Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12 February 2025

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Fuel Poverty: England

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: e-petition 700074, Reverse changes to Winter Fuel Payment.]

09:30

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fuel poverty in England.

I am looking forward to speaking in this debate under your chairpersonship, Mr Efford. I am sure you will be fair but firm—fair with us and firm with the other side. We meet today to debate what I regard as a very serious issue. It is good to see so many people present, all well-brushed, shaved, toothbrushed and all the other things one does in the morning. I hope we all had a good breakfast. It is great to see everyone here.

This is a serious debate about a serious underlying problem, which affects millions of people, as we will hear. We meet today with the temperature forecast, at least in my patch in Yorkshire—God’s own country, as we call it—to reach minus 1° at the weekend, which will cause great problems for those people who are living in fuel poverty.

I want to share one thing with the House from my personal experience. I grew up in a property that was later condemned as a slum and demolished. I remember my brother and I living in that unheated house—there was no heating at all apart from one coal fire. In winter, it was perishing, and it has left me with an enduring feeling that people living in the conditions that I saw should be better supported by a society that claims to be the sixth wealthiest in the world. With that background, I want to speak briefly about fuel poverty in England.

Let me say another preparatory thing. The incoming Government—although they have now been in place for some time—faced the most difficult inheritance for dealing with fuel poverty, given all the other fiscal problems that we have heard much about. Last week’s announcement that they will address some fuel poverty issues was welcome, but I have one question about their proposals for private landlords.

Many tenants of private landlords live in fuel poverty, because the properties that are being rented are not properly thermally insulated. The Government have now said that private landlords must bring their properties up to standard, but the fear in some people’s minds is that the landlords will simply use that as an excuse to bump up rents further, because they have had to pay to make properties more efficient. But they chose to rent out properties knowing that they were not properly efficient. I understand when tenants say to me and others that that is not right.

When the Government made their decision on the winter fuel allowance, I received about 1,000 emails, and in many cases they were heartbreaking. It is not often the case that the voices of ordinary folk get heard in this place, so I want to refer briefly to three or four of those comments. I received an email from someone who has something called post-polio syndrome—they had polio as a child. A person with that syndrome finds it difficult to keep warm. I spoke to them and we said, “Look, it’s possible to go into one of the local community or church halls”—which every single village in my constituency now has—“in order to keep warm,” but the response was, “That’s fine, but I’ve got to keep the house warm in any event, because when I go back into a cold home, I have this problem with the syndrome.”

I had another communication from someone with asthma. He has managed to keep it under control for most of the years, but he caught the bug. It took him more than a month to shake it off, and he was struggling with his asthma. He could not get warm at all, in spite of wrapping himself in blankets. He tells me that the house he lives in has a roof that is more than 70 years old. He keeps on getting it patched up with the help of his family, because he has no money; he cannot afford a new one, and he cannot get help from anybody. The insurance company says that it is wear and tear, so it will not help to pay for the roof. All the heating he puts on is escaping straight into the atmosphere.

I also had a letter from a lady in Normanton. Her total income is £221 a week—she is a pensioner—and she pays £171 a week just for her mortgage and council tax, so she is left with only £50 a week to pay for heating, food and all the other necessities of life. How is that woman meant to survive in those circumstances?

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Jon Trickett]

I will briefly.

[Kim Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. Does he agree that it is shocking that nearly 80% of Liverpool Riverside residents have to spend nearly 10% of their disposable income on keeping their homes warm, and that more targeted support is needed to enable local authorities to support those most in need in our constituencies?

[Jon Trickett]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and of course, what she is saying is correct. The lady who I was just talking about told me that living on £50 a week is practically impossible. I imagine that there are some people in this Chamber, modest as we all are, who spend more than £50 on a meal. Think about that woman in Normanton left with only that amount of money to live on. Her final comment was poignant. She speaks for the 1,000 people who wrote to me when she says:

“For many, retirement now means misery and trying to make ends meet. In the near future no doubt, I will have a choice like many before me—heat or eat. And I’ll just be another statistic. That is something no one would look forward to,”

having worked all their life. She speaks for millions of people.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will, but briefly. There are a lot of people who want to speak.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing those heartbreaking stories. A constituent of mine from Ilton wrote to me recently. She suffers with rheumatoid arthritis and needs a warm environment to keep warm, but because she is on personal independence payment, she is not eligible to claim the winter fuel allowance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must urgently reassess their exemptions for the winter fuel allowance, to ensure that those who are in medical need receive the financial support that they require?

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. Lady has made her point. The House probably knows my views on the winter fuel allowance, but I had better move on before I get myself into trouble.

One in four households in Fitzwilliam and Kinsley in my constituency, where miners once provided the heat for our country, are now living in fuel poverty as a result of changes over the past few years. There are two definitions of fuel poverty. The first is the Government’s rule, which was changed under the Tory Government in 2015. Under that definition, an estimated 3 million households in England alone are in fuel poverty, but it requires both that the household is in poverty and that the house is inadequately insulated.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I am not going to take any more interventions, because so many people want to speak.

So many people with houses that are thermally insulated, but who still remain in poverty, are excluded from that 3 million figure. A more accurate figure is one that only looks at whether a household is living in fuel poverty, and under that definition 8.9 million households in England alone are living in fuel poverty. If we say that there are two people in each household, we are talking about 17 million or 18 million people waking up in the morning in an unheated house, like I did living in the attic with my brother, with ice on the inside of the windows. That is unbearable to think about in one of the richest countries in the world.

Ill health is a direct consequence of inadequately heated houses. Whichever figure is used, between 10% and 20% of all excess winter deaths in England are caused by unheated or cold houses. That is a disgrace. One in four children living in a cold home suffer mental health problems, which does not surprise me when they are living in such conditions.

Let me turn quickly to the causes, which we could debate for a long time. It seems to me that there are two separate issues. One is the prices that energy companies charge, which are, frankly, driven by profits and greed, and the other is poor insultation. I will leave it to others to speak about the impact of uninsulated houses on the climate because I do not have time to say everything. On prices, it is a scandal that between 2022 and 2023 the price of energy increased by 27%, leaving almost a quarter of a million more households in fuel poverty.

The other day, when the Bank of England decided to cut interest rates by 0.25 percentage points, it commented that it expects inflation to increase because of rising energy prices. That is a disastrous position for so many people in our country, which will drive more into fuel poverty. I will quote Warm This Winter, the campaign group that represents 60 different charities. Its authoritative view on energy suppliers is that there is

“clearly an obscene level of profits being made”.

The whole energy industry needs to be looked at, from extraction through to providers. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition said:

“While consumers have suffered in cold damp homes this winter, energy firms’ boardrooms have been celebrating further bumper profits.”

I do not see how that is acceptable in a society that claims to be one of the richest in the world, but there we are.

Let me turn to the building stock itself. I am a builder by trade; I was a heating engineer and plumber and worked in the building industry. It is shocking, when there are still people with building skills out of work, that the building stock of our country is so poorly thermally insulated. Just over 40% of all residences—houses and flats—in Britain do not meet the Government’s minimum standards. The implications for the planet are clear, and others might want to talk about that.

The Government inherited a number of programmes trying to tackle fuel poverty. The previous Government had moved to providing smart meters. They are useful for consumers to see and control the amount of energy they are consuming, but they do not help to keep the house warm. That initiative by the Conservative Government distracted people from the real problem of low incomes and high energy costs, driven by profit-seeking.

There were three programmes in place. The energy company obligation required energy companies to begin to tackle the problem. That started well in 2020 with 113,000 houses, but by last year that number had gone down to 38,000. It collapsed when the energy companies, which were taking all that money from tenants and residents, failed to deliver. The second programme, the warm home discount, applies to only 11% of the population in England. Only 15% of all the houses that need attention have been fully insulated.

That is where we are today. I think it is a scandal. It is wrong morally, economically, financially—in any way we can imagine—that people who have worked all their lives and are now pensioners, who had a reasonable prospect of living a satisfactory life, are living in homes that are poorly heated. Children are living in poorly heated homes in which at least one adult is working on low pay—another problem is that bosses are increasingly paying low pay. Those houses ought not to be left in that condition. I hope the Minister will give us some confidence that we are going somewhere. It takes time for the Government to change direction, but we need to move fast.

Finally, let me pose three questions to the Minister, who I am pleased to see in her place. First, where are the Government going on fuel poverty—is it a high priority for them? Secondly, what is she going to do about the energy company obligation, which is failing? Finally, we often discuss the idea that the energy companies should have a social tariff for the lowest paid and those in the most difficulty. The country has decided that there should be a social tariff just for the internet—people living in difficult situations pay less for the internet—so it is extraordinary that we do not have one for energy production. I believe that there is a consultation on a social tariff ongoing, so will the Minister tell the House exactly where we are going on that?

There is much more to say, but quite a number of Members want to speak, so I will draw my comments to a conclusion.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if you want to speak; you will only get called if you are standing. That allows us to plan ahead and make sure we get everyone in. Because there are so many of you who want to speak, we will have an informal time limit of five minutes.

09:46

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important and timely debate. I thank all the constituents who have written to me, not just in the run-up to this debate but over months and months, to share their concerns about fuel poverty, and in particular the winter fuel payment, which I will discuss later.

This is an incredibly important issue in my North Herefordshire constituency, where 22.9% of households live in fuel poverty, according to the latest data from the Government’s low-income, low energy efficiency measure. That is far higher than the national average of 14.4%. As the measure indicates, fuel poverty is due to both low income and the lack of energy efficiency in the property—and, indeed, high fuel prices, as the hon. Member said. The number of detached houses in my constituency is nearly double the national average, and a far lower proportion of houses are on the mains energy supply. All those factors make fuel poverty a particular issue in a rural constituency like North Herefordshire. We also have a far higher proportion of over-65s— 50% more than the national average. All those contributory factors mean that fuel poverty is an incredibly real and presenting issue in my constituency.

In the emails constituents have sent me in recent days, weeks and months, they have talked about living with only one radiator on, and the fact that the lack of winter fuel allowance means they can no longer buy any coal in the winter—coal is the only source of heating for some of my constituents.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Like the hon. Lady, I represent a rural constituency in which the number of residents who use heating oil and gas is more than double the national average. Will she comment on how we can transition those residents to more sustainable and cheaper sources of fuel?

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member, and I do plan to comment on that topic.

A lady wrote to me saying that she now lives wrapped in blankets. Constituents have shared with me their particular needs relating to their health conditions and just how damaging it is not to be able to afford to keep warm.

The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth talked about the outrageous profits made by the energy companies, and I share his extreme frustration and distress at that situation. The Government could go even further to ensure that we do not see what is essentially price gouging. Constituents struggling in fuel poverty are the ones who are basically bearing the costs, and at the same time the big energy companies are making profits in the billions each year. It is absolutely extraordinary.

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

Far be it from me to intrude on the grief of elected Members in England and their constituents, but this is Westminster, which is currently responsible for energy laws across the UK. Although devolved Governments have a role to play in reducing fuel poverty, the biggest levers of change, as the hon. Member would surely agree, are in the remit of the UK Government. I am thinking of the coupling of electricity prices—when electricity is increasingly generated here, on this island—with the global gas market; the nonsensical decision to cut the winter fuel payment; and the ongoing failure of the Government to reduce fuel bills, which are going up for the third time since July.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and agree that we must see the decoupling of electricity prices from gas. That situation currently contributes to the problems that people face.

We have established that the problem of fuel poverty is related in part to prices, which the Government have levers to control, but also to Government policies. I would like to talk in particular about three areas: targeted support to households in fuel poverty; insulation policies and how we deal with the housing stock that we already have; and how we ensure that future housing is future-proofed so that nobody who moves into a new house has to pay through the nose for energy.

On targeted support, I have criticised in the House a number of times the Government’s nonsensical decision to completely cancel the winter fuel allowance for all except a small number of people. Very large numbers of people in my constituency have written to me and still do, expressing great distress at the impact of that decision on them. I cannot urge the Government too strongly to reconsider and ensure that next winter we do not have thousands of people in my constituency, and millions of people throughout the country, facing increased fuel poverty because of the Government’s decision to stop the winter fuel allowance for so many who still need it. We also need there to be targeted support—I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth about a social tariff—and help to repay for those in energy debt.

On the fundamental structural question of the quality of housing, the problem is essentially that our homes leak heat. People are paying money for energy that is going out the windows, up the chimney and out of the roof. It is a total waste. What will the Government do to tackle this? The previous Government destroyed the energy efficiency programmes. We need a nationwide, house-by-house, street-by-street home insulation programme to ensure that the energy that people buy stays in their homes. I really hope that the Minister will make concrete commitments to go further and faster to insulate homes.

Lastly, new homes must be built to the highest possible energy efficiency standards. If the cheapest time to insulate a home is at the point of construction, why are we not ensuring that all new homes are built to zero-carbon standards, to ensure that all the heat in a home stays in it?

09:54

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. All of us, from all parties, would agree that this topic matters enormously to our constituents.

In my Mansfield constituency, one in six households live in fuel poverty. That is almost 10,000 households, which is higher than the average for the east midlands and considerably higher than the national average. Although energy costs have fallen from the extraordinary highs that we saw in 2022, the price cap remains very high for my constituents. Families with children in my constituency are more than twice as likely to be in fuel stress compared with pensioner households, and lone-parent households are three times as likely to be. The Government must recognise that.

I am pleased that the new Government are currently reviewing the fuel poverty strategy for England to help everyone, whether they are pensioners, families or people living alone, to keep warm. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to help to reduce bills in the longer term, including through their warm homes plan, which will provide funding to enable property owners, including social landlords, to transition their housing stock to become decarbonised and more energy efficient.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Mansfield district council on all its work to retrofit existing properties. I hear from my constituents that that has made a huge difference to their fuel bills. I also congratulate the Labour-controlled Mansfield district council on building more eco-friendly, affordable family council homes in my constituency, such as those on the Bellamy Road development that I visited last week.

In the long term, Great British Energy will invest in clean power projects all across the country. Clean power is the cheapest form of electricity generation and will help our country to become energy independent and not as susceptible to huge swings in international energy prices. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth that in the medium term we should encourage energy suppliers to re-establish social tariffs. I say to the Minister that it is really important to have that in place for next winter. It would help everyone in my constituency who is experiencing fuel stress to access cheaper energy, and it would have a tangible impact for my constituents.

In the short term, I want to make the case for a substantial expansion of the cold weather payment scheme as an efficient way to address the current reality of energy cost pressures in Mansfield. It would offer a way for the Government to provide pensioners with further payments in the event of a serious chill, while at the same time offering something to families who are not often part of this conversation. Expanding the eligibility for households in receipt of a means-tested benefit, state pension, child benefit or disability benefits would help the poorest families and non-pensioner households to receive support. This would provide vital economic security for families in my constituency.

I know that the Government want to do more—I am sure of that. I look forward to hearing their response to the review in due course and hope that Ministers can implement it ahead of next winter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I have to impose a limit of four minutes if I am going to get everybody in by half past.

09:58

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. All of us have heard heart-wrenching stories from our constituencies of families struggling to heat their homes. Vulnerable pensioners are worried about staying warm in what has been a cold and damp winter. Nearly 5,000 households in my constituency, or 11.3%, are classified as being fuel-poor or in fuel poverty. They struggle to keep their homes warm, spend a high proportion of their household income on heating their homes, or live in energy-inefficient homes that make keeping warm incredibly difficult, with the choice of keeping warm or putting food on the table a real one.

It is worth noting that just 1,372 pensioners in my constituency—6% of the total number—are on pension credit. That raises further questions about those who did not apply for pension credit, even though they may deserve it, or who fall just outside the limit but are actually in fuel poverty. In a first-world, highly developed country, that is unacceptable; it is unacceptable that people in one of the richest nations of the world struggle to keep their homes warm in winter. Fuel poverty has impacts outside of energy policy: it affects people’s physical and mental health, and it adds demands to the NHS’s winter crisis.

We must tackle fuel poverty by looking for both long-term and immediate solutions. In the long term, we must retrofit houses to make them more energy-efficient, insulating homes and installing heat pumps. Immediately, however, we must provide vulnerable households such as those in Melksham and Devizes with more support to pay unaffordable energy bills, and we must restore the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners.

10:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this timely and important debate.

According to National Energy Action, one in 10 households in my constituency live in fuel poverty, with the worst affected likely to be low-income households, the unemployed and, of course, pensioners. There is no doubt that fuel poverty is inextricably linked to financial poverty. For example, 1.8 million carers struggle with their fuel bills, and the same people often have to use food banks or to cut back on food in order to pay for their gas and electricity. Many of those carers are themselves older; as we know, it is essential to keep warmer for longer when we get older, as we become less active and more sedentary and our blood circulation becomes poorer.

That is why the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance was wrong and needs to be reversed. Department for Work and Pensions figures show that 880,000 older people were eligible for pension credit but did not claim it. Since the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment, around 47,000 pensioners have come forward to make a claim, but that leaves over 800,000 older people without a winter fuel payment they previously would have received. Let us be under no illusions: these are among the very poorest pensioners in our society.

There is considerable evidence that when a benefit such as the winter fuel payment is specifically named for a purpose, recipients are more likely to use it for that reason—they put it aside to pay the next bill that comes in. It comes in the winter, because that is when the largest bills arrive; however, for this group of pensioners, the bill came but the winter fuel payment never showed up. Universal payments also reach the people who need them most; it is more efficient to make payments to everyone and then to use the taxation system to redistribute from wealthier pensioners who might not need the payment.

According to the Carers Trust, at least 180,000 unpaid carers over 65 will have been negatively impacted by the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. That group is also shut out of much of the other support available from Government. For example, eligibility for carer’s allowance does not qualify people for the warm home discount, which is based on a property’s type, age and floor area, not on someone’s actual bill. Likewise, an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance does not qualify individuals for cold weather payments.

The drive for a clean energy transition is an opportunity to tackle the problem by lowering bills and insulating our homes, but the energy market, with the role of private companies, is broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth mentioned the obscene levels of profit being made, and they need to be addressed. As a minimum first step, we need to introduce social tariffs for low-income households to guarantee lower bills for those who need them. We also need to consider making assistance with fuel bills available as a form of social prescribing. Health professionals who consider that it would have a recognisable health benefit could then enable patients to get cheaper fuel. Finally, we need to reverse the cruel decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. In one go, we reduced support for 10 million pensioners. That needs to end.

10:05

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. As one of the sole surviving Conservatives representing a West Yorkshire seat, I agree with him that Yorkshire is very much God’s own county. This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank many of the constituents who have kindly contacted me about fuel poverty.

There are specific challenges in the northern towns I represent. Not least, the housing stock is old, and most of it remains poorly insulated. There are also the increasing fuel prices that all households are experiencing. In the rural parts of my constituency, most of the houses are off-grid and therefore experience higher energy prices. In Keighley, 17.6% of residents are in fuel poverty, and many are pensioners who have been drastically impacted by this Labour Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel allowance. Across the Bradford district, 64,000 pensioners are being impacted right now, over this winter period, as a result of Labour’s choice—and it is a choice—to remove that allowance.

That is not the only challenge that people in the Bradford district face. The council requested a 15% increase in council tax, although the Deputy Prime Minister signed off a 10% increase. So, this financial year, all my constituents will have to pay an extra 10% on top of everything else. Labour Members may say that that is because of 14 years of Conservative Government, but only in 2021 the council declared that it was in sound financial health. It has also chosen to waste up to £50 million of taxpayers’ money on a music venue in the centre of Bradford, Bradford Live, which is not even open yet. That money could be spent on better supporting those in fuel poverty across the Bradford district.

I am not the only one calling the Government out: many people in Keighley are doing the same, including the co-ordinator of a social supermarket, the Good Food Shop, who says that the 10% increase in council tax could push more of those coming to his shop—families and individuals who are already struggling—well below the breadline and lead to a huge surge in demand for its services. People in Keighley are indicating that the council and the Government—both of which are controlled by the Labour party—should be helping those who are struggling, not wasting council tax money on city-based projects in the centre of Bradford that do not benefit my constituents in Keighley.

The Salvation Army in Keighley is saying exactly the same thing. Major Imogen Stewart has also raised concerns about those in fuel poverty, linking that to the 10% increase in council tax. She said:

“People are afraid to turn on their heating”,

due to the increased costs they face. Those costs are also due to the winter fuel allowance being removed, which has directly impacted those in fuel poverty. The Salvation Army indicates that people are now coming to it not to use its food bank but to ask for blankets, sleeping bags and clothes to keep them warm. It is experiencing increasing referrals, and it fears that that will only get worse as time goes on.

Labour Members were elected on a promise not to introduce tax rises for working people and to put their party back in the service of working people, but my constituents are not seeing that; they are seeing the exact opposite. It is about time that the Government change tack and put working people at the heart of their policies going forward.

10:09

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate on a pressing issue that has plagued our society for too long. It is a travesty that, in a nation as prosperous as ours, more than 3 million households are struggling to keep their homes warm and their lights on. If my hon. Friend is correct, that number is perhaps 8.9 million; however, it is at least 13.1% of households, and in parts of Northwich in my constituency, it can go as high as 20%. Those statistics not only show the scale of the problem, but highlight a reality that affects the health, wellbeing and dignity of too many people throughout our communities.

This crisis did not emerge overnight: over the last decade and a half, the action—or inaction—of the previous Government not only failed to address fuel poverty but made things worse. Nowhere is that failure more evident than in the Conservative’s disastrous record on home insulation and energy efficiency. In 2013, David Cameron's Government infamously decided to “cut the green crap”, leading to insulation rates falling off a cliff edge and never sufficiently recovering. That reckless decision has cost UK households an estimated £2.5 billion in higher energy bills since.

