Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 March 2025

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I come at this debate as someone who is not entirely new to fisheries debates, after having been involved in them in the early days of my parliamentary career in 1997 and on a number of occasions since. On how the fishing industry is perceived by the political process, I have always found that there seems to be an inverse relationship between politicians’ desire not to interfere with the fishing industry and the inevitability that politics has to interfere in order to help establish and sustain an industry that is so important to this country. Indeed, there is a further inverse relationship in the sense that the industries that work in and are exposed to the raw power of nature seem to have a higher degree of regulation and administrative burden that is disproportionate to their sense of freedom from office-based activity.

It is interesting that the political parties that always seem keen to use the fishing industry as the poster boys for their campaigns and send flotillas up the Thames do not seem terribly interested in discussing the detail when it comes to the hard miles.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Although he did not name the individuals concerned, did he consider the fact that they might have other fish to fry?

[Andrew George]

We could spend all morning exchanging fishing industry puns, but I think it would be better to get back down to the nitty-gritty of trying to advance policy for the benefit of the fishing industry.

The Minister will appreciate what goes on in my constituency, which he visited last summer when he came to Newlyn, Sennen and other areas around Cornwall to look at the activities within the industry. That was very much appreciated and he clearly has a very sincere interest in the industry. Although he is not personally responsible for what he has inherited, he has a significant task on his hands in helping the industry find a way forward. That is what I hope we can encourage him to do today, because the issue for us—I am speaking on behalf of the industry, which I have spoken to on numerous occasions—is how last year’s quota negotiations are impacting on the prospects for the industry this year.

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

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate in a light-hearted way—initially, at least—which is a contrast to some of the previous discussions. Is he concerned about reports that our French allies are seeking to link fishing quotas to other matters, such as access to the €150 billion defence budget? Does he agree that the Government should clarify their position on this, and will he perhaps ask the Minister to do so this morning?

[Andrew George]

I am sure that the Minister heard that intervention. It does trouble me. If we go back to 1974, when Edward Heath was involved in the negotiation of our entry into the EU, and to subsequent negotiations, the fishing industry has often been used as a pawn—a bargaining chip. It would be a great pity if that happened again. I know that fishing Ministers do not usually sit around the Cabinet table, but I hope the Minister will use his influence to make sure the message is heard loud and clear within the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister that the fishing industry is not a bargaining chip that can be handled in that manner.

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

My hon. Friend has spoken about political intervention. Fishery quota negotiations are difficult and nuanced at the best of times and understanding the granular detail of advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for example, is never straightforward. It always goes badly wrong when we bring in other considerations. Does he agree that both our national security and our fishing industry deserve better treatment than the sort the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) just outlined, if indeed what is reported is true?

[Andrew George]

If we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry that is fair to UK fishermen, it is important that the industry is reviewed on its merits and on the basis of science, not on political horse-trading with other countries. I strongly accept that point.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Given the debate we are having and the risk that our fishing communities could be used as a bargaining chip, does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government have said, food security is national security, and we cannot have our fishing communities and fishing stocks traded against defence in any way?

[Andrew George]

These negotiations are difficult at the best of times. We need to make sure these decisions are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we wish to re-establish UK fishing entitlement out to the 12 mile limit and to ensure that foreign vessels are not able to use their historic entitlements to fish within the 6 to 12 mile zone. Relative stability within the common fisheries policy left the UK, particularly in the western approaches, with a significantly poorer deal in comparison with many European countries, and that is the basis of a great deal of disquiet within the industry.

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

The hon. Member is being generous with his time. I am fortunate to represent the fishing fleet off the Berwickshire coast, which is relatively small but very active, together with the fish processing industry. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation produced a very helpful briefing note ahead of today’s debate. One of the points it makes is that, since the UK left the EU in 2020, the UK and Scotland’s opportunities have increased greatly, and those opportunities would not have been there had we remained in the EU. Does the hon. Member agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation?

[Andrew George]

No, I disagree. I think that overall, the impact on the fishing industry has been a net negative, certainly for people in my own region, who depend substantially on the export of fish to other European countries. In the past, the majority of the fish landed in Newlyn, which is a very substantial port in my constituency—at least 80%—went to France, Spain and other European countries. The impact that that and other things, including veterinary inspections, vivier export requirements and licences, have had on the industry has been significantly detrimental, so I do not accept that. That is a conversation that I would be very happy to have with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, but by no means can one say that Brexit has been a great success, because that is certainly not the case.

The fishermen in my area do not feel that they have been well treated as a result of those negotiations. As a passionate remainer, I was prepared to accept that on the face of it, there was a potential benefit. There should have been—fishing was the only industry in which it was possible to make an argument that there could be a potential benefit as a result of Brexit—but that has not happened, so I reject the basis of that intervention and the point made.

I hope that in time, the Minister will look at the opportunities, rather than taking the sort of stop-start approach that I am going to refer to today—I will get to that point after all the interventions. I hope he will look instead at a medium and longer-term setting of quotas, with rolling multi-annual quotas, perhaps of up to five years. That should be the Government’s objective, and they should work with scientists so that the industry can see a way forward, rather than having to adjust its business plans at very short notice, which is the case at present.

I will be adding a few small points about the small-scale, low-impact fishing industry; indeed, I come to this debate as someone with a limited amount of experience within the industry itself. When I was younger, our family had a boat at Mullion, in the south of the constituency, which used to supplement our income from the smallholding that we had. It was very low-impact, outboard motor and oar-based fishing activity that involved the setting of lobster and crab pots—very little of it was mechanised; it was all pulled by hand—and mackerel hand lining. It was low-impact fishing that we could only undertake during the summer months because of the storms that came into the coast in Mullion over the winter period. I have that experience, and many members of my family are engaged in the industry.

The Cornish fishing fleet has a value to the Cornish economy of £174 million, and 8,000 people are employed in the industry, so I particularly wanted to address the impact of the 2025 quota settlement on choke species. It is going to have a detrimental impact on the significant amount of fishing that takes place around the western approaches. The headline impact is that on pollack, which is very much bycatch fishing only. Boats under 10 metres are allowed just 75 kg per month. We have to remember that this is an ultra-mixed fishery, so even though those fishermen target other species, such as hake, it is hard for them not to catch pollack. Because pollack is healthier than the science seems to indicate, fishermen end up catching a lot more of it and, under the regulations, are obliged to land it.

When the long-term ban was announced last year, the previous Government provided financial support for only one year, and the Minister and the new Government have not announced any other compensation for those affected by the pollack ban. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has anything to say about that. The industry asked for management measures for the recreational industry. At present, there is no management in place for the recreation fleet. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates that up to 50% of the total pollack catch around our waters is taken by the recreational angling industry.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice for pollack is currently being benchmarked, as the Minister knows, and that formal review of the available science will lead to new advice in June. The House and I would be interested to know what power and influence the Minister has in that regard before June and over any decisions taken after June when the benchmarking process has been completed. Will he commit to introducing new management of the pollack stock on or before the completion of the benchmarking process? The industry cannot wait until next January.

There are similar problems with Dover sole. Our fleet is targeting megrims and monkfish, but Dover sole are known to be abundant in many areas. In areas VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, Dover sole are relatively abundant, and therefore the total allowable catch for those areas is relatively good, but data is lacking for areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk, which has led to a much lower total allowable catch as a precaution. For example, each boat can catch 400 kg of Dover sole per month in area VIIe, but in VIIh it is limited to just 30 kg per month. Because of the catches that have been experienced, that is a significant diminution in the activity that the industry can pursue.

In 2023-24, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation fleet worked with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to collect genetic samples of sole in VIIe and VIIh areas to provide evidence of the genetic links between the two stocks. Unsurprisingly, they saw that Dover sole swim between those areas. If that is proven and accepted, there will be greater confidence in setting fishing opportunities for the fleet to target monkfish and megrim in those other areas. I hope the Minister will prioritise the review of the scientific evidence at the UK-EU Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with a view to making a joint request to ICES to amend the total allowable catch for Dover sole in that area.

Similarly, the industry is working with scientists, CEFAS and environmentalist non-governmental organisations to aid the recovery of the stock of spurdog—a slender shark found in our waters—by providing bycatch and discard data. The spurdog fishery reopened in 2023 with a 1 metre maximum landing size as a precautionary management measure. Spurdog is a non-target species in a mixed fishery, so its increasing abundance is leading to increased unavoidable bycatch, forcing vessels to discard fish over 1 metre in length. In December the written record agreed that that rule should be reviewed in 2024 and 2025, but so far no meaningful adjustment has been made. Will the Minister promise to follow through on the commitment to review the 1 metre rule and work with the industry to develop more sustainable management measures?

There has been a dramatic recovery of bluefin tuna in our waters over recent decades. In the past, the Atlantic bluefin tuna saw drastic cuts in catch limits, and a crackdown on illegal and unreported catches across its whole range. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has taken that action over the last 20 years to reach a tipping point. Over the last decade the recovery has benefited that fishery, and has reached the shores of Cornwall, where sightings of bluefin tuna have increased by a factor of 60 since just a decade ago. The total allowable catch set by the International Commission is over 40,000 tonnes, more than half of which is allocated to the EU. In 2021 the UK received 50 tonnes of quota, initially for bycatch. In 2025, the UK quota is 66 tonnes, with 45 tonnes for commercial hook-and-line vessels.

Sixteen tonnes, almost a quarter of the entire quota, is set aside for accidental mortality from recreational catch-and-release permits. Tuna are vulnerable to unintended mortality due to the long fights they often endure with anglers, so mandatory training and strict handling procedures have been applied to some vessels, and 1,700 tuna have been released with minimal mortality. But in 2024 recreational catch-and-release permits were introduced, with a voluntary code of conduct and training. Will the Minister join a roundtable meeting of MPs, fishers and scientists to look at how the UK tuna industry can be managed more sustainably?

I will not detain the House for much longer, but there are other issues that I know the Minister is aware of, and which I have spoken to him about—particularly the impact of regulations on the small-scale fishing industry: day boats, under 7 metres, that fish around our coast and take less than 1% of the annual catch. Last summer I met Jof Hicks on the island of St Agnes in the Isles of Scilly. Over the last five years, he has gone out of his way to develop a fishery that has the lowest possible impact because there is no plastic or fuel involved: he uses sail and oar, and he makes his own crab pots entirely from natural materials—growing his own withies and tamarisk to make the pots. He is sustaining a living from that. Admittedly, some of the restaurants on the Isles of Scilly are able to provide him with relatively healthy prices for his produce, but he is nevertheless demonstrating that it can work. However, he complained to me that all the same regulations that apply to supertrawlers apply to him with his home-made boat and locally made lobster and crab pots. I urge the Minister to have a close look at that, perhaps with me. I am not arguing that this is the future for the fishing industry, or that we can feed the nation by this method, but it can make a measurable difference and provide an alternative way of catching fish in areas such as mine, and no doubt in other places. We could forge a different approach. If we could take unnecessary burdens from the shoulders of people such as Jof Hicks, that would be enormously appreciated.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because many others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised. I believe that politicians and the fishing industry are all pushing in the same direction—towards a sustainable industry based on the best available science—but we need to ensure that the regulations that are informed by that science do not create unintended consequences that have a detrimental impact on fish stocks and the fishing industry.

Things have changed. The culture has changed, and the industry is much more engaged with a science-based approach than perhaps it was when I first engaged in these debates nearly 30 years ago. I hope that we will continue with openness and dialogue, and that we will push for efficiency in the way we update the regulations this year. The pressures on the fisheries I mentioned earlier, which are being affected by choke stocks such as pollack and Dover sole, need to be addressed before the end of the year.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am; if Members bear that in mind, we can probably manage without a formal time limit.

09:57

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate.

I declare a sort of interest: in a previous life, I was a special adviser with the Scotland Office, and I spent the larger part of 2021 working on exports from Scotland to the EU. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the EU, far from being our avuncular friends in this matter, were a protectionist bloc. Many of the difficulties we faced, including the transport of live langoustines—he mentioned vivier transport—were to do with problems on the far side of the short strait. It was bloody-mindedness at best and outright protectionism at worst.

But let us talk about chips—not the golden-fried essential component of what we Scots call the fish supper, but bargaining chips, for that is yet again what our fishing crews risk becoming. The statistics are superficially simple: the Office for National Statistics says that fishing accounted for just 0.03% of the UK’s economic output in 2021. However, that does not capture the reality that a great many of our fragile coastal communities, not only in Scotland but across the UK, are entirely dependent on jobs in fishing’s at-sea component and its allied onshore processors.

If fishing were a trifling little homespun affair, why is the EU so interested in it? With the Business and Trade Committee, I travelled to Brussels to discuss this Government’s reset of relations. What Labour expects from this reset is opaque at best, but the EU—good protectionist that it is—has already drawn up an invoice, and top of its list is fishing. Amid warm words about security and co-operation between Britain and the EU, the French are keen to lock us out of the new £150 billion Euro defence fund, only to then show a bit of ankle on negotiations involving—quelle surprise!—fishing.

Just as Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, with its heavy pro-union bias, takes us back to 1979 and the winter of discontent, so fishing is drifting back to 1973. Then, our prized and pristine waters were the quid pro quo for access to what was then the European Economic Community. Today, the dice are loaded in favour of the EU fleet. According to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—I note that the hon. Member for St Ives is not a huge fan of it, but I certainly am—the EU catches around seven times more fish by value in UK waters than we land from EU waters. Britain’s status as an independent coastal state was hard won, and we must not allow our fleet to be dragged back into the ambit of the hated common fisheries policy. We cannot allow a linkage between fisheries and access to markets to be established.

British fishing is already under a series of threats. Let us be as clear as the blue ocean about the conservation issue: fishermen are to the fore in this area, for they know that if they clear the seas of fish today, there is no tomorrow for them. Things such as spatial squeeze are real. Our seas are vast but not limitless. Boats cannot fish between floating wind turbines or trawl near those turbines’ subsea infrastructure. To say that boats can simply up nets and go elsewhere is to demonstrate a terrifying lack of knowledge about the sea. Fish and seafood are not evenly suffused; they are in some places and not in others.

Fishing is food security, as we have heard. It is a livelihood for many—not just for those who literally risk life and limb on the storm-tossed seas, but for those onshore. Fish and chips are as emblematic of this country as the bright fishing boats at quaysides from Kirkcudbright to Kirkwall and more. They must not be frittered away at the behest of an avaricious EU.

10:01

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for setting the scene so well. Fishing is important to me, as the representative of the village of Portavogie. The hon. Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) takes his money but does not take his seat in this House, so I also have to speak for the fishing sector in Kilkeel and Ardglass. I am quite happy to do that; I do it regularly to represent the collective viewpoint of the sector and to ensure that we have a voice in this House.

I liaise with the fishing bodies in Northern Ireland. The feeling, as things stand, is that they are happy with the quota negotiations at the moment, provided that the Government continue to deliver to the sector in Northern Ireland the quota allocations that they have indicated they will deliver, and that they do not take a backward step and grant the EU more than it has currently, at the expense of our fishing industry.

The message from my fishermen—from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation—is simple. The Minister has met them and he knows that. I hope that he will come over sometime shortly to meet our fishermen, and I look forward to that. I know they have a very high opinion of him; they see him as one who stands firm, and they hope that the Government will stand firm and not—to use a pun—row back on where we are at the moment.

The Northern Ireland industry’s priority for the negotiations is not necessarily quota; it is access to the Republic of Ireland’s 6 to 12 nautical mile zone, which we lost through Brexit. My questions to the Minister will be along those lines. In the original withdrawal agreement, France was granted access to UK waters—specifically, English waters on the south coast—on the basis of grandfather rights. There is therefore, I believe, a precedent for offering access to limited named vessels in the negotiations. The principle of promoting access for UK vessels to EU waters has mixed receptions from those who want their scallopers—and we have many of them in Northern Ireland—to have access to French waters, and those who would like to see EU vessels, with the exception of EU-owned flagships, out of UK waters.

It is my belief, as I said, that the top priority for the Northern Ireland fleet in the upcoming negotiations is to have access restored to those parts of their traditional fishing grounds, which they had grandfather rights to, that lie in the 6 to 12 nautical mile zone of Irish waters. Given that precedent was set when the UK granted access to its territorial waters to a limited number of named EU vessels, will the Minister confirm that he will press for Northern Ireland’s vessels to have the same privilege as those granted by the previous Government to the French? That is the first of my three questions.

My second question comes from the—I will use an Ulster Scots word—shenanigans being played out between the UK and the EU. The UK has banned bottom trawling in some areas of UK waters that are important to the French trawling fleet. I understand the reason for that and I support it. The ban applies to both the UK and all other countries. By way of retaliation—the French are well known for their retaliation; if we give them a kick, they kick us back almost twice as hard—the French have linked fishing rights to the Security Action for Europe initiative. There is always a clause or add-on to anything that the French do—I could make some further comments, but I will not. There are claims that the EU is trying to play politics with the livelihoods of UK fishermen by attempting to link defence contracts to fishing rights, so will the Minister take this opportunity to renew his commitment to treating food security as national security, and will he commit to pushing back against any attempt to use our fishing communities as pawns in wider political games? I know the Minister: he is an honest politician and an honest Minister. His fight will be for our fishermen, and I wish him well in that.

Our fishing industry relies on the Government to be its mouthpiece and its strength. I know that that is the Minister’s desire and I believe that now is the time to prove to our fishing crews and fish producers that this new Government are on the side of our industry and prepared to push and, if necessary, fight their part. The industry is more than the fishing crew; so many subsidiary businesses rely on it. On behalf of those people—my people—I ask the Minister to send the clear message from our Government and this House that the fishing industry is alive and well and ready to thrive even more.

10:06

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the fishing communities in both my Gordon and Buchan constituency and wider north-east Scotland, who play such a crucial role in the UK’s fishing sector but are facing unprecedented challenges following, among other things, the most recent quota negotiations.

The total allowable catch quota negotiations have been another example of the UK losing when Labour Governments negotiate. Analysis by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself shows that, as a result of the most recent negotiations, UK quota fell by 5% for 2025, representing a 38,000 tonne decrease and a £9 million reduction in the value of fishing opportunities. In total, the UK secured approximately 747,000 tonnes of quota, valued at about £950 million—a decrease from 2024 in both tonnage and value.

Let us not forget that behind every percentage point of the reduction are real people—fishermen and women, their families and our coastal communities—who now face difficult decisions about their future. That is before we even start to consider “paper fish”, or quota allocations that cannot realistically be caught—that is to say, their benefit exists only on paper. That might happen, for example, when a country is allocated quota for species that are not present in sufficient quantities in its water, when quota is allocated for species that the fleet does not have the correct gear or capability to catch, or when the quota exists administratively but does not translate to actual fishing opportunities. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and other fisheries organisations have highlighted the distorting effect of paper fish when discussing quota negotiations, because it means that actual usable quota is less than what appears in official statistics. Some quotas look great on paper, but provide no benefit to the fleet.

DEFRA has published two reports—one on economic outcomes and the second on sustainability—considering the UK’s fishing opportunities for this year. We should remember that sustainability under the Fisheries Act 2020 has three pillars—environmental, social and economic —and that no one pillar takes precedence over the others. In Scotland, about 70% of key commercial stocks are fished sustainably. Yes, there is still room for improvement, but it is important to recognise that progress has been made in the last 30 years. For example, in 1991, the same indicator showed that sustainability levels were only at 35%. The industry has driven that progress alongside fisheries scientists and managers, because no one has a greater vested interest in healthy seas and fish stocks than our fishermen and those who depend on them for their livelihoods.

There is still much work to do for the UK’s fishing industry to benefit fully following Brexit and our departure from the broken, inequitable common fisheries policy. Under the adjustment period in the trade and co-operation agreement, the EU still has unrestricted access to the UK exclusive economic zone. That benefits the EU far more than the UK and, unsurprisingly, the EU wishes for that position to continue. As other Members have mentioned, we just have to look at how things have developed in recent weeks to get a true understanding of the EU’s approach to fishery negotiations. Some EU member states are now saying that, unless the UK gives way to exactly what the EU wants on fishing, it will be excluded from the EU’s defence fund. It is almost unbelievable that anyone would risk the safety, security and defence of Europe and its allies on such a pretence.

Fishing and defence—indeed, national and international security—should not be conflated. Our national security is vital, our energy security is vital and our food security, in which fishing plays a major part, is vital, and each should be dealt with in its own right. We cannot allow our fishing communities to be caught up in this EU posturing. The UK Government must state unambiguously that giving up their rights to our waters and natural resources would represent a long-term loss of a national asset critical for food security and production of climate-smart food. I invite the Minister to do so in this debate.

I urge the Minister to commit to securing a better deal for UK fishing in the revised TCA—one that genuinely rebalances quota towards zonal attachment principles—and protect our fishing grounds. Will the Government ensure that small-scale and coastal fishing operations have proper representation in future negotiations? The Conservative party committed to that in our manifesto, along with seeking additional opportunities for these vital parts of our fishing fleet.

