Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Market Towns: Cultural Heritage
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cultural heritage of market towns.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank everyone here today for attending and showing their interest in this very important debate, and for contributing to and supporting it. I welcome all Members who represent market towns old and new.
Historically, a market town is a town that has hosted markets and is usually granted that privilege by a royal charter. These towns evolved into economic hubs where local farmers, merchants and traders could sell their goods and produce, and where residents from the local area could pick up essentials. Because of the trade that took place, these towns became the centre of development, with houses, fire stations, stables and mechanics’ premises surrounding them. Notably, market towns can develop not just through royal charter but through and with population growth and economic activity. Where we have developed infrastructure and connectivity, with better roads, trains and river crossings, that has allowed for more trade, in turn encouraging market towns to develop. Local authorities can also classify an area as a market town based on commercial importance.
For me, markets offer vibrancy and opportunity. They are a mini showreel of an area’s special characteristics. I was born on Green Street in east London and grew up with markets all around me, with friends and family owning market stalls. I also worked part time on a fruit and veg stall in Stratford market as a schoolboy. Not only do I have a keen nostalgic and personal interest in market towns and markets specifically; I also have some experience of reanimating markets. Before entering Westminster, I owned and ran a number of independent markets over the years, including fashion, art, artisan and food markets, due to my professional background in events and hospitality.
Commissioned by the London borough of Hackney, I was involved in the successful regeneration of Hoxton Street market, one of Europe’s oldest street markets, dating back to 1687. Hoxton Street had lost its way and required repositioning. As part of the town centre master plan, my team and I oversaw a stakeholder engagement strategy that encompassed existing traders, local shop operators, surrounding community shops and groups, various council departments and, most importantly, local residents. The key thing was that the work on giving that local community asset its historic vigour back included the local community. That was not only the right approach to take, but also the authentic route. Now, some 10 years later, Hoxton Street market as a community asset is still vibrant and, crucially, locally led, thereby adding to the local area’s sense of place, civic pride and local economy.
Let me give a sense of the market town I proudly represent. Rochford is surrounded by historic villages such as Great Wakering, Canewdon, Paglesham, Barling and Stambridge, all of which fall within Rochford district. I will keep it brief, as I have limited time, but if any Members would like to talk about history with me, I would love to have that conversation separately.
Rochford market was created in the mid 13th century, and a charter was awarded by King Henry III to Sir Guy de Rochford in 1247, with the aim of generating income and developing new towns. At the heart of Rochford lies the medieval market square. The square hosted a weekly cattle and livestock sale every Tuesday, Thursday and Whitsun. At the time it was the only market for 20 miles, which made it particularly popular. Nowadays there is a bit more competition but the market is still going strong.
With trade came industry. A wooden market house was built in 1707 to house the livestock, a barber’s shop and a mechanic’s opened, a fire station was built, and there were many taverns packed with residents enjoying the weekly market.
That brings me to the present. As hon. Members can imagine, the market square is incredibly different now. I regularly enjoy going to Rochford square to buy local goods, meet businesses, take my family out for lunch and hold surgeries, so I know how much potential the area has and the wealth of cultural heritage it had in times gone by. Most historic market towns have buildings of significance that shaped the town’s history. In Rochford, we have the Freight House building—a Victorian train workshop that helped move the town into the industrial age. Such cultural buildings provide a heritage footprint that market towns thrive on.
On the challenges and the context, it is fair to say that market towns are up against it and are often at the sharp end of economic downturns. We have 1,300 market towns that serve populations that range from 2,000 to 30,000 people. Over the past two decades, industry has been hollowed out and market towns have suffered. Shop vacancies have increased and footfall has decreased as consumer habits have changed: there has been a greater use of retail parks and online shopping. That change has led to a void at the heart of those communities, and often a rise in antisocial behaviour as there is less opportunity. Although the problem is not limited to market towns—we see that pattern across high streets and city centres—they often feel it acutely. It is also a structural issue.
Historic England’s research on heritage and the economy outlines that local authorities’ historic environment teams have shrunk considerably over the past decade: between 2006 and 2018, the number of conservation and archaeological specialists fell by 35%. Heritage indicators similarly demonstrate decreases in local authority spending on services for the historic environment, including a 34% decrease in museums and galleries, a 35% decrease in heritage, a 38% decrease in archives and a 57% decrease in development control by 2021-22. That means that local authorities no longer have the required expertise to protect the cultural heritage of market towns, let alone maximise the part they play in our constituencies.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
That point is incredibly important. I serve the Tamworth constituency, which has a historic market town and 1,000 years of history; it is known for its castle. It is really important that heritage is used for regeneration. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s £4.85 million heritage revival fund will help towns such as Tamworth and those that he mentioned to focus on how assets can be maximised by the community, and to focus on heritage as a regenerative tool?
Mr Alaba
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that sort of resource helps under-resourced councils. As I said, councils have lost specialist infrastructure and staff, and that has a huge impact on their ability to shape how the local economies grow.
The lack of expertise, compounded by shrinking budgets, means that casework is growing, listed buildings are crumbling and the opportunity for economic growth continues to be missed. The Office for National Statistics estimates that in 2022 there were 33,000 visits to Southend-on-Sea from abroad. That figure has been broadly similar since the VisitBritain data began in 2009. Similarly, ONS data shows that in 2023, 504,000 visits were made to Essex from abroad: people stayed 3.5 million nights and spent a total of £193 million. The data shows that the numbers have been broadly similar, except during covid. Evidence from the annual visitor attractions survey shows that in 2023, seven out of 10 of the most popular paid visitor attractions in England were heritage attractions. Indeed, 63% of us visited heritage sites last year—three times the number who attended football matches.
The tourism industry as a whole is worth £74 billion to the economy and 4% of gross value added, and has huge potential to support the Government’s plans for growth. The visitor economy is one of the biggest best-performing sectors. That should not be under-estimated. Each visit to a heritage site means pounds spent in the local economy. That supports jobs and the vibrancy of high streets, increases well-paid jobs, regenerates communities and creates pride of place. Heritage sites also make fabulous locations for filming TV series such as “Bridgerton”, “Downton Abbey” and “Broadchurch”. I am delighted by the Minister’s ambition to welcome 50 million international visitors by 2035 and the establishment of a national visitor economy strategy, which will be launched next autumn, outlining plans to support the tourism industry’s growth. Market towns will be a key driver to achieving that mission.
We know that there is a real appetite to enjoy our cultural heritage domestically and from international visitors. However, it is essential that we drive those visitors to every UK region, where there is immense cultural heritage. Boosting tourism to every region will fundamentally improve living standards by bringing growth to local economies, jobs, and an increased sense of place and diversity to high streets and town centres.
These communities and cultural assets need to be more accessible. The accessibility increases market towns’ appeal and, by default, their viability. Market towns also hold a unique space for creative industries and owner operators. From having a long career owning a hospitality business and being pivotal in the regeneration of areas in east London such as Shoreditch, Dalston and Hoxton, I know how central owner operators are to regeneration, to increasing the footfall of an area, and to making an area more attractive to visitors by being key champions of place. Independent traders, family-run businesses and local producers are the lifeblood of our market towns, high streets and coastal communities. It is those businesses that provide unique goods and services that sustain both our local economies and the cultural heritage of an area.
Southend and Rochford have a high number of micro and small businesses. In fact, we have over 3,300—disproportionately higher than the number in identical communities. When we look at what drives tourism and trade, often it is the heritage sites and the local offer, made up of a diverse range of owner operators, that provide that. We need to empower our own operators and creatives as they not just offer livelihoods, but help to maintain the very character of our historic market towns. That will not only boost local economies, but create sustainable economies all year round. From my experience, through working with owner operators, local communities and grassroots organisations, markets can be vibrant all year round.
How do we fix this? Central to Labour’s plan for change is the transformation of infrastructure and connectivity. For too long the UK has lagged behind our European partners. Reliable public transport and better infrastructure are necessary so that market towns, villages and local economic hubs can fully participate in our modern economy. By investing in our public transport and improving connectivity, we will enable businesses to grow, attract new investment and create jobs, while allowing local residents to access their towns with ease.
I am currently working on introducing a later trains facility on Fridays and Saturdays in Southend, so that the evening and hospitality sectors in my constituency can thrive again; that commitment to infrastructure and connectivity helps to preserve the historic charm, but also unlocks their full potential for future generations.
Our Labour Government have had to make tough choices to stabilise the economy and invest in public services. I cannot commend too highly measures such as high street rental auctions and ending the scourge of late payments to facilitate us to begin to regenerate our high streets. More recently from the Minister’s Department, there was the announcement of Labour’s plan for change and major investments from the Arts Everywhere fund to boost growth and cement Britain’s place as a cultural powerhouse. In my constituency, Southchurch Hall has recently been granted £423,000 for repairs and protection from water damage. I know the Secretary of State is determined that arts will be for everyone, everywhere. Those strategies are crucial steps in Labour’s plan for change.
In October 2023, writer and regeneration consultant, John P. Houghton wrote in his article “Down Market—Reviving England’s market towns”, that there were a few reasons why market towns have not been on the Government agenda. He believes, and I concur, that central Government have in recent times largely neglected those communities. I will read a small extract from John’s piece, which illuminates the situation well.
“There was a brief flurry of intervention in market towns in the early 2000s. The Market Towns Initiative was launched in 2000 and rolled out across England from 2001. It was funded and administered by the Countryside Agency, the successor body to the Rural Development Commission.
Through the initiative, partnerships of local agencies and community groups were awarded funding to: undertake a ‘health check’ of a town’s strengths and weaknesses; develop a practical action plan; and appoint co-ordinators and project managers to deliver the plan.
The health checks were the first sign that things were starting to go wrong in market towns. A meta-analysis of health checks in the West Midlands, conducted by KPMG, highlighted many of the problems identified in the previous section: house prices rising beyond the budget of local people; poor transport links; retail trends away from traditional high streets and town centres; and an ageing population placing greater demands on public services with already limited capacity.
The Market Towns Initiative could and should have been the first step in a sequence of measures to deal with these problems. Instead, the programme was closed down [under austerity] and nothing took its place. The Countryside Agency warned that ‘as no single organisation is championing the cause of market towns’ they could be forgotten.”
There has not been sufficient Government policy on market towns, but I believe devolution and local government reform will help to bring a more strategic vision to regions, with local leaders bringing the focus that those amazing communities deserve. A few things need to be considered, the first being changing the planning system. The planning system should allow a place to grow, develop and encourage adaptive reuse of both nationally important and locally valued heritage sites.
The Government are working closely with Historic England to streamline the planning system, ensuring heritage protection is not watered down. By streamlining the application process further, we can improve speed, consistency and quality of decision making. There could be fewer applications made and greater clarity among regulators over the type of work that does not require consent, which would lead to greater efficiencies.
Some streamlining requires no new policies but more use of existing powers, such as using enforcement powers to address neglect. Other streamlining would require policy change, such as empowering local authorities to delegate authority to qualified professionals to sign off conditions attached to planning and listed building consent. That would reduce the frustration of waiting for the council’s conservation officer to be available, which can cause costly delays and unhelpful inconvenience to occupiers.
Secondly, as mentioned, local authorities’ heritage spend has decreased significantly, and there has been a massive loss of expertise and specialist knowledge. At the same time, heritage attractions and tourism continue to contribute considerably to the economy. I ask the Minister to consider how her Department could work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and Skills England to encourage a strategy for the protection of cultural heritage on local plans, and to look at how to fill the gaps in the industry.
Thirdly, I am excited to see the outcome of the review by Historic England, Government Departments, developers and heritage organisations focused on protection and the development of new ideas. The economic, social and environmental benefits of heritage should be assessed with as little struggle as possible, by setting the right balance between sustaining what is significant and ensuring that buildings and places can continue to adapt, grow and meet our economic, social and environmental needs, while remaining well-loved and used parts of our communities for years to come.
Furthermore, while heritage is among the smallest components of local authority spending, it has a disproportionately positive impact on local pride and wellbeing.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. On the issue of pride in local market towns, in my area there is a small market town called Limavady. Over 100 years ago, a family called Massey emigrated from there to New Zealand, and their son became the Prime Minister of New Zealand before, during and after the first world war, playing a key role in the Commonwealth’s response to that war. In a few weeks’ time we mark the centenary of his death. Such things need to be marked in small market towns so that they are not forgotten, and people can take pride in what their forebears achieved in the past.
Mr Alaba
I agree. That is one of the reasons we are all here: we are talking about the unique offer and appeal of our communities. All and any history regarding families and individuals who have helped to shape, and shown commitment to, our communities should be cherished and showcased. I see how that example shows the uniqueness of the hon. Member’s own community.
The key to the development and maintenance of successful place management is governance structures that support effective decision making and give a voice to the variety of stakeholders that engage in places. This is particularly important for many market towns, where proactive engagement is required to stimulate renewal. That is why I am excited about the devolution White Paper and the strengthening of business improvement districts. However, those districts are not active in all areas; therefore, in some places this function could be provided through the development of community improvement districts. That would provide a structure through which community views can be heard and used to shape decision making.
Fourthly, while I cannot thank the Department and the Government enough for their capital funding projects, such as Southchurch Hall in Southend and the Maritime museum in Liverpool, I would like to work on a strategy that encourages small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in skills and developers of assets to create investable propositions that involve repairs. A targeted approach to capital investment for heritage and culture would achieve better outcomes by allowing the growth of skills and the supply chains required to deliver the maintenance and repair of historic buildings and places over the long term, improving the quality of delivered schemes, dampening inflationary pressures and ensuring that the recipients of funding—especially local government—are investment ready. They know where, when and how to make best use of the funding for the benefit of the communities they serve.
I could talk for quite some time but I am sure hon. Members are keen for me to shut up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate. I remind all Back-Bench Members that if they want to contribute, they should keep bobbing so I know. I am afraid insights will have to be limited to about two and a half minutes if we are to get everyone in.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy. The points I want to make will probably cover all the market towns with important heritage in my constituency of Wetherby and Easingwold. I will give just a couple of examples, but what I say will be relevant to them all.
Let me begin with Boroughbridge, a traditional market town. There is an ecosystem to market towns, which are the subject of the debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing it. In the countryside, farmers’ markets and the whole ecosystem of the trade that takes place is reliant on farming communities, which the towns often grew from. The blunt truth is that there is growing concern about the effect on small family farms, which contribute directly to market towns. A lot of the produce on sale in them comes from an ecosystem that covers the entire rural economy. There is a real concern that goes beyond what we have been talking about. Food supply and the farm inheritance tax can directly impact those areas.
The hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford outlined the investment that is needed in market towns, and there are things that we can do. Wetherby in my constituency has a lot of important cultural buildings. Such towns are full of buildings that have been there for centuries. There is no way that they will reach the C grade on an energy performance certificate. That policy, brought in by the last Government, needs to be reviewed because when businesses leave, their premises will not be re-rented unless they meet performance C. That is a real problem because it is almost impossible to get that performance certificate.
A range of policies, whether it is taxation on farms, which contribute directly to the ecosystem of local communities, or net zero contributions that make premises impossible to rehire, will have the effect of hollowing out vital parts of the community. All those issues need to be addressed.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this debate.
I am proud to represent Hertford and Stortford, home to a number of significant market towns steeped in such history that many of them appeared in the Domesday Book. Hertford is my home; I am privileged to have grown up there. My parents moved to Hertford in the late 1990s because they wanted me to have the very best start in life. Parliamentary scholars will know that when plague overran London in the 1500s, Parliament moved to Hertford castle, where the gatehouse is now home to Hertford town council, on which I proudly once served.
Hertford’s old Corn Exchange, which once linked us to the corn markets of London, has been reborn as a live music venue called simply the Corn Exchange, serving the lively local music and arts scene that produced talents like George Ezra and Rupert Grint. Residents are proud of our weekly charter market in Salisbury Square. Our town centre, in which I found my first job, is home to a diverse offering of independent shops, pubs and restaurants.
Bishop’s Stortford has contributed more than its fair share of musical talent, with famous musicians including Sam Smith and Charli XCX attending local schools. Bishop’s Stortford has contributed its fair share to this Parliament, too. Upon election I became aware of at least four Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who attended local schools in Bishop’s Stortford.
Stansted airport, the largest single site employer in the east of England, sits right on our doorstep, offering opportunities for work, skills training and lifelong learning to our residents in Bishop’s Stortford. The direct train line between the two means that our community is readily connected to the rest of the world.
For reasons of time I cannot go into detail on all the market towns in my constituency, but there are others, including Ware and Sawbridgeworth, of which we are deeply proud. But our towns are not without challenge, so I would be grateful if the Minister could, in her response, touch on the support that the Labour Government are providing for high streets in semi-rural communities and market towns to ensure that residents can readily access vital in-person services. Also, will she touch on the support that the Government are providing for live music venues such as the Corn Exchange in Hertford, of which our residents are deeply proud?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful for the exemplary time discipline so far.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Jeremy. Since last year’s election, I have added another market town to my constituency—Brigg in northern Lincolnshire. Along the beautiful paved streets of Brigg there are a number of excellent independently owned shops and boutiques, as well as a fantastic range of clothing stores, eateries and other attractions. These independent retailers retain the traditional character of the town—some of the shops have served the good people of Brigg for over 100 years. Under the excellent leadership of Councillor Rob Waltham, North Lincolnshire council has made it a key policy to ensure two hours of free parking in Brigg and across the area, which is a vital component of ensuring that our high streets survive.
A number of historical buildings in the town centre remain in use, some dating back as far as the 1700s. The centre of the town is a conservation area. One such building is the Angel, a 17th-century coaching inn. The building has been refurbished and is now a library and café. It is home to the Brigg heritage centre, which is free to enter and tells the story of how Brigg developed as an important crossing point on the River Ancholme.
The most notable attraction is the Brigg raft. This 3,000-year-old flat-bottomed oak boat was discovered in Brigg in the 1880s and moved to the National Maritime Museum, but it was returned to Brigg in 2013.
Brigg is home to a number of weekly outdoor markets. A street market runs every Thursday, providing fresh fruit, vegetables, flowers and the like.
Barton-upon-Humber, in the northern part of my constituency, has a rich history. The name is derived from Beretun, meaning “barley town”—a testament to Barton’s importance for brewing beer. At the time of the Domesday Book, Barton was considered to be the most important town in the area, with two important churches. St Peter’s church closed in 1970. Chad Varah, the founder of the Samaritans, was born in Barton in 1911, when his father was the vicar of St Peter’s. Another notable person is Ted Lewis, the author whose book was famously adapted into the film “Get Carter”. Like Brigg, Barton has kept its traditional charm. People can visit the Wilderspin school to see how school life was in Victorian times.
Both towns have a town council and a mayor. In these days of devolution when we are creating much larger authorities, which I broadly support, it is important that we retain the civic pride to which local town councils and mayors can contribute.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this debate.
I must start with a confession: Carlisle is a city, albeit a small one. However, its population size and look and feel, and indeed its charter, make it more closely resemble a market town than perhaps many cities.
However, my constituency includes two market towns to the north and north-east—Longtown and Brampton. Longtown lies on the English-Scottish border in an area known as the debatable lands, because for many centuries the kingdoms of England and Scotland could not quite agree on who had ownership and claim to Longtown and the debatable lands. Arthuret church on the outskirts of Longtown dates from 1150 and is said to be the resting place of the legendary King Arthur.
Not to be outdone on history and heritage, the original church of the market town of Brampton stands on the site of a Stanegate Roman fort built around 80 AD. During the Jacobite rising of 1745, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, summoned the mayor of Carlisle to surrender the city. Those familiar with the rising will know that it did not end well, at least for the Jacobite soldiers who were hanged from the Capon tree in Brampton’s town centre. A memorial commemorating that act remains.
The great border city of Carlisle is the final resting place of a further 33 Jacobite soldiers who were hanged, drawn and quartered following the unsuccessful rebellion. We only have to look at the regal lion that sits atop Carlisle’s market cross to understand that Carlisle’s loyalty, and that of its citizens, has largely always been to the English Crown.
Carlisle received its charter in 1158, confirming its status as a trading hub for the north of England, and much of that trading happened in the Greenmarket in the city centre. However, in the late 19th century the market stalls were moved indoors, into Carlisle’s new market hall, which is one of the few Victorian market halls that people can still see. Its impressive ironwork was made by the local engineers Cowans and Sheldon.
In the following years, the market hall established itself not just as a market but as a venue and concert hall for some of the world’s greatest acts. However, like many places we have heard about today, the fortunes of our market have ebbed and flowed. The market hall’s future looks bright once again, and the former Greenmarket is undergoing a multimillion-pound transformation.
As I look forward to Cumbrian devolution and all that it promises for Carlisle and the surrounding area, including its two market towns, I look forward to reimagining and rejuvenating Carlisle city centre, so that it thrives for many years to come under the watchful eye of the regal lion atop the market cross.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate. It is always a pleasure to speak about Strangford. We have constituency heritage across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and our culture, while sometimes different, is worth celebrating.
Northern Ireland is rich in cultural heritage, and there is a list of market towns across my borough. In Strangford, I have Newtownards, Comber and Ballynahinch. These towns have historically hosted markets and continue to do so today. Newtownards market is run every Saturday by shop owner Clive O’Neill. The town of Comber hosts mini-markets, most notably Comber farmers’ market and the Comber earlies, which celebrates the town’s agricultural history. Comber is famous for the Comber spud, which we all know. Indeed, we are probably in awe of it, because it is definitely the best potato in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, if not further afield.
I am fortunate to have had a constituency office in Newtownards for some 26 years. I celebrate, respect and love the culture of my town, and all its unique historical attributes. Newtownards came into being in 1613 under James I. The town has much older roots, having been developed on the site of an older settlement. Its location on the Ards peninsula, where I live, means that it has always played a key role in growth, trade, agriculture and fishing.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that market towns are a crucial part of our culture, not only here in England but in Northern Ireland, too. In my constituency, King John granted Bingley’s first market charter back in 1212 and the Bingley butter cross still stands to this day. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that thriving market towns are as vital to the future of our economy as they were to the past?
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is great to have history. I love history, which is one of my favourite subjects. Indeed, it was probably the only subject at school in which I excelled, but that is by the way.
The Stewarts erected the Market House, which is now the town hall, in 1765, and the bottom floor was used as a market. It is where I have my annual coffee morning for the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association. The town hall also hosts numerous council-run events. Conway Square, a historical public seating area outside the town hall, has a statue of Paddy Mayne, demonstrating our rich history and ancestry, which we remember.
Market towns are crucial to our society and our local economy. When it seems that everything can be done online, market towns give us a real sense of community and allow face-to-face social contact, which is important. It is important for children and grandchildren, as those who once visited the market as children now return with their own families. In the towns I represent, it is often said, “Everybody knows everybody here.” Of course, that is absolutely true. At communal events and local markets, it is normal to say hello to the people we know from our town.