When that Government eventually acknowledged the crisis and promised to upgrade millions of homes, their attempts at intervention were nothing short of chaotic. The green homes grant scheme, launched with great fanfare in 2020, promised homeowners £1.5 billion in vouchers for insulation and energy-saving improvements. Yet, within months, the scheme collapsed in total failure—scrapped after just six months, having delivered insulation upgrades to just 10% of the homes it was supposed to help. Contractors were not paid, homeowners were left stranded and the Government wasted millions. Meanwhile, Britain’s housing stock remains among the least energy-efficient in Europe, with millions of homes leaking heat because of inadequate insulation. The impact of these failings has been stark, with higher energy bills, colder homes and increased fuel poverty.

It has been great to see this Government committed to reversing that damage and to bringing energy bills down sustainably for the long term by improving the energy efficiency of our homes through the warm homes plan. This will not only help to tackle fuel poverty, but reduce carbon emissions, create green jobs and help us to meet our climate targets. I recognise that a significant part of the scheme will be delivered by social landlords, which will avoid many of the issues encountered with the previous Government’s programme. However, the boiler upgrade scheme operates on a voucher basis, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what the Department has learned from the previous Government’s rushed implementation of the green homes grant, and how those issues will be avoided in our plan.

The contrast could not be clearer: while the Conservatives spent years failing to deliver on their promises, we are getting on with things. We are determined to ensure that no family is forced to live in a freezing home. Through our investment, regulation, and commitment to a fairer, greener future, we can tackle fuel poverty. We can bring down bills and deliver energy security for the long term.

10:12

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for leading the debate. Fuel poverty is huge and has no doubt been emphasised further through the loss of the winter fuel payment for elderly people. I commend the hon. Gentleman for Normanton and Hemsworth; I admire courage, and I admire his, because he had the guts—I could use another word, but it would not be parliamentary—to stand up and vote against that decision by his Government. Well done! We admire him for his courage and for the stand he took.

I wish to give a quick Northern Ireland perspective to back up the hon. Gentleman and the stand that he and others in the Chamber have taken. The Department for Communities back home defines a household as being in fuel poverty if it spends 10% of its income on energy costs. We are talking about a substantial section of the population. Others have outlined clearly that fuel poverty rates have fluctuated, and that is the case in Northern Ireland too, with rates of 44% in 2009 and 24% in 2021.

Yesterday, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak in the energy debate led by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which highlighted the correlation between the cost of energy and fuel poverty, and this debate is an opportunity to highlight that issue again. The increase in prices has meant that many are on the breadline, and that is not to mention the devastating impact that the loss of the winter fuel payment has had on our elderly generations. I have never had as many elderly people, pensioners, vulnerable people and people with complex health needs battling—I use that word on purpose, because it is the right word—the loss of the winter fuel allowance. I say this with respect to my colleagues on the Government Benches, but not supporting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners was wrong.

I wish the Minister well in her job, which she does to the best of her ability, and we welcome that. Has she had an opportunity to speak to the Department for Communities back home, which has responsibility for this issue? In his intervention, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said that this theme starts here at Westminster, but has she had an opportunity to discuss it with the relevant Minister? Back home, we have just—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. This is about fuel poverty in England and you are starting to talk about back home and your constituency. There are English MPs who want to get in on this debate, and we are running out of time, so draw your comments to a conclusion.

[Jim Shannon]

I will certainly do the best I can, Mr Efford.

The issue, no matter what, starts in Westminster—it is a fuel poverty debate on England that affects everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and decisions are made, right here, in this House. With that in mind, I ask the Minister again, will she speak to the relevant Minister on how we can do better?

[Seamus Logan]

Would the hon. Member agree that reforming energy standing charges would be an easy way to cut costs for consumers, especially those living in rural areas such as in my constituency? It seems absurd that daily standing charges can vary so wildly. Would he agree that they are often higher in areas with huge energy infrastructure, such as my constituency?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. One of things we can do here on the mainland is look at the issue of poor insulation and heating systems that need updating. I know the Minister will look at that and ultimately decrease the amount of energy a particular household has to use, but those are some of the things that we can do to help our constituents. Fuel poverty is still a massive issue across the board and there are few signs of it mellowing. We must do more to support our constituents around energy prices and fuel poverty, especially given that there is a huge section of the population struggling with energy bills.

I genuinely and kindly look to the Minister for direction and support, because I am an MP from Strangford in Northern Ireland, representing my people in this Chamber on an issue that affects us all across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Know something? I want answers as well.

10:17

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber.

Fuel poverty did not start on 4 July 2024, for heaven’s sake. I am not going to take any lectures from anybody who suggests that it did, because let me tell hon. Members that under the last 14 years of Tory Government, tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of ordinary people died as a result of fuel poverty. That is the real issue. The Labour Government are now gladly and positively elected, and we look forward to seeing some changes very soon.

What actually is fuel poverty? There are two definitions: the new one from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the pre-2015 definition. They are greatly different. The preferred definition of fuel poverty used by the Government until 2015 and still by some parts of the UK, is a household that is

“required to spend more than 10% of its income”

to keep sufficiently warm. That definition has advantages; it links directly to the cost of energy prices and can still give credit to energy-efficient homes. If a low-income household in a very modern energy efficient dwelling still finds that it spends 10% of its income on energy, it is a clear reflection of the impact of energy price inflation. That is very important.

We cannot get rid of poverty in this country by rewriting a policy. It cannot be done—whether it is fuel, food, child or pensioner poverty. We cannot get rid of poverty just by rewriting policies; work has to be done on the ground. It is always the less well-off who suffer from fuel poverty and all other types of poverty. In my Blyth and Ashington constituency, according to the House of Commons Library there are 5,211 households in fuel poverty, but that increases to 14,500 using the pre-2015 definition. There is more fuel poverty in the east of my constituency in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Blyth itself. That is something the Government should be looking at as a matter of urgency.

Who suffers because of fuel and energy prices? The less well-off, and people in fuel poverty using prepayment electric meters. Of those in fuel poverty, 63% are on some kind of benefit, and there are around 2.5 million pensioners suffering as a consequence of fuel poverty. We have got to keep people warm. There are lots of things the Government can do. Fuel poverty simply means that people are not warm, but we live in the UK, one of the richest nations in the world. Why on earth are we not ensuring that everyone has a safe and warm home to live in?

It is called decency. It is called respect. It is necessary and extremely important that the Government address this. I urge the Minister to consider the points that have been raised this morning about what the Government can actually do.

10:21

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate. We meet at a time when there is a scourge of fuel poverty across our country. Nearly 20% of households in Leeds East live in fuel poverty. Over 400,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber live in fuel poverty. To say that the fuel poverty strategy needs reviewing is an understatement. It is necessary that the Government review it, and we need real action.

Before I get on to the winter fuel payment, we have been reminded that we live in the sixth-richest economy on earth. Let us look at the eye-watering, obscene, unjustified and immoral profits made by some of our energy companies. In total, since 2020 energy companies have made £483 billion in profits: Shell made £88 billion in the last four years; BP made £46 billion of profits; E.ON made £33 billion of profits; EDF made £75 billion of profits; and Equinor made £134 billion of profits. The winter fuel payment cuts that I and others voted against were estimated to save the Government £1.4 billion. That is before the increased take-up of pensioner credit and the increased cost to the NHS from people getting cold and needing extra medical treatment. That is the reality we face, but the money is there.

I say that a number of us voted against the winter fuel payment cuts after listening to the voices of our constituents. I do hope that the Government can reconsider the cuts. There was not just concern from those who voted against it; the concern went far wider. I was only 17 years old when Gordon Brown introduced the winter fuel payment. It was one of the key achievements of the last Labour Government. I would argue that the winter fuel payment is a key part of our welfare state. I think the decision should be revised and reversed as soon as possible—certainly before next winter. We can call it something else if we like, if that makes it easier. We do not have to call it the winter fuel payment. We could relabel it as something else and reintroduce it.

On the wider points of the debate, I mentioned the obscene, eye-watering profits from these energy companies. They are the same energy companies, by the way, that have pushed our bills up and pushed us towards climate catastrophe.

We can look at the important issue of retrofitting, which has already been mentioned by colleagues. Of course retrofitting is vital, but on its own it is not the answer, because it will take years; it needs to happen, but it is not the answer to fuel poverty on its own. We need intervention in the market, with real price caps; we need action against these energy companies. And we need Government support.

That is why this debate is welcome and it is why I welcome the Government’s review of the fuel poverty strategy. However, I would argue that the fuel poverty strategy cannot be sufficient without two things: reintroducing the winter fuel payment; and taking real action on these energy companies, which have left people cold and frightened, and left too many people in our country living in misery.

10:25

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

It is an honour, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this hugely important debate; I have enjoyed the contributions to it.

According to the latest data from the House of Commons Library, almost one in five people—17%—in my constituency of Liverpool West Derby are living in fuel poverty, which is a shocking figure. However, that was the figure in 2022. Today the figure will be even higher, because as energy bills have gone up, so have the rates of fuel poverty.

National Energy Action estimates that in October 2021 4.5 million UK households were in fuel poverty. By January of this year, that figure had risen to 6.1 million. For older people, fuel poverty is linked to increased risk of stroke, heart attack, flu and hypothermia, and children growing up in cold, damp and mouldy homes suffer from higher rates of respiratory infections and asthma. I speak to my great friend Dr Ian Sinha from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital about the devastating impact of fuel poverty on children’s health, and we will always remember Awaab Ishak, who died because he lived in awful conditions.

That is why in September I voted to oppose the means-testing of the winter fuel allowance. In the run-up to that vote, I received more correspondence from constituents than at any other time in my five years as a Member of Parliament. They told me about the devastating impact that the cuts would have. Jennifer was terrified about the impact the cut would have on her and her husband’s declining health. Again and again and again, people told me how frightened they were about losing the allowance and the upcoming winter. I was true to my word and voted on their behalf, but I desperately regret that the cut went ahead.

Things are set to get worse. Forecasts suggest that the energy price cap could rise by nearly 3% in April. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease, I have heard first hand about the impact of the cuts within the motor neurone disease community. Along with 40 other MPs from across Parliament, I signed a letter to the Chancellor about the impact of this cut. Research shows that people living with motor neurone disease spend an estimated £14,500 extra to cope with cold conditions. The decision to restrict the winter fuel payments to those receiving means-tested benefits will acutely impact the MND community. Ian Lev, an MND sufferer, said that

“My bills will increase in the winter because we must keep our bodies warm. This is a real kick in the pants for me, because I need everything I can. In my nine years of motor neurone disease, my expenditure has been approximately £100,000.”

And Alex Massey from the Motor Neurone Disease Association says that

“Means-testing the Winter Fuel Payment will take no account of the unavoidable costs of living with a highly disabling condition like MND. People coping with this devastating condition do not deserve to lose the support they rely on this winter.”

Even as more people are dragged into fuel poverty, the energy companies, as has been outlined already, continue to make a killing. Just yesterday, BP announced record annual profits of £8 billion. Collectively, 20 energy companies have made a staggering £483 billion in profits since the start of the energy bill crisis. Sky-high energy bills for our constituents equals obscene profits for these giant corporations.

To conclude, I really welcome the Government’s review of the fuel poverty strategy. We should tax energy companies and end fuel poverty, reintroduce the winter fuel allowance as a universal benefit to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks, committing to a social tariff—to lower energy bills for low-income households—and to ramping up the warm home plan to insulate homes across the country, in order to cut both bills and carbon. I really hope that all these things are in the Government’s review.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We are bang on time, so thank you very much, everyone. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

10:29

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate.

The subject of the debate is vital to my constituents. Fuel poverty has left thousands of people in Eastleigh and across the country in a terrible situation this winter. The Liberal Democrats are gravely concerned that Government delays in tackling poorly insulated homes have left thousands of people cold and living in fuel poverty. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe and it is among the least energy-efficient. The previous Government failed to commit to a meaningful renewable energy programme or a decent homes standard to bring down energy bills, reduce emissions and improve public health. As a result, an estimated 6 million households are in fuel poverty.

I have spoken to constituents whose hands are turning blue because they are so afraid to turn on the heating. My constituent Kay wrote to me after discovering that she would lose her winter fuel payment. She told me:

“I have had no heating this winter. I suffer from PHPT, which means I cannot work or move around easily. It is so cold in my maisonette that I can see my own breath.”

Another constituent who lost the winter fuel payment told me:

“I am wrapping myself up in blankets and extra layers. I try to stay out of the house longer so I don’t have to turn the heating on. Finding that extra £300 last winter was a lifeline”.

According to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero sub-regional fuel poverty data, 7.2% of households in my constituency, amounting to nearly 3,000 families, live in fuel poverty. Many pensioners are just over the income threshold for receiving pension credit, but still struggle immensely. Constituents tell me that they have resorted to using only a microwave to cook meals, because it is cheaper than an oven, while people living in park homes have told me that they have had to turn off their electric heating entirely, even though their walls are just two inches thick and not properly insulated.

According to the Committee on Fuel Poverty, energy efficiency programmes are essential to reducing fuel poverty. Liberal Democrats are concerned that the Government have delayed the new decent homes standard and the warm homes plan, leaving people without support this winter. Citizens Advice in Eastleigh has confirmed that it has seen a massive uptake in energy-related casework among low-income households this year. Their clients are being forced into impossible decisions.

With bills expected to rise again in April, I hope that the Government will do more to protect my constituents and all those in fuel poverty across the UK. I am deeply concerned about the thousands of pensioners who are still waiting to receive their winter fuel payment, even though they applied on time. Can the Minister please update us on when they will receive their payment? They should not be left struggling through the coldest months due to Government delays.

The Government’s own analysis has confirmed that cuts to the winter fuel payment could push 100,000 pensioners in England and Wales into relative fuel poverty. That means 100,000 more people who will struggle to afford heating, more elderly people who will face freezing winters in homes they cannot afford to keep warm, and more people suffering preventable illnesses caused by cold and damp conditions, and yet the Government are pushing ahead with this mistaken approach which will put so many more people at risk. Truly to address this ongoing crisis, the Government must be more ambitious.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that would have ensured that the new body facilitated the home insulation programme, but the Government voted it down. A proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies would help fund support for the most vulnerable, rather than allowing energy giants to continue making billions while families suffer. We must also fundamentally reform how energy is priced. Electricity prices should be decoupled from the wholesale gas price to prevent outdated pricing mechanisms from inflating household bills unfairly.

This winter, thousands of pensioners and vulnerable families in my constituency are suffering in cold homes and struggling to pay their bills. I urge the Minister to rethink cuts to the winter fuel payment, and to introduce meaningful support for those who need it most.

10:34

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate.

I hesitate to compete with a Yorkshireman, but it has also been very cold in Suffolk recently, and the stories that the hon. Member told of his constituents will be familiar to all of us in the Chamber today. From the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson)—who is no longer in the Chamber—to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), we were reminded that fuel poverty affects urban and rural constituencies alike. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) rightly talked about the reliance on heating oil in rural constituencies, and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) was certainly right to say that pension credit take-up is far too low.

As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, we cannot ignore the hardship caused by the Government’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment so aggressively for millions of pensioners. Of course there is a case for means-testing that payment, but the Chancellor is cutting it for not just the richest pensioners, but those on very modest incomes. If the winter fuel payment is to be means-tested, surely the proceeds should go to low-income pensioners and the cost of social care, but they do not, because we know that Labour’s spending priorities are to throw the money it is taking from pensioners to the public sector and railway unions that funded it.

Let us remember that during the election campaign, Labour repeatedly promised us that it would protect the winter fuel payment, but we know that the Chancellor planned the cut all along, because she had said that she wanted to do it as far back as 2014. Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, this policy is a political choice, not an economic necessity as Ministers claim. The Office for Budget Responsibility has blown up the Government’s claim that they inherited a fiscal hole. Of the report used by Ministers to justify that claim, Richard Hughes, the OBR chairman, said that

“nothing in our review was a legitimisation”

of that claim. Indeed, the Minister who is with us today must answer this simple question: if the cuts for pensioners and the tax rises were made necessary by fiscal prudence, why did Labour promise in its manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion a year by 2028-29, only to actually increase it by £76 billion in its Budget? This was a choice.

The challenge of fuel poverty affects people of all ages throughout the country. Rather than just creating new benefits and schemes to address the high cost of fuel, we need to resolve the root causes of energy costs more generally. Here, the Government are taking the country in a very worrying direction. The Energy Secretary promises to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and the Business Secretary wants to ban petrol and diesel cars by the same year. Tough standards on aviation fuel are being enforced; heat pumps are expected to replace gas boilers; expensive and intermittent renewable technologies funded by huge and hidden subsidies are favoured; and oil and gas fields in the North sea are abandoned, left for the Norwegians to profit from what we choose to ignore.

The Energy Secretary has made much of the National Energy System Operator’s report on decarbonising the grid. He says that report shows that he can do so by 2030 without increasing bills, but in fact the report does not say that—and even then, its calculations rest on a carbon price that will rise to £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide. It is no wonder that, in reply to a question I asked him last week, the Energy Secretary would not rule out having a higher carbon price in Britain than in Europe. That will be terrible for families struggling with the cost of heating their home, but it will hurt them—and indeed all of us—in other ways. As long as policy runs faster than technology and other countries do not follow our lead on climate change, decarbonisation will inevitably mean deindustrialisation. That will mean a weaker economy with lower growth, fewer jobs, and less spending power to help those who we have been discussing today—those who need support the most.

Of course, it is not just the NESO report that shows us the future consequences of the Government’s policies. The OBR says that environmental levies will reach up to £15 billion by the end of this Parliament to pay for net zero policies. As those levies will fall heavily on consumption, they will have a particularly regressive effect, as analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Cornwall Insight has confirmed. It is therefore no wonder that Labour’s election promise to cut bills by £300 by the end of the Parliament has vanished without trace, so I challenge the Minister today to do what she has not done since polling day—repeat that promise very clearly. I suspect she will not because, unlike the Secretary of State, she knows the reality of his policies. The Government are adding complexity and contradiction to our energy system and loading extra costs on to families across the country. There is still time for Ministers to think again and put the interests of decent, hard-working people ahead of the Energy Secretary’s ideological dogma.

10:39

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this really important debate. He has a great record of speaking up for low-income and vulnerable families in his constituency and across the country. I share his desire to tackle fuel poverty and his anger that energy is simply unaffordable for too many people in this country. The Government are determined to take the action necessary to lower bills and support the most vulnerable in our society.

I thank all Members for their contributions, and for highlighting the heartbreaking stories of families across the country that are struggling.

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

The Minister talks about heartbreaking stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and I have just come off a Public and Commercial Services Union picket line outside a Department, and one of the issues that was raised with us was the cost of living, particularly fuel poverty, because those workers are on low wages and are experiencing poverty. One of the things that Ministers could do now is go back to their Departments, review all their contracts, end the outsourcing and bring those workers back into an insourced service.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We know there is a challenge with the cost of living. We are coming out of the worst cost of living crisis that we have faced in a generation, and tackling it is central to what we are trying to do in my Department and across Government.

It is important that we situate this debate in the context in which we find ourselves. We published a review of our fuel poverty strategy last week, and the headline was staggering: fuel poverty stagnated in this country under the previous Government. In 2023, an estimated 13% of households in England—3.17 million people—were in fuel poverty according to the low income low energy efficiency metric, which is a narrow statutory definition. We know that out there in the country a lot more people are feeling the pressure of energy bills and have the sense that they cannot cope and cannot afford to heat their homes.

In 2023, about 46% of all low-income households in England lived in properties with an energy efficiency rating of band D or lower. That creates a cycle that is difficult to escape: the poorest in our country live in cold homes. Behind those statistics are lives, and I have heard the stories directly. People are scared to turn on the heat because they fear the bill at the end of the month. Parents are having to make the impossible choice between feeding their kids and heating their homes.

We know that the reality is intolerable for too many people. That is the legacy of the previous Government that we inherited, but we are determined to turn it around. Every family and business in the country has paid the price of our dependence on global fossil fuel markets that we do not control. We inherited sky-high energy bills. Yes, they are down from the crisis peak, but they are still at record highs.

Our clean power mission is not ideological; it is a primary solution to this problem. We are running to deliver clean power at this pace because we see that as our route to delivering home-grown energy that we have more control over, that will deliver energy security for the country and, critically, that will take us off this rollercoaster of price hikes, which are impacting families, and deliver the financial security that families across the country are desperate for. But we recognise that, while we do that, we also need to reform the electricity market. The review of electricity market arrangements, which we are working on at the moment, is looking at the very question of how we decouple gas from clean power prices. Our judgment is that, as we increase the amount of clean power in the system, we will do the job of decoupling, alongside market reforms, so that people can benefit from the big changes we are trying to make.

We recognise that we also have to support struggling families while we make that transition.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the Minister for allowing an intervention. I raised concerns in my speech about the fact that 64,000 pensioners are struggling now to make that difficult choice between putting food on the table and heating their homes, and she has rightly acknowledged that. Does she recognise that the choice she and the Government made to remove the winter fuel allowance was wrong, when so many pensioners are in a dire state as a result of that choice?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member raises winter fuel payments, as hon. Members across the House have done. The Chancellor had an impossible job to do and made a tough call, but we have been clear that we will do whatever is needed to support the most vulnerable. Everything I am charged with doing, everything that my Department is trying to do, is to ensure that households struggling with bills can be protected and insulated.

The Government reviewed the fuel poverty strategy, “Sustainable warmth: protecting vulnerable households”, because we recognised that the trajectory we were on was not the right one. The review showed that progress on meeting the statutory target has stalled. Alongside that review, we are consulting on how to up our strategy to respond to that problem.

[Jim Shannon]

In questions, urgent questions and statements in the Chamber, I have been keen to ensure that every part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from strategies in this House and that the ripples go out to everywhere. In my contribution, I asked the Minister again whether there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter with the relevant Minister back home. I know the Minister is committed to that. Will she please update me on where those talks and discussions have gone, so that we can all benefit?

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

In relation to England, you mean.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me reassure the hon. Member that we are talking to all devolved Administrations. There are common challenges that we all face and common solutions. We are working in collaboration; we have an interministerial working group, and I am having direct conversations with all devolved Administrations as we take forward our plans.

