Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18 March 2025

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Free School Meals

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered free school meals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It is a great honour to introduce this debate on free school meals—the first opportunity to discuss this important issue since the general election. Today’s debate was prompted by my conversations with primary school teachers in my constituency, who told me of their concerns at the lack of funding for free school meals and breakfast clubs. The number of children in our country going to school hungry is unacceptable, and that impacts families in my constituency of Eastleigh and across the UK. The chance to have the best start in life should be available to all children, regardless of background.

The cost of living crisis has driven countless families into hardship. The Government’s own figures estimate that 4.3 million children, or 30% of all children in the UK, are living in poverty, with the figure at 21% in my constituency. As of January 2024, 18.5% of pupils in Eastleigh—that is 2,426 children—were entitled to benefit-based free school meals, yet we know many more who would benefit from a free school meal do not meet the strict eligibility criteria and miss out. The Government must look at this issue with the urgency it requires, because those children are being failed.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

While I was the leader of Wokingham borough council, I ensured that we funded free school meals during the school holidays for children who received them during term time. That was absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that children were not left hungry and at a disadvantage because of their background. The Times reports that 1 million children face losing their free school meals. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is troubling, and that the Government must ensure that children entitled to free school meals continue to receive them during school holidays?

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I absolutely agree. I also congratulate him on the work that he did at the council to ensure that children did not go hungry in the school holidays. I wish more and more councils were able to do that.

How are children supposed to get good grades at school, engage in sports and achieve their dreams for a better future if they are hungry? Four in five teachers told the National Education Union that they see children unable to concentrate due to the impact of deprivation. Polling of 10,000 teachers across England conducted by School Food Matters showed that a quarter of teachers have used their own money to feed children. For families who are struggling, a free school meal would make a huge difference. When children are well fed, they perform better at school, are healthier, and have improved long-term outcomes.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, particularly as we might be about to receive the outcome of the child poverty strategy review. Does the hon. Member agree that we have a postcode lottery at the moment? Three schools in Liverpool posted postcards to the Prime Minister saying that we needed to do away with the postcode lottery, because if you live in London, Scotland or Wales, you receive free school meals. Do you agree that children going to school hungry in the sixth richest economy in the world is a scourge on this country?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members address the Chair, not one another directly, please?

[Liz Jarvis]

The hon. Lady made an excellent point, and I trust the Minister will address it later in the debate.

One headteacher in my constituency who leads a school of over 600 pupils told me the only way he would be able to resource breakfast clubs is to extend the teachers’ directed time and remove some of the vital continuing professional development interventions and clubs that support disadvantaged pupils. He worries that he will have to cut back on those initiatives to free up time to run breakfast clubs.

Mrs Strong, headteacher at Chander’s Ford infant school, told me that, although the cost of school meals has increased, the funding schools receive has not kept pace.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I want to draw out. Gattons infant school in Burgess Hill in my constituency is paid £2.53 per meal, but the caterers charge it £3.15 per meal, so there is a shortfall of 62p per meal per child per day, which amounts to £7,839 over a year. Added to that, the caterers now charge the school an additional £2,000 per year to take away all the waste from the meals. That is a colossal amount of money for a small infant school to sustain. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools should be compensated for the true cost of free school meals?

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Schools are now being forced to subsidise meals from their already overstretched budgets, which takes away from vital resources such as staff salaries and school supplies.

For Chander’s Ford infant school, the cost of providing meals now exceeds Government funding by £1.11 per meal, forcing it to find another £31,468 out of its budget for the financial year. Schools should not be forced to cut services or make tough decisions to cover the cost of meals that should be fully funded.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

My hon. Friend said that it is important that children are well fed, and I want to focus on the word “well”. Does she agree that this is about not just the amount of food that we provide for children, but the quality? It is really important that children receive highly nutritious content that releases energy slowly throughout the day and enables them to concentrate. Does she agree that, given that school face such difficulties with their budgets, there is an understandable temptation to look at less costly solutions for food, which is potentially very dangerous for children’s long-term health outcomes and ability to learn?

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I agree that it is essential that children have the best possible quality food, as well as a sufficient quantity.

I absolutely support the roll-out of breakfast clubs, but we must ensure that schools have the resources to provide them. The Government have talked about their plan for change, but addressing the core issues of funding for free school meals, the low threshold for eligibility and the way children are locked into appalling poverty is paramount. In England, only families earning £7,400 or less a year after tax and benefits qualify for free school meals. That threshold is far too low and excludes hundreds of thousands of children in need. The limit must be increased, so I was pleased to support a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to increase the threshold to £20,000 a year after tax, which would expand eligibility to children who are currently missing out.

According to analysis conducted by the Child Poverty Action Group, 900,000 children living in poverty do not qualify for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so restrictive. Those children are being denied a meal that they desperately need. That is a shameful legacy of years of underfunding.

It is also unacceptable that thousands of children entitled to free school meals are not receiving them due to administrative barriers. The Liberal Democrats believe that auto-enrolment is the solution, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to implement that change. A report by Policy in Practice in 2024 estimated that 471,000 children missed out on free school meals due to a complex application process. Auto-enrolment been proven to work. When it was introduced in Durham, nearly 2,500 additional children gained access to free school meals, leading to a £3 million boost in pupil premium funding for the local council.

A system designed to support the most vulnerable should not be so complex that it prevents children from accessing the help they need. It is not just parents who are struggling with the administrative burdens, but teachers. My constituent Mrs Beckett, the headteacher of Nightingale primary school in Eastleigh, told me that the need to continuously justify how pupil premium funding is spent is one of the ongoing frustrations for schools. In reality, that funding allows them to provide additional support that benefits every child. Given that free school meals eligibility is a key driver for pupil premium funding, she questioned whether there had been any discussion about reducing the bureaucratic burdens on schools in this area. It would be more beneficial for the Government to acknowledge the broader support impact of the funding than to expect schools to repeatedly demonstrate its effectiveness, which is not a good use of staff time.

Beyond the bureaucratic hurdles that families and schools face, many families simply cannot afford to provide their children with nutritious meals, leaving schools on the frontline of a food insecurity crisis. A survey conducted in January 2025 by the Food Foundation found that 18% of households with children reported experiencing food insecurity, compared with 12% of households without children. That is deeply concerning, not least because of the growing child obesity crisis. According to NHS England, almost one in 10 children are already obese by their first year of school, and by year 6 it rises to 22.1%. Schools should be part of the solution, ensuring that every child has access to healthy, balanced meals that support their growth, learning and wellbeing. If the Government are serious about raising the healthiest generation ever, they must go beyond rhetoric and ensure that free school meal funding is high enough to provide the right meal for every child who needs one.

Providing universal free school meals for primary school children is a good social and economic policy. Research from Sweden found that children who receive free school meals earn 3% more in lifetime earnings, rising to 6% for the poorest children. Expanding free school meals would be an investment in our future. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis has shown that without additional action from the Government, poverty and deep poverty will remain largely flat until January 2029, with child poverty in the same terrible state. The Liberal Democrats would extend free school meals to all children living in poverty across both primary and secondary schools, with the goal of providing them to all primary school children when public finances permit. The Government must use targeted support, starting with more free school meals and establishing a fairer social security system that lifts families out of poverty, removes cruel policies such as the two-child benefit cap, and provides a proper safety net. I have consistently called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped, which is the quickest and most cost-effective way to lift children out of poverty.

No family should have to choose between paying bills and putting food on the table. No teacher should have to worry about making sure that pupils have had enough to eat so that they can learn, and no child should have to struggle through the school day. I hope the Government will act with urgency and step up for the children who desperately need their support.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

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

09:42

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I hope that smile is because you are pleased to see me, and not because of Liverpool’s defeat on Sunday—[Laughter.] I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing this important debate.

In January, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published its first report on UK poverty since the new Labour Government took office. The report laid bare the horrific inheritance of the Conservatives. They departed office with three in 10 children in Britain living in poverty. The number of children growing up in the deepest form of poverty, defined as a household that cannot afford basics such as heating and eating, has more than doubled in the previous five years. In The Big Issue today, a survey of findings from frontline workers reports that 85,000 children are living in destitution—an increase of 21% since 2021—with 53% of families being supported unable to afford enough food for basic nutrition.

I see that in my own constituency each week. Teachers and social workers on the frontline tell me that things are getting worse for the families they know are struggling, and this has played out in the reports from both the JRF and The Big Issue. Shockingly, the JRF report states that at the end of this Parliament, child poverty is set to be higher than it was at the beginning. For a Government with a mandate for change from an electorate tired after 14 years of austerity, and with a huge majority to put transformative policies into legislation if they wish, that would mark a catastrophic failure and a huge missed opportunity. We cannot afford for that to happen, and I know the Minister would not want it to happen.

I am here to talk about one policy that would tackle that injustice. First, I again want to put on record my opposition to the central driver of rising levels of child poverty: the two-child benefit cap. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said, if we want to combat poverty, we must abolish the two-child benefit cap. But that is not the only tool at our disposal to tackle child poverty. I am here to talk about another: universal free school meals.

The case for universal free school meals is overwhelming and undeniable. Free school meals for all will ensure that every child has a hot, healthy meal each day, allowing children to eat, learn and grow together. That would tackle child poverty and disproportionately help working-class families, alleviating hunger and freeing up money for other essentials. That is why universal free school meals are a central demand of the Right to Food campaign, which I am proud to lead in Parliament.

As colleagues will know, eligibility for free school meals is incredibly restrictive. Household incomes must be less than £7,400 to qualify, which means that almost 1 million children in Britain are living in poverty but are not eligible for free school meals. When the Right to Food campaign ran a consultation across the country during covid, so many parents said they were just above the threshold, living in struggling, difficult times.

Those were my reflections when we drew up the Right to Food submission for Henry Dimbleby, but the picture varies across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) touched on, universal provision ends after year 2 throughout the rest of England, but in London and Wales, and up to year 5 in Scotland, all primary pupils are entitled to free school meals. The evidence showing the benefits of that is growing by the day.

After universal free school meals were rolled out across London’s primary schools thanks to Sadiq Khan, 84% of parents stated that the policy significantly helped to manage family finances. Studies show that free school meals improve children’s concentration, behaviour and academic attainment, benefiting children from deprived backgrounds most of all. Research from Sweden shows that free school meals improve children’s lifetime earnings. It is a no-brainer.

There are also benefits outside the classroom. There are wards in my constituency with the highest child obesity rates in the country, and they are also some of the most economically deprived. That link between poverty and obesity is most clearly seen in children. Children in the most deprived fifth of the population are more than twice as likely to be living with obesity than those in the richest fifth.

Children with free school meals consume more fruit and vegetables. Studies have shown that universal provision leads to reduced rates of obesity and health inequalities. I will put that fact to the Minister when I meet him later this month, with other MPs and the leader of Knowsley council. Councillor Morgan and the chief executive of Knowsley council have committed their borough to any pilot scheme with the Government to tackle this public health issue.

If we fix this in Knowsley, we can roll it out nationwide. I hope the Minister listens to our arguments for a universal free school meal pilot in Knowsley when we meet him in a couple of weeks. If we add up the benefits, the economic case for universal free school meals is straightforward. According to research by PricewaterhouseCoopers, for every pound invested, there is a £1.71 return. Unlike tweaking eligibility rules, universal provision combats the stigma attached to those receiving free school meals.

Later today, MPs will vote on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I warmly welcome the Bill’s introduction of school breakfast clubs, but I am supporting amendments to go further in tackling child poverty. I have tabled an amendment to put the holiday activities and food programme on a statutory footing, ensuring that children from the poorest households continue to have access to meals in school holidays into the future. I am also supporting an amendment to make free school meals for all primary pupils a reality throughout England.

I finish by saying this to the Minister. When the country finally voted to get rid of the Tories last summer, it was not voting for child poverty to continue to rise; it was voting for change. The change this country desperately needs includes transformative policies such as universal free school meals. I urge the Government to get behind those amendments and this policy. That would positively change the future chances of millions of working-class kids, giving them a chance to live a long, healthy and productive life. Surely, Minister, that was what the Labour party was created to do, and it is certainly why I am in this job.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the smile was for both reasons.

09:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this debate.

I absolutely support the call for universal free school meals, but it needs to be accompanied by a call for proper funding because at the moment schools are simply not getting the support they need. In my constituency, the local council is unable to provide a catering service any more; it is simply not financially viable. Over the years, more and more schools have opted for private firms, so councils have lost the economies of scale and are no longer able to provide that service. Now, of course, those private firms are charging schools more than they would have been paying previously. Not only that, but on a practical level teachers are being expected to do more work as part of providing catering. The practicalities of delivering free school meals, even in the current situation, are fairly grim for schools.

The Government have announced they will introduce breakfast clubs. One school I spoke to in my constituency said it was expecting 67p per child for non-pupil premium children and 88p for pupil premium children. It currently runs a breakfast club, and that non-pupil premium figure represents less than 15% of the break-even cost. The only way the school could fund a reasonable quality of breakfast and provide the support staff need would be to take money from many other important things it does. The school is also worried about the quality of food it will be able to provide. It currently provides a wide range of food, such as fruit, yoghurt, toast and cereals, and the children have plenty of choice. They also have the opportunity to have protein, which keeps them feeling full for longer. All of this gives them a balanced diet, but the school cannot see how it can provide more than a slice of toast on the funding that is proposed.

There is also a question of the physical constraints. The school I visited currently has to have two sittings for lunch and it has one of the larger school halls in the area. It is trying to work out the practicalities of delivering this service, given the constraints on space. Schools simply do not have the funding to extend their buildings.

In speaking to the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised the restrictive eligibility for free school meals. More children risk missing out in future when parents on legacy benefits are forced to move to universal credit. Existing transitional protections run out at the end of this month.

To conclude, it is important to children’s learning that they are well fed—by which I mean fed with good-quality food. I am concerned about the deliverability of the Government’s breakfast club proposals and the shortfalls that schools are already facing with free school meals.

09:53

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for raising this important issue.

Prior to being elected to this place, I was a youth worker in Norfolk and served as a local councillor for many years. In both roles, I spent much time supporting local families, and issuing food bank vouchers was sadly a routine part of my role. The referrals for families nearly always included many children. It is estimated that a third of all children in South West Norfolk live in poverty, with rurality being a significant additional burden, alongside a real challenge with low wages. More people using our local food bank were in work as opposed to out of work, so they were earning a wage but still struggling.

Nationwide in 2023-24, the Trussell Trust supplied more than 3 million emergency food parcels—the highest number it has ever distributed in a single year. I am grateful for the support of Trussell and the food banks at Thetford and Downham Market in my constituency. It is worth noting that when Labour left office in 2010, Trussell had 35 food banks nationwide. In 2013, that had increased to 650, and in 2019 it was 1,300.

I draw on those experiences from my time as a councillor because I came across so many families who were accessing the food bank but who were not registered for free school meals. That was often for a number of reasons, but primarily because they believed that they were not eligible or that they had missed the boat for the whole year. Often, people had a change of circumstances part way through the year and suddenly found themselves in a completely different situation.

It is believed that 14% of all pupils in the UK who are entitled to free school meals are not claiming them. However, in the east, it is nearly a quarter of all pupils. In Norfolk, it is 17%, but the figure in neighbouring Suffolk—which is one of the worst in the country—is 32%. These are people who are eligible for free school meals but not claiming them.

There are still so many people who could and should be being supported by free school meals. We must do more to encourage enrolment and consider all options to get more people supported. I am really pleased with the progress the Government are making, particularly on breakfast clubs. There is one in a very rural village in my constituency, and I am looking forward to seeing what difference it makes as part of the trial. However, the challenge is great, and we must do more.

I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned pupil premium. Sadly, in my constituency, as elsewhere, we have more than our fair share of conspiracy theorists and right-wing rhetoric. Schools and councils tell me that it is increasingly a struggle to encourage parents to access support and share information. One school told me recently that parents do not want to reveal income and employment information, such is the growing distrust of the state. That is having a real impact on schools’ ability to access a fair share of pupil premium and other support intended to help not only those children who may directly benefit, but the school as a whole. Will the Minister speak to those specific concerns?

09:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for setting the scene and for delivering a debate that is so important to us all.

Obviously, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective. Although Northern Ireland is not the Minister’s responsibility, I know—or at least I think—he appreciates my comments and the perspective I give, which in this case replicates what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. I always think it is important to bring that interpretation to these debates, because that hopefully adds to how we do things together in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and ensures that we do them in a better way. Listening to hon. Members so far, it is evident that there are similarities, despite education being devolved. It is important that there is provision for all children to have a decent, balanced meal while in school. For that reason, I am pleased to be here.

I know that the team of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) lost on Sunday, but the premier league is still ahead of him and that is the important one, so he should not worry about the Carabao cup; the premier league means a whole lot more, although the Carabao cup means a lot to Newcastle, because they have not had much success in the past few years.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. He comes to these debates, and indeed to Question Time in the Chamber, to genuinely try to answer our requests, and he always does that in a way that helps me have confidence in what he does and in the relationships he has with the Northern Ireland Assembly and particularly with the Minister there.

I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), in his place. He always brings his knowledge to these debates, and he brings it in a fair way. That adds to our debates, because they are about how to make things better. That is what I always say about the shadow Minister and what he does.

To give some background, free school meals are managed and allocated by the education authority back home, and parents can check their eligibility and apply accordingly. The most recent figures I could get are from 2021, when 98,000 pupils in Northern Ireland were entitled to free school meals. I thank the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby and for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for referring to those in poverty, because a great many are in poverty. There is no doubt that there are children who are eligible but who are not claiming, so more must be done to make parents aware of the criteria. I am keen to see how we can cast the net wider and gather those who should be eligible but who are not applying, whatever their reasons may be.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about those who are eligible. Schoolchildren in my constituency are complaining about bus services in Epsom and Ewell. They cannot get on to some of the buses, which means they are incredibly late for school. That is one of the reasons why they miss the breakfast option. While I welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that free hot lunches are key to helping those who need them most? Those who are not there for breakfast also cannot get lunch. However, if they had a free hot lunch, even if they are late to school, they would still be able to have a hot meal.

