the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—responded to Carol, a WASPI woman who rang BBC Merseyside to raise this issue. The Prime Minister said:

“It’s a real injustice, and we need to do something about it”.

What does my right hon. Friend think he meant by that?

[Sir John Hayes]

Well, it is not for me to second-guess the sentiments of the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend is certainly right to say that a number of promises and comments were made. I will talk about them in a little more detail, provoked by his very helpful intervention.

I see in the Chamber today the former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He will know that the Labour manifesto in 2019 was fulsome in its support for the WASPI women, promising a generous financial settlement. It is perfectly reasonable to say that parties move on; the new Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, may have taken a rather different view. He may have taken the opposite view.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will just make this point, and then I will happily give way.

But that was certainly not the impression given by the current Prime Minister’s remarks. He said:

“Justice to end historic injustice”—

that was specifically about WASPI women. The now Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government “stole” the pensions of WASPI women and that Labour would compensate them. Therefore, one can understand why the women, some of whom are represented here today—they are being incredibly diligent and quiet, Dr Murrison, you will be pleased to know—feel that this was indeed a “betrayal”, to use the word that I used at the beginning of my remarks. An expectation was established, and then it was blighted by the decision made since the general election.

[Dr Opher]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Could I make an appeal to all of us? I do not think that either side of this debate has covered itself in glory. I agree that this is a very dangerous precedent about the ombudsman, but let us not make this party political, please. Let us make this about the WASPI women. Is there not a way, at least, of compensating the very worst off among the WASPI women? I would appeal for that.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a measured intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is true that a package could be put together and discussed with the campaign group and the women concerned; one would expect Government to do that. As a Minister, I would have had submissions. I have no doubt that this Minister has had them, and the Secretary of State must have had submissions that gave her options, before she said what she said when she let the WASPI women down. Those options would no doubt have included a series of ways through this. I know the Minister will be eager to explore those options with us when he sums up the debate. I have no doubt about that because he is a diligent and decent man; he will not want to betray those women again in what he says today because he is not that kind of character.

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

The Government’s position appears to be that they accept that the failures between 2005 and 2007 constitute maladministration. All of us can see in our inboxes the number of women who, as result of decisions taken on the basis of that failure, suffered as a result. But the Government’s position seems to be that there should be no remedy because it would be too difficult to get it right. What kind of justice is that?

[Sir John Hayes]

There are several arguments used by those who do not want to get it right, to use my hon. Friend’s term. One is that the public do not care, although all the survey evidence suggests the opposite: that 75% of people think that WASPI women should be treated fairly. Another argument is that it will be too expensive. I could make all kinds of rather spiteful remarks about the Government’s decisions about public sector pay, but I will let them stand as a contradiction, without adding to them.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He makes a very eloquent and persuasive statement. The current Government use compensation as an excuse, saying it is too expensive, but we have seen, for example, train drivers being given an additional £600 a day. We have seen Government intervene on the Post Office scandal. Does the right hon. Member agree that the argument can be easily disabused by looking at the track record on assistance for those who have found themselves at the forefront of injustice?

[Sir John Hayes]

I had alluded a moment ago to the choices that Government make about how they spend money. Of course it is true that Government priorities will determine where money is spent. The issue is clearly not a priority for the Government. It is difficult, of course: Governments face all sorts of challenges that require investment, and this Government have chosen not to invest in this area. Frankly, it is as plain as that.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

With respect, I am going to conclude because I know so many want to speak; I do apologise. [Interruption.] All right, I will briefly give way, but it is the last time.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way and indulging me. I simply want to add to his conclusion. These women have been part of a generation of women who have been discriminated against by statutory provisions over their lifetimes—whether by the reprehensible marriage bar, the gender pay gap or now this. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree. [Applause.]

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I am slightly jealous that I have not managed to attract any kind of applause, but no doubt that will come at the end of my peroration. The hon. Lady is right: that generation of women, born after the war, did not have straightforward lives. That was a difficult time in this country, particularly for women. I talked earlier about their hard work and diligence, and their role as homemakers, mothers and grandmothers. They just deserve better; that is what has driven and inspired me to bring this debate.

I will end on this note. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am mindful of the words of Edmund Burke, who said:

“Your representative owes you not only his industry, but his judgement”.

In the end, this is a matter of judgment. Do we think the issue matters or do we not? Exercising judgment, I leave him with this further quote, from J.R.R. Tolkien:

“False hopes are more dangerous than fears”.

We gave these people false hope. I fear that we will not now put this matter right by realising the rightful hope that they had in thinking they were going to retire at a certain time but then ended up doing so at an entirely different time due to a change of Government policy. That was because of nothing they did, nothing they changed, nothing they chose; it was a change in the law.

I hope that when the Minister sums up he will recognise the strength of feeling across the House, and across this country: that this injustice must be put right, in the name of democratic legitimacy and the trust that I set out at the beginning of my peroration.

14:57

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who—as I know from working with him on other campaigns—is quite the social justice warrior, contrary to popular belief. I fully align myself with the comments he has made. I also welcome the new Minister to his position. We have high hopes for him in this place.

When the ombudsman finally confirmed last year that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration, that these woman had suffered injustice and that they were entitled to compensation, we thought that was it—case closed; the next step would be what a redress mechanism would look like. Of course, many felt that the ombudsman’s report had not gone far enough, but we had the firm expectancy that the previous Government, and later this one, would at the very least act on the ombudsman’s recommendations, as would be the usual course of action.

So when the Government finally issued their response, it was met with shock—shock that despite the clear findings of state-level injustice, these women were to be denied justice; shock that the ombudsman’s findings that too many people did not understand their own situations was ignored by the Government; and shock that while, on the one hand, maladministration was accepted, the recommendations of the ombudsman were rejected in full, without alternative proposals being set out or there being an opportunity to vote or debate the matter in Parliament, as the ombudsman intimated.

There were also fears, as colleagues have stated, that a precedent might now be set on observing an ombudsman’s proposals. Usually, when a state-level injustice is found, a Government of the time will act on an ombudsman’s proposals or outline their own alternative ones.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

The work the Government are doing to improve transparency and accountability contrasts with what happened under the previous Administration, but does the hon. Lady agree that if they ignore an independent ombudsman’s report, it just looks like more of the same to people in my constituency?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

It is incredibly worrying.

I do not want to test your patience, Dr Murrison, so I will draw my comments to a close by saying this to the Minister. He must be aware that the ombudsman made the rare choice to lay this report before Parliament because it was not reassured that the Department for Work and Pensions would act on its recommendations, and it was right to have that fear. The Minister must understand that although many of us in this place wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s apology to the impacted women and acknowledge the difficult financial landscape the Government find themselves in, state-level injustice is state-level injustice. It cannot be ignored, and an apology alone is not sufficient. A remedy must be forthcoming to address the clear and apparent injustice that these women have faced.

15:00

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At a rough count, there are in excess of 50 colleagues here from a range of parties. I hope every one of them pledges to join the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, ably led by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey).

This boils down to a question of credibility and respect. What credibility and respect can there be for ombudsmen’s reports if they are ignored? What credibility and respect can there be for Members of Parliament, ranging from the now Prime Minister to foot soldiers such as me, who parade with placards saying we will fight and campaign on behalf of the WASPI women, if we do not follow through on those commitments?

I want to raise one particular point that bothers me, and then I will let others continue the debate. In trying to justify their policy of inaction, the Government seem to be oscillating between two positions: on the one hand, they keep suggesting that they simply cannot afford to give any compensation at all, but in the next breath they seem almost to be challenging the contents of the ombudsman’s report, relying on a dodgy poll that suggests that 90% of the affected women knew about the changes. Well, if the Government can rely on dodgy polls, so can I. I happen to be married to a WASPI woman, and on a dodgy poll of one I can tell the Government that she did not know and did not get a letter, and she has no particular motivation for claiming otherwise, given that it would not have affected her career choices. The Minister needs to be clear when he sums up: do the Government accept that there was maladministration, as the report sets out, or are they trying to deny that fact?

In paragraph 20 of the report, the ombudsman says:

“While it is unusual for organisations we investigate not to accept and act on our recommendations, we have no powers to compel them to comply. When an organisation does not comply with our recommendations, we can lay a report before Parliament so that Parliament can act to protect citizens’ rights.”

That is what the ombudsman expects, and that is what the WASPI women have every right to expect too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues will have done the maths. Not everybody is going to get in. I am reluctant to introduce a formal time limit, but you really ought to limit yourselves to two minutes, please. I am sure John McDonnell will be an exemplar.

15:04

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I certainly will, Dr Murrison. I welcome the Minister to his position. I am so pleased that he has been given such an easy policy to resolve as his first task.

Reference has been made to the 2019 manifesto commitment, so let me briefly set it out:

“Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences. Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

We did that on the basis that those women had paid into the system and been given a date to retire, but had not been given adequate notice. As a result, their life plans were changed dramatically and they suffered consequences. We co-produced a scheme that was expensive—I accept that—and that was going to pay out over a five-year period, but it would have meant that we resolved the matter once and for all. We were not elected, and that scheme never went forward.

When I saw the ombudsman’s investigation, I thought that at least something would be done. When the ombudsman’s report came out, I was not satisfied with it, but I thought it was at least something. Not having that implemented has crushed people; it has crushed their confidence in the system. I say to my own party, which is now in government, that we need the Government to sit down with the ’50s WASPI women and, if necessary, to either implement this scheme or mediate for an alternative, but we need action.

I say to the Minister that this issue is not going away. We are not going away. The women are not going away although, tragically, some of them are dying. This campaign will go on until we secure justice.

15:06

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am a new Member, and one of the first emails I received was from a WASPI woman. She followed up with a further email, which—to take as little time as possible—I will read out.

“I need to vent my frustration and anger at the Government’s announcement yesterday that they will not accept the ombudsman’s recommendation to pay WASPI women some compensation for maladministration. They were in support of this whilst they were in opposition.

As my elected MP, please can you make it known that, as a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party, I am totally disgusted by this volte-face.

I am a WASPI woman who fortunately worked for many years as a teacher and therefore have an occupational pension. I have not been campaigning for myself but for the many women who were in low paid jobs or had caring responsibilities and were not in a position to have a private pension and were therefore relying on a state pension from the age of 60. I understand the equalisation of the ages but, as the ombudsman stated, many women were unaware of the increase in age, in my case two increases. I had one letter about it. Even women who knew about it were often not in a position to ‘make appropriate financial adjustments to their planning.’

The people making these decisions are in fortunate positions themselves but I was relying on their understanding and compassion for others who are less able to make up the circa £48,000 which I reckon to have ‘lost’.

The government has let WASPI women down. We are not in a great position to protest about this. I am asking you to make the protest on our behalf please.”

15:08

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I need to say at the outset that my mam is a WASPI woman. Her generation entered into a contract with the state, which the state reneged on and then stole from them.

But this debate is about more than the injustice these women continue to suffer: it is about trust in politicians and our dwindling faith in democracy. I have continually pledged my support to the more than 5,000 women in South Shields who are affected by these changes. These women were as shocked as I was when the Government announced in December that there would be no compensation.

WASPI women do not disagree with compensation for the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, for LGBT veterans and for sub-postmasters, but they do not understand why they are being treated differently. An injustice is an injustice. The PHSO was clear that it is Parliament that needs to make the final decision, yet Parliament has not been allowed to.

I know that deciding on compensation will be complicated and costly, but that is not an excuse. It should not be beyond the realms of any Parliament or Government to figure this out. These women see, as we all do, how the very wealthy and companies profit from our country and do not reinvest in it. Those are the ones who should be paying the price for the economic mess the previous Government left behind, not those who spent their lives contributing. Their fight for fast and fair compensation continues to have my steadfast support, because my words and promises to them, and to the people who sent me to Parliament, matter to me. They put me here, and I will always put them first, because the day I do not, I no longer deserve to be their voice in this place.

15:10

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what so many Members have already said—repetition never makes any argument more persuasive—but the stark fact raised by the right hon. Member is that a WASPI woman dies every 12 minutes, so we will have lost five or six by the time the debate finishes.

As politicians, we have a responsibility and an obligation to act urgently to establish a comprehensive compensation scheme that can be tailored over time. We do not have to raise hundreds of millions of pounds straightaway; that could be done over the lifetime of this Parliament. Such a scheme would recognise the important contribution made by women born in the 1950s, and support the impartial, independent role of the ombudsman, thereby giving it the credence it deserves.