We are also trying to work with everyone. The challenge we face to turn around the trajectory on fuel poverty is huge and the inheritance is tough, so we want to draw on the expertise of consumer groups, industry and academia as we develop our plan on fuel poverty.

[Nick Timothy]

The Minister talks about the tough job the Chancellor faces. Does she acknowledge that the job is tough because of the Chancellor’s own choices? The Minister talks about the inheritance but, as I said in my speech, the Labour manifesto said that Labour would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, while the Budget increased it by £76 billion a year. That is why the Chancellor faces tough decisions—they originate with her own political choices. Does the Minister acknowledge that?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is pretty audacious of the hon. Member, given the record of the previous Government, their financial position and the wrecking ball they took to the economy. We have to clean up the mess of the previous Government, so yes, we have had to make tough choices before that. Candidly, if I were in the hon. Member’s position, I would be hanging my head in shame, rather than lecturing this Government on how we clean up the mess they created. What I will say is that, whether on the economy or fuel poverty, we understand that we have been given an atrocious inheritance. We are not complacent about that. Things that the Conservatives were willing to accept, we are not willing to accept.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress. On the critical issue of fuel poverty, we are consulting in order to improve our strategy, looking at how to make progress on our statutory target for 2030 and asking questions about wide affordability. As we take action, we must ensure that we are dealing with our statutory obligation and the more fundamental problem of affordability across the country.

Alongside our consultation on the fuel poverty strategy, we have also taken steps to try to lift half a million people out of fuel poverty by improving standards in the private rented sector. Last week we published a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector by 2030. Our proposals would require landlords to upgrade their homes so that tenants can benefit from warmer homes through insulation, cavity wall insulation and double glazing first, and then through other measures such as solar, batteries and smart meters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth asked about the impact on renters. I would say two things. Our analysis suggested that if we get this right, it could save renters about £240. We know that there is a risk of landlords potentially hiking bills, but when we have upgraded homes in the past, we have found that landlords have not increased bills, so we do not expect them to do so this time. Critically, we have also been surveying landlords, and the feedback is that the majority would cover the cost of the upgrades, which they know is the right thing to do. I should add that 50% of landlords have already upgraded their homes up to EPC C, so they will pay for this through those savings. We are therefore confident that renters will not be penalised, and we believe that the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill will provide enough safeguards to ensure that renters can benefit from £240 off their energy bills and the security of knowing that their rents will not be increased.

[Robbie Moore]

Does the Minister recognise that many landlords are not in a sound financial position themselves, and that the challenge of getting the energy performance rating of their rental properties up to C can therefore be incredibly costly and sometimes unachievable, given the old housing stock? Will she outline what support will be available to achieve the Government’s ambition of upgrading to an energy performance rating of C?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have estimated that the average cost of upgrading homes to C is about £6,000. To protect landlords, we have put in place a cap of £15,000 and created mechanisms to provide exemptions for those landlords who we know will genuinely struggle. Alongside that, we are already providing support through our boiler upgrade scheme and warm homes local grant, which landlords can access, and we will be setting out more measures in the warm homes plan to support landlords on this journey. I should say that the vast majority of landlords want to do this—50% have already done so. We need to level the playing field for renters, so that all landlords are delivering homes to a standard that will ensure that they are warmer and cheaper to run for tenants.

A big plank of what we know we need to do to tackle fuel poverty—alongside what we are trying to do on minimum energy efficiency standards in the rental sector—will be our warm homes plan, which will transform homes across the country to make them cheaper and warmer. The idea behind it is simple and will mean upgrading homes with insulation, solar and heat pumps. In response to the points made about delays in rolling out the warm home plan, I would say that we are running at this. This year alone, we have massively increased the number of upgrades that we are expecting to 300,000, backed by £3.2 billion-worth of investment, and we will come forward in the spring with our plans to ramp that up.

The key thing that we are trying to achieve is moving from the hundreds of thousands of upgrades that we have seen—the inheritance of the last Government, who frankly slashed home upgrades, despite knowing their huge impact on bills and the comfort of consumers —to upgrading millions of homes. That will mean taking a comprehensive look at how we increase demand for home upgrades and deliver at scale in different places, working with regional government and suppliers, and, critically, how we ensure that when people go on this journey of upgrading their homes, they have the confidence to know—to the point made earlier—that the work will be done to a quality standard, and that if things go wrong there will be redress and protection. The current system that we inherited was far too fragmented and ad hoc. Consumers are not at its heart, and we absolutely must turn that around.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for her comments so far. On the point about tackling the fragmentation and ad hoc nature of the previous system, does the Minister agree with me that home insulation upgrades are a win-win-win policy. They are good for people’s warmth and health, they are really good for jobs and they help to save the climate as well. One key barrier in recent years has been the stop-start, year-on-year type of policy that means that nobody in the supply chain is able to plan and have the strategic direction that they need to make the investments, build the labour force and so forth. Will the Government provide the long-term certainty about the policy direction and level of investment required so that everybody can pull together in the same direction?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I absolutely agree that home insulation is a key part of how we tackle the problem of fuel poverty. Unless we have homes that are insulated, whatever energy we put into people’s homes, at whatever price, is going out of their windows. That is why it is so important to what we are trying to do through the warm homes plan. We seek through the plan to provide long-term certainty: for consumers, so that they know there is a programme that will support them through a journey, and, critically, for the supply chain.

I have spoken to many installers who tell me they are living hand to mouth. The ability to build, to plan, to recruit apprenticeships and to build up capacity is constrained by a stop-start approach. We are clear that the plan needs to be long term. We are working to make sure we can underpin that with long-term certainty on funding, so that we can see the level of ramp-up and scale-up that we need to insulate and upgrade millions of homes, rather than hundreds of thousands of homes.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just say that I need to bring in the mover of the motion for a couple of minutes at the end? Thank you, Minister.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address the points made by Members from rural constituencies. This plan has to work for every part of the country and we have to have solutions for every house. Rather than the Government dictating solutions from on high in Whitehall, we need to empower the system to figure out the best way to deliver warm homes for people across the country. That means thinking about the range and mix of solutions that go into people’s homes, so that they can have low-carbon options, but also options that work for their pockets.

Alongside what we need to do through our warm homes plan, it is important to say that we must also deal with the question of supporting households on bills. That is why going into this winter, wanting to do everything we can to support the most vulnerable, I worked with energy suppliers to get them to commit to £500 million of industry support for people this winter so that we can get help to households that we know are struggling. The Government have also extended the household support fund until 31 March 2026 with an extra £752 million. We are providing the cold weather payment and our Department is providing the warm home discount to more than 3 million households. The Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 expire in 2026, so we want to consider options for the future.

Members talked about a social tariff. The challenge with the social tariff, which we are hearing about across the piece, is that it means different things to different people. However, we are looking at all the options to make sure we can provide the support that people need.

In conclusion, I understand Members’ passion; I share their passion and their commitment. Energy is not a luxury good. It is not a “nice to have”. It is foundational for people, but it is out of reach for some. That is a shame and a stain on us, and we are determined to turn things around.

10:58

[Jon Trickett]

I thank everybody for contributing. The House will have heard the Minister’s passion and commitment. I was particularly interested in what she said about warm homes—that she had heard heartbreaking stories and was determined to drive down fuel poverty. Although there was much that was good in her remarks, there were elements missing. In truth, our society is deeply dysfunctional; it needs structural change and a rupture with the existing arrangements. The fact that billions of pounds of profits are made in the energy sector while millions of people are left in poverty leads me to one conclusion: those who drive people into poverty by driving up the prices must pay for the fact that so many people are in poverty, while we get on with retrofitting houses.

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

Knife Crime in London

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered knife crime in London.

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

Violence behaves like a virus. It spreads among a community and wreaks havoc not just on our streets but on our lives. There is a particularly virulent strain in London: knife crime. It was once said by a Prime Minister-in-waiting that real action on this issue means being

“tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.”

Three decades on from those famous words, talking about violent crime as a social issue has fallen out of political fashion, as though sociologists and social workers on the ground are too misguided, too soft and even too woke to address it, but the notion that we have all been too soft on crime has a dangerous implication: that the surging knife crime on London’s streets can be punished away with tougher sentences and stronger deterrents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To my mind, the upward trend is worrying. There must be a zero-tolerance policy, so that if someone leaves the house with a knife in their pocket or coat, a custodial sentence is necessary. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that has to be part of the strategy?

[Luke Taylor]

I fully agree. The community-based approaches that I will come to later in my speech recognise that point.

I intend today to state the case that a false premise has been advanced; that successive Governments have failed to invest enough in a whole-of-society approach to reducing knife crime and young people are dying as a result; and that if we are to have any hope of getting a grip on the crisis, we must get serious about a public health approach and the restoration of true, old-fashioned community policing.

The pillars of such an approach are threefold. First, we must reinvigorate visible policing by restoring police budgets and get more beats, not just more bobbies. Secondly, we must rescue the early intervention space, protect it from short-termism and ensure that it has the resource it needs. Thirdly, we must get serious about incorporating a public health approach, with greater cohesion between civil society institutions, and willingness to try community and victim-led solutions such as restorative justice.

Let us start with restoring community policing. The data shows that the number of police community support officers in the Metropolitan police force declined from 4,247 in 2008 to a mere 1,215 in 2023. That failure, which occurred on the watch of consecutive mayors from both main parties, highlights the scale of the crisis.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate on such an important topic. Everyone deserves to feel safe, yet over the last 14 years we have seen police numbers being decimated. In the borough that encompasses my constituency of Ilford South, we used to have five police stations. Now, there is only one, for four constituencies. What we have tried to do is to bring engagement and enforcement hubs into the community. Does the hon. Member agree with me that bringing police into the communities they serve is a vital part of keeping our communities safe and of restoring pride in the police?

[Luke Taylor]

I could not agree more. I was interested to hear the hon. Member’s speech the other day about including council enforcement officers in these hubs, too. Having them present in the community and accessible to residents is incredibly important. I am keen to have a conversation with him about the measures that he has achieved.

To follow exactly the point the hon. Member just made, at the time when we should be getting more police embedded in communities to halt knife crime, we have instead let numbers crater. We know that research consistently shows violent crime dropping significantly in areas where the police are present, visible and proactive.

In December 2023, when, tragically, a knife cut short the life of a young man in my constituency, Ilyas Habibi, who was just 17, he was just minutes away from a local police station. Just as worrying is that the fact that in my constituency and across London, we see safer neighbourhood officers being abstracted from their beats—a quirk of the Met police set-up that results in vital officers who should be on our streets, making our neighbourhoods safer, being pulled away for major police operational events, typically in central London. It is, in effect, robbing outer London to pay inner London and it has to stop. These officers want to be doing great work in the community, but the failure to recruit across the Met is letting them and, by extension, us down.

There can be no doubt that recruiting into the Met is challenging. The Casey report outlined the scale of the failures that have occurred in recent years far better than any of us can—the failures to get a grip on damaging internal cultures, to protect the victims of crime, and overall to carry the confidence of the very communities they serve. I have met Commissioner Rowley and I acknowledge his undertakings to reform the Met. Nobody in this place can pretend that his role is easy; we must recognise that he needs the full backing of Government to reinvigorate the force and repair its image.

As yesterday’s ruling on vetting clearance and dismissals shows, the hurdles in front of these reforms are immense, and the single greatest tool to smash through those hurdles is the powers that the Secretary of State holds. To bolster a new Met for London and drive knife crime down, it should be a priority of this Government to expedite the reforms we all know the Met needs. Without these reforms, how can we expect recruitment to bounce back? I urge the Minister to today outline what steps the Government are taking to get back to proper community policing, to work with the Metropolitan police to reduce abstraction rates, and to support Commissioner Rowley as he embarks on his package of reforms.

We cannot look to policing alone, though. The whole-of-society approach that is so desperately needed will require an “it takes a village” attitude, and requires a Government committed to supporting early intervention initiatives. A key first step is diversionary programmes, which we know can cut out knife crime before it can metastasise across our streets. The targeted early help and integrated support teams at Sutton borough council do excellent work with young people in my constituency. Their approach is targeted; once a potential young offender reprimanded by the police is brought to their attention, they work tirelessly to build positive relationships with the child to stop the otherwise steady and depressing downward spiral into criminality. It is vital to remember that these schemes offer opportunities to young people who are often not afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives.

In London, these intervention programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice and the violence reduction unit, but youth services across London often face uncertainty about how and when these grants will be allocated. The team we spoke to at Sutton council is still waiting to see if its grant will be approved for March, which is only a few weeks’ time. In addition, these grants are typically only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, leaving little space for local authorities to plan ahead.

All the evidence shows that young people susceptible to committing this form of violence require sustained relationships with skilled youth workers to help them to choose safer paths. Such a relationship can take months to form, but it acts as a critical antidote to the peer pressure and social circumstances that are otherwise weighing on the child. It is therefore utterly misguided to continue with this short-termism. Skilled youth workers are deterred from engaging in local authority work due to temporary contract conditions and the lingering threat of grant termination, which could see the shattering of crucial relationships between London’s youth workers and young people at risk of committing knife-related offences. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister whether she will consider ringfencing funding for local authority early intervention services in London. Without multi-year funding to improve planning and put these services on a more stable footing, this vital first step in preventing knife crime will fall by the wayside.

Backing early intervention is just one of the arrows in the quiver of a wider approach that we must shift to. Young people will continue to die if we do not take heed of our Scottish counterparts and finally embrace a public health approach. Famously, Glasgow took thousands of knives off the streets, and rallied organisations at every level to intervene before a crime was committed. That approach breaks down the silo walls between bodies, putting teachers, A&E doctors, social workers, sports clubs and many more stakeholders in partnership with law enforcement.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he has identified that there is no one solution to this. The Scotland example shows what can be done, but there are some practical measures that can be taken. For example, half of all homicides with sharp instruments are done with kitchen knives, and that simply has not been tackled. It might be tackled, or the problem might at least be alleviated, by encouraging the transition to blunted knives rather than pointed knives. Does he support that?

[Luke Taylor]

Introducing blunted knives is a very good example of thinking differently about this crime. The tabloid approach of looking for popular, big and visible solutions, such as banning zombie knives, while important, often ignores the statistics of how crimes are most often committed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, so I thank him.

The public health approach sees the problem of knife crime in three dimensions and recognises that violence begets violence like an illness. Returning to my argument that violent crime is like a virus, I remind hon. Members that when a contagious, dangerous virus broke out in this country half a decade ago, we rallied every aspect of civil society to fight it. Public services, the police and the third sector were all brought together to work as partners rather than in silos. Implicitly, we recognise that this is the right way to tackle an emergency that threatens life and limb, so why do we fail so consistently to bring that approach to bear in dealing with knife crime in the capital?

A hallmark of this approach is the creation of violence reduction units and the provision of serious financial support by Government to make them the hubs of proactive action they need to be. In London, we have done the first part by creating a violence reduction unit in 2018, but its potential remains woefully unrealised. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies told me that it fears that the unit remains limited in its ability to engage with wider civil society and is still entangled in the paradigm of enforcement rather than engagement. Funding for the VRUs, including the one in London, is just too low to make this strategy a reality, so it should surprise none of us that it has not borne fruit.

There is a wider problem in that politicians of all stripes have paid lip service to the idea of a public health approach, but have utterly failed to implement it. The last Conservative Government, keen to be seen to do something, embraced the language of public health and crime reduction, but we have seen none of this effectively put into practice. Instead, they piloted controversial new powers that increased suspicionless stop and search, which evidently did little to stop knife crime, although the findings from the pilots have yet to be brought before Parliament.

It just is not good enough—not for mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters all over London whose lives have been ripped apart by knife crime. They deserve a public health approach. We must join up public bodies, the police and the third sector so that young people are supported before they slip through the cracks. We have to consider the principles of restorative practice, too, because they underlie and echo everything that is good about the public health approach.

Earlier this week, I met with Ray and Vi Donovan, who lost their son in a violent attack in 2001. In his memory, they created and have for many years run the award-winning Chris Donovan Trust, which works with police, public bodies and charities across the board to highlight the value of restorative justice in preventing reoffending. They told me that their work takes the restorative principles not just into prisons but schools. That approach, which is grounded in embedding empathy and victim awareness in young people, is like a light in the dark in London It awakens in young people on the cusp of gang life, and even in young people already drowning silently within it, an awareness that carrying a knife will inevitably one day ruin their life and the lives of others. Restorative practice is too often overlooked, even as part of the wider package of public health reforms to tackle crime, yet it is vital to winning the war for the hearts and minds of young people at risk of picking up a knife.

Will the Minister consider putting victim awareness on the curriculum? I encourage the Government to publish all the findings from the serious violence reduction orders that were trialled by the last Government, as well as detailed conclusions about the impact of suspicionless stop and search trials under the knife crime prevention orders. If these punitive and controversial methods worked, surely this information would have already been shared; none the less, Parliament deserves to see the findings in writing, so that we can hasten the end of this troubled approach and speed up the saving of young lives through a better approach, grounded in public health.

Too many young people are being failed before they even set foot into adulthood, and Londoners have had enough of senseless stabbing after senseless stabbing, but the truth at the heart of this crisis is that people carry knives because they fear becoming a victim themselves. The only way to combat that climate of fear is with a public health approach that actually gets results. I reminded the House earlier this month, and I do so again now, that success in this area is measured in something more important than profit or efficiency; it is measured in lives saved, lives nourished and lives reinvigorated.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister to respond, I remind the Member in charge that he will not have the opportunity to wind up the debate, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

11:16

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford.

I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this very important debate. I think that we both took part in a Westminster Hall debate a little while ago about knife crime in the west midlands, which was another important opportunity to shine a light on this very concerning problem.

I want to mention the other hon. Members who have spoken, too. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about zero tolerance, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) talked about how important it is to have the police in our communities, because they are vital to keeping those communities safe, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) talked about practical suggestions to address knife crime. I have said before that I am willing to look at any of the issues that might help us to address knife crime.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with her time, as she was in meeting the safer knives group to discuss this issue. I am not expecting a policy position today, but perhaps she could say when the Government are likely to come forward with proposals on the scourge of knife crime that is affecting us.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is fair to say that we are looking constantly at what more we can do. Although I cannot give a timetable, perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that the issue is under active consideration, and we are keen to look at evidence and consider what more we might be able to do on the particular point that I know he is interested in.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam powerfully illustrated the depth of concern about knife crime, and I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to tackling it. It is important to say that it is a whole-of-Government approach, which fits very well within our safer streets mission and with our clear objective to halve knife crime over the course of the next 10 years.

Before I talk a little more about the particular policies that we will adopt, I want to remind all hon. Members that we must keep at the forefront of our minds the people who are directly affected by this dangerous and, in the worst cases, deadly threat. The victims of knife crime and their loved ones must all be in our thoughts and prayers, today and always. I was really interested to hear about the excellent work of the Chris Donovan Trust. I really would like to find out more about that, and perhaps meet the trust to see what more I can do to support it.

First and foremost, as I said, this has to be about keeping people safe. It is about ensuring that more families do not go through the agony of that empty chair at the dining table. The tragic truth is that knife crime destroys lives and, too often, young lives with futures that should have been filled with hope and potential are lost. That is why we described it as a national crisis in our manifesto and why, as I said, we set ourselves the aim of halving knife crime in a decade, as part of the safer streets mission.

I will talk a little about the coalition to tackle knife crime, to set the context. The Prime Minister launched the coalition in September. It brings together campaign groups, families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted, and community leaders—united in their mission to save lives. We are very pleased that there is representation from London in the coalition. It will work with the Government to help us identify the children and young people at risk of being affected by knife crime. It will help us to design policy changes and reforms based on the best possible evidence and, most importantly, tackle the root causes of knife crime.

I heard what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said about the importance of education. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Education about the curriculum review, including on relationships and sex education, to ensure that knife crime and what it means can be part of that review. I must also say to the hon. Gentleman that, to be frank, half an hour is not long enough for this debate, so I will take away a number of his asks and come back to him with information and a way forward.

When it comes to tackling this most dangerous of threats, it is essential that we have resources going into our neighbourhood policing. Few things matter more than the presence of community policing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred. That is why the restoration of neighbourhood policing is at the heart of our plans to reform policing, and why we have committed to delivering an additional 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials in neighbourhood policing roles.

As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will know, as part of the police settlement, we have doubled to £200 million the amount of money going into neighbourhood policing for next year to kick-start the neighbourhood policing guarantee. That will apply to the Metropolitan police as well. I heard loud and clear his concerns about abstraction, but the neighbourhood policing guarantee is about those additional officers who will be in neighbourhoods. They will not be abstracted. There will be a named police officer that the community can reach out to.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan police faces some very big challenges. It is important to note that progress has been made on the “A New Met for London” plan. In recent weeks, the Met came out of the “engage” process with the police inspectorate, so progress is being made. As a Minister, I have regular meetings with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and other officers to ensure that the Home Office is providing all that we can to support Sir Mark in his work.

This morning, I heard Sir Mark on the radio talking about the judicial review case yesterday. I assure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that work is ongoing to deal with the particular issue that Sir Mark was talking about this morning. I think we all agree that we want to have police officers—in the Met and every police force—who are able to do their job effectively and are properly vetted, and that anyone who cannot hold vetting as a police officer should not be in the police force. Please rest assured that that work is ongoing.

I want to talk a little bit about Young Futures, which the Government are putting forward as part of the solution to knife crime. Too many children and young people today face poorer life outcomes, including becoming involved in knife crime, because they are not effectively identified and supported early enough through early intervention. To address that issue, we have committed to creating the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and Young Futures prevention partnerships to intervene earlier to ensure that this cohort is identified and offered support, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities through the provision of open access to, for example, mental health, careers and mentoring support.