[Jim Shannon]

As the hon. Lady says, there will always be children who miss out. How do we bring them into the system? The Minister has, no doubt, listened to her question, and hopefully his answer may be of some help.

In March 2024, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health revealed that 109,000 children in Northern Ireland were in relative poverty. Given that 97,000 to 98,000 children are receiving free school meals, there could potentially be around 11,400 children eligible for assistance and not claiming, some perhaps for the very reasons that the hon. Member for Eastleigh highlighted. More must be done to recognise that.

Some 89,000 children in Northern Ireland are said to be in absolute poverty, which is awful to think about. What a fine line there is between relative and absolute poverty. However, the fine line means that they either get a meal or do not get a meal, and it is important that they get one. I am being constructive in my questions, and I ask the Minister what we can do to address those issues.

Free school meals are a fantastic way to support parents, and they take a bit of pressure off them. Parents do not want to send their children to school without a meal; they want to make sure their children have a meal and a full stomach. Children’s inquisitive minds work better when they are not worrying about getting fed.

We must remember that our schools promote healthy eating and encourage parents to pack healthy and balanced lunches. While that is a wonderful initiative in principle, the cost of food has risen, as other hon. Members have outlined. The figures are very clear: it is impossible to produce a meal for 69p or 78p, and we need to remember that when it comes to producing helpful and nutritious meals.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, as a new Member who strongly welcomes the new breakfast club initiative, I point out that in my constituency, like many others, only one in 10 schools currently offers a free breakfast club to children. Many of the schools that do offer one rely on companies such as Greggs, and the generosity of parents and teachers to put on the clubs. While I understand that there may be some kinks in the system as we roll out the early adoption scheme, is it not better that the Government are stepping forward, providing funding and working with teachers and schools, rather than relying on the generosity of private businesses and the teachers themselves?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not here to deliver a bad message to the Minister. I welcome the scheme, because it is a good scheme. Any scheme is a good scheme if it helps.

I was about to mention Greggs, Kellogg’s and other companies that do deals with schools. Just in the past week, Asda and Tesco have come up with pilot schemes across the United Kingdom through which food that is about to expire will be given to certain groups. And schoolchildren are a group that it could be given to.

There is nothing wrong with the food. I am of a certain generation, and in my house, when I was growing up, nothing was ever thrown out—nothing. I mean that. If the potatoes were old, they were roasted. If the cheese had a bit of blue growth around the edge, it was cut off or wiped off and we ate it. It has not done me any harm. I am shortly coming to a significant age, and perhaps those foods helped me live longer.

My point is that we need to take advantage of opportunities, and the pilot schemes set up by Asda and Tesco are opportunities. The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) is absolutely right that there are other ways of doing things, but we welcome the Government’s positive initiative—if something is good, it is good; it is never bad just because it was proposed by another party. Let us include it in our agenda.

It is no secret that fresh, healthy food is more expensive than the easier alternative, so providing something at school will benefit so many families—parents want that as well. There have previously been calls to provide free school meals for all children. Many MPs, celebrities and organisations backed the No Child Left Behind campaign to provide universal free school meals. Such initiatives and partnerships could be developed to help us deliver for our children.

There is proof that nourishing and healthy meals support children in performing academically. They have better concentration, better memory and better energy, which boosts their educational performance and increases the likelihood of a successful future. That is what we all want, and it is what the Government and the Minister are aiming for.

The initiative is similar to the free milk scheme, which I am old enough to remember from when I was a boy back in the 1960s. It was launched after world war two and was still going when I was at school, and indeed after that. It was designed to combat malnutrition and ensure that all schoolchildren under the age of 18 had free access to a good source of protein and calcium to aid their diets and growth.

I have spoken on this topic many times in this Chamber, but I want to emphasise its importance. Some pupils with special educational needs thrive on routine and perhaps live by a very strict diet. We have heard about children with special diets, and we should think about how they are catered for. If there were a SEND debate in this Chamber, it would be full because everybody would come along with their stories, and I would add my stories and examples too. Schools need to provide meals that cater to those children’s needs. No child should suffer or be left behind. Will the Minister offer some clarity on the current guidelines on this issue?

The free school meals system is fantastic. The Government’s initiative is fantastic, and nobody here will ever be churlish about it. I have made some constructive suggestions for how we can move forward in partnership with businesses such as Greggs, Kellogg’s, Tesco, Asda and others. As I said, there is more to do to recognise all the children and parents who could benefit from this scheme. Furthermore, perhaps the Minister and his Department could consider universal free school meals for the betterment of all children’s futures.

Again, constructively and positively, I look to the Minister to ensure that he has those conversations with the devolved nations—he makes it his business to do that, which is constructive and very welcome—and to ensure that adequate funding is always there to support suffering children and parents who are on the breadline, which makes it difficult for them to cater for and look after their children.

10:08

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for securing this hugely important debate.

This is not a niche issue. As has been said, with three out of 10 children living in poverty, many of them going to school hungry, this is a matter of national shame. It has made me reflect on how privileged I was. I went to the local state school, which was a perfectly fine school. I never went to school hungry, and I always had a roof over my head. If I had gone to school hungry, there is no way I would have concentrated to get the grades I needed to go on to study veterinary science at the University of Liverpool for seven fantastic years. I could not have achieved that. We know that in this country we are short of vets, doctors and engineers. A huge amount of talent is being wasted because children cannot reach their full educational potential.

The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) touched on the economic benefits of universal free school meals, and rightly mentioned the PwC study showing that for every £1 we put into free school meals, we get £1.71 in economic growth. There are a variety of reasons for that, including the fact that children end up getting better jobs and paying more tax—more than £18 billion over a 20-year period. There is less childhood obesity, costing the NHS less; people are less likely to end up on long-term benefits because they are getting better jobs and are healthier.

We also know that the prison illiteracy rate is several times the national average. It costs £51,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give children free school meals that might prevent them from going down that path in the first place. Not only do we have the heartbreaking moral argument for ensuring that children go to school well fed, but we also have the economic argument that doing so will grow our economy if we are brave enough to provide those meals.

I visited the tiny Itchen Abbas primary school—a little like the one I attended. The school has only 60 or 70 children, and I heard how by the time the school pays staff to come in an hour early and covers heating costs, while receiving only 60p, 70p or 80p per meal, it costs a lot to provide those breakfast clubs. The school wants to do it, but it is not feasible at the moment. I totally support breakfast clubs, and I think they are a fantastic idea. However, we have to make sure that not only are they affordable for schools, and not costing extra, but they are providing good, nutritious food for children. Clearly, when we factor in all the added costs, 60p or 70p per meal will not provide a nutritious meal and will cost the school a lot of money.

Despite the best efforts of Liz Truss and the last Government, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. There is no reason for any child to go to school hungry. If we make the right choices over the next few years, we can ensure that every child reaches their full educational potential, we can regrow our economy and we can ensure that every child enjoys being at school.

10:12

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I hope you will forgive my heckling earlier—I could not resist when Sunday’s football match was mentioned. I am married to a proud Geordie and Newcastle United fan, and it was a day of high emotion in the Wilson household—although I am a Londoner and therefore a Spurs fan., but the less said about that, the better. I hope the Chair will indulge my teasing the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate, especially as we head into the second day on Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We will be talking about free school meals and breakfast clubs later.

I am incredibly proud that the Liberal Democrats have a very strong record of championing and delivering free school meals. Let us not forget that universal infant free school meals were delivered as a result of Liberal Democrat efforts in the coalition Government. If not for our presence, it is clear that they would not have happened—Labour Members have previously put that on the record. I am proud to continue my party’s campaign to ensure that more children benefit from free school meals.

Frankly, as many hon. Members have said, in this day and age, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we should not have to campaign on this issue. It is shocking that the Food Foundation has reported that one in five schools runs a food bank, and that as of January 2025, 18% of households with children live in food insecurity, meaning that family members are skipping meals or having smaller meals because they simply cannot afford to put enough food on the table.

I want to make the case for why more children should receive free school meals, both through the eligibility threshold and auto-enrolment, and for ensuring that is properly funded, given the challenges our schools face.

Why are free school meals so great? Well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) powerfully outlined, we know that well-fed children have better educational outcomes; children who took part in universal primary free school meal pilots in east London and Durham achieved on average two months more progress in their SATs. We also know that children’s concentration and behaviour improve. Behaviour is a real challenge at the moment for teachers up and down the country. We know that children end up eating healthier, because packed lunches tend to have more calories from fat, as opposed to carbs and other sources of calories, and they are higher in sodium and sugar. We know that free school meals help parents to save time and money—on average £10 per week—and, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, analysis by that well-known left-wing think-tank PricewaterhouseCoopers shows there is a huge economic benefit: for every £1 invested, there is £1.38 return.

Why do we need more children to be eligible for free school meals? We know from the Child Poverty Action Group that some 900,000 children living in poverty are currently missing out on free school meals. The threshold that is used at the moment—£7,400 of family income—is shockingly low. It was last uprated in 2018; we are now in 2025, and we all know about the inflationary pressures and the cost of living crisis that we have faced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, mentioned in his intervention, about a million children are set to lose out on free school meals as a result of the migration of legacy benefits to universal credit. The temporary extension to the arrangements is due to expire at the end of this month. I really hope that Ministers will take urgent action on that, because we cannot afford to see yet more children losing out on free school meals.

I recognise that I happen to represent a relatively affluent constituency, but that does not mean that there is no poverty there; in fact, it is often in more affluent constituencies that pockets of poverty tend to be hidden and overlooked. I was moved to tears a while back when a mother came to see me at my surgery. She had fled an abusive relationship and, as a result of the domestic abuse she had suffered, she was on mental health medication. She told me, “I have had to forgo my medication so that I can use the money I would have spent on a prescription to enable my daughter to have lunch when she goes to college.” Those are the sorts of decisions, dilemmas and choices that families up and down the country are having to face so that children and young people are well fed and can focus on their studies. That cannot be right.

I support the ambition, which a number of hon. Friends and other hon. Members have set out, of offering free school meals for all primary school children, but the Liberal Democrats recognise that money is tight at the moment. Therefore, extending free school meals to all primary school children is probably unachievable at the moment, and we should take a more targeted approach. That is why we are strongly committed to delivering the recommendation that Henry Dimbleby made to the last Conservative Government in his food strategy that the eligibility threshold for free school meals should be increased to £20,000, for children in both primary and secondary school. Let us remember that hunger does not end at the age of 11 and, where we have scarce resources, target them at the most needy children and young people at both primary and secondary. Welcome though the breakfast clubs are, we have heard time and again, not least from the children’s charities that gave evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, that there are concerns that the most needy children will miss out and not take up the breakfast club offer.

Even with the current low eligibility threshold for free school meals, far too many children are missing out, but, shockingly, we do not know how many are missing out, because the last time the Government assessed how many children who were entitled to free school meals were actually taking them up was 2013—12 years ago. We know that at that point 11% of children eligible for free schools meals were missing out. Based on current numbers, the Liberal Democrats estimate that around 230,000 eligible children are missing out today. In a report published last week, the Education Policy Institute notes that those least likely to register are younger primary children, typically from the most deprived local authority areas. Although there are universal infant free school meals, it is still really important that parents register if their child might be eligible, because, as we have heard, that brings with it pupil premium funding for our schools.

I beg the Minister to look seriously at auto-enrolment. Last week, the House considered a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb)—a Labour Member—that would introduce auto-enrolment. The Education Committee has strongly recommended auto-enrolment, and at least two amendments on it, including a Liberal Democrat one, have been tabled to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and will be debated this afternoon. In Liberal Democrat-led Durham county council this academic year, as a result of auto-enrolment, 2,500 more children are getting a free school meal and £3 million of pupil premium funding—money to help support our most deprived children to learn and thrive in their schools—has been delivered to schools in Durham.

In responding to Friday’s debate on the private Member’s Bill, the Minister said that he was talking to colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about data sharing to enable more auto-enrolment at local authority level, but children cannot afford to wait. There are all sorts of challenges with data sharing, but this can be done nationally. If the Government are going to persist with the changeover from legacy benefits to universal credit, with more children missing out on free school meals as a result, this is one mitigation they can take right now.

Before I finish, I want to touch on funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who is no longer in her place, touched on the fact that we have to fund free school meals properly where children are eligible for them. I welcome the Government’s recent uplift in funding for universal infant free school meals, but it has increased by only 28p, or 12%, since the Liberal Democrats introduced the universal infant free school meal policy in 2014—at that point it was funded at £2.30 per pupil per meal; it is now £2.58—since when food prices have increased by 29%.

For most of that time, the funding stayed static. In the last Parliament, I and many other hon. Members campaigned hard for an uplift in per-meal funding. I was very pleased when Nadhim Zahawi finally moved a little bit on that, but the funding is still lagging behind inflation. Schools are having to find cost savings in other budgets to fund universal infant free school meals, which they have to deliver by law. As a London MP, before the Mayor of London introduced free school meals for all primary pupils, I heard from many of my primary schools that they were charging juniors more per meal in order to subsidise infant meals, because the Government were not giving them the requisite funding. If we want high-quality, nutritional meals for our children, they need to be funded properly. That is a very important lesson to learn as breakfast clubs are rolled out.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) have pointed out, there are alarming stories of schools picking up costs of between 60p and 80p per breakfast. That is just not sustainable. Schools do not have the extra money to subsidise breakfast clubs. We need breakfasts that have nutritional value. I asked in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee whether breakfast club breakfasts will consist of just a piece of toast and a glass of water, or whether they will actually be nutritionally valuable for children.

We know that there are big logistical challenges for small schools of delivering breakfast clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned children who cannot get to school in time, particularly those in temporary accommodation. Families in temporary accommodation travel from Croydon, Slough and further afield to Twickenham, and some spend two hours each way travelling. Those are the children who most need a breakfast, and they are the most likely to miss breakfast club.

In conclusion, providing a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day for every child in poverty is the right thing to do both morally and economically. The Government have the opportunity to do the right thing today by supporting new clause 7 tabled to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. If they are serious about spreading opportunity—they tell us most weeks that they are—they have the chance to step up today to improve educational outcomes for the most disadvantaged, to boost their health and nutrition, and to help every child, no matter their background. If the Minister wants to deliver on that mission, I hope to see Labour Members marching through the right Division Lobby tonight when we call a vote on new clause 7 to raise the eligibility threshold for free school meals and auto-enrol every child that meets it.

10:25

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is wonderful to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), and I commend everyone who has taken part in the debate, including the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Redditch (Chris Bloore), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). Of course, I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Today is a big day for him, because it is the day that Parliament will finally debate whether St Patrick’s day should become a UK-wide public holiday. We are doubly grateful to him for joining us this morning ahead of that moment.

This is a very important debate on a very important subject. Nutrition for children is clearly fundamental, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Strangford talked us through. Later today, colleagues will have a chance to discuss the welfare system overall—what it is designed to do and what it does well. We should note that free school meals, in economist speak, are a particularly efficient benefit, because they are a benefit in kind. They go directly to people with a demonstrable need and provide a direct benefit, which helps them in their schooling.

I was proud that the last Government extended free school meal eligibility more than any previous Government. We took spending to over £1 billion a year to deliver, by the end of our time in government, free lunches to the greatest ever proportion of children—over a third, compared with one in six in 2010—despite unemployment coming down by 1 million, 600,000 fewer children growing up in workless households and the proportion of people in work but on low pay halving as a result of the national living wage. By the end of our time in government, more than 2 million pupils were eligible for benefits- related free school meals, a further 1.3 million infants in years R, 1 and 2 were eligible for universal infant free school meals, which were introduced in 2014, and 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education were eligible for free meals.

With any benefit or programme as important as this, of course there will always be things that we need to keep under review and update, and there are always issues. I think there are eight principal issues, which I hope the Minister will speak to; most of them have been covered by colleagues in the debate. The first is the per-meal funding rate of £2.58, which clearly needs reviewing over time, particularly in the light of the Budget changes, including measures such as the increase in national insurance contributions, which have raised costs.

Colleagues have talked about the quality of school meals, and it is right that standards are kept under review. Indeed, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for School Standards, committed in this place on 7 May last year that Labour in government would look again at the guidance on school food standards. There have been calls—we heard them again today from the hon. Member for Twickenham—to change the £7,400 threshold. I should be clear that that is earned income, not total household income. Again, in this place on 7 May last year, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), a distinguished Labour MP who is now a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, asked about that.

There have also been calls to make school meals year-round—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby mentioned that—and to copy the example of London by making all primary school pupils eligible for free school meals. Indeed, I believe that the Minister said at the Labour party conference in September that the Government and his party were looking carefully at the London example to see what could be learned and derived from it.

There is also the question of children who are educated otherwise than at school, which we have debated in Westminster Hall, including with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—it may have been the last time, or almost the last time, that I was sitting on the Government Benches. On that occasion, we made it clear that we would put into the guidance the eligibility and the reasonable adjustments requirements. It would be good to hear how that is working operationally.

There is a good case for auto-enrolment. Some local authorities are running pilots; the Government should learn from that and seek to implement auto-enrolment. Historically, it has been hard to do, because of legal reasons and systems issues. The systems issues have ended, because technology has moved on, and a legal basis can be found, so I hope the Minister will be able to move forward with that.

Finally, on the question of eligibility, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned the transitional protections under universal credit. There was a campaign in 2018—let us euphemistically call it a creative deployment of the truth—that suggested that the then Government were about to remove free school meals eligibility from hundreds of thousands of children. I remember it well, because I was a Minister at the time. It was not true; in fact, what has happened with universal credit transitional protections is that many more children have become eligible for free school meals. In fact, that is a major reason why one in three children is now eligible for free school meals. The big question for the Government is this: will they take steps to keep the number of children eligible for free school meals at roughly a third of children? Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about how they will do that.