10:11

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate at a critical time in the EU negotiations. I had not intended to make a speech—I was just going to intervene—but I heard him lamenting the interventions.

I will focus on a couple of points. The first is about science, and the second is about the EU negotiations. My constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes has a long-standing, proud fishing heritage. It had the largest fishing port in the world at its height, although things have moved on significantly since those days; what we have left is a single company that operates a fleet that largely fishes out of Peterhead, where the majority of the fish are at the moment. We have a significant fish-processing sector that employs around 6,000 people. The scope of the fisheries sector extends far beyond catching, and that is worth remembering in this debate: the number of jobs in the entirety of the sector is important all around the coast of this nation.

I was struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for St Ives about the differences in expectations between supertrawlers and individual fishers. We talk about the fishing industry as if it is one industry rather than a collection of individuals, some of whom are self-employed or run small or microbusinesses. It is worth considering that there are differentials in size, scope and range of capacity between the businesses that operate around the country, as there are in other sectors, where there are large businesses as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. That may well assist with some of the issues the hon. Gentleman raised.

What struck me from the speeches of the hon. Member for St Ives and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is that we talk about relying on science to drive our fisheries and to give us the scope of the TAC, but the science is often too slow. It does not meet the needs of fishers, who are looking not only for what they are going to be catching today, but, hopefully, for what they will be catching in six months or a year’s time. Although things have improved, there is still room to improve and speed up the flow of information from the scientific community to inform the fisheries community, to ensure that it is properly reflected in the amount and the species that fisherman are allowed to catch.

It is not new that fishing is used as a negotiating tactic, particularly when it comes to defence. It was critical in the establishment of NATO, much to Grimsby’s misfortune in the 1970s. The agreement with Iceland that started the cod wars of the 1970s was purely down to the negotiations around the establishment of NATO and the United States having a base in Iceland. That impinged on the area in which Grimsby trawlers could go out and catch. This is not new, then, and it poses an inherent danger when the desire for safety and security in our nation is potentially weighed against livelihoods and an industry.

When it comes to defence in these very insecure times internationally, we should be aware of the likelihood of the EU’s expectations, and we should go into things completely open-eyed but unafraid to defend what remains of our fishing sector, to give it the hope it needs to sustain and grow. It is important that we do not serve up too much politics in that effort. The conversations since we left the EU, with many years of the Conservative party wrangling over the issue of Europe, have been unhelpful when it comes to the practical manner EU member states tend to undertake their negotiations. It is important to have a level head and maintain a practical and clear-eyed perspective on the negotiations. Despite the noise we hear from EU member states, we must remember that it is a negotiation, so people will raise flags about the issues important to them.

When it comes to exports to the EU, there is an opportunity for UK fisheries in much of what we catch and farm. With their slightly non-white-fish palates, EU member states will want much of the crayfish and speciality fish that do not tend to get eaten in this country. There is plenty of opportunity and not as much to fear as we have heard this morning. I wish the Minister and his colleagues all the best in the course of the negotiations, and remind him not be afraid to stand up for UK fisheries, whether in Scotland or Cornwall—

[Jim Shannon]

And Northern Ireland!

[Melanie Onn]

And Northern Ireland. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—how could I be so remiss as to forget Northern Ireland the day after his birthday?

I remind the Minister to celebrate the UK fishing industry, to stand firm and to promote the opportunities that come from the great-quality products we have in the UK, which I know members of the EU community want. We have quite a lot of strength in our fishing arsenal.

10:19

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this important debate and other hon. Members for their informed contributions. In summing up for the Liberal Democrats, I would like to echo some of the points made and consider the Government’s approach to negotiations with the EU. I thank the Minister for his visit to Brixham straight after the election, and for his interest in the industry.

I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) that we need to negotiate with a clear head and try not to allow the Brexit psychodrama to colour our positioning too much as we go into the negotiations. However, it is fair to point out that our fishing communities were badly let down by the previous Conservative Government, who spent years promising that Brexit would be a boon for British fishers.

Perhaps in contrast to what was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the fishers in Brixham in my constituency clearly feel betrayed by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. He toured the harbour and promised them the earth, then cast them adrift at the 11th hour, giving EU vessels virtually the same rights that they had under the common fisheries policy while burdening our own vessels with the millstone of veterinary certificates and border checks if they want to export their fish to their biggest market—the EU. In particular, our shellfish exporters have been incredibly badly affected by the red tape they now find themselves tied up in.

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations described the post-Brexit TCA as a

“near-complete capitulation to the demands of the EU”.

The previous Government’s botched deal has undoubtedly harmed the UK fishing industry and caused great uncertainty, which is only increasing as the end of the transfer period approaches. As we have heard, it is not just fishers who are affected: it is the entire supply chain and the infrastructure that keeps our coastal communities vibrant.

The Liberal Democrats hope that the current Government are entering into negotiations with our valuable fishing industry uppermost in their minds. One tangible benefit for the industry post Brexit was the ability for the UK to develop its own fisheries management measures. The evidence-led process, which is intended to be focused on long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability, is very different from the common fisheries policy, which remains top-down, bureaucratic and riven by political compromise, as many Members have said. However, it is vital that real-world scientific data is incorporated swiftly into stock management decisions to reflect what is actually happening on the ground—or rather, in the sea.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a real issue in relation to data-deficient stocks, which is impacting the sustainability of fishing quotas. Bycatch rules are leading to fish being thrown back into the sea that will not survive, making a nonsense of sustainability objectives and impacting the livelihood of UK fishers who could land those fish. Small species of fish, which could be caught and offer economic benefit, are not properly accounted for in the quotas. The Government must consider appropriate ICES alternative advice scenarios, which deliver similar results for stock sustainability, to ensure that the socioeconomics have also been carefully considered.

Let us take pollack, for instance. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, a formal review by ICES is due in June 2025. That advice must be fed quickly into management decisions. There is currently no management in place for the recreational fleet, which the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates to account for up to 50% of the total pollack catch. The zero total allowable catch for pollack severely impacts the under-10 metre fleet, which relies heavily on that stock. Catch data for the commercial and recreational sectors shows that the under-10 metre fleet is responsible for the lowest catches of pollack and the lowest impact on stock, yet that sector is impacted most by the current approach to management.

I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives for the Minister to commit to introducing any new management of the pollack stock with immediate effect upon publication of the advice, rather than waiting until January 2026. Will the Minister also look again at recreational catch limits? Anecdotal evidence suggests that a substantial tonnage of fish—even fish with zero total allowable catch, such as pollack—is caught by boats claiming to be recreational. We also need to look again at bluefin tuna catch limits. The species is now becoming more abundant in our waters and, as we have heard, is regularly caught by recreational anglers.

Members of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation, and those operating in and around Brixham, are concerned about the impact of recent annual quota negotiations on the highly valuable sole fishery in the western channel. The quota has been cut every year for the past three years. This year it was cut by 3%, despite the latest encouraging ICES advice identifying no immediate issues with the stock. The decision stemmed from a management decision made in 2023, as opposed to concerns about the stock itself. Catch limits unfairly target the inshore fleet of smaller boats. As we have heard, supertrawlers represent just 4% of UK fishing boats but account for 75% of all the fish landed, whereas the under-10 metre fleet accounts for just 1% of all fish landed.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of our post-Brexit fisheries strategy by reforming the fishing quota allocation system to reward the most sustainable fleet, and ensuring that all catch limits are set at sustainable levels. The example of Jof Hicks in the Isles of Scilly shows how imbalanced the regulations are in an industry that includes such a wide variance in vessel size and activity. We would radically overhaul how our quotas are allocated, prioritising support for small and medium-sized enterprises, revitalising local economies and better protecting our seas from environmental harm.

In 2018, then shadow Environment Secretary, Sue Hayman, said that Ministers needed to take

“urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quotas to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats.”

Now that Baroness Hayman is a DEFRA Minister, are the Government still in favour of redistributing quotas to support smaller boats?

We urge the Government to consider the roll-out of a multi-year quota system that would enable the industry to plan into the future, rather than adhere to the current annual cliff edge system. That would provide certainty for fishermen and the industry, and support the recovery of most of the fishing stock. However, we must also ensure that some flexibility is built into the arrangement, as climate change is affecting fish stocks. We can see from the arrival of more bluefin tuna in our waters that things are changing. It is vital that the industry is able to review catch limits as the marine environment changes.

EU vessels still have free access to UK waters in the six-to-12 nautical mile zone, whereas we do not have the same access to EU waters. The NFFO has described that distribution as “radically inequitable”; I am sure we would all agree. Under proposals published last week, we heard that the EU’s €150 billion defence fund will consider purchasing British weapons only if the Prime Minister signs a security pact with Brussels—something France has tied to fishing rights.

The President of the European Council has said that the EU will not let the question of fishing rights derail a pact with the UK on security and defence. Most Members present have echoed the point that we should not allow the defence of Europe and the security of our nation to be negotiated against the fishing industry. Will the Minister confirm that he will go out to bat as strongly for our fishing fleet in the negotiations as it looks like the French are going to? If not, will he at least try to get some of the red tape on exports to the EU removed?

The Labour general election manifesto said:

“We will seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks”.

Almost nine months later, British exporters have passed the milestone of 1 million export health certificates issued since Brexit, every one of them representing time and money lost by British fishers and farmers. Will the Minister assure our hard-working constituents that the deal for 2026 and beyond will include an end to the requirement for export health certificates, so that whatever our fishers are able to catch they can sell to the widest possible market at the best possible price?

Food security is national security. Protecting, promoting and supporting our fishing industry is vital to that security. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the questions raised and points made today.

10:28

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for this important debate on the impact of quota negotiations on UK fishing. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I thank him for his thoughtful opening remarks about science and sustainability, and his interesting comments about species such as pollack, Dover sole and bluefin tuna, and bycatch.

We have had thoughtful contributions from hon. Members from all parties. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on the importance of fishing for food security were echoed by many colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the opportunities for UK fishing, after our departure from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about the importance of not using fishing as a bargaining chip in EU negotiations, the importance of the UK as an independent coastal state, and the important issue of spatial squeeze.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) talked about the importance of the quota negotiations and what they mean to people in communities throughout the country, and made important points about paper fish and sustainability. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the diversity of businesses and the people that depend on UK fishing.

I am sure that Members need no reminding of the importance of our fishing industry. Fishing has always been vital to the UK across our four nations. It has been the lifeblood of many communities up and down our country. Island and rural communities are particularly reliant on a strong fishing industry for their local areas to thrive. It is incumbent on all of us in this Chamber to make sure that the views of fishing communities are heard.

We Conservatives admit that we did not get everything right in negotiations on fisheries while in government— I am very open on that point—but as we head towards 2026, we have at least made some progress. When we were in government, we worked to secure the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. The TCA represented the UK’s first domestic fisheries legislation in nearly 40 years, and the last Government took advantage of the agreement to increase our fishing quotas. In 2024 the UK negotiated 785,000 tonnes in quota, worth almost £1 billion to the UK fishing industry—a major achievement and an important step in the right direction for UK fisheries. By 2026 that will amount to £146 million, or 25% of the previous annual EU catch from UK waters. Significant quota increases have benefited the pelagic sector, particularly for species such as herring and mackerel. We also secured new deals with other coastal states, including Norway. These agreements, negotiated by the last Conservative Government, were designed to get the best outcomes for the fishing industry.

After June 2026, the Labour Government must take a strong stance in negotiations with the EU to secure the fishing industry’s long-term future. Despite attempts to reassure the industry, it is undeniable that many people remain concerned that the Labour Government will simply use fishing as a bargaining chip in their attempts to negotiate a reset with the EU. It is vital that the Government do not cede fishing grounds to France or other countries as the price for a closer relationship with the EU, as any such deal would be a major blow to our UK fishing industry.

I note that when asked about that by the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in Defence questions on Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence failed to deny that fishing could be a sacrifice in discussions on defence. It is absolutely incredible that we are hearing reports out of Europe that the UK may be excluded from the £125 billion EU defence fund unless the UK capitulates and gives the EU what it wants on fishing rights. Our collective EU defence and security that the UK contributes so much to must not be jeopardised, and nor should our fishing communities be used as a bargaining chip. Will the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs confirm today, as the Secretary of State for Defence did not on Monday, that the Government will not bargain away our fishing industry in such important deliberations about our international security?

There are already questions to be raised over the negotiations for fishing opportunities concluded by the Government in 2024. DEFRA’s own research on the economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2025 has shown a 38,000 fall in tonnage for this year’s quota compared with last year, a decrease of 5%. Negotiations with other coastal states saw a 15% fall in tonnage for this year’s quota compared with last year, representing a loss of £65 million. It is vital that the new Government secure good deals for the fishing industry. I urge the Minister and the Government to provide more clarity on why the quota negotiated for this year has gone down.

It is also important to note that the benefits of negotiations are seen not just in the raw numbers of tonnes secured, but in ensuring that we have a proper process, using rigorous scientific data, so that the right types of fish are also available to UK fishermen and the fishing industry, meeting economic and environmental concerns under the Fisheries Act 2020. As we have heard today, pollack is abundant in UK waters, but the UK has only 24% of the pollack quota. The previous Government put in place support in this regard, and again we ask the Minister what the Government will do in the future about the management of pollack.

It is important that we fish sustainably. I note that in Scotland around 70% of key commercial stocks are fished at sustainable levels. Although that shows scope for improvement, the upward curve from a figure of around 35% in 1991 is welcome. The UK can be proud that our fishing industry follows the science and looks to care for our waters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan articulated so strongly, no one has a greater vested interest in the health of their seas and the health of their fish stocks than the very communities whose livelihoods depend upon them.

The need for proper rigour in process must extend to energy policy, including offshore wind policy, to ensure that while we certainly do what we can to meet our energy security needs, we are not at the same time enforcing a spatial squeeze on our hard-working fishing industry without properly ensuring that we are meeting our needs under fisheries legislation and policy. As with much of our environmental approach, we should make sure that the right projects are pursued in the right places, balancing competing priorities fairly. I shall be grateful if the Minister assures us that his Government are looking to do this.

Although economic considerations must properly be considered in debates such as this one, it is important that we do not lose sight of the human element and the welfare of protected marine species. Both are important to ensure that the fishing industry can continue to succeed and precious natural resources are protected from the impact of quotas.

Also important for the future of fishing is the mental health of the people in our fishing communities. Fishing is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry, and the stress and anxiety that comes with the job is only made worse by the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities face. The fishing industry does incredibly tough and dedicated work to support the UK’s food security, and I urge the Government, as I have done previously, to work on a cross-party basis to improve safety and access to mental health support for all those working in the industry.

In the last Parliament, after an inquiry that I initiated, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals. In particular, the report highlighted the issue of bycatch, where seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. The Minister and I have debated and discussed this issue a lot. An estimated 650,000 marine mammals are believed to die each year worldwide after being needlessly caught and snarled in fishing gear, including more than 1,000 in UK waters. Steps have already been taken to end these unnecessary deaths, including work on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring that began under the last Government, yet it remains clear that more action is needed.

The last Government’s ultimate goal was to make electronic monitoring systems on fishing vessels, including non-UK vessels, mandatory once we were in a position to do so. According to the Marine Management Organisation, only six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels to have suffered bycatch injury or death in 2023, yet the last Government’s bycatch monitoring programme had estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Do the Government believe that bycatch of marine mammals remains under-reported? Also, can the Minister provide further clarity on the timescale for introducing electronic monitoring systems in a sensible and pragmatic way?

The UK also has a very important role to play with our global soft power. Like all Members, I am sure, I strongly oppose the hunting of any cetaceans—dolphins, whales or porpoises. There is no humane way to kill a whale, so that barbaric practice must end. Although there is a tradition in the Faroe Islands of killing pilot whales and dolphins for meat and other products, the previous Government long expressed their concern about the welfare issues surrounding those cetacean hunts and the domestic regulation currently in place. Ministers in the previous Government urged the Faroe Islands to look at alternatives and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring. We very much welcome the fact that the Government recently secured 2,000 tonnes of fishing in this year’s round of quota negotiations with the Faroe Islands, but will the Minister comment on whether the Government used our soft power to set an example to the world by raising our stance on those hunts with international partners such as the Faroe Islands, and on whaling more widely in negotiations and international meetings, given that, horrifically, whaling is still practised by countries such as Norway, Iceland and Japan?

The next few years will be decisive for the UK fishing industry. As we approach June 2026, when the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement expires, the Government must make clear their plans for negotiations to secure the best outcomes for the fishing industry. In any negotiations we must ensure, as a sovereign coastal state, that our fishermen and women retain unrestricted access to our own waters. The Opposition will work tirelessly to scrutinise any deal put before Parliament to ensure our fishermen and women get the best possible outcome. National security, food security and energy security are all critical, and need to be addressed sensibly and strategically in their own right, but our fishing communities must not be treated like a bargaining chip within these domains.

10:41

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the UK’s fishing and seafood industry and particularly the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025. I thank all Members for their constructive and thoughtful remarks.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, particularly about cetacean hunts. I assure him that we have pressed that case at every opportunity, and that is exactly why we will be proceeding with electronic monitoring. We have common cause on some issues.

We have heard from Members from all around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and, of course, the south-west—and the views of hugely diverse interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) pointed out, this is a complicated sector. I will try to cover as many of the points that Members made as possible. I say that to give them a sense of where I am going and so they do not feel that I am leaving them out. I will start with some general points, and then touch on the reset with the European Union and say a bit about the spatial squeeze. I will then address the very detailed points that the hon. Member for St Ives made.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful and sensible introduction, which covered a range of issues. I reiterate how much I enjoyed that visit in the glorious late summer last year—it seems quite a long time ago now. I very much enjoyed seeing the diversity of the fishing fleet in Newlyn and the fish market, and listening to the views of fishing and seafood businesses. It is only by having direct discussions with people working on the frontline that I can be properly informed. It is all very well sitting around having policy discussions, but it is best to hear from those people.

I want to restate at the outset just how important the fishing sector is as a source of sustainable food for our country—a number of Members made that point. There are also wider social, economic and cultural issues surrounding that historic sector. As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, the Government are keen to co-create policy through listening to fishermen and their representatives. That will enable us to create better policy.

Fishing is, of course, a very challenging job, and as the hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly said, sadly it is too often dangerous. It is therefore always right to pay tribute to those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea over the last year. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch published its 2023 annual report in October, in which it detailed the tragic loss of four lives and the loss of three fishing vessels in 2023. It is always important that we remember that. It is also important that the good work to improve safety continues—I will touch on the regulatory issues later—and that safety is paramount. I am afraid that there is still under-reporting, as the marine accident investigation branch flags up.

This debate is about the fisheries negotiations for 2025 and the impact on the industry. It is timely because we published reports on the sustainability and economic outcomes of the negotiations just last week, so I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing it now. The independent sustainability outcomes report states that the number of fish stocks, set in line with scientific advice, stayed the same for 2025 compared with last year, while the economic outcomes report details the UK fishing opportunities for all UK quota stocks in 2025. As mentioned by the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), those reports are quite complicated.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) about the figures, although I take slight issue with her: yes, 769,000 tonnes of quota is down a little, but I am told that its value is slightly up, at £1.04 billion—it is about the same. The issue is that our share has remained constant while the overall amount has fallen on scientific advice. We need to be mindful of this issue. One thing on which everybody agrees is that it is essential that we follow scientific advice. We obviously have to interpret that advice in line with legislation and policy, but we still have the global challenge of maintaining our fish stocks.

As an independent coastal state, our approach to all negotiations has been driven by our domestic priorities, and sustainability is at the heart. We aim to set catch limits that take account of the best available scientific advice, but we will always back our British fishing industry and, through negotiations, push for the best possible opportunities for British vessels. That is a complicated set of trade-offs and negotiations. Many different parts of the sector come to me, quite rightly, to make their case, and they do it well, but we have to get the best deal for everybody.

In that spirit, in our bilateral negotiations with Norway for 2025 we trialled a new approach by working closely in partnership with UK industry representatives to develop a package of quota exchanges. This approach stems from our commitment to putting more emphasis on delivering our policies and programmes in partnership with stakeholders—we are working with the industry, so it is not just us doing it.

Industry feedback about addressing the balance of those who contribute and those who benefit from the negotiations has been broadly positive. In the light of that feedback, my officials will this year be hosting a series of workshops with stakeholders to help us consider how we take forward our negotiations for the next year. I am determined that we do things differently under this Government, and I am keen that we co-deliver wherever possible.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about multi-annual quotas, which we discussed a few months ago. When setting TACs for stocks, we are guided by the best possible scientific advice. For most stocks, that is provided annually by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, but for some stocks, such as black scabbardfish and northern shelf ling, ICES provides biannual advice, so we agree catch limits for more than one year. In some forums, we are seeking long-term management strategies that can provide greater stability for industry between years. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are looking at this issue, but it is important that we respond to annual advice.