Market towns highlight our impressive nature, and their history is worth remembering. It is important to maintain that history, not just for the current generation but for future generations, including for my children, my grandchildren and—whenever they come—my great-grandchildren. It is the history of the fantastic towns in which we grew up.
I conclude by calling on the Government to engage further with their counterparts and with local councils and to commit to protecting the rich history of our towns, which adds greatly to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Northern Ireland’s great market town history must be protected.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate. Like him, I have the privilege of representing the historic market town of Dartford, where a great market still operates on Thursdays and Saturdays in the town centre.
Dartford and its surrounding villages have a proud cultural heritage, with the borough council running its own blue plaque scheme to celebrate historical events and figures from around the borough. This includes Dartford football club, with a plaque at the site of the original entrance to its Watling Street ground. It also includes the Rolling Stones. I am sure the music aficionados here know that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met as teenagers on platform 2 of Dartford’s railway station in 1961—a year before forming the band. The iconic duo is immortalised in the town, with a pair of statues unveiled in 2023.
Dartford football club is an integral part of the town’s cultural heritage, having been founded over 130 years ago by members of Dartford working men’s club. It currently sits proudly at the top of the Isthmian league. The club was saved by supporters in the early 1990s, and the team now play at the fantastic Princes Park on the edge of the town.
Another proud part of Dartford’s heritage is the Orchard theatre, which was built in the early 1980s and has hosted comedians, musicals and pantos ever since. Sadly, it is currently beset with RAAC in its roof and has been closed, with a temporary theatre created to hold performances in the interim. Additional work is needed on fire safety, and we look forward to the theatre being open again in 2026, which is sadly a year later than planned.
As others have stressed, pubs are an important part of our cultural heritage. Historical pubs are a key part of an area’s social infrastructure. In Dartford, the Royal Victoria and Bull pub on High Street is a leading example. The Lads of the Village pub in Stone was built in 1793 and has recently closed. The parish council has successfully campaigned to get the pub listed as an asset of community value, but despite the council offering the full asking price, the owner is refusing to negotiate, leaving the site in limbo with the parish powerless. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in the “English Devolution” White Paper to a strong new right to buy to maintain beloved assets. That cannot come soon enough.
I hope the Government will continue with their plans to revitalise our high streets and historic market towns, looking at how business rates can be reformed. Again, I welcome the commitment in the devolution White Paper to support high streets by strengthening business improvement districts. Let us all work together over this Parliament to ensure that our market towns can thrive.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
In the spirit of working together, I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. There are still eight people who want to speak, so I am afraid speeches will have to be less than two minutes or someone will be disappointed.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), not least because I represent six market towns in my constituency—Honiton, Axminster, Ottery St Mary, Sidmouth, Seaton and Cullompton; I will probably have about 20 seconds for each of them.
To draw the strings together, I will say that our heritage affects us not just locally but nationally. I will give an example. In 2022, Mr Speaker visited Honiton’s Allhallows Museum, where he told us how he would be proud to wear the jabot and cuffs made by Honiton lacemakers in times gone by. He visited Patricia Perryman, who made the jabot and cuffs out of Honiton lace. He told us that he would be using them in the future, and so it was. For the King’s coronation, people in east Devon were proud to see Mr Speaker wearing those items.
I cannot do justice to those amazing market towns in the time available to me. Members will, I am sure, have heard of Axminster Carpets; of Ottery St Mary’s tar barrels festival; of the fashionable seaside resort of Sidmouth and its folk festival; of Seaton, once a coastal trading hub, which today has a tramway in place of a railway; and of Cullompton, with its wool heritage and absent railway station. We really need to reinstall the station to reinvigorate the town and bring back some of our more recent cultural heritage. To summarise, these market towns tell a story of a resilient, creative and proud community.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for bringing forward this debate. When people think of Swindon North they do not necessarily think of market towns, but my constituency happens to have one of the most beautiful market towns in the country. Some people call it “the gateway to the Cotswolds”; I prefer to call it “the entrance to Swindon”. That truly beautiful town is Highworth. I am short on time, but I give a massive thanks to Highworth town council, and mainly to the mayor, Julie, for her hard work in keeping its cultural heritage.
I want to talk about the importance of development. Although I welcome Labour’s plan to build 1.5 million houses, I am keen that we do that responsibly and ensure that the developments have the infrastructure to support market towns, making them more accessible but not taking away their independence. I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting debate. My big ask for the Government is to build those houses responsibly and to support communities.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I have 10 market towns in my constituency, but—do not panic—I am not going to talk about them all. They include Caerfyrddin, which is the oldest town in Wales and has the amphitheatre to prove it. Honestly, though, people there are still struggling to recover after covid.
A few years ago, the council decided to inject around £100,000 into each of those towns, and each town brought forward plans. Some wanted better parking and some wanted improved leisure facilities for their youngsters, but all chose exactly what they wanted and how they wanted to move their towns forward. With shared prosperity fund money and other available grants, it had a threefold multiplier. That allowed Llandovery, for example, to improve its tourism offer, Llandeilo to build a BMX park for its youngsters, and Newcastle Emlyn to reopen the old amphitheatre to stage open-air concerts. On top of that, money from the SPF pot has been allocated to refurbishing shop fronts—many businesses have utilised that—and to creating smart towns, a concept that can help businesses to attract footfall.
I want to talk about footfall, because car parking remains an issue for many of our towns. Laugharne and Whitland, for example, want more space, but paying for parking is also an issue. No councils can afford to pay for free parking while paying business rates on those car parks—that cannot be the answer. If the Government are serious about revitalising our cultural and historic market towns, they need to abolish the business rates on our car parks. Not one council across the UK can support free parking while paying millions to the Government in business rates.
Free parking would help our town centres, as it helps in the retail parks that have been placed all around our town centres. The Government have a choice: either they abolish the rates payable to our local authorities or they continue to allow our town centres to deteriorate.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate. The medieval market fair in Scarborough has entered world culture thanks to Simon and Garfunkel, who popularised the medieval English folk song, although we all know that that was not the subject of the song. In fact, Scarborough fair was an important event for merchants all over Europe as it attracted buyers and sellers who, as well as being entertained by local minstrels and fortune tellers, had to be kept in food and drink.
Although the Scarborough fair had died out by the end of the 18th century, that same mixture remains central to the current market hall and vaults, which were built in 1853 and renovated in 2016. On the ground floor there are traditional market stalls offering meat, fruit and vegetables, such as our wonderful butcher Mark Nockels, Solange Bakery and Deli Delicious—a café I make a beeline for whenever I can. In the gallery and vaults, there are more cafés alongside quirky independent shops.
It remains a challenging time for retailers, so I am pleased that the Government have committed to permanently reducing business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026, funded by a tax rise for the largest business properties such as online sales warehouses. The Labour Government are also investing in Scarborough with our plan for neighbourhoods, through which about £20 million will go towards regenerating our town centres, supporting parks and libraries, and building stronger communities. That is a welcome boost to protecting our cultural heritage for the future.
The original Scarborough fair has been reimagined in a stunning year-round series of festivals such as Scarborough Lights, Scarborough Art and Scarborough Streets. They increase local pride, enhance aspirations and provide wonderful entertainment for locals—as well as a treat for the thousands of visitors who flock to Scarborough every year. The new Scarborough Fair links to the heritage, geography, culture and people of our town in a way that articulates our story. The story of Scarborough is in the future, not the past.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I will briefly touch on the market towns in my constituency, including Hexham itself, which has Hexham abbey, England’s first purpose-built jail, the Victorian Queen’s Hall—which, to declare an interest, now has my office in it—as well as a local arts centre and dancehall.
Market towns define Northumberland. Hon. Members have touched eloquently on many of the challenges facing them, but one of the main challenges is a lack of transport, especially accessible transport, sometimes caused by potholes in some of our more rural roads. That isolates people who are trying to get from places such as Allendale or Otterburn into Hexham, which is a central point for much of Northumberland’s rural economy, as it has a large farmers mart.
Hexham is also ill-served by frequently delayed and cancelled rail and bus services that, to be honest, are not entirely fit for purpose. The Conservative-run Northumberland county council sometimes forgets that the west of Northumberland exists. It is fair to say that my constituents are frequently angered when investment is shifted away from them in the west of the county, because that simply fails to address the problems. I am frequently confronted by potholes on my roads that we are told have been fixed but then open up again a week later. Those bread and butter concerns hold back market towns from their true potential.
I will briefly touch on the creative industry and its contribution to market towns. That is one of the few industries in the local economy that does not always rely on getting a delayed bus or a delayed train, or not hitting a pothole. It includes the poets, writers and artists who contribute so much to the character of each of our towns. They frequently contact me with concerns about AI and the potential damage that it could do to the rural economy, so I would like the Minister to acknowledge that in her response.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this important debate. I represent the town of Rugby, which has perhaps the ultimate origin story in a sport that carries our name across the globe, but our great town is about much more than the sport. I will take a little canter around it, as I did when I joined Ken on the volunteer-run walking tour of Rugby.
Rugby has so much to offer. To take the music scene, for example, we have the Rococo players, the Bilton brass band, Boldfest in Newbold, Rugbylele—our own ukulele band—as well as great bands such as Courthouse, singer-songwriter Jessie May and much more. In the arts sector, we have Art at the Alex, a former pub, which is now a community-run arts organisation. We also have a wonderful art gallery and museum that currently has a fantastic exhibition from the Ingram Collection, and also runs a superb exhibition on a history of Rugby in 50 objects—I thoroughly recommend it to anyone who wants to come and have a look.
Rugby has a wonderful literary heritage, including being the birthplace of Rupert Brooke. It has a fantastic, vibrant sports sector, and Rugby borough women’s football team narrowly lost, unfortunately, to Liverpool in the FA cup recently. It has a wonderful industrial heritage, with British Thomson-Houston and Willans Works factories covering aviation, maritime and automotive. The inventor of helium was born in Rugby, holography was invented there, and Sir Frank Whittle first tested the jet engine in Rugby. We had the incredible radio masts at Hillmorton. Today, GE Vernova provides high-tech jobs.
This debate is about the future. There is such huge potential in small market towns that needs to be unleashed, so I wonder whether the Minister might consider a campaign to encourage people to visit small market towns such as Rugby. If we go to the VisitBritain website, we see a lot about cities, but we do not see much about towns. All too often, smaller towns are forgotten by officialdom—they are not forgotten by politicians, as everyone can see from this debate, but they are often forgotten by officialdom. We must invest in our small towns, our people and the potential. Cultural heritage is about the past, the present and, most importantly, the future.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate.
My constituency of Watford is a town with borough status in Hertfordshire. It is an historic market town, having been granted a charter in the 12th century, and the town grew as a result of the Grand Junction canal and railway expansion. The vibrancy and therefore, over time, the cultural heritage of Watford as a market town can excite, stimulate and trigger fond nostalgia. As a child, my friends and I would race around Watford market, which was at the time a place I would have understood to be brutalist in its architectural style—that has nothing to do with the skinheads who also frequented the area.
Sustained by an iced bun or doughnut as a special treat, we would explore, weaving between market stalls and diving into adjacent shops like WHSmith, with its records and computer department. That market in Watford no longer exists. Its site has become part of a more contemporary shopping experience—more Zara than zaniness. Tastes and fashions change, of course, but we adored it, and as I grew older and became familiar with markets in other towns and places—Amersham, Kensington market, the Birmingham Bullring—the memories of Watford and its market embedded themselves. That is important. The cultural heritage of market towns can easily be misrepresented as a narrow strand of admittedly delightful “traditional” market towns, but the fun and the cultural heritage of what Watford market once offered should be celebrated as part of that heritage, too. It attests to the validity of that period of history.
Watford market does still exist in a different location. Spilling out on to the high street, it offers food, shopping and other experiences for residents. In challenging times and circumstances, the new Watford market endeavours to deliver the experience of socialising of an evening, lunches for busy workers and shoppers, and new ways to create memories for people exploring and wandering through.
This Labour Government are determined to deliver growth and housing. Let us hope that, as part of their drive to stabilise the housing market, the plan for new towns will include markets, as we build our future and cultural heritage.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
If she can limit herself to one minute, I call Catherine Fookes.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy. In Monmouthshire, we are really lucky: we have not one, two or three but five market towns. I thought that would be a record, but it is not, because there is a constituency with 10. Our largest town is Abergavenny, which Members might be familiar with, and it is beautiful. It has an iconic town and market hall built in 1869, which is home to the market, the Borough theatre, the library and our world-famous Abergavenny food festival, which has been described as the Glastonbury of food festivals. The Beatles played there in 1963, which I think trumps all the other bands we have heard mention of today.
The Welsh Government have done really well in supporting our market towns and our culture. They have just announced an extra £4.4 million to support our arts and culture sectors. They have used the transforming towns grant to support our market towns, and the upcoming Budget commits to a £335 million package of non-domestic rates support for businesses, which will be hugely important for our businesses. I will close by asking the Minister to share how she will work with our Welsh Government colleagues to ensure that our market towns continue to flourish.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank all colleagues for their brevity. We now move to the Front Benchers.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate.
Market towns are essential to our national heritage. Taunton and Wellington have been markets since 904—not 9.04 am—and 1215, when they got their respective charters, and a market structure for Colchester has been traced back to the first century. Outside bigger cities, market towns are the basic unit of local community—the natural centre to which every local area looks—and have provided the seats of district councils for hundreds of years. However, the withdrawal of essential services in recent years has had challenging consequences for residents, particularly older people, those without digital access and small businesses.
The Government are currently imposing council reorganisation, which too often exacerbates those problems by taking local decision making from our proud market towns and the jobs and resources that go with it. Ancient cities such as Colchester and Winchester will have their councils cancelled, as district councils are effectively being abolished. The Liberal Democrats reject the taking of power away from our towns. Councils should reflect natural communities, and local communities should sit at the top of decision making, not at the bottom.
It is therefore time for the Government to support market towns better and the markets they provide. Promoting local markets increases footfall in our town centres, creates community spirit in our all-too-often online world and provides an outlet for local produce, which travels fewer food miles to get there.
For the shops, pubs and other venues in market towns, we were disappointed that the Government did not go further to reform business rates in the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, and we were disappointed with the reduction in discounts available to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Bill will not scrap business rates or deliver the fundamental reform to business rates that the Liberal Democrats have called for to benefit small businesses and those in our cultural sector. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of local communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on.
The Liberal Democrats are fighting for small businesses, starting with a call for more support for their energy costs and a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system. Business rates are harmful to the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than the profits or the fixed stock of land. To benefit small businesses, we would therefore abolish business rates and replace them with a commercial landowner levy so that investment in shops and buildings is no longer disincentivised, as it is now. That leads to far too many remaining empty on our high streets, as business rates are one of the biggest obstacles to letting commercial premises. As a result, the most deprived areas will see the biggest fall in amounts paid in business rates, whereas some big shops in high-value areas will see increases.
The change to national insurance contributions will be completely counterproductive for businesses in market towns, and particularly small businesses. Businesses in Taunton and Wellington town centres, including our theatres and museums, as elsewhere, face a triple whammy of increasing business rates, increasing wage bills and higher national insurance costs for every person they employ. That comes after years of trying to survive the pandemic and some of the highest rates of inflation and interest that have ever been seen in this country under the previous Conservative Government. It is no wonder, as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown, that this new jobs tax means that firms are planning to reduce their headcount through redundancies or by recruiting fewer workers.
Every market town has its care homes and private care providers. For older people, the cultural heritage of market towns and town centres often make them great places to live. Last week, I was delighted to host Somerset’s Registered Care Providers Association and Linden House here in Parliament. They are struggling with the increased cost of care due to the increase in national insurance contributions. We therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords, proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Barker, to exempt care providers from those increases, because it will be vulnerable people and their loved ones who have to pay.
The Government claim that the national insurance hike will result in additional revenue of £25 billion, but the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly states that after employers in the public sector are compensated and other employers change their employment habits by reducing headcount or pay, the Treasury will be left with revenue closer to only £10 billion a year. The Government could have raised that amount through a number of other fairer tax changes, such as those we put in our manifesto. Reversing the Conservative tax cuts handed to the big banks would generate an extra £4.2 billion every year, and increasing the digital services tax to 6% would generate another £2 billion a year. They could have introduced a fair reform to capital gains tax so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share, while keeping things the same or even cutting tax for other capital gains tax payers to generate another £5.2 billion per year.
The OBR makes it clear that, precisely because this tax rise will be passed on to people’s salaries, it will have a negative effect on living conditions. This comes after five years under the Conservative party that saw living standards fall year on year. The last thing people need now is a reduction in their incomes. We recognise the new Government have been left to make difficult choices, but they must not allow the burden of fixing the Conservatives’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses in market towns and elsewhere.
We also need to support market towns with better public transport. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes most especially. Delaying station projects such as the new stations proposed to serve the market towns of Wellington in my constituency and Cullompton in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) is also a mistake for the economic growth and new housing the Government want to see. Those decisions will both make congestion worse and travel by public transport more expensive. Of course, for rural communities, it does not matter if the bus fare cap is £2 or £3 if they do not have a bus service in the first place. Market towns need proper rail and bus services if they are to thrive and survive. At the very least, the bus fare hike should be scrapped.
Other initiatives are needed to boost our market towns, to properly fund local councils, especially when it comes to social care, so they can focus on other things to support market towns and businesses, to support more planning and conservation officers, which the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford spoke eloquently about, to introduce free parking periods to enable town centres to compete with out-of-town and online retailers, to grant permitted development rights under planning controls for outdoor markets, and, with the ending of the rural services delivery grant, to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that properly reflects the impact of rurality and sparsity on the areas they serve through the application of a fair funding formula. But fundamentally our market towns and the businesses that sustain them need three things: an end to business rates that punish our town centres and high streets; good public transport; and an end to loading taxes on small businesses, which we need to provide the seeds of recovery in our great economy. The Liberal Democrats will do all three.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Jeremy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and long may it continue.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the cultural heritage of market towns. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing the debate and thank him for his remarks, which were well placed; he made lots of good points. We have had some excellent speeches. Unfortunately, I will not be able to canter through them all, but I particularly want to recognise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), which I will address, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his comments. He has just inherited a new market town—he seems to be collecting them. Although I will not be able to recognise all the Members for their contributions, I particularly want to call out the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who reminded everyone how, during the plague, Parliament decanted to Hertford Castle. While decanting is not something I advocate in the current debate, it is always nice to know that we have options. I thank Members who have raised venues that relate to food. As I fast through Ramadan in the month ahead, I will certainly be thinking of them.
Throughout history, market towns have been a defining feature of economic and social life. Informal markets have existed since before Roman times, and trade was a hallmark of the interaction between Celtic, Roman and Saxon peoples. It was trade that spurred on the development of urban centres and the exchange of knowledge and ideas, as well as goods and services.
Our network of medieval market towns is the most enduring example of that history. A royal charter to hold a market was a jealously fought for privilege. The earliest date to over 1,000 years ago and some remain in force today, as we have heard. The fortunes of many of our great historic towns were won and lost by their right to host a market and to reap the rewards that commerce brought.
Market towns brought ordinary working people together to engage in civic and economic life. Evidence of that can still be seen today in the architecture of our market towns, with market crosses standing proudly in the centre of grand open squares and market stalls nestled among guildhalls and churches. It is striking just how much continuity there has been in the history of market towns, with even 20th century new towns designed around the principles from medieval times.
Preserving that wonderful heritage is no mean feat, and it is vital that we recognise the work of Historic England and other organisations in doing so. Its role in providing a voice for historic places, managing England’s national heritage list and educating us on the benefits of our cultural heritage is invaluable in supporting market towns and in raising awareness of their contributions to our society.
It has been deeply encouraging to see the success of Historic England’s heritage action zones, from the Dewsbury living market town to the north Lowestoft heritage quarter. The scheme has seen local partnerships work tirelessly to improve the quality of life in market towns across England. To date, 20 historic places and market towns have been revitalised through the scheme, and 157 historic buildings have been brought back into use through restoration.
Equally encouraging has been the success of the high streets heritage action zones: 67 historic high streets across England have received new investment, more community engagement and hosted more cultural events through the scheme, with more than 460 shopfronts and 224 historic homes restored. The fact that over 2.7 million people took part in those cultural events, hosted by historic high streets, is a testament to how the scheme has renewed people’s pride in local market towns, as well as providing a much-needed boost to high street businesses and local communities.
It is vital to create the conditions to allow market towns to thrive, embracing their rich heritage as well as new opportunities for growth. An area with particular success in combining history with innovation is the revitalising of historic market squares and the hosting of outdoor markets through permitted development rights introduced by the previous Government.
Permitted development rights have allowed historic market towns to host markets in their public spaces and sell food and drink in marquees at listed buildings, without the need for planning permission, providing a regular business outlet for local craftspeople, farmers and traders, who might otherwise lack large indoor spaces. Those development rights have given local businesses and market towns the flexibility to make the most of their cultural heritage.
It is vital that we do not allow the new planning proposals put forward by the Labour Government to create huge headaches for local communities in and around market towns. With many rural communities near market towns concerned about the impact of housing targets, it is essential that the Government listen to the concerns of local people and ensure that there is sufficient infrastructure to deal with a rising population, a point made by numerous hon. Members today.
Many people are already stuck on long waiting lists for GP appointments, are struggling to get their kids into the best schools and are seeing road networks take even more strain. Will the Minister confirm that our market towns will continue to be supported properly when their populations are likely to increase? Will the voices of local communities be taken into account, as we are concerned that they are being written out of that legislation? Does she recognise that the Government’s proposal to rapidly expand housing could risk market towns losing their identity and sense of community, a point that was made earlier? How will Labour’s planning laws protect the heritage of our beautiful historical market towns?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made an eloquent point about family farms and our concerns about the impact of changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief. Those farms play a huge part in the future of our historic market towns. I previously raised the issue of the impact of changes to business property relief and APR on the future of stately homes, which are essential to many market towns. The Conservative party has committed to reversing those changes to APR and BPR.
It is welcome to see that Historic England recognises the benefits that permitted development rights have brought market towns. Historic England notes how outdoor markets support
“the cultural heritage offer and the economic future for historic high streets”
and that revitalising market squares
“benefits those historic centres whose unique character is a product of a long market tradition.”
I urge the Government to continue the work begun under the previous Government, to ensure that permitted development rights become permanent, providing certainty for the future of traditional markets.
Inhabitants of market towns are not the only ones to recognise the cultural heritage on offer; millions of tourists visit them each year. VisitBritain’s research into international tourism highlights the importance of market towns and other historical places that attract visitors from overseas: 78% of tourists said they value a destination having history and heritage to explore. That shows the value of our historic market towns and what they do to bring tourism and promote our culture.
Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to growing tourism outside London and the south-east, I question whether the business rates relief reduction to 40% for retail, hospitality and leisure will help our market towns to prosper. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point. There is also concern about the increase in the cost of electronic travel authorisations for those visiting the UK. I hope the Government can provide more clarity on the impact that that will have on the tourism that many market towns rely on. At the most recent oral questions, I asked for an impact assessment—not from this Minister, I should add. I know that she is stepping in today, but perhaps she can discuss the impact assessment, if indeed there is one.
Our historic market towns face many of the same pressures affecting high streets and town centres across the UK. While traditional markets have an enduring appeal, there is no denying that many have also been affected by online shopping, developments in out-of-town centres and recent policy decisions. Thriving market towns need a strong local economy and a strong local community to maintain them.
Small businesses are the bedrock of local communities. That has to be more than just a slogan, and it is equally true of our market towns. It is our historic pubs, our crafts and shops that give historic market towns so much of their character. Yet so many are now unsure whether they can continue under the burden that is being placed on them by the current Government. In particular, the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief on business rates, as I have mentioned, and the increase in the national living wage are all going to weigh heavily on those small businesses. I urge the Government to reconsider those policies in the context of our historic market towns, which we are at risk of losing to closure and decline.
Ensuring that market towns continue to perform their traditional civic functions is as important as preserving their heritage. Making more public services such as libraries and social mixed-use spaces available could go a long way in shaping the appeal of market towns. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee has led important research in reversing high street decline. It is important that its findings are reflected in the decisions taken by the Government in the context of market towns.
Historic market towns are an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage. It is vital that the Government understand their contribution to our country’s heritage and do not push policies that actively harm their future. I urge the Government to consider the costs of their decisions that will be imposed on market towns, and to ensure that our cultural heritage is not lost in the decline of our local businesses and town centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to be responding to this debate. I begin, of course, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing it, especially on the eve of Heritage Day. I thought he made a really thoughtful speech, as have Members from parties across the House.
I will briefly respond to some of the questions that have been put to me, and I will go into a little more detail in my speech when time allows. There have been a number of questions from the shadow Minister and others, including my hon. Friend who secured the debate, about changes to the planning system for national and local buildings of importance and access to local services. They also asked about a strategy on heritage for market towns and mentioned a number of Departments. I will refer those questions to the Departments responsible. I have heard the questions and concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) asked about high streets, as did a number of Members, and live music venues. From the spring, a new £85 million creative foundations fund is available for urgent capital works to keep venues going. That was part of the arts everywhere fund, announced at the Jennie Lee lecture, which I will touch on later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) referenced the devolution White Paper with specific reference to pubs. I was really pleased to speak at the British Beer and Pub Association event in Parliament a few weeks ago.
I look forward to meeting my Welsh counterparts— I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) raised that point. I am very familiar with Abergavenny as my cousin grew up and went to school there. I look forward to visiting Cardiff soon. I meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very regularly.
I will turn to the substantive part of my speech, but go into more detail on those questions as part of that. Market towns are a proud part of our national story. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford, and other Members from across the House, are passionate advocates for everything that they represent. As he said, in the past, market towns might have been defined as places with a historic market or a market square and a royal charter, but they are more than that. They are part of how a community sees itself.
Every market town has its own unique character and story, and their importance goes beyond the cultural heritage and identity they give to an area. A bustling market or an iconic market square helps to support the economy of these towns in the here and now, drawing in tourists, supporting local trade and sustaining connections between local people.
I am very proud to represent Barnsley in South Yorkshire, a market town with a bustling indoor and outdoor market. My own constituency of Barnsley South is home to a number of historic market towns, including Hoyland, where my constituency office is located, and Wombwell, which dates all the way back to the Domesday Book.
I am not the Minister responsible for this area—that is the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—but as a Government, we want to see market towns thrive long into the future and we take the future of these places extremely seriously. In the previous Parliament, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on industrial heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) touched on that; perhaps he can pick up the mantle. Of course, that is a slightly different topic from today’s debate, but our work covered some aspects of market towns. By working with the likes of Historic England and visiting restored heritage sites, from the Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings—an incredible transformation—to Battersea power station just down the road, I saw at first hand how regeneration can keep culture alive while boosting the local community and economy in the here and now.
I plan to use my speech to bring together the various ways in which the Government are looking to support market towns and nurture the cultural heritage they represent. I will focus on the specific support that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gives in this area, although of course it is a cross-Government endeavour, as a number of Members have reflected on; as I said, I will relay their questions to the Ministers responsible for the relevant areas.
Let me start with heritage funding. Members may have seen that we marked the 60th anniversary of the first ever arts White Paper. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke about her determination to
“revive culture in places where it is disappearing,”
and the arts everywhere fund will provide £270 million for arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage. A significant part of how we plan to do that is by getting behind local community organisations—the groups that know their areas the best—that want to breathe fresh life into local heritage.
Anna Dixon
In our market square in Bingley, we have Bingley arts centre and, next to it, Bingley town hall, which is ripe for redevelopment. The community would love to make it into a creative arts centre. Will my hon. Friend ensure that I and members of the local community can meet the relevant Minister to see what opportunities there are to access the huge amount of funding that Ministers have announced for arts and culture?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. I drove through her constituency at the weekend. It is a beautiful part of the world, and I am very happy to offer a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism.
Through the heritage at risk capital fund and the heritage revival fund, we are making an extra £20 million of investment available to the sector, to repair our most at-risk heritage sites and support groups who are ready to bring derelict old buildings back into good use. The heritage at risk capital fund will account for £15 million from this spring, and it lives up to its name: it is all about providing grants for repairs and conservation for heritage buildings at risk, with a particular focus on those sites that need it most. It could help all sorts of different types of heritage—shops, pubs, parks and town halls.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I know the Minister’s Yorkshire constituency very well. There are many great old buildings, but one problem will be getting their energy performance certificates to band C. It is all very well investing the capital so that they can be reused, but if they are not meeting band C, they cannot be used. Will she take back to the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism the point that this area needs to be reviewed, because I think the policy of the last Government was a mistake?
Stephanie Peacock
I very much heard the points that the right hon. Member made. I commit to taking them back to the Minister responsible, and I will ensure that he writes to the right hon. Member in good time.
The heritage revival fund is a new scheme altogether, and one that is designed to put local people in the driving seat. The Government recognise that restoring buildings that once stood as visible symbols of progress is an important way of restoring people’s pride in their area and empowering local people to take control of their own destiny again. The fund will build on the previous transforming places through heritage fund, which provided support to market towns in places such as Lancashire, Suffolk and West Yorkshire. For example, it gave more than £120,000 to the Bridgwater Baptist church in Somerset, a grade II* listed church built in 1837, enabling it to be converted to a multi-purpose space supporting wider community use and providing workspaces for businesses. That fund provided a really useful model for how Government backing for local community organisations can help to unlock further backing from the private sector, such as commercial loans and other grants.
On top of our heritage capital funding, my Department delivers the listed places of worship scheme, which gives grants towards VAT paid on repairs and renovations to listed sites of worship across the UK. My colleague the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism recently set out in a debate in this Chamber how the scheme is playing an important role in keeping culture alive and well in our communities, providing facilities and meeting points for local residents. In addition to providing places to worship, many of these buildings act as music venues, food banks and community halls, all of which contribute to the cultural heritage of a place. We know that the scheme is making a difference in market towns and local areas up and down the country, which is why we are making £23 million-worth of funding available between 2025 and 2026.
Support is not just limited to central Government Departments such as DCMS; our arm’s length bodies and executive agencies also play a key role. Arts Council England, the national funding body for the arts, provides a range of supports for villages, towns and cities up and down the country. The Arts Council recognises how important it is that funding gets to places that need it most, and over 60% of its investments are now outside London, with more support for regional venues and cultural assets in market towns.
Through its national portfolio programme, Arts Council England is supporting initiatives such as the Essex Cultural Diversity Project, which has a main office in Rochford in my hon. Friend’s constituency and aims to boost cultural diversity in the arts and heritage through local projects. The Arts Council has given £300,000 to Rochford alone since 2020, which includes some vital support during the pandemic.
DCMS also makes public funding available through the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Last year that fund invested more than £293 million of money raised by national lottery players in almost 1,300 heritage projects across the UK. It has backed a range of community heritage projects, including schemes such as the Rochford Town Team, which is promoting a heritage trail around the market town. I will not list every project, but hon. Members will know that the National Lottery Heritage Fund gives grants that will make a visible difference in an area.
I will briefly touch on the importance of market towns to our visitor economy and tourism sectors. As all Members here today know, many market towns are magnets for tourists who want to visit, soak in the culture and spend their money on local hospitality. From the historic streets of Stamford to the literary heritage of Stratford-upon-Avon—I always remember my granddad taking me there when we were growing up—we have so many examples across Britain.
My colleague the tourism Minister’s goal is 50 million international visitors by 2030; we need to ensure that the benefits of UK tourism are being felt well beyond our major cities and in places such as market towns. To match those words with action, we are working in partnership with VisitBritain, VisitEngland and local visitor economy partnerships to put market towns at the heart of our tourism strategy.
I would love to say more on that, but in the interests of time I will move on to say that, although I have spoken to DCMS’s contribution, I am pleased to confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister has today launched the Government’s new plan for neighbourhoods programme. The plan for neighbourhoods will provide £1.5 billion to 75 communities across the UK over the next decade, including a number of market towns.
In each place, the Government will help set up a new neighbourhood board, bringing together residents, local businesses and grassroots campaigners to draw up and implement a new vision for their neighbourhood. In consultation with their community, each board will be given the freedom to decide how to spend £2 million a year to deliver the priorities of local people, whether by regenerating their historical high streets, supporting new and historical open-air markets or unlocking further local investment. Our new approach puts communities at the heart of delivery and is aimed at revitalising local areas and fighting deprivation at its root by zeroing in on three strategic objectives of building thriving places, strengthening communities and empowering people to take back control of their local areas.
Taken together, the support we are making available to market towns will help to deliver what we all want to see: thriving market towns that can look forward to a prosperous future. We want to preserve the heritage that gives those towns their identity, to make them central to our tourism sector and visitor economy, and to sustain the local cultural assets that inspire this generation and the next.
Mr Alaba
To summarise our debate, it is fair to say that market towns are up against it and often feel the sharp end of economic downturns. I know at first hand how local communities’ involvement in decision making creates thriving economies all year round and a long-term sustainable protection for cultural heritage. By harnessing the unique character of cultural heritage in our market towns, we can help to achieve local growth across the country, with all the benefits that come with that. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and thank the Minister for her response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural heritage of market towns.
Community Sport Facilities
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Andy MacNae to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered community sport facilities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance today, and for all the work that she and the Government are doing to champion community sports facilities. I and many colleagues believe that easily accessible sports facilities have a huge untapped potential to contribute not just to the vibrancy of communities, but to the missions that the Government have set out to achieve. To deliver on that, we need to align funding and partnerships with need, opportunity and impact.
As a non-statutory service, local leisure provision has been disproportionately hit by years of austerity. That is especially true in the case of smaller local authorities, which lack the capacity and resilience to mitigate the cuts. The impact is particularly felt in our small towns, where hollowed-out local services amplify the feeling of being left behind. Young people in small towns rightly say, “There is nothing here for us to do,” looking with envy towards distant big towns and cities and asking, “Why do they always seem to get the money?” In this debate I will argue that we must have an approach to sports and leisure that properly values the benefits of active lives while addressing the increasing inequality of provision and being agile enough to respond to opportunity when it comes. I will start by considering the wide-ranging benefits and impacts in support of our missions.
First, well-tailored sports programmes centred around local facilities can help to drive economic growth and unlock opportunity. We know that sport builds confidence and resilience in young people, equipping them for work and helping them to break down the barriers to opportunity. If we want to see the next generation thrive, they need the confidence to seize the opportunities before them. Regular sports and physical activity provide an excellent way of embedding that confidence while growing teamwork and leadership skills. The Youth Sport Trust has provided strong evidence for that, demonstrating that sport is a key predictor of children’s self-confidence and resilience, with girls receiving an even greater positive impact from sports than boys.
The trust finds that the economic value of providing physical activity in primary schools alone is worth at least £4 billion under the Treasury’s wellbeing measures, but the economic benefits of physical activity through improving health, wellbeing and resilience are doubled for children who are either disabled or receiving free school meals. In addition, sports can provide strong and unique incentives for people to continue coming to school. RugbyWorks supports young people excluded from mainstream education; its term-time programme offers participation in key stage 3 and key stage 4, with a year-long intervention underpinned by the four pillars of its theory of change, including developing life skills, raising aspirations, improving physical wellbeing and focusing on mental wellbeing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is absolutely right to set the scene very clearly for community sports facilities. Obesity seems to be rising in the United Kingdom. Does he feel that access to sporting facilities would reduce obesity? Rural bus connections to the community centres are also part of the issue, because if people cannot get there, the centres will not be much good to anybody.
Andy MacNae
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. That is a hugely important point. Connectivity and accessibility of local facilities are vital. That is the point I am making about small towns that feel cut off—not only do they not have the facilities themselves, but they are unable to get to facilities in the towns nearby. It is a crucial part of the mix, and of course young people are particularly reliant on bus services to get to those sorts of opportunities.
The RugbyWorks programme can be delivered as a preventive programme in a mainstream setting, or with children in alternative provision who have been excluded from school. Some 89% of programme graduates progressed into sustained education, employment or training. For young people in alternative provision, the national average is just 62%, so that shows a massive impact. Overall, sport can help to engage young people in education and motivate them to gain the confidence and skills that they will need in a growing economy.
For those who have fallen out of work, sport can be a route back. We have nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds out of work—a record number, representing nearly one in seven young people. Poor mental health is by far the most commonly cited reason. For each individual, that is a tragedy, because being in work or training, with the potential to learn and progress, is crucial to getting a good start in life; on a societal level, it undermines our economic growth and puts huge pressure on our finances. The cost of poor mental health alone is estimated at £56 billion per year, with the total economic cost of economically inactive 18 to 65-year-olds coming in close to £300 billion a year. If we get a grip on that, we can really start to turn things around.
Sport can play a vital role in starting individuals on the route back to work. There are many examples of how that works well, including one close to my home: Rossendale Works is a partnership between Active Lancashire, Rossendale borough council and the Department for Work and Pensions, through the local job centre. The project works with individual suffering from entrenched worklessness and low self-esteem to understand what may be preventing a return to work. It develops a tailored work plan to address those barriers and includes a focus on sport and physical activities to boost confidence, health and wellbeing. Delivered through council leisure facilities, it has proved very effective in inspiring participants, getting them off the streets and work-ready, and reducing demand on local health services.
Importantly, there is also a process of job matching and close relationships with local employers with skills needs. The idea is that there is at the very least a guaranteed interview at the end of the process, and support is maintained through the interview and the work placement. Since the project kicked off in 2018, it has supported hundreds of Rossendale residents and has proved really effective at getting them into employment. For instance, 203 people with multiple issues were supported in 2022-23, with 68 getting into employment as a result.
Despite that, the project has remained under constant funding pressure. Over the past few years, funding has been predominantly via the shared prosperity fund on a year-by-year basis. The current programme comes to an end this month, with the council seeking a one-year extension. Such continual uncertainty undermines the benefits that a fully secure programme could deliver. Once again, we see a disconnect between funding structures and programme benefits, with small councils such as Rossendale least able to bridge any gaps.
Moving on to our health mission, accessible and engaged sports facilities play a crucial role in the health of our communities, preventing and mitigating illnesses and, in doing so, easing the pressure on our NHS. The “Healthy Britain” report, by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), highlights that obesity alone is estimated to cost the UK economy at least £58 billion a year. The British Heart Foundation estimates the annual cost to the economy of cardiovascular disease at £19 billion. The NHS spends more than £10 billion a year—or 10% of its budget—on diabetes. Sport has a massive potential to address those and other conditions. Even with our current provision, Sport England found that over 600,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, 150,000 cases of heart disease, and 1.3 million cases of depression were prevented through sport in 2023-24. As it stands, it estimates that sport activities provide at least £10 billion of savings for the NHS.
Looking specifically at mental health, overall there is a 20% to 30% lower risk of mental illness for those taking part in daily physical activity. In 2019, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report “Changing Lives” noted:
“Living Streets reported that 80% of participants on their programme for older people felt less stressed or anxious and 76% felt fitter or healthier as a result, while parkrun told us 95% of people doing free timed runs in their local park said that they felt both healthier and happier and 97% said they felt more positive as a result. Crawley Town Community Foundation used football coaching and other activities to support people experiencing or at risk of experiencing mental health problems, with 78% of participants strongly agreeing that the project had given them a positive activity to focus on.”
Similarly, Sport in Mind, a charity that works specifically to support people with mental health issues with regular sport interventions, found that after six months 94% of attendees had improved mental wellbeing, 91% reported higher self-esteem, and 82% showed reduced symptoms of depression.
Sport really does work. Overall, for every £1 we invest in sport, we get £4 in return in social and health benefits. That incredible effect led the chief medical officer to note in 2019 that if exercise
“were a drug, we would refer to it as a miracle cure”.
With better-equipped, more accessible sports facilities and an increase in social prescribing, we have the opportunity to significantly improve the physical and mental health of this nation, boosting our economy and helping the NHS. However, for that to be a true game changer, we must do it at scale and with real ambition.
Locally led and well-targeted sport-based interventions could also make our streets safer. The College of Policing has investigated the effect of sport-based intervention programmes, which are often aimed at young people in deprived areas who are at risk of falling into crime, but can also be targeted to support those who are in prison or leaving prison. The combined effect of strong communities, good role models, challenging physical activity and healthy competition has been shown to be effective at lowering crime rates. On average, sports programmes result in an increase in psychological wellbeing for 31% for the cohort and a lower reconviction rate of 14%.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that community asset transfers offer a real opportunity for grassroots clubs such as mine in Warrington South, allowing for the enhancement of community facilities while also giving local people a stake in how their clubs are run, putting people over profit and retaining an identity rooted in the community?
Andy MacNae
I absolutely agree. Of course, communities know best. Communities know what works; local people know what works, and empowering them to get involved in their local sports facilities is a hugely beneficial approach.
I will highlight the Sunderland Community Action Group’s “Night Riders” initiative, which specifically targets people in antisocial behaviour hotspots through detached youth workers. In the evenings, kids are taken from hotspot areas to cycling hubs, where they take part in a fun group cycling activity and are given bikes and helmets covered in LED lights. It takes people away from hotspots and puts them in a controlled, safe environment, with good mentors to work with them.
We know that sport-based interventions are an excellent way of tackling the causes of crime and antisocial behaviour. Through introducing young people to new experiences and new peer groups, their impact is long-lasting. Again, however, to make a real difference, we must take the best practice, mainstream it and do it at scale.
Finally, investment in modern and well-maintained sports facilities, and encouraging people to go cycling and walking, can help us to meet our net zero targets. Older, poorly maintained sports facilities can be difficult both to heat and to run. This is a huge issue, with 63% of sports halls and swimming pools now over 10 years old; indeed, nearly a quarter have not been refurbished in over 20 years. The Local Government Association has also found that leisure facilities produce between 10% and 40% of district and unitary councils’ direct carbon emissions. Inevitably, with those come higher running costs. Investing in modern, well-maintained facilities, ideally with renewable energy generation, is a route to environmental and financial sustainability.
Walking or cycling rather than driving to work or school delivers multiple benefits—a key benefit, of course, being reduced emissions and better air quality. Indeed, a University of Oxford study found that those people who switched just one trip per day from car to cycling reduced their carbon footprint by about half a tonne over a year.
Yet despite the great potential to support the delivery of such a wide range of benefits, after 14 years of Conservative cuts and the impact of covid, community sports facilities are struggling to survive. Many have been forced to close and many remain at risk of closure. It has been particularly difficult for small councils, without the reserve spending powers or bid capacity of larger councils, to maintain leisure facilities. Despite the best efforts of their officers, it is incredibly difficult to maintain facilities, let alone open new ones.
My Rossendale and Darwen constituency is a good example: we have four small towns, with populations ranging from 15,000 to 25,000. The borough council budget is less than £9 million a year. For the past 15 years, there has been some pretty heroic work by council officers, councillors and volunteers to try to keep our leisure facilities open, but despite that work we are now in a situation where two of our four towns have no significant public sector leisure provision.
Despite having a clear forward plan to deliver the facilities that we need, along with innovative and high-impact projects, at present the council, with dwindling reserves and myriad cost pressures, has no realistic way of funding it or indeed of match funding any potential capital grants—so we fall ever further behind. Yet the irony is that these are exactly the kind of small-town communities, often lacking opportunity and with serious patches of deprivation, that are most in need of the benefits that local sports and leisure facilities can offer.
I am pleased by this Government’s commitment of £123 million for funding to grassroots facilities in the current year and I am sure that we will see equally significant commitments in the future. However, I ask the Minister how we can ensure that we do not leave behind small towns and struggling councils, and how we make sure that we focus support where it is needed, and not just where the voices are loudest or the match funding pockets are deepest.
The need to ensure that funding is structured to recognise particular challenges and opportunities in small towns is one part of the equation; responding to opportunity and maximising impact is another. Our country is full of innovative people and local organisations who are keen to get together and make a difference. Our funding structures should embrace this reality and not put up barriers by pretending that central Government know best. I have already given the example Rossendale Works; for seven years now this locally designed programme that has been helping long-term unemployed people into work, yet it has been reduced in ambition and remains reliant on short-term funding.
Let me give an equally exciting example in Darwen: a top-class BMX and skatepark facility called Junction 4 Skatepark. Next to it is Darwen Vale high school, which is run by the Aldridge academy trust. Drawing on its experience of delivering the Aldridge Cricket Academy in Brighton, which has delivered excellent academic and sporting outcomes, the trust has come up with an innovative proposal for Britain’s first BMX and skateboard academy.
This approach would give students the chance to develop sporting talent and academic qualifications together, rather than having to choose between the two. More broadly, it is a chance to target pupils who have not engaged well with education and are at risk, and to give them a powerful reason for getting positively engaged in school life. At the same time, the skate park has been developing innovative proposals to add media and creative elements to their offer. As well as learning to ride, young people can learn about filming, content development, photography, event organisation and so on—all skills that could lead to excellent careers.
The academy trust and skate park are currently working on a business plan to pilot this approach. The only funding gap is likely to be revenue to cover the sports coaching elements, yet as things stand there is no obvious way of addressing it. I ask the Minister to consider how we can support such innovative approaches, responding to opportunity where it comes and mainstreaming what works, and I invite her to visit the facility and see what they can do.