Beyond lunch, there are other aspects of meals at schools. In addition to the school fruit and vegetable scheme, there is also the holiday activities and food programme, which often takes place in schools and which the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby mentioned. We are proud to introduce that programme, which will be backed by over £200 million of funding and eventually extended to all 153 local authorities in England.

Then, of course, there is breakfast. We introduced the national school breakfast programme in 2018. Although Ministers often talk about school breakfast provision as if it was a new idea, by the end of our time in government, 2,694 schools were involved in the national school breakfast programme, serving about 350,000 pupils. It was targeted, including by area deprivation, and eligibility was on a whole-school basis. The formula gave a 75% subsidy for the food and delivery costs. Crucially, programme remains available to this day to eligible secondary schools, as well as primary schools.

We worry a lot these days, rightly, about school attendance. Breakfast provision has a bigger effect on school attendance in secondary schools than it does in primary schools. I think the Government have confirmed that they are retaining indefinitely the national school breakfast programme for secondary schools. It would be helpful to hear the Minister confirm whether that means that at least the current level of support will be retained.

There are many more breakfast clubs than those in the national school breakfast programme. Some have a modest charge; some have a universal element—for example, every child can have a bowl of porridge, but other things are available. Some schemes use the pupil premium to subsidise it. Of course, just as with any wraparound provision, if a pupil being at breakfast helps to support a parent to go to work, typically the parent would be eligible for reimbursement of up to 85% of any costs through their universal credit payment.

On 24 February, the Secretary of State for Education said in the main Chamber that one in seven children in the pilot schemes has no current before-school provision. By my basic maths, that means that six in seven of those children do, so breakfast clubs in schools are quite widespread.

The Government say that the current programme is a pilot. Given that there are thousands and thousands of breakfast clubs in schools across the country, some of us were wondering what they were piloting—perhaps it was the angle of pour of the cornflakes, or some other difficult, technical detail. It seems that they might be trying to pilot how little they can get away with. The Government like to say to parents that they will save them £450 a year through breakfast clubs. Now, £450 per year divided by 190 school days—can anyone do that live?—is £2.37 a day.

There are one-off costs being provided for schools—£500 plus £1,099—but the per pupil rate is as little as 60p per day, although it is a little higher for pupil premium pupils. I would say that there is a big old gap between the 60p a day that the Government will give to schools and the £2.37 that they say they will save for parents, and I would like to know how they expect schools to make up that gap. I have no doubt that the Minister will say, “Ah, but it’s only a pilot,” but will he commit to increase the rate if it turns out to be too little to cover schools’ real costs?

10:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing a debate on this important subject, and all Members for the spirit in which they have contributed.

Free school meals provide pupils with essential nutrition, support school attendance, improve behaviour and set children up for success by ensuring they can concentrate, learn in the classroom and get the most out of their education. They are essential to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and tackling child poverty—a task that is more important than ever because of the legacy of rising child poverty left behind by the previous Government. There are 700,000 more children in poverty now than in 2010, and more than 4 million children now grow up in low-income families.

As part of our plan for change, we are determined to tackle the scourge of child poverty and break the unfair link between background and opportunity. We have already taken wide-ranging action, despite this Government’s incredibly challenging fiscal inheritance, including by setting up the child poverty taskforce. The taskforce is considering a range of levers to tackle child poverty, including key cost drivers for households such as food, to develop a comprehensive strategy that will be published this year. That is in addition to action that we are already taking to deliver on our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The first 750 schools will begin offering free breakfast clubs from April, backed by more than £30 million of investment, to boost attainment, attendance, behaviour and wellbeing.

It is important that children eat nutritious food at school. The Department encourages schools to take a whole-school approach to healthy eating. The school food standards restrict foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and ensure that schools provide children with healthy food and drink options so that they get the energy and nutrition they need across the school day. Free school meals must comply with those food standards.

Under current free meal programmes, about 2.1 million disadvantaged school-age pupils—24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools—are already eligible to receive benefits-based free meals. A further 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free meals on the basis of low income. In addition, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in England’s state-funded schools are entitled to universal infant free school meals. That benefits about 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunchtime meal. In total, we already spend more than £1.5 billion on delivering those programmes, and eligibility for benefits-based free meals drives the allocation of billions of additional pounds of disadvantage funding.

As a number of Members said, we want to ensure that as many eligible pupils as possible claim their free school meals, and we will make it as simple as possible for schools and local authorities to determine eligibility. To support that, we currently facilitate the process of claiming free meals through the provision of the eligibility checking service. This digital portal, available to local authorities, makes verifying eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. The checking system is being redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently from their local authorities. This system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for school meals and has the potential to further boost take-up for families meeting the eligibility criteria.

In addition, we are aware of a range of measures that are being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches. We welcome locally led approaches. By working directly with their communities, local authorities can overcome the barriers to registering and take action to ensure that families access the support for which they are eligible, subject to these activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach to free school meals under continued review.

In addition to free schools, the Government are also investing in breakfast clubs, as I have mentioned, as well as the holiday activities and food programme this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) alluded to, we have tripled the investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million in the 2025-26 financial year, to help to ensure that children are ready to learn at the beginning of the school day. Local authorities will also receive over £200 million of funding for the holiday activities and food programme for 2025-26, which will provide healthy meals, enriching activities and free childcare places to children from low-income families, benefiting their health, wellbeing and learning.

A number of points have been made about funding arrangements for free school meals. Schools are funded for benefits-related free meals at £490 per eligible pupil per year, and receive that as part of their wider core funding. That figure is increasing to £495 per eligible pupil for the next academic year. Universal infant free school meals and further education free meals are funded through direct grants, valued at £2.58 per child per meal. That is an increase of 2% on last year’s rate of £2.53 and reflects the latest GDP deflator inflation forecast. Funding is not ringfenced, which means that schools have autonomy over how meals are delivered, which can include entering into contracts with suppliers and allocating funding within their budgets. I can assure Members that we will continue to work closely with the school food industry to monitor sector challenges.

I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to discuss his views and ideas later this month, as we continue to work with local authorities to break down barriers to opportunity and deliver this Government’s plan for change. I know that he will welcome the Government’s roll-out of breakfast clubs, which on average will put £450 back into the pockets of parents, as well as ensuring that children are socialised and ready to learn at the start of the school day.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions; a Westminster Hall debate is never as rich or courteous without his attendance. He kindly acknowledged my willingness to engage with the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland on our shared challenges. I can assure the hon. Member that I will continue to engage with the Minister.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh and a number of other Members, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke about a range of issues to do with auto-enrolment and data-sharing initiatives by local authorities. We are aware of a range of measures that councils are implementing to boost the take-up of free lunches. To support those local efforts, and as the hon. Member for Eastleigh stated, my Department is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable better data sharing. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the barriers for households who meet the criteria for free lunches but are not claiming them, including by working closely with local authorities, including those mentioned in today’s debate, to understand the approaches that are being taken.

Members have raised points about the lack of data on take-up. As mentioned, data from 2013 indicates that 89% of children eligible for free school meals receive it. We have been unable to update that figure due to data limitations, which we are actively working to resolve.

The hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers) spoke about breakfast club funding. I encourage them to look at the detail of the guidance issued to schools, which will set out that an average-sized primary school with 50% take-up in the breakfast club scheme will receive around £23,000 per year as part of the early adopter scheme. For context, the previous Government’s programme would have given a similar school £1,600. This shows that the Government are delivering real investment to deliver our plan for change.

I welcome the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) back to his rightful place on the shadow Front Bench, even if it is just for this morning. As he and the hon. Member for Twickenham said, transitional protections were put in place to ensure that children whose families were moving from legacy benefits to universal credit did not lose out. We will move to the next phase of transitional protections from 31 March, and I can assure hon. Members that no pupil will feel any change until after the summer. As with all Government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review.

As a number of Members have stated, the Government inherited an extremely challenging fiscal environment, including a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The child poverty taskforce is considering in the round how we tackle the drivers of child poverty and its impact on children. Access to healthy, nutritional food will continue to be part of those conversations.

The provision of free school meals to the most disadvantaged pupils is vital. Access to healthy and nutritious meals free of charge supports the health, learning and wellbeing of some of the most disadvantaged pupils. I again thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for securing the debate on this important subject. I also acknowledge the engagement of other Members in this place, along with the work of key stakeholders, whom I engage with regularly. We will continue to ensure that the most disadvantaged children receive the support that they need. I thank all Members for their contributions on this important matter, alongside the football banter—“Play up Pompey!” I hope it is clear from my comments that the Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and to putting the subject of child poverty and health very much at the forefront of our agenda as a mission-led Government.

10:46

[Liz Jarvis]

I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. The biggest takeaways for me are that the way to ensure that all children have enough to eat at school is to raise the threshold for families who qualify for free school meals, to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to have auto-enrolment for free school meals. I urge the Government to listen to the lived experiences of teachers who are trying to deliver free school meals or breakfast clubs, because they are all struggling, in my constituency and across the UK. It is really important that the Government take that on board.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered free school meals.

10:47

Sitting suspended.

Stations: Step-free Access

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call the Member in charge to move the motion, and I will 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 30-minute debates. I exhort Members to think of what I just said a few moments ago. I call Mr Paul Kohler to move the motion.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered step-free access at stations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. We are here today to discuss an issue of great importance to many across the country. No one could accuse this Government of dragging their feet on reform of our public transport system. With the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill en route to the Commons from the Lords, the rail reform consultation and the call for ideas on an integrated transport strategy, big steps are under way. All that activity presents us with a real opportunity to put accessibility at the heart of our public transport system to deliver a network that will serve everyone—but the devil will be in the detail and it is incumbent on the Government to move on from lofty rhetoric to the hard reality of making our transport system accessible.

More than 60 million people in the UK have a disability, or around a quarter of the total population. Those living with a disability take 28% fewer journeys than those who do not—a telling indictment of our current provision. There are issues on all forms of public transport, but arguably the greatest obstacles exist in rail services. According to a study by Transport for All, only 30% of disabled respondents said they used trains with confidence, and 10% said they do not use them at all. There are many reasons for this, including overcrowded trains and inadequate toilet provision. However, the biggest issue remains the absence of step-free access. Currently, only about a quarter of train stations are fully step-free from street to platform, making much of the rail network unusable for wheelchair users, and incredibly difficult for those with other mobility issues.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Constituents of mine with disabilities have had accidents at railway stations in Yeovil because of the lack of support staff and inaccessible systems for booking assistance. Does my hon. Friend agree that Great Western Railway and other operators must be made to ensure that there is proper support staff at stations such as Yeovil Pen Mill and Yeovil Junction?

[Mr Kohler]

Yes, I agree. It is not just about the physical provision, but having staff available, which I will come on to later in my speech.

As I was saying, accessibility is a problem not only for wheelchair users but for those with other mobility issues, including those with pushchairs or luggage, so we need to address the problem of step-free access. The Government have made some progress on this in recent years—though by no means enough—via the Access for All scheme. Since its inception in 2006, it has provided step-free access to around 300 stations, something that should be acknowledged.

I was very proud to recently cut the ribbon at the new Motspur Park station, which is now fully step-free for the first time in its 100-year history. After a decade-long campaign by local Lib Dems and efforts by my predecessor, we finally achieved what local Tories in Wimbledon said was impossible: delivering a station of which all users could take advantage.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on the station in his constituency. In my constituency, Northwich station has been without a step-free crossing since 2013, when the barrow crossing was closed. He will be aware that the Government have set out, as part of Great British Railways’ six objectives, that accessibility should be part of that. I am sure he welcomes that. Does he agree with me that we need to see another round of Access for All applications while Great British Railways is being established, so that there can be a pipeline of work while that is going on?

[Mr Kohler]

Yes, indeed. Access for All stalled under the previous Government and we must give it new impetus. The hon. Member is absolutely correct.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and setting out the challenges. One of the challenges for me as a Scottish MP is the fact that the Scottish Government are responsible for nominating stations for Access for All, but it is a UK Government fund. My own station of Leuchars for St Andrews is a huge challenge because of the vast numbers of people who come to visit St Andrews. I understand the Leader of the House said that the Minister was considering the future of the Access for All fund. Does ,y hon. Friend agree that what we are hoping to hear this morning is a commitment to that fund?

[Mr Kohler]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We absolutely need a commitment from the Government. That is what we are looking for today. Now where was I up to?

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Kohler]

Yes—that might be useful, while I look for my place.

[Helen Morgan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing my intervention and for making such a great speech. Many stations, such as Whitchurch station in north Shropshire, are well advanced through the Access for All scheme, but funding has been pulled at the last minute. Does he agree that there is a really good pipeline of work ready to go and ready to be built, and it would be great if the Government could reopen the scheme and get on with those that are ready to go?

[Mr Kohler]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct— I had got to exactly that point in my speech. Despite the successes, the Access for All scheme has failed to deliver on its potential, but hon. Members need not take my word for it. In May 2024, the current Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, then chair of Network Rail, said Access for All had “significantly underperformed” over the previous five years, having stalled under the previous Government. Of the 149 schemes due to be completed in that period, only 77 were—and, in what seems to be a first for a Government infrastructure project, there was an underspend of £99 million.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. East Croydon station in my constituency is the 21st most used station in Great Britain. It has a bridge that has been closed for 10 years, despite the use of local taxpayers’ money, national funding and developer funding. We also have Norwood Junction station, which is the 79th busiest in the country and has no lift access at all. Does he agree that this is not just about reinvigorating the Access for All scheme, but about ensuring that it is delivered consistently, that we create local partnerships and that what is delivered makes sense to the people who are impacted?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. All those components have to come together.

I must remember where I get to in my speech when I take an intervention. In an answer to a written question, I have been informed that an internal review into the shortcomings in the scheme has been conducted but has not been released. I therefore ask the Government to commit to doing so today. Many more stations have not even secured funding to begin the journey to step-free access. Stations in my constituency, including Malden Manor, South Merton and Morden South, are still waiting, with no prospect of anything happening any time soon.

There are also problems with the requirements that govern station modernisation. Believe it or not, it is not a given that step-free access will be incorporated in any new scheme. The current regulations state that if development is taking place at a station that serves under 1,000 passengers a day and there is another step-free station within 50 km—yes, 50 km—no step-free access needs to be included in the scheme; rather, there needs just to be some form of provision to include it at a later date. We all appreciate the need to spread developments across the network, but do the Government really think that 50 km is a practical distance to travel to use an accessible station?

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way—he might like to mark where he is in his speech. I pay tribute to him for his speech. Swanscombe station, in my constituency, is not part of the Access for All programme at the moment, but it sits in a deep chalk cutting with no step-free access and with steep stairs, and is therefore completely inaccessible to local people. The transport misery for residents is increased because the main road out of town, the A226 Galley Hill road, has collapsed and has been unusable for two years. Does he agree that Access for All has not achieved its aim of ensuring that very many stations are accessible, and that far too many have lain outside the scheme for too long?

[Mr Kohler]

Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is an issue across the country. It absolutely needs to be addressed if we want to make our transport system fit for all residents.

If a development is already taking place, surely that is the ideal time to ensure that the station is step-free, instead of causing disturbance at a future date. Wimbledon Chase, in my constituency, is about to undergo a major redevelopment, but step-free access is not being provided. That makes no sense. I understand that the previous Government conducted a consultation on potential changes to the regulations, so do the Government plan to move forward on this issue?

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

Bristol Parkway is well used by people from my constituency, but those with mobility issues have faced lifts being out of action for weeks on end. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do we need step-free access at stations, but it is vital that that access is reliable and properly maintained? That should be a subject for regulation, too.

[Mr Kohler]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; I got to the point in my speech entitled “Lifts out of action”, so I will start that now—how prescient of her.

The issue is not only the lack of step-free access. Even where there is provision, it is often unreliable. It is clearly unacceptable that those who rely on step-free access to plan their journeys—based on the limited number of stations available—discover only on arrival that the lift is out of action. The Office of Road and Rail found that there were more than 5,000 lift faults on the network from April to October last year—an increase of 9% on the same period the previous year. Furthermore, there has been a deeply concerning increase in the number of entrapments. The number of entrapments went up by more than a fifth in the last six months, with almost 400 entrapment events from April to October 2024 and an increase of 42% on the number of entrapments of more than 75 minutes.

The situation on the London underground last year was even more appalling. Only 92 out of 272 London underground stations are step-free, but those are often out of action, not just from faults, but due to a lack of staffing. A recent Lib Dem freedom of information request showed that there were 1,254 incidents last year, totalling 6,197 hours when the lifts were working perfectly well but train staff members were not there, meaning that those who rely on them cannot use the station.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Paul Kohler.

[Mr Kohler]

Wimbledon Park tube station in my constituency had the highest number of incidents, with the lifts not working on a shocking 132 occasions. That was not always the case; in 2015 there were only 65 occasions across the whole year. Things deteriorated from that point, and in 2019 the Mayor of London told the London Assembly that he had been

“clear with Transport for London…that these instances must be further reduced.”

Sadly, that did not happen, and the situation has continued to deteriorate year on year. I appreciate that it is primarily a matter for the Mayor, but will the Government please raise that issue with him?

Time is short, so I will finish up, but we must note that lifts are by no means the only issue. Even if individuals can reach the platform, boarding the train is often incredibly difficult, and 67% of station platforms are too narrow for wheelchair users to turn at the base of a ramp. It is estimated that just 2% of stations actually have level boarding between the train and the platform. That is simply not good enough.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is laying out the case very clearly for more certainty about the future of Access for All funding, and the real, crying need for many of our communities to have level access to public transport. Does he agree that stations such as Bredbury in my constituency, where a passenger can travel in one direction with level access but not in the other, are affecting people’s decisions about whether to take employment—making this a growth issue for our country, not just a fairness issue?