[Andrew George]

I am not a fisheries scientist, but a lot is known about the maximum sustainable yield and the recruitment of each of those species that are relevant for commercial fisheries, as well as about the length of life and when species reach sexual maturity. It is therefore surprising that scientists cannot provide some projections for future years. Even if the data is only indicative, it would be helpful for the industry to know it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will go away and discuss it further. Virtually every Member who spoke talked about our relationship with our near neighbours in the European Union. Clearly there is a negotiation going on by proxy, if not directly, at the moment, so I will not comment on the individual points that have been made other than to reflect that we are determined to get the best possible outcome for our nation. I am determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector, because there is a widespread sense that people were sold short last time around.

The temporary adjustment period for fisheries access ends in 2026, as was agreed in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. The Government are absolutely committed to a reset with the European Union, but I assure the House of my determination that we get a good outcome for the fisheries sector. We have proven our ability to build a strong relationship with the EU on fisheries matters, including through the quota negotiations. We have had five years of annual negotiations, and we have built strong foundations on which to take forward future agreements that benefit our shared fish stocks and our respective industries. Other countries are clearly pushing very hard, and we will push equally hard for our sector.

In 2026, the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels into the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation, to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is a very important point.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy. We have our own objectives, and we are making progress on things like fisheries-management plans, which are very important. That is central to our priorities for UK fisheries and the thriving, sustainable industry we want.

Clearly, one of the biggest issues facing the sector is the spatial squeeze, and I want to send a message to the industry that I am absolutely determined to stand up for our fishing sector. We need to achieve a whole range of things in our waters, and food is one of them. That will only get more difficult in the coming period, but we have established a very good process for resolving these issues through our marine spatial prioritisation programme. We will take a strategic approach to managing those dilemmas, but I do not underestimate how strongly people in the fishing sector feel about this—it has been raised with me repeatedly. I insisted that we put out the very strong written statement a few weeks ago on protecting the fishing sector.

[Melanie Onn]

This is the point I wanted to make to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). Does the Minister have a sense that great progress has been made, particularly on the Celtic sea and the Crown Estate’s approach to engaging with the fishing community at the earliest stage to try to minimise the impact of spatial squeeze?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Crown Estate plays an important role, and we are working together closely. Things have improved. It has not always been an easy relationship, but we have a strong process and I am confident that it will work successfully.

I am conscious of time, so I will address some of the points that have been raised, particularly in relation to the south-west. I am very much taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about low-impact fishing. These are complicated issues, but I am pleased that, from January 2025, the licence cap of 350 kg of quota species has been removed for the under-10s. That was quite contentious a while ago, but it gives fishers greater flexibility to diversify between quota and non-quota species.

The pollack issues are clearly fraught and complicated, and I am afraid that my advice to the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not entirely what he wants to hear. We agreed with the EU a bycatch-only TAC for pollack, which equates to a UK share of 172 tonnes of pollack in area 7 for 2025. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about abundance, but the ICES advice is what we have to follow. Its advice is for a zero catch, as last year, and it does not see signs of recovery. That is clearly a problem in the short term. We are forecasting to allow for a 20% increase in stock biomass next year.

I understand the strength of feeling on the recreational pollack fishing industry, and we have sent a clear signal that this is the last opportunity for this to work for the recreational sector. Voluntary guidelines have been developed by the Angling Trust and the Professional Boatman’s Association to encourage anglers to adopt a bag limit and a minimum conservation reference size, as well as closed seasons to avoid the spawning period, and the use of descending devices to reduce pollack mortality. We want to see whether those measures can work, but if they do not, I am prepared to introduce mandatory measures. I appreciate that this is still a very difficult question.

Moving on briefly to sole, the issue of 7h and 7e is quite complicated. This is probably an incomprehensible conversation for people outside the industry, but we are looking closely at the potential genetic connection between the two. We are working with the EU in the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to facilitate consideration of the data by the relevant ICES working group to improve our scientific understanding and to encourage the most appropriate management. There is ongoing work, but I appreciate that this is a concern.

The scientific work on pollack is due in June, and I will go away and look at it more closely before coming back to the hon. Member for St Ives.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman a minute to respond, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I very much appreciate the wide range of challenges facing the sector, and I understand why people are feeling anxious and fraught. This is a difficult time, but we tackle it by working together in close collaboration. I am determined that we work and listen closely.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not, as I want to give the hon. Member for St Ives a moment to respond.

As I said back in November, I genuinely think there is a bright future for the fishing sector, and it is important that we understand it is a key source of food. The Government are absolutely committed to making the most of these opportunities to ensure that we can properly contribute to food security and economic growth.

10:57

[Andrew George]

We have had a very engaging and thoughtful debate, as the Minister said. In the small amount of time remaining, rather than going through each of the contributions made by the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the Minister, I will bring the conversation back to the positive outlook for the future of the fishing industry that the Minister has encouraged us to accept. That is certainly the message we would like to come from this debate.

On the specifics of the future total allowable catch of pollack, the Minister quoted the ICES advice that it does not see any signs of recovery, which is contradicted by what the industry is seeing in its nets as we speak. I hope that we get updated advice before the end of the benchmarking period in June. I would appreciate it if the industry and I could meet the Minister at that point to ensure that we have the most up-to-date evidence, which will be critical to the opportunities for the rest of this calendar year.

I welcome the Minister’s comment on looking again at the regulation of the recreational sector. Those points are worth pursuing, as is what the Minister said about low-impact, small-scale fishing. Perhaps we could have further discussions on that, as I know many Members are interested to know how it can be advanced.

Clearly, the apparent tie that has been made between the fishing industry and defence is the worrying backdrop of the debate. Likewise, the trade and co-operation agreement has cast a shadow over this very productive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

Grassroots Rugby League

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for grassroots rugby league.

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

There was recently a debate in Westminster Hall about rugby union, and I am glad that now that the six nations is over, we can get back to talking about real rugby, especially on the day that the return of the Ashes has just been announced. From the grassroots to the biggest stages, I know all too well how sport is an essential part of our lives. The value sporting clubs bring to communities cannot be overstated, but in my view, there is something truly special about rugby league because it is entirely embedded in our communities.

Those deep roots come from the history of the sport, with northern towns and working-class players wanting a competition that better represented and reflected them. We may see players making TV big hits on a weekend and scoring match-winning tries, but in the week we see them doing the big shop at the local Asda, coaching their kids team, at the school drop off and even—sometimes—down the pub.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; her enthusiasm is infectious. Back in Northern Ireland, the Spar grocery chain group have supported rugby for some two years. Does the hon. Lady agree that, while we welcome that local business support for the grassroots, there is a need for governmental support and incentives to make it easier to support the sport and promote it in the lower classes as well as to women, so that they have the opportunity as well?

[Jade Botterill]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This is my first ever Westminster Hall debate, so I am very grateful for any interventions. I agree that we need to do more and I will come on to women in the sport later.

Rugby league players are not invisible heroes driving around in Ferraris and posting their lavish lifestyles on Instagram. These players and their teams are in their community, not above it. Their victories are our victories as much as we also share their defeats.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. One of the rugby players most embedded in the community in my patch is Billy Boston. Local councillors in my patch have started a petition to secure Billy Boston a knighthood. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that in general, rugby league deserves more national recognition and that a very good way to start would be to ensure that Billy Boston becomes Sir Billy Boston?

[Jade Botterill]

I could not agree more. I absolutely think any recognition we can give the sport is great and we should look at doing that.

The impact, involvement and contribution of players is represented perfectly by Kevin Sinfield and the late, great Rob Burrow. It would be remiss of me not to mention these two gentlemen who perfectly personify rugby league and did so much to increase awareness of motor neurone disease, including securing investment for West Yorkshire’s very own MND research centre. That grit, loyalty, purpose and solidarity, alongside a commitment to others and their community, leaves real, positive, lasting change. We in this place could learn much from them. Community spirit is an over-used phrase, but not with league. It is what we are about, who we are, the game and the fight, but it is also the people as well—the places, families, clubs, and community. That is league, and that is why I am so proud of it.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. She will know, as my neighbour, that Huddersfield is the birthplace of rugby league. We are really proud of that, and of our team the Huddersfield Giants, as well as our local community clubs, Newsome Panthers, Moldgreen Juniors and St Joseph’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do more to support and fund local infrastructure to ensure that such clubs thrive?

[Jade Botterill]

Yes, we need to do more so that grassroots clubs can really thrive. I will come on to that later in my speech.

We can see the spirit of rugby league in the finances of the clubs, from the charitable foundation that almost every club funds and operates, to the shirts sponsored by local businesses. For example, in recent years my local team, Wakefield Trinity, has had Horbury’s Bistro 42, Evenfinish Groundworks, and Wetherby Whaler fish and chip shop on their kit—and now their entire stadium is sponsored by DIY Kitchens. That is local sport and local enterprise coming together for the benefit and enjoyment of the whole area.

What a team Wakefield Trinity are! I was at the game on Friday against Hull FC; it was not quite the result I wanted, but that is by the by. I should declare an interest in Wakefield Trinity, not just as a fan but because the club gave me one of my first proper jobs, teaching PE in schools right across Wakefield. Being the community development officer for my local team showed me the true value of what sport could do for young people. It also confirmed to me how post-industrial communities such as mine were suffering, having been failed and ignored by previous Governments. Indeed, it was through that job that I became political, as I saw the damage the closure of the Sure Start centres did to the families of the children I was teaching.

Because of the spirit of localism and community, where Government had failed towns like mine, Trinity rolled up their sleeves and stepped in. During my time at the club’s community foundation, I worked on projects providing education, confidence, development and opportunity to children right across the M62 corridor. As part of the programme, I took thousands of children to Wembley. More often than not, that was the first time some of those kids left their home towns.

Wakefield Trinity Community Foundation continues to do so much important work across our community today. The club’s Safety Net project runs training sessions for children with challenging behaviour, helping them build friendships, gain confidence and understand themselves; its Trinity All-Stars programme provides physical activity sessions and support groups for children with physical or learning disabilities; and its One Trinity initiative gives people living with dementia an afternoon a month to relive fond memories of rugby league.

During the election, I was proud to take part in a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Movember and Rugby League Cares, to discuss the importance of mental health. I was so moved to see former players, known for their gruff, gritty exteriors, talk openly and honestly about their mental health. In the area where I grew up, and now have the privilege to represent, too often men bottle up their emotions. It was so impactful to see players and the club aware of their role in the community, and so keen to use it proactively to break the stigmas that keep so many from opening up. That work—opening up conversations about mental health—is exactly the value that rugby league can provide to communities like mine.

In post-industrial northern towns, as jobs and industries have disappeared, the institutions and communities that came with them have fallen away. However, rugby league teams have survived, embedded in our communities through thick and thin, providing place, meaning and an entire team to look up to. In our towns, where young people, especially young men, lack direction and are too often denied the opportunity warranted by their aspiration, league can provide role models and structure—a hand on the shoulder, a word, sometimes stern, always caring, when it is needed most. That is mirrored across the north: what were once jewels in the crown of thriving towns are now needed to bind our communities together.

No one will be surprised to know that I believe the new Labour Government truly understand that, and I will support them in bringing opportunity and hope back to these areas, so rugby league teams and their communities can thrive once more. Our sport has already survived so much, but it is vital we provide for its future, so its value to the community can continue for generations to come.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the power of rugby league to change our communities. Farnley Falcons in my constituency was founded in 2005 by volunteers, and it has gone from strength to strength. As a result of fostering community spirit, they now have record numbers of boys and girls playing rugby league in Leeds South West and Morley. I was so pleased to be able to secure funding, alongside the Leeds Rhinos foundation, for them to renovate and build a new clubhouse. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute not only to Farnley Falcons, but to community clubs everywhere that foster that spirit?

[Jade Botterill]

I absolutely commend the Farnley Falcons; they do so much for the community that is so underestimated. Everyone in that town will know how much they do for the community and will be grateful for that.

Securing and growing the sport ensures that future generations have access to the many developmental, physical, mental, social and community benefits of the clubs. That is why I support calls for the Government to drive greater access and opportunities to enjoy rugby league in schools, particularly in the towns that love the sport so much. We want to see more people being physically active, building stronger communities and tackling inequalities.

As a woman who loved league both from the stands and on the pitch, I would love to see more women enjoying the sport. The RFL are doing some incredible work in growing the girls’ game and crucially, their position within our communities means clubs can also bring working-class women into the game—something other sports struggle to achieve at the elite level. However, blockers to better integrating the game remain in the facilities and pitches. Will the Minister look at how we can use the recently announced grassroots sport package to tackle this problem?

As I have described, the power of rugby league comes from the grassroots and localism. I welcome the success of larger clubs in bringing our sport to wider audiences, but the Government must continue to support the smaller clubs who remain its beating heart. Much like the communities that play it, rugby league—from the grassroots to the finals at Wembley—deserves support, attention and care. For all northern post-industrial towns, I urge the Government to continue their work to provide that.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr. Vickers. I am pleased to be responding to this debate and I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill), who represents the seat just up the road from mine. It is her first debate and I think it is a fantastic one. She was incredibly generous to say she would welcome interventions, but I wonder whether she will still be doing that on her third and fourth debate. This is a good natured debate on a great topic, so I congratulate her.

I also join my hon. Friend in welcoming the news that Australia will be returning to England this autumn for the first Ashes tour since 2003. One match will be played at Everton’s new Bramley Moore Dock stadium, which I plan on visiting. This Government are supportive of rugby league and the role that clubs play, from the elite level to local communities. That is reflected in this half-hour debate as we saw the number of Members from across the House who are here to show their support.

It is great to see how rugby league’s fiercest rivals have recently put aside differences to join forces in tackling inequalities. My hon. Friend spoke about her area of Wakefield and I understand that the clubs are collaborating with Prosper Wakefield District, a newly appointed charity partner, to tackle various social issues including the Wakefield children’s bed appeal. It is incredible to see the team spirit in the community foundations of the Castleford Tigers, Wakefield Trinity and the Featherstone Rovers as they unite to address issues such as health inequality, youth engagement and community safety. That is supported by the RFL Community Trust and brings important social value. My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the amazing work and fundraising on motor neurone disease—an issue and cause that is really close to my heart. She also rightly spoke about Rob Burrow and Kevin Sinfield, and I echo those comments.

This year, rugby league celebrates its 130th anniversary. Rugby league clubs make a huge contribution to their communities and week in, week out, local people come together to support their clubs, their children’s teams and young players. They are places where thousands of people play sport and get active every week. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the particular impact of that on post-industrial towns. I represent one myself, in Barnsley South, where we have a couple of grassroots teams, the Dearne Valley Bulldogs and the Dodworth Miners. We see grassroots teams all across the north of England, and that is reflected in the attendance at today’s debate.

We know that community sport, and especially sports such as rugby league, can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion. Through our arm’s length body Sport England, we provide direct financial support to rugby league, supporting it to thrive and grow. In 2022, Sport England announced long-term funding support of £11.9 million for the Rugby Football League up to 2027.

The social value generated by community sport and physical activity is vast—in excess of £100 billion a year. Indeed, the RFL recognised in its facilities strategy last year that social isolation, mental and physical health issues and antisocial behaviour pose a challenge for future generations, but can be sustainably addressed through sport. My hon. Friend spoke very passionately about that; we see it across a number of sports, but the points she made about rugby league in particular were really important.

We know, and can evidence, that being active saves on half a billion GP visits. It also prevents 3 million cases of serious conditions each year, including 1.3 million cases of depression and half a million cases of back pain, and leads to a reduction in diabetes. However, we also know that the benefits of sport go much wider than health. For example, sport contributes directly to 10,000 fewer crime incidents a year. A 2019 report highlighted that every pound spent on sport by rugby league community clubs generates a social return of over £4. The social impact of rugby league on players and volunteers is estimated to be more than £185 million, and although a couple of those figures are a few years old, they underscore the vital role that sports such as rugby league can play in driving positive public health and societal outcomes across communities.

The Government are committed to supporting sports such as rugby league. We do this primarily through the work of Sport England, but I have heard the points that my hon. Friend has made about promoting sport in schools. I was pleased to meet the leading governing bodies with the schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She is incredibly passionate, and we work closely together to try to improve sport in schools. I look forward to continuing that work with my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale, who also acknowledged that in the past week, the Government confirmed that they will invest £100 million in grassroots sports facilities via the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme. Central to that programme is its multi-sport offer: 40% of projects will offer regular and sustained multi-sport use. That is vital investment that will help support rugby league clubs to develop their facilities across our towns and cities, and it also shows the importance of working alongside local areas, taking a place-based and community-driven approach.

We do not underestimate the challenges faced by grassroots sport, including rugby league clubs. They include increased financial pressures with ever more responsibilities, population behaviour shifting away from traditional sport offers, or the challenge of securing volunteers—I take this opportunity to say a huge thank you to all those volunteers who give up their time. Sport England supports clubs to address those challenges with advice and guidance through its Buddle programme, which provides free resources to grassroots sports clubs to help them maximise their role at a local level. It also provides financial support through the £160 million movement fund, which provides both grants and crowd- funding support to grassroots clubs.

The Rugby Football League itself is doing brilliant work to tackle inequalities throughout its sport, clearly showing the value of that sport. Examples include its Awakening Rugby League in the City programme, which will create a pathway for talented athletes who may never have considered playing rugby league, giving them an opportunity to experience the game for the first time in a supported environment. Through the Inspiring Futures programme, delivered by the charitable foundations of the seven super league clubs and supported by the RFL, the sport is able to reach more children and young people, supporting them to grow and develop and helping steer them away from violence and crime. More broadly, the RFL have also been working with its social care partner to relaunch its On the Same Team campaign, helping to tackle prejudice within society. That campaign offers simple and inspiring education that helps young people to understand the impact of their words and behaviours on other people, and how we can thrive when we are on the same team.

In 2022, England was proud to host the rugby league world cup. It made history as the biggest rugby league tournament ever, and as the first time that the men, women and wheelchair tournaments played simultaneously and that equal participation fees were paid. That was a major step forward, and one that the sport should be incredibly proud of. The subsequent social impact programme has done incredible work to tackle inequalities in the communities that need it most, many of which are located in the host towns and cities such as Leeds, Hull and Huddersfield—many of the Members for those towns and cities are present in the Chamber today. That is testament to the power of major sporting events to deliver transformation in communities and facilities across the country.

Following the world cup, we saw a boost to women and girls’ participation in the game, with 33% more females playing the sport just a year later in 2023. The RFL also launched the RugBees programme, aimed at breaking down gender stereotypes and encouraging more young girls into the sport. The scheme is open to girls aged between seven and 11, and is designed to help them develop confidence in areas such as catching, passing and kicking. It is the first rugby league programme to be developed specifically for primary school-aged girls. Following England’s historic victory in wheelchair rugby league, that sport has also seen significant growth, leading to an expansion of the wheelchair super league to eight teams in 2025 and the renewal of the Tryz rugby league sessions run by Access Sport in partnership with the Rugby Football League.

As things stand, not enough people are active or participating in sport—I know that from my own area. We want to do everything we can to get people more active and more involved, enabling them to access the sports they love. As such, this debate has been a great opportunity to outline the Government’s commitment to supporting grassroots rugby league and sport more generally. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale for giving us the chance to discuss this important topic in her first debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:20

Sitting suspended.

Local Government Finances: London

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government finances in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

This Government are committed to fixing the foundations and getting local government back on its feet after 14 years of neglect and decline. Vital uplifts in funding, alongside the move towards multi-year settlements and away from wasteful bidding wars, have been extremely welcome. This is a Government who stand for giving councils, like all our providers of public services, the certainty and stability that they need to go from costly crisis management to long-term prevention and root-and-branch reform of local public services. These agendas are vital for our national missions on growth, NHS waiting lists, and crime and antisocial behaviour, and are an opportunity for all our young people.

I want to lay out some of the main challenges facing local government, which need to be fully recognised and addressed by Government policy to prevent further councils from moving into crisis. The economic and social changes that have relentlessly driven council costs upwards were simply ignored by Conservative Governments. Rather than tackling these drivers and supporting our councils to adapt to the impact of social change, policy since 2010 has at best papered over the cracks. Financial support has been reduced to the point that our boroughs are receiving around 28% less funding per Londoner than under the last Labour Government.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. In my constituency, Brent council has had to cut its budget by £220 million since 2010. Under the Conservative Government, it suffered. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nice that we now have this change of direction from the new Government?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we recognise the circumstances in which we found ourselves and that we point to the measures that this Government have taken to start to fix this endemic problem, which I will continue to explain.