As representatives of the public, we must ensure the principles of transparency, accountability and fair treatment that underpin our democracy. It is time we stood up for this deserving group of women across the country and specifically the hundreds and hundreds from Birmingham Perry Barr who have written to me.

15:12

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

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. I state on record my support and admiration for the WASPI campaign. They have campaigned tirelessly for an acknowledgment of the wrong they face and, crucially, for compensation. I have been pleased to meet many of them on a number of occasions during my time as an MP, and I stand in complete solidarity with them.

The Government have rightly accepted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and apologised for the 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women, but what good is that apology if there are going to be no steps towards redress? These hard-working women contributed to the economy, raised families, cared for others and contributed to society in countless ways. They planned their lives based on assurances that the state pension would be available at 60. Instead, they have faced financial hardship, uncertainty and, in many cases, significant distress.

As a result of the previous Government’s maladministration, these women have spent the bitter, cold winter rationing their heating because 84% are concerned about soaring energy costs. I know that that reality is faced by people up and down the country, but it is doubly so by WASPI women. What is the cost of failing to address the injustice and leaving thousands of women in financial hardship, without the support they were promised? What is the point of an apology without redress?

Some precedents have been mentioned already for providing compensation where the Government have failed. Those include schemes for Equitable Life investors and for the victims of blood contamination and the Post Office scandal. Even though the scheme was poorly administered, victims of the Windrush scandal have rightfully been awarded compensation for the suffering they endured. Ultimately, the principle has to be the same and has to apply in this case: the Government made a severe mistake, and thousands suffered as a result, so compensation should be paid.

It goes without saying that the mistake was not made by the current Government, and the blame does not lie at their feet, but unfortunately the responsibility for redress does. There is a strong moral imperative for the Government to accept the ombudsman’s recommendation. We have heard during the debate how many WASPI women have died since the campaign began. People voted for a Labour Government that would act in a more compassionate way than their Conservative predecessor, and we still have the opportunity not to let them down.

15:10

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate.

In Epsom and Ewell alone, 5,420 women have been affected by the changes to the state pension age, and their voices echo the sense of betrayal felt nationwide. These women have been wronged, not just by the failure to properly notify them of significant changes to their pensions, but now by this Government’s refusal to act on the clear recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The ombudsman concluded that there was maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions dating back to 2005. It found that delays in communication meant too many women did not understand how the changes would affect them. Despite that, this Government have refused to pay any compensation.

A constituent of mine captured the heartbreak that so many feel. She wrote:

“I am absolutely devastated and I feel betrayed. For years, senior Labour representatives and even the Prime Minister himself pledged to deliver fair compensation to those impacted. They have now made a political choice to break that promise and to ignore the findings of an independent watchdog…The Government failed to properly inform women of the changes, and many were plunged into poverty as a result.”

Many women were blindsided by the changes, left unable to prepare for the financial shock that followed and plunged into hardship through no fault of their own.

I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have long called for justice for these women. We remain steadfast in our belief that the Government have a moral duty to act in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. The decision to deny compensation sets a dangerous precedent, undermines the role of independent watchdogs and erodes public trust in governance. The Government’s refusal to act on the issue is heartless and short-sighted. These women are asking for fairness, for recognition of the injustice they have suffered and for the means to rebuild their lives. I urge the Government to reconsider their position, listen to the ombudsman and do right by these women. It is time we ended this injustice.

15:16

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing the debate, and thank his colleagues from the all-party group.

Many of us believe that the treatment of the WASPI women is profoundly unjust. For over a decade I have stood with local campaigners in my constituency, at rallies and here in Parliament. The merits of their case remain undeniable, and their demand for justice is as compelling as ever. Does the Minister agree that, following the ombudsman’s recommendations, we must begin to address this injustice? When an injustice is identified, we surely have a duty to root it out and make it right.

The Conservative party does not have a “get out of jail free” card on this issue. I was in this Chamber when 75 Members debated this issue—so many that some were sitting on the window ledges—and the DWP Minister, the then hon. Member for Hexham, suggested that women who could not make ends meet could take up apprenticeships and retrain. I do not know whether any Members here today were at that debate, but the Minister had to be escorted out of the Chamber by security and put in a service elevator for his own protection.

Sadly, more than 300,000 WASPI women have died since the campaign began. Given that the ombudsman took the extremely rare step of instructing Parliament to act to ensure that the Government issue compensation and an apology, does the Minister not think it right to settle this injustice?

Ministers in this place set the attitude and tone of public bodies. If it is acceptable for the Government to disregard ombudsman decisions on cost grounds, that sets a dangerous precedent. It tells other financially stretched public bodies to ignore any ombudsman recommendations with cost implications, irrespective of the merits and justice of the case.

15:19

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing it and allowing us the opportunity to speak.

It is truly shocking that the Government were willing to apologise, admit that there had been maladministration and then to say, “Sorry, we’re not doing anything about it.” The WASPI women have run one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Imagine this society and economy without the contribution of the WASPI women. These women were told throughout their careers to be quiet, and were told that they were not as valuable as the men who were working with them. These women quietly got on with the job, raised children, looked after parents and worked incredibly hard for less money than their colleagues. These women put so much in, and made these islands what they are today.

The UK Government are sitting there knowing that they wronged this group of women and are unwilling to do anything about it. What would the Treasury’s coffers look like if they did not have the £200 billion from equalising the state pension age? Imagine what we have asked those women to put up with throughout their time, and this Parliament is saying to them, “You’re still not worth it. You’re still not valuable. You still do not deserve compensation, despite the fact that we’ve wronged you.”

The Government know that they are wrong; they know this is the wrong decision. What they need to do now is put it to a vote on the Floor of the House and give every single MP the opportunity to walk through the Lobbies to make clear their individual views on the actions being taken towards the WASPI women and the principle and administration of compensation. The WASPI women deserve compensation. The Government need to give us a vote.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Colleagues, the wind-ups will begin at 3.28 pm.

15:21

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This is a profound injustice, and one that has shaken the lives of countless women born in the 1950s, who are the very backbone of our society. They have endured hardship, anxiety and financial insecurity because of what the parliamentary ombudsman has unequivocally stated was maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is indisputably an injustice.

I understand and support this Government’s mission to address the mess that was left by what I can describe only as the worst Government in my lifetime. However, the role of a Member of Parliament is not to offer unquestioning subservience to their party. When something is wrong, they have a duty to say so. I cannot and will not abandon these women. As a candidate, I stood beside them, held their banners aloft and pledged my support. I told the WASPI women of Hartlepool that I would always stand by them. That commitment does not and must not end with an election. I will not leverage their support only to walk away once I have their votes.

I count WASPI women as my friends. I pay special tribute to Barbara Crossman and Lynne Taylor, who are in the Public Gallery today, and the countless WASPI women across Hartlepool for their tireless and passionate campaigning. I have supported them for years and am standing with them now. Let us remember what is at stake. This is about not merely compensation, but trust. It is about ensuring that no citizen or generation feels abandoned by the institutions that are meant to protect them. I say to the WASPI women and their supporters that their fight is just, that their voices will not be silenced and that justice delayed is justice denied. Together, we will continue the fight.

15:23

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

In Wales different groups, including 1950s Women of Wales and WASPI, have been working tirelessly to force Government action on pension inequality over many, many years. Unlike Labour in government, Plaid Cymru’s support for 1950s-born women has not swayed with the tide. We believe it is inexcusable that the Labour Government have refused the recommendation of their own regulator, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, to provide compensation, and justified that by saying what we have always heard: that the cost would not

“be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.”

Paper justice—justice without compensation or redress —is an insult to a system that bothers to pretend that the ombudsman’s offices can protect the citizen from the incompetence or failures of the state. As things stand, this is not even a tissue of justice. It is particularly unjustifiable because the ombudsman makes clear in its final report that

“finite resources should not be…an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy.”

The level of compensation set out by the ombudsman does not go far enough in the first place. It does little to account for the impact, both financial and otherwise, on affected 1950s-born women. Plaid Cymru has consistently supported compensation of at least level 5 on the ombudsman scale: between £3,000 and £9,950. These were women whose voices were not heard during their careers. That is the experience of many of them and many of us. It is a shameful thing that with a Labour Government in power, their voices remain unheard. The impact on 1950s women deserves more than a meagre apology.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member South Holland and the Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate. We have it in our power to have Opposition day debates—there are 20 in a parliamentary Session—and that would be a means of bringing a vote to the Floor of the House; I urge those parties that have it within their gift to bring forward an Opposition day debate to do so, to hear those voices and to have it recorded.

15:25

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. I have a long record of supporting and have worked closely with the WASPI women, both before and after being elected as their MP. I believed in their cause then, and I still believe in their cause today.

The Government were right to apologise for the delay in writing to the 1950s-born women, and they were right to acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned. Those were important first steps. However, I am very disappointed by the Government’s decision not to fully implement the PHSO recommendation to pay compensation. Let me explain why.

Claiming that most 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing is not accurate. That statistic is from a 2006 survey that referred to a general awareness across the whole population about future changes to the state pension age. It did not ask whether people knew about the specific impact of state pension age changes on them as individuals, and only around 5% of survey respondents were 1950s-born women.

For many, the abrupt change meant they were left with fewer financial resources, longer working years and, in some cases, significant personal distress, especially for women in low-paid jobs. The financial hardship that WASPI women have experienced is a direct consequence of the pension age increase. The parliamentary ombudsman ruled that the national financial challenges should not be a barrier to awarding compensation.

Although compensating WASPI women may not be an easy administrative task, that is not a reason for avoiding action. Government is difficult, but that is not a valid excuse. I am disappointed that the Government decided not to implement all the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman, who laid the report before MPs and handed the role of compensating WASPI women to Parliament. That is why WASPI women are so angry.

Every woman has a right to be able to plan for a dignified and secure retirement. I therefore urge the Government to look again at the ombudsman’s recommendations, do the right thing and ensure that WASPI women get the financial justice that they so deserve.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Jim Shannon, you have 30 seconds.

15:27

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On behalf of the 5,000 WASPI women in Strangford, I beseech the Government to take the right decision and make the just decision for them. It is not just an obligation because of the ombudsman; it is a moral obligation as well. I think of all the women who come to see me and feel—I say this with great respect—let down by the Labour Government. One lady said to me, “I’ve been a member of the union all my life and the Labour party have let me down.” I speak for her and all the others.

15:28

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member South Holland and the Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this really important debate.

When one reflects on there being more WASPI women in the United Kingdom than the population of Wales, it demonstrates how this is a massive issue for this United Kingdom. In my constituency there are 6,930 WASPI women, and there are a similar number in Newton Abbot over the border. There are 7,400 in South Devon. Yet in the Prime Minister’s constituency there are fewer than 4,000. I smell a rat. I will give credit to those Labour Members who are here but, just as with the winter fuel payments, we can see that sadly certain members of the Government are choosing, because of the arithmetic around pensioners, to make decisions of an ill-advised nature like this.

In her statement on WASPI women, the Secretary of State talked of the fact that the decision was made by a previous Government, and that that was what WASPI women were really concerned about. The reality is—I hope the Minister will address this; other colleagues have raised it—that the report was about the communications and the impact on women. It was not about a previous decision. So that is what the Government should be addressing.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

On that point, my constituent Lauraine took early retirement from the NHS in 2014 to care for her husband. She believed that her state pension would kick in in 2015 and support her in her caring responsibilities, since she never received any notification from the DWP to tell her that it would not. She feels angry and let down. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that the Government can hear testimonies such as Lauraine’s and still refuse the fair compensation that these women deserve?

[Steve Darling]

Yes, and my hon. Friend also reminds me of Marilyn in my constituency, who suffered a significant illness and would have benefited from compensation—as would Pam, who cared for two terminally-ill family members. I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

What a baptism of fire this is for the new Minister, but we need him to address the real issues. He must not be wilfully blind to the recommendations of the ombudsman. I would also welcome an explanation why an answer to my named day question, which was named yesterday, remains outstanding.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Commendably brief, if I may say so. I call the Opposition spokesman.