[Mr Kohler]

My hon. Friend has also shown how prescient she is, because I am about to reach that point in my conclusion. It is clear that the Government need to take urgent action on all this. There is a desperate need to get our economy growing, and ensuring that our infrastructure is accessible should play a key part in that. We hear today that the Government are reviewing the benefits system to get more people back to work. Surely they see that making public transport accessible is a crucial part of that endeavour. Accessibility is not just a good-to-have; it is vital to creating a more inclusive and productive country. I hope the Government are listening.

11:13

[Kate Dearden (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) on securing this important debate on step-free access at stations. We all recognise how vital our transportation system is to the daily lives of millions across the country. It is the backbone of our economy, connecting people to jobs, opportunities and essential services, while also enabling people to spend time with friends and family. Crucially, it is also about ensuring that everybody, regardless of their mobility, can access those same opportunities.

At a recent meeting hosted by a fantastic organisation based in my Halifax constituency called Lead the Way, which provides invaluable guidance and support to people with learning disabilities and to their families and carers, I had the opportunity to hear directly from constituents about the significant impacts that inaccessible travel can have on their lives. As I said to those constituents, and I say to Members today, I absolutely share the passion for delivering transport infrastructure that is not only efficient, but inclusive. The principle of step-free access at stations is a vital element in ensuring that we have a transport system that works for everyone.

The Government’s ambition is to see everybody using our transport network with ease and confidence. That means giving disabled people, older people and those with additional needs access to the services that many of us take for granted. Since 2006, the Access for All programme has been pivotal in advancing that goal. Since launching, the programme has developed step-free, accessible routes at more than 260 stations, as well as smaller-scale improvements at more than 1,500 stations, including accessible toilets and improved customer information systems. The Department has been clear that the need for step-free access at our stations is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of fairness. That is why, since April 2024, 22 stations have been completed under the Access for All programme, with a further five due to be completed by April 2025.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

A constituent with mobility issues recently wrote to me about his concerns about Wivelsfield station in Burgess Hill. It was part of the Access for All scheme, but the money for improvements has yet to be forthcoming. It is another example of a station like that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), where one side of the platform is accessible but not the other. Will the Minister ask officials to look into what is happening at Wivelsfield station and write to my office with an update on progress?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, which has been noted and heard. I am just coming to an update on the Access for All programme. As I mentioned, 22 stations have been completed under the programme, with a further five due to be completed by April 2025. That will be the highest number of stations completed in any single year since the programme began, but we know our work is far from done.

Much of our rail network was designed in the Victorian era. It was an impressive engineering achievement for its time, but it falls short of meeting the accessibility standards that 21st century passengers rightly expect. Today, only a fifth of stations across Great Britain offer step-free access to and between all platforms. However, it is important to recognise the progress made, with 75% of journeys now passing through step-free stations, which is a significant improvement on 50% in 2005.

I share hon. Members’ frustrations that changes have not happened at the pace people would like to see. The Network Rail performance at the end of control period 6 was not good enough, with a number of projects late and over budget. We have taken steps to rectify that, including restoring a strong national oversight team at National Rail, so that best practice between routes and regions can be shared.

Under the previous Government, 310 nominations were received from Network Rail, train operating companies and other strategic transport organisations for the next round of Access for All. Last year, a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work was announced. I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made with those studies. To date, 29 feasibility studies have been completed, with remaining studies on track for completion by the summer.

[Helen Morgan]

Will the Minister commit to those stations that have had their design and feasibility studies done? Some had commitments from the Minister in the previous Government, before the election was called. Can she commit to getting on with those stations? It is extremely frustrating for residents in places such as Whitchurch, who thought they were getting Access for All but have had the rug pulled from under their feet.

[Kate Dearden]

We will continue to take the Access for All programme forward as fast as funds allow. We will write to her with any updates we can provide. We are strongly committed to making the oldest railway in the world accessible to everybody and we will announce the stations progressing to design in the summer. We remain committed to building on progress and Ministers are carefully considering the best approach for the Access for All programme in control period 7. The Department for Transport will provide updates to all stakeholders in due course.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Can we get a timescale on that? It sounded like lots of warm words and commitment and passion, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, there are now communities waiting with expectation. What timescale is the Department working to?

[Kate Dearden]

We will be able to make an announcement over the summer. I will not stand here today and make unfunded spending commitments—as Members will probably appreciate, that would be far above my pay grade. We will announce the stations that are progressing to design in the summer and the outcome, most likely, after the spending review.

The programme is, of course, vital to ensure that people with disabilities, parents with prams, who Members have mentioned, and older people, as well as anyone with reduced mobility, are not excluded from our public transport system. It is about giving everyone the same opportunity to travel freely, with dignity and without encountering unnecessary barriers.

Access for All is just one element in improving access to railway stations, and I will highlight some recent successes. The Elizabeth line has made significant strides in improving station accessibility across all 41 stations on the line, setting a benchmark for future projects, including level boarding from platform to train in its central section. That means that passengers with wheelchairs or other mobility aids can board trains without the need for assistance, thanks to the alignment of platforms and trains at the same level, which is a significant achievement for inclusive design.

Another notable example is the Northumberland line project, with all six of its new stations having step-free access. That ensures that everybody, regardless of their physical ability, can access a service, eliminating barriers and promoting equality. The stations are designed to accommodate passengers with mobility challenges by providing ramps, lifts and other accessible features. We are also pleased that the trans-Pennine route upgrade is set to deliver step-free access at all but one of its stations once the upgrade work is complete.

In addition to those specific projects, the broader rail industry is taking steps to improve step-free access in both existing and new stations. The Office of Rail and Road plays a crucial role in that effort by setting guidelines and taking enforcement action against companies that fail to meet accessibility requirements. The industry is held accountable to standards that require a commitment to step-free access as part of its service offering. When those requirements are not met, the Office of Rail and Road can take the necessary actions to ensure compliance, which may include fines or forcing the implementation of corrective measures.

I have highlighted the importance of delivering step-free access across Great Britain, which reflects the Government’s unwavering commitment to improving accessibility. Programmes such as Access for All, alongside major advancements such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the Elizabeth line, demonstrate the progress that we are making.

In conclusion, I urge all Members to continue to advocate for step-free access at stations, not just as an aspiration but as an essential part of our transport infrastructure. Together, we can ensure that no one is left behind. The journey towards an accessible and inclusive transport system is one that we can and must complete.

I again thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon for securing this important debate and I thank everyone else here for their contributions to it. I wish you all a great day.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Shipyards: Economic Growth

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of shipyards in economic growth.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for attending the debate, because shipyards and shipbuilding are iconic symbols of the industrial heritage of the United Kingdom. From the Belfast poetry of Carnduff and the folk songs of England, from the north-east to the south-west, to the words of Donald Dewar at the opening session of the re-established Scottish Parliament, evoking:

“The shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards”,

they are part of the economic and social history of these islands.

Our shipyards and the industry and creativity of their skilled workers have been sources of pride for local communities that have too often felt a keen sense of loss whenever a shipyard closed, as many did in the course of the previous century. When I was elected in July, the threat of closure for the Methil yard in my constituency was very real. After three centuries of the yard being the beating heart of the local economy, it was clear within days of this Government taking office that Harland and Wolff, seen as the saviour of the yard after the collapse of previous owners BiFab in 2021, was itself in dire financial difficulties.

That was a hugely anxious time, not only for Methil but for other Harland and Wolff yards in Belfast, Appledore and Arnish, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), with whom I shared many challenging meetings on the prospects for the yards. Those were times of stress and worry for the future for all workers at each of the four yards. It was essential that, where the previous Government had not acted, this Minister and her colleagues took decisive action to save the yards. Many of us were relentless in making the case for the four yards, because not only their facilities but the skills and commitment of their workforces are essential for our mission for economic growth.

I want to pay tribute to the workers at the yards and their unions, Unite and GMB, who fought for their future. In particular, I thank the union representatives at Methil yard, Dougie Somerville of Unite and George McClelland of GMB, who worked alongside the yard’s manager Matt Smith to make the case for the yard to be saved. George started working at Methil in 1973, which is even before I was born. His commitment to the yard has been amazing, and it has paid off.

I recognise it was no easy process to secure a deal for Navantia UK to take on all four yards. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Industry had to go to great lengths to secure a deal. For the Scottish yards, an important advocacy role was played by the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar. I was also pleased that there was positive dialogue between UK and Scottish Ministers on the future of the Scottish yards. I hope that spirit of collaboration continues, working together to promote the facilities at the yards.

It was deeply dispiriting to see yesterday’s announcement that the £175 million contract for seven loch-class vessels to serve our island communities had not been awarded to a Scottish yard but has gone abroad. That is highly disappointing for the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. It is a great concern for Ferguson Marine in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). SNP Ministers simply have to show more ambition for Scotland’s shipyards.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and particularly for referring to the workforce at Ferguson Marine, who have lost out on that small vessel replacement programme, sending 170 jobs down the Swanee. Those workers were political pawns in a nationalist game, which I guess came to its peak when the First Minister launched a ship with painted-on portholes.

All is not lost because it was only phase one of the small vessel replacement programme that went to Poland this week. There is a phase two, which would provide vessels for my constituency: two ferries for the Western Isles and one for Iona. Surely the answer that the Scottish Government should seek to find is that phase two be rolled into phase one and that a direct award be made to Ferguson’s shipyard on the Clyde, which has experience of building those small vessels. We can save jobs, we can deliver the ferries and we can serve the people of the Western Isles by making a direct award.

[Richard Baker]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend who, as always, is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. He has also put forward very practical proposals that offer a real way forward to ensure that those vessels are built by Scottish shipyards. We should all be working together to fight for the future of Scotland’s shipyards, so it is a matter of regret, particularly after the announcement yesterday, that we have no Members from the Scottish National party in Westminster Hall for this debate.

The sad news yesterday was in stark contrast to the day of excitement and celebration when the Minister for Industry, who is here today, visited Methil to mark the formal handover of the yard to Navantia UK. Let us hope that in the future we will have joint working and effective collaboration between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers, and that Scottish Ministers show some ambition for future investment in and contracts for shipyards in Scotland.

Let us be clear that saving the yards is not an act of charity to their workers or the communities they support. The reason it is so important to save these yards is that they have an essential strategic role in promoting economic growth in this country. In 2024, the economic output of our shipyards was £2.7 billion. Between 2019 and 2024, the economic output of the sector increased by 72%, at a time when the overall value of the manufacturing sector declined by 2.4%.

Today, there is so much potential for our shipyards to play an even greater role in growing our economy. The national shipbuilding strategy had already set out plans to deliver a pipeline of more than 150 new naval and civil vessels for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations over the next 30 years. Ports are now one of the five key sectors earmarked for £5.8 billion of investment through the National Wealth Fund. Those plans for investment are all the more important today, as the budget for defence spending increases to enable the UK to fulfil our responsibilities to Ukraine and in other arenas.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the workers at Arnish and I know that he has played a very important role in advocating for that yard. He talked about the national shipbuilding strategy and defence orders. Historically, all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary orders were fulfilled by UK shipyards. That changed in 2012 when the MARS tanker order was awarded to Daewoo in South Korea. Subsequently, the 2017 national shipbuilding strategy made it an assumption that all such defence orders would be put out to international tender, bar some exclusions. Does he agree that that has been a source of real uncertainty in a sector that needs long-term planning, and that in future any industrial strategy should provide maximum assurance about the pipeline of orders for our domestic shipbuilding yards?

[Richard Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important and very eloquently argued point. We need to have such security for our shipbuilders and our shipyards, and our procurement strategy must support that agenda. Later, I will say more about how the ambitions about the security of future work at our shipyards that he has just set out can be realised.

It is our shipyards and our shipyard workers who will be crucial in developing our new defence capabilities, including the more than 350 skilled workers from my constituency who work at Babcock in Rosyth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). It is not only in defence that our shipyards have a key role to play in economic growth, but in renewables as well. It is right that Labour’s green prosperity plan highlighted the role of ports in growing our renewable sector.

Navantia’s plan for Methil is that it will become the business’s centre of excellence for offshore wind manufacturing in the UK through Navantia Seanergies, its specialist renewable energy division. Navantia has announced plans to modernise both Methil and Arnish, with advanced fabrication and assembly capabilities, aligning with national commitments to secure domestic energy security while meeting our ambitious energy transition targets. I believe it would make great sense to extend the Forth green freeport area to include Methil and, in doing so, provide important incentives for that vital work.

In addition to yards being centres for renewables infrastructure, the transition towards low-emission ships and sustainable materials presents opportunities for innovation and leadership in environmentally friendly maritime technology. Green shipbuilding can be incentivised through Government procurement, and with the current scale of procurement in shipbuilding, there is also a role for the Government to encourage collaboration between naval shipbuilders, rather than running competitive tenders for each project. Most of all, the huge potential for growth in shipbuilding and fabrication in this country can only be achieved by investing in skills.

We have an ageing workforce in our shipyards, but the prospects today for young people joining the industry are bright. That makes it all the more important that we recruit and train young people in the skills our shipyards need. In Methil, there are plans for comprehensive training programmes, including on-site training at Navantia’s Spanish facilities—when I talked to apprentices on a cold day in Methil, they were right behind those plans—which demonstrate Navantia’s commitment to developing a highly skilled local workforce. It is important that the UK Government, devolved Governments and local skill agencies support that vital work.

One of the moments after the Methil yard was saved I found most rewarding was when Neil Cafferky, an apprentice draughtsman at Methil, had the opportunity to tell the Prime Minister what it meant for him that he would be able to continue his apprenticeship at Methil. Neil studied at Fife College and New College Lanarkshire before beginning his apprenticeship at the yard in 2021. That journey of skills and training has been amazing for Neil, because in 2022, Neil was a finalist in the Scottish Renewables young professionals green energy awards.

Neil is not alone in having a bright future at Methil. Of the 200 workers whose jobs at the yard were saved, 51 are apprentices. They are among thousands in the shipyards across our country. Investing in our shipyards means thousands of young people having the prospect of skilled, well-paid jobs throughout their career, with all the benefits that will bring to them, their communities and their country.

The actions taken by Ministers early in this Government show that they understand the importance of our shipyards in growing our economy. If we seize all the fantastic opportunities we have to grow our shipyards and boost the brilliant, highly skilled workforces that they employ, the story of shipyards in this country is not only one of a proud history, but of a vibrant future as well.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate and, if possible, keep to an informal five-minute time limit to allow everyone to get in. I call Edward Morello.

14:39

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate.

Dorset does not enjoy the kind of large shipyards that the hon. Member outlined, but the marine industry is vital to Dorset’s economy. It generates £483 million in gross value added and supports more than 8,000 jobs. Importantly, 71% of those jobs are in boatbuilding, reinforcing the sector’s importance to the region. Local shipyards and boatbuilders provide high-quality, skilled employment in coastal communities; they offer well-paid jobs in areas where such opportunities are often limited.

However, the industry is at a crossroads. The shortage of skilled workers in the area is now the single greatest barrier to growth. We must do more to attract and retain talent in the sector. One key opportunity lies in supporting women in boatbuilding. Historically, women have been under-represented in this industry. It estimates that only 2% to 5% of hands-on yard workers are women. However, initiatives such as Women in Boatbuilding are changing this. Women in Boatbuilding has played a transformative role, particularly in Lyme Regis, where it has helped the Boat Building Academy, which I recently had the pleasure of visiting, to achieve a 50:50 gender split on its flagship boatbuilding course. Women in Boatbuilding not only promotes diversity, but drives economic growth. By making shipyards and boatyards more inclusive, we widen the talent pipeline, ensuring the industry’s long-term sustainability. With the right support, more women will enter the profession, leading to greater innovation, a stronger workforce and a more resilient industry.

Supporting new talent is vital, but we must also protect the heritage of traditional boatbuilding. The National Shipbuilding Office recognises that the leisure sector accounts for 14% of the UK’s shipbuilding industry, yet traditional boatbuilding is being neglected. In 2023, traditional wooden boat building was added to the Heritage Crafts Association’s red list of endangered crafts, highlighting the urgent need for action. Without intervention, we risk losing centuries-old skills that have built and maintained iconic vessels—from Dunkirk’s little ships to HMS Victory. These crafts not only preserve our maritime history, but contribute to our economy.

The solution is clear: we need central support and funding dedicated to preserving traditional boatbuilding skills. Without that, apprenticeships remain inaccessible outside the south-west, skilled labour shortages will worsen and our internationally admired shipyards will struggle to compete. Dorset has a proud maritime heritage and a thriving marine industry, but it needs investment, skills development and a commitment to inclusivity to ensure its future success. We have the talent, expertise and global reputation. Now we must ensure that this industry has the resources to grow, to innovate and to inspire the next generation of boatbuilders. Let us invest in our shipyards, our workforce and our maritime heritage before it is too late.

14:47

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this important debate. He spoke very knowledgeably about the topic, and his incredibly successful work to secure the future of the Harland and Wolff yard in Methil demonstrates what a conscientious, hard-working fighter for his community he is. I am proud to call him my friend.

Shipbuilding is a growth industry. Between 2019 and 2024, the economic output of the shipyard sector in the UK increased by 72%—I wish we could say that about much more of the British economy. There are almost 39,000 employee jobs in that industry in the UK, with 19% in Scotland, so it is an industry that we must get behind. It is central to Glasgow and the Clyde region. As everyone knows, Glasgow has a proud history of shipbuilding. At one point, more than 100,000 people were working in 38 yards along the Clyde; at the turn of the last century, almost one in four boats sailing in the world was built on the Clyde, so shipbuilding is in Glasgow’s blood. The number is much lower now, but like any Glasgow MP, I have constituents who depend on the shipyards on the Clyde for work, and they make a significant contribution to Glasgow’s economy.