Young Futures hubs will bring together the support services that tackle the underlying needs of vulnerable children and young people, making them more accessible to those who need them. The hubs will promote children’s and young people’s development, improve their mental health and wellbeing, and prevent them from being drawn into crime.

Young Futures prevention partnerships will bring together key partners in local areas across England and Wales to identify vulnerable children and young people at risk of being drawn into crime, map local youth service provision, and offer support in a more systematic way to divert them. I also note the comments that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made about securing funding for the long term, and I will reflect on those.

I also want to mention violence reduction units. One of the issues that we face, especially in the prevention sphere, is the number of agencies that are involved. By bringing together partners and mobilising them behind the same goals at local level, violence reduction units perform a really important role. In response to the drivers of violence and knife crime, they have been delivering a range of early intervention and prevention programmes to support young people away from a life of crime, including activity across all 32 boroughs through the London crime prevention fund, enabling the local adoption of a public health approach and borough-level violence reduction interventions.

Violence reduction unit programmes span from police custody to the community—some of which Members might have seen featured in Idris Elba’s recent knife crime documentary for the BBC. They include the excellent work under way at the Royal London hospital, which I had the great privilege of visiting yesterday. I met the dedicated team of youth workers who provide support to young people at a critical teachable moment—when they are admitted for violent injuries—and provide positive routes out. The confirmed police funding settlement for next year includes over £49 million for the continuation of this work to prevent serious violence, delivered through violence reduction units. In London, that amounts to £9.4 million, which was announced yesterday.

The Labour Government have also made a commitment on youth offending team referrals for young knife carriers. We are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to deliver that manifesto commitment to ensure that every young person found in possession of a knife is referred to a youth offending team, with mandatory plans in place. That can include electronic monitoring and custody where appropriate to prevent reoffending.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to stop and search, which is an important tool. I am well aware of issues around different communities being searched in different ways, but, used in an intelligence-led way, it can be very fair and effective. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in the 12 months to March 2024, stop and search led to 4,048 offensive weapons and firearms being found by the police in London. It has its place in the arsenal that the police can access.

We have already started to deal with some other issues around knives. For example, we have implemented a ban on zombie knives and zombie-style machetes, which came into force on 24 September. We have consulted on a ban on ninja swords, and we hope to bring that forward shortly. We have had Commander Stephen Clayman at the National Police Chiefs’ Council leading a review of online sales, and the Home Secretary has announced in the last few weeks that the Government intend to strengthen age verification controls and checks for all online sellers of knives at the point of purchase and on delivery. We have also consulted on introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms or marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content relating to knives and offensive weapons.

I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for securing this important debate. I think we are all seeking the same outcomes: a reduction in knife crime and safer streets. Those objectives are central to the Government’s plan for change, and we will do everything in our power to achieve them.

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Support for Pensioners

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Work and Pensions Committee on 18 December 2024 and 22 January 2025, on Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations, HC 465; Written evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, on Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations, reported to the House on 22 January and 5 February 2025, HC 465; e-petition 700120, Stop Means Testing Pensioners and increase the State Pension; e-petition 700113, Give State Pension to all at 60 and increase it to equal 48hrs at Living Wage; and e-petition 700074, Reverse changes to Winter Fuel Payment.]

14:30

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for pensioners.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I have secured this debate because not only do pensioners represent an enormous portion of our population—over 10 million people—but the way we support them impacts every single person in this country.

From the start to the end of our careers, we should all aspire to a comfortable retirement for ourselves and our loved ones. I know the Government understand that, because before the election they made big pitches to pensioners. The now Work and Pensions Secretary said:

“Labour are determined to once again be the Pensioners Party.”

The now Prime Minister said:

“My Labour Party will always be on the side of pensioners”.

Members may recall that Labour’s manifesto featured the heartbreaking story of Gary, a pensioner who was struggling to heat his house on his pension. I feel immensely for people like Gary, who have struggled when times were really tough, and who voted with hope for a Government that they believed would reduce their energy bills and look after vulnerable pensioners.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he is making. Only today I heard from a pensioner in West Worcestershire on an income of £13,500 who was stripped of his winter fuel allowance last year. He is having to live in only one room, as that is all he can afford to heat. Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to hear that example?

[Blake Stephenson]

I am absolutely shocked, and I will come on to mention a few stories from my own constituents. They are very similar, and I think we are hearing these stories up and down the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges that older people are facing. I note that there are no Labour Back Benchers here to contribute to the debate. We have the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, so the payroll are here, but despite all the rhetoric during the general election campaign about supporting pensioners, Labour Back Benchers do not seem to be willing to stand up for them in this debate.

[Blake Stephenson]

I had noted the same, but I was going to wait until the end of the debate to see if any sneaked in. Perhaps the Whips are calling them now—who knows? We will see whether any turn up to defend the current Government’s record.

The simple reality is that hope for more support was misplaced. Instead, energy bills are up and support for vulnerable pensioners has been cut. The Prime Minister said in April that Britain’s pensioners want politicians who will be straight with them, and I agree. Here is the truth: whatever the failings of the previous Government, and whatever difficulties they had grappling with the impacts of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and their own missteps at times, they always tried to support pensioners. As recently as March last year, the now Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), admitted on social media that

“pensioners are an average of £1,000 better off”

as a result of policies since 2010. He may want to reflect on that when he sums up this debate.

Last winter, Gary might well have received £600 from his winter fuel payment and his pensioner cost of living payment; this winter, he might well have received nothing. Like an estimated 9.2 million pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment this winter, Gary may have found himself without the vital support he received last winter to make that choice between heating and eating a little less difficult.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some really important points, particularly with the examples of pensioners who find themselves trapped. The crux of this issue the unfairness, but it is also about the speed with which this policy decision—this political choice—was made. Even as recently as 27 April 2024, the now Prime Minister was saying:

“Britain’s pensioners deserve better. They deserve certainty, and for politicians to be straight with them so they can plan their lives.”

This is not an example of fairness, it is not an example of certainty, and it is certainly not an example of being straight with pensioners.

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to the importance of certainty and stability when it comes to pensions, so that people can plan for their futures, regardless of their age. For the Government to pull the rug out from under the feet of vulnerable pensioners with little or no notice at all is absolutely shameful.

Gary has seen the Government that he voted for with hope and optimism for a better life snatch away the lifeline he relied on. If he is on the old basic state pension, he will have seen 86.5% of his triple lock-backed increase snatched back. Indeed, he could well find that it will take until 2027-28 for his income to reach the level that he might have expected to see this winter.

Gary is not alone, because although this Government talk about millionaire pensioners being able to cope, for many of the 9.2 million pensioners losing their winter fuel payment, that really was vital support. The average pensioner, far from being the millionaire fat cat that the Government would like us all to imagine, earns just over £22,000 per year—similar to the income of a worker on the living wage. The level at which the threshold to keep winter fuel payments was set for a single pensioner means that someone could be bringing in less than £1,000 per month and now be one of the “millionaire pensioners” on whose shoulders the Government have chosen to balance the books.

Age UK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty or just above the poverty line, including 1.1 million pensioners with a disability, will lose their winter fuel payment. I have heard so many stories from constituents in Mid Bedfordshire about the impact that that will have on them—stories of people who have had to make the stark choice between heating and eating this winter. I heard from a constituent who now cannot shower, who cooks a hot meal just once a week, and who can turn on their heating only when it is “unbearably freezing”. One constituent told me of the struggles to keep their 92-year-old father warm. Their father has dementia, and he keeps worrying about the bills.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions dementia. Nearly 1 million pensioners in this country are living with dementia. Two weeks ago, NHS England published its priorities, and dementia had been removed, as had the target for diagnosing it. Does he agree that that is a huge concern, not only for those living with dementia, but for the millions of family members and friends who support them?

[Blake Stephenson]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately for people living with dementia and their families, and he makes a very important point. It is another shameful decision by this Government not to support the most vulnerable in our society, and people should be shocked by it.

Another constituent told me that they have stopped using their cooker and that they now find it difficult even to dry their washing. This Government promised that they would be on the side of pensioners. However, as a constituent recently summed it up for me, they feel

“terribly let down by the Government”.

They are right to feel like that. This Government have let my constituents—indeed, all our pensioners—down. They have balanced the books on the backs of people earning less than £1,000 per month. Even if someone is still eligible for winter fuel payments, they will get them only if they have signed up for pension credit.

The arbitrary barrier of the pension credit threshold will mean that many of our poorest pensioners—Age UK estimates that around 1 million people have weekly incomes of less than £50 above the poverty line—will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. Potentially hundreds of thousands of even poorer pensioners will miss out on vital support, because the Government expect them to answer over 200 questions—two hundred questions—to access the help they need.

Perhaps I am being unfair.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

No.

[Blake Stephenson]

My hon. Friend says no, but I was making a rhetorical statement.

Perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps the Government care deeply about supporting pensioners and have been working tirelessly to help them. Well, there is another problem there, because a Government working tirelessly to support the most vulnerable pensioners would know exactly how many needed support and how many were missing. They would have a tracker counting down towards zero, and a working culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that meant it did not rest until everyone who needed support received it. Do they have that culture? No, they do not. The Government have already admitted that they have set no targets for pension credit sign-ups, and last month they could not even give me an estimate of how many pensioners below the pension credit threshold will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. It is utterly shameful.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He is rightly highlighting the weaknesses of the Labour Government in supporting pensioners. Does he agree that in many communities, the voluntary and third sector is now stepping forward to provide that support? In my area we have the Borders Older People’s Forum, the warm-ups in St Boswells village hall, the Hawick dementia café and multiple other examples of the voluntary and third sector stepping forward to provide the support that the Government should be providing.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. Yes, the third sector has come forward to support, but what have the Government done to the third sector? They have applied national insurance increases and reduced the threshold, causing pain and suffering for the sector that our constituents now rely on because the Government have stepped away from their responsibilities.

The support that the Government have given pensioners to cover off the impacts of their decision to cut winter fuel payments is merely the thinnest of political spin. The most prominent such cover is the extension of the household support fund, which itself is an attempt to outsource the protection of vulnerable residents to already under-pressure local authorities that should be focused on delivering high-quality public services.

But it is worse than just outsourcing the problem, because a bit of examination showed that up to be the most disappointing example of the empty words our constituents hate. Despite the spin, the truth is that the household support fund simply has not been designed with pensioners in mind. The east of England receives £32.90 per pensioner. London receives double that: £66.73. When I first saw those numbers and the Government’s description of the household support fund as mitigation for pensioners, I wondered why London’s pensioners had been deemed so much more deserving of support, so I wrote to the Secretary of State. I got the simple answer that the fund is not intended to be targeted at pensioners. The Government have even admitted to me that they do not know how much of the household support fund went to pensioners this winter. Age UK estimates that typically, £1 in every £10 the household support fund pays out goes to pensioners.

What does all that mean for our pensioners? It means more pensioners in hospital—nearly 20,000 more in November and December 2024 than in the same months in 2023, a 6.6% increase. That is 6.6% more stress on our already overstretched health services, and it is nearly 20,000 more pensioners suffering in hospital and potentially suffering lasting ill health, because this Government, which some of them voted for in the belief that they would look after them, forced them to make a choice between heating and eating. It means tens of thousands more pensioners in poverty. Those are the Government’s own statistics.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think it is notable that current chief medical officer, who remains in post under this Government, in his 2023 annual report, cited specifically the concern that cold homes were a driver of hospital admissions? My hon. Friend will also note that delayed discharge from hospital is often a cause of pressure in urgent and emergency care departments, yet the Government have again delayed any changes to social care. While we all recognise that there are often challenges—indeed, as a Minister, I faced them myself—the hypocrisy of those who suggested before the election that there were simple solutions, and yet are now taking decisions that are actively leading to elderly, frail patients being admitted to hospital, at the same time as other decisions are deliberately delayed, is striking.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. My original speech had an element of social care in it, but I took it out, so I am pleased that he brought that up. This Government have kicked social care reform down the road, and we can kick it down the road no longer. We have to face up to these difficult and tough decisions. There are no simple answers to these things, but my right hon. Friend makes a good point and I agree with him.

I have used the example of winter fuel payments to demonstrate a simple truth. This Government told pensioners that they were on their side. They campaigned for their votes. The Pensions Minister—again, I have been watching his X or Twitter—was even at the pensioners club in Swansea just days before the general election, no doubt reassuring them that he was on their side. Perhaps when he comes to respond he will tell us what he was doing. They have let our pensioners down, without apology, without owning their decision, and without any care for what it might mean for millions of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Now the 9.2 million pensioners—13.5% of the UK population—who are losing their winter fuel payment see the Government talking about sending money that could pay for it many times over to Mauritius. If they care about helping pensioners, they are out of their depth. They did not think about the impact of their decisions and have not bothered to monitor it. If they do not care, they gave pensioners false hope and took it away as soon as the votes were counted. What a sad state of affairs.

On too many issues, the Labour party was happy to talk the talk in opposition, but is unwilling to, or perhaps incapable of, walking the walk in government. In June, the now Work and Pensions Secretary decried the number of pensioners paying tax going up under the Conservatives. In November 2023, the now Chancellor said that the Government were picking people’s pockets by not increasing tax thresholds. Now that the Labour Government are in charge, an estimated 2 million more pensioners will be paying tax by 2032. Time and again we see the same old Labour party, which will say anything to get votes and nothing to help when in government.

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

On the subject of broken promises, before the general election, the now Prime Minister said that there would be no increases in council tax. However, many of the 64,000 pensioners across the Bradford district who will be impacted by the winter fuel allowance will also have a 10% increase in their council tax as a result of our local Labour-run administration. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the broken promise of the winter fuel allowance that will impact pensioners, but the broken promise of increased council tax?

[Blake Stephenson]

Indeed, the winter fuel allowance is one example of many broken promises. I know that my constituents feel let down by this Labour Government, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising some pertinent examples from his constituency.

Where do we go from here? Well, I am here to help the Government with some simple ways in which they can help our pensioners.

[Wendy Morton]

I don’t think they are listening.

[Blake Stephenson]

I do not think they are listening either, but let’s try. The Minister for Employment has told me previously about the Government’s desire to help pensioners reduce their energy bills, and I agree. There was a flagship policy in Labour’s manifesto, but good intentions alone are not enough to reduce energy bills. The Government’s Great British Energy pet project will not produce any energy. It will not employ anything near the number of people they said it would, and its boss cannot say when it will reduce energy bills. For many pensioners, that simply will not be soon enough. It is not just the Government’s GB Energy plans that are a mirage. They want to improve energy efficiency, but they cannot say where their warm home grants will be spent. They cannot say how many of the worst impacted properties off the energy grid are listed buildings that would need more specialist support.

All the energy wasted on plans that will not bring down energy bills could have been better spent taking real steps to reduce them. While the Government have been talking about reducing energy bills, they have gone up by £170. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve real, focused action to drive up energy efficiency and drive down energy bills.

From the private sector I know that the old axiom “what gets measured gets done” is more than a cliché. The Government need to start taking seriously getting every single person eligible for pension credit signed up for it. To do that, they need to set out a credible, measurable plan with targets that we can all hold them to account on. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve a real focus to make sure that the most vulnerable pensioners get the help they need. Getting them that help will also help the Government in their mission to grow the economy.

Independent Age found that spending an additional £2.1 billion on pension credit for all eligible pensioners would save the NHS and social care around £4 billion. That is extra money to spend on the Government’s priorities—growing the economy and delivering better public services while protecting the most vulnerable pensioners. We must also go further to ensure that the Government are able to support both the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. People need confidence and certainty in pensions to plan. That is a lesson we must learn from the winter fuel fiasco, and indeed from the legacy of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Politicians cannot continue to promise things that cannot be delivered. We have a duty in this place to deliver the things we promise. That means ensuring that we put the state pension on a long-term sustainable footing with a plan that looks to the future.

During this Parliament we must clearly communicate to the young people starting work now the support that they can expect to receive from the state when they retire, so that from their first days in work young people can start to plan for a comfortable retirement. We must get pensions reform right—I think the Minister will agree with that—so that young people have good choices available to them as they build financially secure futures. In doing so, we can build greater financial resilience so that the next generation of pensioners, and those that come after, will never have to worry about choosing between heating and eating again. To do anything else would be a dereliction of the duty we have been entrusted with by our constituents.

The Government promised pensioners that they would deliver for them. Instead, they have chosen to balance the books on the backs of people who cannot simply turn around and go back to work, and who cannot find an extra £50 behind the sofa to turn on the heating this week. Although the Government can hide behind shameful, politically driven characterisations of some of the poorest in our society as millionaire pensioners to justify snatching away vital support, pensioners know the truth. Labour were elected on a promise to make pensioners’ lives easier; they have done the opposite. Over the next four years we all have a duty to do better for the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. I hope that the Government will get a grip quickly and rise to that challenge.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

14:53

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate.

Adequate Government support for pensioners is vital to ensuring dignity in old age. Indeed, the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which it looks after vulnerable people. Many, many pensioners have only the state pension as their main source of income. The UK Government’s recent action to cut support for pensioners has rightfully been met with anger. Labour MPs, including all Scottish Labour MPs, voted to cut the winter fuel payment for 900,000 Scots. Weeks later, Scottish Labour MSPs voted against an SNP Government motion demanding that the UK Government reverse the introduction of means-testing of the winter fuel payment. Now Anas Sarwar claims they are going to deliver it if he is elected next year. Pensioners do not have time for that kind of Scottish Labour false promise while their benefits are being cut.

Ministers point to the uptake in pension credit as some sort of mitigation for the cut in the winter fuel payment, but it seems ridiculous that the cut was not delayed to allow for a longer uptake campaign. I hope the Minister will tell us, because I do not understand yet, what the trade-off is between the revenue raised by the cut in the winter fuel payment and the uptake of pension credit. If the uptake increases to, say, 50% or 60%, what does that do to the money that the cut is supposed to be raising?

If the Government had delayed the cut, that would have ensured that pensioners do not miss out and would have reduced the number of pensioners going cold this winter. I come from one of the coldest parts of these islands. Hon. Members have probably heard of Braemar, which is often said to be one of the coldest parts of the UK. It is in the north-east, close to Balmoral, the King’s private estate. Many, many pensioners in the north-east are feeling the effects of this cold winter. I totally endorse the comments that were made about the impact that has on people’s health, the increased admission rate to hospital, the increased number of delayed discharges, and the increased number of avoidable deaths.

In the general election, Labour was elected on a platform of change, but I and many voters had no idea that that change would be to cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners. I am old enough to remember previous Labour Governments, and I do not recognise this Government as a real Labour Government. They just do not seem like the kind of Government I was expecting.

At least one colleague in this Chamber was with me when we had a debate on fuel poverty in England. We heard about all sorts of measures that the Government could be taking, such as social tariffs, social prescribing and, perhaps more importantly, some form of windfall tax on the obscene profits that energy companies are making—I think the figure cited was £423 billion or something of that order. A windfall tax on that level of profit would absolutely dwarf any saving from the cut to the winter fuel payment.

In contrast to the UK Government, the Scottish SNP Government will provide universal support through the introduction of the pension-age winter heating payments next year, which will ensure a payment for every pensioner household in the winter of 2025-26. Pensioners in receipt of a qualifying benefit such as pension credit will receive that benefit at a rate of £300 or £200, depending on their age. Meanwhile, all other pensioners will receive £100 from next winter, providing them with support not available anywhere else in the UK. The SNP Government in Scotland have shown that the UK Government’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment was wholly political. For reasons that I do not understand, they chose to punish pensioners, especially those just above benefit thresholds.

As already said, another failure of pensioner support from the UK Government—both Labour and Conservative, I must add—was on WASPI compensation. I was shocked to see that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who happily posed for a photograph with WASPI women while in opposition, ignored them and the ombudsman report, which demanded compensation, as soon as she came to power.

Other policy decisions are hurting pensioners. For example, the employer’s national insurance contribution charges are leading to reduced third-sector service provision. The farmers family tax is leading to higher prices at the supermarket, and that hits the most vulnerable people in society, including pensioners.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the important role that third-sector organisations play in our society. Was he as shocked as I was to learn from Marie Curie cancer care not only that the increase in national insurance will cost it several million pounds a year, but that the winter fuel allowance is being taken from 44,000 terminally ill pensioners?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree with the hon. Member —that is absolutely shocking. I was not aware of that particular statistic, but I have spoken several times on the Floor of the House about the plight of hospices. Only this morning, I heard from Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, which is facing a cut of £250,000 as a result of those extra employer’s national insurance contributions. That association does not yet know what the impact of that cut will be, but the two people on my call this morning might well lose their jobs. We are speaking here about nurses and other support workers who provide essential support to people after a stroke. That is the impact of those national insurance changes on such organisations.

I will wind up by simply saying—as I said earlier—that to me, all of this shows that this Government fundamentally do not understand the situation of so many pensioners throughout the UK.

15:00

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing today’s debate. As others have pointed out, it is rather sad that the Labour Benches are empty today. I can only guess that Labour Members are not interested in this issue, or perhaps they did not receive the message from the Whips suggesting that they come along.

We on the Conservative Benches speak to our constituents day in, day out. We knock on doors and listen to people, and we know that this issue is not going away. Thousands and thousands—millions—of pensioners out there are hurting, and they are worried about the lack of the winter fuel payment. To some, £300 may not seem like very much, but perhaps the Minister needs to be made aware that to someone on a fixed or low income, £300 is literally the difference between heating and eating. It enables them to turn their heating up when the winter weather hits. People who do not get the winter fuel payment will not get the cold weather payment either, so it is not just a single whammy; it has a multiplying effect.

One of the most shocking, or saddest, things about this issue is that it was literally days into this Labour Government’s tenure that the Chancellor announced that she was scrapping the winter fuel payment, and just weeks ahead of the winter. We are still only in February—we have not seen the winter through yet—and we have already witnessed and felt plummeting temperatures. Our pensioners have had no time to prepare for this; no time to try to save, or to work out whether they can afford to have a bit of extra insulation in their homes. They have had no time to even fill in the form to apply for pension credit, hoping that they might be eligible for it.