The evidence for how sport can positively impact our missions seems crystal clear. Indeed, Chris Boardman would say we are “drowning in evidence”. We have plenty of examples of how to deliver on this potential with local authorities and sporting and community organisations that have initiatives ready to go. Yet under the previous Government, interventions were piecemeal, short-term and small scale, usually subject to competitive bidding and the need to fit with predetermined outcomes. At the same time, community and leisure facilities were closing at an unprecedented rate. That has led to pockets of good practice, constantly under threat of funding running out and with very limited impact nationally. That then leads to a key question. When we have an approach like this one, which is clearly capable of delivering an excellent return on investment and a positive impact that supports the objectives of multiple Departments—such as DWP, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Home Office, as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—how do we properly value these benefits? How do we mainstream these programmes at scale, with an appropriate level of support to deliver nationwide impact? How do we ensure that our small towns and left-behind places equally benefit from any such approach? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has a saying that,
“Whatever the problem, sport can be the solution.”
We know the benefits and power of sport and physical activity, and its awesome, unarguable return on investment. However, the previous Government let our community facilities wither, leaving young people in small towns like mine with nothing to do and nowhere to go. With our focus on prevention and our commitment to left-behind communities, I hope and believe that our new Government will grasp this opportunity and empower our local authorities, sports clubs and volunteer organisations to put sport back at the heart of our communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so swiftly, Sir Jeremy. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. I know he has a great interest and passion for this subject, having already met him and discussed it. I will touch on some of his work later in my remarks.
Grassroots sports clubs are at the heart of communities up and down the country. They are places where millions of people play sport and get active every week, families share lifelong memories, barriers are broken down and friendships are made. High-quality, inclusive facilities are central to that. This Government are committed to ensuring that every community across the country has access to outstanding community sports facilities.
The benefits of being physically active and participating in sport are well known. We know that even relatively small increases in physical activity can contribute to improved health and quality of life, and that it is good for both our physical and mental health. More than that, we know that community sport can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion. As things stand, not enough people are active or participating in sport. This Government are committed to getting more people active, regardless of their backgrounds, maximising the power of sport to empower diverse local communities.
It was great to attend the Football Association’s Made for this Game event in Parliament last week, part of their campaign to empower girls in schools across the country to get involved in sport. I am also looking forward to supporting the FA’s campaign next Friday, closer to home in Barnsley, for their fourth annual Biggest Ever Football Session. These are great examples of grassroots sports being open and accessible for all.
To ensure solid foundations, the Government have committed to investment in facilities that support local communities to take part in sport and physical activity, and to a review of the school curriculum that will consider the future of physical education and school sport. The Government’s approach brings in a range of Departments and public sector organisations. Sport has a central role to play in delivering in our missions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned. The health and the opportunity mission boards are bringing Departments together to ensure that action is taken around preventive health and ensuring that all children have equal opportunity, to support the country to be more physically active. My Department is representing the voice of community sport in these discussions.
The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools, sports halls, pitches and community spaces. It can help to create a sense of pride in place and improve community cohesion, whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons. We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen knows that. Today and in previous months, he has made a powerful and passionate case for the important role that high-quality and accessible community facilities can play in his constituency. By securing the debate, he has illustrated his commitment. He works closely with his local councils and takes a keen interest in their ambitions to improve the community facilities for his constituents, as evidenced in the recent sport and physical activity strategy, published by Rossendale borough council. I understand that like other local authorities—including my own—it is facing significant pressures after the past 14 years. I heard my hon. Friend’s thoughts about funding and deprivation. While local authorities are responsible for decisions about sport and leisure provision in their areas, we recognise the challenges they face, especially smaller councils, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out.
The Government are taking immediate action to begin to address those challenges by ensuring, in the latest local Government finance settlement, that funding goes to the places that need it most. Overall, the provisional settlement ensured that in core spending power, local government will receive a real-terms increase of about 3.2%, and I am committed to working to support our leisure sector up and down the country.
My Department is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually into some of the most deprived areas of the country to help to increase physical activity levels. Sport England has taken a place-based investment approach, working with local authorities and active partnerships, to encourage system-wide change, and we have recently announced plans to extend its work into a further 53 communities across the country to ensure that those in greatest need can be active.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will agree that it is great to see that his constituency is part of Sport England’s Pennine Lancashire place partnership. That work places the community at the heart of decision making, including those small-town communities that my hon. Friend champions. He gave some great examples and kindly invited me to visit them; I would be delighted to accept.
The benefits of investing in community sport and physical activity were brought to life last week, when Sport England announced new figures showing that every £1 spent on community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 for the English economy and society. The Government recognise that high-quality, inclusive facilities help ensure that everyone has access to sport. We will continue to support grassroots sport, including through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which has involved investing £123 million across the UK in this financial year, and which leverages significant funding contributions from both the FA and the premier league. That funding is structured to prioritise areas that need it the most, taking into account local inactivity rates and deprivation.
Funding from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme continues to be invested in England through Sport England and our delivery partner, the Football Foundation, which plan their investment pipeline based on local football facility plans. Those plans have been developed in partnership with local authorities and are in the process of being refreshed to reflect the current landscape.
While facilities are no doubt vital for community sport, it is the people who really make the difference. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers who give up their time, whatever the weather, to make community sport happen. Volunteers are the lifeblood of sport and physical activity. Every day, night and weekend, people can learn, play sport and get active, thanks to others giving up their time to facilitate it. Volunteers are vital to achieving a vibrant and resilient civil society, and sport accounts for more than 50% of all volunteering in the UK. One volunteer creates the capacity for at least eight and a half more people to participate—a fabulous statistic. Volunteering connects communities and is an essential means of supporting grassroots sport. As well as providing the capacity for people to take part in sport, volunteering also benefits the health and wellbeing of volunteers themselves.
Sport and physical activity are central to preventive health, and the biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive, or less active, to move more. There is an evidenced direct correlation of increased activity levels in the areas of the country with the highest density of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen that we must, therefore, ensure that those facilities exist and are accessible, as a key lever to getting people active and to help in tackling health inequalities. Around 23% of people in Rossendale and Darwen are inactive, and we want to see that figure come down; I know it is higher in my own area of Barnsley. Physical activity interventions contribute an immense saving to the NHS, preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. For publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities, we want to look at the potential to support communities on health needs in particular. We are looking at how co-location between sport and health services could help inactive groups.
I recently saw co-location in action in Essex, where local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit services together. They are building strong links between the health and leisure sectors, including by co-locating services so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. It means that, for example, people with long-term health conditions can access activities that not only improve their physical health but are fun and social. I heard some amazing stories on my visit there. I have also seen the impact of community facilities in my constituency of Barnsley South. Your Space Hoyland, for example, is just up the road from my office and I have visited a number of times. It provides swimming, football, badminton and a range of services that support my constituents.
There are multiple examples of similar work around the country. GoodGym is adapting to tackle the increase in isolation and loneliness by offering opportunities to combine physical exercise with volunteering and providing ongoing support to individuals. As the Minister responsible for tackling loneliness, I am keen to see what more the Government can do in this space. I recently held a roundtable with a number of organisations working on loneliness, and I will work to drive further progress in the coming months.
My Department will continue to look at ways to support such thinking as we look ahead to future policy around community sport and leisure facilities, as they contribute towards genuinely tackling a range of different issues, whether that be inactivity and inequality, health, or crime and antisocial behaviour, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Across all those examples, one thing is clear: having high-quality, safe, affordable facilities is vital. But more importantly, it is the people who make those facilities genuine community hubs, and this Government are committed to ensuring that facilities are built with the community at their heart.
We appreciate the huge contribution that publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities make to health and wellbeing. I am hugely passionate about that agenda; I know that being physically active and playing sport is genuinely life-changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has made an important contribution today, championing his area, and I thank him for that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister, who has worked a double shift this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Palestinian Rights: Government Support
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This will be a very personal speech. I declare that, with a number of colleagues from all parties, I have just returned from a trip to Israel and the west bank organised by Yachad, a moderate Jewish group that seeks to promote peace between Arab and Jew. I refer to my declaration of interests.
We went to a couple of the kibbutzim that were attacked on 7 October, which was of course incredibly moving. I want to start, in order to have a fair balance, by unequivocally condemning Hamas and all their dealings, and the way they even killed women and babies. It is not my purpose to apportion blame or take sides. I am pro-Israeli and pro-Jew, and I am pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian.
What was most moving about the trip was to be in a kibbutz listening to an 80-year-old lady. On that day in October she was cowering with her husband; her daughter was down the road. Next door to her daughter, people in their eighties were deliberately burned to death. What did that woman say to us? She said, “All my life, I’ve striven for peace, and I will go on striving for peace. I even took my driving test in Gaza. I have many friends in Gaza.” What an inspiring moment that was.
Later, we talked to another Israeli woman, whose son had been shot dead by a Palestinian sniper when he was simply doing his military service. She too said, “I’m absolutely dedicated to peace.” We talked to the brother of a hostage who was a conscript dragged from his tank—he is still a hostage—and he also talked of peace. We talked to a youngish Palestinian, whose father is very well known and has been imprisoned by the Israelis for a very long time, and they also talked of peace. We talked to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who also talked of peace.
The purpose of this debate, if we have any moral authority at all, is to convince our moderate Israeli friends that it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel to hold down in occupation some 5 million Palestinians—2 million in Gaza and 3 million in the west bank. There are many moderate Israeli citizens—I would say a majority—who agree with that supposition. However, there are some extremist settlers who have the completely wrong idea that somehow they can expel people who have lived for centuries in the west bank from their ancestral homelands. That is something that I know our Government and everybody in this debate will unequivocally condemn.
On our visit, we spent time in the west bank. It was incredibly moving to visit a small Palestinian settlement on dry lands to see how they were coping. We saw a beautifully turned-out little girl, the same age as my granddaughter, living in those appalling conditions. In that very hot and dry climate, they traditionally sheltered in caves to protect themselves from the heat, and from the cold in winter, and extremist settlers had deliberately smashed the caves. We went to another village nearby where the hall had been deliberately smashed. The moment that we turned up, two young settlers—I can only describe them as punks—turned up with sub-machine-guns, in a clear act of intimidation.
The purpose of this debate—and I agree that our influence is only moral—is to draw attention to what is happening on the west bank, because so many eyes are fixed on Gaza. I will not talk a lot about Gaza; it is incredibly important, but I have very little time and I want to talk about the west bank.
Data from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs suggests that there were 1,800 incidents of settler violence on the west bank between 7 October 2023 and 31 December 2024, which is an average of four a day. With the whole world’s attention on Gaza, perhaps there has been too little attention on the west bank. The Nablus governorate saw 411 incidents. These incidents vary in nature; they include up-front violence but also other forms of harassment.
The olive harvest in October and November has been a particular time of tension. Harvests have been interfered with and crops damaged. Often the police, army and armed settlers, organised as civilian security co-ordinators, are either physically present or alleged participants. Settlers and soldiers have attacked, beaten or threatened harvesters. There are even eight cases of live fire being directed at Palestinian farmers. Soldiers shot and killed a 59-year-old Palestinian woman from the village of Faqqu’a. Agricultural equipment has been stolen, property damaged, and crops taken or destroyed.
The west bank is economically precarious, and destroying crops or preventing a harvest is extremely damaging. Hundreds of Palestinian-owned olive trees have been torched, sawed down or destroyed. Because of the deployment of Israeli troops in Gaza and Lebanon, settlers have been drafted into the army to protect other settlers. As a consequence, some settlers have committed violence while in Israel Defence Forces uniform.
A delegation of British rabbis organised by Yachad witnessed young settlers spitting at and kicking a Palestinian woman in Hebron. And so it goes on. We went to Hebron; again, it was unbelievably moving. On the main road, right in the middle of this ancient city, it is completely deserted. A small settler movement has moved into Hebron and there are 800 Israeli soldiers protecting them. The Palestinians are prevented from even walking down the main road in their own town.
It was moving, when we went to Ramallah, to talk to a grandmother—actually, she is a very distinguished banker—who cannot even see her grandson in Nablus, because although it is a very quick drive to Nablus from Ramallah, there are so many checkpoints that it takes seven or eight hours to get there. Everywhere in the west bank, there are checkpoints.
Virtually every application—over 90% of them—to build or extend a settlement is granted, but virtually every application by Palestinians to build is rejected. This is totally one-sided. It is intolerable, and we should speak out about it in this Parliament. That is what I want to do today.
I know that it has become unfashionable to talk about the two-state solution; people say that it is just western politicians going on about it and it is never going to happen. It must happen. There is no solution other than a two-state solution. As a young MP 40 years ago, I sat in the office of Abba Eban, a distinguished former Israeli foreign minister. He said, “It is completely absurd and ridiculous for us to hold down 5 million people.” That was his view, but unfortunately there are now people in the Israeli Government who actually believe that Palestinians can be ejected.
There is a role for us, and it is not just moral. We had a very good meeting with our Foreign Office civil servants in the West Bank Protection Consortium. I say to the Minister that I hope he will give them more resources, because they are doing a tremendous job in calling out some of this settler violence.
We were anxious to get both sides of this issue, so we also had a meeting with the Israeli foreign service. They were very reasonable and charming people. They knew all about us—fair enough. Of course, I raised the issue of settler violence—why would I not? They said, “Oh, it’s illegal.” Of course it is illegal, but the Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow. They choose not to.
So many people make suggestions, but if I may make one, it is in the absolute interest of Israel to try to calm this down, to clamp down on illegal settlers, to stop all new settlements and to come to a settlement. I will end on that point. It is in our interest to go on encouraging this process, to have the moral courage to remember these people and to say that this debate is about peace. I know that everybody is depressed and full of doom and gloom that it will never happen, but people often thought that way in history. People thought the Soviet Union would last forever. I am confident that, eventually, logic and peace will break out, and these two great peoples—Arab and Jew, Palestinian and Israeli—can live side by side in peace.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob in order to be called—although, by the look of it, they do not need reminding.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing this important debate.
Last month, I was with the Father of the House as part of a cross-party group of MPs who visited the occupied west bank and Israel. While in southern Israel, we also had the chance to look towards Gaza from a distance. We stood up high on a viewing platform that looked toward the Mediterranean and, through a telescope—and a close-up on an hon. Friend’s iPhone—what emerged was the stark image of the bombed-out buildings and smashed streets of a war-torn city. It was truly a vision of hell.
Just this week, Israel has suspended aid deliveries to Gaza—a move that is all the more devastating during the holy month of Ramadan, when food has particular significance. The latest blockade confirms that the Netanyahu Government see humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip; it is a callous tactic of political leverage. It lays bare that this Israeli Government do not see aid as their legal duty to help the most vulnerable in a conflict zone.
On our trip we visited the site of the Nova music festival—a very moving sight indeed—where nearly 800 young Israelis were murdered on that horrific night of 7 October. We also met Yotam Cohen, brother of Nimrod Cohen, who was taken hostage by Hamas and remains with them. Yotam Cohen’s cold anger at the Netanyahu Government was palpable to everyone who met him. He felt that the Government could have freed his brother, along with all the other hostages, much sooner—many months ago.
But while the tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza rightly deserve our attention, on our trip to the west bank, as the Father of the House has just said, we became very conscious of the fact that a future Palestinian state is being slowly suffocated by extremist Israeli settlers enabled and protected by the Israeli police and armed forces.
As the Labour and Co-operative MP for Rochdale, what heartened me was how the co-operative movement has deep roots in both the Israeli kibbutzim movement and the Palestinian economy. In Ramallah, I met the general union of Palestinian co-operatives, which shared with me video footage showing how, miraculously, amid the rubble of Gaza, the agricultural co-op is growing seedlings for strawberries, peppers and aubergines, and trying to rebuild an income for all those who have been devastated by the war. These are literally green shoots of hope amid all the darkness and despair.
Our trip, organised by Yachad—a British Jewish group that campaigns for a political resolution of the conflict—allowed us to see the trauma on all sides, and talk to many Palestinian and Israeli peacebuilders who believe that there is still hope. We met Roni Keidar, a resident of Netiv HaAsara in southern Israel who, as the Father of the House said, had to hide in her house as Hamas fighters murdered 20 people in her village. When we asked her for a message to the British people about the state of Israeli and Palestinian relations, Roni said: “Tell them there are many people like me who do think there is room for both of us…If we keep saying ‘it is either us or them’, eventually there will be neither us nor them.”
Throughout our visit, the resilience of the Palestinian people was evident. Arab Barghouti, son of the jailed Palestinian politician Marwan Barghouti, told us that his people’s very existence is itself an act of resilience and resistance. Mohammad Mustafa, the Palestinian Prime Minister, perhaps put it best when he told us, “Being hopeless is not a privilege we Palestinians can have.” It is our job in the UK and in this Parliament to make sure that we do everything we can, locally and nationally, to fuel that hope with practical action and diplomacy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I see a lot of Members are standing. I will not impose a formal time limit, but if people stick to about three minutes, everyone will get in. I discourage interventions.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour and privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for securing this critical debate.
Together with other Members speaking today, I have just returned from a cross-party visit to Israel and the west bank—a journey that brought us face to face with the human cost of war and violence for Israelis and Palestinians. We met so many people of all ages, from all sides and at all levels of power, who are working daily to try to bring about the conditions for a lasting peace in spite of the unspeakable and ongoing trauma. On the one hand are the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October, killing over 1,200 people and taking hundreds of hostages, with 60 still held captive. On the other hand is the brutal war in Gaza, killing 45,000 Palestinians, including 18,000 children, displacing thousands and imprisoning many.
A different kind of violence extends to the west bank. It is not new and it did not start on 7 October. It has been ongoing and escalating since the ceasefire agreement. During our visit, we were witness to the impacts of daily violence by extremist settlers in the occupied territories and of the policies that continue to erode the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. That includes the rights of the young Palestinian schoolgirl and her family, whom we visited in their village of Susya. She told us how, on a nightly basis, she is woken up terrified by marauding settlers who have set up their outpost nearby. Just a couple of nights before we arrived, late at night, she heard the sound of stones being thrown at the window of her home. That night, the settlers also smashed the window of her father’s car and slashed the car tyre. She can name them, describe them and point to where they live.
We visited the nearby primary school, built with UK and European aid funding, that had been completely demolished by the settlers. Desks were mangled and educational picture books were strewn in the rubble. Through a remaining window, we had a clear view of the settler outpost. From there, a quad bike came rushing towards us with two settler youths, grins on their faces, swagger in their steps and a sub-machine-gun slung over their shoulder. For us, it was just harassment. As anyone can imagine, however, for Nasser’s daughter and the families in the village, it is a terrifying ordeal.
That is why many people, Israeli and international, offer to provide what is called a protective presence for Palestinian schoolchildren in the rural areas in their villages to try to ensure that they have the basic right of safety as they walk to school. They also provide a protective presence for Palestinian farmers to harvest their crops.
That same night, after we left the village, between 3 am and 5 am there was a settler incursion during which the neighbour’s car was torched with a petrol bomb. The police attended at the request of the village, but the main outcome was that two of the internationals, staying overnight as a protective presence, were arrested. They were then in Jerusalem with a two-week ban on visiting the west bank.
There is impunity for the perpetrators, and the removal of the equal rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the law and in the protection of the police. In fact, since 2005, only 3% of investigations into ideologically motivated crime against Palestinians in the west bank led to a full or partial conviction. It is not just the violation of Palestinian rights through the actions of a few extremist settlers.
There has been a huge increase in settlement and settler violence since the Hamas attacks on 7 October. With attention focused on Gaza and the hostage crisis in Israel, it has given settlers an opportunity to attack with increasing impunity. At least 1,860 incidents of settler violence in the occupied west bank were recorded.
The suffering we witnessed compels us to act, speak out and ensure that the rights of those who have long been marginalised are protected. The face and future of Nasser’s daughter at the mercy of marauding extremist settlers haunts us. We also heard from Roni Keidar, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned, whom we met at Netiv HaAsara. On the day we met, Roni had just received the English translation of her new biography. I remember her words so vividly—that either the Israeli and Palestinian people find a way to live together, or they will die together.
I ask the Government to reassure us with, first, a clear and public renunciation of President Trump’s Riviera proposals as ethnic cleansing—the forcible transfer of the over 2 million people of Gaza would constitute a crime against humanity; secondly, the UK Government’s recognition of a Palestinian state and commitment to a two-state solution, because everyone needs a political horizon to have hope; and thirdly, extending the sanctions that the UK already has to regional councils in the west bank, which are responsible for funding the construction and the supply of services to illegal and violent outposts.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing this important debate. We are discussing the rights of Palestinians, but when our constituents watch on television or their smartphones what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, they would be forgiven for thinking that the Palestinian people have no rights at all.
We need absolute clarity in this House that every single Palestinian man, woman and child has the right to life and the right to a decent existence, and that Palestinians have a right to a state. The Father of the House is correct: a two-state solution is often talked about, but we have to be careful that that does not just become a ritual—we want to see it happen in practice. What we see is an Israeli Government allowing the settlements so that a two-state solution becomes a practical and geographical impossibility. We cannot allow that to happen.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “vile”. We want that moral clarity in relation to the actions of Netanyahu’s Government. What that Government have done to the people of Gaza and the people of the west bank is vile. A war crime is a war crime, whoever commits it—whether it be Putin, Netanyahu or anyone else. Many of our constituents look at what goes on in this place, and look at what goes on in the world, and think that there are double standards. All lives are equal, and international law applies to all. Where does that leave us as a Parliament? Where does that leave us as a state?
Quite often, the Government have called for the right things. I am pleased about that, but I am afraid that Netanyahu does not listen, so action is required. In relation to the unlawful invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s war crimes, the Government have shown that they know how to introduce widespread sanctions, and they have rightly done so.
We need widespread sanctions to be brought against Israel until it complies with international law and stops the war crimes. We see the rulings of the international courts, including the International Court of Justice; there is no legal or moral reason not to. In fact, there are legal and moral imperatives for our Government to take action with specific sanctions, including imposing targeted sanctions against state actors, banning the import of illegal settlement products, a total and immediate arms ban, and the suspension of the trade agreement with Israel.
All too often, it is easy to think that the voices in Parliament for peace, international law and a just outcome are minority voices on the world stage. In fact, that is not the case. The position of the United States and, historically, a number of UK Governments, has been out of step with the international community. We need to get in step with the international community.