We have world-class defence shipyards. We have two shipyards on the upper Clyde and they are operated by BAE Systems. They have a long history of developing first-class ships for defending the United Kingdom, and the new Type 26 frigates at the dockyards will do the same. This creates wealth across Glasgow, including in my seat. We also have a brilliant maritime education sector in Glasgow, and much of this is in my seat, on the Clyde. City of Glasgow college, trains craft apprentices for the BAE Govan and Scotstoun shipyards, and BAE has a brilliant on-site skills academy. City of Glasgow college also trains very many merchant navy officers in the UK, and many of those involved live in my seat, including in the Gorbals, as I find regularly when I knock on doors.

We need to keep warship building work in the UK. Make no mistake: this is essential for national security. We may wish for the world to be different, but we have to take it as it is. Skills in military and domestic shipyards are very important as we face this unpredictable world.

Civilian shipyards could also provide great opportunities in Glasgow, such as in renewable energy. Of course I would like to see Government support for shipbuilding, but it has to be deployed wisely. Taxpayers and the wider economy expect that money to be deployed wisely. Regretfully, that has not been the case with the SNP Government, who own the Ferguson Marine shipyard in Port Glasgow, just along from my constituency. They have spent more than £500 million on two ferries, which are hundreds of millions of pounds over budget. They nationalised the yard in 2019, but despite it being state-owned, Audit Scotland in December 2024 raised very serious concerns about governance at the yard. It said:

“Internal audit has not been able to provide assurance on FMPG’s risk management, control and governance arrangements”

and other matters.

Yesterday, we learned that Ferguson Marine had lost out to a shipyard in Gdańsk on a £175 million contract to build vessels for the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) is entirely correct that the Scottish Government have prioritised opportunities in Poland over those in Port Glasgow. The outcome of six years of SNP control of that shipyard is hundreds of millions of pounds wasted; it is an absolute scandal.

The SNP Government have failed the people of Port Glasgow—some of the most deprived communities in our family of nations—while wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Port Glasgow desperately needs good jobs, as does the whole of the Clyde region and Glasgow, and we should be incredibly angry at that SNP scandal. That is another SNP Government failure: they have failed Glasgow and the Clyde region on shipbuilding, education, health, transport and economic growth. After 18 years of the SNP, Scottish shipbuilding and Scotland need a new direction.

14:51

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. It seems to be a regular occurrence in Westminster Hall now. I wish you well and thank you for all you do.

I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for leading the debate. I am very pleased to be here. He mentioned Harland and Wolff, which I will talk about as it obviously plays a critical role in Northern Ireland. For the record, the Minister has played a significant role, along with others, in ensuring that its future is a lot rosier than we thought it would be. We were worried about its future, but the Minister and others have ensured that it looks much brighter.

Shipbuilding has been crucial for the UK for decades. It generates hundreds of thousands of jobs and improves infrastructure between mainland Britain and the devolved institutions. I am honoured and pleased to be here to showcase the success of our fantastic shipbuilding sector. Gone are the days when Harland and Wolff employed almost 30,000 people in Belfast. It is down to about 1,000 or 1,500, but it hopes to grow to 2,000, 2,500 or maybe even more.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Northern Ireland paved the way in shipbuilding. Some of the world’s most iconic ships were built at the heart of Harland and Wolff in Belfast. Everyone knows of the famous Titanic, probably for the wrong reasons—the tragedy in which all those people lost their lives—but there were also the RMS Britannic and the RMS Olympic. At the time Harland and Wolff, in the neighbouring constituency of Belfast East, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), was one of the largest, most famous shipbuilding companies in the world. We are proud of that rich history.

I am proud to be able to speak about what Harland and Wolff has done in Northern Ireland and the jobs it has created. The tradition of shipbuilding, although not as big as it was, is still significant within Harland and Wolff across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is and was a global hub for shipbuilding. The sector employs hundreds even today, so it is important that we protect and preserve it, and retain people and give them opportunities. We want to protect and retain shipbuilding skills, including metalworking and engineering.

We are rich in shipbuilding culture for many reasons, including defence, global trade, imports, exports, design and engineering—the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife mentioned that in his introduction. In September 2024, Harland and Wolff entered administration for the second time in five years. In January 2025, with the help of Ministers and others, it was announced that the Spanish-owned firm Navantia was to take over ownership, maintaining the core roots of the historic shipyard in Belfast and elsewhere in this United Kingdom.

Maintaining jobs is at the core of any administrative takeover. Many employees who worked in Harland and Wolff before the takeover lived in my constituency and still do. I remember the tradition of shipbuilding even in the small village of Greyabbey, which I lived just outside of. The number of people who worked in the shipyards in the 1960s and ’70s and even in the ’80s was significant, as it was in Newtownards. Like some of those people, employees today are fearful of job losses and redundancy. The Minister has also been involved—for which I thank him—in the Spirit/Airbus takeover. Employees are not in control of which sectors are bought, which poses a massive question mark to their livelihoods, and indeed their futures.

Shipbuilding contributes billions of pounds to the United Kingdom economy, both centrally and through devolution. We continue to export and repair ships and we have a part of the defence contract as well, which we are very proud to have. It massively contributes to the value of our trade and goods. Furthermore, some 36,000 people are employed in our wonderful Royal Navy. Shipbuilding is imperative for our defence capabilities, from defending our overseas territories to protecting our sea trade routes. Without the shipbuilding sector and the staff and people that have made it what it is, success would not be possible. Warships and submarines are built in other areas across the nation, including areas in England and Scotland and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, who introduced the debate. I am surprised that his colleague, whose constituency I cannot remember, is not here. He has always been very much to the fore in naval debates. I expected him to be here to wax lyrical about what he would do. I can remember his name but not his constituency.

[Richard Baker]

I think the hon. Member might be recalling my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who is at this moment at the Rosyth port meeting Babcock. His passion for his community and for that yard is, as the hon. Member knows, very strong.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for filling in that gap. Hansard will pick up on the constituency and keep it right. The only reason the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) is not here is because he is away doing something very practical in his own constituency, so well done to him.

We must continue to prioritise shipbuilding for the future, so I look to the Minister for the commitment that I know is already there. Just for the record, it is always good to have the reassurance that we all seek. There are steps that the Government can take to provide direct financial support to the shipbuilding sector, both centrally on the mainland and regionally to the devolved nations. Infrastructure development is massively important for the United Kingdom, from our safety right through to the food in our supermarkets. I am old enough to remember things that we used to say in my history class: we are an island built on coal, surrounded by waters full of fish. I am not sure whether that is true any more, but it tells us that the role of ships in connecting our islands is very important.

The history goes back centuries and is something to be proud of. In Northern Ireland it is always great to look back and recollect the successes of our past and still be grateful to this day that shipbuilding is as important as ever, despite being under the control of different companies. It still creates jobs, wage packets and opportunities and helps us grow as a nation.

I will conclude with this. I look to the Minister for her commitment to the industry and to the staff that will ensure it continues for the future. I am pleased to see the Minister, who has shown commitment, in her place. In all the things that I have brought to her attention, I have never once found her wanting, and I am sure we will not find her wanting this time, either.

14:59

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate on this very important topic. In Scotland the ferry fleet is years old and replacements have not been ordered in a timely way, which has caused chaos and difficulties for many of those in island and mainland communities. Now more than ever, we need a robust ferry replacement programme to ensure that our island communities are fully connected to the mainland. This debate provides an opportunity to highlight the importance of a UK shipbuilding industry.

Take my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and the impact that the lack of an effective ferry replacement strategy has had on our local communities, especially the island communities. Two state-of-the-art ferries were commissioned by the Scottish SNP Government for routes to the Isle of Arran. However, that was not what the community really needed or wanted. What we actually needed were smaller ferries that fit in the existing port at Ardrossan harbour, not new and expensive ships. We needed ferries that were built locally and which could provide a reliable and much-needed service, rather than the stop-start one we have at the moment. That is due to myriad issues, too many to mention in this debate. One of the new ferries is the one that had the painted windows seven years ago, which I will speak about in a moment.

The ferries were originally commissioned in 2015 and were scheduled to be ready for service in 2018. Glen Sannox has only entered service this year, 2025, and has already been recalled due to faults. Glen Rosa is due to be ready for September 2025—seven years too late for the people of Ardrossan and Arran. Had there been a planned, sustainable order procurement process we would not be in the position we are in Scotland. When planning for future projects, the Scottish Government need to prevent the Ardrossan harbour situation from ever happening again. That should be done through robust and thorough planning.

Ardrossan’s economy has for many years relied on the harbour. The Isle of Arran is becoming isolated, suffering economically from a lack of tourism as sailings have been greatly reduced. Residents suffer as they cannot access essential services on the mainline, such as hospital appointments—so this is serious. We are now in the position where we might lose the port of Ardrossan because a ship has been built that cannot fit in the harbour. That will severely affect the local economy of Ardrossan and Arran and that of the surrounding area.

As we heard earlier, the recent procurement process to build seven new small electric ferries has awarded the contract to a non-UK bidder. It is a real pity to see the local nationalised shipyard Ferguson Marine, which has a track record of building smaller vessels on time and in budget, miss out on new contracts such as this.

I would like to finish by highlighting the importance of shipbuilding to national strategy. UK shipyards play a key role in our defence, as the Royal Navy depends on them for the construction and maintenance of their vessels. Given that we are increasing the defence budget to 2.5%, I think we can all agree that it is time to revisit and reinvigorate this overlooked industry.

15:02

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I look forward to serving under your leadership this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate and for an interesting, passionate opening speech. I also congratulate him and everyone involved in securing the Methil yard to make sure that there are jobs, opportunities and of course ships in future.

It is often said the Clyde built Glasgow and Glasgow built the Clyde. To anyone familiar with our city, that is more than just an expression: it is a way of describing the relationship that Glaswegians have with the Clyde. For centuries, it was a major shipbuilding river with some 30,000 ships built in yards in Glasgow and along the 116 miles of the Clyde. The expression “Clyde built” was synonymous with quality and was one that Glaswegians were particularly proud of. With the decline in shipbuilding, a major source of work, industry and pride was taken from the city.

As we have heard, the latest blow was delivered just this week when Ferguson Marine, established in 1903 and the last yard on the lower Clyde, lost out to a Polish company on a contract to build seven electric ferries for CalMac. Ferguson is a Scottish Government-owned company. It has been at the centre of controversy following delays and overruns in the construction of two new, much larger, ferries for CalMac. The contract for the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa was originally awarded in 2015. It was not until January 2025 that the Glen Sannox was put into service.

I will skip the bit about a First Minister of Scotland launching a ferry in 2017, when it was incomplete and had portholes painted on.

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

Tell us more!

[Patricia Ferguson]

I was going to skip it because I thought I would save the blushes of the SNP Members present but, as none is present, I will carry on. It was the indignity of indignities perhaps to see a First Minister of Scotland launching a ferry with portholes painted on—something that was drawn attention to at the time, but did not seem to faze her. Perhaps we should have learned that the person in question was unembarrassable.

However, just last week, the ferry in question, brought into service in January 2025, was found to have a crack in the hull. Fortunately, that seems to have been overcome and the ferry is back in service. However, the award of the contract to a Polish company is very disappointing, as the contract for the seven new, smaller ferries was seen as a way of allowing Ferguson Marine to move forward, to put its troubles behind it and to build the kind of ships that it has expertise in doing. It was also a way to ensure the continuation of shipbuilding on the Clyde and the preservation of the jobs of the workers there.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) said yesterday, CalMac’s decision is incredibly disappointing and is a result of the Scottish Government failing to provide a direct award to the yard. That should never have been allowed to happen. Now no workers in Scotland, let alone Inverclyde, will benefit from those contracts. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that. By way of contrast, I will just mention that, in Stavanger last week, on a visit with the Scottish Affairs Committee, I saw a new electric ferry built in Norway, for Norway.

We have heard about the difficulties that many of our island communities have in reaching the mainland. We have heard about the issues that islanders have in accessing appointments and going about their business in the way most of the rest of us who do not live in island communities expect to, but an additional problem is caused by the age of our ferry fleet. People on the islands find it very difficult to go about their business island to island. The interconnectedness of our islands is suffering, too.

In my constituency of Glasgow West and stretching across the Clyde into Glasgow South West, we have BAE Systems, which makes the Type 26 frigate, which is highly rated around the world and highly adaptable, too. As well as contracts with the Ministry of Defence for eight frigates, Australia and Canada have chosen that particular frigate for their fleets and work is ongoing to try to secure a major contract with Norway, which would be hugely significant for both countries in terms of not just the export of the frigate itself, but what it would mean to our relationship and the defence of the two nations.

Last year, I visited BAE Systems’ new training academy, built at a cost of some £15 million. BAE recognised that skills in areas such as welding were in short supply in the UK and has set about training the workers of the future, as well as upskilling existing workers, and training the leaders of the future. The state of the art academy is teaching 200 young people every year about project management, the management of cranes and welding, to name but a few of the jobs that people are being prepared for. The way in which innovative technology is used in the academy is remarkable. The young people I met that day are clearly relishing the opportunities they have.

Obviously, BAE Systems is training the workers it needs for the future—men and women, to take the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)—but I would be surprised if some of the skills acquired in the academy were not also utilised in our green energy transition, and in the transition towards low-emission ships and sustainable and environmentally friendly maritime technology. It is clear to me that those young people will ensure that the term “Clyde-built” will continue to be a designation denoting high quality for decades to come.

15:09

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate on the role of shipyards in economic growth, which is particularly important to coastal communities such as those in my constituency. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) that I can match her issues with ferries and raise her some.

For an island community like ours, shipbuilding is not just an industry, but part of our identity, our economy and our connection to the mainland. The Isle of Wight has a proud history of maritime innovation—from the pioneering days of Saunders-Roe, which led the way in hydrofoil and hovercraft development, to Wight Shipyard today, which is a leader in high-speed, low-carbon vessel construction. Across the island, boatbuilders such as Lallows boatyard and Diverse Marine, and marine engineering firms such as White Marine, continue to provide skilled employment and contribute to the wider maritime sector. We are especially proud to be Europe’s leader in aluminium welding, where world-class craftsmanship, cutting-edge technology and an unwavering commitment to innovation combine to shape the future of the industry.

But the significance of shipbuilding on the Isle of Wight extends far beyond jobs and exports. It is about connectivity and resilience. As an island, we are uniquely dependent on our ferries. Companies such as Wight Shipyard play a crucial role in designing and constructing the vessels that keep our communities connected, including the Thames Clipper boats here in London. Investing in shipbuilding on the Isle of Wight is about not just economic growth, but securing our transport lifeline, ensuring that our ferries remain reliable, affordable and fit for the future. Our ferries are not a luxury; they are essential. They support commuting, tourism, healthcare access and supply chains. By backing local shipbuilders, we can develop and maintain the vessels we rely on, reduce costs and drive innovation in greener, more efficient transport. In doing so, we strengthen not just our economy but the very infrastructure that keeps the Isle of Wight moving.

Shipbuilding on the Isle of Wight should not just be a story of the past; it must be a driving force for our future. At a time when coastal economies need regeneration, the industry has the potential to unlock long-term sustainable growth. The skills, expertise and infrastructure are already here. Investing in our shipyards means creating high-quality jobs, boosting local businesses and ensuring that the island remains at the forefront of maritime innovation.

There are real opportunities. The clean maritime demonstration competition has already funded innovative projects. We have the chance to position the Isle of Wight as a centre of excellence for low-carbon vessel design, but we need long-term commitment. We need capital investment, research and development support, and fair procurement policies that recognise the value of British shipbuilding. For instance, Wight Shipyard refurbished our Border Force boats and has the capability to build the new fleet at considerable savings to the current estimates. It just needs a route into the procurement process.

I urge the Minister to recognise the strategic importance of shipyards, particularly for island communities such as the Isle of Wight. By investing in our shipbuilders, we are not just creating jobs; we are securing the future of our island economy, strengthening our transport resilience and ensuring that Britain remains a global leader in maritime innovation.

15:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate.

For centuries, shipbuilding has been a pillar of British industry, contributing not only to our maritime heritage but to the economic prosperity of our coastal communities. In the 1790s, Whitby was the second largest shipbuilding port in England. Indeed, a certain Captain James Cook learned his seafaring skills in the town, and his marvellous ship, the Endeavour, was also built there. Hon. Members can find out more about our proud shipbuilding history by visiting the Captain Cook memorial museum or Whitby museum.

Today, Parkol Marine Engineering at Eskside wharf in Whitby has a workforce of more than 70. In 2017, it opened a second yard in Middlesbrough. Parkol has customers from across the UK and Europe, for whom it builds fishing trawlers as well as fully custom designs. Recently, it won two public tenders, which it wants to capitalise on to obtain more work in the workboat industry. This is important, because in a town where low-paid and seasonal jobs in tourism and retail predominate, Parkol offers young people in Whitby much-needed skills and opportunities, as well as apprenticeships in manufacturing, engineering, fabrication and business. That all significantly contributes to our local economy. Parkol told me that a lot of the necessary skills have been lost or are carried out by workers towards the end of their careers, so it strives to promote reintroduction of those skills via in-house apprenticeships.

Beyond direct employment, shipyards provide contracts for steelmakers, electrical engineers, software developers and countless other businesses. It is crucial that we recognise that broader economic impact and ensure that shipyards receive the backing they need to thrive. As Members have referenced, shipyards are more than just workplaces; they are engines of economic growth and cornerstones of national security. We must give them the best possible chance to grow.

Parkol’s location on the east coast positions it well for carrying out maintenance work on crew transfer vessels and workboats employed on wind farms or offshore projects in the North sea. It has a floating dry dock, but it was built in the 1990s and now it has outgrown it, which means that larger vessels have to use slipways in Scotland and Holland. It is looking at how to increase its capacity, but has struggled to identify suitable funding or grant streams.