15:31

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Murrison; it is a pleasure and an honour to serve under my constituency neighbour on, I think, your first day in the Chair. I congratulate all Members who have spoken powerfully and eloquently on behalf of their constituents. I also pay tribute to the those in the campaign, many of whom are in the Public Gallery, silent witnesses to our debate—I honour them for their long campaign for justice.

In particular, I congratulate the new Minister, who I am glad to welcome to his place. Today is his first outing as a Minister, and he has quite a job to do to answer this debate. He is, of course, familiar to us from the media as an independent expert, offering ostensibly impartial advice helpful to the Labour party over many years; I am glad to see him in his rightful place at last. I exonerate him, as a new Minister, for this decision: he did not make it, but has been thrown into it by his party and his boss, the Secretary of State. Perhaps he can change the policy, now that he is new to the role and not implicated in it. Perhaps it was a condition of his accepting office that the Government revisit this topic. I very much hope that that is what we will hear from him shortly.

Particular congratulations, likewise, to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I honour his long campaign on behalf of women born in the 1950s. It is not only because he loves everything from the 1950s that he is taking this position; he is absolutely right in everything that he said.

The complexity of the matter has been well addressed by the ombudsman and by the Members who spoke today, so I will not revisit the issue in any detail; it reflects the work of a series of Governments over 30 years since the 1995 decision to equalise the retirement age. I was glad to see in the ombudsman’s report that the DWP has co-operated fully with his inquiry and I am glad that Ministers and officials respected the ombudsman process.

I am sure this point was made by the Secretary of State in the main Chamber when the decision was announced, but the suggestion that this matter could have been cleared up by the previous Government in consequence of the ombudsman’s report is, I think, a little unfair, given that the report came out only two months before the general election was called. It has taken five months for this Government to make their decision—these things are complex. I respect the challenge that the Government have had. I wish we had had time to address it ourselves, but the voters would not have it. This, of course, is this Government’s decision.

To address the central issue, the ombudsman found that adequate communications were made throughout the period, but that there was a particular maladministration, as Members have repeatedly mentioned: the delay in sending out letters in 2005 to 2007. It is good that the Secretary of State acknowledged that maladministration in her response to the ombudsman—I appreciate that and accept it—and that she apologised on behalf of the then Labour Government and the DWP. The fact is, however, while no direct financial loss may have been caused by the maladministration of communication, with a direct change to people’s incomes, nevertheless, as we have heard so eloquently from Members, the maladministration—the failure to communicate properly—has caused women to make decisions in ignorance of their true circumstances.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that the parliamentary ombudsman issued another report this morning damning the Department for Work and Pensions, which she criticised for

“failing to learn from its mistakes”?

She revealed yet another case, of a pensioner who was not told for eight years about a change to their pension that would leave them £3,000 a year worse off.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the central point here: although, as Members have said, the change of policy itself was not the subject of the ombudsman’s inquiry, the failure to communicate directly impacted the circumstances of many women. They did not understand the circumstances they would be in, and it changed the decisions they were making.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the shadow Minister share with me, and I believe with many in this Chamber, what the good book refers to as righteous anger? There is righteous anger today for those elderly people and women who looked towards their retirement as the end of pain and exhaustion. They were unable to plan financially to enable them to retire earlier due to the nature of the communication they were given by Government. Righteous anger deserves justice. Does he agree that the ladies who I and others in this Chamber represent deserve justice? Whether the Minister is responsible or not, he has to give a justifiable yes to what they want.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have heard it said that anger is love in the presence of injustice. The righteous anger that so many people feel here in this Chamber and beyond reflects the essential injustice we have seen.

The Government, in their response to the report, made this central defence, which we might hear again from the Minister: they dispute that women were left out of pocket because of the failure of communication made by DWP all those years ago. The Secretary of State argued in the Commons that letters do not have much impact anyway, citing some research suggesting that people ignore letters, do not read them or do not remember receiving them. It begs the question of why Government communicate at all if there is no value to it. It is obviously true that communication of an issue raises awareness of the issue. The failure to communicate meant that awareness of the issue was not possible for these people.

I recognise the challenge faced by the Government here. It is, of course, difficult to assess the precise circumstances of 3.5 million women. I recognise that some of the claims made on behalf of the campaign were exorbitant. Nevertheless, there were many options on the table for the Government to consider, from a hardship fund to smaller packages of support. It was not the only option to give a total no—nothing at all for the WASPI women. That was not the only option.

[Melanie Onn]

Exactly what is the Conservative policy on WASPI women? I have been a long-standing campaigner for WASPI women, voting for the SNP motion in 2016, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) failed to attend. It is unclear exactly what the shadow Minister is suggesting. Is he suggesting that there is no plan from the Conservatives for what they would do?

[Danny Kruger]

We do believe there should be justice for the WASPI women. We do believe that an injustice was done and that there should be support offered to them. There needs to be a proper cross-party agreement on this, and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on it. We were examining the report ourselves when we were sadly removed from office, when the hon. Lady returned to the House, and I am sure that my party would have come forward with a much better package of support than the Government have—because that would not be difficult, would it?

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about individuals having the information to plan for their future. Could he therefore comment on why, under 14 years of his party’s control of the Department for Work and Pensions, one of the major platforms of its work, the pensions dashboard programme, had to be reset? The costs associated with it increased 23% because it basically went off the rails under his Government’s leadership.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, I am afraid to say that often there is maladministration in benefits and welfare, which is the consequence of this vast system that we have. I apologise on behalf of the previous Government if mistakes were made. However, the point is that under the previous Government significant increases were made in both pensions and benefits for pensioners. The state pension rose by nearly £4,000 under the last Government, with an increase of nearly 9% in the last year alone, so I am proud of our record on supporting pensioners.

On behalf of the WASPI women and particularly the campaigners, I would like to reflect their intense disappointment, because the fact is that hope was held out to them by Labour when Labour was in Opposition, including by the now Prime Minister, the now Chancellor and the now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Who knows? Maybe even the Minister who is here today held out such hope when he was campaigning. Many people voted Labour at the election last year because they believed that justice would be done for the WASPI women, because that is what Labour candidates said would happen. The broken trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings so eloquently referred to is very real.

I would like the Minister to explain why this decision was made, because there was no specific explanation by the Secretary of State when she announced the decision. Was it because the Government could not afford compensation? Was it because of their newly discovered problems with the economy when they arrived in office? If so, could they not afford anything? Nothing? No package at all could be afforded—not even a small one? Or was it because they thought that it was wrong and unfair to compensate the WASPI women, even if it was affordable? If they did think that the WASPI women are owed some money, there can be no question about paying it. Justice demands it; it must be paid. Something else must give way.

I end by making a political point, I am afraid. The fact is that this Government have made a decision not to compensate the WASPI women because they are making payments in all sorts of other directions. There are a lot of discretionary payments being announced by this Government. They have made huge salary increases to train drivers without any reforms to their productivity, they have created an energy company costing billions of pounds that does not make any energy and, most recently, they are paying a foreign country to take off our hands a UK sovereign territory that is vital to the defence of the UK. There are discretionary payments available and it would be interesting to know why on earth they have not made this one. They did not have to act in that way, and I look forward to the Minister justifying why the decision was made and saying what he will do to bring justice for these women.

15:41

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr Murrison.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing a debate on this important topic. I also thank him, if slightly less enthusiastically, for its timing, which is on my first day in office. That fact also explains the delay in answering the named day question put by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which he referred to in his contribution to the debate.

I am under no illusion that everyone in this Chamber, or almost everyone in this Chamber, will agree with everything that I am about to say. However, all of us who have listened to this debate and to the important points made by right hon. and hon. Members have benefited from it, and we all recognise the context of this debate, which is the squeeze on living standards that has affected women born in the 1950s just as it has the entire country.

The issues that we are discussing today are important to many women, including my aunt in west Wales, who was born in 1955 and who pays particularly close attention to these issues. I spoke to her last night as part of my preparation for this debate and she would agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), that women of her generation have faced many difficulties and particular discrimination. People have spoken powerfully about that.

It is therefore right that this debate gives the long-held concerns of those women the consideration they deserve, just as it was right that the Government considered those concerns in making the decision that we are debating today. That is also why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), was the first Minister in eight years to meet WASPI Ltd, why the Government considered the ombudsman’s investigations and reports in detail, and why we look closely at what Parliament has said on this subject. Although I understand that the outcome was disappointing for many, the decision was based on the evidence.

Before I set out how we reached that decision, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) requested, it is worth reiterating the point that several Members have made: the ombudsman’s report was not about the decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age for women, or the decision in 2011 to accelerate that increase. Those decisions were the focus of remarks by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). They were taken by Parliament, including by many Members who are here today, and they were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020.

[Sir John Hayes]

I welcome the Minister to his place; I appreciate that this debate is his first outing and his comments about the timing are well made. However, the WASPI campaigners have never made that case; they have never said that they were against the equalisation. What they said, and rightly so, is that they were not properly informed and that is precisely what the then ombudsman confirmed in his report. Will the Minister just answer this simple question? The ombudsman said that he felt it was unlikely the DWP would respond to his report—it was sad that he should have to say that. The ombudsman proposed—unusually, in his words—that the matter be laid before Parliament. Will the Minister use his endeavours to ensure Parliament gets to vote on the ombudsman’s recommendations?

[Torsten Bell]

We have already had a long statement in the main Chamber. The point of debates like this one today is to make sure that the Government are held accountable for their decisions.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress and give way later on. There has also been, as has been raised, the opportunity for all parties to call for more time and for votes in the main Chamber. I am sure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will take that up with his party in the months ahead. I will make some progress and take more interventions as we proceed.

The ombudsman’s investigation concerned the more specific question of how changes in the state pension age were communicated to women, like my aunt, born in the 1950s. The Government started sending personalised letters in April 2009, but the ombudsman concluded we should have started 28 months earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has apologised for that delay. We are determined to learn the lessons so that we avoid similar mistakes happening again. First, we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations. Secondly, we are committed to providing clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age so that people can plan for their retirement. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has directed the Department to develop a clear and transparent communication strategy for state pension changes; work on that has already begun. This will build on changes that are already under way, such as our online “Check your State Pension forecast” service, which provides a forecast of the level of state pension, but also information about when people can take it.

The ombudsman looked at six cases and concluded that DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, they also found that decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s, many of whom are here with us today. The ombudsman said that those delays did not result in women suffering from direct financial loss, but that there was maladministration, and we agree.

[Ayoub Khan]

In spite of what the ombudsman has recommended, it is clear that the current Prime Minister recognised and advocated throughout the country that WASPI women were dealt an enormous injustice. It is a principle of democracy where we advocate for something when we want power, we ought to deliver once we get power to maintain trust and confidence. In spite of what the ombudsman recommends, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should honour what he advocated?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Labour party did oppose the acceleration of the state pension age in the early part of the last decade, but he and many other Members will have noticed very viscerally that the Labour party lost many elections since then. Parliament made a decision and the courts have since endorsed that decision. There was maladministration and we must learn the lessons.

[Grahame Morris]

I appreciate that being newly in post is difficult, but can I clarify something? The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), said that the changes were introduced in 1995—I believe under John Major—but the acceleration of the changes was in 2011-12, under the coalition Government. I think Steve Webb was the pensions Minister. My hon. Friend the Minister says that there was no financial loss, but there must be a financial loss for the women affected. We could argue whether that is justified. We certainly cannot argue that a majority in Parliament passed it. The women must have suffered a financial loss because of having to wait another six years before getting their pension.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend on two fronts for his intervention. First, because he has reinforced the point that I just made, which was that we are struggling to distinguish between the rights and wrongs of the original decision about the state pension age, the equalisation in 1995, the acceleration in 2011 and the ombudsman’s report, which is focused narrowly on the communication of those decisions. On a second front, he reminds us that it was in fact George Osborne who said that the acceleration of the state pension rises was the single biggest saving that he made. He boasted about it, but that is a separate issue.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I think I should make some progress and give way later. I want to get on to the bit that most Members might not agree with, but at least will explain what we are doing, because we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or indeed to remedy. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly noted that is unusual, and it should be unusual. However it is also not unprecedented.

The decision not to introduce a compensation scheme was difficult and complex. The ombudsman assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that sending letters earlier would have fundamentally changed what women knew and how they acted. However research from 2014 shows that only one in four people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remembers receiving and reading them. The ombudsman does not address this evidence.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm whether the Government’s decision and their claim that only 10% of women affected were unaware of the state pension change is based on a survey from 2006 involving just 210 respondents?