Over and over again, the Tories passed the buck without passing the bucks. Our councils have had to deal with wider changes to legislation and other new duties and responsibilities, even as financial support has been repeatedly eroded. This challenge has been building and building. London’s population has grown by 900,000 in the last 15 years, with massive consequences for rising demand for services, particularly adult and children’s social care, special educational needs and disabilities, and temporary accommodation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. One of the biggest issues for all councils—London councils and other councils across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is housing. The Government have committed to 1.5 million houses, and that is a commendable strategy to address the issue. Does he agree that, whenever the houses come through, the Government have to look at rental accommodation and price, which many people are finding it hard to manage? It is not just the provision of houses, but ensuring that people can actually rent and live in social and rented housing.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Member is right, but we cannot adjust the market situation without adding more houses to the stock. Once we have increased the number of houses, we can start tackling the private rented sector. We are doing so, and I hope that the Minister will expand on some of the measures that this Government are taking to bring our landlords into line and improve the quality of the private rented sector.

As a result of the problems I have described, London’s boroughs are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, one that threatens the vital public services that millions of Londoners rely on, including my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead. Our communities are strong, but we also face significant challenges, ranging from crime and antisocial behaviour to a shortage of decent, affordable homes and the need for better opportunities for young people. All those issues can only be addressed effectively if our excellent councils can invest in our future.

Many councils are now teetering on the edge of issuing section 114 notices—meaning effective bankruptcy—and those risks are increasing, because the drivers of increased costs have simply not been accounted for. Seven London boroughs, nearly a quarter of the total, require exceptional financial support for 2025-26 amounting to over £400 million, and London accounts for almost a third of the total national EFS funding of £1.3 billion. We need to seriously engage with these challenges and chart a sustainable path forward. According to London Councils, London boroughs are forecast to overspend by £800 million this year; particular pressures include homelessness at £330 million, adult social care at £200 million and children’s social care at £160 million. The cost to the public purse will be so much greater in the long run if we do not deal with this crisis now.

By far the most acute financial pressure facing London boroughs is homelessness. The scale of the crisis is staggering: London Councils assesses that one in every 50 Londoners is currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation, including nearly 90,000 children. First and foremost, this is a human tragedy. Like many other colleagues, I have been engaging with individuals and families who are suffering as a result of the housing crisis, including a very powerful visit that I had this Christmas with Crisis in central London. In addition to this human suffering, homelessness represents the fastest-growing financial risk to London’s local authorities, with our councils spending £4 million per day on temporary accommodation—a figure that has surged by 68% in just one year.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing today’s important debate. I agree a lot with what he is saying about homelessness and the challenges it creates for London authorities, whether in inner London or outer London, but it prompts the question of why his Government have cut the housing targets for Labour councils in central London.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but it is difficult to accept that kind of challenge when his Government missed every one of their housing targets over the course of 14 years, and he has ignored the fact that the trajectory I have described was set under his Government. If that trajectory continues, homelessness alone will push London boroughs into bankruptcy, although the Government have been working hard to address the enormous challenges that we have inherited—which I have just highlighted to the hon. Member—after the abject failure of Conservative housing and homelessness policies. We welcome the recent uplift to the homelessness prevention grant and this week’s confirmation of £2 billion of grant funding for social and affordable homes across the country. However, there are further measures that could provide much-needed support to London boroughs.

One issue exacerbating the crisis is the cap on the amount of local housing allowance payable for temporary accommodation, which has been frozen at 2011 rates for nearly 14 years, even though such accommodation has become massively more expensive in recent years. The cost to London councils of acquiring temporary accommodation increased by 68% in the single year up to 2023, while the number of homeless Londoners increased by about 8% over the same period. This has created a significant funding gap for local authorities. Updating the cap would provide immediate financial relief for London boroughs, which could then spend more resources on preventing homelessness.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. London Councils has stated that one in 50 Londoners are currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation, and as my hon. Friend has said, spending is around £114 million per month, or approximately £4 million a day. Does he agree that this is unsustainable?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She refers to one of the three main stresses on our councils: addressing that would bring the greatest relief to all of them. Another step that the Government could take to tackle the homelessness crisis would be to ensure that the LHA rates reflect actual housing costs. London rents have risen so fast in recent years that just 5% of private rented properties are affordable on LHA, pushing more and more families into homelessness. I hope the Minister will set out the steps the Government are taking to review LHA rates, because that could make a huge difference to many families as well as to council finances.

Additionally, a longer-term social rent settlement would stabilise council housing revenue accounts and allow boroughs to increase the building of the new genuinely affordable homes that Londoners need, which we know is the only way to tackle the housing crisis.

When deprivation measures—rightly—have such a significant impact on funding formulas, it is vital to ensure that they effectively account for the impact of rents. Housing costs are one of the biggest drivers of deprivation in London, which is the third most deprived region in England once housing costs are considered. Beyond housing, the fundamental issue at the heart of London’s council funding crisis is a growing disparity between funding allocations and actual levels of need. The main local government funding formula has not been updated since 2013, meaning that allocations are based on outdated data that fails to account for population growth, demographic changes or London’s high housing costs.

Such difficulties can be illustrated by the councils that serve my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead. Redbridge has had population growth of 11.4% since 2011 and has huge pressures from homelessness, with a spend of £52 million a year on temporary accommodation. This is driven by the fact that Redbridge has an enormous private rented sector, comprising 75% of renters locally. The eviction rate in Redbridge is at 4.6% per 10,000 renters, almost triple the London average, with 86% of those evictions coming from the PRS. There is no escaping the reality that shocking numbers of people in constituencies like mine are now being evicted as the housing market changes, and identifying creative policies to tackle it is truly urgent.

Waltham Forest is facing massive pressures from increased homelessness, with a 55% increase in temporary accommodation in just one year up to last October. The requirement to spend under 51% of the homelessness prevention grant on temporary accommodation, although obviously a step in the right direction, will mean that still more of the bill for rising homelessness costs will have to come from the general budgets, including from reserves and other spending.

Costs from special educational needs and disabilities have also been surging, with a forecast overspend of £4.6 million, but the increase in the high needs block funding has not recognised that. Across London the upshot of the large gap between assessed need and actual funding, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified as 17%, is the largest shortfall of any region in England. Many outer London boroughs are among the lowest funded per capita in the country, despite significant pressures.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing local government funding, because this is a huge opportunity to create a system that accurately reflects the current levels of need. In particular, we need to make sure population figures are robust, which requires serious attention to whether the figures for London reported in the last census are accurate, given that many people left the capital during the pandemic and have since returned.

[Mr French]

I echo the hon. Member’s comments about funding not keeping up with demographic changes. That is a cross-party criticism—not one aimed just at the Labour Government—because the problem is historical. Other price and funding challenges coming through include contract inflation, and the impact of the jobs tax on all local councils. The impact on Bexley council is expected to be around £5 million next year, but the Government are only providing £1.6 million of funding. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must address that issue, as well as the issue of fair funding, to ensure that councils can be financially sustainable?

[Mr Bailey]

No, and I will allow the Minister to explain why later.

The Tories’ legacies are a local government funding formula that does not recognise London-wide changes, pressure and needs, and a woefully outdated division between outer and inner London. Even 15 or 20 years ago, the traditional distinction between the core city and its outer areas made some sense: density and deprivation were more concentrated in the centre, as a legacy of slums and deindustrialisation. But the impacts of affordable housing and demographic changes have since consigned that situation to the past.

The population, especially people on lower incomes, have moved outwards, but the funding formula has not kept up. The places we live in have changed massively. Populations have grown as new people have come in, which has pushed up rents and house prices, contributing to real social exclusion and deprivation for many. I will quote just two of the many statistics that illustrate that. The borough of Redbridge has more than 80,000 children and young people; Islington has less than half that figure, but the figures for spending on children’s services are almost the inverse—Islington is able to spend £81 million and Redbridge just £44 million. That cannot be justified by deprivation rates, because Redbridge sits above the London average rate, and Islington below it. The situation is no different for public health, where outdated formulae mean that Waltham Forest receives 2.5 times less public health funding per person than Kensington and Chelsea, despite having higher levels of deprivation.

We must recognise that this is not just about the grant formula itself. Inner London weighting has impacts across many policy areas and therefore affects the quality of life of my constituents. Performance levels across education, health, crime and antisocial behaviour are becoming harder to sustain due to recruitment and retention issues, because teachers and police officers can earn up to £6,000 more just by travelling 15 minutes on the Tube. The disparity impacts both revenues and costs, because many inner London boroughs have a greater ability to raise funds from business rates and charges. That also needs to be further taken into account in the Government’s funding reforms.

Ultimately, we need significant change that recognises the impact of huge London-wide demographic shifts, but we also need specific, special consideration for outer London. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far to reform the local government financing system, including by giving councils multi-year settlements, which allow them to plan more effectively. That said, local government funding reform will not, on its own, guarantee the financial sustainability of local government, and we all know the challenging financial position that the Government inherited.

If greater resources cannot come from national Government, one alternative would be to empower local authorities to raise revenue through greater fiscal devolution. The fact that seven London boroughs now require exceptional financial support should be a wake-up call for us all—but EFS is not a solution; it is an emergency measure that does nothing to address the structural funding problem. The two London boroughs that required EFS in 2024-25 need even greater support in 2025-26. Relying on EFS would only kick the can down the road and allow financial instability to deepen. That presents a further concern for my constituents because our local councils have managed their budgets prudently and well. They have dealt with the inadequacies of the funding settlement and have often had to increase council tax as a result.

We cannot continue to see success punished, as happened under the previous Government, through policies that direct funding towards life support instead of tackling the underlying drivers of increased costs, which affect well-managed and poorly managed councils alike. I urge the Government to work with the local government sector to explore alternative support mechanisms, such as long-term debt restructuring, to give councils a genuine route to financial stability. We look forward to the funding reforms due in the next 12 months, but we must recognise that the pressure driving costs for our councils is linked to other policies across Government, from housing and planning to special educational needs and disabilities reform.

Strong and empowered local government in London is vital to support delivery of our national missions. Whether we are talking about raising living standards, delivering 1.5 million new homes, getting our NHS and social care system back on their feet, or creating good jobs and strong communities, it all comes back to local councils such as Waltham Forest and Redbridge delivering for local communities. Our Labour councils can do so much more if those challenges are tackled.

Despite the challenges, our hard-working local government staff and council leaders are already innovating and delivering change. In Waltham Forest, the council aims to deliver 27,000 new homes and 52,000 square feet of working space. Redbridge has taken forward a new empty property strategy to tackle that element of the housing crisis, alongside plans to deliver 19,000 new homes and 7,000 new jobs over the next decade. London MPs across the House, along with our hard-working councillors and council officers, are keen to work in partnership with the Government to address the huge challenge we face, and I look forward to playing my part in that.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob in the usual way, as they would in the Chamber. We will need to impose a four-minute time limit to ensure all Members get to speak.

14:52

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this vital debate. I requested a debate on this subject myself, so I am glad that one of us got drawn in the ballot. As an outer London MP, I am extremely sympathetic to the compelling case he makes about the disparity between the centre of the city and its outskirts.

Residents in Havering pay among the highest council tax in London and in return they rightly expect robust services. They want to see their vulnerable neighbours supported, parks and streets well maintained, and essential services working effectively. However, Havering has been under significant financial pressure for years. The root cause of the issue is an outdated and flawed local government funding formula that does not adequately reflect the changing needs of our borough.

Havering’s population has undergone significant changes in the past decade. We have had one of the fastest increases in child numbers in the country, and we have a growing elderly population. Both groups come with complex, multi-layered needs. Those demographic shifts have driven up demand for expensive social care services, but the funding formula still relies on outdated data and fails to reflect those changes, which has left Havering facing growing financial strain.

Other London councils have been able to build reserves during this period, largely because they have benefited from the same outdated formula, especially given that covid grants were allocated on that basis. That has created a disparity between inner and outer London: some boroughs have received more than they need, while others such as Havering are struggling. The Department for Education uses a much more up-to-date formula, which is why Havering has received the bulk of London’s capital funding for schools to meet the rising number of children—one part of Government acknowledges the change, yet another is a decade out of date.

I have long advocated reform of the local government funding formula to reflect those demographic shifts. The previous Conservative Government initiated a fair funding review to address the imbalances, but the pandemic stalled progress. Much of the groundwork for reform has therefore been done, and I urge the Minister to accelerate the review to bring about the necessary changes.

In recent years, Havering council has received some crucial uplifts in social care funding, which have helped it continue to deliver vital services, but the fundamental structural issues in the funding formula remain. Without a long-term solution, the situation will only worsen. To address that, in January I facilitated a meeting between Havering council and the local government Minister, Baroness Taylor. I was grateful for that meeting. As a result, the Government approved further exceptional financial support, which enabled the council to set a budget for the year. That is welcome support, but it is a temporary fix, and a lasting solution is needed. Again, that requires pushing forward with the funding formula review.

On top of those ongoing funding issues, the Government have also introduced fresh financial pressures through the Budget. One of the most significant changes is the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which has driven up the cost of social care and other essential services across the borough. Those increases are directly impacting local businesses and services, from pharmacies and GPs to critical childcare providers and high street shops. Just last week, I spoke to several high street businesses: they are facing huge business rate increases, rising parking charges and the impact of the NICs increases. Those increases are pushing customers away from our high streets and threatening the vitality of our local economy. There will obviously be an ongoing knock-on impact on the local government funding issues.

The latest local government finance settlement has provided Havering with the smallest increase in spending power since 2021, an increase essentially wiped out by the additional national insurance costs. On top of that, Havering has been excluded from the national £600 million recovery grant; no non-Labour London council, apart from Tower Hamlets, will benefit from that spend in the capital. Looking forward, the council is looking at ways to get the economy growing again locally, but that is not going to deal with the fundamental issue of the funding formula. I ask the Minister to accelerate the review so that our residents can benefit.

14:56

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this debate.

Local government funding must be fair and must reflect the needs of the boroughs. As has been said by the two hon. Members before me, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the recovery grant offers some respite, but boroughs such as Redbridge —which should in our estimation have received £6 million —did not get a penny. Despite facing significant financial constraints, these boroughs, such as Redbridge, still managed to punch above their weight. That does not mean they do not deserve the money; it means they deserve even more money, because they are well-run, efficient and effective councils.

Redbridge council’s children’s services have been rated outstanding for the second time in a row, and its adult social care is excellent. It has weekly bin collections and has built two new leisure centres and a new lido, with a climbing centre on the way. People might think that it is rolling in money—but that could not be much wronger. While it is a well-run and effective council, Redbridge is the 11th most deprived borough in London, with a core spending power of £904 per person. When we extrapolate that over the population, the council receives about £73 million less per year than it should—and yet it did not receive the recovery fund. That is a lot of money.

We have heard the arguments about inner and outer London. Yes, inner London has the ability to generate funds, and of course there is less ability for the outer-London councils to raise cash. That is equalised by residents from outer London having to pay more council tax to make up the services that the residents deserve. No one can tell me that residents in outer London deserve less money per head than people in inner London. We have heard that housing is one of the biggest decimators of finance at the moment. Homelessness is rife all over, exacerbated by the fact that more expensive inner London areas can buy up housing in outer London areas such as Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Havering. Therefore, at my weekly MP surgeries, many of my cases deal with inner London councils whose people are being housed in outer London boroughs.

The three key asks are for central Government to use updated and accurate data, such as that from the Office for National Statistics, on employment, income and homelessness, so that outer London boroughs can be more fairly served. We need to reform the funding formula so that updated data on deprivation and demands on services, particularly housing needs, are taken into account. Of course, we need to use the census data—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry but the time is up. I now have to reduce the time allowed to three and half minutes.

15:00

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

Before serving the people of Bromley and Biggin Hill as their Member of Parliament, I served them as a councillor in the borough for 12 years. I was also privileged to be deputy leader of that great borough. I have, therefore, long been familiar with the financial challenges that face local government. As much as the Labour party would like to pin the blame solely on decisions taken in 2010, the story is far longer than that.

For Bromley, the story of underfunding started in 1997, under the previous Labour Government. Bromley council’s net budget has reduced by more than a quarter in real terms and nearly two fifths per person. It is true that the previous Conservative Government asked councils to make significant savings to tackle the country’s deficit but, ultimately, without those difficult decisions our nation would not have been able to weather the financial storm caused by the coronavirus.

I regret that the previous Conservative Government did not deliver a long-promised fair funding review, but I recognise that that was hard to achieve in the aftermath of the pandemic, the energy crisis and high inflation. It is a problem that successive Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp. The new Labour Government’s actions have made it even more challenging for councils. It is the same old Labour story in London: more money is spent on Labour areas and less on the Conservative suburbs.

Bromley council was awarded the second-lowest funding settlement amount per person. If Bromley received the average settlement grant of funding per person for London, the borough would receive an additional £80 million a year. In addition to inadequate settlements, Bromley did not benefit from the recovery grant. With inflation rising fast again under the Labour Government, the funding pressures will worsen, further eroding councils’ financial standing. Nor have councils received adequate funding to cover the cost of Labour’s decision to increase employer’s national insurance contributions. This jobs tax will further push up costs, especially in social care.

Bromley is a well-managed borough, and I commend its Conservative leader, Councillor Colin Smith, and his excellent team, but like all London councils Bromley faces enormous pressures that are simply unaffordable. We retain the fourth-lowest level of council tax in outer London because we are a low-cost borough. Bromley council has saved more than £150 million since 2011, but being a low-tax, low-cost borough means there are few remaining savings.

It is becoming increasingly impossible for councils to balance the books. Bromley can this year, but only thanks to the authority’s reserves, carefully built and protected over many years of sensible and responsible stewardship, despite opposition calls to reduce them. That is not sustainable in the long term. It is why a quarter of London boroughs have already effectively declared bankruptcy and requested exceptional financial support.

Future local government settlements must adequately fund councils to deliver, especially considering the rising national insurance costs. They should reflect the higher costs that all London boroughs face, fixing the area cost adjustments that wrongly say that Bromley is one of the most affordable places in London. There should also be a mechanism to reward low-cost and efficient authorities, instead of asking them to make savings while spendthrift authorities are given more.

Finally, the Government should allow councils to change statutory charges to match costs, and reduce ringfencing to allow councils to be more flexible and more concerned with their own priorities.

15:04

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Councils are at the coalface of politics and are leaders in delivery. From potholes to parks and parking, local councils deliver the things that we care about. For too long, our councils have been failed by central Government. They have been undervalued and underfunded.

In London, where councils receive 28% less funding per Londoner than they did in 2010, boroughs are now at crisis point. London’s housing emergency has pushed an estimated one in 50 Londoners into homelessness and pushed London councils into spending £4 million a day on temporary accommodation.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

Barnet council now processes 10 homelessness applications every single day—more than double the number it was processing just two years ago. This, coupled with additional spending on educational needs and adult social care, is crippling councils’ budgets, much as council leaders will try to do the best they can by their local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that that must change if we are to see a sustainable future for councils in outer London?

[Natasha Irons]

Of course I agree. It is imperative that we solve this crisis.

With overspends in children’s and social care services across London, seven London boroughs require exceptional financial support to balance their books, and Croydon council is one of them. As with councils across the country, poor decisions and failure in governance, mixed with chronic underfunding, saw the council issue its first section 114 notice in 2020.

As an outer-London borough with inner-London problems, Croydon has historically suffered from a financial settlement that does not reflect the demands on its services. The debt built up over successive administrations now costs the council £71 million a year to service, and it borrows £38 million of that from central Government. Although I appreciate that it is not something the Government can just write off, I urge them to work with Croydon council to restructure the debt and find a long-term solution to bring down the cost and its impact on day-to-day spending.

Debt is not Croydon council’s only challenge, because even if the debt were wiped out, it would still need to borrow an extra £65 million from the Government to balance its books. Although there are overspends in the areas that we would expect, such as children’s and adult social care, the council is also grappling with a number of neighbouring boroughs placing vulnerable people in temporary accommodation in Croydon while not funding the ongoing associated costs.

A massive 24% of people in temporary accommodation in Croydon have been placed there from outside the borough, with the highest number of placements coming from Lambeth, Lewisham and Bromley. With families often stuck in temporary accommodation for many months or even years, it falls to Croydon to pick up the further, ongoing costs with regard to demand-led services. With councils across London bidding for accommodation and social care placements in Croydon, the council is often forced into a bidding war to provide support for its own residents.

Will the Government look at funding London councils properly, and introduce measures such as including deprivation in the local government funding formula, or increasing the local housing allowance in line with inflation and removing the cap on how much councils can reclaim to cover the costs of temporary accommodation? Will they also consider ways to reduce profiteering in the marketplace for demand-led services, consider legislating to ensure that a home council continues to fund the costs of care when children are placed outside their home borough, and ensure that a family’s home council continues to fund the costs of placing homeless families outside the host borough? I ask because no one wins when councils are forced into this situation and pitted against one another.

If we want people to see and feel the change that they voted for, on their streets, in their communities and across this country, it is properly funded councils that can deliver that. If we want the services that communities rely on every day to be of the highest quality, it is properly funded councils that can make that happen. If we want to make it feel as if the lights have finally come on in this country, it is properly funded councils that can flip the switch.