I am pleased that the Government have made clear their commitment to supporting job creation and long-term growth in the shipbuilding sector. I ask the Minister to commit to a bold vision for our shipyards, big or small, ensuring that they continue to serve as a source of national pride and economic prosperity for communities such as mine for generations to come.

15:16

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

It is a pleasure to speak in any debate chaired by your good self, Ms Jardine.

I, too, note that a certain political party from Scotland is not present today, which is a disgrace. Let us think about what it would be like to be working in Ferguson’s right now. Through no fault of the workforce—there is nothing wrong with their skills—they have been left out, which is pretty bad, and not one of those Members bothers to show up. I would not let them run a birthday party in a brewery, if I can put it that way.

Nevertheless, we have had good news about the frigates that are going to be built in Scotland. I suggest that there will probably be a greater necessity to build more of them, and I imagine that that work could come to Scotland. We have the skills and we should be proud of that.

When I was growing up in the highlands, there was a dismal litany of depopulation. When I was at Tain Royal academy, the brightest and best—and many others— went south. Indeed, my father said to me, “Go south, young lad, to work and to prosper.” But then the oil came. I give credit to the then Labour Government for seeing the potential of North sea oil and for lifting the ball and running with it, because those crucial decisions in the early 1970s created the industry that we have today.

Because of where the potential yards were situated, and the need to get them to the North sea, it made sense to build them in the Outer Hebrides, Kishorn, Ardersier and Nigg. In the early 1970s, we saw the transfer of the skills that have already been mentioned from the Clyde and other parts of the UK. Those skills moved north to build the mighty structures that we have today in the North sea.

I worked in the Kishorn yard on the Ninian Central Platform, which in its day was the biggest concrete structure ever built, and in the Nigg yard for a number of years. At the height of North sea construction and fabrication, no less than 5,000 people worked in the Nigg yard. Hon. Members can imagine what a difference that made to the local economy of that remote part of the highlands—depopulation disappeared just like that.

People moved in. We made jokes about them—no offence to hon. Members from the west of Scotland—and called them Hey Jimmys, because they all came in saying, “Hey Jim!” They got my name right, because I am James, which was rather charming. It was a shot in the arm to see, in my home town of Tain, people coming in from south-west Scotland and other parts. What that meant in terms of amateur operatic societies, and just doing things in the community, was a great change—very much for the good. I remember those days with great happiness: I married and I brought up my children because of the employment in those yards. That was why I did not move away and why I disobeyed my father’s instructions.

More recently, as has been mentioned, we have seen the potential of floating offshore structures. As I have said, the Nigg yard where I worked was placed where it was because it was in one of the finest deep-water ports in the United Kingdom, where big structures could be built and moved relatively easily out to the North sea. For that reason, I am grateful to the Government for the announcement in the last few days that £55 million will be given to the port of Cromarty firth to develop an alongside fabrication facility to create and put together those modular structures that can then be taken out. I thank the Government for that very welcome decision.

From that investment, we can do great things in future, but I also suggest that time is of the essence. The skills mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) are ageing. If they are lost, they could be gone forever, because they are clever skills such as butt welding and all the different sorts of fabrication in steel, aluminium or concrete. In getting ahead with what we are doing now, we will be in the nick of time to train up new generations based on past generations’ knowledge and ability. I welcome that.

This has been a well-tempered debate—apart from the conspicuous absence of some hon. Members—which sends a good message to everybody who cares about our shipbuilding industry. Everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, which is to be welcomed because, as others hon. Members said, it was shipbuilding that made this country great. We have the skills and the people, and we can do it again, but this time with offshore and other similar structures.

If a Government Member would like to visit my constituency to see what we are going to do, they would be more than welcome—to say the least. I may be in a different party, but I extend the hand of friendship. I know that a visit would mean a great deal to the local people.

15:22

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate on the often overlooked but critical contribution of great shipyards to our nation’s economic strength, employment prospects and national security. Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion and knowledge about the sector and about yards in their constituencies. My own constituency is a stone’s throw from Leighton Buzzard, which is the furthest point in England from the sea, so I cannot speak with any local knowledge but I absolutely acknowledge the shipbuilding sector’s critical role.

For centuries, shipbuilding has been a cornerstone of British industry, sustaining local economies, providing skilled jobs and securing our place as a maritime power. As we have rightly heard during this debate, the UK’s shipyards have played a dual role—driving economic growth at national and local levels while ensuring our security at sea. Under the previous Conservative Government, decisive steps were taken to secure the future of British shipbuilding and maintenance, including supporting jobs, upskilling our workforce and reinforcing our defence infrastructure. Under the new Government so far, we have seen a more lacklustre set of steps taken towards supporting this sector.

Shipyards are more than just industrial sites; they are economic lifelines for the communities that surround them. For example, in Portsmouth and Govan, BAE Systems surface shipyards have been instrumental in building the Royal Navy’s cutting-edge fleet. The last Conservative Government’s commitment to the Type 26 and Type 31 frigate programmes guaranteed long-term employment and training opportunities for engineers and apprentices. Those contracts not only secured local jobs, but strengthened the wider economy.

In Cumbria, the BAE Systems submarine yard in Barrow-in-Furness has been at the heart of our nation’s defence. Thanks to strategic spending by the previous Conservative Government, Astute-class and Dreadnought-class submarines continue to provide thousands of highly skilled jobs while reinforcing Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is a prime example of how economic security is directly linked to national security. Spending on our defence industry ensures that we remain prepared for the threats of the future.

In Birkenhead, Cammell Laird has been a stronghold for commercial and defence-related shipbuilding. Contracts secured under the previous Government provided much-needed stability, supporting jobs in the north-west and reinforcing the UK’s ability to maintain its naval and commercial fleets.

One of the most important aspects of shipbuilding is its role in training the next generation of workers. The previous Conservative Government recognised that, and supported and backed apprenticeship schemes that ensured that young people could gain the skills needed to drive innovation in the sector. The workforce at shipyards such as Govan and Barrow-in-Furness includes thousands of highly trained welders, engineers and naval architects. We ensured that their skills were passed down through new training programmes and partnerships with local colleges.

Without continued spending, there is a real risk of losing that expertise to foreign competitors, yet the current Labour Government have failed to provide the necessary assurances to sustain those initiatives. The lack of new contracts, clear strategic direction and industry support has left many shipyards facing an uncertain future.

[Richard Baker]

I share the hon. Member’s ambitions for our shipyard sector. I was recently at the Rosyth dockyard in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), where the workforce were excited about the future. They were already looking forward to a long order list and now feel in a position for that to grow, given the prospect of increased defence spending. Does the hon. Member agree that the strategic aim set out by the Government provides great opportunities for our shipyards and shipbuilding sector?

[Greg Smith]

That is indeed good news. The Conservative party, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, has supported the Government’s increases in defence spending. We moderately disagree on the pace of that increase, because we want to go considerably faster, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about the good news for that particular shipyard.

I ask the Minister whether, following the defence uplift, the Government will commit to construct all our military vessels in the United Kingdom. The link between economic security and national security cannot be overstated. A strong shipbuilding industry means a strong Royal Navy, ensuring that the UK remains a global maritime power. It also means domestic manufacturing capabilities, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and keeping critical national infrastructure under British control.

The Conservatives understand that reality. When we were in government, our national shipbuilding strategy was designed to create a steady pipeline of work to provide stability for our shipyards and to ensure that Britain could defend herself in an increasingly unpredictable world. That approach guaranteed not just warships but support vessels, reinforcing our ability to project power on the world stage.

However, the Government’s delay in awarding many new contracts and the absence of a clear vision for the future of UK shipbuilding weakens our defences and threatens those skilled jobs. That threat extends to virgin steel production—a critical component in the shipbuilding supply chain. The Government have failed to negotiate a deal with the United States, whereas we secured the 500,000-tonne tariff-free agreement when in government. The lack of a deal is a real threat to the industry.

Shipbuilding depends on steel production, which is already suffering from Labour’s failure to negotiate. Will the Minister provide the crucial update on talks with the United States that people whose jobs are on the line are desperate to hear? We need urgent action to safeguard our economic and national security interests. Does the Minister have any ongoing concerns, or is she confident in the future of those sites? The Government’s handling of Harland and Wolff when the company needed financial support—it was threatened with administration, and the Government did little or nothing to stop that—was hardly a boost of confidence for the thousands of jobs that depend on the supply chain.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Member for taking an intervention. I am not sure whether he misheard or did not hear the earlier part of the discussions in Westminster Hall this afternoon when Members on this side of the House and Liberal Democrat Members talked about the fact that Harland and Wolff was saved in both Methil and Northern Ireland. That is surely something to be celebrated across the Chamber.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is absolutely good news that Harland and Wolff has survived, but throughout the entire summer, not long after the new Government were elected to office, there were constant asks for financial support that were not forthcoming. It took a very long time. This is fundamentally a debate, but I would gently suggest that the saving of Harland and Wolff—which I reiterate is good news—happened in many respects despite the early actions of the new Government and not because of them.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Would the hon. Member take another intervention on that point?

[Greg Smith]

It is a debate, so by all means.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful for that good-humoured response. Does he accept that the problems with Harland and Wolff did not just arise after a Labour Government were elected? Given that the Labour Government were able to announce that Harland and Wolff would continue and survive in December—fewer than six months after they came into office—it seems to me that the Government really care about the industry and worked really hard to make that happen.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the points that the hon. Lady makes. The point from my earlier comment still stands—I was the shadow Minister over the summer; I survived my party’s reshuffle—that many asks were being made by Harland and Wolff much earlier, and that was something that was not initially forthcoming. I fully accept the timeline that the hon. Lady sets out. This was not something that suddenly happened on 4 July, but when a new Government come in they should be judged on the speed of their response and exactly what is done to save that sector. We must continue to back our shipyards, provide long-term certainty for workers and reinforce Britain’s position as a global leader in shipbuilding. By doing so, we will not only create a prosperous economy, but ensure that our nation remains safe and secure for generations to come.

15:35

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing such an important debate. I thank him for quoting Donald Dewar in the first speech of the Scottish Parliament in 1998. I worked in an office next to Donald Dewar for a couple of years and he was an incredible man. He also said in that speech:

“We are fallible. We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland; to respect their priorities; to better their lot; and to contribute to the commonweal.”

The debate this afternoon has shown that many Members are carrying on in that spirit and acting in that way on behalf of their constituents.

One of the first issues that crossed our desks when we came to power last July was the challenge with Harland and Wolff. We were faced with a dilemma: if we had, as the shadow Minister suggested, thrown money immediately at the problem, we would have been throwing good money after bad. That was clear to anybody who had any sight of what was happening, but it was also clear that we were in a perilous position and we wanted to make sure that the Government could do whatever they could to save all four yards. There was a big push, for a number of reasons including the contracts that existed, to think about Belfast, and not to think about the four yards together.

A collective piece of work was done in which I played a small part and my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who has the Arnish port in his constituency, as well as the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Defence and my boss the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, played a large part. They all wanted to make sure we could do some kind of deal. When I was sat in the Ministry of Defence with Navantia, we were scratching our heads and thinking, “What on earth needs to be done here?” It was a big piece of work, with a lot of hard work around the clock from officials. The Prime Minister intervened because he saw the importance of this good piece of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife made the important point that we did not want to do this work out of a sense of charity. It was because the people at Methil, in his case, are enormously skilled, offering the possibility of future contracts and operations.

We did not see it as charity; we saw it as protecting the talent we have in this country, and wanting to see it grow. When I had the privilege of going to Methil to meet and talk to some of the 200 workers, 50 of whom are apprentices, it was apparent that this was a place—though cold—where we built the things that defined the 20th century, and can also be where we build the things that will define the decades to come. It is important to keep that in mind.

I want to touch on an issue many hon. Members raised about the Scottish Government, procurement and the award going to a Polish shipyard. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) about that earlier today. He questioned why Poland had been chosen over Port Glasgow, which was a good question to ask. I know Anas Sarwar has also been asking questions. I heard the intervention about phase 2, and perhaps there is something to be pulled and gained from this, though what has transpired is a shame.

There is a question about procurement, which both we and the Minister for Defence Procurement are looking at. We will keep doing that, including considering the Procurement Act 2023. I will soon be talking to that Minister, not only in this area but on steel, to see what more we can do.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point, I do not know how well I can put this. In building offshore structures, different bits can be built in different places, but they would come to Invergordon to be amalgamated, hence the £55 million Government investment. Could the same principle apply of looking at the rules, to ensure that the different bits are built in Methil or Ardersier, rather than being built abroad? Because that is our fear, that they may be made far away in somewhere such as Poland or Korea.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He mentioned the importance of the £55 million that has gone to Cromarty Firth. Of course, we need to ensure, when looking at supply chains in whatever the industry, we do what we can to rebuild British jobs. In quite a few of our manufacturing industries over recent years, we have seen a slow decline, which we are keen to turn around.

I am working on the steel strategy, where we have a £2.5 billion fund that we committed to in the general election, on top of the £500 million that will be going, if delivered, to the Port Talbot work with Tata. That is a lot of taxpayers’ money; we want to ensure we are spending it wisely and that we are using the levers of Government, whether in procurement or other matters, to ensure that we are building as much as we can in the UK. We obviously have to be cognisant of laws around procurement and need to look at it carefully. It is an ambition of the Government that we make things in the UK and use supply chains here as much as possible.

I am sorry about the decision that was made in Scotland. I am also sorry that there is no one here from the SNP to make their case. We will do what we can with procurement to ensure we make the right decisions. We talked about shipbuilding and shipyards and the importance—

[John Grady]

On the topic of SNP Members being away—perhaps they are all listening to “Desert Island Discs”, although one would not reach the desert island if the SNP were in charge—many of my constituents have family, friends and loved ones on the Scottish islands, but at many times of the year they have terrible difficulty going to see them because of the appalling ferry service. That is because the age of the fleet has increased significantly during the 18 years that the SNP has been in power and the reliability of the vessels is down, which damages businesses, people trying to go to hospitals or travelling, and industry on those islands. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way the SNP has managed the ferry service in Scotland over the last 18 years is utterly contemptible?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will bow to his wisdom as to why and how that situation has transpired, but for sure the ferry service is crucial for people’s lives, wellbeing and health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said, a ferry service is not just about identity; it is also about basic necessities and lifelines. So, I agree with my hon. Friend that there does not appear to have been good management of the ferries by the SNP, but sadly we are not overly surprised by that.

There were lots of good contributions to the debate about the role that shipbuilding can play and about some of the issues that we need to look at. We have talked a lot about defence. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, who secured this debate, has about 350 workers in his constituency who work for Babcock and we are really pleased that the Government have committed to the 2.5% spending on defence going up to 3%. I have talked to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, and of course we all think that the increase in defence spending presents an opportunity to do more here in the UK. I am working with colleagues to make sure that we get that right.

The whole point of the industrial strategy, which the Conservative party was ideologically opposed to, is to bring together the things that we do really well and ensure that all the levers of Government are tilted in the direction of turbocharging those sectors. Defence is one of those sectors, but historically defence has sort of worked to one side and everybody else has worked to another side. We are trying to bring those two together a bit, so that civil and defence can work together, learn with each other and prioritise all that activity from Government, to make sure that, as I say, we are turbocharging those eight sectors, one of which is defence.

There was a lot of talk about apprenticeships. The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, talked about the apprenticeships that were set up under the last Government. Sadly, the apprenticeship levy does not work for a lot of people and we have shortages in professions such as welding. Indeed, welders have been on the Migration Advisory Committee list of people who we can procure from other countries because we are not training enough of our own. So, to see those welders in Methil learning their trade was a great thing. It was also great to hear the senior managers at Navantia talk to me about welding, because they actually know about shipbuilding and welding; they have real expertise. That was really encouraging.

We are reforming the apprenticeship levy, we are talking about how we can ensure that companies invest more in apprenticeships, and we are again looking at how we can tilt the whole skills regime towards the professions that we know we will need in the future. Engineers, welders and electricians are all on the list of the professions we need to boost in the future.

Members also talked about the opportunity provided by offshore wind and the green economy, as it were, more widely. As has been said already, Navantia plans to make Methil the centre of excellence for offshore wind manufacturing. There is also green shipbuilding, which is a burgeoning industry, and there is the whole infrastructure of monopiles and floating jackets—all of those possibilities—as well. I have also talked to the industry about the opportunities to lead the way in autonomous systems and robotics.

When we pull together the industrial strategy, the defence spending, our reforms to apprenticeships and our prioritisation of funding, including the Cromarty Firth example, the National Wealth Fund—with £5.3 billion for clean, green energy in five groupings, one of which is ports—and the clean industry bonus, which is another opportunity to support growth in this sector, it is clear that the Government have a plan. That has been lacking in previous years, but we are not afraid to roll up our sleeves and get things done. We are all invested in the shipbuilding industry for reasons relating to the past and, more importantly, the future.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about women in boatbuilding. I spend quite a lot of time with a lot of men in the industries I work with. That was a good point, well made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) made a good point about the importance of spending taxpayers’ money wisely in this space and not throwing good money after bad. I have talked about that already. We need to back winners and use that money as wisely as we can.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words. He made the point that shipbuilding used to employ tens of thousands of people, but now it employs hundreds to a couple of thousand. We are realistic about that. We are talking about a smaller industry because of the changing nature of how ships are built, but it is still very important.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about procurement, which I have touched on already—it is very important. It is nice that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) saw the electric ferry bought in Norway, for Norway, but that speaks to a point that we are all looking at: we want do more in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West said that shipbuilding is a lifeline, a kind of identity and an opportunity for economic growth. I agree with that, of course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) mentioned Captain Cook and the Endeavour. I did not know about that, but I now do. She talked about skills and apprenticeships, which I have touched on. She is absolutely right that they are very important.