I will conclude by referring to a meeting that took place in Parliament just last week with the chair of The Hague Group. I was lucky enough to go, along with others, to the launch of the group—nine nations that have taken practical action to uphold the international court rulings and bring practical sanctions against Israel—at The Hague. If we do not do that, our words will not mean enough. Words, I am afraid, are not enough to relieve the suffering, death and horrendous experiences that are going on in the west bank and Gaza on a daily basis.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am delighted that we are having this debate. I compliment the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate, but for the decent, human way that he presented the case for people who want peace in the region. That must be the message that we all put forward today. The images that we have seen and heard about today are unbelievably horrific; I can relate to many of them, having visited Israel, the west bank and Gaza many times and seen those horrific images for myself.
People’s thirst to gain peace, and in particular peace through justice, has led to a search for peace through international law, hence the application that was made by South Africa to the International Court of Justice and the application that was made to the International Criminal Court. It was my pleasure to go to the International Court of Justice with the South Africans to observe the proceedings there.
I was recently in The Hague, alongside the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for the launch of The Hague Group. The group is made up of a number of nations that have determined to proselytise on every global stage for the carrying out of international law, with respect to the illegal nature of the occupation and the bombardment of Gaza, as well as the continuing bombardment of the west bank.
As Members of Parliament, we have been elected and we are all very proud to be here. Our primary function is to hold the UK Government to account and to demand policies of our Government that are appropriate to a given occasion. I wrote yesterday to the Prime Minister to ask that he initiate a Chilcot-style inquiry into the whole gamut of policies in relation to Israel, Palestine and the conduct of this war. I think that we, as a country, need examine ourselves in this, and what we have actually done over the past few years. I say that with respect to both the current and previous Governments, because some of us were in the previous Parliament or previous Parliaments before that. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough and myself have been here for an equal length of time; it is just that he signed the book 15 minutes earlier than I did on that fateful day in 1983. I compliment him on his speed.
In my letter, I put the following points to the Prime Minister. History is repeating itself. Today, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 61,000; two Israeli officials are now warranted by the ICC for war crimes; and Britain has played a highly influential role in all of that. A recent report by the British Palestinian Committee outlined the extent of that relationship, including the sale of weapons, the supply of intelligence and the use of RAF bases in Cyprus. Many of us have repeatedly objected to the use of those bases, and the continuing supply of weapons. We must pursue all the avenues that we can for an independent inquiry and some transparency about what is going on.
Our Government—both the current and previous Governments—have supplied weapons, have supplied intelligence and have allowed the use of the RAF bases in Akrotiri. Some 61,000 people are already dead in Gaza, there is a rising death toll in the west bank and, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, the Israeli Government are encouraging the settlement policy. Let us have some transparency and let us hold our Government to account so that we can play our part in bringing about peace and justice for the people of the region.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I thank Members for their abbreviated remarks. If people keep going in that way, everyone will get in.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for moving the motion. The remarks we have heard today have been powerful.
Last week, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I travelled to the west bank—to the Occupied Palestinian Territories—and passed through area C. We also visited Saudi, where we met leaders to discuss their plans and hopes for peace. We went to Jordan, where we met Ministers, and again discussed their plans and their hopes for peace. Finally, we went to Tel Aviv and to East and West Jerusalem. We went into the heart of the Knesset and met our counterparts on the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.
It was a sobering trip, but I believe in the invaluable power of diplomacy and the immeasurable importance of seeing places in person, so that we can come back and speak authentically about the reality of what is happening on the ground. As the daughter of a community who have faced persecution and fled armed conflict, I found it a particularly emotional and tough trip. In Israel and Palestine, the depth and strength of feeling on both sides is palpable.
The United Kingdom and our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff on the ground in the region are putting in painstaking and tireless diplomatic efforts; our ambassadors are an unsung testament to Britain’s efforts to find peace. That is why UK politicians must not inflame tensions, and must genuinely commit to working to find a peaceful way forward, while holding people to account for the atrocities we all know are happening.
I have come home determined to redouble my efforts to find peace, as well as to stand up and be a voice for the things I have seen. In Israel, it is evident that the release of the hostages and the return of the bodies is paramount, and the issue seems to be hampering any chance of progress. The nation is in deep collective trauma and grief. Every single person has a story of being touched by the terror of 7 October and Hamas.
I met former hostage families who are themselves calling for peace, and who feel the pain of what is happening on the Palestinian side. Still they want our hand of peace and friendship, and they want us to understand what they are going through. I was there on the day of the Bibas family funerals—a mother and her two young babies, who were killed. Grief permeates that society, which I fear may never recover. We must show that, as global partners, we understand that grief.
The frustrations of people in Israel are palpable, and those frustrations are with their political class. Sitting down with counterparts in the Knesset, I saw no will or desire to push forward for peace. That was sobering and, frankly, quite depressing. Without breaking diplomatic protocol, I will say that some of what was openly said to us—members of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee—was sobering. I certainly would not say things like that in Parliament; it is not acceptable, and we must call it out at every turn.
Some people we talked to are not willing to accept the hand of support from stable regions in the middle east, and I fear that that will hamper their efforts. Normalisation with Saudi is key to finding a way forward. However, I also met brave Israelis working in non-governmental organisations who are putting their lives on the line, pushing for peace and trying to find a path forward. We must remember that they, too, are struggling against a Government that do not seem to be listening to them.
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I was the only Member of Parliament who was able to go and meet Bedouin women and their children. I do not care to repeat some of what they showed me on their phones; the Bedouin—particularly the women and children—face unfathomable settler violence, and we must call it out. The community’s wider conditions are stark: their access to electricity is limited, and their access to water is hampered. There is a stream within touching distance, but they are unable to use it: above it there is a sign, with a Star of David, that makes it very clear that they may not drink or even touch the water. It is terrifying and shocking.
I was there as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with full diplomatic protection, security and a reinforced 4x4, and we still had guns pointed in our faces. We were still terrified, and our drivers would still not take us any further into area C, for fear of what would happen to us. I was there as a British Member of Parliament. Can you imagine what the Bedouin people face day in, day out? Can you imagine the settler violence they face? The IDF turn up and the police turn up, and they let it happen. It is sanctioned by the state, it is sanctioned by the IDF and it is sanctioned by the police. The intimidation and violation is around the clock. The reality of settler violence is not going away, and we must call it out.
In the Old City, the arbitrary demolishing of family homes from generations past is stark; it was shown to me by a brave Palestinian man and a brave Israeli NGO worker who walked us around, and who told me he expected to get a call from the security services the minute we left because, as we know, this is the most surveilled place on Earth, with cameras at every turn. I walked past the rubble of family homes and of lives once lived, and I felt the fear of those still living. Despite that, their resilience and their determination to stand for their homes and their land is unwavering.
The UK must continue to push for unhindered access to and provision of aid. We must resist the Knesset’s crippling restrictions on NGOs and foreign aid workers. We must resist its ability to block foreign reporters from reporting on what is happening on the ground. We must allow humanitarian aid access into the west bank and, crucially, into Gaza. I ask the Minister what our Government’s response is to the settler violence, and call for them to consider sanctions on settlement goods. We know that Israel is now stopping the entry of all aid into Gaza, and we must condemn that at every level.
Hamas’s military capabilities need to be eliminated. An ideology is much harder to root out, but with time, peace and education it is possible. The Palestinian Authority need political reform, so that they have the confidence of the Palestinian people. It is clear that neither side can do it alone; international allies and allies in the region have a seismic role to play, and so do we in this room.
I will not forget what I have seen for the rest of my life, and I promise that, now that I have come back, I will redouble my efforts to be a strong voice here and to work with partners globally to push forward so that the region finally sees peace, Palestinians have their statehood and Israel can be safe and secure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I appreciate that the debate is arousing strong feelings, and I want to get everyone in. Please work with me. If Members speak for a couple of minutes each, we will get you all in.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I want to say a special thank you to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for his compassionate and humane speech. It was extremely touching.
I want to speak about a certain aspect of this conflict. Last Monday, 24 February, a piercing shrill broke the silence of the night. It was a mother crying because her two-month-old baby, Sham, had frozen to death. These are the real human costs of this conflict. Sham joins five other children who have frozen to death in the past month, joining the 116 other Palestinians who have been killed since the ceasefire began. Like many other Members here, I have spoken about this issue countless times here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, and nothing seems to change. We sit here and discuss the rights and wrongs, but as the Father of the House said, this conflict keeps nobody safe, including the Israelis.
I want to be a little more forthright than the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who could not repeat what she heard in the Knesset. There are sentiments that have been openly declared and that, unlike any BBC show, require no translation. Let us take a glimpse into the minds of many Israeli Ministers. Nissim Vaturi, who is the Deputy Speaker of the House, said that Palestinians are “scoundrels” and “subhumans”, and that Israel must
“separate the children and women and kill the adults in Gaza. We are being too considerate.”
He has previously called for the complete erasure of the Gaza strip. The Israeli Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, openly suggested that Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and said that there were no “uninvolved civilians in Gaza”. The then Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, who announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, said Israel was fighting “human animals”. And, of course, we have Benjamin Netanyahu himself, who—reciting the Hebrew Bible—said:
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
We rightly ask about the impartiality of the BBC, but I do not recall the same level of hysteria about the open sentiments expressed by Israeli Ministers that demonise, dehumanise and destroy two-month-old babies. The BBC’s infamous documentary merely gives us a glimpse into the blighted lives of Palestinian children, at a time when no independent journalist is allowed into Gaza and over 160 journalists have been killed.
All I ask the Minister is this: when will the Government call out the atrocities as war crimes and as genocide, and when will they do that with the same conviction as we call out other conflicts? Or are Palestinian lives simply not as important?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing the debate. It was a privilege to join him recently on the delegation organised by Yachad to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
At the outset, I must share my horror at the Israeli Government’s most recent action in stopping all aid going into Gaza. It is paramount that both Israel and Hamas move to the second phase of the ceasefire so that we can secure the return of all hostages and a long-term peace.
Visiting the west bank and the Gaza envelope was an honour, and it brings a perspective I will never forget. While we were in the west bank, we heard directly from Palestinian families who have been victims of settler violence. It is estimated that there are around 250 settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem—settlements that have led to Palestinian families being attacked, Palestinian children being harassed on the way to and from school, cars being burned and damaged, houses and schools being destroyed, access to water and roads being blocked, and families being prevented from working their land to make a living and feed themselves.
Not only did we hear about settler violence, but we witnessed it at first hand when we were approached by two armed settlers in the south Hebron hills. An even more alarming incident occurred last week, when Yachad organised a trip for a group of British rabbis on a similar visit to ours. A settler drove his car towards the delegation, threatening to run into it on several occasions, blocking the participants from leaving the area and then driving into the side of their bus, as well as the car that was accompanying them with the photographer. The same delegation of rabbis—British Jewish leaders who care about Israel and who want peace—saw at first hand how settler youths attacked Palestinian women in Hebron, spitting at them and kicking them until the military intervened. No punitive action was taken. It is clear that, in the west bank, settlers control the land.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking so passionately about her visit. I worked as a human rights observer in Hebron several years ago, and one thing that is too little understood in this place and the other place is the day-to-day humiliation and degradation that Palestinians are put through, in addition to the horrific violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that that day-to-day humiliation and degradation are just as unacceptable?
Tracy Gilbert
I absolutely agree that the challenge the Palestinian people face just trying to live their day-to-day lives is completely intolerable.
Luckily, to return to the incident I was describing, no one was hurt on this occasion—but that is not the case on every occasion. Those are just a few examples of the threats of violence that Israeli settlers inflict on Palestinians every day.
The situation of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza is desperate. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation of the west bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip to be unlawful under international law. The court emphasised that Israel’s prolonged occupation and settlement activities violate the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and contravene international legal principles. It also stated that all states are obligated to ensure that they are not in any way aiding or assisting the maintenance of the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
As a democratic country committed to the rule of law and human rights, the UK must consider the gravity of that ruling and how it will affect UK-Israeli relations. In particular, it must examine whether continuing to allow goods produced in settlements in the west bank into the UK market would be considered assisting and prolonging the occupation, hence denying basic rights to the Palestinian people. I welcome the sanctions put in place last October, but I am keen to hear from the Minister what impact they have had and what further actions the Government can take. For example, they could extend sanctions to regional councils in the west bank that are responsible for funding illegal and violent outposts.
I will close with the powerful remarks made by Roni Keidar, whom our delegation met, as colleagues have pointed to. As a woman who has lived on the Gaza border most of her life and survived the attacks on 7 October, she said that
“either the Israeli and Palestinian people find a way to live together, or they will die together.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for setting the scene.
The topic of Government support for Palestinian rights cannot be discussed without acknowledging Israel’s right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. That is a non-negotiable principle for me, and for many others in this Chamber. Israel has the right, and the duty, to defend herself against the terrorists Hamas, who have long inflicted violence on innocent civilians. We must remember that it is Hamas, with their acts of barbarity and their deliberate targeting of civilians, who have led to the consequences of retaliatory warfare that we see today.
The acts of 7 October were despicable, but more recently we saw the celebrations around the coffins containing women and children who were Israeli hostages. The awful, inhuman celebration, which made a mockery of the innocent lives contained within those coffins, would have been cause for further Israeli action. I thank the Israelis for their strength in the face of further pain, hurt and provocation.
However, although I remain unwavering in my support for Israel’s right to defend herself, I also recognise the need for compassion and empathy for the Palestinian people. Many Palestinian civilians are victims of violence, deprived of necessities and subjected to an increasingly precarious living situation through the acts of Hamas, whom they have no ability to evict from their own communities. The collapse of infrastructure and diversion of aid, which is intended for civilians but has been used by militants, exacerbates the almost impossible life lived by the families in Gaza who wish for nothing more than peace and a safe place to raise their children.
Acknowledging the Palestinian people’s suffering does not diminish my support for Israel. We must advocate for a compassionate end to this dreadful conflict that recognises both the needs of those innocent Palestinians who are victims of the terrorists Hamas within their communities, and Israel’s right to security and safety. Were it not for the fêted Iron Dome, the simple fact is that Israel would have been wiped off the map, and the genocide of its people, which is the aim of Hamas and all other interested parties, would have been completed. Of course, Hamas have been baby killers. They have raped women and they have murdered everyone.
The suffering of women and children are realities that cannot be ignored, which is why we are all in this Chamber today to advocate for peace, a new way forward and hope for all the children on each side of the boundary in Gaza. It is clear that peace cannot be achieved unless there is a mutual recognition of each other’s rights. Palestine must unequivocally acknowledge Israel’s right to exist politically, territorially and socially. That recognition must be accompanied by a commitment to peace, which means an end to terrorism and violence. For peace to flourish, we need both sides to renounce hatred and violence. It is crucial that we hold firm in demanding an end to terrorist attacks launched from Palestinian territories, as they undermine the prospects of a lasting peace.
It is my view that a two-state solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace and security, cannot exist with Hamas’s continued aggression. The Government have a role to play in addressing this issue—not just by offering support for humanitarian aid, but by standing firm in our support for Israel’s security while pushing for genuine peace. If we do that, we can find a way forward. We can find a way if there is a willingness, and if Hamas are eradicated from the Earth.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I extend my thanks to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for ensuring that this important debate took place.
Gaza is not a political football. It is home to 2 million people, and the west bank is home to 3 million. Five million people’s lives are impacted. Gazans are not pawns to be used in any game. Gaza is home to millions of innocent people. Have they not suffered enough? This conflict in their homes has devasted communities, decimated entire areas and destroyed countless lives. Yet the first phase of the ceasefire has expired, weakening the hopes of innocent civilians because that process hangs by a thread.
The coming days are critical. Every time progress stalls, the stakes grow higher. Humanitarian aid falters, rebuilding efforts crumble and a return to the levels of bloodshed, violence and tragedy we saw just weeks ago looms closer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) said, the stakes are so high. The degradation of the Palestinian people and the untold amount of bloodshed must not continue. We must call it out for what it is.
More families are being torn apart. Children are left without vital food and water, and more lives are left in limbo with little relief in sight. Gazans are living with uncertainty on all sides. They are uncertain if Israel will allow aid in, uncertain if they will ever rebuild their homes, and uncertain if they will ever have a land of their own. How many more Palestinian lives must be lost before we finally them afford them the same respect and dignity that is afforded to others?
The next few days and weeks are crucial. We cannot allow this deal to break down. We must continue the fight for a two-state solution. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, is absolutely right when he says we must keep up the pressure. We must shine a light on this tragedy so it is never forgotten. Palestinians need a safe and secure state, alongside a safe and secure Israel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Unlike other Members who have been reflecting on recent visits to the region, although I have visited the region more recently, I visited both Gaza and Israel as long ago as 2012. My reflection when I returned, particularly from Gaza, was how appalling the conditions were. How much worse they are now. I wrote an article for my church magazine reflecting on my visit to Israel and I said that one could feel the tensions within society. It was not a society at ease with itself, and I suspect that is probably still the case.
In preparing for this contribution, I looked back on the Backbench debate that took place in October 2014 about the recognition of Palestine. I noted that 39 Conservatives voted for recognition, including me and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was a Teller on that occasion, I noted. It would be interesting to hear from the Front Benchers what their views are now on that particular situation.
One of the contributions came from our former colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who of course in the 1990s was Foreign Secretary. His view was that it was not the right time for recognition at that point because to be a recognisable state there needed to be a functioning Government and military. In the present circumstances, achieving a functioning, democratically accountable Government and all the extensions of that such as a military is clearly an impossibility. I am very interested to hear the Front Benchers’ comments on that.
As the Father of the House said, and I agree entirely, Israel has a perfect right to exist. I would describe myself as a friend of Israel, but friends can be critical and there is a lot to criticise the state of Israel about. It must surely recognise that its actions in Gaza—while with the perfectly legitimate aim of eliminating Hamas, particularly after the appalling atrocities of 7 October—are creating the Hamas of the future. They are radicalising the children and young people, who see death and destruction all around. How will they not grow up wanting revenge for what they see?
In so many ways, Israel is an admirable country. The people have shown courage. Their science and technology are very advanced, and the resulting benefits are tremendous. However, Israel has a proportional representation system of Government, which inevitably means coalitions, and the extreme elements that exist within those coalitions will always hold them back. I very much hope that after this debate a united approach can be taken, whereby we recognise the rights of Israel but are also extremely critical where appropriate.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will delay calling the Front Benchers until 3.30 pm, so that I can get more Back Benchers in.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing this debate; I got to know him well recently on our visit to the region. I also thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I am rapidly rewriting my speech, because many things that I would have said have already been covered.
I start by paying my respects to the more than 1,200 people who were killed on 7 October 2023 in those horrific and barbaric attacks by Hamas, whose intent was genocidal, in the sense that they saw anybody who was in that space as a legitimate target. Hamas are completely against the existence of the state of Israel. I have always been a believer in Israel; I believe in a homeland for the Jewish people. However, what I discovered while I was in the region is that Hamas are not the only organisation within that space who are opposed to a two-state solution; extremist elements in the Israeli Government are seemingly opposed to a two-state solution as well. When we met Mohammad Mustafa, the Prime Minister of Palestine, it became clear to me that he was the only political actor I met who is committed to that two-state solution.
Other Members have already spoken well on the settler violence that we witnessed, which was horrific. It is horrific to see people living under decades of occupation. One thing that struck me is the challenge that the Palestinian Authority face to give hope to people, and persuade them not to use armed resistance but to be peaceful after decades living under occupation in a situation where they do not have the same political rights as others, and where Palestinian families are driven away from their villages. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) described well a school that we saw had been smashed to pieces; the remains of children’s workbooks were still strewn across the floor.
I was grateful this week to see our Prime Minister literally put an arm around President Zelensky. I feel that the time has also come that we need to put an arm around the Palestinian people—indeed, not just the Palestinian people but all people in that region who are moderates but whose voices are being drowned out.
I will briefly suggest three or four things that we need to look at. One is the ICJ ruling. We know that last summer the ICJ gave an advisory opinion that there is an unlawful occupation, and that the prolonged presence of Israel is unlawful and breaches principles of international law, including the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring civilian population into the territory that it occupies. That ICJ ruling also put obligations on states to recognise the illegal situation. It is disappointing that the United Kingdom Government abstained in the UN General Assembly on this issue. Can we please revisit that, because as Israel’s position shifts our position needs to shift as well?
I used to be of the opinion that recognition of the state of Palestine should come as part of a negotiated settlement, but it is now clear to me that a Palestinian Authority who are committed to a two-state solution needs that recognition sooner rather than later. Could the Minister set out a road map for that?
It is also deeply concerning that the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to Israeli prisons is being blocked, because we know that human rights abuses and torture are occurring in those prisons. Can we please do something about that?
The economy of Palestine is in a terrible state. When we visited the Bank of Palestine, a specific ask was to include Palestine within the mandate of British international investment, to strengthen the Palestinian economy. Finally, can we do more on sanctions to address settler violence? Can we please put an arm around those people and say, “enough is enough”?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on bringing this important debate. I will cut down my speech to the bare bones and focus on the rights of the Palestinians as attributed to them by the Government here.
I believe that the UK’s denial of Palestinian rights for more than a century has directly led to the situation we face today. What rights have we denied them? As right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, they have a right for the UK not to refuse to recognise their state, their homeland. They have a right not to be starved and denied essential life supplies, such as water and medicines. They have a right not to be unlawfully killed by Israeli forces and settlers at any point in their daily lives. They have a right not to be unlawfully and violently evicted from their homes, and forcibly displaced.
They have a right not to face abusive detention and torture in Israeli prisons. They have a right not to face movement restrictions, blockades and checkpoints that prevent pregnant mothers reaching hospitals to deliver babies. They have a right not to face discriminatory laws passed daily by the Israeli Knesset. They have a right not to undergo collective punishment and not to be sexually abused trying to live their lives.
To conclude, it is clear that successive UK Governments and many in this House have denied the rights of Palestinians, and continue to do so in blind loyalty in defence of Israel and its many war crimes. Palestinians are as human as any Israeli or Ukrainian, and deserve the same rights from the UK.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have agreed to have slightly shorter times. I will try to get two more people in for one minute each.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir John. I also thank the Father of the House for securing this debate. In his Oscar acceptance speech, the director of the film “No Other Land”, Basel Adra, called on the world to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. We must bear witness to the atrocities documented in his film, and the genocide documented on our mobile phone screens, and heed his call.
Having committed what many experts are clear is genocide in Gaza, Israel is now, during the holy month of Ramadan, once again collectively punishing the people of Gaza by withholding aid. The UK has licensed arms for export to Israel, and UK military bases have been used to facilitate military cargo to Israel, and for surveillance flights over Gaza. It is very difficult to argue that the UK Government are not complicit in at least some of Israel’s breaches of international law.
If the UK is seen to take an inconsistent approach to war crimes, it undermines the international legal order, which is there to protect us all. We must not treat Israel differently just because it has been our ally. If the ceasefire holds—we must do everything in our diplomatic power to ensure that it does—rebuilding Gaza will be a huge challenge. We must play our part in that by committing significant funding and other resources.