[Torsten Bell]

If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will come to exactly that point shortly.

There was considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. I think everyone agrees on that even if they do not agree about the research itself. The research used by the ombudsman, from 2004, shows that 73% of people then aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was going up. Further research shows that, by 2006—when the ombudsman finds that the direct mailing should have begun—90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing. We therefore cannot accept that, in the vast majority of cases—and I appreciate it is in the vast majority of cases—sending letters earlier would have affected whether women knew their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunities to make an informed decision. It would not be reasonable—

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for a second time. To be clear about this: there are two issues at stake here—how many women knew, and how communications would have affected that. The fact of the matter is that the ombudsman’s report—I have it in my hand—says

“Research reported in 2004 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act knew their State Pension age was 65, or between 60 and 65.”

That is a clear majority of women who did not know. Therefore the only debate is whether communicating with them would have been effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said, if it would not have been effective, what is the point in Government communicating at all?

[Torsten Bell]

I was not going to go into this detail, but the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is inviting me to return to some of my past lives with the details of surveys. The 43% figure that he is referring to refers to all women. What the ombudsman did not do is look at the same survey and look at the women who were affected by this change, who were obviously slightly later in life and much more likely to know about their state pension age. That is where the higher figures I am quoting come from. It is from the same survey as used by the ombudsman, but it is focused on the women who are actually affected by the change.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, to get to the crux of this: when the decision our Government have made on this was announced—and there is much to be proud of in what it has done since the general election—my jaw hit the floor. I was flabbergasted. It is my belief that the vast majority of Labour MPs could not believe it when it was announced. That pales into insignificance compared to the reaction of the WASPI women who I and others have been proud to support in my Leeds East constituency and elsewhere. My last point is that, before this decision was made, I said to the WASPI women outside Parliament that justice delayed is justice denied. This is worse than that. I thought I was just trying to compel our Government to hurry up and make a decision. This is not justice delayed is justice denied. As it stands, unless we do something, this is justice denied full stop.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his brief congratulations on my appointment prior to his wider comments. I would say gently that he and I both stood on the same manifesto which did not promise to provide compensation, and lots of Members have talked about trust in this Chamber. There was a clear choice not to make that promise in the manifesto.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I really must make some progress because we are about to run out of time.

It would not be a reasonable or fair use of taxpayer money to pay compensation to people whose circumstances would be the same today even if the maladministration had never occurred. A compensation scheme would cost up to £10.5 billion, less than the scheme previously proposed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but still a significant amount.

The ombudsman is clear that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. The Department considered at length whether a tailored scheme could be delivered, but it was simply not a viable option. The ombudsman’s report acknowledges the cost and administrative burden of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s. Indeed, it took the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate just the six sample cases. To set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take years and thousands of staff.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Torsten Bell]

I must make some progress.

We also do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. I want to address the questions asked by several hon. Members about the specific research findings. It is important to say that the evidence on what women knew about the state pension age changes is robust. The same research was used by the ombudsman, who clearly did not have concerns about its validity.

I have heard hon. Members make powerful speeches today and I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least from my aunt. Many women born in the 1950s worked hard in paid jobs, often balancing that with raising a family. The Government have a responsibility to take their concerns seriously, which is why Ministers listened, reflected and carefully considered this complex decision. As custodians of the public purse, however, we must also ensure that decisions are rooted in evidence and are fair to everyone.

The fact remains that the vast majority of women knew that the state pension age was increasing. Even for those who did not, we know that sending letters earlier would not have made a difference in most cases. [Interruption.] Although I know that that decision will be disappointing, as we are hearing, and many have been frustrated by watching this debate drag on for years, we believe it is the right course of action. Of course, it is also right that the Government should be held to account for that decision, as is happening today.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I think I am right in saying that it is unprecedented for the Government to reject in its entirety an ombudsman’s report and offer absolutely nothing. Those women were led up the garden path in the last election, and before that, by people saying that compensation was going to be paid. The Minister needs to explain why the Government are simply ignoring the plight of those women.

[Torsten Bell]

It is an important issue, and we have been listening to the plight of those women for many years—and rightly so. Important and powerful cases have been made by many hon. Members, but I have set out why the Government have made that decision.

We will continue to help women born in the 1950s and pensioners across the UK by investing a crucial £22 billion into NHS England this year and next, with consequentials for the Welsh and Scottish Governments.

[Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

No, I will not.

The biggest betrayal of our older generations is the state of our health service. We will also boost the state pension by up to £1,900 by the end of this Parliament. As the new Pensions Minister, I know that nothing is more important than providing a foundation for the secure retirement that everyone deserves after a lifetime of work.

15:57

[Sir John Hayes]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate. It has shown that the sense of injustice felt by the WASPI women is shared by Members on both sides of the House of Commons. Sadly, however—I am sorry to say this to the Minister—it is not shared by those in the driving seat who are making the decisions.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I will be quick and nice.

[Sir John Hayes]

No—forgive me, but my time is very short.

I sincerely hope that we will get a parliamentary vote on this issue and I will use every endeavour to ensure that we do. The WASPI women deserve better than the explanation we heard today, which was essentially somewhere between, “We’re not sure that their case is justified, because we think that most of them did know,” and, “We can’t afford it even if their case is justified.” Frankly, neither of those arguments will wash. The Minister, who is, as I said earlier, a decent man, must know that, just as the Prime Minister certainly feigned to know it before the general election. The question must therefore be asked, did the Prime Minister not know or did he not care? Was he careless about the support that he offered the WASPI women or did he not know what the Minister has just said?

I end with Winston Churchill, because I can do no better. He said:

“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived”.

This is deceit—nothing less, nothing more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

Farmland Flooding

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered nature-based solutions for farmland flooding.

It is great to see you in your place, Dr Murrison. Before I start, I will draw your attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a director of a farming company. I do not claim to be a farmer—look at my hands—but I am directly involved in farming and I could benefit from some of the measures that I am proposing.

There are two areas that I want to discuss. The first is the impact of flooded fields on farms and what should be done to help them. The second is the impact of agricultural flooding on other areas of flood risk, and what should be done to incentivise farmers to help ameliorate flooding elsewhere by accepting flooding in some areas of their farms.

Before I go into that, it is necessary to look at the background, and I will give some stats to help paint the picture. Seventy four per cent of the total floodplain in the United Kingdom is agricultural land. That is perhaps no surprise, because centuries of flooding and recession have formed some of our richest agricultural land. In fact, 60% of our best and most versatile land is on the floodplain. As a result, the argument about what should happen with floodplains—whether they should be allowed to flood, be rewilded or be retained for agricultural use—is central to the significant and increasingly political debate about food security.

The incidences of flooding are increasing. We can argue about the reasons behind that, although we do not need to do so today. Last winter, there were more than 1,000 flood warnings for farmland, which was a record high. As any farmer will say, particularly in the east of England, last spring the land was inundated with water. It was impossible for farmers to get on the fields until much later than normal, which had a knock-on impact on sowing and a consequential impact on yield for this year. More recently, we had the new year’s flooding right across the country.

We can see from that pattern, and from a much longer one, which we do not need to go into, that there is now a norm. If we look at the new and updated forecast of the change in our weather patterns that we should experience through global warming, although it is true that it will be warmer and drier in the summers, the expectation, which so far seems to be borne out by reality, is that the winters will be wetter with greater incidences of intense rain, which is the kind of rain that leads to flooding. We need action to fix the changing situation.

The first argument I will make about flooding on farms is that watercourses need to be cleared. Not every drainage needs to be slowed down to prevent flooding elsewhere. Although that is very fashionable—I fear that some of that fashion has found its way into the Environment Agency—it is crucial that drainage that is intended to remove water from productive farmland is cleared regularly, either by the Environment Agency or by it getting out of the way and allowing local farmers to do that on its behalf. Farmland is not free flooding for the Environment Agency. That is a crucial distinction between what the Environment Agency may have planned for flood defences lower down the watercourse and the necessary requirement that the best and most versatile land continues to be used effectively for food production.

We need to identify potential flood relief, including areas where the quality of the land is less good and where, in negotiation with landowners and farmers, we can identify historical floodplains and, perhaps, flood meadows. One of the few traditional flood meadows that still exists is in my constituency at Sculthorpe meadow, and there is another one on the Wensum. That is part of only 1,100 hectares of traditional flood meadow that still exist in the country. There can be agreements there with the Environment Agency, to take advantage of the funding that is available from central Government, which I will come to in a minute. There is a potential for farmers to benefit from allowing areas of lower-quality land to accept flooding for the benefit of others.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, which is important not only to rural communities and farmers, but to people living downstream in larger towns. Does he agree that the sort of discussions that he describes need to be held with landowners quite far up the catchment area, towards the top of a large river catchment? For example, for our area in the Thames valley, the ideal position would be that farmers in the Cotswolds or in the northern part of Oxfordshire are consulted about this, rather than farmers further downstream in the central part of Berkshire.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One of the beauties of the environmental land management scheme brought in by the last Government is that it has three stages. There is the in-field sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship, which has the in-farm elements, and the landscape recovery tier, which anticipates exactly that—I would describe them as in-valley projects. It is right that we should look right across a watercourse in those discussions, but it needs to be done in consultation with farmers, who should not have this imposed on them by a lack of drainage on the part of the Environment Agency.

Where there is flooding of productive farmland, it is necessary for the Government to build on the farming recovery fund, which was instigated by the last Conservative Government. That provides up to £25,000 a farm for an uninsured loss event. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will provide an additional £10 million to that fund, but that is the start, not the end, of what needs to be done, so that farmers who suffer uninsurable loss to their farmland—their productive livelihood—are compensated.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I represent Glastonbury and Somerton, and part of my constituency lies on the Somerset levels and moors. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. In fact, 91% of Glastonbury and Somerton is agricultural land, so we depend on our farmers to store floodwater on their land to prevent our homes from flooding. Does he agree that we should properly compensate our farmers when they store water on their land, and that we should provide schemes with an extra £1 billion a year, so that farmers have the resources that they need to provide resilience not only for farming, but to our homeowners and residents across the county?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is right in concept, in that where there is uninsured loss of productive farmland caused by flooding, the last Government was right to create the farming recovery fund to compensate, at least in part, for those losses. As for flooding by agreement, if I can describe it as that, that happens on the Somerset levels as part of the landscape recovery agreement there—it is called the Adapting the Levels project. That needs to come with sufficient funding under the environmental land management scheme, and I will address wider funding concerns later.

Farms can have a role in minimising flooding, and they can do that in-farm as well as further down the watercourse. But the Government must continue to work with the Conservatives and with the environmental land management scheme, which the previous Government set up, to recognise and support this.

We start at the top of the watercourse. Where available, there is upland peatland restoration. Peat bogs, when they are in good condition, are essentially like giant sponges, not just for water but for carbon storage. When they are in poor condition, the cycle goes into reverse, both for water and for carbon emission. Riparian buffers, which can be planted and maintained next to watercourses, slow the flow of water off the land and absorb a percentage of it.

More importantly and more interestingly—I was about to say for farmers like me, but I am not a farmer—for people involved in farming, there are the in-field developments, which are becoming increasingly mainstream and have developed from the regenerative agricultural movement. They are based around soil management. We always used to describe this as the heavy metal approach—that does not refer to our taste in music, but is instead about plough, drill and till, which has been the “traditional” method of agriculture since the second world war, where the inputs come out of a sack and horsepower is relied on to manipulate the soil.

The problem with that, apart from its very significant impact on biodiversity—that is a debate in its own right—is that this leads to collapsed soil structures and then we need to go into subsoiling. The more metal we use, the more heavy metal we need to use, and that destroys or very substantially limits the ability of the soil to absorb and then retain water. That has the short-term impact of increasing run-off, leading to flash flooding in a way that did not happen when I was a boy. It also has a knock-on impact in the summer. If there is a soil structure that is not capable of absorbing and retaining water in the winter, it becomes water-hungry in the spring and summer, and there is parching in a way that affects yield and costs money in irrigation to compensate for that.