This is an incredibly important area for the Government. We have put our money where our mouth is and are ready to do what needs to be done. The industrial strategy, the apprenticeship work and the defence spending present huge opportunities for the future, and I look forward to working with everyone here to deliver them.

15:57

[Richard Baker]

Thank you for chairing this excellent debate so skilfully, Ms Jardine. I thank Members from across the House for their informed and important contributions. There has been great consensus about the exciting prospects for shipbuilding and shipyards in this country. There is the potential to invest in skills to ensure that they and the workforce are retained in our local communities, so we must build training and apprenticeship opportunities for our young people.

That commitment has been reflected by the actions the Government have taken, including the intervention to save Harland and Wolff and our investment plans to ensure shipyards have a great role in the future. I could not agree more with the points that hon. Members made about the need to invest in shipbuilding in Scotland. I would say that as an MP for a Scottish constituency. Saving the Methil yard was absolutely essential for me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said that Clyde-built ships are synonymous with quality and reputation. We have that aspiration for shipbuilding right across the UK. Those qualities are represented by so many shipyards across our constituencies. That is why we should be passionate and confident about the future of our shipyards, and invest in them. It is hugely regrettable that the Scottish Government in the past few months and years have not shown that commitment, or evidence of support, but this Labour Government, in their first months in office, have done so.

We have been through the experience of Harland and Wolff, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well. He spoke passionately about how it affects his constituents; it is so important to have a Northern Irish voice in this debate. I recall all too well what the Government inherited. Regrettably, the previous Government had done nothing for over a year to save those yards. The prospect of investing in the company as it was then was not realistic, and would only have threatened the yards further in the future. What came forward was a clear strategy that succeeded in saving the yards.

I take onboard fully the fact that there has been consensus across the Chamber that we want to invest in shipbuilding and shipyards; the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) shared in that. The Government’s ambitions for shipbuilding and our shipyards are clearly shared across the Chamber. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and my erstwhile University Challenge teammate, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), spoke very well about that, drawing on his professional as well as his political background. The ambition set out across the Chamber for our shipyards in renewables and defence is very clear. It is an opportunity for us to grasp.

The Government have made an excellent start, and indicated a clear plan for a bright future for our shipyards. I am pleased that the debate has reflected the commitment across the Chamber, from all the parties who were represented, to that ambition for our shipyards and our country. Apprentices, both female and male, will be looking forward to a long and bright future in our shipyards. I think we will all support that over the course of this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of shipyards in economic growth.

15:49

Sitting suspended.

Military Co-operation with Israel

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel.

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. My speech for today’s important debate was written and completed yesterday. My arguments were factually and systematically constructed, and at the core of my speech was essentially the pursuit of truth, with very little emotional rhetoric. I woke up this morning just before dawn, like millions of other Muslims around the world, to begin fasting for another day with some food and water, when news broke of yet another violation of yet another peace deal, as Israelis rained down bombs on makeshift shelters, slaughtering men, women and children. Perhaps like me, those men, women and children were preparing for their day of fasting, but now they will never see another sunset.

The question is this: have we provided those lethal bombs, or the parts for the aircraft that are dropping them, and has our intelligence sharing led to the slaughter of a further 400 people last night? I beg the Minister, “Please do not sit here and say we are doing everything we can,” because that will add insult to injury. I accept that no one in the Labour Government has openly called for the Israel Defence Forces to be given a Nobel peace prize, but we have not even summoned the Israeli ambassador to express our concerns or contemplated economic sanctions because, in the words of our Foreign Secretary:

“Israel remains an important ally. We have an important trading relationship, worth £6.1 billion last year and involving 38,000 British jobs. I am sorry; any discussion of sanctions is just not correct.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 152.]

I say to the family of the children who were burned alive last night that I am sorry; the Government say that we cannot afford to lose the money.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important and timely debate. He is right to refer to the Israeli airstrikes that killed over 400 people last night, shattering the fragile ceasefire and violating international law. He will also know that this has happened against the backdrop of the last two weeks, when we have seen a siege and blockade of Gaza, denying the people there food, water and electricity, which is collective punishment and in itself a war crime under international law. Does he agree that the silence of the international community is unacceptable? It is not a choice to act. The international community, including the UK, has obligations under international law and the UK Government must meet those obligations by imposing immediate sanctions on Israel.

[Shockat Adam]

I concur with the hon. Member completely. In the words of Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Against that backdrop, let us continue. As I mentioned, today’s debate has been secured on no other premise than to find the truth. At this moment, the global order that we helped to build stands on the precipice of collapse. If we, as one of its architects, fail to uphold the principles that we established, we will also be complicit in its destruction. No one voted me in to resolve the conflict in the middle east overnight singlehandedly, or expects me to do so, but what the British people in their millions are demanding—rightfully and unequivocally—is moral clarity, a strategic commitment to ending hostilities and the absolute assurance that our nation is not complicit in facilitating war crimes.

Today’s debate will not delve into the historical archives of the conflict, which date from Balfour onwards—the Nakba, the occupation and the consistent humiliation, or the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. Instead, this is a legal and moral inquiry into our nation’s military co-operation with Israel in the face of credible allegations, including of genocide, now before the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ruled that the occupation is illegal and warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide. Under international law, the UK has an obligation not only to refrain from facilitating those crimes but to prevent them actively. Yet despite that duty, our country continues to engage in military co-operation with Israel. The question before us is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have introduced arms export licence suspensions, which target any weapons that might be of British origin that would be used in Gaza, but are attempting to balance that with the needs of the IDF to defend itself against acts of aggression—for instance, the Iranian missile attacks in other theatres in which the IDF is operating?

[Shockat Adam]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; that is something I will come on to. The question is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law or are we complicit in its erosion? Too often we speak in numbers. Tens of thousands are dead and millions displaced, but as the saying goes:

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Before we proceed, I want us all to pause not to cite figures, but to honour lives lost—two specifically. Shaban al-Dalou was a 19-year-old software engineering student who had already been displaced five times. The eldest of five siblings, he had memorised the entire Quran and was just days away from his 20th birthday when an Israeli airstrike hit the Al-Aqsa hospital compound. The world witnessed the horrific image of Shaban attached to an IV bag, his body burning alive. His mother, the woman who had nurtured his every single dream, was killed alongside him. For a crumb of solace they were buried together in an embrace.

Who can forget the face of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl who was trapped in a car with five of her dead relatives, their bodies riddled with bullets? The whole world heard her call for help—a voice scared but full of hope. Rescuers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society responded. Unfortunately, they too were killed. These are not statistics; these are human lives. Let us take time to look at their faces. The question before us again is: did we as a nation facilitate those crimes?

Following this, in September 2024, our Government acknowledged that Israel was at clear risk of not complying with international humanitarian law and admitted that there was a risk that UK arms exports might be used to commit serious violations. Yet according to Campaign Against Arms Trade, potentially £100 million-worth of military equipment has been approved for export to Israel, including spare parts for F-35 fighter jets that require continuous maintenance to remain operational, therefore constantly requiring spare parts. Furthermore, exports of F-35 parts are covered under what we call an open general licence, which allows unlimited exports to all approved partners worldwide., so we will never know the real numbers. Given that more than 15% of every F-35 is made in the UK, Israeli airstrikes would simply not be possible without British components.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing such an important debate. It was horrifying and heart-wrenching to wake up this morning to see more than 400 innocent Palestinians being killed, including children, bringing the death toll to over 48,000. Does he agree that Israel is not using weapons to defend itself, but rather using them against innocent Palestinians? It is time the Government took action to stop selling arms so that international law is not broken any further.

[Shockat Adam]

In addition to the 400 the hon. Member mentions, we have seen close to 50,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom have been women and children. In addition to the manufacture and supply of F-35 parts, it appears that RAF Marham in Norfolk has been used at least seven times to send spare parts directly to Israel. Since declaring a so-called suspension of arms exports, the UK has issued 34 new licences, including those for essential aircraft components. I ask the Minister directly: which licences were suspended in September 2024, which licences remain suspended, and why have the Government refused to publish details of arms exports between July and September 2024?

Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Member not accept that in the unlikely event that RAF transport aircraft had been carrying something as large as a helicopter or a military vehicle from Cyprus to Israel—it is the first time I have heard that allegation—we might have seen evidence of such helicopters or military vehicles of British provenance? The Israel Defence Forces have no need of such equipment. They have far more equipment than the British armed forces do.

[Shockat Adam]

That is the question that I wish to be answered. Were we involved, directly or indirectly, in the Israeli operation in Nuseirat in June 2024, when 276 Palestinians were killed at the rescue of four Israeli hostages? Critically, has our intelligence been used to conduct air strikes? If so, under article 25 of the Rome statute, is the UK now legally complicit in war crimes?

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that allying with Israel while it carries out a genocide will bring about the end of the international world order as we know it?

[Shockat Adam]

I completely concur with the hon. Member’s timely intervention. The Government claim that they provide intelligence only when they are satisfied that it will be used in compliance with international law, but what independent due diligence has been conducted to verify that? If hundreds of UK flights have taken place over Gaza, what have we witnessed? What crimes, if any, have we seen? In the light of what happened this morning, why has the RAF continued to deploy Shadow R1 surveillance flights towards Gaza, when a stipulation of the ceasefire explicitly forbids surveillance operations? Is that not a violation of the spirit of the ceasefire agreement? Can the Minister confirm that the Israeli armed forces will not use surveillance supplied by the RAF flights during a hostage exchange in future attacks on Gaza?

The war has taken the lives of an unprecedented number of aid workers, including three British nationals who were killed while working with the World Central Kitchen humanitarian convoy. Their families have repeatedly requested video footage from our own Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft, which was operating above Gaza at the time. The Government have refused to release it. Similarly, on 27 May, when at least 45 Palestinians were killed in Rafah, another UK surveillance aircraft was in operation. Again, the footage has not been released. Why? What is being hidden, if anything? If we are confident in our innocence, why the secrecy?

Finally, there is now mounting suspicion and evidence that UK facilities in Gibraltar are being used for the facilitation of armed shipments, harbour services, and jet fuel supplies for vessels transporting weapons from the US to Israel. Can the Minister please clarify the usage of Gibraltar in the war effort?

We must confront the bigger picture. The UK helped to build the modern international legal order, but we risk dismantling it today. International law is not a game of pick and mix, where we enforce it in one case —namely African despots—and ignore it in another. By allowing Israeli exceptionalism, we threaten to undermine the very concept of international law itself.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and I ask them to keep to an informal limit of about three and a half minutes, please.

16:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this timely debate. We need to consider the potential vicarious liability of the UK state in military activities in Palestine and the middle east.

The murder of more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza last night must outrage us all. In the past fortnight, the passage of aid through Israeli checkpoints has been denied, leaving the Palestinian population in Gaza with less food, less water and fewer vital medical supplies. Israel’s rejection of the ceasefire and its extreme military action overnight has escalated the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children. It is a reasonable assumption that those airstrikes were conducted at least in part with F-35s, for which the UK continues to manufacture parts and supply maintenance parts. Will the Minister clarify whether they were used on this and previous occasions?

Despite the partial suspension of arms export licences to Israel, the Government left a deliberate loophole in place, allowing the export of F-35 parts to Israel via the global spare parts pool. In addition, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel since the original suspension—more than they originally blocked. According to new arms export licensing data published by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Government approved an open licence for components for combat aircraft. That licence appears incompatible with the Government’s supposed commitment not to supply military equipment that could be used in Gaza.

From reports of the High Court case between Al-Haq and the Business and Trade Secretary, we have been made aware that the Government continued sending F-35 fighter jet components to Israel despite knowing that there was a clear risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is more likely that F-35s were in use to shoot down Iranian drones, cruise missiles and other projectiles that were fired at Israel? Israel needs to use that platform to defend itself, given that it has faced two of the largest barrages of weapons fired at civilian targets since world war two.

[Andy McDonald]

As my hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against Iranian attacks. It can have all the arms it wishes for, and it has the protection of other people from around the region, but the prerequisite is that it observes international humanitarian law in respect of the Palestinian people and that it vacates the illegally occupied west bank. Those are the conditions on which it should receive support.

Since the Government announced their partial suspension of arms export licences but maintained exports to the F-35 global supply pool, I have asked in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions whether they are engaging in discussions with F-35 partner nations about whether the supply of F-35s and spare parts to Israel could be suspended. They have made no effort to address that matter in the House, other than to claim that they cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. Preventing UK arms exports—specifically F-35 jets, which are dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Gaza with UK-made components—from being used in war crimes by Israel against Palestinians is in no way a threat to international security in Ukraine or elsewhere.

The US and the UK have actively constructed a false dichotomy in which the lives of Palestinians are pitted against the lives of other civilians. Continuing to transfer F-35 components to Israel is a violation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations, which include the strategic export licensing criteria, the arms trade treaty, the Geneva conventions and the genocide convention. Will the Minister say whether the F-35 joint programme office could control material movement based on part or number configuration? Will the UK consider raising with partner nations the need to temporarily suspend sales of parts to a nation that, last night, murdered several hundred civilians in Gaza? Will he state the legal implications for the Government if it is concluded that the F-35s have been used to pursue war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide against the Palestinians?

16:51

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate.

As hon. Members have mentioned, we are discussing the UK’s military collaboration with Israel when, in the past 24 hours, more than 400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes. We can see in real time the consequences of that collaboration and who is paying the price. Families in Gaza are searching for their loved ones among rubble. The dead lie wrapped in stained white sheets. They are the ones who have paid the price. Meanwhile, this Government have relentlessly pushed for the continued export of UK-made parts for F-35s. The Minister must confirm whether any of those warplanes were involved in the attack on Gaza last night. Will he confirm whether UK-made parts enabled any of the bombings in recent days? If they did, will he acknowledge the UK’s direct role in the official collapse of an already fragile ceasefire?

In September 2024, the Government admitted that

“Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”,

that there was a “clear risk” the UK’s arms exports might be used to commit serious legal violations, and introduced a partial suspension of 29 arms export licences to Israel. But that move exempted the UK’s most financially significant and deadly export: components for the F-35 jets, including bomb release mechanisms, which are still being made in my constituency despite the city council’s rejection of the company’s presence in our city. Moreover, since the original suspension, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel. Will the Minister confirm that we have now issued more new licences than we suspended when that minimal measure was taken?

Alongside issuing deadly arms licences, the UK has outsourced more of its complicity to its overseas territories and military bases. The UK’s base in Cyprus has been used by the UK, US and Germany to supply Israel with weapons, personnel and intelligence since October 2023. Gibraltar has continuously provided harbour services to vessels involved in providing energy and supplies to Israel—the Minister should confirm that, in response to hon. Members’ questions. In written questions, Ministers have flatly refused to answer questions about whether RAF Shadow R1 flights from Akrotiri, in Cyprus, into Israeli airspace have been instructed to collect surveillance footage for hostage rescue or any other purpose. That refusal means that further written questions are now deemed out of order and the Government are escaping any scrutiny.

The UK can either reaffirm its commitment to human rights, as a nation that upholds democratic values, or it can continue to aid and abet a state whose human rights abuses now extend to genocidal actions—it cannot do both.

16:54

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

It is both an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate.

From the outset, let me be absolutely clear about what is happening. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been slaughtered in Gaza. Women and children account for the vast majority of the dead. Entire families have been wiped from existence. What is left for those who survive? Starvation and disease, with homes and hospitals turned to rubble and dust. They now also face renewed airstrikes.

Just last night, more than 400 Palestinians were killed in Israeli bombings. That is not defence; it is the annihilation and the attempted eradication of a people. We, the United Kingdom, have obligations under the genocide convention, international law and the most basic principles of being human. We say we are committed to upholding international law, but what does our country actually do? The Government have approved more arms export licenses to Israel than they have suspended, they continue to use RAF Akrotiri to assist the transfer of US military cargo to Israel and carry out surveillance flights over Gaza gathering intelligence that could aid in the targeting of Palestinian civilians.

When the International Court of Justice ruled that genocide is “plausible”, the Government should have cut all military ties with Israel. Instead, it has chosen to continue arming and enabling a regime that conducts annexation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

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

Prior to last night’s devastating attack, Israel routinely broke the ceasefire agreement declared on 19 January, blocking aid and cutting off electricity and water supplies. Does my hon. Friend agree that these acts of genocide need to be recognised as such by the international courts and the UK Government?

[Brian Leishman]

I am in complete agreement; it is undeniable that these are war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. Every weapon part that the UK supplies and every piece of intelligence that we share makes us complicit. We must immediately suspend all arms sales, cease all military co-operation and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions. Anything less is just another stain on our history and an unforgivable betrayal of the Palestinian people to whom, let us be completely honest, we already owe a historical debt.

I co-signed a letter to The Guardian newspaper from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). It called for an independent public inquiry into the UK’s role on what has happened and continues to happen in Gaza. Many people are of the opinion that the Government have taken decisions that breach international law. These opinions will not be changed unless there is transparency and accountability.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I am afraid I have to impose a formal time limit of three minutes so that we get through everybody.

16:57

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate, as well as the authoritative way in which he introduced it. Last night, 400 more people died in Gaza as a result of direct bombardment in breach of the ceasefire. At the same time, Israel is denying access to food, water and supply of electricity to the people of Gaza, who are now going through the most ghastly time ever, on top of all the horrors they have been through over more than a year. So many people—69,000—are now known to be dead there, and more bodies are found every day that rubble is cleared away. Those who survive will forever live with survivor’s guilt for the fact that they survived while all their friends and family died around them. This is devastation beyond belief on live television all around the world. We watch people being starved to death in front of our very eyes, while there is food aplenty just a few kilometres away, deliberately denied to them by a decision of Israel. That is a war crime. We have to be quite clear about that.