15:08

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for rightly raising this issue for debate. I am grateful to him, as I am sure we all are.

I endorse the comments of pretty much all Members who have spoken, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez)—we share the borough of Havering. Members have highlighted what we all know: the local government funding system is fundamentally broken. No matter what borough we come from, the current system simply is not working. We are all suffering local services that are inadequate. Funding is not there for things that are essential, and we are seeing money spent on things in local government that I believe are wasted.

Particularly in Havering, as well as in Bromley and in Hillingdon, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), we also say that our boroughs are spending a lot of money to fund the Greater London Authority, and most of that seems to be spent in inner-London areas. Outer-London areas are funding inner London. We have been doing that for many decades, not just since the Greater London Authority and the mayor were created, but under both Governments.

I would like to depoliticise this issue a bit. We can blame each other—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We can blame each other, but the last Government did not deal with it, and I hope this Government will attempt to deal with it. Without fundamental change, the problem will go on and on. What we need is less, but more effective, government. We need spending on the right things. We need to give control back to our local areas and to have less control by central Government and the Greater London Authority.

I will not repeat all the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster, because all the points she made were absolutely correct, but Havering has particularly suffered from underfunding and an unfair funding formula for many decades—in fact, all the way back to when the London boroughs were created in the 1960s. When the London boroughs were created, the outer-London areas, which were considered to be wealthier, were effectively putting money into the centre, and they did so for many decades. As hon. Members have said, that has changed. As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead said, outer-London areas have altered and the demographics have changed. But the funding formula remains the same.

We need to completely change how we deal with this issue. Fiddling around with the figures at the edges will not solve it; we need root-and-branch reform of how local government operates in the Greater London area. We need more flexibility in areas such as Havering, which are not really in London—we orbit London, but we are far more linked to Essex areas than we are to inner London—and fundamental reform of the whole system.

Outer London has always been poorly funded and unfairly treated. In Havering, which has a large older population and a large younger population, and changing demographics, we particularly need more support. I hope the Minister will pledge that support, because all our constituents need change.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order.

15:12

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I need to say at the outset that my wife is employed as a SEND co-ordinator in the London borough of Bexley.

I was a councillor in Bexley for 20 years, including 10 years under the last Labour Government. I hear what the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) says, but I assure him that we had a very different funding arrangement then—my local authority was not in the position it now is. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) is no longer in his place, but he was the deputy leader on the council and I the leader of the opposition when we faced our funding crisis back in 2021. That funding crisis continues to this day.

In our council, reserves have been used to balance the budget for years. That includes the £5 million we needed to balance the budget in the 2018 council election year. Things became worse in 2021, when the council applied for its capitalisation order. It made 15% of staff redundant and had to sell a building for £9 million to fund the redundancy costs. In the period from 2010 to 2015, Bexley went from having the 10th most expensive council tax in London to the 8th most expensive.

At my election speech last year, I pledged to work tirelessly with my Conservative-controlled local authority to deliver for local people and businesses, and I am here on their behalf to make some key pledges about the pressures they face and the pressures we have heard about today.

First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) said, we face the matter of the fair funding settlement. Demographic changes in outer London and inner London mean that the borough I was first elected to represent on the council 25 years ago is a very different borough today. Parts of my constituency, such as Slade Green and Northumberland Heath, are very different, demographically and in terms of poverty, from how they were then. My council’s position is that council tax should not be a primary driver of increased core spending power, and that we should simplify the assessments and reduce the number of relative needs formulae.

Then there is the public health grant. I have sat there, through budget after budget, as either leader of the opposition or the opposition finance spokesperson, listening to the Conservative leader, Baroness O’Neill, saying that the public health grant for Bexley is the second lowest in London. I am pleased—in fact, I am proud—that, under a Labour Government, Bexley this year has had the sixth-highest public health increase of all the boroughs, but clearly that position remains, and our public health grant remains too low. As I have said, our finances remain in a very difficult position, with a £32 million budget gap next year, which needs to be addressed.

Most worrying is our safety valve agreement. Our safety valve agreement was signed because of the significant overspends in special educational needs, but that will expire next year. We are not currently on course to achieve the requirements in the safety valve agreement and the statutory override. There is potentially £12.8 million at risk. As I have continually said to the Government, we clearly need to resolve that to protect some of our most vulnerable children in next year’s budget, but also residents and businesses across the London borough of Bexley.

15:16

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing this important debate.

I was a councillor in Southwark for six years before I was elected to this place. It is a privilege to serve in local government. Our councils carry the heavy responsibility of delivering local services across a huge range of areas, and they have a unique opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of local residents by delivering vital protections for vulnerable people as well as the services that all of us rely on. I pay particular tribute to my local councils, Lambeth and Southwark, for the work that they did during the covid-19 pandemic and what they have done over the last few years to support residents with the cost of living crisis.

I was elected to my local council in 2010, on the same day that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government took power in Westminster. I remember the first meeting of our council, when we were briefed on its financial settlement from central Government at the start of a period of austerity. I remember the shock that descended in the room at the scale of the cuts to our budget as the impact on local services became clear.

We had no idea what was yet to come. For 14 years, the Conservative Government outsourced both the pain and the blame for their austerity programme to our local councils, cutting well over 50% of the local government grant, slashing the affordable housing grant, freezing council rents, reducing investment in the existing council housing stock, and freezing the local housing allowance, driving up homelessness. On SEND—an area in which I take a particular interest as Chair of the Education Committee—the coalition placed almost all the statutory responsibility for delivering services on councils, but took away their ability to deliver new school places directly, driving up home-to-school transport costs and the cost of purchasing places in the independent sector.

There will not be a Member here today who does not see the impact of the housing crisis, and the crisis of temporary accommodation, on our constituents and local authorities. The shortage of homes is driving more and more residents to seek support from their council, and putting more and more into the worst-quality accommodation, which has destabilising effects on families across our city. The Liz Truss mini-Budget had a devastating impact on our councils’ ability to build new homes. Both of my boroughs have ambitious programmes for delivering new homes, but they have had to mothball sites as the cost of materials and labour has been sent spiralling.

On all of these issues and many more, London councils face a perfect storm in their finances, and we urgently need support from the Government. Let me finish with five quick measures that the Government should turn their attention to: raising the local council housing allowance to stabilise housing in London; ensuring immediate investment in small sites owned by councils and housing associations that already have planning consent and can be delivered; addressing the statutory override—there is not sufficient engagement with councils on what the Government plan as they begin to plan for the next financial year—getting housing revenue accounts back on a sustainable footing; and delivering multi-year settlements to give certainty and stability to our councils for the future. I know that our councils have the commitment and determination to keep delivering for our residents, and I call on the Government to support them to do so as a matter of urgency.

15:19

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing this vital debate and making such an excellent speech. As the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, I have the privilege of representing two boroughs—Enfield and Haringey. Both have faced enormous pressures on their budgets since 2010, when we had the first iteration of the then Government’s austerity agenda. Funding to local councils was slashed, and London councils were particularly badly affected.

Since 2010, Enfield has had £200 million slashed from its budget, a 42% cut. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that Enfield’s share of current local authority funding is the fourth worst in the country relative to comparative need, with a gap of £90 million per year. Like many other outer London boroughs, Enfield suffers from damping, under which the Government calculate the need of outer London boroughs but then take away a proportion and distribute it elsewhere. That is just plain wrong. Enfield needs to get the funding it actually requires to provide services for its residents, but it has lost £11.6 million year on year since 2012-13 as a result of the calculation for outer London boroughs.

Since 2011, Haringey has had its budget cut by £143 million in real terms and has seen a 30% cut in its workforce. It too faces huge pressures on its budgets, particularly in adult social care, in which costs have risen by £31 million, and in children’s social care and SEND provision, where costs have risen by £6 million over the same period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead has already mentioned the antiquated inner-outer London funding formula that adversely affects both Enfield and Haringey and, as is clear from the debate, many other outer London boroughs. The outdated inner-outer London definition needs to be scrapped. Other colleagues have mentioned the huge pressures that London local authorities face in relation to temporary accommodation. Last year, Enfield faced a £17.3 million overspend on temporary accommodation, and for Haringey the figure is £13 million over the last two years.

Despite all that, the councils still provide excellent services. I am proud to put on the record the great work that Haringey Learning Partnership does in the circumstances. What needs to be done? The inner-outer London formula needs to be scrapped, and we need to double the homelessness prevention grant, introduce a funding formula that addresses deprivation, and reform capital flexibility.

15:23

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this important debate. I also thank our friends and colleagues from the London local government family who are here listening to the debate. Their tireless work, day in, day out, is not unappreciated, and we are really happy to see them here today.

It has been good to listen to the cross-party support for the debate, but I was a little disappointed not to hear a bit more reflection from Opposition Members on how we got here, despite our having much shared experience as local representatives. That includes the slashing of housing investment by the previous Conservative Government and the slashing of genuinely affordable homes by the previous Conservative mayor—where is he now? Let us not forget the failed fair funding review that the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) referenced, which hung over local government for years and prevented meaningful planning.

In the last 14 years, we have seen an 173% increase in rough sleeping and a 69% increase in temporary accommodation —that is shameful—as well as rising rents and falling investment. Let us not forget that the cause lies firmly with the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill tempts me to remind us what happened in 1997. Labour halved temporary accommodation, made record investment in the condition of homes through the decent homes programme, and introduced the historic 2008-11 programme of new, genuinely affordable homes, which benefits many families now.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Blake]

No.

Let us come to the matter at hand. I would like to talk about temporary accommodation costs, special educational needs and the specific challenges of managing the visitor economy in the very centre of London.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

On the specific challenges for central London, does my hon. Friend agree that Westminster council is making the right decision to make use of the new council tax powers to implement a premium for second home owners? Will she join me in encouraging Kensington and Chelsea council to look at doing the same? That could raise £11 million a year, but is not currently the council’s position.

[Rachel Blake]

I am delighted to celebrate the work that Westminster city council does on tackling the challenges we face as a visitor economy. I am not sure how much Kensington and Chelsea council would appreciate me joining my hon. Friend’s campaign, but I certainly will, because it is for the best for the very centre of London.

Last year, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation, and the City of London’s temporary accommodation costs increased 52% to £1.1 million. I am very proud of the investment that Westminster city council is choosing to make to insource temporary accommodation. It is a real pioneer in that. However, we are doing it in a very challenging environment in terms of overall costs. I acknowledge the challenges that my outer London colleagues face because of the number of families moving to that area. We very much want those families to stay in the centre of London, and I hope that some of the solutions we will put forward will make sure that that happens.

On special educational needs, the number of pupils on education, health and care plans increased by 37%—from 1,035 to 1,413—between 2018 and 2024. None of those children and families deserves to have to go through such a difficult approach to securing a special educational needs plan, and every single one of them deserves the security and certainty that investment in their education will continue in the future.

I turn to the specific challenges of the very centre of London. We have higher additional street-cleaning costs, and Westminster has just invested £2 million in tackling the additional antisocial behaviour that we face. What can we do about that? The Government have made great progress, with £2 billion announced today for 18,000 new genuinely affordable homes, core spending power up by 5.3%, and multi-year settlements, which will make such a big difference. However, we can go further. Let us bring forward the short-term lets registration scheme and pilot it in Cities of London and Westminster. Let us review the formula so that it does not have to be uncertain and complex, and let us tackle the temporary accommodation crisis for good. Imagine what that would do for those families. Imagine what it would do to life chances. Imagine what it would do to public finances when we are not pouring money into a poor-quality private rented sector, but building the genuinely affordable homes that our country and our city need.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

With a time limit of two minutes, I call Danny Beales.

15:28

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

Last, but not least. It is a pleasure—less of a pleasure now, but it was a pleasure—to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I echo the points my colleagues have made about the unprecedented financial pressures on London councils. While we need to tackle temporary accommodation, the SEND crisis and much more—that is as true in Hillingdon as in any other borough—we also need to ensure the very best financial governance for local authorities.

Unfortunately, in Hillingdon, on top of those long-term pressures, we have seen short-termism and poor governance. A salami-slice approach to budgeting—taking off an extra per cent each year—and the failure to transform services and build the financial base of the council long term have all come home to roost, with the council now in financial crisis. We have seen that if we do not invest in new homes, we get temporary accommodation pressures. If we do not invest in early years and youth services, and close them instead, we get more pressures later in the education system. That is what has happened in Hillingdon.

We have the lowest reserves among our nearest neighbours. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy reported that we ran them down from £62 million in 2021 to £20 million in 2025.

[Dan Tomlinson]

In Barnet, we have around 85 care homes. Inner London boroughs such as Camden and Islington have around 20, yet the grant that inner London boroughs receive is around £3 million, whereas Barnet council and other outer London boroughs only get around £2 million. Does my hon. Friend think that that injustice in the funding formula is also causing issues for councils such as the one in the area he represents?

[Danny Beales]

I do—we have to consider the costs that outer London boroughs face, as well as London more generally. As has been said excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), London is special; it is different, and it faces extra costs and pressures. That is the case right across London.

This very year, Hillingdon’s own financial officer wrote a damning cover report to the council’s budget, making it clear that the road is fast running out. They pointed to governance issues within the council and an inability to meet its own, less ambitious savings targets in previous years, compared with the projected future targets. My constituents have paid the price for that mismanagement—they are paying substantially more every single year, with fees and charges going up exponentially, and getting fewer services as a result.

I welcome the calls for extra long-term financial support for local government, which is much needed; however, we have to ensure as a Government that when we agree that extra long-term financial settlement, which hopefully we will, governance improvements are in place. This money should not be used to fix the cracks in the short term again, but should be used to fundamentally transform services, including the SEND system, the housing system, the social care system and many others. In some authorities, when times were slightly easier than they are today, that did not happen.

To sum up and echo my colleagues’ points, London councils are on their knees financially. As a Government, it is vital that we intervene, because local government is key—it is everyone’s front door to government and their community. We need to invest and we need long-term reform of services, including our education and housing systems, to provide the mixed, successful and financially sustainable communities we all want to see.

15:31

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your benevolent gaze, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this important debate, and I point to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which shows that I still proudly serve as a councillor in my constituency in Sutton borough.

London faces a crisis in council funding unparalleled in living memory. We have a funding system that has been starved for years under previous Conservative Governments. As a result, our councils are now struggling to meet the growing demands of the communities they serve. This is not an exaggeration—this is an emergency. Since the onset of austerity in 2010, per capita Government funding has been reduced by more than a fifth, with boroughs now receiving 28% less funding per resident. Meanwhile, London’s population has skyrocketed, increasing by over 900,000 in the past 15 years. The city’s councils are crying out for a long-term funding solution.

Local government provides critical frontline services to our society. It is where people turn for help to meet their daily needs, and it is how communities are supported. Let us be clear: many councils that put in considerable effort to balance the books are not at fault here; they are simply not given enough financial support in the first place as statutory demands rise. It makes a mockery of our conversations about policy here in Westminster when people’s bins go uncollected and children are left waiting for their EHCPs. Our attention should be focused on helping local government, which is at the frontline of the state, to deliver the basics.

Outer London boroughs like Sutton, Kingston and Richmond are getting a raw deal on Government funding—in fact, some of the worst in the country. We see that in police abstractions and we see it in financial council funding.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member mentions that the people of Sutton are getting a raw deal, and I am quite sure that they are. Does he think that the people of Sutton are getting good value for money from the precept we are paying to the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, or would he like some of that money put back into the local communities that he serves?

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Sutton has one of the lowest spends per resident by Transport for London of any of the London boroughs. We have no tubes, no overground, and half a tram stop in the very northernmost part of the borough, which shows how poorly we are served by TfL infrastructure, so I agree with the hon. Member’s point.

Outer London is being left behind, with some of the lowest support per capita. Our broken system means that inner London continues to be prioritised, despite the shifting needs across the city. There is a growing mismatch between funding allocations and local need, worsened by a funding formula that has not been updated since 2013. The data on which those allocations are based—population demographics and deprivation levels—are outdated and no longer reflect the reality on the ground. Research from the IFS in 2022 found a 17% gap between funding need and actual funding across London, the largest gap of any region in England. There is a temptation among many—we have all heard it—to paint London as a city where the streets are paved with gold and the challenges of poverty are less intense, which is nonsense. London has the second highest poverty rate in the country, second only to the west midlands. It has infrastructure problems, growing homelessness and millions of people suffering with the ever-rising cost of living, which is particularly pronounced in the context of London’s overheated property market.

The problem is diffuse, not concentrated in inner London. Indeed, poverty is shifting across London in ways we have not seen before, as working patterns change and jobs and industries ebb and flow. The outdated funding model forces outer London boroughs to tackle what are often characterised as inner London problems with far less support. The Minister must reassess the funding formula to ensure a fairer deal for boroughs like Sutton.

It is time to recognise the significant demographic and social changes that have taken place in London over the last 12 years. The homelessness crisis is an example of how poverty is shifting across London in unprecedented ways. Homelessness in my home borough of Sutton increased by 51% between 2018 and 2023. London is at the epicentre of the UK’s homelessness disaster, with the highest levels in the country. London Councils estimates that one in 50 Londoners are currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation. In Sutton every night 1,200 families are housed at the cost of the council. Nearly 90,000 children in the capital are homeless. That is one in every 21 children in London—at least one homeless child in every classroom.

As the Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and Cheam, I am proud to live in a borough that is committed to housing the homeless where we can, but for the sake of such boroughs that hold that commitment it is essential that we address the gaps in support and provide long-term solutions to end homelessness for good. The financial strain currently put on councils to fight the crisis is utterly unsustainable. Boroughs are spending £4 million every single day on temporary accommodation, and those costs have shot up by 68% in just one year. If such trends continue, homelessness will bankrupt our boroughs and plunge our city back into the dark days of Victorian poverty and inequality. Municipal government will wither away and the fingertips of the state will succumb to financial frostbite, meaning we will no longer be able to reach out and rescue families from homelessness and communities from disintegration. Our city will be a plaything of the rich and famous—no longer a home, but a cold shell. Let us be under no illusion: that is what is at stake.

We are already seeing councils needing exceptional financial support just to survive. The housing revenue account is under unprecedented pressure, and with cuts to resources, capped social rents, rising inflation and ageing housing stock, London boroughs are being forced to cut £260 million over the next four years, making it harder to build new homes or to maintain the ones we already have. So we on the Liberal Democrat Benches urge the Government to urgently publish a cross-Whitehall plan to end all forms of homelessness and exempt groups of homeless people and those at risk of homelessness from the shared accommodation rate; ring-fence emergency funding for local councils for permanent accommodation of rough sleepers; increase the local housing allowance rates in line with inflation; and ensure sufficient financial resources for local authorities to deliver the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. If we do not, I fear the consequences for the future liveability of our city will be existential.

15:38

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing, with cross-party support, a very wide-ranging debate. My starting point, having served 12 years as a London councillor under the last Labour Government and then 12 years as a London councillor under the previous coalition and Conservative Government, is that he should be careful what he wishes for when he has a debate on this subject.

We can already see a pattern beginning to reassert itself in the finances of our local authorities in London and in local government generally. What sound like significant increases are announced, but while one hand gives, the other takes away. Extra funding that has been announced, for the most part comprises maximum possible rises in council tax, very large increases in business rates, and an assumption that local authorities will raise the maximum possible fees and charges from their residents, which is then deducted from any central Government support. We can see the imposition of that in decisions large and small. On the smaller side, we have had representations from London Councils about the impact of ringfenced grant funding to tackle homelessness, which reduces the freedom and flexibility of local authorities in the capital to deploy those resources to keep people off the streets. On a much more macro scale, we have the national insurance contributions rise, which, after additional Government support, leaves local authorities in England over £1 billion net worse off than before the Budget was announced.

Many of us will have served through many years when there were announcements, such as significant rises in the single regeneration budget, and the establishment of the dedicated schools grant under the last Labour Government. However, as Members who experienced those announcements will know, that approach of starting with a standard spending assessment and then damping any increase that it could give rise to, especially impacting on outer London boroughs with a very significant level of social need, has had a significant long-term impact. If there is an apology to be made from the Opposition about our approach to finances in local government, it is that we did not go as far as we would have wished to, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), in redressing some of those imbalances.

The very first council meeting I attended as a member of the public was the last one at which a Labour council ever set a budget in Hillingdon. An 18% council tax rise hit local residents, and the council made £40 million—then around 10% of its budget—in unspecified savings. Let us not succumb to any fiction that somehow we are entering a gilded age for the local authorities of our capital city. And of course, it comes at a time when we know that the pressures on local authorities are rising sharply. According to the charity St Mungo’s, there has been a 29% increase in rough sleeping in the capital compared with the equivalent period under the last Conservative Government. A huge impact on our economy—not just the business rate rises, but the loss of confidence and the lack of investment.