There is a movement called the regenerative or min-till movement, where that approach has been challenged. By minimising the impact on soil—the disturbance of soil through metal—the soil structure can be increased, retained and developed. That creates spaces in the soil in which to absorb water, but it also has a secondary impact, which is the mycorrhizal interaction of live roots. That secures carbon and improves the sponginess of the soil.

All those things are great because as absorption is increased, the speed at which that water is emitted back into the watercourse is reduced. Allied to that is the use of cover crops during the winter. Having live roots in the water and a structure that prevents run-off and soil erosion in the winter is enormously important. There is also contour ploughing—that is, ploughing along the contour, not up and down it, as a matter of course. That is basic physics, but it helps to retain water on the land and slows its emission down into the watercourse. These are all things that the farm can do in-field to help its cause, and also to retain water for lower down the watercourse.

A second option, suitable for less valuable land that is not the best quality or the most fertile, is to accept seasonal water, along the lines followed by a traditional water meadow. Watercourses can be re-wiggled—I am not sure if that is a technical term—to slow down the flow of water in appropriate areas. By accepting floodwater, farmers are able to re-establish traditional meadows, but they need to be compensated because they are giving up productive land, albeit less productive land, to provide a social good. The whole concept of the environmental land management scheme was public money for public good.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Farmers in the Flit valley in Mid Bedfordshire are concerned that repeated flooding and waterlogging has left large areas of farmland unfit for agricultural purposes. Our farmers are prepared to do the hard yards to put in place nature-based solutions, but does my hon. Friend agree that they need support and certainty from the Government to achieve that?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The basis behind my seeking this debate is to highlight the need for continued, not new, Government support. ELMs is a Brexit dividend. It would be a crying shame if the Government failed to build on the very good work of the last Government, as I will come to in a minute.

ELMs is the flagship scheme. The last Government honoured their commitment to provide £2.4 billion every year, from 2019 onwards, to support the transition from area-based payments to public money for public good. The sustainable farming incentive supports soil quality, water quality, hedgerows, tree planting and riparian buffers. There are also the countryside stewardship scheme, and the landscape recovery scheme which I have already mentioned. Other schemes include the England woodland creation offer and the nature for climate fund. All those schemes back up the transition to nature-based solutions, and allow farmers to recognise and mitigate for changes in rain distribution and intensity. They provide funding for the changes necessary for biodiversity and food production.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has rightly highlighted the intricate and technical knowledge required to understand some of the mitigations, so I welcome our Government’s commitment to a floods resilience taskforce. Does he agree that it is integral that farmers are involved every step of the way in the development of solutions, particularly because of the changing nature of flooding?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Of course I agree. My message to the Government is that when they are dealing with flooding, particularly through the Environment Agency, they need to do so in collaboration with farmers and get their agreement. If a watercourse is going to be slowed down through a lack of clearance, they need to recognise where that water will end up. Such an intervention does not simply lead to freak flooding on a neighbour’s land or even their house; it will have consequences for businesses and food security. The Government need to work in collaboration with farmers and be prepared to pay if the benefit of other people’s land is used.

I recognise that, up to now, my entire speech has had nothing to do with the Minister’s portfolio because she deals with flood defences. I am sure she has a deep knowledge of farming, but it may not be quite deep enough to answer some of my questions. She will be relieved to know that I am moving on to discuss natural flood management schemes as part of the Government’s flood defence budget of £5.2 billion.

The last Government made a step in the right direction, albeit a small one, by allocating £25 million to natural flood management schemes. That amount needs to be increased because the lesson from the initial schemes is that they are relatively cheap but very effective. Why do we not do more of them and build on that Brexit dividend?

That leads me to the scary bit: the Budget. I have real concerns. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs trumpeted his £5 billion over two years to support agriculture, which he says is a record amount. However, it is only the biggest ever amount if you ignore inflation, Dr Murrison, which none of the rest of us can. That £5 billion would need to be £5.8 billion across the two years, and then through the rest of the Parliament, to match the £2.4 billion equivalent from 2019 onwards. So we are already £800 million short over the course of the Parliament.

What happens after 2026? In the Budget, it says that future

“funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600 million”

will require a review into affordability. What does that mean? Does that mean it is the end of ELM schemes? Are we going to cut back on all the nature-friendly farming initiatives? Without reassurance from the Minister, and in particular from the Treasury, farmers look at this and say, “There is a cliff edge at the end of 2026.” There are two years of £5 billion, which is less in real money than they had before, and then a huge fall-off. That is a terrible message, on top of the family farm tax: cuts to nature-friendly farming. Where does this go? That is the opposite of the Labour party’s manifesto commitment, which was to an expansion of nature-rich habitats.

Will the Minister commit to the water restoration fund? Yesterday, I served on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. New clause 2, which was in the name of the Opposition, including me, would have enshrined the water restoration fund in law, but it was voted down by the Government. That gives me, and farmers, real cause for concern. Will the Minister reassure farmers that post-2027 funding for farming, in particular nature-friendly farming, will be index-linked? Otherwise, it will fall off a cliff. Will she rule out cuts?

Will the Minister allocate—this is perhaps more in her personal remit—an increased percentage of the flooding budget to nature-based solutions? Those have been proven effective, and they work to compensate farmers who assist in their creation. Will she enable private sector investment in natural capital markets? Get the quangos out of the way. Let them set standards, certainly, but then allow the market in nature credits to flourish. Words in a manifesto do not mitigate flooding or support farmers; long-term funding and long-term incentives do. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:21

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am delighted to contribute to this debate with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), although I feel that we are spending more time together at the moment than I am with my own family, what with the Bill Committee and other debates. I look forward to round 3—or is it 4?—tomorrow.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It’s our secret.

[Emma Hardy]

It is our secret.

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful contributions on the importance of using soil in the right way and how farming practices can be updated, which were valuable. As I mentioned to the House last week, and as I am sure people have heard me say before, I am fully aware of the impact of flooding on households, people’s mental health and, importantly, farmland. I have deep sympathy with farmers, so much of whose crop has been underwater this season, which has impacted yield.

The storms this winter highlight the urgent need for many of us to adapt to the threats of climate change, not least farmers, who often feel the impact directly. As climate change leads to more extreme rainfall, as has been mentioned, the number of people at risk from flooding and coastal erosion will continue to grow. I therefore want to make it abundantly clear that this new Government are committed to tackling this challenge, which is one of the top five core priorities for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The good news is that work has already begun. Recognising the significant impact of flooding on farmers, the Government are bolstering England’s resilience to flooding by confirming an additional £50 million for internal drainage boards to improve assets. That is on top of the existing £25 million, and takes total investment to £75 million. That transformational investment will put IDBs on a firm footing to deliver their vital role in flood and water management. It will benefit projects that will improve, repair or replace IDB assets, including flood barriers, embankments and, as has been mentioned, the maintenance of watercourses. Projects will reduce risks and impacts from flooding for farmers and rural communities across England. To ensure that we protect the country from the devastating impact of flooding, we are investing £2.4 billion in 2024-25 and 2025-26 to improve flood resilience by building, maintaining and repairing flood defences.

However, I gently point out to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that this Government inherited our flood defence assets in the worst condition on record. We have had to come in and deal with the maintenance backlog.

[Sarah Dyke]

rose—

[Matt Rodda]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and then to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), but I have only six minutes.

[Matt Rodda]

The Minister makes an excellent point. In my area, a major flood prevention scheme in Caversham, which is part of the Greater Reading area, has unfortunately been deferred. However, there is some good news regarding the point that she and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) made about landowners working together. I visited Kennet meadows and Fobney meadows, and saw three different landowners working together to rewild a flood meadow to enhance the land’s ability to soak up water. Much can be done if central Government and local government play a leading role in co-ordinating work with landowners, and build a team approach at a local level.

[Emma Hardy]

That sounds like an excellent example. I note that the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham so, if she does not mind, I will use the last five minutes of the debate to respond to some of the comments made earlier.

We are looking at reviewing the flood funding formula, which was brought up by farmers during many of the visits that I made when I was in a shadow ministerial position. I want to work with all the various stakeholders on that, and I recognise that, in my opinion, at the moment the flood funding formula disincentivises investment in rural areas. I want to have a serious look at that.

I hate to see an outbreak of, almost, unity—although that is nice to have sometimes—but there is much love among Labour Members for natural flood management, so I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. The Government champion and support natural flood management, and I am keen to explore how we can encourage more of it, throughout England. I have therefore convened a roundtable on Monday to explore opportunities and challenges in the delivery of natural flood management. It will include experts and those directly involved in the projects, and will help inform our delivery of natural flood management. I look forward to hearing from farming representatives as part of that discussion, and have invited the National Farmers Union, the Nature Friendly Farming Network and the Country Land and Business Association. I am keen to hear how their views can feed into Government work.

As has been mentioned, various natural flood management methods can be used to protect flooded farmland, such as planting winter cover crops, soil management, matching grazing density to the capability of the land, avoiding growing certain crops on steep slopes, and blocking drainage ditches to slow down run-off and create wetland habitats. There will be measures that benefit flood mitigation in all three of the environmental land management schemes: the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and landscape recovery.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Those are all great projects, but farmers plan long in advance; it is not an 18 or 24-month process, and if the funding runs out in two years and there is no visibility beyond that, how are they expected to invest in these schemes?

[Emma Hardy]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Government are committed to the environmental land management programme and are looking at funding natural flood management on farmland. As I said, we are having a meeting on Monday to discuss, with farmers, what more we can do for natural flood management.

Part of our vision for farming is a sector that recognises that restoring nature is not in competition with sustainable food production—on this point I agree with the hon. Gentleman—but actually essential to it: restoring nature helps food production. We will provide farmers and land managers with the support they need to help restore nature, which is vital to safeguard our long-term food security, support productivity and build resilience to climate change. That means continuing the transition away from payment for land ownership towards payment for delivering public goods for the environment, and continuing to use regulation to require minimum standards that will—importantly—be designed in partnership with farmers, and have sufficient lead-in times for change.

The countryside stewardship scheme already has specific flood resilience options, such as “making space for water”. I also flag that our land use framework will be coming out at some point, and that this year we will introduce new actions with flood mitigation benefits to our combined environmental land management offer, including actions to reduce flood risk, restore and enhance floodplains, and provide better storage of floodwater.

To sum up, I reiterate that the Government are dedicated to exploring ways that nature-based solutions to flooded farmland can be delivered for the benefit of farmers and others. We have already taken decisive action with the first steps to reviewing the outdated funding formula, the creation of the new, multi-agency floods resilience taskforce, and the updating of flood options under the environmental land management schemes. I look forward to continuing to engage with farmers on these incredibly important matters. I am grateful for this important debate, and grateful to have heard the views of Members in the room.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Submarine Fleet

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK submarine fleet.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The UK submarine fleet has a long and distinguished record, always at the heart of this nation’s deterrence and defence policy. It began in 1900 when the Royal Navy ordered its first five submarines—the Holland class. In 1901, six officers were recruited for the submarine service under the leadership of Reginald Bacon, the inspecting captain of submarines.

Since the early days of the submarine service, Scotland has been at its heart. In 1909, Dundee became home to the 7th Submarine Flotilla. By 1914, the submarine service consisted of 168 officers, 1,250 ratings and 62 submarines, and the fleet was moved to Rosyth in my constituency. Without offending any hon. Members from the great city of Dundee, Rosyth was obviously a much better choice, and it retains a strong role in the submarine story to this day.

The role of the submarine service in world war one should never be forgotten, with five of the 14 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Royal Navy during the conflict being awarded to submariners. Although the focus of naval warfare in world war two is often thought to be the battle of Atlantic, I was fascinated to learn from the excellent podcast “We Have Ways of Making You Talk” with Al Murray and James Holland of the vital role of British submarines in the Mediterranean. For example, HMS Upholder sank around 119,000 tons of enemy shipping. It was commanded for its entire life by Lieutenant Commander Malcolm Wanklyn, one of the most successful submarine commanders of the conflict, who received the Victoria Cross for attacking a well-defended convoy in May 1941.

The cold war saw the submarine fleet play a key part in deterrence and intelligence-gathering capability. HMS Swiftsure, a ship I will come back to later, became famous for her mission to acquire the acoustic signature of the Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev, with her periscope raised just 10 feet underneath the carrier’s hull. In the Falklands, HMS Conqueror became the first and, to this day, only British nuclear-powered submarine to engage an enemy ship with torpedoes. After the attacks on the US on 11 September, HMS Trafalgar and HMS Triumph played a vital role in hitting al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. Throughout, submarines have had extensive capability and roles assisting UK special forces in their vital missions.