I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. When will the Government recognise the state of Palestine? Will the Government stop all arms sales to Israel and other military support? Will they implement sanctions on Israel? Will they commit to funding the rebuilding of Gaza?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, why not? Why are our responses to Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine and to Israel’s war crimes in Gaza so different? Can the Government not see that hypocrisy on this issue does the whole world a disservice and threatens global security? We must be consistent and stand for human rights everywhere. That means doing everything in our power to hold Israel to account, prevent genocide in Gaza and secure rights and justice for the Palestinian people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate but for the manner in which he introduced it. I will speak briefly about what I saw and heard on my visit to Israel and Palestine. It was a journey of stark contrasts—immense suffering, but also remarkable courage. Those experiences should carry us forward in how we set British policy on Palestinian rights.
In Gaza, the devastation is beyond words. In the shadow of Gaza’s skeleton ruins, I met aid workers risking their lives to provide vital relief, and refugees whose homes and futures have been torn apart. The scale of the destruction means that we must push for immediate and sustained humanitarian aid, and we need to stand firm against any measures to undermine that aid getting to where it is needed. In the west bank, I saw the daily reality of life under occupation: the constant roadblocks, the endless checks and the ever-present fear. I met families who have been forcibly removed from their homes and villages that have been demolished six times. Palestinians are treated worse than second-class citizens. The UK cannot turn a blind eye to this injustice. We should use the financial sanctions available to us as a country to target Israeli settlements, to uphold international law and human rights.
When we talk about Palestine, it is easy to focus on the sheer terrible nature of the events, but on my visit I also heard voices of hope—from Israelis who lost loved ones but refuse to embrace revenge, to Palestinians committed to building a peaceful and democratic future. I met a family of a young Israeli hostage, desperate for the safe return of their family member but let down by their own Government’s indifference. These voices remind us that peace is possible, but only through justice and equality.
The UK can play a role in that. We need to recognise the state of Palestine. We must ensure that aid gets to where it is needed. We must challenge policies that entrench division and violence, whether they come from Hamas, the Israeli Government or any other actor. We have seen Trump and Vance bully their guest Zelensky in the Oval Office recently, yet across the Atlantic, Britain continues to stand up for its ally, Ukraine. We must seize the chance to support countries that find themselves enslaved, isolated and bullied by their neighbour’s aggression. The UK should use its worldwide respected authority to support such nations in gaining recognition of their statehood.
The people I met deserve our support. Let us stand with those who want a better world, and pursue an agenda of peace that upholds human rights and self-determination—for a safe and secure Israel alongside a free and independent state of Palestine.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Harpreet Uppal. A paragraph, please, Harpreet—no more.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House for bringing forward this vital debate.
The already strained Palestinian healthcare system in the west bank has been further weakened, and is facing significant budget constraints stemming from Israel’s increased withholding of tax revenues meant for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, as stipulated by the Oslo accords. The World Health Organisation reports that 45% of essential medications are out of stock, and health workers have not received their full salary for over a year, meaning that most clinics and hospitals are running at significantly reduced levels. Of course, the effective ban of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East is impacting the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Hardly any healthcare facilities are running in Gaza.
I will leave it there, Sir John. I am sure that the Minister has heard those concerns.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
That was wonderful. A few commas, a couple of semi-colons, but a paragraph, I reckon—don’t you? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for bringing this critically important debate.
Late last year, I also visited the occupied territories and the west bank, and I share his and other hon. Members’ strength of feeling. I also pay tribute to our officials in East Jerusalem, who work so hard to tell and navigate the story, to all those there who are seeking peace—there are many of them—and to all those who are living under the daily horror of conflict.
In this debate, I reaffirm the Liberal Democrats’ unwavering commitment to human rights, international law and a lasting peace for both Palestinians and Israelis through a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. First and foremost, the Liberal Democrats support the UK Government in their efforts to uphold the current ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Negotiations to move from phase 1 to phase 2 of the ceasefire deal must occur as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I urge the Government to do everything they can to secure the unconditional release of hostages, all the while ensuring that humanitarian aid flows unhindered into Gaza. They must do that.
Last weekend, Israel blocked further humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, which is a contravention of international humanitarian law. It also imperils the delicate but essential cessation of hostilities, and will impose yet more suffering on Gazan civilians, who have already suffered so much. Israel must act in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law and permit aid in.
I also note with concern developments in the west bank. Despite the ceasefire in Gaza, there are strong indications that the Israeli military are refocusing efforts on the west bank. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, confirmed last Sunday that 40,000 residents were displaced from refugee camps in the north of the west bank, and that Israel will not allow the return of the Palestinian residents. Will the Minister condemn this forced displacement, particularly in view of the comments of Minister Katz?
Moreover, the UK must respect and act upon the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the occupation, cease all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and work to end the arbitrary administrative detention of Palestinians by the IDF. The continued expansion of settlements in occupied territories is an obstacle to peace, and the UK must stand firm in its condemnation of those illegal actions.
On arms exports and human rights, I want to re-emphasise that it is indefensible that the UK continues to export arms to countries in which human rights violations are rampant. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for an immediate suspension of all arms exports to Israel, in line with the Foreign Office’s own human rights priorities.
The UK must also take a stand by immediately recognising the state of Palestine. When I visited, I saw for myself the rapidly shrinking state. Before it disappears, we must recognise it. However, recognition alone is not enough; we must actively work with international partners to support democratic leadership in Palestine, invest in peacebuilding initiatives, and use trade as a tool for economic co-operation and stability. The international fund for middle east peace must be supported, and the UK should lead efforts to bring together Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders who are dedicated to the future of co-existence and mutual security.
As we debate, leaders of the Arab world are meeting in Cairo to develop counterproposals to President Trump’s destabilising rhetoric. They intend to provide a peaceful, long-term solution for the people of Gaza. President Trump has previously advocated for the permanent resettlement of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents, calling to “clean out” the strip. Such a policy would violate international humanitarian law and severely damage relations with the Arab nations, whose support and commitment will be essential to any lasting peace agreement. Will the Minister therefore affirm that the British Government oppose President Trump’s proposal for Gaza? Will she also outline how the UK is working with partners in the region to help secure lasting peace?
I cannot leave out the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Beyond the immediate violence, the long-term effects of the conflict, if left unaddressed, will devastate generations of Palestinians. It is alarming to think that we might see that devastation start to bite far more quickly than we previously feared, now that the UK and the US have cut back on their overseas aid budgets. The UK must seriously reconsider that shameful decision to reduce overseas aid to 0.3% of GNI—the lowest level this century. In her resignation letter, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made it clear that one of the areas of UK development spending potentially affected by the cut to aid is Gaza. By putting that vital work at risk, we are not only diminishing our ability to alleviate vast amounts of human suffering—in Gaza, more than 80% of hospitals have been reduced to rubble—but we are also rolling the dice on a more dangerous world. Failed states create more Hamas.
I want to include Jordan, which has for so long been a refuge for so many Palestinians fleeing their home, and who we have supported for so long. I regret that the UK follows where other countries cut aid or stop aid. I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to ensure that the UK can continue vital development work in view of these major cuts.
I share the outrage and concern of Members of this House at the violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The UK has a moral duty to uphold human rights and the principles of justice on the global stage. The Government must strain every sinew to uphold the ceasefire, get the hostages out, condemn all violence and war, and they must recognise the Palestinian state. It is way overdue.
I will leave hon. Members with the words of a Palestinian Catholic priest who visited my constituency at the weekend to tell the story of the children of Bethlehem. He said to me, “I am not political, but I am here to ask you to work for peace.” He reminded me of the teaching of St James, that faith is nothing without action. The peacemakers in the region need our action. I call on the Government to act.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Please divide the remaining time by two, allowing Sir Edward a few moments to sum up the debate at the end. I call the shadow Minister.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I start by congratulating the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing this debate and for sharing with us his thoughtful and informed contribution, based on his own very personal experiences and recent visit to the region.
I want to start by talking about the immediate situation. The ceasefire continues to be extremely fragile and there remains a long and difficult road ahead. We want this agreement to endure. That means, as I have said before, the release of each and every single hostage held by Hamas.
We recently passed 500 days since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 and the taking of the innocent hostages. They and their families did nothing to deserve the unimaginable horrors that have been inflicted upon them by Hamas. Since I last spoke in this place, we have witnessed further hostage releases. Tragically, last week, we also saw the return of the bodies of Ohad Yahalomi, Tsachi Idan, Itzik Elgarat and Shlomo Mantzur. The week prior, we witnessed the return of the bodies of Ariel and Kfir Bibas, their mother Shiri Bibas and Oded Lifschitz. Our hearts break for their families and we stand with the state of Israel at this desperately sad time. As the Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis said:
“It is pure evil to take a mother and her young children and an elderly man hostage. It takes another layer of evil to be responsible for their deaths.”
Nobody should be in any doubt about the evil of Hamas and their total disregard for human life and human dignity, which I shall return to.
On the present situation in Gaza, I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on four points. First, what conversation has she had recently with the International Committee of the Red Cross on its efforts, both on hostage releases and on humanitarian assistance more broadly? Is there any further practical or diplomatic assistance that the UK can provide to support its operations?
Secondly, can the Minister offer her latest assessment of the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza? Thirdly, what is the Government’s practical response to Israel’s decision on aid access? How are the Government working to unblock the situation, and what is happening to British aid that is already in the region or en route? Fourthly, what role is the UK playing to help get an agreement on phase two of the ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with American, Israeli and other regional counterparts in recent days?
Turning to the main subject of this debate, we must acknowledge that fundamental freedoms and rights have been denied to the people of Gaza for many years by Hamas. Hamas have no regard whatsoever for human life, let alone human rights, women’s rights, freedom of expression or political freedoms. Hamas have been deeply repressive of civil society and political opposition, and they have arbitrarily arrested journalists. Hamas have also executed Palestinians, and have form on sentencing Palestinians to death. In both Gaza and the west bank, the LGBT community has been subject to attacks, and elections have not been held in the west bank since 2006. There have been reports of thousands of detentions in relation to freedom of expression and political affiliation in the west bank.
We are still at an early stage of the ceasefire agreement, which remains delicate, but we hope in time to be able to progress to the next stages and consider the future governance of Gaza. What are the Government doing on the diplomatic front to help to ensure that there can be no future role for Hamas in Gaza, and what conversations have they had with Israeli counterparts and key regional actors on bringing this about?
In government and before, Conservatives called for many years for the Palestinian Authority in the west bank to reform. If the Palestinian Authority are to have an expanded role, it is even more important that they implement the most significant programme of reform in their history, including to their welfare and education policies. Of course, they must also demonstrate real, serious democratic progress. In government, we made those points directly to the Palestinian Authority, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Labour Government have done the same, and specifically whether they have outlined a clear set of expectations to the Palestinian Authority on when they want those reforms to take place?
As I have said, we would also like Israel to take steps in relation to the west bank, including with regard to releasing frozen funds, on settlements and, in particular, in holding to account those responsible for extreme settler violence.
We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must help to give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. Do the Government have a vision for what that could look like, and do they intend to present the outlines of a possible blueprint in the time ahead? Although it is difficult, we must strive to lift people’s eyes to a brighter future and a regional peace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I congratulate the Father of the House on securing this important debate and on bringing together Members from across the House to speak in it. In the short time we have remaining, I will endeavour to respond to all the issues raised.
I pay tribute to the work of Yachad, which educates Members of Parliament on the realities, brings people up to date on important work that is happening, and gives us hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned—as a good Co-operative MP—in remembering the importance of green shoots.
The agreement to end the fighting in Gaza was a major step forward, ending combat operations and increasing aid for Gazans while allowing the release of 38 hostages in Gaza so far. They include British national Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, who has close links to the UK. The bodies of eight deceased hostages, including Oded Lifshitz, who had links to the UK, have also been released.
We have been clear from the outset that a ceasefire is simply the first step towards a lasting solution to this crisis and a lasting peace. What is needed now is a political process and a political horizon towards a two-state solution. That is why it is so important that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee visited the region to deepen their understanding, so that we can continue to have these debates in Parliament, and push those of us who are on the frontline in discussions with interlocutors to ensure peace, security and the protection of fundamental rights for both Palestinians and Israelis.
The Palestinian Authority will have a key role in the future security and governance of Gaza. For the current fragile deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate. That includes making future security arrangements that protect Israelis and Palestinians and respect their human rights. Most importantly, aid must now flow into Gaza and must be sustained. We just had an urgent question on this in the House, to which I refer others who were not there. Aid includes the supply of medical equipment, shelter items, water and sanitation equipment, which are essential for humanitarian and early recovery needs. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by Israel, risks breaching obligations under international humanitarian law, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) mentioned, should apply to us all.
The UK is investing in this ceasefire, and we continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. We announced a further £17 million in funding at the end of January to make sure healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Crucial partners such the Red Cross, which the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), mentioned, and individuals working in the field of aid and development must be able to pass borders and get desperately needed aid into these difficult areas.
The Government have announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, delivering essential services to civilians in Gaza and the west bank and to Palestinian refugees across the region. This includes support for essential healthcare, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) mentioned, is so important. On education, we earmarked £5.8 million of UK funding this financial year for Global Partnership for Education work in Gaza and the west bank, and for the Education Cannot Wait initiative.
The UK will play a leading role in international efforts to support a Palestinian-led recovery and reconstruction, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). We welcome the leadership of Arab partners, as demonstrated by the discussions in Cairo today about plans to reconstruct Gaza—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about the importance of agriculture and the economy. We are supporting efforts towards finding a single viable plan for the next phase of the ceasefire and reconstruction.
Civil society must have a strong role in Gaza’s early recovery. It is crucial to lay the groundwork for inclusive governance, accountability and transparency. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US, and Arab and regional partners to build consensus for a governance and security framework in post-conflict Gaza.
So many have mentioned the west bank. Its stability is absolutely essential if the fragile ceasefire in Gaza is to last. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) described the use of protective presence and the NGOs that are working in this important area. We recognise that Israel has legitimate security concerns, but we have continually urged it to show restraint in its military operations and for civilians to be protected. We also continue to call on Israel to hold violent settlers to account. In October, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions targeting three illegal settler outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the west bank.
We reiterate, as the Father of the House did in his opening remarks, that settlements are illegal under international law and undermine prospects for peace. The UK condemns comments that propose the annexation of land in the west bank. This would undermine prospects for peace, lead to greater instability, and be illegal under international law.
We are not in the business of providing running commentary on the US role in this particular conflict, but we do share the US President’s desire for the ceasefire to be sustained. Like him, we want Hamas to release the remaining hostages, as is set out in the ceasefire agreement. The UK commitment to a two-state solution remains strong and unwavering, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) emphasised in their contributions.
Gaza needs to be rebuilt for the Palestinians who live there. Our priority is the implementation of the ceasefire deal in full, creating the foundations for a pathway to peace. An effective Palestinian Authority is vital for lasting peace. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and to President Abbas, and has offered our support as their Government implement much-needed reforms to build the pathway towards the future. However the Government of Israel, as well as the Palestinian Authority, retain a responsibility to support the rights of Palestinians. Working closely with our international partners, we will continue to pursue the objectives of the two-state solution. I shall leave it to the Father of the House to wind up.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Thank you, everybody, for taking part in what has been a very powerful debate. We are completely united. We condemn Hamas, but we stick up unequivocally for the rights of the Palestinian people. Everybody, from all parties or from no party, has made that point—it has even united the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and me.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.
North Staffordshire Ceramics Industry: Energy Costs
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy cost support for the ceramics industry in North Staffordshire.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I am grateful that this topic has been selected for debate today. I am also delighted to be joined by my fellow Stoke MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I thank all other hon. Members in attendance today. This is a city-wide and a nationwide debate, and it is critical that we speak with one voice on the issues, to support the industry as much as we can.
Now is the time to act. It was only last month that Royal Stafford, a ceramics firm in my constituency, went into liquidation after nearly 200 years of making fine pottery. That was a devastating blow for our local economy; more than 80 people lost their jobs, and it highlights the real urgency of today’s debate. What happened at Royal Stafford should not have happened, and it should not have happened to all other companies over the years. We must fight for our pots.
I would like to place on record my thanks to Colin, Sam and the wider GMB union for stepping up to support want to pay tribute to the ceramics companies that operate in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North—Moorcroft, Burleigh, Steelite, Moorland and Churchill, to name only a few—and I thank Rob Flello and Ceramics UK, who have campaigned tirelessly on behalf of the sector.
The ceramics industry is integral to our story as a city—hence our “Potteries” name—and today, in our centenary year, it still employs more than 3,000 people, exporting our fine products all around the world. We cannot afford to lose those jobs, nor the skills of our workforce. Already, in Stoke-on-Trent, disposable household income sits some £5,000 behind the UK average, according to the latest Office for National Statistics data. Over the years we have lost our pits, and we cannot afford to lose any more of our pots. Our ceramics companies must remain a focus of economic growth and industry for our city.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the ceramics industry. Similarly, in Northern Ireland, we have Larne, Belfast and Londonderry, which also have a very rich history in ceramics. In terms of education—to help the hon. Gentleman if I can—Ulster University in Belfast has helped to develop new advancements in the ceramics field. There is much more that can be done. There is a future for ceramics—that is the point I am trying to make. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more could be done in education to encourage more young people into the field, if there was a vision—and an opportunity—for the future?
David Williams
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for attending my first Westminster Hall debate. As always, he raises some important points. I remember the old days of Stoke, when we actually had bottle kilns attached to our local schools, giving people their first opportunities to learn a skill. Sadly, those have all gone, but the point about getting people interested in the sector and learning skills is a valid one.
I am delighted that last year Stoke-on-Trent was awarded world craft city status for our ceramics heritage. Many people will be familiar with our household names in tableware. I have spoken before about our “turnover club”, where people pick up the plates and look at their provenance. I have explained in the past that my mum and my grandad worked in the potbanks of Tunstall and Burslem—namely, at H&R Johnson and Dunn Bennett & Co.
However, many people do not realise that ceramics shape every aspect of our lives. Ceramics companies manufacture the clay bricks, roof tiles and pipes that we need for our homes.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
There is another sector alongside pots and roof tiles: bricks. I wanted to come in on that point as the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. We have Ibstock—looking to the future, a huge amount of investment is going into the Ibstock factory in Aldridge—and Wienerberger. I think one of the challenges—the hon. Member may agree with me—is that this sector is really impacted by energy costs, so we have to continue to look at how to support the energy-intensive sector in every way we can, because this is the future.
David Williams
I thank the right hon. Member for those comments. I know that she has spoken passionately about this matter in the past, and I will come on to the point about the need to support companies with their energy bills.
I was talking about how ceramics have an impact on our everyday life. Without refractories, we would not have the ability to make steel, glass and other high-temperature products. Without ceramics, we would have no cars, no buses and no mobile phones—what a scary idea. Without advanced ceramics, we would have no aircraft, defence or medical equipment.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Like me, he will have heard that advanced ceramics carbon filters are going into submarines being built not just for the UK, but for the Australian navy. With the commitment that this Government have rightly made to huge increases in defence spending, perhaps he will allow me to join him in suggesting to the Minister that one way we could help the entire ceramics sector is by redirecting some of that commitment to defence spending to ensure that those ceramic component producers get the help and support they need right now.
David Williams
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. I could not agree more; I am certain that the Minister will have heard those comments and I wholeheartedly support them.
Of course, we would be eating and drinking from wooden bowls and cups without the beautiful tableware that we enjoy—including, as I have said, many of the plates, cups and saucers we see here across the Westminster estate. The world as we know it simply would not exist without ceramics. I urge the Government to recognise that the UK ceramics industry is a critical enabler of the UK economy—used, as we have said, from building homes to high technology to steel making.
However, I repeatedly hear concerns from companies regarding their sustainability following dramatic increases in their energy bills. For energy-intensive industries such as ceramics, energy cost pressures are significant. In fact, I have heard from companies in my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency that their energy bills have trebled. One company told me that it has seen energy bills increase by 300% in 10 years. The sector was hit hard by the energy crisis, and inaction left us too dependent on tyrants such as Vladimir Putin. That has had a huge impact on both production and raw material costs, and support is urgently needed to protect these businesses. Sadly, some employers across our city are already making redundancies due to escalating costs, and that disturbing trend will only be exacerbated by inaction.
It takes a vast amount of heat to produce the kind of ceramics products we make. According to Ceramics UK, the UK ceramics industry uses about 650,000 MWh of electricity and about 4.5 million MWh of gas every single year. With gas currently costing about £47 per megawatt-hour and electricity in the region of £297 per megawatt-hour, the costs quickly add up. When we consider that gas used to cost about £11 per megawatt-hour, the impact on those businesses is clear to see.
Of course, a significant portion of those costs comes from non-commodity taxes and levies. Many ceramics companies pay high carbon taxes under the UK emissions trading scheme and ever-tighter restrictions on free allowances are pushing up costs even more. Because the industry is gas intensive, while still using a lot of electricity, very few manufacturers receive the energy-intensive industries exemption.
I am really proud that this Government take the climate crisis so seriously. A move towards green energy is desirable; if we can get to that point, wonderful. However, the reality at the moment is that companies face significant bills. That is a fixed cost that the companies cannot do anything about, and moving towards low carbon is not always straightforward. It is absolutely right, as I said, to push towards a clean energy transition, but energy-intensive industries need a higher level of support in switching to low-carbon methods. The technology to switch from gas to electricity firing is not readily available for many ceramics manufacturers, and connections to the grid are poor.
Some European countries are already taking action and have been for some years to support their ceramics sector. The European Commission recently unveiled its affordable energy action plan, which includes investing in liquefied natural gas projects to help companies to lower their costs. A number of other countries are also helping their energy-intensive industries. It is vital that the UK follows suit.
The history of our city is one of hard-working people. The ceramics industry is in our DNA. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not only the unique skills that, as we talked about before, have been honed in the Potteries for hundreds of years, but the communities formed around them. I have questions for the Minister, but I start by thanking her for agreeing to meet me, my parliamentary colleagues, Ceramics UK and the GMB union to discuss the technical details around the support the sector needs.
As a starter, however, following my discussions with Ceramics UK, the sector would like the Minister to consider the merits of offering subsidies for smaller manufacturers’ energy costs. Indeed, Ceramics UK has told me that the cost pressures can be up to six times greater than they were in 2021. For the manufacturers that can use electricity, eligibility for the Government’s energy-intensive industries exemption scheme could be opened up for all UK ceramics manufacturers, including by removing the UK business level test. The Government could also mandate priority grid connections.