Many Members have spoken eloquently about the pressures around homelessness—the shortage of housing. We have all been ambitious about that, but it is very striking if we look simply at the numbers. The serving Mayor, Sir Sadiq, was set a target by the last Government of around 100,000 new affordable homes. He set himself a target of 52,000—around half what central Government said he should be able to deliver. He actually delivered 35,000 new affordable homes. In total, in equivalent periods, the current Mayor has delivered 65,000 affordable homes, compared with 90,000 under his Conservative predecessor.

Although we all share the ambition, we need the shared starting point as well, of recognising the challenges, including the impact of damping and the inner/outer London inequality. Those things have existed in our funding formula for a very long time, and they are part of a complex set of interactions that arise from not just the current Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and the Home Office. Many, many London local authorities are supporting significant numbers of asylum seekers. Hillingdon has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the whole country—a cost not currently funded at all by central Government, but contributing very significantly to the numbers of people needing to be housed and children to be cared for. That complex picture needs to be taken into account when we debate this issue.

I have some asks and some requests to put to the Minister. Like others, I thank London Councils for its excellent work to consider not just the big picture of the quantum of financing, but the things that could be done, such as removing some of the ringfences that the Government have imposed on how those resources are deployed. The first ask is that, as the Government proceed with their processes on devolution, we look at a true shared decision-making arrangement. There is a risk that the devolution settlement will leave London as the only major devolved area with no formal agreement between the Mayor and the boroughs on shared decision making. We see much of that tension around housing.

I ask the Government once again to look at a process around fairer funding, which has been worked on in the past, to begin to address the inequality of funding between inner and outer London. We know the origins of that lie in assumptions that are made about deprivation, but it manifests in almost every area of local government finance in London.

We still see relatively very large amounts of grant going into inner-London local authorities with low-level council tax, which are also often the ones that are most able to raise revenue in other ways. If we compare parking revenue accounts, for example, London borough of Bexley raises £6 million a year and Hillingdon raises £3.8 million a year, all of which can contribute, to a limited extent, to things such as environmental and road improvements. The London borough of Westminster raises £70 million a year—a net contribution of over £40 million just for environmental projects alone. The capacity of local authorities in London to raise revenue is hugely variable, and not just about the costs imposed by the demographics. We need to make sure that we take that fully into account.

I know that the Minister has been asked for this before on the Floor of the House, so I want to ask him to reconsider the position around national insurance contributions. We have just had an emergency Budget, and have been through a period of six months where it has become clear that the sums do not add up, but its impact—driving up the cost of children’s and adult’s social care, as well as every other part of public service in the capital—has been absolutely enormous. We have had representations from every single London borough about the impact of that. There were promises made that that would be mitigated, and we need to see them fulfilled.

Let me finish with an important point. It seems to me that all Members here, on a cross-party basis, have done their best to speak up from east to west, from inner to outer, for the interests of residents in the capital. We know that those challenges will be significant. I say gently to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the rises in charges are 5%, not exponential.

[Danny Beales]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the significant uplift in public health funding from this Government? Or the fact that there is a third more homelessness funding, a significant and additional uplift in local government funding and millions more to be spent on potholes, one of the biggest levels in London? I could go on. That is a significant increase compared with what happened under the last Government, of which he was part. At the same time, our council is increasing council tax for many people, introducing a garden tax and making significant increases in fees and charges, as well as cutting council tax support to many. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an acceptable record?

[David Simmonds]

I think I will probably avoid descending too much into parochial politics, but it is important to recognise that I will have to pay the garden tax—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will—because I live in the London borough of Hillingdon.

All our local authorities are facing elements of those challenges, and are addressing them as best they can. London local authorities have demonstrated probably the greatest financial resilience of any group of local authorities in the country. We have seen a considerable increase in balances held by local authorities across the capital, but that masks significant variations. In particular, significant financial pressures are being created in outer London, partly because of the significant numbers of unfunded costs around things such as asylum and the long-term impact of the very rapid rise in rough sleeping. Set that alongside the fact that the long-standing structural underfunding leaves them less able to deal with the impact of a massive increase in national insurance contributions and the devastating impact of the Budget on the local economy and its ability to pay those taxes, all of which support local services. Let us take all those things into account, and come out of this with a new funding settlement for London. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that this will not be one of those settlements where a Government simply give with one hand and take with the other.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister it would be decent of him to leave two minutes at the end for the Member leading the debate to wind up.

15:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell, and to speak for the Government in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing it. All the interest from Members shows how important it was. He made a very thoughtful case on behalf of his community and local authority, and of everybody living across the capital. The themes that my hon. Friend pulled out—homelessness, the importance of exceptional financial support in some areas and the long-standing issues with the formula—were important, and I will perhaps reflect on them as the structure for my own speech, and cover other Member’s contributions along the way, notwithstanding the time I must leave my hon. Friend at the end.

The debate has felt at some points like a bit of a recovering councillors’ convention, and I add myself to that number. I know, as we all do, how important it is for local authorities that their Members of Parliament go and raise their issues in Parliament. It would be reasonable to think that it would be axiomatic that we would do so, but, sometimes, there might be a temptation for a person to finish their time in local government and think they perhaps want to do other things. It is important that we advocate on behalf of our local authorities, and I think that that has been done excellently by colleagues across this place.

We should hold on to the common understanding, which I think was expressed by colleagues, of just how good a job councillors and officers are doing across the city to keep vital public services running. I want to add my thanks to them for their dedication and incredible work in the 800-plus ways in which they touch local people’ lives every day. One of the differences between my previous and current political lives is that there is so much interest in what we do in this place, and there never seems to be enough in what goes on in local government, when actually, that can be more fundamental to individuals’ daily lives.

I want to give some context about the financial settlement because it starts with a conversation about money, which has happened throughout the debate. The settlement for this year makes available a total core spending power for London, including the GLA, of up to £11.35 billion. That is a £726 million increase on last year, and it represents a 5.8% cash-terms increase. That is a start on fixing the foundations of local government and providing significant investment for those services and places that need it most.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) eloquently set out just how hard the challenges were in the previous decade, and how hard those decisions were; that was a common experience for me when I was in local government at that time. No single Budget or intervention can reverse the damage and the harm done then, but this debate is our starting place, and I am pleased that it is under way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead mentioned the importance of homelessness and rough sleeping. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) also made some thoughtful points about that. We are very well aware of the particular issues facing councils in London. We know that that is a symptom and an aspect of the homelessness crisis across the country, but that London is particularly affected, for obvious reasons. The crisis is a national disgrace, which I think we should be angry about. There has been a sharp increase in rough sleeping, families stuck in temporary accommodation—perhaps not as visible but just as pernicious—and children growing up without a stable place to call home. Those points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). That is why we have taken action by allocating £233 million to councils directly for homelessness. That includes the largest ever investment in prevention services, enabling councils to intervene earlier with targeted support. The money available for that will be nearly £1 billion.

As it is an emergency, we have focused on getting money out of the door. However, there will be long-term fixes, and colleagues have talked about ways in which those fixes might happen. I point them towards the long-term housing strategy, which I think will be a huge opportunity to grip the issue. I encourage them to play their part in whatever way they can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead also mentioned exceptional financial support. We have made it clear that while we continue to expect councils to do what they can to deliver for their residents, we do know—and we have heard it in the debate—that the sector is in a fragile state and that some London councils are really struggling. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) tried to tempt me back to 1997 in relation to where the origins of that might lie, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), tried a little bit of that, too. I gently say that I was just about out of short trousers at that time, so they will struggle to make me take the blame. I also say to the shadow Minister that maybe we should stand at the Local Government Association conference and ask colleagues there whether they think that the last decade or the one before was better. I have a sense of what the answer might be, and I know he does too.

However, the exceptional financial support process will be there when councils need it. We have been clear that we want to reset how that works so that it is more collaborative and supportive—unlike the previous Government, which perhaps took a more punitive approach to it. One aspect of that is that when additional borrowing is needed to support recovery, we will not make that more expensive with the additional 1% premium, which the previous Government did. We will also take steps to prevent the disposal of community and heritage assets, when that is considered as a route to financing capitalisation support. We know how important that is to local communities.

As has been said, seven London councils have requested support this year and we are working with them to drive improvements. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, those improvements must happen now, and I have been through the process in my own city. It is a moment to grapple with and grasp that transformation process, to take those difficult decisions, and to get local authorities on to a stronger footing.

I want to talk a bit about reform more generally. On the multi-year settlement, the year-by-year decisions are driven by settlement decisions, and we always used to get on Christmas eve. It used to drive us mad, because there was not much we could do on Christmas eve. We need to do much better, which is why we are committed to the first multi-year settlement in a decade to give councils time to plan.

We recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), the hon. Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, the formula has been out of date for years and years. That is a point of political consensus. Of course, under the previous Administration there was the fair funding review, but that was not delivered, so what we have today is a system that does not represent the best value for taxpayers and does not get money to where it is needed most. We are implementing a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of needs and resources as part of the multi-year settlement from 2026-27, so it is coming soon.

I thank those who contributed to the recent consultation—I know London Councils will have done so. There will be more discussion when we consult in further detail later in the spring. I ask colleagues to engage with the consultation in the spirit in which this debate has been conducted, based on the cold, hard facts. We will be very clear about the formulas that we use and what the assumptions are based on. I hope we can have the consultation on that level. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said we should steer away from the parochial, and I think that is probably right.

This is probably a good moment to address the point about the recovery grant. It went to places where, weighted by population, deprivation outweighs council tax recovery. That was emergency money to prop up the dangerous state of local authority funding. It was a difficult decision, but we have been very clear about why we took it and the formula is publicly available. I hope we can engage in those sorts of difficult decisions in that spirit, because the alternative is to have senior leaders of Governments boasting at party events about how they have been able to tilt formulas to get money intended for deprived communities to other places. That was a particularly discrediting experience for the previous Government, and we will not replicate it.

Hon. Members mentioned national insurance contributions. As part of the settlement, we announced an extra £550 million of support for local government, but we have needed to make difficult decisions to balance the nation’s finances. The challenge for the Opposition is that they can only say what they are against; they cannot say that they do not want money to go into the national health service, local government and the police. Until and unless they are able to address that fundamental balance—“If not this, then what?”—I fear it looks like their points are political rather than substantial.

I want to end on a positive note. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for setting a great tone for the debate, and other hon. Members for populating it with their own thoughtful views and experiences. The Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local government; we want to work with it as partners. Similarly, I hope Members of Parliament of any political party or none, on their own behalf and on behalf of their communities and council, feel they can contribute to the policy process and have their say on what formulas we might use and what priorities we might have. We have a common goal: we want vibrant local authorities that deliver for their local communities day in, day out. That is what councillors, council officers and MPs want, and the Government certainly want the same.

15:58

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. It will be interesting to see where I go with my first winding-up speech—I will take feedback later.

I thank the councils and councillors of London, who deliver the outputs that we need. I thank Councillor Williams and Councillor Rai and all the council leaders of London for showing leadership in a very challenging time. I thank the Mayor, and I also thank the Minister for the £11.3 billion—5.8%—core increase.

I will steal the words from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales): London is special. It is different. Local government is the gateway; it is everyone’s front door. I secured this debate not to draw out ideological challenges and bring up some of the unpleasant aspects of the subject that we have discussed, but to tackle the structural problems that have been languishing untouched for so long. I come back to the point that I should be wary of what I wish for when I secure a debate, but I am not: I am wary of Conservative leadership. I welcome partnership and the Government’s approach, which allows us to have these debates knowing that we will bring better settlements—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order.

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

Fly-tipping: Tatton

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fly-tipping in Tatton constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this matter. Hardly a week goes by without someone contacting my office about the scourge of fly-tipping, and I am sure that is an experience shared by many hon. Members.

The name fly-tipping belies the seriousness of the issue: it is a grave matter of someone dumping their waste on someone else’s land. That person has not bothered to dispose of the waste properly and so they think they will dump it on somebody else’s land. The problems it causes cannot be overestimated. I want to focus on the impact on local communities and consider what practical measures can be taken to ensure the problem does not continue to grow.

This is not a new problem—fly-tipping has plagued communities for years—but it is a growing problem. In 2023-24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents, a 6% increase on the previous year, and I have heard that that is rising even further. Hon. Members will be aware that under current provisions, small-scale fly-tipping on public land is the responsibility of local authorities, while larger-scale fly-tipping falls under the responsibility of the Environment Agency and on private land the responsibility generally falls to the landowner to remove somebody else’s waste.

Statistics from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that in 2023-24 the most common size category for fly-tipping incidents was equivalent to a small vanload, making up 31% of incidents, followed by the equivalent of a car boot load or less, which accounted for 28%. Whether beside a road, in a car park, on a public footpath or in open fields, we have all seen it. I share the frustration and upset felt by residents at the impact that dumping rubbish, no matter how big or small, has on their communities.

Fly-tipping is rising across Tatton, from household rubbish to dumped tyres on Crowders Lane, Lach Dennis; waste on the side of the A556 at Lostock Gralam towards Plumley; household items such as mattresses on Holmes Chapel Road, Allostock; and waste dumped in the woodlands of Broad Lane, Sproston, the Sainsbury’s car park in Wilmslow and the Marston playground. That list is growing.

The process to report fly-tipping to local councils is unnecessarily difficult, requiring excessive back-and-forth communication. For example, when I reported a fly-tipping incident on School Lane, Pickmere late last year, it turned out to be a veritable ping-pong of emails between departments and then a trawl of website pages just to report the incident.

Only last month, I met residents from Colshaw Farm in Wilmslow, who lamented the whole process. They are now seeing an increase in fly-tipping, which has become a regular occurrence, and they have to use this system all the time. Those people, who are proud of their local community, want to keep their community tidy, but thoughtless, reckless people dump rubbish in their area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to highlight the issue in her Tatton constituency, which is similar to that in my constituency. One of the ideas mooted back home in Northern Ireland is putting CCTV where there is habitual fly-tipping. One of the requests was for the Government back home, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, local policing and community safety partnerships to make money available for CCTV. Does she agree that that might be a way of catching those who are fly-tipping regularly?

[Esther McVey]

That could well be a solution, or at least part of the solution. This issue impacts Members across the House, and I know that the Minister will have some thoughtful responses and will take that into consideration. We need to use all tools at our disposal to stop fly-tipping.

My residents are gravely upset about what goes on. Sometimes, no sooner have they cleared up the mess than it is back, and it keeps reappearing. Residents of Colshaw Farm tell me that what adds to the problem is that, particularly of late, the local council is not maintaining the area: grass is not being cut, verges are becoming overgrown and broken streetlights are not being mended. That can make matters worse by attracting people to the area; they think that they can tip under cover of darkness or hide their rubbish in overgrown grass or bushes. That needs to be resolved to remove their ability to do those things. Repairing streetlights and cutting grass and hedges are not complex matters to solve. We could all make sure that they are resolved.

The Countryside Alliance’s 2023 rural crime survey found that 35% of those surveyed had experienced some sort of crime within the past year, and the top reported rural crime was fly-tipping, at 37%. Residents tell me that fly-tipping is not pursued, even when there is photographic evidence—often with proof of the culprits. That corresponds with the latest figures: data for 2022-23 shows that only 110 people received a fine of more than £1,000, while more than 50% of the fines were between £200 and £500.

Tougher action needs to be taken. Police must investigate these incidents, and there must be tougher penalties. If perpetrators think they can get away with it, that they will not be investigated and that it will not be taken seriously—and if the penalties are not high enough—they will do the calculation for themselves: it is easier to dump their waste rather than disposing of it properly. The fines do not go far enough. They need to be higher and more severe.

In the last Parliament, the previous Government announced some sensible policies on this matter, not least putting points on the driving licences of individuals found guilty of this crime. I ask the Minister, in a constructive spirit, if she would revisit some of those suggestions and seek an agreement to further this policy. It could act as a deterrent, even a small one. There is no silver bullet, but a combination of different deterrents might work.

It is becoming painfully clear, even if local councils cannot see it, that the limits on council waste sites are adding to this problem, along with limits on bin collection services and new costs for bin collection. For example, Cheshire East council has recently taken the disastrous decision to close waste centres, reduce bin collections and require an additional payment for green bin collections. If a tip remains in their area, residents seeking to visit it at the weekend or on a bank holiday need to book. Again, it creates a barrier to doing the right thing if someone has to go through all these hurdles to dispose of their rubbish properly. Starting next year, bin collections will change from fortnightly to three-weekly, as well as the council charging for green bins. In Knutsford, since changing the green bin collection, we are seeing more and more garden waste being dumped. One resident told me that is because people cannot afford the green bin charge, which has locally been called the green bin tax.

On top of that, Cheshire West and Chester council launched a consultation in July on its proposals to change the way waste disposal is managed. Among the proposals is a change to limit the amount of DIY waste that can be brought to tips without charge, and a pre-registration of vehicles arriving at the tip. Councils say they are closing their tips and reducing access to waste collection because it will save them money. Cheshire West and Chester council says that the changes will help them reach their climate goals. In reality, local authorities spent an estimated £64 million in 2023 clearing up fly-tipped waste from public areas, which is an enormous burden on the public purse. These measures are more likely to act as a catalyst for fly-tippers, and any savings from the cost of green bins and closing down tips are likely to be eaten away by the cost of fly-tipping. Once again, I believe that shows a lack of foresight.

The latest available data shows that there were 4,108 incidents of fly-tipping reported in Cheshire East in the year leading up to March 2023, which is 79 a week. Residents cannot afford for that number to keep growing. We need better financial management and a deeper understanding of how to prevent the issue. Fly-tipping is not a victimless crime; the victims are the landowners, the local communities and taxpayers who are left to shoulder the cost. If someone dumps on private land, it is the private owner who has to clear that up.

We need a joined-up approach that aligns Government policy with councils, and consistent enforcement measures and deterrents for potential offenders. We cannot continue to pay the price for other people deliberately leaving their rubbish on somebody else’s land. It is not just the cost to remove the rubbish; dumping waste presents a risk to public health. Some people do not know what has actually been dumped—it could be toxic waste—and if it is left there for some time, it will attract vermin.

There is also a concerning increase in levels of large-scale commercial tipping on our farmlands and in our countryside, which is growing to an alarming scale. I do not know why people are doing it; I do not know the root causes. I am not saying it is an escalation of fly-tipping—although we are seeing an escalation of fly-tipping in its size and regularity. Instead, it is people buying land in the countryside under the guise of doing something else, opening illegal tips as if they were commercial tips, and charging people to bring their rubbish to dump on agricultural land. That will be toxic waste—it should have been disposed of elsewhere, but it would have been much more expensive to do so, so they are dumping it on our rural land.

This issue is not being taken seriously enough. It is a major problem now arising in Tatton, High Legh, Mobberley, Sproston and Little Leigh. Even if the Minister cannot mention that particular problem today, I would like her to think about what we can do to stop all types of tipping and fly-tipping. This is serious criminal activity. We must break the pattern of crime to ensure the environment and local residents are protected, improve access to our tips and local amenities, and extend their opening hours to enable people to get rid of their waste.

I have some questions for the Minister. What steps can the Government take to ensure that the police force, the councils and the environment agencies work together and escalate this crime to the level of seriousness and importance that it deserves, so that we can work actively to rectify the issue, clear up the mess and bring the perpetrators to justice? Will she consider implementing a national strategy on waste disposal, ensuring that tips remain open and accessible and that bin collections are regular, to prevent councils from reducing access to those services? Finally, what actions can the Government take to tackle large-scale commercial fly-tipping, particularly when it is linked to organised crime?

16:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under you chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing today’s debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his intervention.

Fly-tipping is not just a load of rubbish; it is a serious environmental crime. As the right hon. Lady set out, it blights communities and the environment and harms wildlife, and it can lead to people not feeling safe where they live. We appreciate the difficulty that it poses for councils, farmers, landowners and private businesses, such as the Sainsbury’s whose car park she discussed in her speech. Local councils reported over a million fly-tipping incidents in 2023-24, which represents a significant cost burden to the economy. Over the last five years, these incidents have increased by 20%, so something is going wrong.

That is completely unacceptable, and this Government are serious about taking back control of our streets and our countryside. We have committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created, as part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, and I look forward to providing further details on that commitment in due course. I take on board the point the right hon. Lady raised about the previous Government looking at putting points on driving licences, and I will find out where the DEFRA machine got to on that.

We recognise the role that councils have in tackling fly-tipping, which can happen for a variety of reasons. That can include people trying to do the right thing with their waste and inadvertently handing it over to hardened criminals seeking to make money from the co-ordinated dumping of large amounts of waste. The response has to be appropriate to the circumstances, but we want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the heart of local authority efforts to combat fly-tipping.

I encourage all councils to make good use of their powers, which include prosecution. As the right hon. Lady said, prosecution can lead to significant fines, a community sentence and even imprisonment and compensation for landowners’ clearance costs—those can also be secured through the courts. Although sentencing is a matter for the courts, the national fly-tipping prevention group, chaired by DEFRA officials, has previously produced guidance to support councils to present robust cases in court. Cheshire East is not currently a member of that group, and I encourage it and any other councils that wish to join to crowd in any good work that they might be doing.