Today, the Royal Navy operates a fleet of nine submarines, with a little over 1,100 submariners. Four are ballistic missile submarines of the Vanguard class that comprise the UK’s submarine-based independent nuclear deterrent, along with five nuclear-powered Astute class with the capability of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at land-based targets and Spearfish torpedoes at maritime targets. The submarine fleet is spread across the UK. Faslane in Scotland is now the home base for the fleet; Devonport undertakes major refit, maintenance and decommissioning; and Barrow-in-Furness is the manufacturing location of both Astute and the next Dreadnought class of submarines.

At Rosyth, Babcock is undertaking work on the submarine dismantling programme—more on that later, as well—and is also a manufacturer of missile tubes for the Royal Navy and the US navy. QinetiQ, also in my constituency, houses world-class scientists, engineers and technicians, who support our men and women on the frontline by ensuring that Royal Navy ships and submarines remain at the cutting age of technology.

As I have outlined, the role of submarines in history has been varied. Indeed, the flexibility of the fleet is one of its strengths. The role of submarines is necessarily secret, but it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is both critical and increasing. In 2022, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said:

“There’s been a phenomenal increase in Russian submarine and underwater activity over the last 20 years.”

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He talks about the increase in Russian and foreign-state activity in the waters. The role of the Royal Navy and submarine fleet in protecting us from that is vast. I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence last week that the joint expeditionary force will now monitor Russia’s shadow fleet in the Baltic. I hope that work extends to the north Atlantic, where there is a massive gap. Our frontline lies in our backyard, just beyond my constituency and my hon. Friend’s.

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In doing research for this debate, I was fascinated to learn about the maritime range that exists off the west coast of Scotland, which is very close to his constituency. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that our forces are defending our entire coastline, and places such as his constituency are vital to that, as are the whole of the west and north coasts of Scotland.

More recently, we have been aware of the ongoing undersea threat from Russia, most recently in the sabotaging of undersea cables in the Baltic sea. Submarines will clearly play a vital role in combating those efforts by our opponents. That is not to mention the critical role of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent and maintaining the capability of the submarine force to support both maritime forces and those on land.

With that in mind, I turn to some of the issues faced by our submarine fleet and submariners, and the actions needed to ensure that they remain at the forefront of our armed forces now and in the future, while continuing to make a vital contribution to our economy and skills development.

I have relatives who have served in the Royal Navy, and I know from speaking to them how difficult the life of a submariner can be. Like other parts of the armed forces, the Royal Navy and the submarine service have struggled with both recruitment and retention. The basic salary for a submariner is £25,000, although it can rise to more than £37,000 with bonuses. None the less, the First Sea Lord has warned:

“We are effectively in a war for talent in this country”.

He also said that

“the submarine service…go through significant periods of real social isolation from the people they love…we must ensure the pressures that are inevitably felt by them are mitigated or eased or supported as best we can.”

Will the Minister say what is being done to support submariners and their families, and what more can be done, to ensure that we have an adequate force for the future?

I turn to future capabilities and the question of whether the submarine service has the right equipment to carry out its role. In its excellent January 2024 report “Ready for War”, the Defence Committee included evidence from Dr Rowan Allport of the Human Security Centre, who expressed this concern:

“Even once all seven Astutes are in service, it is questionable whether the force will be able to sustain their current tasks and the additional deployments to Australia and wider region from 2026 onwards.”

What assessment has the Minister made of that? Does she believe that the Astute fleet is able to carry out the role we intend it to have?

The independent deterrent is a vital service for the security of our country, and we must ensure that it is effective now and in the future. The last Conservative Government left a total deficit of £16.9 billion in the equipment plan for 2023 to 2033, of which the defence nuclear enterprise makes up nearly half, at £7.9 billion. In its report on the Ministry of Defence for the new Parliament, published in October last year, the National Audit Office found key risks in the defence nuclear enterprise relating to costs, skills, commercial relationships and delivery to schedule, and it said that those need to be

“carefully managed as DNE activity and spending increase.”

What steps is the Minister taking in the light of the NAO’s findings to ensure that the DNE is delivering effectively and efficiently?

Finally, as the Minister might have predicted—I have raised this in the House many times—I will talk about what progress the MOD is making on submarines that have been retired from service. Since 2023, the Babcock team at Rosyth in my constituency has been undertaking a demonstrator project to dismantle HMS Swiftsure—the ship I mentioned earlier that played such a vital role in the cold war—in a safe and secure way that protects the environment. That will lead to 90% of HMS Swiftsure being reused or recycled and the remainder being safely disposed of. That kind of work is not being done anywhere else in the world, and it currently employs more than 200 people in my constituency.

There are a total of 23 retired submarines—including HMS Swiftsure—currently being stored between Rosyth and Devonport that could be dismantled in a similar way. Given the knowledge and experience needed, along with the highly skilled nature of the roles, there is an opportunity to use the demonstrator project to establish Rosyth as a centre of excellence for submarine dismantling. From answers to written questions, we know two things regarding those 23 submarines: it costs £8.8 million a year to maintain the submarines at Rosyth and Devonport in their current condition, and the whole-life cost of the submarine dismantling project is £298 million.

I have two specific questions for the Minister about those figures. Can she assure me that the cost of almost £9 million a year to maintain those submarines where they are is not slowly reducing the £298 million budget? Will she work with me, Babcock, Fife council, Fife college and other local partners to help to turn Rosyth into the worldwide centre of excellence for submarine dismantling? When will she be in a position to announce the next stages of the submarine dismantling project? That announcement could be vital for the ongoing success of the defence industry in my constituency and its ability to drive local economic growth and provide secure, well-paying jobs for local people.

In closing, I put on record my thanks to the members of the submarine service, the Royal Navy and all our armed forces for the work they do every day to keep us safe. We are living in an increasingly volatile and unstable world and, sadly, it feels like our armed forces will be required to play an increased role in deterring our opponents and supporting our allies around the world in coming years. This House must be united in supporting our armed forces now and in the years to come.

16:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time this afternoon, Dr Murrison. There are slightly fewer people at this debate than the last one, but it is equally important. I commend the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for his contribution. He is making a habit of picking subjects that all of us are interested in. I am particularly interested in this one.

Our submarine fleet is of major importance to the Royal Navy. It massively supports our defence role and is critically important for the future. Other countries are building up their fleets of ships, boats and submarines, and, in the interest of our national security, we in the United Kingdom should make sure that we match the demands set by others. It is a pleasure to discuss how we can further protect our security.

The cost of submarines in today’s age could be prohibitive to us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland doing that as one country, but we could do it with other countries in NATO or with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and that alliance across Asia, which is important to have in place because China is incredibly ambitious. Dr Murrison, as your contributions in the Chamber confirm, you know better than most that China is a country with imperial ambitions and a lust for all the things in the world. It is almost like a sponge—whatever it can get, it wants, and it is trying to make that happen across the world.

Back home in Northern Ireland, we do not have our own dedicated submarine fleet, but we do have many people who serve in the UK fleet. We play a fantastic and important role in supporting the central UK fleet in its wider logistical, training and operational functions. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister in her place; I look forward to her response. We will hear shortly from the shadow Minister, who will bring to this debate knowledge from his former role.

Belfast, in particular, has a long history of shipbuilding and of supporting the Royal Navy. In my constituency of Strangford—I am going back a few years to when I was a wee boy in the ’60s and ’70s in Ballywalter, where we moved in 1959—the tradition was not necessarily the Army, but the Royal Navy. I remember that when I was a young boy, almost everybody who left Ballywalter to go into service went to the Royal Navy. That has changed greatly—fortunately or unfortunately, depending how one looks at it. Today, the tradition is the Army and, to a lesser degree, the Royal Air Force. Very rarely do we have anybody who joins the Royal Navy.

I found an exception when I went to one of my constituents’ houses on a Sunday two weeks ago. There was a wake on—we in Northern Ireland have a tradition of going to wakes when someone we know very well has passed away. The young fellow in the house was 19 years old and going into Royal Navy officer training at Dartmouth. He renewed my interest in this subject. He is a really special young boy from the village of Ballywalter who is going to be an officer in the Royal Navy. He has committed his life to service.

The Harland and Wolff shipyard can also play an important part. Lots of things have happened in the last few days in relation to Harland and Wolff; hopefully Navantia, which will take over the shipyard, will promote shipbuilding and submarine work. The shipyard was formerly key to the construction of naval vessels, and in the present day it is an important hub for maritime-related activities, alongside Belfast port.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar is rightly a keen supporter of the submarine dismantling programme, given the benefits it could bring to his constituents. I would expect any MP to do that for their constituents, and he does it well. The Minister has made it clear that, despite the fact that we have had nuclear submarines since the ’80s, we have never dismantled one. If she does not mind my saying so, if we are going to look at this matter constructively and seriously, we in Northern Ireland wish to play a part in that work, and I believe that we could. I am not suggesting that we should take the work away from the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar; I am just saying that there is a way of bringing us all together, and I think it is important that we do that.

The UK submarine programme faces some challenges with funding, construction delays and technological advancements. Our nuclear-powered submarine fleet is heavily dependent on nuclear propulsion technology, which requires high levels of maintenance and safety oversight. It is important that we are up to speed on that, but it is also important that we look forward to the future. Our defence mechanisms are extremely important, and in continuing to modernise our fleet, we will ensure that we have one of the most capable submarine forces across the world. That is the ambition of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, and it is a good one to have. It is an ambition that this Government should have, and it is one that I fully support.

In conclusion, there are ways and means by which every nation in this United Kingdom can play its part in the advancement of our submarine fleet. I look to the Minister for reassurance that that will be taken into consideration in discussions of our fleet, and I look forward to hearing further updates on the dismantlement programme.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Opposition spokesman at 5.8 pm. There are several Members seeking to catch my eye, so brevity is a virtue.

16:46

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate on what is without doubt one of the most—if not the most—critical elements of our nation’s defence. After all, our submarines carry our ballistic nuclear weapons, which are our continual at-sea deterrent.

I have a long-standing passionate interest in the submarine fleet, as they are built by my friends and family in my hometown of Barrow-in-Furness, albeit that is not my constituency. It is true that I could well have entered into a career in building them myself had I not decided to join the British Army instead in 1988. I wish to publicly commend the continued outstanding work of all the personnel within BAE Systems in Barrow in building what are quite possibly the most technically advanced submarines in service. Additionally, I commend our submariners who do a job that I never could—for extended periods, they keep us all safe from those who wish to cause us harm. I am also fully supportive of retaining our nuclear deterrent, as well as the replacement Dreadnought programme.

Looking at the current UK submarine fleet, I have some concerns on a number of issues, but I am aware that it would not be appropriate to raise them all, given the classified nature of operations. As I mentioned, I commend our submariners serving the Royal Navy in an exemplary manner, and I hope that the current recruitment and retention issues being experienced within the service can be addressed quickly. The time that those individuals spend continually at sea is certainly an issue that requires some focus, which I hope it is receiving. The substandard defence accommodation for our serving submariners and their families is also clearly an ongoing issue. The Secretary of State is dealing with that as a priority, and I would appreciate updates as to the progress that has been made.

The UK’s next-generation attack submarine, AUKUS, in collaboration with Australia and the United States, is a huge opportunity for not just the shipyard in Barrow but the entire nation. It is pleasing to see that global collaboration with two of our strongest allies, but it also provides a long-term strategic path, along with the Dreadnought programme, for the submarine service to grow from strength to strength and for the United Kingdom to continue to be a leading power in the sector.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to grow the skills necessary to build the service and maintain our submarine fleet? Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby is doubling the size of its site in preparation for AUKUS, and it has its own nuclear skills academy with 200 apprentices every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that investing in apprenticeships is essential to providing the skills that we need?

[Mr Foster]

I wholeheartedly agree. One of the challenges that we have faced in Barrow over a number of years is losing all the trades and the young people, because previous Governments did not invest in the submarine fleet. Barrow is a small town, but my hon. Friend is right that this is a massive opportunity not only for Derby and Barrow, but for the entire country. I am sure that no one present would disagree that the British Astute-class attack submarine is quite possibly the best there is globally.