We have spoken today about the third sector helping our pensioners. Some pensioners go to the third sector for help with filling in their pension credit application form. I do not know whether the Minister has actually seen that form, but believe you me, I have. It is pages and pages—questions upon questions. I opened that document and thought, “Oh my goodness, where do I start?” I would like to think that I am quite intelligent and technologically minded, but even I found that form to be an absolute nightmare, so how does a person who is 83 and is sitting at home feel? Those pensioners might not have somebody who can help them to fill in that form, so they are excluded—not just digitally excluded, but excluded from being kept warm. I hope that the Government are listening today.

I have also tabled a series of written parliamentary questions, because it was clear from the very beginning that the Government had not made a full assessment of what the situation looked like and what it might look like. That includes the impact on our health services and on social care, but fundamentally, this is about the impact on pensioners sitting at home and on their health. I have often struggled to get meaningful answers out of the DWP. I must admit that I table quite a lot of written questions and ask a lot of questions in the main Chamber, as my constituents would expect me to do, but of late, I have been trying to find out something really important: how many people who are eligible for pension credit were waiting for their winter fuel payment at the end of last year, and again as of 31 January. The DWP replied:

“Where the customer is eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment, the Department aims to make this payment within 2 weeks of the award of Pension Credit. Customers won’t miss out on Winter Fuel Payments even if their qualifying benefit takes longer to process than usual.”

I remind the Department and Ministers that some people cannot wait—they need that money. They need that payment to be processed now, while we are in the winter period. Those people have their bills to pay now, so I gently urge the Minister to do anything that he can to speed up payments to those who are eligible. That would be one tiny thing that might help some people.

We rightly talk a lot about the people who are eligible, but there is also a big group of pensioners who are just over the threshold. They are the ones who are really hurting because they qualify for nothing. Pension credit is, I think, classed as a trigger benefit. If someone gets pension credit, it triggers the winter fuel payment. It is all means-tested. I completely understand that, but as I say, there are pensioners who are getting absolutely nothing. They are the ones who are really facing hard decisions. “Shall I put the heating on today? Shall I put the oven on today? Actually, I can’t afford to put the oven on. I don’t have a microwave. I might have to have a cold lunch.” That is no good if you are ageing and in ill health.

The other anomaly that I want to raise is someone who is on attendance allowance but seriously ill. They do not have a huge amount of money, but are over the current eligibility level for pension credit. They are missing out on winter fuel payments as well, and they are often the people who really need extra heating at home. Again, it is the difference between keeping warm or not. We know that some people spend more time in bed in the hope that they can keep warm. For all the wonderful work that our churches and community organisations do providing places of welcome and helping in the community, a whole group of people cannot even leave their homes because of mobility and health issues. If we are not there to support them, what is their life like? Does it mean just lying in bed, feeling more and more isolated? We already know that social isolation is a problem among older people.

I could go on and on, but I will resist doing so. We know that 14% of pensioners are in destitute poverty. Can we imagine what that must be like? I find it incredible that a Labour Government have made this callous decision on winter fuel. For those who are in receipt of pension credit, how can the Government continue to justify this policy? People are not being treated fairly, while at the same time the Government are in discussions with the Mauritian Government. We hear the sum of £18 billion talked about. The Government deny that, often saying that it is £9 billion. I frankly do not care whether it is £9 billion or £18 billion. I have strong views on what is happening with regard to the Chagos islands, but when we relate it to the winter fuel allowance, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) did in the House the other day, when she highlighted that that money is enough to pay winter fuel payments to all pensioners for the next 12 years, I think that starts to give some context about where the Government’s priorities lie.

15:04

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for setting the scene incredibly well. I hate to say this, and apologise for doing so, but I am disappointed that no Labour Back Benchers are present because, as the Minister will know, my allegiance lies to the left of politics. That is who I am, but the party that I expected to be the party of conscience is no longer that party. I spoke to my friend, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), before I rose to speak. I am very conscious that it is not Opposition Members that put it into law that the winter fuel allowance would be withdrawn from pensioners; it is Government Members. That is incredibly disappointing for me. The party of conscience, as I saw it, is no longer the party of conscience. I say that with deep regret, but I say it honestly, because that is how I feel, and I have to put it on the record.

Although the previous Government did it, we will take the credit for it. Remember that the DUP was in partnership with the Conservative party. As part of that deal, we secured the triple lock on pensions for our people. Everybody gains from that. To be fair to the Labour party, it is committed to it, and I do not see any changes coming in that regard—at least I hope to goodness that no changes are coming. For a certain period of time, that helped to keep pensioners out of poverty due to cost of living increases, not least the ever-escalating fuel bills. Even the triple lock cannot keep up with prices.

Poverty among older people is the highest it has been since the 2008 recession. Northern Ireland, where oil instead of gas is more often used to warm houses, has seen sharp price rises. Indeed, I understand that 68% of houses in Northern Ireland depend on oil. Over the past three years, National Energy Action has experienced a significant rise in the number of households seeking emergency support because high energy prices and wider cost of living pressures mean they can no longer afford to keep their homes warm and safe.

That is something to which I can testify. Many people get food bank vouchers from my office in Newtownards. My constituency had the first food bank in all of Northern Ireland. A good thing about the food bank is that it brings together the churches, individuals and organisations that wish to help. Sometimes we can focus on the dire need, but we should also focus on the fact that it brings good people together to help. There is a goodness out of it, and one that I am pleased to support. My office is the biggest referrer for food bank vouchers in the whole of the constituency. The food bank does wonderful things and helps people in their hour of need.

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wonderful work that food banks do, but does he agree that it is a source of shame to this country that food bank usage is growing?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, it is disappointing, and I cannot ignore that fact. I always like to think that good people come together, reach out and try to address those issues, but the hon. Gentleman is right that they should not have to.

In September 2023, NEA undertook a Northern Ireland-wide representative survey to assess the impact of energy prices on households. The survey found that 41% of households in Northern Ireland were spending at least 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs, and were therefore in fuel poverty. The continued pressure on household budgets has led to a rise in detrimental coping mechanisms. Those systems that should be in place to help are clearly unable to. For example, 19% of households told the survey that they had gone without heating oil, gas or electricity in the past 24 months because they were unable to afford energy. One in 10 households admitted to skipping meals to ensure they had enough money to pay for energy. Others have referred to that.

The pensioners I speak to are vulnerable, have complex health needs and have disability issues. Sometimes they have no family. As others have said, they have to look after themselves, but they are unable to. That dismays me greatly. Data shows that close to one in five households over over-60s are now in such severe fuel poverty that their homes are being kept in a condition that “endangers the health” of the inhabitants.

What happens when someone cannot heat their house? The house deteriorates, the mould grows and the damp grows. It is a fact: people have to have a level of heat in their houses; otherwise, they will deteriorate. That is an impact that is perhaps not often seen. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will remember the debate this morning in which a constituent was mentioned: an elderly person, over 70, who was living in a house with a leak in the roof. He did not have the ability to fix it, had no family to fall back on and did not qualify for any grants for it. The deterioration of houses cannot be ignored.

Fuel poverty among pensioners is dangerous and must be addressed. I recently went to the home of a lady who was applying for attendance allowance. I am no better than anybody else, but I know how to fill in forms—I know how to do all the benefit forms, and I have done them for umpteen years; I know how they work, and I know the right words to say on behalf of a deserving constituent. When I was on the election trail in July, going round the doors, I acquired between 80 and 90 attendance allowance forms. Those constituents did not qualify for pension credit, but we were able to get them on to attendance allowance, as I will explain with one of my examples. Those forms take at least an hour to fill in, and I have a staff member who does nothing but fill in forms five days a week—sometimes six.

Let us be honest: I am no spring chicken any more. I am a pensioner and I will be reaching quite a significant figure shortly, but I am pretty strong. I think I am strapping, although I am not sure whether my wife agrees—she is the one who really matters. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has a great interest in shooting; I could probably stand shooting for the best part of the day in cold weather, as long as the pheasants and the pigeons kept coming over my head.

[Steve Barclay]

Not only standing, but I recall that in the debate on Monday, the hon. Gentleman was sitting next to the Minister, such was the pressure on seats. Given that none of the Minister’s colleagues have bothered to come to the debate, perhaps he might consider sitting over there again and giving the Minister a little company.

As other hon. Members did, the hon. Gentleman is talking quite rightly about the speed and the targeting of the policy. The point is that it was a choice. There is a debate to be had about universal benefits and targeted benefits, but the speed with which it was done meant that some of the targeting, such as for pension credit, was not addressed. That has caused the cliff edge that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about, so that if someone is just over the threshold, they lose out entirely.

On choices, the Government have chosen to fund not just the Chagos deal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, but the above-inflation pay rises to trade union workforces such as train drivers. The hardship cases set out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others show that this issue is not about a wider debate on the economy, the mistakes made in the Budget or their effect on our growth projections, but about choice. The Government have chosen to give money to their other priorities—but before the election, they told pensioners that they would choose to prioritise them.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Member is a man of great of experience and he knows that this is an intervention, rather than a speech.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman was doing so well that I felt like leaving him in full flow. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on that issue.

I was successful with that lady’s attendance allowance form, and I am pleased that the benefits system justified her claim given her complex health needs, including mobility issues. In that lady’s case, it enables her to get £436 per month, or £5,130 a year, which fills the gap from not getting the pension credit. However, not everyone qualifies for that allowance, which is what the right hon. Member referred to.

The lady’s home was on the brink of freezing, and she very openly said that she was hopeful of getting the attendance allowance to fill the tank with oil, which she did. She justified her claim and she deserved it, but she should have got it years ago. She did not apply because she did not know about the allowance, so perhaps the Minister could look into contacting pensioners directly.

I find the pensioners who I deal with regularly to be very independent, and they are nearly apologetic for applying for a benefit. They say, “Oh no, I don’t think I’d qualify for that,” but when we ask them questions, we suddenly find out that they do. My office staff were able to secure a Bryson energy grant to put some oil in that lady’s tank in the short term. When people say that pensioners are getting more than ever, I can only think of that wee lady in her cold home, who quite clearly was not.

That lady is not the only one. Local churches, such as the House Church and Christian Fellowship Church, make their facilities available to people for food and meals, as well as to come and read—or “sit and knit”, as they call it—in their warm facilities in Newtownards town. I am greatly encouraged by people’s goodness, so I am thankful for the churches and the voluntary sector that step up when the Government fail.

I want to clarify one final issue, although I am very conscious that somebody else wants to speak and I do not want to take up their time. A further issue of concern for pensioners are the letters that come from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with no explanation, and ask women in their 80s to go online, fill out a tax application and pay back taxes. I have one lady whose husband’s pension is £50 per month and that puts her over the threshold. Honestly, I get so frustrated, and I know that wee lady was even more frustrated than me. She had to pay back a tax bill of £280, and of course, she said, “Look, take my husband’s pension. I don’t want it any more. It’s only giving me bother. I don’t know how to fill the forms in.” So there is an issue about pursuing that, and we have to reach out and help people who get those sudden letters.

I conclude with this: my party has sought to divert some of the block grant as a small help for pensioners in fuel poverty, recognising that they need that help. I understand that the Government cannot pay all of the fuel bills, but I believe that we can do better, and help more, and I look to the Minister to do just that.

15:20

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate, and indeed for his strong speech. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), or “strapping of Strangford”, as I think we are going to have to call him now. As other hon. Members have alluded to—not only alluded to; it has been stated quite openly—it is appalling that not a single Labour Back Bencher is here to defend the Government’s policy. That is because, thus far, I have not heard any credible defence from the Labour Benches for the removal of the winter fuel payment.

I remember the Minister from Oxford, and I know he is a doughty champion of all things socialist, so I look forward to an equally strong defence of this policy. I say to him gently that it is clearly the wrong policy, and I am afraid that he has been given a hospital pass, to be frank, to have to come here today to try to defend it.

Under the last Government, more than 20,000 pensioners across my constituency of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages received Government support to assist them financially with energy bills and daily costs through the most challenging of times, such as covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. Now, since only 1,200 pensioners in my constituency are eligible for pension credit, nearly 19,000 pensioners have been left in the cold by the Government.

At a pension credit surgery that I held in October to assist with pension credit applications for those who might not have access to the right technology, I met Diana. She told me that the extra money from the winter fuel payment was essential to heating her home—for her and for her husband, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Now that it has been withdrawn, Diana told me that she has to choose between heating her home and eating food.

The scale of this issue is hugely concerning. Age UK has reported that 82% of all pensioners living on or just above the poverty line will lose that payment—a total of 2.5 million people. Independent Age has confirmed that raising the pension credit take-up from 60% to 100% would raise 440,000 pensioners out of poverty.

Energy costs continue to rise under this Labour Government—by 10% in October, when I was running that pension credit surgery, and again in January—meaning that pensioners are paying, on average, an extra £170 since the beginning of this Labour Government. It is remarkable that the Government are not taking advice from industry experts and from charities on how to reduce the healthcare strains and increase the welfare of our pensioners.

Currently, our pensioners are having to make difficult choices, as other hon. Members have said, including opting to stay at home to ensure that they are not taken ill by the cold weather, or indeed choosing not to eat at all for days. I have heard that at first hand, through a survey that I ran to assess the impact that the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment is having on pensioners in my constituency. I am not going to go through every single response, but Sheila, a talented craftswoman, told me that the cold is forcing her to have to sit in multiple layers of jumpers and is heavily affecting her ability to sew and knit, with the cold worsening her arthritis.

Now that my constituents are unable to rely on Government support, I am routinely attending local pensioner support groups across my constituency, including those run by the brilliant Farnham Assist and the Hindhead lunch club, which brings people together fortnightly to provide them with a hot meal, conversation and the opportunity to socialise in a warm community hall.

As someone who spent their career prior to becoming a Member of Parliament working in the healthcare system—including, latterly, in NHS England—I am hugely concerned about the pressure that withdrawing the winter fuel payment is putting on our NHS. The Labour party’s own assessment of the issue when it was in opposition said that it would cause 4,000 deaths. When I pushed the Health Secretary on that figure at the Health and Social Care Committee some weeks ago, he could not give me an answer as to why those 4,000 deaths were suddenly not going to happen. On top of that, we know that the £10.6 billion that the Government allocated to NHS England in the Budget will be eaten up by national insurance rises, inflation and pay increases for staff. Not a single penny of it will go to improving patient care, including patient care for pensioners.

Last October, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) asked the Department of Health and Social Care what the potential impact of introducing means testing for the winter fuel payment was on hospital admissions. The Minister’s response pointed him to the extra funding given to the household support fund in the October Budget. However, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, the Minister has since admitted in a letter that the fund was not designed to support pensioners.

If the Government are unsure on the impacts of the household support fund in my constituency, perhaps I can help them. The south-east receives the second-lowest funding amount from the household support fund at £30.57 per pensioner per year, whereas the winter fuel payment gave pensioners up to £600 depending on their circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how pensioners such as Diana and Sheila can be supported through the loss of the winter fuel payment when they are not eligible for pension credit.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Member that she came into the debate very late. I do not wish to embarrass her in any way, but if she wants to intervene, she needs to be here at the start of the debate.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am sure that I would have agreed with whatever point the hon. Lady was about to make.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the hypocrisy of this Government telling pensioners prior to the election that they were going to be fine—indeed, they were told that things would get better for them. Instead, things have become markedly worse. As other hon. Members have also mentioned, we have also seen that with WASPI women. To be frank, Diana and Sheila are just the canaries in the coalmine for the larger issue of the Government’s worrying treatment of our pensioners.

At my Monday morning surgery, a pensioner asked me, “Why does Labour hate pensioners?” I could not give her an answer. I have no idea why the Government have decided to punish pensioners—perhaps we can understand that from the text messages of the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne). That is why the Government must listen to the experts in the industry, in the charitable sector and in the health and social care sector who are raising the issues and presenting them with the figures.

The Government must reverse this treatment of our elderly and vulnerable and ensure that this winter, next winter and every winter that this terrible Government are still in power, every pensioner is warm, safe and looked after.

15:28

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital.

My constituency is home to 18,164 people aged 65 and over. Whether under the Conservatives or Labour, Britain’s pensioners have been a political football for successive Governments to mistreat, kick around and turn their back on. That has been the case from the winter fuel allowance under this Government to the betrayal on the triple lock by the previous Government and the failure to compensate WASPI women by both the Conservatives and Labour.

Pensioners are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They have worked hard all their lives, and they should have an opportunity for some much-deserved rest and relaxation. Instead, they are forced to stress about finances and to make impossible decisions that threaten their health. I am sure every MP of every political party will have received casework or correspondence about older people being forced to choose between heating and eating. Fuel poverty is a blight on our nation and a sign that our welfare state is failing—and it will get worse. The energy price cap is forecast to rise for the third consecutive period in April 2025, and the average energy bill is already 57% higher than it was in 2021.

The Chancellor’s cuts to winter fuel payments have only exacerbated the problem that poor pensioners face. The Government are attempting to clear up the horrific mess the Conservatives left the economy in, and they have picked up the pieces—but they have dropped them all over again. In October 2024, a YouGov poll commissioned by Independent Age found that 43% of older people who had lost their winter fuel payments would go to bed earlier to avoid having to heat their homes, while 23% said they would not turn on their heating at all. That poses a clear and direct threat to their health, with Independent Age estimating that it would cost roughly £4 billion in increased NHS and social care costs. Locally, that could fund two new Royal Berkshire hospitals.

One of my constituents, Philippa, came all the way to Parliament to talk to me about the impact of the cuts. Many of the people with her remarked how few Labour MPs took an interest in meeting pensioners from their constituencies face to face to hear about the effects of the policies they ended up supporting—I will let the evidence speak for itself. Philippa is not the only one who made contact. Mark, Pauline, Maxine and many others all wrote to tell me how worried they were. The Government have made the wrong decision in trying to cut spending, and they should have taxed the banks, social media giants and online gambling companies instead.

Liberal Democrat Wokingham borough council has done a great job trying to make the best of a difficult situation. It has encouraged eligible pensioners to sign up for pension credit before Christmas, including by sending 1,000 letters to people identified as potentially eligible. That exercise revealed that, although the DWP knows which individuals are eligible for pension credit, it does not release that information to councils. Having that information would have supported the great effort by Wokingham borough council, so will the Minister commit to changing that policy, to allow councils to inform those eligible for pension credit more effectively? If I am wrong on that, the Minister can write and tell me, but I do not think I am.

What steps are the Government taking to support people with their energy bills who are above the threshold for pension credit and other means-tested benefits? Will the Minister commit to launching an emergency home energy upgrade programme to provide free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households?

When many pensioners were already suffering through the loss of the winter fuel allowance, the Government decided to turn their back on hundreds of thousands of WASPI women. It was a shameful decision to betray millions of pension-age women, who were wronged through no fault of their own, and to ignore the independent ombudsman’s recommendation. The ombudsman concluded that just 43% of people knew that the planned change to the state pension age would affect them personally. The Liberal Democrats pushed the Government for years to compensate WASPI women fairly. That tone-deaf decision cannot be allowed to stand. Will the Minister state precisely why he does not believe that WASPI women are owed compensation? Will he do the right thing and agree to a parliamentary vote on this issue?

On a related matter, my constituent Alan sadly lost his wife recently. She was one of the many women affected by the increase in pension age. To add to that injustice, there was a change in 2016, and Alan has been told that he is no longer entitled to any form of widower’s state pension. Therefore, he is losing money that his wife received, even though his normal living expenses are pretty much the same. I wrote to the Minister some months ago, and I still look forward to a response. I hope he will be able to dig further into this matter and send me a reply soon.

Finally, let us not forget that the Conservatives have failed pensioners, both when they were in government and, more recently, outside of government. The Leader of the Opposition has many low moments to point to from her first 100 days, and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) must rub his hands together excitedly after Prime Minister’s questions most weeks. For me, however, the most obvious low moment was when the Leader of the Opposition decided to go after the triple lock on pensions. One moment, when it is politically convenient, the Conservatives are all for means-testing benefits, but suddenly, when they are starved of new ideas, they are against it. The Conservative leader promised not to have too many policies, yet one of her first was to advocate slashing the state pension.

The Liberal Democrats are proud that we introduced the triple lock for pensions, and we will fight tooth and nail against any attempt by the Conservatives to weaken it, or if the Minister and the Labour Government decide to do what the Tories did in 2022 and temporarily suspend it. Will the Minister commit today to never make that mistake?

15:36

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. It is the second on this topic today, but it puts a particular focus on the support that the Government should be providing.

I also thank hon. Members for the many contributions that we have had, and I will briefly touch on a couple that raised points that I was not planning to raise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) highlighted the lack of notice that pensioners had about the change to the winter fuel payment. That highlights the fact that nobody could be expected to do any planning, as well as the lack of a wider impact assessment of what this change would actually mean for real people’s lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but he talked about the council tax increase that many pensioners will also face in the coming months. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) highlighted the knock-on impacts of the change to winter fuel payment on our health and social care systems. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) talked about the impact on 44,000 terminally ill patients.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the lack of heating in damp homes. It is interesting to note the cross-reference to the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, where there was a huge emphasis on tackling mould. Yet what we have here is the knock-on impact of the challenges faced by pensioners, which may instead lead to an increase in mould in their homes.

Finally, I will just highlight the rather humorous point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who I think will go down in history for coining the phrase, “Strapping of Strangford”, which could well be the highlight of this whole debate, alongside the lots of equally great points that he made about his constituency. Sorry— I digress.

What has really been highlighted this afternoon is Labour’s broken promises, particularly to pensioners. They fought the election claiming that they were on the side of pensioners, but this entire debate has highlighted that that may not be the case. Actually, I should also refer to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who made a whole load of claims about the Conservative party and who seemed to forget the successes that I am about to highlight. I also wholeheartedly refute his claims about what has been happening since the election.