For ceramics manufacturers unable to switch from gas, could the Minister consider exempting the sector from new taxes and levies on gas, in recognition of the limited alternatives currently available? Ceramics really is the hardest of all energy-intensive industries to decarbonise. Although Great British Energy will reduce energy bills in the long term, failing to reduce energy costs for the sector now could put our ceramics industry at further risk, and that is simply not acceptable.
With carbon taxes hammering the sector, I also ask the Minister to consider the merits of introducing a temporary exemption from the UK emissions trading scheme for UK ceramic manufacturers until an effective carbon border adjustment mechanism is up and running and ceramics manufacturers can apply for CBAM phase 2.
Something that might also be of great help to our wonderful small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector would be the provision of ultra-low interest loans to help to finance more energy-efficient kilns, dryers and related equipment. Hydrogen presents an opportunity for the sector to decarbonise: Ceramics UK recently unveiled a custom-built pilot kiln that runs on hydrogen. Will the Minister evaluate the hydrogen supply chain and market currently available to the ceramics industry, and how that can be better distributed? I also ask the Minister that, as we discuss the support the sector needs, the Department for Business and Trade work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, among others, to find a solution on a cross-departmental footing.
Without a desire to move away from the topic of energy costs, it would be remiss of me not to point out one further concern that the sector often raises with me and my colleagues. Counterfeit back-stamping of tableware products from the likes of China is affecting our UK businesses. Although I appreciate the Government’s efforts to regulate against those products through anti-dumping regulations and anti-dumping duty, I am concerned that many of those products slip through the net. The fake products get listed on internet sites, so I ask for a cross-departmental approach to review tabling offences and the classifications for importing counterfeit tableware products.
I thank the Minister for coming to answer my questions, and I invite her to visit my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North so that she can see just how brilliant our potbanks are and how important they are to our local economy and people. We must keep those pots open and those kilns fired. The time to act is now.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for securing this important debate. I begin by echoing his thanks to the trade unions, the industry and Ceramics UK for all they do. I have engaged with Ceramics UK quite a bit since taking up this role, and previously in opposition, and I work closely with the unions and the industry.
My hon. Friend clearly laid out the challenges we face, as well as the challenges facing his community’s disposable household incomes, and the importance of getting this right. He is right to look to the future of ceramics, not to the past. There are several industries that we want to grow in the UK, but we have historically focused on the past—steel is a case in point—not the future.
My hon. Friend talks about new advanced technologies, and the important uses of ceramics in our mobile phones, our aircraft, our defence and our medical equipment are clear to see, though little understood by those outside this sector. We can all do more to make sure people understand the ceramics industry and what it is for. The industrial strategy is one way to do that.
As my hon. Friend knows, the industrial strategy is coming out in the spring. We promised it for years in opposition, and the previous Government but one tried, but they did not persevere. We have identified eight growth sectors within the strategy—advanced manufacturing is one of them—but foundational industries have to power those growth sectors, which is where ceramics is important.
I nod to my hon. Friend’s well-made point about defence, which is one of the growth sectors in the industrial strategy. Over the last few days, we have seen this Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending. The Chancellor spoke at the Make UK conference today about how we can change defence procurement to include more of this country’s SMEs. We have also been creative in using UK Export Finance to create jobs with Thales in Belfast. There is more we can do, and I will take away my hon. Friend’s point about advanced ceramic carbon filters. I suspect there are other potential applications in this space.
I acknowledge and appreciate the very real challenges that my hon. Friend raises. The cost of energy bills is very difficult for the ceramics industry and other energy-intensive industries. Every one of us has suffered from the huge price hike after Russia invaded Ukraine, although our energy costs are not comparable with those of our neighbours.
My hon. Friend also highlighted how electricity costs so much more than gas and the challenges that will bring as we decarbonise. He mentioned the emissions trading scheme and the ongoing consultation on free allowances. I also heard his well-made points about the low carbon transition and the challenges for sectors such as ceramics, where its up-front cost is potentially prohibitive.
Gareth Snell
The Minister probably knows as much about ceramics as those of us from Stoke-on-Trent, as she is constantly on her brief.
On the transition, one of the challenges facing ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent and around the country is that the margins on their products are not sufficient to allow big up-front capital investments, which means that going from a gas kiln to an electric kiln is often beyond their reach as they simply do not have the cash flow.
One solution that the Minister could potentially take back to the Department is some sort of VAT exemption for energy-intensive industries and companies that are looking to move towards more low-energy, low-carbon equipment. Perhaps the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which is currently undersubscribed, could be used in some way to help energy-intensive private companies to access new technology that would reduce not only their carbon output but their long-term energy costs through efficiencies.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for those points, which he has previously raised with me. I can certainly take away the point about the public sector decarbonisation scheme. Bizarrely, as he knows, it is not part of my brief, but that does not matter. This Government work across Departments and across barriers, and I will endeavour to look into it. The point is well made that it can be challenging when a company has small margins and big up-front costs, especially in these industries where there has not been infrastructure investment for a long time. A lot of places need general infrastructure investment, and we are looking actively at this issue through the spending review process.
Happily, I can say that we are looking to answer all the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. I cannot promise what the answers will be at this point, and I cannot promise that we will do everything we seek to do, but we are well aware of all his points and are looking at them in depth.
We are looking at subsidies on energy costs. My hon. Friend said that the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero should work together. I sit in both Departments, so I have conversations with myself about these issues. There are competing vantage points that we need to grapple with, but the advantage of my sitting in both Departments is that officials from the two Departments meet to find solutions before speaking to me, which is helpful. They are working well together.
We are also looking at the energy-intensive industries exemption scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, grid connections are an issue across the board. We are working on how to remove undeveloped, speculative programmes from the grid connection queue and prioritise others. One of my roles as the Minister for Industry is to point to the need not to forget our existing industrial base and the need for it to connect to the grid, as well as the need for the important data centres, artificial intelligence and new technologies and new investment that we want to come to the UK. If we cannot get our own industry connected in the way we want, we are getting something wrong, so my hon. Friend is right to make that point.
I met representatives of the energy-intensive industries last week, including Rob from Ceramics UK, and I am following up on all these things with the Treasury and with officials. We agreed on a couple of things at that meeting, and one is to have a session with the industrial strategy team and the energy-intensive industries to make sure we are all working towards the same outcome. Another is to talk to the Treasury about the challenge we face in how the ETS and the CBAM align and fit together, or not, depending on policy. These things are enormously complicated, as my hon. Friend knows, and CBAM is a Treasury lead. However, I am very aware of the need to get that relationship right; otherwise, the system does not work at all.
My hon. Friend talked about hydrogen, which is very important and is part of my brief in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We are developing a kind of hydrogen network. We have had what we call HAR1, or hydrogen allocation round 1, which was the initial agreement to fund 11 hydrogen projects—electrolyser projects—around the country. There is hydrogen in the carbon capture and storage clusters that we are developing, and we are currently looking at what the next phase of the hydrogen roll-out will be.
My hon. Friend knows that hydrogen is currently very expensive. We need to work out a path to reduce costs, which is what we are grappling with at the moment, in a climate where it is difficult to bid for money in the spending review. How can we unleash the hydrogen industry and give certainty to businesses that want to invest but need the right signals? How can we do that and use money wisely? And who pays for it? People are very interested in hydrogen, whether in steel, in transport or in the green energy space—it has a lot of uses. We need to make sure we are making the right decisions. I will speak to the hydrogen team about ceramics, and I will ask what we are looking at in that space.
Gareth Snell
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) is right that hydrogen could be the thing that helps our industry, but electrolysis requires electricity. Electricity generation is capped to the gas price, and therefore the gas price drives the hydrogen price. Unless there is a way of decoupling that rather difficult circuit, we will find ourselves replenishing fuel without a particular discount.
Our other unique challenge, as my hon. Friend expertly laid out, is that these factories are in communities, because that is how ceramics worked—a potbank was built and then houses were built around it. Connecting to hydrogen would not be suitable if the hydrogen has to be contained in large towers, which are better suited to large out-of- town factories.
Although I welcome the Minister’s commitment to hydrogen, I hope she can bear those two points in mind, because ceramics are a unique challenge. However, we are willing to work with her to find a solution.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend articulates his concerns very well. Connecting the gas sounds like a song: “The hip bone’s connected to the thigh bone.” It is very challenging, and he is right to say so. The challenge with hydrogen is getting it to a point where we can deliver it at the scale we want. Or will it always be used in certain areas for certain things, as we will never get the cost down? That is what we are grappling with. On the potential jobs, potential growth and potential exports, these are huge opportunities for the UK, but we need to work out how we take it forward.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the huge challenge of counterfeiting. He nodded to the actions taken by the Trade Remedies Authority. I know that Ceramics UK and ceramics manufacturers have responded to that review and a final recommendation is due in July. Of course, I will make representations where needed. I recognise the challenge that my hon. Friend highlights.
Trade officials regularly meet representatives of Ceramics UK. I do not wish to add to the burden of my colleagues, but it might also be good for my hon. Friend to speak to the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), if he has not already done so, about some of the challenges we face.
Hopefully, I have answered my hon. Friend’s questions. I congratulate him again on securing a debate on such an important issue, on behalf of his constituents who work in such a fantastic industry for our country, and hopefully we can work together to fix some of these challenges.
Question put and agreed to.
Bathing Water Regulations
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered bathing water regulations.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. It is a privilege to open this debate, and fantastic to see so many hon. Friends and Members. I am grateful to all of them, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister, for their time this afternoon.
We are fortunate in this country to have beautiful natural landscapes. We are blessed with an abundance of beautiful beaches, inland lakes and rivers, pre-eminent among them the River Tone, which runs through Taunton and Wellington. We are lucky to have French Weir and Longrun Meadow as one of the 27 new bathing water sites. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteers, the Friends of French Weir Park, who worked with me to apply for and achieve designated bathing water status there last year.
That means that for the first time we know the river’s water quality. It is variable and now proven to be poor, generally speaking. We now have that information because it is publicly available, and we can work towards getting the investment we need to improve the water. I am sure there are similar groups across the country in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate. I know how much he enjoys a dip in the River Tone. The River Parrett in Langport is a well known and loved body of water for swimming and water sports, which I hope will soon become a designated bathing water site. Sadly, polluters discharged sewage into it 54 times in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to support such sites to obtain bathing water status, so that they are safe for all who wish to use them?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We need to see more bathing waters not fewer. That is one of the concerns I have in this debate. Bathing waters are not just places where people swim; they are part of the identity and lifeblood of our communities across the country. As in my constituency, they are places where people come together for swimming clubs, rowing clubs, kayaking, paddleboarding, or just to enjoy the natural beauty of the river.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman. He has invited contributions from those of us who are interested in bathing waters. My constituency has Strangford lough and the Irish sea on the other side. Back home, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs designates water quality. I am concerned that, if anyone wants to check water quality on the Ards peninsula, Strangford lough or the Irish sea, they must go online, which does not suit everybody. Does he agree with my suggestion to DAERA that there should be signs at designated bathing waters indicating the water quality? That would be much simpler. People who go for wild-water swimming and other pursuits, would be able to see right away if the water quality is at the level it should be.
Gideon Amos
Seeing the quality of the river water is key, and that is one thing that bathing water status allows us to do. In tackling the need for improvement, many local groups face an uphill battle. Sewage pollution is a national disgrace. Time and again we see reports of raw sewage being discharged into our rivers, lakes and seas, turning what should be places of recreation into sites of contamination.
In my constituency, further downstream on the Tone, examples of recent discharges of untreated effluent are commonplace. At Hook stream, which could otherwise be a charming stretch of the River Tone, there have been over 188 hours of discharge in the first eight weeks of 2025 alone. Residents are rightly appalled by the sewage releases; no one should have to fear that going too close to their local river could make them ill, especially as, all the while, water companies have paid out millions of pounds in dividends and bonuses. We need flow-rate monitoring, extra stormwater storage and resources for the Environment Agency to increase enforcement, but bathing water regulations are a key tool in reducing pollution.
That brings me to the main topic of the debate. There are elements of the consultation that I welcome. Removing the automatic five-year de-designation rule for bathing waters is a positive suggestion. It would simply be unfair for communities to lose the protections that come with designation just because a site has remained polluted for five years. The reality is that people will continue to swim in those waters, as they have done at French Weir for hundreds of years, regardless of whether they are officially designated. Having a high number of bathers is what allows sites to be designated, and that should continue to be the main criterion. Removing monitoring, which is what happens with de-designation, would just put rivers and their users at further risk. It would not stop people using the rivers. Water companies and regulators frequently take longer than five years to clean up sites, and people should not be punished by losing their designation because that has not happened fast enough.
Let us not forget that improving water quality in bathing areas has wider benefits throughout the whole of the river’s catchment area. Improving infrastructure in bathing areas that are susceptible to flooding benefits communities along the whole length of the watercourse. Part of the problem is misalignment between the four-year rolling cycle of bathing designations and Ofwat’s five-year price review for water companies, which sets out its investment plans for the period. A newly designated bathing water often has to wait years for the price review to receive the investment required. Designation of a bathing water should be aligned with those improvements in investment. Has the Minister taken any steps to resolve that discrepancy?
The health and wellbeing of those who use the water should also be a primary concern of regulation, which is why I am concerned about core reform 2 in the consultation, which proposes the introduction of feasibility tests for bathing sites. That would mean that if it is deemed too difficult or expensive to improve water quality, a site could be denied designation altogether. Who would really benefit from that approach? Certainly not the swimmers, rowers, kayakers or residents. The only people who stand to gain would be the very polluters responsible for the problem in the first place. We must not give water companies a loophole to argue that it is too costly to clean up a bathing site that people are regularly using for swimming and other recreation. Designation should be based on where people actually use the water, so will the Minister please reconsider that aspect of a perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately damaging proposal?
Core reform 3 of the consultation proposes the removal of fixed bathing season dates and moving them into guidance. I welcome greater flexibility, but the now well accepted 15 May to 30 September bathing season should remain the irreducible minimum that everybody understands and knows about. This should not be a cover for reducing bathing seasons to such a short window that they become meaningless. We should be going further: year-round testing should be standard, in my opinion.
We also need better quality testing, and for better integration with other monitoring systems we should be monitoring sewage volume from spills, not just hours. We should also consider testing for a wider range of bacteria than just E. coli and enterococci, especially considering other harmful pathogens such as salmonella and leptospirosis have, since 2010, contributed to a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases. There should be greater funding for the EA to monitor run-off into rivers as well. Only by understanding the scale of the problem will we be able to start to tackle it.
This will not be prohibitively expensive. Research by Surfers Against Sewage, which I thank for all its great work on this issue, suggests the additional cost of year-round monitoring per site would be roughly £775. Across the UK, that amounts to £350,000—less than 4% of the bonuses paid to water company execs last year. That is surely an investment worth making. Will the Minister publish a review into the potential cost of year-round water testing?
The reality is that our inland bathing waters are already in a dire state. While 92% of the 450 bathing waters in England meet minimum standards, that figure drops to only 53% of inland bathing waters. In contrast, Germany has almost 2,300 bathing sites, the vast majority inland. The fact that 98% of them meet minimum standards shows us what is possible. Instead of looking for ways to limit new designations, we should expand them so that more communities benefit from cleaner, safer waters. Had a feasibility requirement existed previously, we would never have seen so many bathing waters granted in the first place; perhaps there would be no more inland water bathing designations in the country.
We also need urgent action to hold polluters accountable. Water companies operate on five-year investment cycles, meaning that improvements to polluted waters often get kicked down the road for years. We cannot afford to wait. We need a tougher regulator than Ofwat, one with proper powers to hold these companies to account. We also need more immediate funding to improve water quality at newly designated sites, rather than forcing them to wait for the next investment cycle, as I said.
Ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle: everyone should have the right to access sites with unpolluted water. The Government must not allow water companies to dictate which sites are worthy of protection and which are not. Let us take this opportunity to strengthen, not weaken, our protection of bathing waters. It is time to expand, not limit, the sites that benefit from designation. Above all, it is time to ensure that polluters are held accountable so that future generations can enjoy bathing waters like those at French Weir, as well as our rivers, lakes and seas, without fear of pollution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. If Members want to contribute they should bob. I want to call the Front Benchers at about 5.10 pm, so Back Benchers can work out how long they should speak for so that everyone can get in.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this critical debate.
While covid-19 undoubtably brought on many challenges, one positive outcome was the surge in open-water swimming. More people than ever before enjoyed blue spaces for recreational activities, reaping significant benefits for both their physical and mental wellbeing. However, many were more cautious about diving into freezing cold lakes, rivers and streams when they were aware of the level of bacteria and pollution present in our waters. As Liberal Democrats, we have long and passionately campaigned on this issue. Last year, the Lib Dems discovered that water companies had discharged sewage over 100,000 times in areas designated as current bathing waters, putting public health and local ecosystems at risk.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My constituency of Tiverton and Minehead neighbours the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Very recently, one of my constituents shared a harrowing story with me, in which his children fell seriously ill after swimming in a local river last summer. These public health risks are further exacerbated by bad flooding in our areas, as we have seen in recent episodes, which sweeps contaminants and overwhelms sewage systems into our waterways, degrading water quality. Does my hon. Friend agree that stricter regulations must be introduced in the interest of public health and to ensure that our bathing waters are safe for everybody to enjoy?
Pippa Heylings
I completely agree. I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington said: that is why we need tougher action on the water companies. We also need to take action on combined sewers and make improvements to the small sewage treatment works on many chalk streams, like in my constituency. However, today’s debate is about bathing site designation, which is one of the effective levers that can be used.
We are talking about the proposed reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to bathing site designations. I would like to talk about the second core reform being proposed, which I am concerned would lead to a real reduction in the number of bathing sites being designated, rather than the increase that we should see, particularly for inland waters. The second core reform says that we should
“Include the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least ‘sufficient’ as a criterion for final designation. This would avoid poor value for money, by limiting expenditure where water quality improvement is not feasible or proportionate.”
To best demonstrate why that reform would not only fail but could also damage water quality in our rivers, it is worth sharing the story of Sheep’s Green in my constituency. For centuries, people have been enjoying Sheep’s Green—a popular spot on the River Cam. It was at Sheep’s Green that we worked to bring in a bathing site designation, because of the poor quality of the water.
In October 2023, the Cam Valley Forum, a local voluntary organisation, submitted an application to DEFRA to grant Sheep’s Green designated bathing water status. That came after three years of hard work by local volunteers, which is truly commendable, and was based on the success of the River Wharfe. Sheep’s Green had been used for decades without official recognition, and the idea of getting it designated bathing status had widespread public support. Over the course of a 10-week consultation, the Cam Valley Forum received more than 500 responses, with an overwhelming 93% in favour of the designation. South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council also formally backed the proposal. Anglian Water, with whom I worked, also fully supported the designation application.
Once designated, as predicted by local volunteers and citizen scientists, Sheep’s Green was classified as having poor water quality. That triggered a statutory obligation for improvements to clean up the source of the pollution—the Haslingfield sewage works in my constituency. For years, local citizen scientists had suspected it was the culprit. Now, finally, Anglian Water was legally required to act.
Bathing water status also unlocked funding from Ofwat under the water industry national environment programme. Tens of millions of pounds vital for the infrastructure improvements needed to reduce the sewage discharges were made available for Haslingfield, with work expected to begin in the next two years. These improvements will not just benefit swimmers at Sheep’s Green, but have a wider impact on the ecological health of the River Cam.
However, had core reform 2 been in place when the Cam Valley Forum began its journey in 2020, there would have been no bathing water designation for Sheep’s Green. Without that designation, there would have been no investigation by the Environment Agency, no identification of Haslingfield sewage works as the source of the pollution and no legal requirement for Anglian Water to take action. The WINEP funding would not have been available and we would have lost the opportunity for water improvements and nature restoration in South Cambridgeshire.
In short, core reform 2 would have inadvertently blocked the clean-up of hundreds of rivers. Local organisations like the Cam Valley Forum are not just highlighting a problem with their concerns around core reform 2—they are demanding action. They are rightly pushing for bathing water status because it is a vital tool for driving cleaner, healthier rivers. We should be supporting these efforts, not hindering them.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this important debate.
As a former cabinet member for climate change and nature recovery on South Oxfordshire district council, I have been involved in two bathing water status applications. One was successful, one was not. We often learn more from failure than success, so while I am delighted by the bathing water status achieved at Wallingford Beach, I will speak mostly to the desire to establish bathing water status in Henley.
What I learned is that the current system is perverse. It requires swimmers to brave potentially dirty water before a site is cleaned up. This topsy-turvy thinking is all wrong. That is why I very much welcome the Government’s review of the status and have contributed to it. My contribution focused on the bonkers criteria that stopped Henley from being successful.
Despite widespread use of the river for canoeing, paddleboarding, pleasure boating and, of course, rowing, only spontaneous, immersed swimmers count as river users, but if someone has my balance, or indeed that of the leader of the Liberal Democrats when paddleboarding, they know that being a paddleboarder does not mean they will not end up in the water. Equally, rowers are constantly exposed to spray and contact with the water during their sport—a fact that leads every year to reports of domestic and international athletes falling ill at the Henley Royal Regatta after being exposed to our effluent. It is embarrassing to know that during the regatta, if I flush the toilet, it may well end up on the sides of one of the boats.
It is bonkers that organised swimming events have also been excluded from the criteria. While I understand that we do not want to see the system gamed with events organised solely for the purpose of meeting the criteria, Henley has enjoyed a vibrant, organised swimming culture for many years, with four annual swims organised by the brilliant Henley Swim. I urge the Government to replace the current bathing water state designation with a recreational water designation with teeth, taking into account the full range of river users.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have talked a lot about the ecological and health benefits, but there is also an important economic impact, as shown by all the events in Henley that he outlined. For example, tourism contributes more than £700 million every year to the local economy in West Dorset. We have the Jurassic coast and the River Lim church cliff beach at Lyme Regis, which has just been designated as bathing water. It is important to recognise that clean water benefits our local communities not just in terms of health and nature, but in terms of our tourism industry.
Freddie van Mierlo
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every year, we welcome to Henley thousands of visitors who contribute to our local economy.
I urge the Government to row back—no pun intended—from the idea that cost and deliverability should be determining factors for investment in a site. When Henley welcomes the world to our wonderful section of the Thames each year, it would be simply unacceptable to say, “Sorry, we must expose you to our sewage, because the Government think it is too hard to treat.” I would therefore be grateful if the Minister commented on the intended change to the criteria for bathing water status and met me to discuss the situation in Henley.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this timely and urgent debate.
A healthy natural environment is essential for both public health and our economy, yet our rivers and bathing waters are being polluted at an alarming rate. In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, the River Avon, meandering along its valley, is a treasured natural asset that is used by many residents for kayaking, swimming, boating and rowing, but sewage discharges and pollution threaten its water quality.