I did say that I would be brief, so I will finish soon, but one area that requires much attention—I am aware that the Government are looking at it closely—is submarine decommissioning and dismantling. My understanding is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned, 23 submarines await dismantlement at the Rosyth or Devonport dockyards, with no final solution yet agreed. Furthermore, four Vanguard-class submarines will leave service in the 2030s. I trust that the ongoing strategic defence review is looking closely at the issue.

To conclude, the UK submarine fleet delivers the cornerstone of our nation’s defence. Our Royal Navy submarine service should be commended for the unwavering, continued and extremely challenging service that it provides to this country.

16:50

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. In his time in the House, he has been a real champion for our submarine fleet. It is an incredibly important subject, and I thank him for his work on it. I am pleased to support him in the debate today.

Some time ago, Admiral Lord West warned that the underfunding of our forces over a number of years has caused them to be “hollowed out”. General Lord Houghton made a similar comment to the Defence Committee in 2023, when he also referred to the “hollowing out” of our armed forces. That has been recognised, but I will also refer to the hollowing out of some of the industrial supply chains on which our armed forces and submarine fleet depend.

We approach the replacement of Vanguard with Dreadnought and, eventually, of Astute—we hope through the AUKUS programme—with a new SSN-AUKUS submarine, for which much of the work will be done in the UK. The design work has already been started by BAE Systems and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), by Rolls-Royce. This will be a colossal feat of British engineering.

As well as the design work, manufacturing and construction, however, we need to think about the supply chain. Filling the critical supply-chain gaps will be required to ensure that the economic benefit of our new submarine design is achieved. Steve Timms, managing director of BAE Systems Submarines, described this as “a once-in-a-generation opportunity” to boost education, infrastructure and technology. In his words:

“It will sustain thousands of jobs and generate billions of pounds of investment into the middle of the next decade, benefiting every region of the UK.”

We have heard about some of that today.

I will highlight one specific example of how our defence industrial strategy, which we anticipate in the spring, and our industrial strategy must come together to support that: the hull. That is the part of the submarine that keeps our submariners safe, and it is manufactured from steel plate. Currently, that steel plate will be made of slab steel in Scunthorpe, rolled at the Dalzell rolling mill in Motherwell and possibly sent to Clydebridge as well.

Those facilities have suffered some issues in recent years, such as the ongoing issue with the Jingye steel plant in Scunthorpe and whether it will continue, and that of the Liberty steelworks in Scotland. Securing those capabilities is important, because although the chemistry of the steel is available, the properties that keep the submariners safe—the strength, the toughness and the ballistic performance of the steel—is all down to the processing of the steel, including the heating and cooling, the chemistry and so on. That is down to the expertise of our steelworkers.

Today, I thank not only our submariners and the communities that support them, but our steelworkers, whose expertise keeps the submariners safe and, as a result, keeps our country safe. As we consider our defence and industrial capabilities, my call is to broaden the scope of our thinking to understand that our sovereign capability runs beyond our immediate defence needs. We must build the capacity, the economy of scale and the skills in our industrial base so that we continue to be a nation that proudly has not only a submarine deterrent, but the skills and capabilities to build and grow that over time.

16:54

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this debate and allowing the House to consider the UK submarine fleet. It also allows me to recognise the importance of the submarine fleet to the UK’s defence in the uncertain global circumstances that we face, and the fact that the Royal Navy’s entire submarine fleet is based at His Majesty’s naval base commonly referred to as Faslane.

Although Faslane is just beyond the boundary of my West Dunbartonshire constituency, it is a major source of employment to my constituents. HMNB Clyde is one of Scotland’s largest employers, employing over 6,000 military and civilian personnel directly. Indirectly, some estimates suggest that it supports over 10,000 jobs. It is therefore impossible to overestimate the importance of Faslane to the economy of my constituency, or its strategic importance to the UK submarine fleet.

The fleet currently has nine submarines, with a further two Astute-class attack submarines due to enter service by the end of 2026. Those nine are a combination of five conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarines and four ballistic missile submarines of the Vanguard class. In 2009, the previous Labour Government took the welcome decision to base the entire submarine fleet at HMNB Clyde, designating Faslane as their home and developing it as a submarine centre of excellence. I encourage this Government to recommit to investing the funding required to accommodate the evolving submarine fleet as the UK prepares for the Dreadnought class to enter service in the early 2030s. That would continue to safeguard our nation’s defences and secure the future of the Faslane base and thousands of jobs for my constituents for a generation.

It was my great privilege and honour to visit Faslane in November with the Scottish Affairs Committee. Our visit included the unforgettable experience of having tea inside an Astute-class submarine with the captain and crew members. We discussed the obvious challenges and concerns about manpower and the potential future skills shortages in the submarine service, which I encourage the Government to focus on. However, my lasting memory will be of the conditions and how confined it is inside a submarine, with six men to a tiny cabin who are often out at sea for anything up to six months, completely detached from family and loved ones. We ask so much of our vital service personnel and they sacrifice so much to keep us all safe. I thank them for everything they do to keep our country safe in these challenging and worrying times.

In conclusion, I commend the Government for their commitment to maintaining the UK’s deterrent beyond 2030, which recognises the benefit to employment and the economy of not only Faslane, but BAE Systems in Glasgow and Rolls-Royce. They are our main industrial partners in the submarine project, supporting tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs in West Dunbartonshire, Scotland and across the UK. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar again on securing this debate.

16:57

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate.

Our national defence is made possible by the dedication of our people and the strength of our bases across the country, working together to keep the UK secure and our residents safe. The UK’s submarine fleet is a cornerstone of that strategy, ensuring national security. Historically, it has played a critical role in defending our nation. In these uncertain times, its importance cannot be overstated. I pay tribute to those brave serving personnel, veterans and their families across our armed forces whose sacrifices make our security possible. Their dedication deserves our utmost ongoing support and respect.

My constituency of South East Cornwall plays a crucial role in our nation’s defence. We have a proud military history, with active veterans associations across the area, including in towns such as Saltash, Liskeard and Looe. Torpoint, a wonderful town in my constituency, is home to HMS Raleigh. It has the third highest number of veterans of any community in the country, with over 14% of people having served. HMS Raleigh, as the largest Royal Navy training base in the south-west, equips recruits with the skills and knowledge needed to thrive throughout their careers in the Royal Navy.

Beyond Torpoint, many constituents work across the River Tamar in Plymouth at HMNB Devonport, which is the largest naval base in western Europe. For over 300 years, it has provided vital support for the Royal Navy and continues to play a critical role today. When the Minister gets to her feet, I would welcome her support and recognition of the importance of HMNB Devonport, and of the hard-working and skilled people who make its operations possible.

The armed forces are not only crucial for our national defence, but an essential link to local communities such as those in my area, providing high-quality jobs and a sense of community. The close social and economic ties between South East Cornwall and Plymouth mean that the success and sustainability of HMNB Devonport have a profound impact on the people I represent. I look forward to working with the Minister on this important topic and to hearing more details about the support for those whose contributions are invaluable to our national defence.

17:00

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for ensuring that this important debate takes place. I especially wanted to put on the record my support for the Government’s nuclear triple lock, which demonstrates our commitment to the strategic nuclear deterrent and the industries that support it. It is really important that countries that might threaten us understand the strong support there is in Parliament for the strategic nuclear deterrent and the role it plays in protecting our country.

The nuclear triple lock commits us to the construction of the four new Dreadnought submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, which supports a huge number of high-quality, high-status apprenticeships and jobs—42,000 in, I believe, 2,500 suppliers across the UK directly and indirectly. The supply chain benefits are felt in every corner of the country. Dreadnought will enable Britain to maintain the continuous at-sea deterrent 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, securing protection for the UK and for our NATO allies, and ensuring that countries that might strategically threaten us understand that, ultimately, we have the protection of the nuclear deterrent. The triple lock also commits us to the delivery of all future upgrades needed for the submarines to patrol the waters and keep our country safe.

The submarine fleet as a whole is a fundamental part of UK defence both militarily and industrially, and is about the integration between those two parts. We have to keep the line of production going in Barrow to produce successive generations of submarines to carry the nuclear deterrent, and in the interim there is the much-needed attack submarines—each generation of SSNs—that we produce in the same facility. The two are dovetailed together, which means that the UK stays at the leading edge of submarine design and manufacturing. I reiterate that this provides extremely high-quality and highly skilled jobs and ensures the economic viability of a corner of the country that would otherwise be economically isolated, quite apart from jobs that extend into other parts of the country, such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson).

I welcome the commitment to AUKUS and the opportunities it will bring. AUKUS will create new contract opportunities for hundreds of small and medium-sized firms and 7,000 new jobs in UK shipyards and across the UK supply chain, as well as reinforce our international partnerships with two extremely important allies. I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar. The debate has been a really important opportunity for a range of Members to reiterate their support for the UK’s submarine fleet.

17:03

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I am disappointed that we did not somehow co-ordinate so that today the music that so often blares out on a Wednesday afternoon was “Yellow Submarine”. That song tells of the adventures of a submariner and reminds us to thank all those who serve as submariners in such confined conditions. It is so important that we recognise them, because the UK submarine fleet is critical to national security, economic development and defence of the rules-based international order.

As we have heard, the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet comprises nine vessels: five Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. The fleet plays a central role in the UK’s defence strategy, providing a continuous at-sea deterrent and contributing to global security through intelligence, surveillance and undersea warfare capabilities, but the submarine fleet faces significant challenges. Issues such as manpower shortages, delays in maintenance and ageing infrastructure risk undermining the fleet’s operational readiness, and extended maintenance periods have raised concern about the Royal Navy’s ability to meet its current commitments as well as new obligations, such as deployments to Australia under the AUKUS agreement.

The UK submarine industry is critical not only for national defence but as a significant driver of economic growth and skills development. His Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, known as Faslane and home to the UK’s entire submarine fleet, has received over £1.8 billion in infrastructure investments since 2015, supporting over 6,000 military and civilian jobs, and making it one of Scotland’s largest employers. In addition, the construction of next-generation Dreadnought-class sub-surface ballistic nuclear submarines and the AUKUS submarine programme is projected to create more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including, as has been mentioned, 17,000 new roles at Rolls-Royce in Derby. These projects foster expertise in engineering, nuclear propulsion and advanced manufacturing, ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global submarine technology. It is essential that we continue to invest in training and apprenticeships to attract young people to this critical sector. Our young people need to develop the skills necessary to carry out these critical projects.

Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a cornerstone of our national security policy. For over 50 years, the continuous at-sea deterrent has been an unbroken line of defence against nuclear threats. Although I believe that the end goal should be multilateral disarmament, the reality is that the global security environment, which includes threats from state and non-state actors, makes it imperative to retain a robust deterrent.

The AUKUS trilateral security agreement with Australia and the United States marks a significant step forward in international defence co-operation. As part of this partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design.

[Luke Akehurst]

Can the hon. Lady confirm something for me? Her remarks suggest that the Liberal Democrats now support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, but I remember a review when Nick Clegg was the leader of the Liberal Democrats that suggested scrapping the continuous at-sea deterrent and using coastal-launched cruise missiles, or aircraft operating from aircraft carriers, which I thought was most dangerous. I would be very reassured if it is now the case that the Liberal Democrats support the continuous at-sea deterrent.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to clarify that we do indeed support the at-sea deterrent, as was confirmed by a motion at conference recently; I cannot remember which conference it was, but it was a few conferences ago.

As I was saying, as part of the AUKUS partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design. This not only strengthens our shared security interests in the Indo-Pacific but reaffirms the UK’s role as a leading global defence partner. We must ensure that we continue to show our strong support for the AUKUS programme, particularly given potential policy shifts in the United States. Reports suggest that the Trump Administration might renegotiate the AUKUS agreement or deprioritise the commitments that are part of it.

In addition to their role in deterrence and warfare, submarines are critical for safeguarding undersea infrastructure, including the data cables that underpin global communications and commerce. The rise of seabed warfare, particularly by hostile states such as Russia and China, poses a serious threat to these assets, and a robust submarine fleet is essential to protect the UK’s interests in this domain.