Instead of prosecuting, local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000, or £600 for those who pass their household waste to someone without the proper licence. They also have powers to stop, search and seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. To help councils make full and proper use of their enforcement powers, we are seeking powers through the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance that councils will need to have regard to. So it is a much more directional approach.

We need to get a grip on this issue because, as the right hon. Lady said, it affects both rural and inner-city areas. In rural areas, over 80% of farmers say they have been affected by fly-tipping on their land. We continue to work with the National Farmers Union and others through our fly-tipping prevention group to promote and disseminate good practice on how to prevent fly-tipping on private land.

I visited Watery Lane in Lichfield, where an entire van load was emptied one night, exactly as the right hon. Lady described. Those responsible knew that the other part of the road was closed, that there would be no passers-by and that there was no CCTV, so they just dumped the waste in the middle of the road, trapping people in their houses for a couple of days until that waste was shifted. I met the people affected and heard their anxiety about what they would do in a medical emergency and about how their kids would get to school. It is absolutely dreadful. I was curious about the fact that this was seen not as a nationally significant incident but as a local authority incident. That has provoked a series of questions in my mind about what qualifies as a significant incident.

We had a very good debate on fly-tipping last week at DEFRA oral questions—I am sorry the right hon. Lady was not able to join us for that. We heard about a series of excellent pieces of work being done by Luton council, which has had 32 prosecutions, and by Wolverhampton council, which uses store cards. In that case, if someone spots a fly-tipper, or they know somebody is doing something, and they report it to the council, they are rewarded with what is essentially a gift voucher. So there is some quite innovative work is going on.

Stoke-on-Trent council—a newly elected Labour council—has put this issue right at the top of its agenda. Having had 5,000 fly-tipping incidents, it has issued 4,800 enforcement notices and 1,974 fixed penalty notices, and there have been nine prosecutions. It is a kind of zero-tolerance approach. That does not necessarily mean that the issue goes away—often it goes somewhere else—but that approach in Stoke-on-Trent is delivering some really interesting wins. Another council is using drones as well; if someone thinks they are being watched, the disincentive is massive. So there is lots of innovation is going on, and nobody has a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to this issue.

The public also have a role to play, because approximately 60% of fly-tips involve household waste. We know where it happens—along the flank walls at the ends of terraces. I was out canvassing in Foleshill, and somebody was literally just about to do some fly-tipping in broad daylight in the middle of Coventry. The householder I was talking to spotted it and came out, and the guy got back in his van. Householders should check the register of waste carriers to avoid giving their waste to environmental criminals who promise quick, cheap waste collection but then dump the waste in our communities.

I would just say that Cheshire East’s 2022-23 recycling statistics place it in the top 25% of local authorities—it is at 52%. Fresh statistics will be published tomorrow, but it is in the top quartile of local authorities when it comes to people’s recycling rates, so it is clear that the local community really wants to do the right thing.

The right hon. Lady talked about waste carriers, which is a massive weakness. The Conservative Government left us with a system that is frankly not fit for purpose—it is essentially paper-based—so I have asked officials to look at how we can strengthen the current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regulatory regime to crack down on waste criminals. I will hopefully be saying something about that shortly—not today, but very soon.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of householders getting rid of their rubbish. I do not really like the word “rubbish”; the word should be “materials”, because everything has a purpose. If we can repair it, reuse it or pass it on to friends and family, that is much better than simply giving it to the tip and saying, “Over to you—work out which waste stream it goes into.” DEFRA recently published guidance to ensure that local authorities consider certain factors when they review the frequency of residual waste collections, to ensure that reasonable standards are maintained. Part of that is to ensure that there is no increase in fly-tipping, so we expect local authorities to monitor any changes to collection frequencies to ensure that there are no adverse consequences. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Lady that that will be being done.

We recognise the importance of household waste recycling centres. It is down to individual local authorities to handle the operation and management of those in their areas. Previous research found that a link between fly-tipping and booking systems could not be ruled out. However, based on recent data, there appears to be no indication that such a link exists. There are some really interesting behaviour changes going on. Perhaps in the past, if people had to book, that made life more difficult. Perhaps, as we all get a bit more digitally savvy, people are getting used to the new way of doing things. There is conflicting research, but we will keep an eye on what we are hearing and whatever research we have on the ground. It is down to councils to decide whether they will continue to charge for collection of garden waste.

We need to work together to tackle this issue. Keep Britain Tidy’s Great British Spring Clean campaign is under way, and I am sure all Members will be out, as I will be, at a litter-pick. I will be cleaning up in Camden next week, and I will be out in Coventry this weekend, tackling waste one bin bag at a time.

We are also working with the national fly-tipping prevention group, which includes councils, the Environment Agency and police, to look at innovative ways of tackling fly-tipping. For Coventry, we have a Facebook wall of shame, which shows footage from CCTV that has been installed—I can see the hon. Member for Strangford thinking about how this can be used. It basically says, “Does anyone know these criminals? Pass the information on.”

Of course, reducing waste in the first place should mean that there is less of it to be dumped unlawfully. We have our circular economy taskforce of experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help us develop a circular economy strategy for England. We are going to have a series of road maps for the interventions that the Government and others will make to support economic growth as part of our plan for change and to tackle the threats to our environment and circularity, such as those we see with fly-tipping.

The right hon. Lady is right to say that serious organised crime groups are involved. They are taking money at the top end and charging full price, but then doing something different and pocketing the fees. There is an awful lot of organised crime going on, and I am having weekly updates from the Environment Agency about enforcement and what steps we are taking to tackle that serious organised crime. We know that what gets tipped is often landfilled rather than recycled, remanufactured or repurposed.

Wherever people live, whether in a city, a town, a village or the country, they should be able to walk through their area without seeing litter. That includes Parliament; the other day I saw a Costa Coffee cup dumped by one of our Carriage Gates, which deeply annoyed me. People should be able to feel proud of their environment. That is why we are committed to stamping out antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping from our streets and countryside.

It is time to dump the excuses. Working with councils, regulators and others, we will force the offenders to clean up their mess, we will tighten our systems to put a stop to the waste criminals and, together, we will keep our communities clean.

Question put and agreed to.

UK-China Relations

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-China relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I welcome the opportunity to raise in this House the opportunities and implications of our relationship with China. I declare an interest as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, alongside other colleagues in attendance today, who have consistently raised concerns over the UK’s relationship with China.

Since Brexit, the UK has rightly sought to establish new economic and trade relationships beyond Europe, aiming to diversify access to key commodities. As a result, China has become the UK’s third largest trading partner. This economic interdependence presents both an opportunity and a risk, which we must navigate carefully to uphold security, human rights and our fundamental values. Yet we have already seen how economic leverage can be misused. The UK-China economic and financial dialogue in January resulted in a rather uninspiring £600 million deal—hardly the sign of a robust, or indeed equitable, economic relationship. This is not a partnership; it is dependency, and dependency makes us vulnerable.

Take the UK’s reliance on China for renewable energy components, for example. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in her policy renewal speech last Tuesday that the best way to deliver clear energy and a better environment is with the markets. However, the reality is that much of our push for net zero is built on Chinese supply chains, particularly in solar panels, wind farms and electric vehicles. A long-term net zero strategy cannot mean long-term reliance on China.

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

If the mechanisms and safeguards were robust enough to ensure that there is not slave labour in supply chains, would that address the hon. Member’s concern?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will come on to slave labour almost immediately, but to answer the hon. Member directly, I think the security concerns are too great. I welcome safeguards to remove slave labour, but there are still concerns beyond that that we should be looking at.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Of course, that is a wish, not a reality. We have no way of ascertaining whether suppliers are buying from slave labour, and there is no punishment available should they be doing so. The situation is quite the opposite in the United States, which sanctions companies that have been using slave labour. That has made a big difference. The Government have to get their head around this, otherwise we are just going to get slave labour-made products all over.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend, who has considerable and lengthy experience of dealing with China, makes a crucial point. There is no point in having a wish list if there is no sanction or enforcement to back it up.

Trade with China is tainted by human rights abuses. I will give an example. Over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps in Xinjiang; it is the largest mass arbitrary detention since the second world war. Despite China’s denials, we know that UK industries, from textiles to electronics, remain dependent on materials from that region. Xinjiang produces between 20% and 25% of the world’s cotton and polysilicon, which is a critical component in solar panels. That is why Lord Alton’s amendment 18 to the Great British Energy Bill, which secured cross-party support, was so significant in ensuring that our supply chains align with human rights standards.

On 25 March 1807, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, yet 218 years later, Labour MPs blocked a ban on buying solar panels from China.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but this is not just about human rights abuses. There is a reason that China uses slave labour—and it came from nowhere 10 or 12 years ago to now be the dominant player in the business. It is because it does not pay salaries, which makes the arrays cheaper. British companies go rushing over to get them because they are cheaper, and the Government do not mind too much because they do not have to pay so much. The key is that it has to be proper and functional.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I will make similar remarks later in my speech, but that is key. Not only is it the use of slave labour, which should be enough to get the Government to start thinking seriously, but it is a complete undercutting of our market.

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

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) almost took the words out of my mouth. Is it not critical to exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, in particular, not only on moral grounds, but in order to enable alternative producers in Europe, South America and North America to compete on a fair playing field?

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Member is entirely right. I would be very surprised if anyone in the Chamber did not agree with him. The key point is how we move from what I think is relatively universal agreement to actual sanctions and enforcement, to make sure that our manufacturers are competing on a level playing field.

As an example of that, a 2023 report from the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University noted that in 2020, China produced 75% of the global supply of solar grade polysilicon, and 45% of that was manufactured in Xinjiang. That is why the amendment that I alluded to earlier was crucial to cleaning up the supply chains and preventing the UK from becoming core to Chinese consumption.

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will in a minute; I just want to make a bit of progress.

On Times Radio, the Housing Minister gave his “absolute” guarantee that solar panels for GB Energy projects on hospitals and schools will not include slave labour. But without legal requirements for companies to comply, will the Minister outline how she can be sure that such labour will not be involved?

China’s dominance in trade also extends to industrial production. The Intelligence and Security Committee report in July 2023 warned that the Chinese Communist party had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, leaving us with a £32 billion trade deficit. The consequences of this economic entanglement are already apparent. When a recent shipment from Xinjiang entered UK airports via European Cargo, neither Border Force nor the responsible Government Departments took the necessary steps to intervene. The failure to act leaves our economy exposed and less competitive.

Meanwhile, China remains the world’s largest carbon emitter: it emits 15 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually and powers industries with coal while exporting steel and electric vehicles at artificially low prices. What is the UK doing? I urge the Minister to clarify whether the Government are considering measures similar to those that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) pointed out, the US is taking.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the hon. Member not agree that the correct characterisation of the amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that he mentioned is that it was about restricting how the Government spend money on GB Energy? If it had been about a whole of industry approach, and stopping both private companies and the Government purchasing solar panels tainted by slave labour, that might have made sense.

[Gregory Stafford]

I fear that the hon. Member is dancing on the head of a pin there. To be frank, I do not agree with him on that. I think the Government should be really clear about what they are actually going to do to—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

Yes, but then I will make some progress.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I need to deal with this point through my hon. Friend. The reality is that the Government already accept something on which I worked with them when they were in opposition, which is to get to exactly the same position as in the Health and Care Act 2022. The NHS is not allowed to buy anything made by slave labour—it encompasses everything. The amendment to the Great British Energy Bill would have done the same. To those who say, “It’s too narrow because it’s only one sector of the economy,” I say that we have already done it with health and care, and Labour voted for that at the time. I was rather proud of that.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend should be very proud of that and everything that he has done to stand up to Chinese aggression, on trade and on a number of the other issues that we will touch on during the debate.

Let me move on to the security and rule of law elements that I have concerns about. Economic interdependence is only one dimension of our vulnerability. The UK must also confront China’s growing efforts to exert influence and repress dissidents on British soil. The proposed Chinese mega-embassy at Royal Mint Court epitomises that threat. Despite being firmly opposed by the previous Conservative Government, it is now likely to proceed, apparently due to lobbying by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and even the Prime Minister. Housing 700 diplomatic staff, the complex could become a hub for transnational repression and espionage, putting at risk Hongkongers, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Taiwanese individuals who have sought refuge in the UK. The brutal 2022 assault on Hong Kong protester Bob Chan in Manchester, perpetrated by Chinese diplomats who escaped justice under diplomatic immunity, should serve as a stark warning to us all.

Beyond our borders, China continues its assault on democracy and human rights. Some 2,000 political prisoners remain in arbitrary detention under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. One such prisoner, with whom I am sure we are all familiar—Jimmy Lai, a British citizen—has spent more than 1,500 days in solitary confinement without access to British consular support. The Government’s failure to assist him speaks of a broader pattern of weakness in standing up to the Chinese regime.

I therefore support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), which would legally enforce stronger consular protections for British journalists detained abroad. I hope that the Government will start to support it as well.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scale of fear in the Hong Kong community in this country is extremely concerning? Every aggressive act by the Chinese state, whether sanctions, violence against protesters or bounties, only increases the fear of the long arm of the Chinese state and of transnational repression, including among the Hong Kong diaspora I am fortunate to represent.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The more the British Government and British agencies allow this to continue, the more China will believe it can get away with. As he says, that will put further fear into Hongkongers and others who are trying to escape the repression of China.

As China’s domestic repression intensifies, so does its global influence. Its growing control over international institutions, use of economic coercion and unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies all undermine democratic norms worldwide. The UK must be proactive in countering that. Our commitment to democratic values and ethical trade should serve as a counterweight to Chinese authoritarianism. Yet, despite our growing presence in international forums, we have been hesitant to challenge China directly. The Minister must clarify what discussions have taken place with Beijing regarding its blatant contradictions on freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and political rights, in China and abroad.

The pattern is clear: the UK is being drawn into China’s orbit economically, politically and strategically, while turning a blind eye, I am afraid, to its human rights abuses and security threats. We are facing not merely complacency from this Government, but complicity. Whether it is the approval of the Chinese mega-embassy, the failure to act on forced labour supply chains, or the refusal to stand up for British citizens unjustly imprisoned, this Labour Government have consistently chosen appeasement over action. The United States, and indeed the European Union, have already taken decisive steps to protect their economies, their security and their values. I ask the Minister, why is Britain lagging behind?

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Yesterday, I was lucky enough to meet Sebastien Lai, son of Jimmy Lai, who is still being held in Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take every opportunity available to them—every visit, every meeting with Chinese authorities—to raise the case of Jimmy Lai and demand that he is released as soon as possible?

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I met Sebastien Lai myself a few weeks ago and he made similar points to me, which I entirely agree with. To put it at its mildest, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister has not made this a priority. I hope that the Government’s decision not to engage with Sebastien Lai on this changes rapidly, because if it does not, it will send a dreadful message to others who are in similar situations and—as I said to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—will allow China to continue without check.

We must wake up. The CCP does not seek partnership with us: it seeks control. The UK must take urgent steps to decouple from economic dependency, to strengthen our national security and to reclaim our sovereignty before it is too late. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, more importantly, to seeing real action from the Government.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

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

16:45

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow him, because I want to expand on some of the points he made about the dependence of our industry and economy on China.

I have worked in China and have friends there. I am certainly no Sinophobe, but I do think we need to be clear-eyed about the fact that we are in economic competition with China. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon described it as a relationship of dependency, and I fear that that is the position. An inter-dependent relationship would be fine, but we are in more of a dependent relationship.

I remember being in China in 2015, at the launch of the 13th five-year plan. I was shocked at what I saw as a big competitive threat to the UK. At that time, President Xi was in London—we had done a bit of a swap—and was meeting the Prime Minister here. The Prime Minister said he was enthused by President Xi’s plan for the belt and road initiative, and he directed the City of London to fund it. From where I was sitting, that seemed like an extremely bad idea.

I was talking to British engineering companies that had been told they would get three contracts in China. In the first contract they would deliver a machine, in the second contract they would deliver the drawing, and in the third contract they would supervise the Chinese company that would do the installation on their behalf. Many of those companies no longer exist because they have been competed out of the market by China.

It is the job of the UK Government to make sure that we site jobs in south Wales rather than Wuhan, and in Teesside rather than Tianjin. I fear that over the past couple of decades we have been too keen to pursue lower-cost goods rather than invest in our own industries.

The industry that I know best is materials. Some of the critical raw materials we need for our future are gallium, germanium and neodymium—I apologise to Hansard reporters for sounding like a Tom Lehrer song. Those are incredibly serious minerals that are essential for our future. For most of them, China either dominates the mining or has the materials processing capability for about 90% of the global market. It is important for us to consider how we can secure materials processing in future.

Just this week Richard Holtum, the chief executive of Trafigura, the world’s biggest private metals trading company, recommended that Governments nationalise their metals-processing industries in order to compete with China.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Member is talking about a critical area for us all. Those minerals are best described as the oil of the 21st century: who controls them controls the way we live our lives. Surely we cannot consider that China is benign in this market. Quite recently—about two years ago—China blocked Japan from access to the market, so Japan then set up its own position. That attitude shows us what the Chinese intend to use this for if they have to deal with countries like the UK. If they blocked us off, it would cause us chaos.

[Chris McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say a few hours ago that economic security was national security. The two cannot be divided. Because of our belief in the free market, we thought that as long as we have a trading partner we can buy goods from, we are left in a secure position. But we must why—why does China choose to dominate these markets? Because it is an extension of Chinese foreign policy. The same is true of trade. The Chinese belt and road initiative seems to me to be a deliberate policy to bypass the traditional trading ports of Goa, Aden and Hong Kong, where the UK has historically had a strong foothold, to ensure that China dominates trade routes.

The real question is what we do about this. The mindset we need to have is that China has the first-mover advantage in this new industrial revolution. We had the first-mover advantage in the last industrial revolution. How could a country have competed with us in the late 19th century? That mindset means investing in our own industries, and using our own market to do so. We can learn from China in this sense: we can use our own public procurement and invest in our industries. We have a great nickel producer at Clydach; the Chinese tried to copy that process but were unable to do so. Our Lochaber aluminium plant was set up to serve the nation in the late 1920s, and it still exists and is worthy of further investment. The UK also has one of the six cobalt refineries in Europe.

But what of copper? We cannot achieve anything without copper, yet we have no copper-refining capacity in the UK, despite being the fifth largest exporter of copper in the world. These are the issues that we need to take seriously to ensure that we can have an independent economic policy and an independent foreign policy when it comes to China. That is important for our industries and our foreign policy, but it is also important for the communities like the one I represent, where people have relied on good jobs in these industries. We should prize those jobs being in the UK.

16:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on setting the scene so well. Those who have intervened have undermined the issue.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I want to address one of the pressing moral imperatives of our time: the systematic persecution of religious minorities in China and its implication for the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Minister understands these issues incredibly well, and I know that her answers will encapsulate our thoughts, and particularly mine, in relation to freedom of religion or belief.

The human right to freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in international law, but China continues to trample on it with impunity. If we as a nation truly stand for these freedoms for all mankind—as we should and, I believe, as we do—we must take a firmer stance against China’s systematic campaign to erase religious identity.

The United Kingdom Government champion FORB through their envoy and through their position at the UN, the G7 and other multilateral bodies. The UK Government have a firm stance on human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and, indeed, the Minister have all raised human rights issues with their Chinese counterparts, and those concerns must be amplified when discussing the blatant violation of religious freedoms in China. On behalf of all those persecuted and forgotten, I thank them for their efforts.

Today, I speak for those who have no voice—there are a great many in China at this moment. The Uyghur population in Xinjiang continue to face relentless oppression for their religious identity, and this targeting is part of a broader state-sponsored campaign against religious communities across China, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and, indeed, any other area that potentially interests the Chinese Government. It is my hope that the international community will not allow such blatant violations of religious freedom to continue unchecked.

China has continued to crack down on any form of free expression in Hong Kong. Journalists, activists and religious leaders have been silenced, arrested and forced into exile. Churches and religious organisations have been pressured to align with the Communist party’s ideology, which is completely alien to, for instance, being a Christian—it just does not work out.

The systematic erosion of religious freedom and civil liberties in Hong Kong is yet another sign of the Chinese Communist party’s wider goal of imposing absolute ideological control over every aspect of life in China. There are confirmed reports that hundreds of thousands—possibly more—have been forced to renounce their faith in so-called re-education camps. Some Uyghur Muslims have been instructed to re-educate themselves, and forced to pledge loyalty to the Communist party and endure physical and psychological abuse.

If we in this House stand for FORB, and I believe we do, we must unequivocally condemn this assault on not only the Uyghur people’s right to worship freely, but everyone’s right to worship freely. It is a direct attack on mankind’s faculty of free agency. It is not just the Uyghur Muslims but Christians, Buddhists and the Falun Gong. It is any person who does not happen to conform to what the Chinese Communist party wants them to conform to.