In a statement in the Chamber yesterday, in response to the G7 summit that the Foreign Secretary had attended, I asked a specific question about international law and the war crimes that I believe Israel has committed. He, it seemed to me, conceded that Israel was in breach of international law. That is quite significant. Presumably, there are many Foreign Office briefings going around saying that Israel is in breach of those laws.

That leads to the second question: if we, as a country, knowingly accept that Israel is in breach of international law and continue to provide it with the weapons with which people can be killed in Gaza then we ourselves, as a country, also become complicit in breaches of international law. Those laws are there for a purpose, to try to prevent genocide and the crimes against humanity that are happening before our very eyes.

[Imran Hussain]

The right hon. Member makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the international dimensions of the situation are so clear, with the ICJ investigating genocide and the International Criminal Court investigating war crimes, even though it continues to be attacked for that, that there is no room for any nation to deny this serious international situation? Secondly, would he agree that silence, frankly, goes with hypocrisy and double standards?

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. We are very short of time, so I ask Members to refrain from interventions, in order to get through every speaker.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will be brief, Ms Jardine, because we need to get through the debate and have the Front Benchers speak. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. I attended the International Court of Justice hearing, where South Africa presented an historic and brilliant case that led to that historic opinion being offered by the court.

I was also at The Hague for the launch of the Hague declaration by a number of nations that have dedicated themselves to pursue support for the ICJ and ICC decisions diplomatically, and recognise that Israel is in breach of the fourth Geneva convention on the obligations on occupying powers in countries, which applies to Israel in Gaza and the west bank. I believe the Hague declaration is an important step forward.

I would be grateful if the Minister would answer some specific points. What exactly is going on at RAF Akrotiri? What was it that the Prime Minister on his visit there said he could not talk about, but there was lots of it going on? That was a very strange statement and comment to make on television at that time. Why are so many flights going from Akrotiri to Israel? What is happening, as the hon. Member for Leicester South mentioned, to the information collected by those flights over Gaza? Is all the information collected going to be provided to the ICC and the ICJ to pursue their investigations, if they request it?

The 300 licences that still exist have been increased by another recently approved 34—

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry—time’s up. I call Jim Shannon.

17:03

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for raising this issue. He and I have very different opinions, as he knows, but we are both committed to seeing a just peace for the people of Gaza and Israel, securing the hope of a different future for every child in that area, regardless of race or religion. That is the desire that I work towards, knowing it to be the aim of this House. I will always be a proud friend of Israel and will speak from that perspective.

I must indicate that there is a time for peace through strength, which is what is needed. Israel was mercilessly attacked; the hostage releases, along with the parading of infant bodies in coffins, highlight the mentality of those who carried out the 7 October atrocities. Some 1,200 were killed—men, women and children—and women were raped with indescribable violence by Hamas terrorists. With Hamas there is clearly no remorse, but there is a clear hatred.

When people know where they stand and that the scorpion can sting, they protect themselves, which is what Israel does. Hamas can do nothing other than hate Israel and seek her eradication, and I would never support calls for Israel not to have the means to defend herself, as she rightly does.

I have lived through terrorism and the troubles and beyond. I am thankful that my children have never checked below their cars, as their dad did, or been stopped at an army checkpoint. They do not remember the days of the bombs exploding and the pain of innocent victims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not advocate war; I have felt the pain of it. However, I know that nations must retain an ability to show that they can and will defend their people when peace is no longer an option.

Israel did not use its military prowess until atrocities were carried out on it. It is my hope that the time has come for a solution for Israel and the decent people of Gaza. I will support that, but I will never attempt to bring Israel to the negotiating peace table with a hand tied behind their back, while acknowledging that the hatred of Hamas has not abated, and therefore neither has the threat to Israel. I want peace, but I want a lasting peace, and that will not happen while Hamas retain any control or ability to carry out their desire. These are the same Hamas terrorists who hid behind women’s skirts in schools and hospitals—that is the sort of terrorists they are.

The rules cannot change and those who hate Israel are the main players in the game. Israel must have access to weapons and the support that they deserve. They must also have access to wise counsel to help to provide a plan and a way forward. I hope that this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue to be a friend to Israel in word, wisdom and deed, as I am every day of my life and indeed will be for the foreseeable future, and for every breath that I have in this world.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call Luke Akehurst—please keep it brief, as you have had several interventions.

17:06

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate today and for the sincerity of the remarks that he made. I know this is an issue that he cares deeply about. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Recent months have seen dramatic shifts in global geopolitics, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in defending our country’s alliances in uncertain times. These developments are a reminder of how important our country’s defence and security relationships are. In the middle east, we have deep and historical links with both Israel and much of the Arab world. The military co-operation between the UK and Israel helps to keep our country safe. Over decades, Britain and Israel have conducted joint military exercises in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security and defence technology. British troops have been kept safe thanks to co-operation with Israel’s cutting-edge defence sector, particularly in unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defence and radar systems.

The UK and Israel share intelligence on counter-terrorism and security threats posed by Iran, ISIS and other malign actors, both in the middle east and at home. Indeed, it is my understanding that the surveillance flights are actually collecting intelligence relating to the hostages in Gaza, including Avinatan Or, whose mother is British and who has now been held captive for 528 days. I hope the Minister will be able to update us today on whether the UK will continue those surveillance flights and do everything we can to bring Avinatan home.

The UK and Israel’s defence co-operation strengthens our international alliances, most obviously through the F-35 programme, which some other hon. Members have rather maligned today, but which has created more than 20,000 jobs in the UK. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that there will be no change to the UK’s participation in the F-35 programme, and that British- made parts will not be withheld from any of the other participants? Disrupting collaborative programmes that have been painstakingly negotiated over decades with multiple international partners—in this case a programme where we have a unique position as the only tier 1 partner—would mean that we would not be trusted to be a reliable partner in future international collaborative programmes that are critical for our national security, our technological base and the future of our aerospace industry.

I will finish by saying that military co-operation with Israel brings benefits to civilian populations in the middle east—Israeli and Palestinian. Last year, when Iran launched unprecedented ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which could have killed Palestinians as well as Israelis, British jets and intelligence played their role in shooting them down, saving Israeli and Palestinian lives and avoiding a huge escalation that could have brought all-out war across the region. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how the Government intend to strengthen our military co-operation with the middle east’s only democracy.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I am afraid we are out of time for Back Benchers now, but perhaps Brendan O’Hara would like to intervene on the Minister. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

17:09

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate.

I want to start by saying that the return of Israeli strikes on Gaza is horrific for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and indeed for the world. We need a return to the ceasefire now. I thank the hon. Member for raising so many points that I was not aware of; it would be good to hear the Minister’s response on those particular issues.

As early as April 2024, the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for the UK Government to suspend arms exports to Israel. Today I reaffirm that position: the UK must immediately halt all arms exports to Israel. During Foreign Office questions in October, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), pushed the then Minister for Development to

“agree that the UK should…cease all arms exports to Israel”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 168.]

In response, the Minister talked around the issue and gave no clear response. That is unacceptable: we need decisive action, not evasion.

Liberal Democrats have long championed tougher controls on UK arms exports, to ensure that British-made weapons do not contribute to human rights violations. We support a presumption of denial for arms exports to all Governments listed in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s human rights and democracy report as human rights priorities, which include Israel.

Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats believe that only a political resolution, based on a two-state solution, can bring lasting peace, security and dignity to Palestinians and Israelis. However, developments in recent weeks have undermined efforts by moderates on both sides to maintain a ceasefire and move towards a durable peace in the region. The Israeli Government’s decision to block the supply of aid into Gaza and their cutting of the electricity supply are unlawful and must be unequivocally condemned. It is crucial that we see a return to the ceasefire, with its conditions respected by all sides, and negotiations advanced to agree on phase 2. Electricity and essential supplies must flow into Gaza to alleviate the immense human suffering. Blocking aid threatens the lives of the millions of Gazans dependent on humanitarian assistance after the destruction of the past 17 months. The UK Government must apply pressure to ensure a return to a ceasefire, and supplies must resume without delay.

Hamas must move immediately to release the remaining hostages, including the bodies of those killed in captivity. The treatment of hostages at the hands of Hamas, both in captivity and during their release, has been despicable. It is also clear that the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank is illegal and is fuelling further tension, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to move towards peace. The UK Government must outline concrete steps to put pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to address rising settler violence and the illegal expansions. Inaction on this issue must end. The Liberal Democrats have called for a ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements.

An increasing number of our allies, including Spain, Norway and Ireland, have formally recognised a Palestinian state. It is now time that the UK joins them. Recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines would send a strong signal that we are committed to a two-state solution and to supporting the work of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to that end. Given the calls by far-right Israeli Ministers such as Smotrich for the annexation of the west bank, the urgency of that recognition cannot be overstated.

President Trump’s return to the White House adds further layers of complexity and urgency. His reckless comments on the future of Gaza, including suggestions that Palestinians should be removed from the strip, have further inflamed tensions. It is crucial that the UK steps up and pushes for a diplomatic resolution that recognises both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. Recognising Palestine would also inject hope into Palestinian society that having its own state is possible, which in turn would help to wrest control back from the extreme actors at the edges of Palestinian society.

In conclusion, the UK must have a principled and strategic approach: halt arms exports to Israel, hold all parties accountable under international law, and champion a two-state solution. This Government must stop ducking those critical issues and take a stronger stance, one that can contribute to a just and lasting peace.

17:13

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. In accordance with parliamentary tradition, may I congratulate the new hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate? As I understand it, he is a graduate of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, so I hope he will appreciate it if I make a few points in my speech about the defence-related events that have taken place recently at some British universities.

Perhaps I can begin by making some general comments about the situation in Gaza, as raised by several hon. Members this afternoon. I was on the Front Bench in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 January 2025 when the Foreign Secretary delivered the statement to Parliament concerning the ceasefire deal. Clearly, the events last night, including the bombing of targets in Gaza, are very concerning, as several hon. Members have already highlighted.

The release of the remaining 59 hostages held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 is key to a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and to building a better future. The British Government should be directly involved in efforts to find a way through this very difficult moment. The international community must also reiterate that there can be no role for Hamas in Gaza’s future.

The Foreign Secretary argued back in January that the only viable long-term settlement of this issue is via a two-state solution, which would permit the creation of a credible Palestinian state not under Hamas control, alongside an Israel with secure borders, free from terrorist attack. That has long been my view too. We all want to see an end to the suffering in the middle east, particularly in Gaza, but I believe it is only via a two-state solution that that can ultimately be achieved.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the Opposition believe it is necessary to retain a viable defence manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, both for strategic reasons and because the defence industry plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s prosperity. In economic terms, the Aerospace, Defence and Space trade body estimates that in 2022-23 defence work contributed approximately £38.2 billion to the United Kingdom economy, with exports reaching £38.7 billion. ADS also estimates that the defence, aerospace, security and space sectors combined supported 427,500 direct jobs in the same year.

In addition, it is worth recording that the UK’s defence industry has been a key supplier of equipment for the defence of Ukraine. For example, the new light anti-tank weapon, NLAW, was used very effectively by Ukrainian troops in the defence of Kyiv in the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Not only were many of those weapons manufactured in Belfast, but for years, Britain had been training Ukrainian troops, following the first invasion of Ukraine, including Crimea, in 2014.

It was a combination of British military training and British-supplied equipment that helped prevent Russia from overrunning the capital of Ukraine in the first few days of that invasion. It is probably true to say that had we not provided the Ukrainians with those NLAWs and, crucially, trained them to use them in complex anti-tank ambushes, the Russians would probably be having dinner in Kyiv this evening.

There is an inscription on the Korean war memorial in Washington, which says quite simply, “Freedom is not free.” That freedom has to be defended, and in the modern world that requires military technology. While I can understand the passion articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester South in this debate, I say to him most respectfully that he is able to make those arguments in a democratic forum and publicly criticise the Government of the day because he is fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy. That is not something we can say of all the countries in the middle east.

Moreover, yesterday saw the death, at the age of 105, of the last remaining battle of Britain fighter pilot, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, DFC. We pay tribute to his brave service in Parliament today. Importantly, had we not had a defence industry in 1940, manufacturing Spitfires and Hurricanes, this debate would not even be taking place. We need a defence industry, and we need people at university to be allowed to freely choose to enter it without fear of intimidation.

17:19

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate, and for the way in which he opened it with his questions. I will try to respond to them all, but if I miss one out, given the questions from other hon. Members, I am happy to write to him after the debate to ensure I cover all his points.

I am sure we were all united this morning by our collective disappointment at the developments overnight. Let me be very clear: the reported civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s actions are appalling. We do not want to see a return to fighting. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. Our priority is encouraging all parties to return urgently to dialogue, and ensuring that the ceasefire agreement is implemented in full and becomes permanent. Peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians lies down the path of a proper and respected ceasefire, of releasing the hostages and restoring humanitarian aid, and, ultimately, of a two-state solution.

We will step up our work with partners across the region to restore aid and secure the release of the hostages through negotiation. Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. We are grateful to the Governments of Egypt and Qatar for the important role they are playing in facilitating the hostage release negotiations, and to the King of Jordan for his efforts to increase humanitarian assistance into Gaza. We have all welcomed the release of 38 hostages so far, including Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, and our thoughts are with those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. I repeat our calls for the immediate release of all hostages and for a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

I now turn to the subject of the debate: our military co-operation with Israel. The UK shares an important, long-standing and broad strategic partnership with the state of Israel. Our defence partnership with Israel aims to support the security of an important partner and reduce tensions in the wider region. It incorporates a range of defence engagement activity, including defence education, joint training and capability development. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) mentioned, the role our RAF played in thwarting Iran’s co-ordinated missile and drone attack on Israel in April 2024, and again in October 2024, demonstrates our commitment to Israel’s security and to de-escalating regional tensions.

As the House has been updated previously, in the aftermath of the shocking attacks on 7 October, the RAF has conducted unarmed surveillance flights over the eastern Mediterranean, including in airspace over Israel and Gaza. I reassure hon. Members, because a number of them raised this point, including the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), that these flights are solely in support of hostage rescue. Only information related to hostage rescue can be passed to the relevant authority for hostage rescue. We will pass information only if we are satisfied that it will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law.

As in the past, and as with other nations, any future defence activity with Israel will be subject to a rigorous overseas security and justice assistance assessment to assess compliance with human rights obligations and international humanitarian law. Although we recognise and respect Israel’s right to defend itself following 7 October, and condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas in the strongest possible terms, we have had, and continue to have, concerns about Israel’s conduct. The Prime Minister and UK Government Ministers continue to raise those concerns with their Israeli counterparts. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories three times since taking office, most recently in January, and has pressed for a ceasefire, adherence to international humanitarian law, the return of hostages and a broader resolution.

We are clear that the remaining hostages must be released, and the way to return them safely is through a deal. All parties, including Israel, must observe international humanitarian law. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we urge Israel to lift aid restrictions immediately and restore the supply of humanitarian assistance that the people of Gaza so desperately need.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), mentioned the west bank. We recognise Israel’s right to defend itself and the continuing threat posed by armed groups, but Israel must protect civilians and show restraint to ensure that the scale and conduct of its operations are proportionate to the threat posed. The Foreign Secretary has raised our concerns about Israeli operations in the west bank with the Israeli Foreign Minister. Our position remains that Israel’s actions in the west bank and Gaza must be in accordance with international humanitarian law.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that Israel is breaking international law. Does the Minister therefore acknowledge that its actions and our Government’s refusal to act against them, including by banning all sales of weapons, will be watched carefully by rogue states such as Russia and will be used as a template for the actions that are or are not allowed on the international stage?

[Luke Pollard]

Our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza are at clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law, and we will continue to raise our concerns with Israel.

The hon. Member for Leicester South raised the issue of arms exports. In recent years, UK arms exports have accounted for less than 1% of total defence exports to Israel. As hon. Members are aware, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took office in July 2024, he ordered a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. On 2 September, he concluded there was a clear risk that UK exports to Israel for use in military operations in Gaza could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations, at which point my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary took the decision to suspend relevant export licences to Israel.

[Tahir Ali]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will make progress because I have only a few moments left.

As hon. Members are aware, the suspension of export licences does not include exports of components for the global F-35 programme. As previously set out to Parliament, it was necessary to exclude exports for the F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension because of the programme’s broader strategic role in NATO and its wider implications for international peace and security. Although the UK Government’s support for Israel remains steadfast in the face of aggression and terrorism, it is clear that we must have a robust export licensing regime. We keep all licences under close and continual review.

Hon. Members have mentioned the overseas territories. For operational security reasons, and as a matter of long-standing policy, the MOD does not confirm, deny or comment on any foreign national military aircraft movement or operation within UK airspace or on UK overseas bases.

The events overnight were a major setback. Like all Members who spoke today, we want to see the fighting stop. The ceasefire must be re-established, there must be a return to dialogue, the remaining hostages must be released and a surge of aid must be delivered to the people of Gaza. Although the challenge is much greater today than it was yesterday, we will continue to work alongside our allies and partners towards those goals and a two-state solution that delivers security for Israelis, dignity for Palestinians and a lasting peace in the region.

I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Member for Leicester South after this debate about the points I did not get to because of the shortness of time.

17:27

[Shockat Adam]

I thank all hon. Members for their sincere contributions. We all want the hostages to be released, but as the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said,

“The Israeli government has chosen to abandon the hostages.”

I say to the shadow Minister that I agree with the defence industry that we must have a robust arms industry, but I pray that our children’s lives are never at the behest of a nation’s economic profit.

History will judge us not by our words but by our actions. Let me be completely clear: this debate is not an attack on our Government, nor is it about politics. It is simply about truth. Only truth can serve justice, and only with justice can we bring about peace. I urge hon. Members to reflect not on their political loyalties but on their moral duty. When history looks back at this moment, we must be able to say with absolute certainty that we stood on the right side. That is the least we owe to Shaban, Hind and all the dead children of the conflict.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.