[Clive Jones]

I am not the MP for Swansea West; I am the MP for Wokingham.

[Rebecca Smith]

Sorry, I meant to say Wokingham. I had circled “Swansea West” in my notes; I was trying to be clever—forgive me. Anyway, I will go back to my notes; that would be much better.

In the same way that the Government are coming after farmers, with the family farm tax, they have also gone after pensioners right across the country—and all of that on the back Labour wiping £118 billion off the value of people’s pensions the last time it was in government. So, many of these pensioners have already seen their pensions being devalued.

At the same time, the Government are finding the money to launch the vanity project GB Energy—if we are lucky, we will see lower energy bills by 2030—and pouring money into public pay packets, with no expectation of improving productivity. Pensioners and farmers seem to be the easy targets, and some Labour members seem to believe that that is the case—or perhaps I should say former members, given that they are perhaps less likely to vote Labour.

Labour has come to power against the backdrop of a Conservative record of improving dignity in people’s retirement. We protected the triple lock; uprated the state pension by £3,700; drove up pension credit applications earlier in our time in office; and abolished the pension lifetime tax allowance, which we need some credit for, because it incentivised more experienced workers, including GPs, to stay in work for longer. The Resolution Foundation, which the Minister previously worked for, has confirmed that pensioners are £1,000 better off since 2010, thanks to the decisions made by successive Conservative Governments.

As other Members have said, among the more disappointing policy decisions the Government have made since they came into office is the decision to scrap winter fuel allowance for pensioners who are not in receipt of pension credit—that is the key point. The decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance has seen 10 million pensioners lose access to payments they were previously eligible for. I note the excellent research published by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), which shows that my constituency of South West Devon is likely to be among the hardest hit. Previously just over 22,000 people received winter fuel allowance, but now only about 1,600 would be eligible through pension credit. Some 21,301 pensioners in my constituency would lose out.

Many of us have had representations from constituents, and I want to particularly highlight single pensioners, who are the hardest hit in many cases. We have heard that some earning as little as £11,344—less than £1,000 a month—are no longer eligible for winter fuel payments. There is also an undue hit on the disabled and those whose modest savings lift them out of the bracket. That is completely immoral.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon; I promoted her there, but I am sure that it is only a matter of time. Does she agree that when a political choice such as this is put in place, it removes the incentive from working people to get on in life, do well, do the right thing and save a little, because they know they will get kicked by a Labour Government?

[Rebecca Smith]

Yes, absolutely, and I think we see that right across the piece of DWP benefits. That is one reason why we think getting people into work, in particular, is so important. The lack of notice, particularly for those with savings, who are doing the right thing, but who are now having to choose whether to do work on their home or heat it, is definitely not a good move.

It was projected that 880,000 pensioners eligible for pension credit, but not yet claiming it, would lose access to the winter fuel allowance when the policy was first announced. By November 2024, the Government had improved pension credit uptake by only 81,000, so the debate will have been put to good use if they commit to take further steps to raise awareness to increase those numbers. Equally, it would be great if we could see the number of applications per constituency, because many of us cannot find that data at the moment, so it would be good if it could be released in due course.

Lastly, I want to highlight the household support fund, which is a very welcome pot of money instituted by the previous Conservative Government. However, it is not enough to tackle the gap between those who receive winter fuel payment and those who do not because, as we have heard time and again this afternoon, it is there for the entire community, not just pensioners. As has also been highlighted, there is a real disparity across the country, and my region receives the smallest amount if the funding is split per pensioner, with just £30.10 in the south-west, compared to £66.73 in London. I want to give a shout-out to the warm, welcoming places in my constituency, such as the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub, the Sir Joshua Reynolds pub, Plymstock library and Hooe Baptist church. They all do a great job to provide those spaces but, ultimately, if that is all we can do in the south-west, it is just not fair that that funding is not split across the board.

Finally, I have a couple more questions. Will the Minister look at why the household support fund is distributed so unequally, whether to pensioners, working families or individuals?  It is particularly difficult for our rural communities, which will be the hardest hit because their heating costs are even higher, so the lack of the £300 or £600 that they would have got will be felt even harder.

Will the Minister commit to delivering a credible plan to ensure that all eligible pensioners can secure pension credit and the services that go with it, which I have mentioned? As we have heard, it is a gateway benefit: if someone can unlock it, they get a whole load of other support.

Finally, will the Minister commit to a long-term focus to make sure that we think clearly about what we do for those who might be just outside the brackets at the moment? In 1997, when the previous Labour Government introduced student fees, they did so with no notice; that was just put on people, with no expectation that it was going to happen. Within two years, students went from no fees to full fees, and if we do not think ahead, this policy risks leaving us in exactly the same situation.

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain, in a debate on such an important topic. We owe thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing it, and I thank everybody who has contributed to it.

Recent years have been difficult for pensioners. They, along with the rest of Britain, have had to wrestle with a cost of living crisis, inflation in double digits for the first time in four decades, food prices rising even faster, and energy bills that have shot up—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, before he mentioned that he is approaching a significant birthday. The debate is focused on whether it is 40 or 50, but we will celebrate whatever it is, as well as celebrating his form-filling success.

Everyone who has spoken in the debate will have spoken to constituents about the challenges posed by the cost of living crisis. I have certainly spoken to some of the 17,000 pensioners in Swansea West. This is an important debate and, as well as responding to the points that Members have raised, I will cover: what lessons we can learn from the past, celebrating some things that have worked and recognising where they have not; what the Government are doing today to support pensioners, covering lots of the points raised by Members; and, briefly, our future priorities, as requested by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith).

First, I will address the good news. In the 1990s, pensioner poverty was rampant. Almost 30% of UK pensioners were living in relative poverty. The old and the young—children—bore the brunt of the rise in poverty in the 1980s and early 1990s, but under the last Labour Government, not only did rates of pensioner poverty fall, but they had halved by the 2010 election. That did not happen by accident. Policy—including the introduction of pension credit, which we have discussed today—drove lots of that change, especially for women and older pensioners, and higher private pensions and employment rates further boosted pension incomes. But no one, of any party, thought that it was job done at that point, and I am sure that none of us thinks that today, not least because, in recent years, progress on pensioner poverty has stalled and relative pensioner poverty has risen by 300,000 since 2010.

Even though today the UK has a lower rate of relative poverty among pensioners than the OECD average, the fact remains that, as Members have said, pensioner poverty is still too high. It is 16% in Wales, and it is especially high for renters. Almost 40% of all pensioners in poverty are renters, and with growing numbers of private renters, the challenge looks likely to grow, reinforcing the point that the hon. Members for South West Devon and for Mid Bedfordshire made about the need for long-term planning.

There is another lesson from the last decade and a half: when growth stalls, the reductions in absolute pensioner poverty that we all used to take for granted slow or even grind to a halt, so growth matters for pensioners as it does for workers.

[Rebecca Smith]

Does the Minister not agree that, from 2010, the previous Government secured a 200,000 reduction in the number of pensioners in absolute poverty? I do not have details of what the figure might have been otherwise, but it is important to put that on the record, because nearly a quarter of a million is still a significant number.

[Torsten Bell]

I am loath to do this, but the honest answer is no—it is far too small a reduction. Absolutely poverty should be falling every year, very significantly. We should really only need to debate relative poverty measures because, in a growing economy, we should all be taking it for granted that absolute poverty is falling.

I hope that we can agree on two things: first—I think we do agree on this—that we must do better, and secondly, and more positively, that there are lessons to learn from what has worked over the last quarter of a century. While we are on a positive note, I can agree with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) about the importance of community groups that support our pensioners, through Ageing Well in Swansea and, I am sure, lots of other devices around the country.

I am not under any illusions—even if I was, I could no longer be after the last hour and a quarter—about hon. Members’ views on the Government’s decision to target winter fuel payments at those on the lowest incomes. I will not rehearse all the arguments for that policy, but our dire fiscal inheritance is no secret. We owe it to the country—to all generations, young and old—to put that right, and that has involved wider tough decisions on tax and spending. I say gently to Members who oppose not just the targeting of winter fuel payments, but every tax rise proposed, that that has consequences. If they oppose every tough choice, they propose leaving our public finances on an unsustainable footing, and leaving our public services in a state that far too often lets down those who rely on them, not least pensioners.

Although we can no longer justify paying winter fuel payments to all pensioners, it is, as all Members have said, important that we do more to make sure pensioners receive the support they are entitled to. In recent months, we have run the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, because, although around 1.4 million pensioners currently receive pension credit, too many are missing out. I urge all pensioners to check whether they are entitled to support.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the complexity of the pension credit form. I have considered that, and there is more that we can do to simplify it. All I would say is that in our messaging to pensioners, we should be clear that most of the questions do not need to be answered by the people filling in the form. Currently, 90% fill in the form online or over the phone, and the average time taken to fill it in online is 16 minutes.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing that clarity, but it took me longer than 16 minutes, so perhaps I am not as articulate as others.

[Torsten Bell]

It is the average.

[Wendy Morton]

Does he agree, though, that the 10% who cannot do it themselves in that way are potentially really losing out? There is also a group of pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and done the right things, but are too proud to apply for pension credit, let alone to go online to fill in a form.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the case of those who might need support to complete the form. That is why one of the elements of the campaign we have run this year is targeting not pensioners directly, but friends and family, to encourage them to help people to apply for pension credit themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I want to make a bit progress, and then I will take some more interventions.

I will be updating Members later this month on the impact of the campaign so far. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about constituency-level data on winter fuel payments. We will be publishing that in the usual way in September. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked about the DWP and councils working closely together to drive pension credit uptake. He was completely right to do so. I will write to him on the specific point he raised, because it is not true, but on the generality, he is completely right that the onus is on the DWP to work with councils, and on councils to work with the DWP.

Wider support is also available for pensioners: direct financial help through cold weather payments in England and Wales, and help with energy bills through the warm home discount, which we expect to benefit over 3 million households, including over 1 million pensioners, this winter. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and several others raised the need for energy efficiency in homes. They were completely right to do so, but I note very gently that there was a 90% fall in energy efficiency installations in the early years of the previous Government. Someone wanted to “cut the green”—and that was the result. We are trying to do better than the previous Government did on that front.

We are committed to maintaining the triple lock on the state pension throughout this Parliament. The hon. Member for South West Devon rightly noted that that was introduced under the previous Government.

[Seamus Logan]

The Minister promises to maintain the triple lock, but the Government have broken promises on WASPI women and on farmers, so how can anybody believe that they are going to keep their promise on this?

[Torsten Bell]

We will be maintaining the triple lock throughout this Parliament, as promised in our manifesto. In April, the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.1% and 12 million pensioners will see a concrete increase—whether Members believe it or not—of up to £470.

Several Members mentioned the need for long-term planning. That commitment to the triple lock means that spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion this Parliament. At the individual level, that translates into the new state pension being on track to rise by up to £1,900 a year, and the basic state pension —the pension that is relevant to those who hit the state pension age before 2016—by £1,500. But the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I hinted that attendance allowance might be another method of giving benefit entitlements to qualifying pensioners. Not every pensioner would qualify, but many would. I suggest a concerted campaign by the Government to make every pensioner aware of all the benefits. As the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, sometimes they are shy, sometimes they are independent, and sometimes they do not know they are entitled to things.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Attendance allowance would entitle a pensioner to extra income to pay for extra costs, including heating if required, but it would also lead to a higher threshold for qualification for pension credit. However, he is right that we need to see people applying for those benefits.

As I was saying, the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners, and that returns on private pension savings matter too. We are undertaking a comprehensive pensions review to ensure that the pensions system is fit for the future, building on the success of auto-enrolment, which was introduced under the last Government and has seen over 11 million employees saving into a workplace pension. That is one of the big areas of progress in the pensions landscape in the last 25 years.

The Government are committed to further reforming our pensions landscape, so that it drives up both economic growth and returns to savers, via the upcoming pension schemes Bill. We need bigger and better pension funds investing in productive assets such as infrastructure. We need to help individuals consolidate small pension pots and have sight of them via the pensions dashboard, so that they can plan for security in retirement. The measures in the Bill could help the average earner who saves over their lifetime have over £11,000 more in their pension pot when they come to retire.

[Steve Barclay]

The central justification that the Government give for taking away winter fuel payments is the fiscal position, but then they say that they want people to take up pension credit, which comes at a cost. Could the Minister say how many people would need to take up pension credit to cancel out the fiscal benefit? If that were to happen, it would undermine the central premise on which he is putting forward the policy.

[Torsten Bell]

That argument is made a lot. All I would say is that all of us should want all pensioners to receive the benefits they are entitled to and to drive pension credit take-up. We are confident that this policy will deliver significant savings, and the costings put into the Budget in the autumn take into account an increase in pension credit take-up.

For most pensioners I speak to, concerns about the state of the health service are front of mind. The biggest betrayal of pensioners today is the state of our NHS—run down in England and undermined in Wales, with the capital budgets handed down by the UK Government to the Welsh Government not remotely sufficient to maintain the NHS estate or to invest in badly needed diagnostic equipment.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

No.

That is why this Government are investing £22 billion in the English NHS this year and next, with consequentials for the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan)—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

No.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East rightly says that society will be judged on how it treats its pensioners, particularly with regard to the NHS, but in Scotland we have now seen five new NHS recovery plans announced in four years. That is not a tribute to our older generations. Supporting pensioners in the 2020s is about more than opposing every tough choice—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. Is it orderly for me to point out that the NHS is suffering from a number of over-65s who sadly have a high level of mortality—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I do apologise to the hon. Member, but that is not a point of order, and she knows it. I call the Minister.

[Torsten Bell]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain.

Supporting pensioners in the 2020s is about more than opposing every tough choice that the Government have to make. It means directly raising pensioner incomes via the state pension and pension credit, but it also requires us to reform our private pension system, grow our economy and rescue our public services—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. We are out of time, but I want to make a public apology to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). I should have allowed her to intervene, and I certainly meant no discourtesy to her.

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

Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

16:01

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I will call Graham Leadbitter to move the motion. Unusually, two further Members will make a contribution in this half-hour debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to sum up at the end.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the Scotch whisky industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Today I seek to address the critical role of the Scotch whisky industry in the UK economy and to outline the essential support that it requires from the UK Government.

Scotch whisky is more than just a drink; it is a cultural and economic asset that is enjoyed around the world. We all share the desire to ensure that it is enjoyed responsibly and sustainably for generations to come. Each bottle shipped from Scotland to every corner of the world leaves behind a measurable impact on our economy. The numbers speak for themselves. The industry provides £7.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy. It supports 41,000 jobs across Scotland and more than 25,000 more jobs across the UK. Scotch whisky accounts for 74% of Scottish food and drink exports and 22% of UK food and drink exports.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is right to highlight the importance of Scotch whisky in his constituency. In my constituency, the Hinch distillery is becoming a globally recognised, award-winning whiskey brand. These home distilleries provide for each and every person’s constituency, including the hon. Gentleman’s, mine and others. They grow the local economy and should receive support to further their success from the Government here at Westminster.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I enjoy a dram now and again as well.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I do not want this to become a promotion for every drink across these islands, but the challenges that Irish and Scottish whisky face are also faced by Baileys. Maybe not many people know this, but 70% of the world’s Baileys is produced in a factory in Mallusk in my constituency. It is exported to 100 countries worldwide, providing good jobs in the economy. I know the hon. Member enjoys a glass as well.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I do not know whether I need to comment on how many different types of drink I consume. Returning to the matters at hand, exports are valued at more than £5 billion, with 43 bottles of Scotch whisky exported every second.

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

Would the hon. Gentleman allow a non-promotional intervention?

[Graham Leadbitter]

Yes.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about exports. We know the damage done to the Scotch whisky industry when we last suffered tariffs as a consequence of US trade policy—nothing to do with President Trump, it has to be said, but due to an old trade dispute. Surely this is the point at which the Government should be thinking ahead and putting a strategy in place to help the industry should, heaven forfend, we find ourselves back to that place as a consequence of the new regime in the White House?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I will come on to a little bit later in my speech.

In 2022, Scotch whisky distilleries attracted 2 million visitors, making them the most popular tourist attraction in Scotland. Between 2018 and 2022, the industry invested £2.1 billion in capital projects, with many more such projects in the pipeline as we speak.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing to see the Prime Minister commit that he will

“back Scotch producers to the hilt”

—I believe those were his words—while enforcing the highest excise duty in the G7 on Scotch? Surely now is the time for the Prime Minister to back up his words with action.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I agree entirely with those sentiments. Again, I will touch on that issue shortly.

The success of the Scotch whisky industry relies on firm foundations and support. Support can take many forms, and I will endeavour to outline the key areas in which the UK Government can take positive and beneficial action. First, on trade, securing beneficial free trade agreements is absolutely paramount. For example, a free trade agreement with India that reduces the 150% tariff on Scotch whisky could generate up to £1 billion in additional exports over the next five years and create 1,200 jobs. We must also continue to strengthen our trade relationships with the US, recognising the significant investment that the Scotch whisky industry already brings to the US economy.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

rose—

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Graham Leadbitter]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).

[Richard Baker]

Does the hon. Member agree that the work undertaken by Ministers to open up new markets for Scotch whisky is vital, and that the new special status for Scotch whisky in Brazil is great news for the industry? Does he also agree that the InchDairnie distillery in my constituency should be supported in launching its new rye whisky brand, through consideration of the current legislation regarding labelling, which is vital, but is creating a barrier to its accessing the rapidly growing market for rye whisky?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is really interesting that the industry is diversifying into new brands, new products and new styles of whisky being produced in traditional distilleries.

[Douglas McAllister]

The hon. Member will be aware that 90% of Scotch whisky is exported. Does he welcome this Government’s decision to give Scotch whisky protected status? Following on from that, Brazil granting special status to Scotch whisky is set to give the industry a boost of at least £25 million. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Government are removing trade barriers and unlocking global markets, and does he welcome selling Scotland to the world, rather than just selling Scotland to itself?

[Graham Leadbitter]

Absolutely. As I have mentioned, 43 bottles of whisky are exported every second—that will be 75,000 bottles of whisky by the time we have finished this debate. That is a phenomenal export contribution not just to Scotland’s economy, but to the wider UK economy at the moment. I welcome the efforts made by the UK Government in the area of trade; the question is whether more can be done, and whether those efforts can be made more quickly.

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

It is right to give credit to the UK Government for some of the work happening on exports. However, does the hon. Member agree that the changes that the previous Government made to spirits duty, which this Government have refused to change, mean that the Treasury is losing out on money by not treating alcohol as alcohol across the different categories?

[Graham Leadbitter]

Absolutely. That is another point that I will expand on in a bit more detail shortly.

We must continue to strengthen our trade relationships. While this debate is rightly focused on UK actions, it will not have bypassed hon. Members that there has been significant media comment on tariff actions taken by the US Administration in recent weeks, and on what potential future actions may be taken. Combined with global headwinds affecting the wider luxury brands market, it has unsurprisingly generated comment and speculation, both from within the sector and elsewhere. Maintaining a watchful eye and accentuating the positives of the existing trade relationships remain vital.

On excise duty, the current tax regime is unsustainable. Scotch whisky and other spirits have faced a 14% increase in excise duty in just 18 months. Over the past 18 months the Treasury has lost £255 million, or £500,000 per day, in spirits revenue—a far cry from the £600 million that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the increase in spirits duty would raise. That Treasury loss from lower sales was projected by the industry to increase as the Chancellor’s recent decisions start to bite.

If we want to examine the impact higher taxes have had on the retailers and the producers themselves, we need look no closer than right here. Last year a freedom of information request revealed that in the first 10 months of 2024, a year after the Conservatives hiked whisky tax, sales of whisky in Parliament’s gift shops plummeted, with average monthly sales of 5 cl bottles down 36% and 70 cl bottles down 16% by the end of October. That means that, when Labour MPs approved the Chancellor’s plans to further increase taxes on whisky products, they did not even need to leave the building to pass a shop adversely affected by the tax.

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

The SNP has failed to use the powers the Scottish Government have to grow Scotland’s economy and has instead provided over low growth and low productivity, prioritising vanity projects over economic development. Scotland lags behind the rest of the UK in 10 out of 13 productivity indicators due to several factors, including insufficient investment in key industries and underperforming innovation strategies. The Scottish Government’s slow response to support industries like Scotch whisky has exacerbated the issue. The lack of proactive long-term planning to foster business development and improve competitiveness has left Scotland’s economy struggling to keep pace with the rest of the UK. Is the hon. Member aware that his own Government’s inaction over 17 years has held this vital industry back?

[Graham Leadbitter]

That was a fairly lengthy intervention. The first point I would make is that the key concerns raised by the Scotch whisky industry are trade agreements and spirits taxation—and we are here to scrutinise the Government in Westminster, not Scotland.

The tax increase means that a minimum of £12 of the cost of a bottle of Scotch is now claimed by the Exchequer in tax for the first time, disproportionately penalising those who choose to consume Scotch whisky over other beverages. I urge the Government to reconsider excise duty on Scotch whisky to ensure that its global success story is not undermined.

On extended producer responsibility, we need a scheme that genuinely promotes a circular economy. The industry is supportive of EPR in principle, but it must not simply function as a packaging tax on producers. The costs imposed on producers through EPR are considerable and place significant additional cost pressures on the industry. Producers must be given clear figures to map their liability and meet their obligations. Better incentives need to be placed on local authorities to use the payments provided by producers to improve recycling and reprocessing services and in turn lower costs per tonne for producers.

Supporting the industry’s sustainability goals is absolutely crucial and will, by extension, help meet the wider net zero goals that I believe most of us want to see achieved. The Scotch whisky industry has long taken its responsibility to address its own impact on the environment and to tackle our emissions seriously. The industry is committed to decarbonising its own operations by 2040 and becoming net zero by 2045.