Finally, we must tackle the long-standing issues in defence procurement. Delays and cost overruns in major programmes have hindered progress in building and maintaining our submarine fleet. A comprehensive industrial strategy is needed to provide a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement. Such a strategy would not only ensure the readiness of the Royal Navy but support the growth of the UK’s defence industry.

The UK submarine fleet is a vital component of our national security, our economy and our international partnerships. Although challenges remain, the benefits of continued investment in the sector are evident, and I urge the Government to prioritise the manpower, infrastructure and procurement reforms necessary to ensure that this critical capability is preserved and indeed enhanced for generations to come.

17:08

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is very appropriate that we do so for this debate, given that you are both a former ministerial colleague in the Ministry of Defence and a former surgeon commander in the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate; it is important and timely, as well as incredibly interesting. Having been the Minister responsible for the nuclear portfolio and the chair of the Defence Nuclear Board, which is a great privilege in the Ministry of Defence, I know that one of the issues with the nuclear enterprise is that there are very few opportunities to talk about it publicly. I see this debate as an opportunity to join others—the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) put it very well—in thanking all those who serve on our submarines, particularly those who have maintained our continuous at-sea deterrent 24/7 since 1969. Theirs is an incredible achievement.

It is also an opportunity to thank all those involved in the whole defence nuclear enterprise, from the First Sea Lord, down to the apprentices who work in maintenance in Devonport and manufacturing in Barrow, along with contractors in Faslane and elsewhere. It is a huge national endeavour, which I am pleased all parties here now support.

As I said in the previous debate on missile defence, led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), there is a key point about the deterrent. In the strategic defence review, we must never underestimate the role of the nuclear deterrent. I do not think anyone here does, but there is perhaps a tendency to take it for granted and therefore talk about all the other incredibly important areas, such as missile defence, the Army, the Navy and so on. To me, nuclear is the most important part of our defence, because no matter what missile defence we have, that is not the reason the Russians will not launch at us. The reason is our ability to retaliate. That is the fundamental fact of our defence. I hope it never comes to it, but it is an extraordinary weapon which we must maintain, especially with the threats that we face today, so it is brilliant to hear so many colleagues showing their support for the nuclear enterprise.

Of course, it does have its challenges. Colleagues have mentioned people and personnel, but I think it is not just about those who serve in the Navy. When I was a Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who was the civil nuclear Minister, and I set up the nuclear skills task force to really inculcate growth in skills in the whole supply chain, whether at AWE or Rolls-Royce, the manufacturer of the nuclear turbines.

There is also the issue of infrastructure. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made a very good point: £1.8 billion has been invested in Faslane since 2015, so there has been significant investment in infrastructure, but when it comes to the nuclear enterprise, the need to invest in infrastructure is huge. It has been a significant factor in some of the issues we have experienced in terms of maintenance and so on. It is vital that the Government bring forward their promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. The Minister and I both agree on that; we both had it in our manifestos. The Daily Mail splashed that the target will not be reached well into the 2030s. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks about that speculation. I hope she will refute it 100%, and if not, perhaps she will tell us when we will reach 2.5% or when exactly we will be told the timeline for that.

Finally, on the point of the economic benefit, of course the nuclear deterrent is expensive, but as a percentage of Government spending it is tiny given the ultimate insurance it provides, and it brings a huge economic return. Some have spoken about the importance of AUKUS in terms of jobs and investment. It is going to be one of our biggest ever defence exports. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned Rosyth, which I believe is in his constituency, and the manufacture there by Babcock of the missile tubes. I had the privilege to visit that manufacturing operation. It is one of the best UK examples of extraordinarily skilful manufacturing. The ability to manufacture nuclear submarines, with all their technology, is quite extraordinary and we should be very proud of it. Militarily and economically, it is vital to our country. It is good to see that we are maintaining a consensus today in support of the nuclear enterprise and our submarine fleet.

17:13

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

I echo the many comments that you have already heard about what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I hope we are providing one of the most interesting of the debates that you have chaired, although having not heard the others, I cannot really have a view on it.

The Government is 100% committed to the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, which keeps both the UK and our NATO allies safe from the most extreme threats. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) made a big point of setting out in his speech, we were elected with a commitment to deliver our triple lock guarantee of maintaining our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, constructing four new Dreadnought-class submarines at Barrow-in-Furness, and delivering all future upgrades needed for that programme. I am glad to hear the widespread consensus between all parties represented this Chamber today on that being the right way to go.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), whose ears must be ringing at the moment with the gratitude from those around him for initiating the debate, which, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, is timely and important.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar for his ongoing interest in our submarine fleet and the disposal of decommissioned submarines—I am not surprised by that, given his constituency interests, but it still good to hear that he is so passionate about it. I am also grateful to those of his constituents who are among the skilled workers involved in that work at the Rosyth royal dockyard. I would like to echo comments by Members here today who have thanked both our submariners and our industrial workers, who contribute across the nations to this tremendously important enterprise. I am grateful to all of them, whether they serve on board a submarine, serve in our armed forces, or help to build or maintain the submarines, and for all the support work that goes into them.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), who talked about Faslane, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) who talked about Devonport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Derby North.

[Maria Eagle]

I knew I would get it wrong. My hon. Friend also mentioned the efforts of her constituents in contributing to this national endeavour.

The backlog of 23 decommissioned submarines that have yet to be dismantled and recycled, which has built up over many years—seven are stored in Rosyth and 16 in Devonport—is a longstanding and ongoing issue that needs to be resolved. The previous Government set out on a path to resolve it, and we intend to continue and make sure that that work is done.

While hon. Members should be in no doubt that our submarine capabilities are the envy of the vast majority of countries in the world, the disposal backlog is one of the challenges across the portfolio of the Submarine Delivery Agency that it identified in its most recent annual report, resulting from historic underinvestment in capability and infrastructure over many years. As a Government, we are committed to defueling, dismantling and disposal of those submarines, and to meeting our responsibilities at every stage of the life-cycle of our fleet. Defueling and disposal are complex tasks, and Ministers, our Submarine Delivery Agency, and our entire defence nuclear enterprise take their responsibilities extremely seriously.

HMS Swiftsure was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, and workers at Rosyth yard, as he knows very well, are in the process of entirely dismantling it, which is on track to be completed by the end of 2026. That will make HMS Swiftsure the first decommissioned Royal Navy nuclear submarine to be fully dismantled, with around 90% of its structure and components being reused or recycled. This is a demonstrator programme, designed to identify methods of dealing with the backlog of decommissioned submarines swiftly and safely—and, I might say, “surely”, given the name of the submarine, but that is a very corny joke. We intend to do that in a way that provides the best value for money for the taxpayer.

The responsible and innovative approach we are taking has a strong focus on sustainability. By extracting the reactor rather than storing the whole reactor compartment, we are recycling a greater proportion of each submarine and dramatically reducing the volume of radioactive material being placed in long-term storage. We are also ensuring that steel from decommissioned hulls will be able to be reused to support the manufacture of future UK-built submarines.

Workers at the Rosyth yard have also successfully and safely completed the initial stage of the dismantling process on four decommissioned submarines—which should give my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar some reassurance about future work that is going on. That will pave the way to accelerate the programme, having learned, from HMS Swiftsure, the best way of going about it, and should sustain high-skilled jobs in Rosyth as we deal with this legacy.

In parallel, we are evaluating our long-term options for future submarine disposal capability in the UK, using the lessons being learned from HMS Swiftsure, to enable us to dispose of future classes of submarine as they leave service, rather than having to park them at Devonport again and then wonder what to do with them thereafter. The submarine disposal capability project was established in 2022, as I am sure the hon. Member for South Suffolk and you, Dr Murrison, recall, to identify an enduring disposal capability for future submarines. The project is still in its concept phase, assessing all options for a future submarine disposal capability within the UK. An initial study has shown that there were various potential sites for disposal, including Rosyth. That work was investigative.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive response. I am very keen to see that we all realise the potential from the dismantling of the submarines, and I know the Minister is very keen on that, too. Is there any possibility that we in Northern Ireland could be part of that, perhaps through Harland & Wolff and others?

[Maria Eagle]

I am going to have to go back to my officials and interrogate them about what the possibilities are in Belfast. It is not a place where submarine work or nuclear work has previously been done. There will be criteria that any potential place would have to meet in order to do that, but I will certainly go back and challenge my officials about the extent to which Belfast—

[James Cartlidge]

The Minister makes an important point, because, as she knows, there is essentially a blockage in the infrastructure caused by having all these submarines awaiting dismantling. Will she confirm that she will be looking all over the country for potential places to add capacity? I am sure she agrees it could be immensely valuable economically to those areas that get involved.

[Maria Eagle]

I can, of course, confirm that. We are more than willing to look at any suggestions that any hon. Member might have.

I would like now to try to answer some of the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—it is his debate. He asked specifically about the well-being of submariners, and about what is being done and what more can be done to support them and their families. We are aware of the pressure put on submariners and their families during their long periods of absence. They are given extensive training prior to deployment to try and help to them prepare for life underwater and for life away from their families for such a long time. They have access while at sea to a weekly short message from their nominated loved one, which should help, although it is, of course, not quite like being in the same place at the same time.

When returning from deployment, submariners have access to the Royal Navy family and people support services, which can offer a range of specialist, tailored welfare services if they are needed. Recognising the impact on families, the Royal Navy has also worked to enhance support for families of those deployed, backed by service charities, so there is work there. We are conscious of the extra pressure that exists, and we take steps to try to make sure that there is support and help.

My hon. Friend also asked what assessment I can make of the Astute fleet, and whether it is able to carry out its intended role. The fleet is perfectly capable of carrying out all of the roles that are required of it. As my hon. Friend knows, there are two more Astutes that are not currently commissioned yet—HMS Agamemnon and Astute Boat 7. We will continue to build those, and we expect that the new class to replace Vanguard will also be fully built—certainly, the first boat is currently on target in terms of timing—so we are confident that the fleet can do what it is intended to do.

My hon. Friend also asked what steps have been taken in regards to the NAO findings to ensure that the defence nuclear enterprise is delivering effectively and efficiently. The organisations that make up the defence nuclear enterprise are working more closely than ever before, operating effectively as an integrated team to ensure the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent posture. We are harnessing expertise and experience of multidisciplinary teams to deliver this mission and are committed to sustainment and renewal of the nuclear capabilities for as long as is required. The NAO’s work is tremendously valuable to us. It shines a very positive light and focuses minds in the Department and the defence nuclear enterprise on making sure that we do the best we can to get value for money and deliver on time and to budget.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked me about the budgets. He discerned from a parliamentary question the £9 million per year cost of maintaining submarines that are awaiting disposal, and he asks whether that reduces the £298 million budget for the major project portfolio data, which he got from a parliamentary answer. Obviously we do not release particular spending profiles for individual programmes, but I can tell him that the latest whole-life cost for the submarine dismantling project is £298 million, and that figure includes costs associated with dismantling work in Rosyth and maintenance costs for decommissioned submarines in Devonport.

My hon. Friend asks if I will work with Babcock, Fife council, Fife College and other local partners to help to turn Rosyth into a world-leading centre for submarine dismantling. He wants a quick announcement on the next stage of the programme. We are currently learning lessons from the dismantling of Swiftsure, which he already knows is on target to be completed by the end of next year. It will pave the way for future dismantling—my hon. Friend knows that there are already four submarines there and that the first stages of the process have already been undertaken for them. Once that work is done and we have finished with Swiftsure, we will look to accelerate the programme in Rosyth, drawing on the lessons we will have learned. That will sustain high-skilled jobs and support sustainability. My hon. Friend will see that we will have made more progress by then on the future of submarine disposal capability.

I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and his local council and other organisations—indeed, we already do. There is a partnership between the MOD, the Royal Navy, and local authorities and nearby universities and colleges called the Arrol Gibb Innovation Campus. Three projects that relate to Rosyth are currently earmarked there for funding. We are more than happy to try to assist in making sure that the local area and his constituents get best value for the money being spent in Rosyth. I hope that answers some of my hon. Friend’s questions.

17:28

[Graeme Downie]

I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).

It has been welcome to hear a consensus. We talked about the need to ensure that we are supporting our submariners and forces across the Royal Navy and elsewhere. We must continue to ensure that the independent nuclear deterrent is maintained properly, while always recognising the value it has to our local economy. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for your efforts today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK submarine fleet.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.