Under the previous Government, water companies were allowed to pollute our rivers while consumers paid the price. We need stronger regulations, legally binding water quality targets, and more transparent, year-long testing to tackle this crisis. Local authorities must also be given greater powers to hold polluters accountable.
I thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency, such as Safe Avon, that have highlighted the scale of the issue and the impact of poor water quality on the Avon, its tributaries, and our many precious brooks and streams. Our local residents and groups have come together to create River Hope, which is a new participatory process taking place in Stratford-on-Avon. It fosters a positive narrative for the River Avon ecosystem, and involves individuals, community groups and others implementing activities and events in, on, around and about our local water catchments and their biodiverse ecosystems. Residents not only engage in practical actions to restore and protect the wildlife and flora that the river sustains, but create a positive narrative of gratitude, good stewardship and love for the water as an essential element of thriving biodiversity.
The river has rights. Our rivers and waterways should be safe for swimming and for thriving wildlife, and should be protected for future generations to cherish and enjoy.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am calling the Front Bench spokespeople early. That is not an invitation to speak—[Interruption.] Sorry, do we have Cameron Thomas? I did not think you were bobbing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I was not bobbing; I was just going to intervene.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Then I am going to call the Front-Bench spokespeople. That is not an invitation to speak at inordinate length. We are delighted to hear from Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will not take that personally, Sir John, although I am sure it is intended. It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon and to speak in a long line of Liberal Democrats, as you might expect when water is mentioned.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate and for the eloquence with which he spoke on behalf of his communities. I know how active he is, not just as a bather but as a campaigner for clean water swimming in his constituency, recognising and amplifying the importance of bathing water status for the people who use the rivers in his communities and in all our communities. He also recognises that it is an important way of upping the ante and improving the standards that all those responsible for the quality of our waterways are held to.
I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about de-designation and how that will not help people or keep them safe; we will simply be in a situation where people will carry on swimming in those places and will no longer have the protections they had beforehand. He rightly talked about an issue I am deeply concerned about, which is the potential for flexibility over fixed season dates. The minimum must be the May to September window, but many people who are enthusiastic about open water swimming do so at other times of the year. I have swum in Windermere in February, but I know people who have swum in Grasmere and Rydal in January and December and marvel at their hardiness. They tell me it is good for their mental health, and I believe them. That falls without that window, and it seems a nonsense to not have year-round testing.
I want to pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington made about what it is we are testing. There is much good in the Government’s new Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Nevertheless, the insistence on only testing for the duration of spills in our waterways, lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas means that we do not get the full picture. There could easily be a brief deluge or a lengthy trickle. The reality is that not testing for volume and content does not give a full picture of what is happening in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about the public health and ecological aspects of maintaining bathing water designations and how important it is to extend those designations in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) talked about bathing water status in his communities and his active campaign to extend access in his constituency. He also talked about the topsy-turvy nature of the bathing water status, which can create all sorts of perverse outcomes.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who is no longer in his place, made a really important point about the economic value. There is a clear case in my communities in the lakes and the dales, because people do not visit the Lake district not to see the lakes. The value to our communities is something like £4 billion every year in tourism revenue. Any threat to the cleanliness of our bathing water sites or the rest of our waterways could be catastrophic for our economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) made incredibly important points about the biodiversity of our waterways and how it is important to protect them and stand by the wonderful citizen scientists who underpin the work of trying to maintain them and their cleanliness. It is also about recognising that, as with all aspects of nature, our job is to preserve our waterways for those who come after us. Caring for our neighbour means caring for the environment for those we will never meet. That is vastly important.
In my communities in the lakes and the dales, there are seven designated bathing water areas, on Windermere and Coniston. One of the sites on Coniston was recently designated as poor, which is deeply concerning. However, it has been pleasing to see the local parish council work very successfully with the national park, Councillor Suzanne Pender, the business forum and others, and United Utilities has agreed a significant package of investment to help deal with that problem.
The current bathing water regulations have not been sufficient to protect our waterways from egregious offences. For example, in the north-west alone in 2023, United Utilities spilled 10,467 times for 76,259 hours into bathing waters alone. That does not include all the other times that it has spilled in other parts of our region. Indeed, United Utilities is the worst offender of all the water companies, despite the fact that there are other serious offenders across the country.
The Liberal Democrats take the view that water is precious. It is important to our economy, our ecology, our heritage, leisure and human health, as well as biodiversity. It is of such significance that we have made it one of the key issues that we continue to campaign on, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), is so dedicated to our waterways that he spent much of the election in them.
Much of what the Government have done in the first part of this Parliament, including the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, has been commendable. We wait now for the Cunliffe review to see whether there will be the advances that have been promised or hinted at. There are three things that we need to make sure we do better. First, monitoring must be much more comprehensive. We welcome the fact that the Government are engaging citizen scientists in the process, including the Clean River Kent campaign, Save Windermere in my own constituency, and the Rivers Trusts up and down the country. But we are not helping them if we do not ask for them to be given a place on water company boards. Nor are we helping them, although they are very useful to a degree, if the monitoring sites available for those people to look at do not have historical data. We depend on our brave water campaigners around the country committing their time to never, ever go to bed or go to work or look after their children. They cannot look backwards. If they blink, they may well miss egregious offences in our bathing waters and in other parts of our waterways. Monitoring is important.
Secondly, regulation is all important. I always try to be careful not to castigate the individuals working for Ofwat or the Environment Agency, or any of the water companies for that matter, but I recognise the system is broken and we have a diluted regulatory framework in this country. That is why the Liberal Democrats think that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and other water regulators should be merged into a much stronger regulator that the water companies would actually fear, rather than running rings around them all the time.
Finally, there is ownership. We could have an organisation called the clean water authority. It would replace and advance on Ofwat and create real powers. It would have real teeth that the current regulatory system does not have. Ownership matters. It is an outrage that between 11% and 40% of the water bills of every person in this country are going to pay off the debt of the water companies. That is a disgrace. And it is time that we moved those water companies into a not-for-profit status. We do not want to call for nationalisation, but we do call for public-benefit companies to be incorporated to make sure that those who look after our waterways do so in the interests of our water quality, and of meeting the needs of the consumer, not racking up huge profits.
Finally, because bathing water status does give communities more power over the cleanliness and the standards of the waterways that they care about so much, particularly in my part of the world in the lakes, it is clear that very often DEFRA does not grant clean bathing water status when it really should. So I want to say on behalf of my own communities—communities up the River Kent, north of Kendal through Burneside and Staveley—that the river desperately needs to be given bathing water status in several places. That would allow the communities who campaigned so vigorously for the cleanliness of that river to be able to hold United Utilities and other polluters fully to account.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
My remarks about brevity were neither targeted at nor limited to Mr Farron. I call the shadow Minister, Robbie Moore.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship., Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this really important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed and made incredibly valid points, which I will pick up on in my summing up of this debate. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are pleased that the River Tone in French Weir has been awarded its bathing water designation. I was the Minister who signed that off when I was in the Department, so I am pleased that that has been welcomed. I also want to thank his predecessor Rebecca Pow for the work that she did in campaigning vociferously to get that bathing water designation in place.
In 2010, 76% of bathing sites were considered good or excellent and by 2024 that figure had reached 90%, which I am sure all of us would welcome. That is despite the criteria changing and becoming much stricter in 2015. And I was proud, as I have indicated, when I was the Water Minister for a brief period in DEFRA to sign off an additional 27 bathing water designations last year, bringing more areas under the spotlight with additional monitoring and ensuring more water companies were then able to be held to account for the pollution that they were causing. It brought the total number of bathing water designations up to 451 sites for the 2024 bathing season. I was proud to see that the River Nidd in Harrogate was one of the rivers awarded bathing water designation and that there was an additional such designation on the River Wharfe. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, the Wharfe was the first to have a bathing water designation on a river. I must congratulate a very active campaign group in my constituency, the Ilkley Clean River group. It was founded by Karen Shackleton, who is an incredible campaigner. She and many others have tirelessly campaigned for improving water quality, not only in the River Wharfe but across the country. I am sure many Members have received emails from this campaign group.
When we announced those 27 bathing water sites to be added to the list, I was also proud to announce the review of such designations. From my experience with having the River Wharfe designated, I felt the bathing water designation regulations at the time were not fit for purpose. I am pleased the Government carried on with that review, which has now taken place. I have seen many contributions to it, not least from the Office for Environmental Protection which in their feedback of November 2024 was supportive of many of the changes that needed to take place.
I shall go through some of those. On dates, for example, I do not feel that it is just to have bathing water designation sites ringfenced only between May and September. As has been mentioned by all Members in their contributions, many of us who are lucky to use a bathing water site are not just doing so between those specific dates but actually throughout the year. Why should we be constrained by having the bathing water designation sites between May and September? It seems right and just that those sites have all-year monitoring, to be able to hold to account those who pollute our rivers but also to make sure the level of resource, whether financial or community, is able to improve the water quality in those areas.
That brings me on to the name “bathing water regulations”. Is it fit for purpose? From my experience in my constituency, once a bathing water designation is approved the assumption is that it is safe to bathe in that area. When bathing water sites are being allocated to rivers, or indeed on our coastal environments, it can be unsafe to swim in those environments given the undercurrents that exist, particularly in river networks. The water quality does not need to be good or excellent. In fact, many of those sites are unfortunately designated as poor. I urge the Government to think about whether it should be changed to something like “clean water status”, so as not to give the impression that it is necessarily safe to bathe.
I would also like to pick up the point on automatic de-designation. This is something I have experienced in my own constituency. We were lucky enough to have the River Wharfe bathing water designated but unfortunately, as probably expected, it has consistently been designated as poor as a river—year on and year on. Fortunately, Yorkshire Water has responded very positively in realising that an additional level of investment needs to go in there. We have seen £15 million spent on improving water capacity and retention, to help with the sewage treatment works in Ilkley. We have now seen an additional allocation of about £45 million being spent in Ilkley to deal with the wider sewage treatment works.
However if one knows the designation is consistently going to be poor, and then after year five drops off and there is no bathing water designation, I fear there is a real risk it reduces the onus on the polluter to do something about this. The polluter may not just be a water company. It may be agri-runoff through phosphorous or nitrate. I know that the civil servants sitting behind the Minister will have listened to many of the conversations that we have been having, and, on that point, I congratulate the civil service on the work that it has done on the regulations and in bringing forward this review.
However, I do feel that, when we are relying on evidence coming forward to secure enough resource or finance to improve things, we sometimes need to rely on longer datasets than just one or two years to see those improvement measures. That relates not only to water companies but the agri-environmental benefit from many of the stewardship schemes that farmers enter into as well. I therefore urge the Government to remove the automatic de-designation.
Then I come on to users, because, at the moment, the regulations specifically relate to those who wish to bathe, but, as has also been indicated by those who have contributed today, we are all using our river networks, our coastal environments, or indeed our lakes for many purposes other than swimming. I do not want to comment on the Lib Dem leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but I am not the only one who goes paddleboarding and ends up underwater. The point is that, under the current regulations, if someone wants to kayak, canoe or paddleboard, that is not sufficient to get a bathing water designation. I therefore urge the Government to look at the users of these sites so that we can ensure that more rivers, coasts and lakes achieve more bathing water status.
On the issue of multiple measuring points, from my own experience from the River Wharfe in Ilkley, a bathing water designation relates to a specific point where that monitoring takes place. In my constituency, that specific point is actually upstream of the outfall from the water treatment works—which Yorkshire Water is rightly putting a huge amount of investment into. That monitoring is pointless if it is upstream. That may be at the point where most bathers bathe, but it is less likely to put pressure on ensuring that polluters are held to account.
I therefore urge the Government to look at having multiple measuring points associated with a bathing water designation. Indeed, as we see more rivers getting allocated bathing water sites—and I was proud to sign off more rivers when I was lucky enough to be the water Minister—I do wish the Government would explore having multiple measuring points, particularly in river environments, because, as the river flows through, bathers are more likely to bathe over a wider stretch, rather than at a single point, as with coastal environments.
I am grateful to Surfers Against Sewage for specifically raising the issue of prior testing with me in advance of today’s debate—indeed, as they have before—because proposals under consideration, including those of sites to be designated going forward, could be tested before the designation is granted. Should those prior tests come back as poor, my worry—indeed, the point has also been raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—is that that could allow a Minister not to grant, or to be less inclined to grant, that bathing water designation. I would not want prior testing to result in a bathing water designation not being given approval, because actually, as I have demonstrated in my own constituency and others, having a bathing water site, in itself, puts that pressure on the polluter, whoever, or whichever organisation, that is.
Forecasting has also been picked up by other Members in this debate. Forecasting is important, because it provides much more onus on future programming to do with finance that may be going into cleaning up the rivers, and enables more comfort for the community in understanding what is happening to improve the water quality at those bathing water sites.
However, as we all know, even when a site is designated as excellent water quality, it could experience a huge amount of rainfall, or potentially a serious pollution incident, but, because the monitoring is taken over a wider period of time—and the designation is therefore taken over a wider period of time—a single issue to do with pollution or a heavy downpour will not necessarily impact the designation itself. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if more awareness was raised. That is about not only additional rainfall events, or additional water entering into the system, but forecasting to better prepare those who do want to bathe, or use that water, to make the right decision at the appropriate time.
I would like to sum up by thanking the Ilkley Clean River Group in my constituency, because it certainly helped me to get a much better understanding, not only when I was first elected to the House in 2019 but in the role that I ended up in, which was as a Water Minister in DEFRA. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, because water quality is a major challenge.
The infrastructure responsible for much of this issue is literally Victorian. It cannot be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed with a dedicated and serious plan. The previous Administration delivered the start of that plan with the “Plan for Water”, and in opposition we will very much welcome working with the Government and, indeed, other parties from across this House to improve water quality. I hope that the Minister will reiterate my thanks to her team, who I know have worked incredibly hard behind the scenes on this issue. I would like to say to the Minister that we would be more than happy to provide support in the right places to make sure that we are all focused on improving water quality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.
I feel that we are having a little bit of a love-in this afternoon, which is always a nice way to start. Of course I will be more than happy to pass on the thanks from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to the team who have worked on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this really important debate. There is so much agreement in the room that I almost wonder whether we are still in the House of Commons. I will certainly try to cover most of the points that have been made.
Just to set the issue in context, we completely accept and believe that the water system at the moment is broken. That is why, when we first came into office, we changed the articles of association to put customers and their opinions into the water boards. It is why we are doubling the compensation for people who face water outages. It is why we have ringfenced money so that it cannot be diverted from infrastructure improvements and into bonuses. It is why we have the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which just came into force and got Royal Assent last week—because we know that the system as a whole is broken. It is also why, just last Thursday, I was in Manchester with Sir Jon Cunliffe, launching the call for evidence on water. I strongly urge every Member here to respond to that call for evidence. There is a huge, 200-page consultation document that goes with it but, just because we are kind, there is a 20-page executive summary as well, so please have a look at that, respond to the consultation and make some of these points there.
Bathing waters in and of themselves are not under the water commission. The reason for that is that I wanted to do something on bathing waters really quickly; I did not want it to get delayed by the water commission when we already knew some of the things that we wanted to look at. I will quickly go over some of the things that we are looking at changing. At the moment, the regulations are one size fits all. I would like to reassure people talking about the dates around bathing waters. Obviously, we will officially respond to the consultation; there will be an official Government response, but so far I have yet to see put forward any evidence that seems to indicate that there is a wish to shorten the bathing water window. In fact, most people are advocating to keep it the same or extend it, recognising that some people go swimming all year round.
This is the perfect point at which to mention my mum, who has decided to do open water swimming and swims all year round, and now has her own wetsuit. I think it is amazing that she has discovered open water swimming in her retirement—slightly crazy, but definitely amazing. As I said, we will obviously have a formal response to the consultation, but so far I have not seen anybody advocating shortening the bathing season. I wanted to make a point of mentioning that.
On the de-designation points, I wholeheartedly accept the points made by the spokesman for the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats that it would be an incentive for companies not to invest in improving the water if they knew that after a certain number of years it would be de-designated—although of course I must add the proviso that we have not officially responded to the consultation. However, from looking at what we have had so far, that is certainly what I am feeling.
I also want to address this point. I am sure that it was not intended, but I wondered whether it was coming through that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water in an area. I do not accept that, because if we are saying that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water, that means that we are also almost accepting, on the flip side of that, that if people do not have bathing water status, we are okay with their water being completely polluted.
We are not okay with that. We want to clean up all our rivers, lakes and seas, and we have a plan to do so. We have £104 billion of investment going into the next five years. We are looking at what is happening in bathing waters, and looking at iconic sites around the country. The argument that somewhere needs to have bathing water status or its waters will remain polluted, is one that I challenge head on. That argument almost accepts that we are okay with things remaining polluted. No—we should focus on something much bigger than that, which is how we clean up all of our rivers, lakes and seas, especially looking at bathing waters.
There is a major public health aspect here. It is an important point, and it is why I am delighted that Sir Chris Whitty is one of the expert advisers on the Cunliffe review looking at this. An argument is being made that asks why we are setting a standard, as if to say, “If they are really poor, we don’t want to allocate them as bathing sites.” We should pause and think about that for a moment because, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), if we are saying something is a bathing site and we give it bathing water status, it implies that it is safe to bathe there. If we designate a site that we know will not be safe for many years to come, and would take a huge amount of investment to become safe, is it right to call that a bathing water site and imply that people are safe to bathe there?
So, I think the sensible and correct decision is to improve all our water everywhere through reforms, which is why we are doing the water review and why we passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Let us look at the areas that are likely to improve more quickly, and say to people, “You can bathe here, because it will improve more quickly and we can see rapid progress, but these other sites that you want to bathe in—if we think seriously—are not going to improve for a long time.” As a Government, we think that it would be irresponsible to call those sites bathing water sites when we know full well that there could be serious damage to public health.
Pippa Heylings
I wanted to clarify that there are two bodies of argument here. Given that there has been a complete lack of regulations and ways to enforce the “polluter pays” principle with water companies until now, status has been seen as one of the only mechanisms to do it. However, I would like the Minister to recognise that these are already bathing sites because the criteria is that they have to show that they are already being used as bathing sites—that they are recognised as culturally and ecologically important. Given that, even though they are poor we should be investing in them to ensure that they continue. We know that if they are declared poor, people are warned of that and therefore do not swim. So we are not subjecting people to unsafe water; we are recognising that these are key bathing areas and have historical, cultural and ecological importance—now and in the future.
Emma Hardy
I do not disagree in the slightest. To be completely clear, sites that are already designated as bathing sites of course need enhanced investment and support to improve them, even if they are poor at the moment. I was addressing the point about when we are looking to designate new sites, and answering the question why we are looking at core reform 2.
Again, I stress that we have not officially responded to the consultation. If we are looking at a site that we wish to designate in the future, which is of a really low quality, is it irresponsible to designate that site knowing that it will not reach for five to 10 years the standard it needs to reach? Like everything, that is a question for debate. But for sites that are designated at the moment, I agree that we should be putting extra investment into them even if they are poor.
I do not want to rehearse the many debates and discussions we have already had. There were 36 amendments, I think, to the Water (Special Measures) Act on Report.
Emma Hardy
Forty-four amendments! We had many debates and discussions during the passage of that Act. To rehearse an argument we have had many times before, the reason why we are not focusing on the volume of water coming out is simply because volume can be very diluted, and therefore not a great threat. There can be a small amount of incredibly toxic waste causing a huge amount of damage. I would like to see the investment going into water quality monitors. That is part of the next price review—how can we put water quality monitors in? They would measure whether it is a huge amount and it is dilute, or a small amount and it is toxic. We just want to know what damage is being done to the river. My focus is, and remains, on water quality.
There were some genuinely helpful suggestions from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about where to place those monitors for measuring water quality. That was a really helpful contribution. While I am paying credit to him, the way we describe it—how we say it is safe to bathe—was also a helpful suggestion.
Emma Hardy
I will; I am praising the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—let us get back to normal.
Joe Morris
The Government have moved quickly on this issue. Does the Minister recognise that it is important that we maintain an engaged and concerned public? I have met with the Wylam clean river group and with other concerned groups throughout my constituency along the length of the Tyne. One thing that continues to resonate with me is that these groups understand that this is a consistent piece of work, and that we need to be constantly iterating on making sure that our rivers do not just get clean, but remain clean into the future. The Government and the public need to consistently work in partnership.
Emma Hardy
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and has spoken to me many times about the importance of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. I would like to think it is something that we are united on.
Many stakeholders, many people and many Members have called for bathing water regulations to be updated to reflect the new ways in which we are using our waters or falling into our waters, whatever it might be, and to continue to support public health outcomes. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider public health when we are thinking about designation.
We are a Government who listen. We are a Government who believe in co-production. We are a Government who actively engage. I encourage all Members to contribute to the water review. It is out there now; the consultation is only open for the next seven weeks, so please do not lose the opportunity to have your say.
I put on the record my thanks to all the environmental campaigners, Surfers Against Sewage and all those organisations involved in supporting our clean rivers, lakes and seas.
Freddie van Mierlo
The Minister made some points on the length of time it would take to get some popular sites up to standard. Would she consider a pre-designation status, so that those sites are not left on the shelf with no support whatsoever—so that we are recognising, as my hon. Friends have said, the importance of certain sites for sporting, cultural and historical reasons?
Emma Hardy
That is a really interesting consideration. I hope the hon. Member fed that into the consultation. I will not commit either way, but it is an interesting point and one I will reflect on—as I said, this is a Government who listen. On that note, I think it is time for me to finish talking. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Well done for getting your mum in Hansard. I call Gideon Amos to say a few words to sum up.
Gideon Amos
I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank them very much. I am delighted that when I was filling in the form for bathing water status in French Weir, it was such a successful initiative that it attracted not only the support of the Opposition spokesperson but also my predecessor as Member of Parliament at the time.
We were delighted to get that designation, but it would not have happened if core reform 2 was in place. Even though that bathing site has been there for hundreds of years, dating back to at least the 18th century—we have records and pictures from the 19th century of changing rooms beside the river—the designation would not have happened and people would continue using the river and they would not have the benefit of bathing water status.
I urge the Minister to think carefully about introducing this very different criterion and moving away from places where people actually swim towards places where the industry think that they can afford to make the water quality better. That is the wrong criterion. The right criterion is where people are already using the river. I was in the river every Saturday in February—I did not quite make January—and people will be there throughout the year, whether or not the signs are up and it has bathing water status. I urge the Minister to think a little more on that.
I reiterate my thanks to everyone for taking part. I hope the Minister will ensure a debate on the regulations when they go through this House, because they are really important for our water quality.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered bathing water regulations.