The Scottish Government’s Scottish industrial energy transformation fund and the UK Government’s net zero innovation portfolio are welcome and have been strategically important in de-risking new technology, supporting delivery and testing at scale. It is important to note the example of Chivas Brothers, which has set an ambitious target of becoming carbon-neutral in distillation by 2026—I repeat: by 2026, or next year—and is on target to achieve that. That is ahead of the Scotch Whisky Association’s industry target to decarbonise by 2040 and Scotland’s vision of being net zero by 2045.

Chivas’s heat recovery technology programme is open source, encouraging the adoption of technologies that unlock the successful reduction of energy intensity and carbon generation at scale. It is extremely heartening to see an energy-intensive business such as distilling being willing not just to invest millions in developing innovative new technology, but to invite competitors, supply chain companies and others to share in that learning and use it in other locations. That is something many other businesses could learn from in terms of how we collectively tackle our energy usage.

It is vital to protect the unique sales environment offered by duty-free and global travel retail, a critical market for the whisky industry. Duty-free sales have long contributed to the development of the Scotch whisky industry and are estimated to generate £6.2 billion in annual exports and support 42,000 jobs across the UK. Overseas duty-free sales provide a shop window for Scotland. The vast majority of major airports have shelves lined with an incredible variety of Scotch. Serious consideration of arrivals duty-free here in the UK could provide a new opportunity for whisky brands to showcase their products, while creating a critical new source of revenue through increased employment in the UK-based supply chain.

The Scotch whisky industry is a vital part of both the Scottish and UK economies, and is a source of national pride. In my own Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency, the sector operates 48 distilleries—soon to be 49—numerous labs, whisky storage sites and offices with engineers, technicians and architects, and is supported by a vibrant and extensive supply chain and a busy logistics sector. More than 5,000 of my constituents’ jobs are tied to the Scotch whisky industry—one in every nine jobs. It is the most concentrated group of distilleries in the world.

By addressing the issues I have outlined today—trade, excise duty, extended producer responsibility, sustainability and duty-free sales—the UK Government can provide the support needed to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry continues to flourish for generations to come. We need all parties to champion our great exports, including Scotch whisky, and ensure that the sector has the support it need at home to deliver growth and investment, to flourish and to deliver on its sustainability objectives.

16:17

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for calling this debate on Government support for the whisky industry, a measure that I warmly support. I have the good fortune to represent some important whisky names located in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Diageo has a major distribution centre, and at Hillington we have a fine example of a modern distillery established by the Glasgow Distillery in 2012, which is going from strength to strength. We have a well-respected and established independent bottler in Douglas Laing & Co, which has more than 70 years in the industry, Russell’s bonded warehouse and, I suspect, more than a few customers of the Scotch whisky industry. So my constituency, like many others in Scotland, has a significant association with whisky, which is a good source of quality employment, a driver of innovation and a source of pleasure.

Whisky is a craft, an industry and an important export; it is symbolic of Scotland’s landscape and beauty. I welcome the recognition that this debate brings, and I pledge to support this vital Scottish industry.

16:18

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) on securing this debate, and thank him for his forbearance in letting me say a few words. Showing that this is a cross-party issue, it great to see Scottish Liberal Democrats, SNP MPs and Scottish Labour MPs here. It is a shame that we have missed out on the Scottish Conservatives.

Scotch whisky is more than a drink; it is one of Scotland’s finest products, a symbol of our heritage and a driving force in our economy. In the Livingston constituency, we are proud to have world-class whisky producers such as the Glenmorangie and Ardbeg bottling plant and the North British Distillery. They generate good jobs, investment and prosperity in our communities, and that is why it is important that the Government have taken decisive action to support the industry.

We have worked tirelessly to remove trade barriers, ensuring that Scotch whisky receives the international recognition that it deserves. As others have said, Brazil’s decision to grant Scotch whisky special status will give a £25 billion boost to the industry by opening up one of the world’s fastest-growing markets. Brazil ranks among the top five global growth markets for alcohol over the next five years, and with exports to the country already topping £90 million in 2023, there is a huge opportunity for Scotch producers.

What is more, the Government’s decision to give Scotch whisky protected status will, as has been said, ensure that our product remains authentic and competitive, free from imitation products that could undermine its quality and reputation. This really is brand Scotland in action, expanding our global reach, strengthening our economy and boosting jobs and investment in Scotland. The support does not stop there. The UK Government’s decision to invest up to £5 million to cut costs for distillers in the spirit drinks verification scheme and to remove the mandatory duty stamps for spirits from May this year will be an important boost to the industry. Those steps will make it easier and cheaper to do business, ensuring the continued success of our whisky industry.

Scottish whisky is a global success story, but with the Government’s support, and with the Scotland Office relentlessly promoting Scotland and Scottish products, we will ensure that it remains at the heart of Scotland in the future.

16:21

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for securing the debate and providing such an excellent and thorough introduction. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) and for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on their contributions. I am sure that they will all be delighted to hear how much I enjoyed my visit in the summer to the Glendronach distillery in Aberdeenshire.

The Government recognise and celebrate the global success of the Scotch whisky industry, which is of historical and cultural significance and plays a huge role in the UK’s economy and balance of trade. In 2023, exports of Scotch reached almost £6 billion in value. That success comes from the industry’s well-earned reputation for quality and high standards, and we are committed to working with the industry to champion and protect that reputation.

[Douglas McAllister]

The Scotch whisky industry supports 41,000 jobs across Scotland, many thousands of which are in my West Dunbartonshire constituency, including at Chivas Brothers in Dumbarton and Auchentoshan in Clydebank. The October Budget backed Scottish whisky, introducing measures called for by the industry, and I welcome the Government’s move to address long-running discrepancies in the treatment of the Scotch whisky industry by ending duty stamps, and to reduce and deliver parity in the fees for the spirit drinks verification scheme. Can the Minister share when details of that very positive announcement on reduced fees will be confirmed?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will come to the Budget measures in a moment, but first I endorse my hon. Friend’s point about the number of jobs the industry supports—41,000 in Scotland and a further 25,000 across the rest of the UK, many in rural areas.

Collectively, whisky distilleries are now Scotland’s most visited tourist attraction, bringing in thousands of domestic and international tourists every year, largely to rural areas, and creating many opportunities for employment. Whisky is also a hugely important trade good. In 2023, the equivalent of 53 bottles of Scotch every second were sold overseas. That is important to delivering growth at home, which is why we are committed to supporting the Scotch whisky industry to export its fine products to overseas markets. We do that by leveraging free trade agreements and removing barriers to market access across the world. We are currently working on no fewer than 29 markets.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It is important that we recognise, particularly when we look at the US, that exporting Scotch is not the only challenge. The Scotch whisky industry needs ex-bourbon casks to produce the whisky we all know and love. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to ensure that conversations with the US Administration take place? Otherwise, our supply will be impacted.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We are well aware of the importance of those casks to the industry and their value.

As well as working with Governments overseas to increase market access, we work closely with the industry at home to catalyse its ability to reach export potential. We offer a wide range of support for businesses that want to start exporting or to expand into new markets, as well as a compelling programme of trade shows and events to support Scotch whisky exporters to access new markets, build buyer connections and increase marketing in target countries. We also have a network of international trade advisers offering one-to-one support across England, and teams with embedded sector expertise in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Overseas, we have a network of trade advisers and international market teams supporting agriculture and food and drink businesses in more than 100 markets, supplemented by a network of 15 highly skilled agricultural attachés focusing on removing trade barriers in key markets. We are aware of the challenges faced by Scotch whisky in international markets and we work closely alongside their representatives.

Officials across Government are working on trade deals and breaking down export barriers to ensure that Scotch whisky is traded on a fair playing field and has opportunities to grow in new and expanding markets. An important part of that work is securing geographical indication status in major export markets, to add to Scotch whisky’s domestic protection. The status is a special form of protection that defends the iconic product from imitation and counterfeiting. Last August, the Government were pleased to announce our role in securing this form of protection in Brazil, a country which is in the top five global growth markets for alcohol, and is worth almost £900 million in Scottish exports.

In the Budget a firm commitment was made to support spirits producers by, among other measures, investing up to £5 million in the spirit drinks verification scheme, which will reduce the fees paid by businesses for verification of their use of the Scotch whisky geographical indication, and go towards upgrading the overall verification scheme the Government provide. The specifics on how the funding will be used to improve the service will soon be announced by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

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

The share price of Diageo is down by two thirds, that of Pernod Ricard has halved—the whisky industry is in a difficult place. In the Budget, the duty added to a normal bottle was 32p, taking the total duty on a bottle of spirits up to £9.18. Does the Minister not think that we are plucking the golden goose once too often?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear those concerns. We are addressing a whole range of financial issues across the economy, and we think this is a fair and balanced approach.

To continue outlining some of the measures that we have taken to support the industry, we have announced measures to reduce business costs and encourage growth. We will be doing away with the alcohol duty stamp scheme from 1 May. About 3,500 spirits producers, bottlers and labellers will no longer need to comply with the duty stamp requirements, saving an estimated £6.5 million annually.

We will also simplify the administration of alcohol duty, reducing burdens and supporting growth. From March 2025, HMRC’s arrangements for duty returns and payments will be reformed, supported by a new online service. Additionally, reform of the production approvals required by spirits producers means that many will no longer be required to operate separate excise warehousing facilities for the storage, bottling and labelling of their own products.

The industry has always been innovative in sustainability practices. That is reflected in the strategy developed by the Scottish Whisky Association, supported by the UK Government as we strive to develop a more circular economy. The strategy involves a number of packaging reforms, such as the deposit return scheme and extended producer responsibility. We genuinely believe that this partnership working toward a common outcome will help us all to achieve wider sustainability goals.

We are aware that some distilleries in Scotland have struggled in recent years with delays and limitations to connection with the national grid, creating a barrier to growing their businesses. Reducing electricity network connection timescales and expanding network capacity to connect and to power businesses are both top priorities for the Government. We are working closely with Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator to accelerate network connections. The newly announced mission control for clean power 2030, alongside planning reforms to speed up infrastructure development, will play a vital role in unlocking grid connection delays for Scotch whisky distilleries, especially those in rural areas.

I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey again for securing this debate. In the contributions today, we have heard Members’ passion for this vital and important industry in Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. We have also demonstrated the strong support the UK Government are giving the Scottish whisky industry by listening to and acting on the industry’s concerns, and by working collaboratively toward common goals.

Question put and agreed to.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: Second Report of the International Development Committee, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, HC 373.]

16:31

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

It is an honour to serve under chairship today, Dame Siobhain. It is also an honour to bring this debate to Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to see so many parliamentary colleagues in attendance. With that being the case, I am not planning to take up my full allotted 10 minutes, as there is obvious enthusiasm among Members to participate in the coming hour. There are many colleagues here who have been passionate campaigners for justice for many years, and I would like to hear as many speeches as possible this afternoon.

On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion in respect of the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. The ICJ was clear that Israel’s occupation, annexation and continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful, and that Israel is under an obligation to end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible, with the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements. The Court built on the determination that Israel has committed systemic violations of international humanitarian law by recognising that Israel has permanently acquired territory by force and suppressed the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

When the Minister rises to speak later in this debate, can he confirm that the Government agree that the occupation is illegal, and that they will call on Israel to comply with the ICJ and demand an end to the occupation? While the UK has called for an end to settlement expansion, do the Government agree that Israel must comply with the ICJ and not only stop settlement expansion but evacuate settlers from Palestinian land?

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important and timely debate. He is absolute right to point out that this is perhaps the most substantial advisory opinion on Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, which makes it clear that settlements are illegal, as is Israel’s ongoing expansion of them, and settlement goods are illegal, as is the import of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that this places a particular and clear obligation on our Government to act immediately and abide by international law?

[Brian Leishman]

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, and I pay testament to the work he has done to bring this issue to Parliament in the primary Chamber. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain why—to quote the UK ambassador to the UN—we supported

“the central findings of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion”,

but then abstained at the UN general assembly on 18 September 2024, where an overwhelming majority of nations supported the ICJ’s advisory opinion? They demanded that Israel brings to an end, without delay, its unlawful occupation within no more than 12 months’ time, by 18 September 2025.

Israel has developed and maintained its settlements through the forced removal and displacement of Palestinians. The Court’s opinion is that Israel has the obligation to make

“reparation for the damage caused…to all natural or legal persons concerned”

in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for action. Does he agree with Amnesty International that one of the practical measures the UK Government could take would be to ban goods produced in the illegal Israeli settlements?

[Brian Leishman]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that topic. That is something that I will mention at more length later on in my contribution, but yes, he can rest assured that I do. I am in firm agreement with my hon. Friend.

The ICJ advisory opinion is significant because it adds to the growing international consensus that Israel is committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians. That language is extremely important, because the international community has witnessed, and continues to witness, annexation, occupation, segregation and apartheid. The world is the witness of crimes against humanity, and while the UK Government are in denial about what constitutes a genocide, millions of our own citizens, Amnesty International—as mentioned before—and many nations from the international community are not.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point, which I strongly endorse. Of course, he can go further, because we are well aware that the new US Administration are now recommending the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. On top of the UK Government making clear their abhorrence of all of the actions that the hon. Gentleman has just described, they should make it very clear that they strongly oppose the proposals coming from the US as well.

[Brian Leishman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution as well. I think it is fair to say that, when we look at President Trump’s recent comments, it takes us into a new and rather diabolical position, with his efforts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people from their homeland. His comments about making Gaza a riviera of the middle east are frankly appalling, and an explicit denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The hard truth is that the UK needs introspection—to look at what we have done, and what we continue to do, to allow these dreadful acts of death and destruction to happen with impunity. I ask the Minister to please explain why the UK has sold, and continue to sell, arms to Israel—arms that have been used in committing atrocities against the Palestinian people.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking my intervention, and for securing today’s debate, which is indeed on a very important subject.

I recently attended a talk by Professor Mamode, who demonstrated, with images and with his own testimony, the kinds of injuries that are being sustained by some people in Palestine. Notably, there was a seven-year-old boy whose injuries were so symmetrical that they could not have been done by human hand; they had clearly been done by a drone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to also be thinking about the export of items that are not militaristic in and of themselves, but that can be weaponised, as drones have been in Palestine, and that we have to consider export bans on those items, too?

[Brian Leishman]

I thank my hon. Friend; I wholeheartedly agree. Again, that is something that I will turn to later in my contribution, when we look at a variety of actions that the UK Government could undertake.

I also ask the Minister to defend the words, and lack of action, from our Government, which have enabled the Israeli blockades to continue—blockades that stopped lifesaving aid, food, water and medicine from reaching besieged Palestinians who were starving and in the most dire need.

Historical context is vital because the persecution Palestinians suffer is not recent. That treatment did not start in October 2023. For Palestinians, the Nakba began many decades ago. From the mass dispossession of the Palestinian people in 1947 and 1948 to the present day, ethnic cleansing has been a constant.

The seizure of land and homes, the forced displacement, the destruction of civic, educational, cultural and religious infrastructure, which are all protected by international conventions and treaties, to which this country is a committed signatory, are all examples of settler colonialism and Israeli Government-authorised apartheid, that sees removal of the local population through ethnic cleansing. For decades, the international community has looked away and ignored the suffering of the Palestinian people.

I put it to the Government, through the Minister, that the time for the UK to show international and moral leadership is long overdue, especially regarding Palestine. Our nation’s role as the former colonial power in Palestine, issuing and implementing the Balfour declaration of 1917, presiding over the dispossession and disfranchisement of the Palestinian people, has imposed an historical debt, which continues to grow the longer we refuse to stand up for the inalienable rights of Palestinians.

Will the Minister commit the UK Government to undertaking a thorough review of their diplomatic, political, trade, economic and military relations with Israel, to identify any aspects that assist and empower Israel’s illegal occupation, and to stop those aspects? Will the UK Government suspend trade privileges, agreements and negotiations with Israel, pending the outcome of that thorough review?

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. He is making a passionate speech about the situation in Gaza. One of the biggest arguments made against the abolition of slavery was the financial cost to our country, so does he agree that the Foreign Secretary’s statement that we will not have economic sanctions against Israel because we have a £6.1 billion trade deal is abhorrent, and that we should reverse that statement as soon as possible?

[Brian Leishman]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. My answer is quite simply yes, I agree. That was an appalling statement. I would like to think that our country is frankly better than putting a pound and pence figure on the cost of a humanitarian disaster and genocide.

I put this to the Minister. Will the UK Government ban the importation of goods from illegal Israeli settlements, which facilitate and give credibility to their existence? Banning the importation of goods from Israel’s illegal settlements brings into line our commitment to international law and human rights. The ICJ is clear that all states have an obligation not to recognise, aid or assist in maintaining the illegal situation of occupation, and to stop providing assistance that sustains occupation and to ensure compliance with international law, through diplomatic and economic measures.

In conclusion, the UK Government have a very simple choice to make. Do we side with an apartheid state that has seized territory; displaced and contained people into an open-air prison; eradicated communities and centuries of culture; ethnically cleansed a people and committed genocide? Or do we join the call that many in the international community have already made for full compliance with international law, recognition of the state of Palestine and justice for its indomitable people?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Please do not take that to be a promise. As everybody can see, a lot of people want to speak. We will endeavour to get through everybody, as is our hope. At the moment, we think the limit is around two minutes, but should it prove necessary to change that, I will let people know.

16:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for setting the scene. I have a different opinion from other hon. Members, but I respect their point of view and I hope that they will respect mine.

I am, and always have been, a steadfast friend of Israel. My commitment to the state of Israel is rooted in its right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For me, that principle is non-negotiable. I hope that my remarks will reflect both my empathy and my unwavering belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.

The ICJ measures, initiated by South Africa, reflect a deeply flawed and one-sided interpretation of international law. Israel has a sovereign right, indeed a duty, to protect its citizens from the barbaric terrorist organisation Hamas. The petitioners in this case conveniently ignore Hamas’s atrocities: their deliberate targeting of civilians; the massacre of innocent men, women and children; and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.

I support the principle of a two-state solution, but let us be clear that peace cannot co-exist with Hamas’s continued aggression. Every time Israel has made significant concessions, whether during the Oslo accords or the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, it has been met with an escalation in violence and not with peace. If Hamas retains power, Palestine will be a failed state from the outset—one that continues to launch rockets into Israel’s towns and incite hatred against Jews worldwide. Peace will be possible only when the Palestinian leadership prioritises economic stability and co-existence over terrorism and destruction. A weakened Israel emboldens its adversaries, most notably Iran, Hezbollah and radical Islamist movements. Those entities do not simply wish for an end to Israel’s military operations; they desire Israel’s total annihilation.

The ICJ may issue opinions, but it is not infallible. We must challenge rulings that fail to acknowledge Israel’s security needs, excuse Hamas’s barbarism and seek to delegitimise a nation’s right to exist. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, not just in words but in actions. That is my point of view, and I hope other Members will respect it, as I will respect theirs.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I clarify that I am imposing a hard two-minute limit, so I will ask hon. Members to sit down if they go over it.

16:47

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate, which comes at a critical time for the Palestinian people, the future of Gaza and the very foundations of international law. Those things are under direct threat from the recently elected so-called leader of the free world, who has proposed ethnic cleansing that violates the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland and live free from occupation. His threat to withdraw aid to Jordan and Egypt if they reject his so-called Gaza development plan has ignited a sharp backlash.

Those proposals are a blueprint for a crime of historic proportions, and our Government must condemn and resist them. That must, of course, mean accepting in full the historic advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, made in July last year, which confirmed that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful and which found Israel guilty of violating the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid.

Let us be clear: following the advisory opinion is not optional. As a UN member state and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK has clear obligations under international law. For a year and a half, I and other hon. Members have called for urgent action to hold Israel accountable for the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and the near total destruction in the Gaza strip. We must stand unequivocally and unashamedly for upholding international law and, in doing so, for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Any further delay or refusal to do so risks the escalation of crimes of unimaginable proportions, as well as continuing to abnegate our responsibilities to meaningfully oppose the decades-long crimes of occupation.

16:49

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

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what has already been set out, but I think that the British people want to hear politicians who sit in this Chamber speak the truth.

The repeated suggestion that the more than 40,000 innocent men, women and children who have been massacred were somehow being used as human shields is nonsense. Most British people know the truth because they see it on social media. The only evidence of human shields is the ones that the Israeli army have used. We have seen that documented and international organisations have confirmed it.

Any reputable organisation that makes adverse findings against the Israeli army and the Israeli leadership is immediately labelled as antisemitic, diluting the very essence of that word. Anyone with a moral compass wants to support peace and stability for Israelis and for Palestinians—that is paramount—but it is sickening to constantly hear the disparity in the argument whereby Palestinians are dehumanised.

Today on the BBC, we heard about one individual who was killed in Ukraine by a missile—one individual. I am not saying that that is not important—of course it is; any loss of innocent life is important—but thousands of children in Gaza can be killed and it barely makes the headlines. The atrocities in the west bank are continuing. We must do all that we can to support the Palestinians.

16:51

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate today.

Less than two months ago, on 16 December, we were here in a Westminster Hall debate—the Minister was present—when I was quite passionate about the intentions of Netanyahu. I stated unequivocally that Netanyahu’s intention was to displace Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan. Lo and behold, what did we hear last week? That is exactly his intention, and now he is joined by President Trump. To me, that is no less than ethnic cleansing. We, including the Government, must call it out for what it is: ethnic cleansing. There is no other word for it.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Ethnic cleansing is a practice that we see taking place, as is the annexation of the west bank. Does my hon. Friend agree that the peace process is not an end result, and recognition must be a by-product of the peace process? That is inevitably coming to an end with the ongoing annexation that we see, but Palestinians must have a recognised state.

[Tahir Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. It is another point that I have been quite vociferous on. We can achieve a two-state solution only if the UK Government recognise both states. By recognising one state, we can never achieve a two-state solution; it is almost as if we are saying that we agree with Netanyahu, who simply wants a one-state solution. That is not the way forward for the peace process. What is being said should not be taken lightly; our denial is almost complicit in that agenda.

As of today, we have seen more than 50,000 Palestinians killed; thousands remain missing, their fate unknown; and countless families have been expelled from their homes. Humanitarian aid has been consistently denied, worsening an already catastrophic situation. The ceasefire three weeks ago brought a sigh of relief across the world. As fragile as it was—our Government have been repeating that—it almost, now, has become clear that Netanyahu, in preventing aid from getting to the Gazans as part of the deal, is the one who is reneging on it. More must be done to make sure that that ceasefire continues, and the harsh words that are being used against the Palestinians by Netanyahu and President Trump have to be called out.

16:55

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. We are at a pivotal moment in history. The international rule of law, established and affirmed after world war two, is on the brink of being disregarded by some of the very states that created it. The International Court of Justice, established in 1945, has a critical role in promoting peace and resolving disputes between states. Since its inception, it has seen approximately 90% of its rulings implemented. It is literally the world court, and the suggestion that its authority somehow is not recognised and respected because it does not apply to one single state cannot abide.

Last year, the ICJ ruling declared Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories unlawful. Although the ruling is legally binding in its principles, it is advisory in nature and its implementation will depend on the political will of states in the international community. The horrific attacks carried out by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 were appalling, and they too must not go unpunished, but Israel’s response to that atrocity has failed to distinguish in every case between terrorists and innocent civilians in Gaza. Will we continue to uphold a world order based on law, or will we allow power politics and strategic alliances to dictate when international law applies and when it does not?

Just last week, the US President sanctioned officials of the ICC for daring to investigate potential war crimes committed by Israeli forces. That was another dangerous precedent that undermines international justice. We cannot abide this: we must stand by international law and we must respect the ruling of the ICJ.

16:57

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this timely debate. It is not too onerous to have two minutes for a speech on this occasion, because there is really only one question to ask: when will the Government respond to the advisory opinion? Yes, it is a very significant piece of work and it will take some time, but we have had seven months, so I hope the Minister might indicate today how long it will be before that happens.

It will be difficult for the Government to respond, because it is not just about Gaza; it is about East Jerusalem and the west bank. It has fundamental implications for the continued existence of settlements, let alone their expansion, and for trade with those settlements. There are inconsistencies already in Government policy—from the last Government as well as this Government—in terms of allowing that trade to continue when we recognise the settlements as illegal. It is also about the segregation of the Palestinian population and the enforcement of that segregation, particularly on the west bank, and about the transfer of population, which we have heard a lot about in the last few weeks.

This will be a difficult decision for the Government. The Minister said that he agrees with the central findings, notwithstanding the fact that the UK abstained in the vote, but the implications of the Government agreeing with the judgment are very powerful for our relations with Israel, which is a friendly country.

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

On that point, and following on from the speech by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), is not the key issue whether the UK will abide by international law, the rules-based order and the systems that were set up after the second world war?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a conflict between some of the Government’s political instincts. They say that Israel is an ally, but sometimes we have to speak as strongly to our friends as we do to our enemies. The reality is that the UK has particular responsibilities, such as historical responsibilities, going back to the Balfour declaration and the mandate, and moral responsibilities. The UK also has power and influence as a member of the UN Security Council. Unlike the last Government, this Government should take that seriously.

This issue goes to the heart of the problems in the middle east, and resolving issues between Israel and Palestine will unlock peace in the middle east. What is happening at the moment is exactly the reverse of that. We have a Government who say very clearly, through the Attorney General, that they believe in the rule of law. That is to be admired, but we must see it in the way that they respond to this opinion. I hope that we will see that soon.

16:59

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this very important debate. As he set out in his introductory remarks, the historic opinion from the International Court of Justice has significant implications for the UK Government. It adds to the growing international consensus that the actions of the Israeli Government constitute apartheid—a consensus articulated by states, by NGOs, by Israeli as well as Palestinian organisations, by Israeli politicians and by Israeli newspapers.

The ICJ opinion is very meaningful for the UK because, as it sets out, third states have obligations deriving from that opinion. Third states have an obligation not to recognise as legal the illegal occupation; not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of that illegal situation.

I ask the Minister to please answer five specific questions. Given the opinion, it seems absolutely crystal clear that the UK must, first, end all arms sales to Israel, including dual-use items; secondly, end any military surveillance partnership that could contribute to rendering aid in maintenance of this illegal situation; and thirdly, regulate the private sector—there are credible reports of complicity on the part of private sector organisations, not least oil and gas companies, in providing fuel that maintains the unlawful occupation. Fourthly, the UK should ban the import of products from illegal settlements. Fifthly, it should suspend the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel and negotiations over any new trade agreement, pending a proper and thorough review of the international human rights implications of this. In order to get peace, the occupation must be ended.

17:02

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.

The conflict in Gaza has undoubtedly devastated communities, decimated areas and destroyed countless lives. Each and every day, the death toll rises as further lives are extinguished. Futures are lost forever. Our Government have worked extensively with the international community to support a desperately needed ceasefire in the region—and of course, we can always do more.

The ceasefire was hard fought and painstakingly negotiated, but finally it delivered not only peace but hope. Along with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, we welcomed a ceasefire that I know brought some small comfort to my constituents in Ilford South. After 15 months of death, destruction and violence, we have witnessed hostages returning to their families and prisoners being freed in exchange. Too often in such immense tragedies, when the scale of destruction is so severe, individuals are forgotten. When we talk of death tolls—raw numbers—the son, the husband, the brother and the father are lost. Seeing the hostages and prisoners being reunited with loved ones brings into stark reality the human cost of ongoing violence in the region.

As we stand here today, the ceasefire hangs in jeopardy less than two weeks after it was announced. The lives and liberty of so many hang in the balance. Gaza is not a political tool; Gaza is home to millions of Palestinians. As the Prime Minister said recently, Palestinians “must be allowed home”.

We cannot revert back to the violence. We cannot accept further death and destruction. We know that the only viable solution to unrest in the region is a free Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. To support anything else would be to tolerate further suffering and violation of international law.

17:04

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate.

The situation in the middle east is one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our time. Gaza is in ruins and tens of thousands are dead—including, tragically, many children. Meanwhile, Israeli families are still mourning the loved ones lost to Hamas’s brutal attack on 7 October, and many hostages remain in captivity. Across the region, civilians are paying the price for political failure and international inaction, and now with United States President Donald Trump’s reckless Gaza plan, the current fragile truce is ever more endangered.

We cannot ignore the deepening humanitarian catastrophe. Hospitals should never be battlegrounds, nor should their doctors be detained—doctors and nurses must be allowed to do their jobs in safety. Aid must be allowed into Gaza at scale, and those responsible for blocking that aid should face real consequences. Let us not equivocate: the obstruction of humanitarian aid is a breach of the Geneva convention and constitutes a war crime. Then there is the issue of illegal settlements and settler violence in the west bank. Not only is the expansion of settlements illegal under international law, but it is a direct obstacle to peace. The UK must be willing to act, including by ending trade with illegal settlements, as specified in the International Court of Justice opinion, and by holding to account those inciting violence.

The immediate priorities must be a lasting ceasefire; the return of hostages, including the release of prisoners such as Dr Abu Safiya; and urgent humanitarian relief. Beyond that, there must be a real political effort—one that does not just manage the crisis but ends it. That means real pressure on all sides to make sure the current ceasefire lasts, to respect international law, and to finally deliver a solution in which both Palestinian and Israeli people can live in peace and safety.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for this, but a desire to get everybody in means that I am now reducing the time limit to one minute.

17:06

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We need action, not words. The International Court of Justice ruling means that we need to see real action from our Government, and that means widespread sanctions. I recently co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary with my colleague and hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), supported by over 60 parliamentarians from seven political parties, calling on our Government to impose comprehensive sanctions.

Specifically, we should impose targeted sanctions on state actors, ban the import of products from illegal settlements, introduce a total and immediate arms ban—including on F-35s—and revoke the 2030 road map. That special UK partnership with Israel seeks to deepen economic, trade and security ties. How on earth would it be acceptable to do that with a state facing serious allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide? The UN General Assembly has endorsed the approach that sanctions are necessary. We now need the political will to put that moral and legal imperative into practice.

17:07

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing today’s debate. I was at the International Court of Justice when the South African application was originally made, and I think we should congratulate South Africa on what it put forward and the work it has done to apply international law for Palestinians.

For the record, the ICJ’s judgment included settlement activities in breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, Israel’s attempt to annex parts of the Palestinian territories, and violations of international law prohibiting racial segregation and apartheid. These are very serious cases indeed. What we need to hear from the British Government is that they fully accept and fully support all the ICJ’s decisions, and that they will implement them. My last word is this: if we continue supplying weapons to a country that is in violation of international law, we ourselves are in violation of international law.

17:08

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate. The Israeli occupation and annexation is unlawful; I would gently say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we cannot pick and choose where the law applies. There is no exemption for Israel.

I want to ask three questions about settlement goods. Can the Minister set out what legislative and regulatory steps the Government have considered to prohibit UK nationals, companies and financial institutions from conducting business in, or with, illegal Israeli settlements? Has the UK taken any measures aimed at banning trade in settlement goods, such as introducing effective tracking systems, and will the UK ban investments in Israeli companies or banks that are contributing to maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation?

17:08

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

It is my pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate.

While our closest allies rubbish the international courts, we must not go down that path and I welcome the Government’s statements to that effect. As my time is brief, I will focus on one particular argument. Occupations are never planned to be extraordinarily long. Israeli occupation is now 57 years long, as reflected in Judge Yusuf’s separate opinion. I fear that, if the occupation continues, it will become increasingly difficult to apply international law to the situation on the ground. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister about what approach the Government are taking to ensure that the current fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas can become a long-lasting peace with a two-state solution. That is the only way that this extraordinarily long occupation will be brought to an end in the interests of Israeli and Palestinian people.

17:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this important debate.

Last week, barrister Sam Fowles warned parliamentarians of the real risk that the UK could be in breach of international law. Given the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful and given the UK’s membership of the UN, the Government must impose sanctions on Israel to undermine its illegal occupation.

Israel is on trial for genocide, so the current partial suspension of arms licences must go further. I say it again: the UK must impose an immediate and total ban on arms export licences. Furthermore, although the Government acknowledge the illegality of Israeli settlements, they continue to import goods from them. Illegal settlement products should not be regarded as Israeli goods and should be banned from entering the UK. With the US Administration openly calling—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down. I apologise—I know that he waited a long time to make his contribution. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has five minutes.

17:11

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you as our Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate, which he introduced with clarity and power. I also thank other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—it has been a passionate and compelling discussion.

Liberal Democrats have long argued that the UK should uphold the rule of law and the role of international institutions in our foreign policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) argued in this debate. The post-1945 rules-based order was forged by Churchill and other leaders and has endured until now. It not only holds moral weight but is in the interests of democracies such as the UK. For that reason, we believe that, as a member of both, the UK should observe the opinions and judgments of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

We think it is irresponsible for Conservative Members to say, as they often do in the Chamber, that those are foreign courts. They may be located overseas but they have legitimate jurisdiction over the UK because previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have consented to that. Trying to portray them as a threat to UK sovereignty is not only false but damaging, as it reduces the likelihood of other states accepting their jurisdiction.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman is making a pertinent point about the international, rules-based order. We see that the International Court of Justice is investigating genocide but states are acting as though it is not; we have seen the International Criminal Court threatened directly by the most powerful country in the world; and we see international hypocrisy and double standards like we have never seen before. Surely the international, rules-based order is not only collapsing but dying before our eyes, if the UK Government and others do not act now.

[Calum Miller]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point to which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond.

Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) have been right to recognise the terrible level of violence that we have seen over the 16 months since the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. We are moved to tears and anger when we hear of the deaths of infants in tents and hospitals in Gaza. At the same time, we are shocked and appalled to see the emaciated state of hostages such as Eli Sharabi as they are released from Hamas captivity in a gruesome pageant. There has been inhumane cruelty towards innocent civilians. That underscores why the rule of law matters. The ICC is right to consider cases against leaders on both sides. The UK should enforce these warrants.

It has been impossible for us to consider the ICJ opinion today without reference to the proposals for Gaza put forward by President Trump last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) highlighted. Since 5 November, Liberal Democrats have pointed out that President Trump would be unpredictable, and that the UK needed to put itself in a position of strength so as not to get swept into the chaos that the new resident of the White House would unleash.

Since the ICJ’s opinion was delivered in July 2024, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has worsened appreciably. Northern Gaza has been flattened and its citizens placed under displacement orders. Gaza is today riddled with unexploded ordnance, even as Palestinians return home under the fragile ceasefire. In the west bank, settlement expansion has continued, and the Israel Defence Forces have continued arbitrarily to detain Palestinians and protect illegal settlements. The Israeli Knesset has outlawed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet have continued to call for the annexation of the west bank, and welcomed President Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians be forced from Gaza, yet the ICJ’s opinion is clear. It creates obligations on other states, including the UK, which include supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, taking steps to prevent trade or investment that assists in maintaining the illegal situation, and not rendering aid or assistance that maintains the situation.

In response to that call, Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Government to take the following steps: legislate to cease trade with illegal settlements in the occupied territories; sanction those who advocate illegal settler expansion or violence by settlers towards Palestinians, in particular Minister Smotrich and former Minister Ben-Gvir; restrict all arms sale to Israel, including component parts for F-35 aircraft, since those have been used against Palestinians in the occupied territories; and immediately recognise the state of Palestine. Ministers have repeatedly refused to take those steps—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not have the power to tell you to stop, but if you would not mind coming to an end, that would be good.

[Calum Miller]

I shall, of course. I am sorry, Dame Siobhain; I was taking account of the intervention. I shall be very brief.

I am most frustrated by the consistent refusal by Ministers to recognise Palestine. If the Government are serious about working with all partners to restore a pathway to a two-state solution, that cannot happen when only one party enjoys state recognition. Failing to act empowers the extremists on both sides. The time has come to recognise the state of Palestine.

17:16

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing the debate.

We continue to follow developments stemming from this case at the ICJ carefully, and note that the ICJ itself has been far from unanimous about the advisory opinion. We understand that the Labour Government’s position is that they agree with the central findings of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, but will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that such court cases are an effective way to try to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and will he be clear that under no circumstances should we draw any kind of moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel?

Let me address the immediate situation in Israel and Gaza, which remains extremely fragile. The announcement by Hamas that they are postponing hostage releases will be a cause of concern and anxiety for the families of the hostages, and all who care about their appalling captivity. Will the Minister explain what direct engagement our Government have had with the Israeli Government, the US Administration and our partners in the region in response? The hostages held in horrific and inhumane conditions in Gaza must be returned to their loved ones, both in accordance with the terms of phase 1 of the ceasefire and in the subsequent stage. We have been relieved to see the release of the hostages freed so far under the agreement, including British Israeli national Emily Damari. I sincerely hope that all those who have been freed from captivity can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma—and nobody should doubt that trauma.

We have all seen the shocking scenes of hostages being paraded by Hamas prior to their handover, and the shocking images of the release of Or Levy, Eli Sharabi and Ohad Ben Ami on Saturday. We must also acknowledge the tragic death of 86-year-old Shlomo Mansour, who we now understand was killed during the appalling Hamas attacks on 7 October. His body has been held hostage in Gaza. We think today of his family and friends at what must be an unimaginably distressing time. The hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas are at the forefront of our minds, as are the poor families who have suffered so much and continue to wait anxiously for news about their loved ones. The news that eight hostages will not be returned to their loved ones alive is tragic. The days and weeks ahead may be very difficult for Israel and the Jewish community, and we must support them.

We must again ask the UK Government to continue to work overtime alongside our partners to exert pressure and help to remove the obstacles stopping humanitarian access to those who continue to be held hostage by Hamas. That is an important point, and it does not always receive the attention it deserves.

The Government must not jeopardise the UK’s relationship or undermine trust and confidence with the Government of Israel if they want to continue having a serious and in-depth dialogue about the present situation and the future of Gaza. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on the delivery of British aid to Gaza since last week’s urgent question.

As to what the future could look like, we are not even close to phase 3 of the current agreement and we should not get ahead of ourselves, but, to restate our long-standing position on regional peace, we support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process.

Israeli hostages remain in captivity and every single one must be released. Ensuring that Hamas are no longer in charge of Gaza and removing their capacity to launch attacks against Israel are also essential and unavoidable steps on the road to lasting peace. Our immediate focus must be getting the hostages out and getting the aid in, and then making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict.

If the Palestinian Authority are to have an expanded role, they need to implement the most significant reforms in their history, including to their welfare and education policies, and they must demonstrate democratic progress. That will clearly be important for their operations in the west bank, too. There are also steps we would like Israel to take, as we have said before, in relation to frozen funds and settlements. More generally, we want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand the Abraham accords.

I will comment briefly on the other major ICJ case, brought by South Africa, which I have serious concerns about. I do not believe it to be helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable end to the current conflict.

To conclude, although formal determination of genocide should be based on the final judgment of a competent court, the Conservative Government when in power were very clear that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Again, I do not have the power to ask you to sit down, but I would be very grateful if you did.

[Wendy Morton]

Almost there, Dame Siobhain. We will continue to carefully scrutinise the Labour Government, and I would welcome any updates from the Minister.

17:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate. I will try to make some progress. I imagine that many colleagues will want to intervene, but I am keen to give my hon. Friend a chance to respond, so I will limit the number of interventions that I take.

Many Members have spoken movingly of the horrific scenes that we have seen right across the conflict, and many have drawn attention to the fact that it is right for all our minds to be on the ceasefire at this time. It is vital that the ceasefire continues through this weekend and beyond, through all three of its phases, on time and in full. That is the most important intervention that the international community can make for the people of Gaza and the people of Israel at this time.

I reiterate, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done repeatedly, that the UK is fully committed to international law. When the Prime Minister addressed the UN General Assembly last year, he urged UN members to turn back

“towards the rule of law towards cooperation, responsibility and progress. Towards peace.”

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will in a minute.

We demonstrated our commitment to international law in September, when the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament the decision to suspend relevant export licences to Israel. I reassure hon. Members that that is not a partial suspension; it is a full suspension. I will not rehearse the F-35 arguments, but those suspensions do cover drones and the kinds of attacks that Professor Mamode has been briefing about so movingly.

That decision was made following the Foreign Secretary’s review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which concluded that there is a clear risk that UK exports could be used in violation of international humanitarian law. We are continuing those assessments and we keep all aspects of our exports policy under close review.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful for the Minister’s statement about the British Government complying with international law, because a number of us are concerned about complicity. Mark Smith, the diplomat who resigned because of his concern about arms sales to Israel, wrote three days ago:

“I saw illegality and complicity with war crimes.”

Has there been an investigation into Mark Smith’s allegations?

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to comment too much on an individual case, but the diplomat in question was not engaged in this issue specifically since our Government have been in power, so I am not sure that there is a question for us to answer there.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about the advisory opinion of the ICJ. The UK has traditionally been a strong supporter of the ICJ. It is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and this Government respect its independence.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little bit more progress, if I may.

As the Foreign Secretary and others have made clear, we continue to consider the opinion carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) rightly identified the complexity and the novel elements of that advisory opinion, and we are taking our time in considering it. I hope to be able to return to the House in due course. The opinion contains novel findings that require further reflection. I understand his desire to know quickly our position, but hon. Members will appreciate that such an important decision necessarily takes time and careful consideration. The advisory opinion in itself took months in its development, and will take some months in its—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the decision about the advisory opinion be made before or after the Swiss conference in March?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not going to be drawn on precise timings.

[Douglas McAllister]

In its judgment, the Court stated that Israel is

“under an obligation to provide full reparation”

to Palestinian victims—full reparations for its damage and destruction. That is a key part of securing peace. How will our Government ensure not only that UK and international aid flows in, but that reparations are paid to the people of Palestine?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not going to comment further on how we are going to respond to the advisory opinion. It is in process and I hope to be able to update the House soon. Recognising that time is running away from me, I am not going to take any more interventions, but I will very quickly run through some of the other issues that were raised most regularly.

In relation to trade, I want to be clear that the UK Government consider Israeli settlements illegal under international law, and goods produced in those settlements are not entitled to benefit from trade and trade preferences under the UK’s current trade agreements with the Palestinian Authority and Israel. We support accurate labelling of settlement goods so as not to mislead the consumer. We routinely update our guidance to British businesses on the overseas business risk website and advise British businesses to bear in mind the UK Government’s view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investments and activities in the region.

There have been many questions about statements from the US President. The UK has always been clear, and we remain clear, that we must see two states, with Palestinians able to live and prosper in their homelands in Gaza and the west bank. There must be no forced displacement of Palestinians, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. Palestinians should be able to return and rebuild their homes and their lives. That is a right guaranteed under international law. We need to move through the phases of this ceasefire deal, towards reconstruction. We will play our part in supporting that reconstruction, working alongside the Palestinian Authority and Gulf and Arab partners.

Let me end by reiterating this Government’s commitment to international law. We continue to consider the advisory opinion carefully, with the seriousness and rigour that it deserves. Our long-standing position is that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the OPTs as rapidly as possible. That should be done in a way that creates a path for negotiations towards a two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace. That is what we will continue to press for with our international partners at every opportunity.

I close by saying that my thoughts are with those in Gaza and in Israel suffering with terrible uncertainty at the moment. We must all hope for the preservation of the ceasefire. I and the rest of the Ministers at the Foreign Office will do everything in our power to preserve it.

17:29

[Brian Leishman]

I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and all other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

It is my opinion that the Minister did not answer all the questions that I set out, so I will submit them in writing. While there is currently a ceasefire, the humanitarian emergency facing Palestinians is very much ongoing and peace in the middle east looks a very fragile thing indeed. I will include in my letter to the Minister a suggestion that he looks into Mark Smith’s comments in greater detail, as Mr Smith details that senior officials and Government Ministers protected arms deals—

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).