The Chinese Communist party has moved from a nominal acceptance of ethnic diversity to an active campaign of assimilation in Tibet and Xinjiang, where religion is central to culture and national identity. The CCP aims to bring religious practice under total party control, replacing spiritual and personal beliefs with loyalty to Chinese cultural nationalism. The state is not merely supressing faith: it is attempting to supplant it with devotion to the great Communist party—or they say it is anyway. The Bible tells us very clearly that the great will fall and the mighty will be struck down, and their day is coming.

The right to freedom of religion or belief is the bedrock of a just society and transcends political and economic interests. The UK cannot stand by as an authoritarian hand passes over what was once a peaceful society, turning every community neighbouring China into an ideological machine, as we see operating in North Korea. Should we allow it to continue, we will have not only failed those who suffer under the regime but emboldened the CCP to expand its repression even further. The time for stronger action is now.

The UK has long championed the right to FORB on the world stage, but our response to these abuses must be stronger. The UK Government have consistently raised issues and concerns about religious freedom in China with their counterparts, as the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and others have made clear. However, it is now time for stronger, more decisive action.

I conclude by calling on the Government to take steps to impose sanctions on all individuals and entities—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said it on numerous occasions—responsible for FORB violations in China. I also call on them to strengthen UK import regulations to ensure that goods produced through forced labour linked to religious persecution, whether in Xinjiang or elsewhere, do not ever enter our markets.

16:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. I acknowledge my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. I pay tribute to the Minister for her role in improving the UK-China relationship and the UK’s bilateral relationships with other Asian nations such as the Philippines and Thailand. These are the fastest-growing economies in the world, and we need to trade and invest where the economic action is.

I participated in a cross-party delegation trip to Beijing at the start of this year. During the trip, it was clear to me—with my eyes wide open—that there is much that the UK and China can co-operate on. The focus of the delegation was on how the UK and China can strengthen global artificial intelligence safety regulations, and what learning we should share regarding our domestic approaches to that issue. It was clear that the UK and China can also increase co-operation on trade, especially by increasing trade in agrifood, life sciences, pharmaceuticals, education and professional services. There is also more we can do together to tackle climate change, promote biodiversity and strengthen global pandemic preparedness.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am fascinated by the argument the hon. Member is developing. Could he point to anything significant that China is doing to reduce its footprint?

[Tony Vaughan]

It is difficult to see how we are going to address these huge global challenges without involving China. I am not advocating for China, but relevant to the hon. Member’s question is the fact that it has a hugely fast-growing green energy technology sector. Of course China has huge carbon omissions as well, and that is another issue.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, 35% of China’s energy is renewable energy, which is up from 0% 15 years ago. By the end of this decade, given the rate at which it is expanding, China will be responsible for 60% of the globe’s renewable energy production.

[Tony Vaughan]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he is more on top of the statistics than I am.

With China being a member of the G20 and the UN Security Council, and the third-largest trading partner for the UK—if one includes Hong Kong—it is entirely logical that the Government should aspire to a more stable and consistent relationship. To do anything different would not be in the UK’s national interests.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

There are well-documented links between Russia and China. It is publicised and well-known that China buys Russia’s oil and all the rest of it. We are fighting Russia at the moment in Europe; it is our primary adversary. Why on earth would we want to have a close and stable relationship with China?

[Tony Vaughan]

As I said, I am not advocating for China; I am saying that, as the third-largest trading partner with Hong Kong, we cannot pretend that it does not exist. We cannot pretend that there is no role for building dialogue and engagement. The reality is that, given the way the tectonic plates of global affairs are moving, it is in China’s interests to have a stable Europe. Who else will buy its electric cars, for example? There is an evolution in the way we should look at these things, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point.

Over the last 14 years, British foreign policy towards China resembled a rollercoaster. We had the golden era under the Cameron Government, when President Xi enjoyed a state visit and, as the Foreign Secretary recently reminded us, had a beer in a pub with the Prime Minister. We had the May Government’s justified scepticism about China General Nuclear Power Corporation’s involvement in Hinkley, and then the Johnson Government’s confused China policy, culminating in Liz Truss’s cold war 2.0-style policy. No serious nation should aim to have a bilateral relationship with the world’s second-largest economy that resembles a fairground ride. The Chancellor’s trip to China for the economic and financial dialogue in January, concluding agreements of up to £1 billion for the UK economy over five years, is an example of how taking a grown-up relationship to China is in our national interest.

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

The Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on China in 2023. The public version said that it is China’s

“ambition at a global level—to become a technological and economic superpower, on which other countries are reliant—that poses a national security threat to the UK.”

How does the hon. Gentleman see it?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree that a national security-first approach to China must be the position. As I understand it, that is the position of the Government. That is why the position taken on the embassy is a national security issue; I know that there has been some debate about that, but I am not in a position to second-guess MI6, MI5 and the security services, and that has to be the lens through which we look at these issues.

I have referred to the EFD outcomes. Critics of engagement overlook the fact that some nations who took a robust approach to China were still engaging in the background. If we step back while competitors—including the United States, which has also taken a robust approach to China—are engaging, we are missing a trick. The UK had not sent a Prime Minister to China in many years. I am pleased that the Government aim to have a relationship with China based on what I understand to be a national security approach, while also co-operating with, competing with and challenging China where appropriate. Engaging with does not, of course, meaning agreeing with.

[Jim Shannon]

I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am conscious of what he is putting forward, but I do not hear anything in his speech to do with human rights or religious persecution. We must make that central to our economic business with China. That is the Minister’s mission, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will come on to that shortly and reassure us that those are also his thoughts.

[Tony Vaughan]

That is exactly what I am now moving on to. As I said, engaging with does not mean agreeing with. Part of our stable and consistent relationship with China involves raising human rights concerns with it, stably and consistently, as the Prime Minister did with the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi last year. I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and the barristers representing his father and I was very concerned to hear of Jimmy Lai’s deteriorating medical situation. I urge the Prime Minister to meet his team to discuss what the British Government can do to effect his release.

Another example is the compelling evidence of the use of forced labour in energy supply chains in China, especially polysilicon. I do not believe our green energy transition should be built from solar panels built using forced labour. We must take a whole-of-industry approach, with robust safeguards against the import of solar panels when it cannot be shown that they are free from forced labour. In the long term, our country needs to become self-sufficient in our industrial supply chains, such as renewable technology production. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said about protecting UK domestic industries and jobs, which must be prioritised.

A grown-up relationship with China means believing that we should work with China on areas that do not impact national security and human rights, while also putting our foot down in areas that do. It will always be a highly complex bilateral relationship, with tricky trade-offs and tensions, and I fully accept that there is a role for pressing China extremely hard, as some in this Chamber have done. I am pleased to see the Government’s success so far in bringing stability and pragmatism to that relationship.

17:05

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I concur with the view expressed in the integrated review refresh 2023 that China represents a strategic challenge to the UK,

“across almost every aspect of national life and government policy.”

This debate has been a chance to consider how the Government are focusing on meeting that challenge. Suffice to say, from my and my party’s perspective, at this stage it is disappointing. I accept that it is not easy, as the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) just set out; the Conservative party lurched from sharing pints with the President of China to in 2021 designating China as,

“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.

Xi is able to think strategically over many years, now that he has such great control of the Chinese apparatus, so the UK needs to do better and be more constant.

First, we need to be more clear-sighted about the threat that China poses. Secondly, we need to make use of the full apparatus available to us. Thirdly, we must set out some red lines, and show the Chinese Government that breaching them will have consequences. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe is right to highlight the scale that China has when it comes to the global economy, but the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also right to point out, from his position of experience, the importance that that has for UK industry. However, we must balance those economic interests with the threat, and it is my view that, at the moment, the Government’s position is too accommodating and not sufficiently robust.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

We may disagree about what we heard earlier on today in the spring statement about whether the economy is growing, but we are certain that this Government will grasp ever more desperately at the will-o’-the-wisp of growth in the months and years to come. Does he agree that—unlike the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who said he went to China with his eyes wide open—we might as a country end up turning a Nelsonian eye to human rights abuse, to the fact we are exporting our net zero to a highly carbonised economy and to the cyber-attacks we experience daily from China in order to chase after growth that is not coming?

[Calum Miller]

I agree with the hon. Member on two fronts. First, he and I agree more on our disappointment with today’s growth figure than he gives me credit for. Secondly, the Government have set out that they wish at times to challenge, at times to co-operate and at other times to compete with China, but it is my contention that, as he set out, they are too intent on co-operation and not sufficiently intent on challenge.

I will briefly set out three areas of threat, starting with security and echoing the comments made by others. We face direct threats in the form of cyber-attacks, the threat of China as an ally to our enemies and see China threatening some of our own allies, including Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Secondly, we face threats in terms of economic vulnerability. Many other Members have spoken about our dependency. In addition, the Government’s regrettable decision to cut the UK’s overseas aid budget creates an opening space for China in the global south, through its belt and road initiative, to increase the debt dependency of countries on itself, and therefore to increase its influence in the world. On the economic side, there are credible reports of China’s attempts to steal intellectual property from the United Kingdom’s university and tech sectors, and I am concerned that the Government are not doing enough to stop that.

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member mentions Chinese theft of intellectual property. Does he agree that it is also concerning when we give it away, such as when UK universities set up campuses in China to train Chinese technicians to outcompete British industry?

[Calum Miller]

It is a delicate balancing act, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have articulated. If we want collaboration and co-operation then information will inevitably flow, but it is important that there is transparency about that and that the right economic benefit is derived from any intellectual property, if it is transferred.

The third, and perhaps most important, area of threat is around human rights and political interference—other hon. Members have spoken about this, so I shall be brief. I too have met with the team supporting Jimmy Lai and his son Sebastien and I call on the Government to reassure us that his case is being upheld. I also had the opportunity to meet with two of those people in the United Kingdom who, in return for campaigning for real democracy in Hong Kong, have suffered being placed under bounties by the Hong Kong authorities— I know that one such person, Carmen Lau, is in the Public Gallery.

The fact that the Hong Kong authorities see fit to distribute posters and letters on UK soil to neighbours, in order to intimidate those who have stood up for political rights in Hong Kong, is appalling. I would like reassurance from the Government that much more is being done, including through our police forces, to identify who, within the allegedly diplomatic team from China, has done that. It is critical that we take these items together, see them as part of one entity and take a holistic approach to China. Too often, the Government have treated such things in compartments, spoken briefly about human rights and then failed to address other issues.

To conclude, I call on the Government to use the apparatus available to them, to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, to fully introduce the foreign influence registration scheme and place China in the enhanced tier, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review. We cannot allow China to dominate our relationship with it. The Government must be prepared to set out red lines, and to demonstrate the consequences if China does not observe them.

17:12

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. UK-China relations will be increasingly important as we progress, and as the threat of China becomes more evident. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It seems there is a consensus about the threat that China poses, although it is not entirely unanimous; the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) seems to have a slightly different approach. I believe that China is one of the greatest threats—if not the greatest threat—to our freedom and security, which is why it is vital to address this issue.

China is a nation with a proud history and a rich civilisation, deserving of respect—but that respect cannot come at the expense of turning a blind eye to aggression, human rights abuses and attempts to undermine the international order. The Government have announced that they are conducting a China audit, but we are yet to hear what that actually entails. It is not enough for Ministers to review our policy towards China behind closed doors; the British people deserve transparency and Parliament deserves answers.

[Edward Morello]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will make some progress, then come to the hon. Member if there is time.

I begin with the issue of Taiwan-Republic of China. Beijing’s increasingly assertive behaviour towards Taiwan—including military activity around the island, airspace incursions and naval operations—is a cause of growing concern. I ask the Minister: does the UK remain committed to the One China policy? If so, how do the Government intend to balance that position with our strong interest in supporting Taiwan’s democracy and the principle that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and without coercion? The people of Taiwan should have the freedom to shape their own future without the threat of force. What steps are the Government taking, alongside the United States, Japan and Australia, to reduce tensions and deter any escalation in the Taiwan strait? Taiwan is a proud democracy and deserves to have its freedom. It should not be coerced—and, as an ally of Taiwan, we should certainly be standing shoulder to shoulder with it.

Next, I would like to say a few words about the belt and road initiative. Beijing claims that that programme is about infrastructure and development, but in reality it serves as a tool for strategic dominance and debt entrapment across Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe. We have seen the consequences of that so-called investment: developing nations find themselves shackled by unsustainable debt, forced to hand over key infrastructure and strategic assets when they cannot meet Beijing’s demands. What is the Government’s strategy to counter that growing influence? How are we supporting our Commonwealth partners and other vulnerable nations to resist that economic model, and will the Minister tell us what alternative we are offering to the developing world, to avoid those nations being trapped in Beijing’s orbit?

Turning to Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist party’s flagrant violation of the Sino-British joint declaration is seriously jeopardising the “one nation, two systems” framework. Beijing has crushed political opposition, tried to silence the free press, and criminalised dissent. In light of that, I ask the Minister what our long-term strategy is for holding Beijing accountable for breaking its treaty obligations. How are we supporting British nationals overseas who have made the courageous decision to leave Hong Kong and settle in the United Kingdom, and who may be at risk of transitional repression?

The case of Jimmy Lai stands as a stark symbol of Beijing’s assault on press freedom and political dissent in Hong Kong. Lai, a British citizen and a founder of Apple Daily, has been targeted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law for the so-called crime of defending democracy. His prosecution is not just an attack on an individual, but an attempt to silence independent journalism and intimidate anyone who dares to criticise the CCP’s actions in Hong Kong. What steps are the Government taking to protect the rights of British citizens such as Jimmy Lai who are facing politically motivated prosecutions in Hong Kong? Does the Minister agree that this politically motivated trial must end and that Jimmy Lai must be released, and what is the Government’s strategy for making the case that the national security law should be replaced?

The CCP’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang are well documented, with forced labour, mass internment, and systematic persecution of the Uyghur population. It is therefore deeply concerning that the Government appear to be resisting efforts to block the procurement of Chinese solar panels linked to forced labour through the Great British Energy Bill. I ask the Government directly: what assurances can Ministers provide that the UK’s transition to net zero will not come at the cost of complicity in modern slavery? How will the Government ensure that supply chains for renewable energy infrastructure are free from forced labour and other human rights abuses?

As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out in her recent speech, the idea of achieving net zero by 2050 while relying heavily on Chinese technology and supply chains is “fantasy politics”. We cannot afford an over-reliance on China, as should have become clear following the pandemic. What steps are the Government taking to reduce strategic dependence on China, particularly in critical industries such as energy, telecommunications and rare earth minerals?

The proposed Chinese super-embassy in London raises concerns about Beijing’s growing influence in the UK. The unprecedented size and scope of that facility has prompted worries about potential security risks and pressure on Chinese dissidents. Reports of covert Chinese police stations in the UK add to those fears. Have the Government assessed the national security risks involved, and will they consider restricting or scaling down that proposal? More broadly, what steps are the Government taking to prevent foreign powers from using British soil for covert operations or political intimidation? I want to make the case again—as my party has said before—that China should be on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.

Finally, I must raise the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent visit to China. What, if any, assurances did the Chancellor seek on human rights during her visit on Hong Kong, the Uyghurs or Taiwan and how do the Government intend to ensure that any future economic engagement with China does not compromise our strategic interests? China presents one of the big geopolitical challenges of our age, not just to Britain, but to the entire free world; we cannot afford to be naive. Engagement must be grounded in realism, not wishful thinking. We must work with our allies to check aggression and defend our democratic values. The British people deserve to know where their Government stand, and the Government must be prepared to act and not just talk.

17:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, in such a crucial debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it and all hon. Members for their valuable contributions. I will try to respond to the points raised after setting out the Government’s strategic approach to China.

The Government will always put the UK national interest first. Our approach will be consistent, long term and pragmatic. In an ever changing geopolitical context, our relations are critical in ensuring the UK’s resilient growth, maintaining our position as a responsible global actor and defending our security and values. That means co-operating where we can on issues including net zero, health and trade, competing where our interests differ and challenging where we must to protect our national security and values.

Engaging with China is both pragmatic and necessary to support our domestic and international priorities, not least because we are both global players with large economies and permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. We must engage regularly to advance our national interests, whether it is on issues of co-operation such as the global green transition or issues where we firmly disagree, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is why the Prime Minister met President Xi at the G20 last year, and the Foreign Secretary held meetings with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in the UK last month and in Beijing last year.

The Chancellor and Energy Secretary have also visited China, and I visited Hong Kong in November of last year. Across all these meetings, the Government have pressed, and will continue to press, the Chinese Government on issues which matter to us and this House, such as calling for the unacceptable sanctions on our parliamentarians to be lifted and demanding British national Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. I have been meeting with Jimmy Lai’s family since before the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon was elected to this House, and we remain robust in the defence of his freedom of speech and defend his family as British citizens.

We consistently raise human rights concerns, including on Xinjiang cotton production and solar panels, which have been mentioned, have called for the repeal of the national security law and sanctioned Chinese companies over their supply of dual-use and military goods to Russia’s military-industrial complex. The stark truth is that under the previous Government, we did not have the channels in place to pursue and protect UK interests sufficiently and to raise these important issues at the highest levels in the Chinese Government.

[Calum Miller]

I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing her expertise to the topic. She has highlighted the way in which the Government is trying to deepen that relationship with China, in the belief that by having a better relationship, we can better serve UK interests. However, I think she will recognise that whether it is in the case of Jimmy Lai or in the bounties placed on Hong Kong activists, the relationship goes only one way. Could she say a little bit more about the sticks that the Government are prepared to use if they do not get the outcomes that we are looking for?

[Catherine West]

National security is paramount, and any engagement will be encased in that metal case of national security.

Turning to the Government’s China audit, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has said, under the last Government, our China policy was inconsistent, swinging back and forth—from David Cameron’s golden era to Liz Truss’s confrontational approach—as often as they changed Prime Minister. That is why a team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been conducting the China audit. It has consulted widely across Government and with a wide range of external stakeholders, including with some hon. Members in this room, who have been to see the Foreign Secretary to discuss their concerns. That is already proving valuable in developing policies and planning engagement.

[Edward Morello]

The China audit was due to be published earlier this year. I understand it is now slated for the summer. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm when it will be published? Will she also, moreover, confirm that the Foreign Secretary will appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee to answer questions about it?

[Catherine West]

I can certainly confirm that the audit will be made public before the end of the spring. Dates in the diary with the Foreign Affairs Committee are a matter for the Chair of that Committee, and anyone who dares to go against that Chair will be a very frightened individual indeed! I am sure that at any invitation, the Foreign Secretary will appear before the Committee, to speak on any topic. The House will have seen the marked difference between this Government, who are working hard to protect and pursue our interests, and the previous Government, who failed to stand up for British interests by having the difficult conversations with China that are so necessary.

I turn to national security. Any Government’s first duty is to keep the country safe, and we remain fully committed to that mission. We have taken strong action through the National Security Act 2023, which gives us robust powers to protect our industries and institutions. The UK is clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, undermining democracy and the rule of law, are utterly unacceptable. That is why we invited some of the British national overseas passport holders who have personally been put at risk by those sorts of disgraceful actions. That is why our defending democracy taskforce is driving a robust and co-ordinated response across Government and law enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who is a doughty campaigner for British national overseas passport holders, made a very important point. The Government are taking a reasonable and proportionate approach to creating secure and resilient growth for the UK. With careful handling, national security and growth can be mutually reinforcing. We will continue to bolster resilience to economic shocks and tackle economic-based threats to national security. I ask anybody who has personal experiences and is concerned about any BNO passport holder in their constituency to write to me or to the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), immediately.

Growth and economic security, of course, are crucial and we cannot ignore China, given that it is the world’s second-largest economy and our fourth-largest trading partner, worth over £110 billion per annum. That shows why the partnership is so crucial for UK and global growth. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said, it is so important that that growth must be secure and resilient. He was quite right to point out a number of threats to that growth—including questions about public procurement, intellectual property and tech—and how it dovetails with our domestic industrial strategy. As he is aware through the role that he has here in Parliament, the domestic industrial strategy will be developed in concert with the China audit. I welcome his experience in understanding the depth of complexity around materials, in particular, and I look forward to hearing more about his expertise in that area.

On climate, in particular, and net zero, it is also essential that we engage China on global challenges. As the world’s largest investor in sustainable energy, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest producer of coal, the choices that China makes are critical to global efforts to tackle climate change, not just in China but across the world.

On human rights, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised issues on which we need to challenge China. He is aware that it is our duty, as the Government, to hold China to account on its human rights record, including its repression of people in Xinjiang and Tibet. I refer him to the item 4 statement at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, fresh off the press, which reflects his concerns about freedom of religion or belief, which he has raised in this House on a number of occasions.

I turn to the UK’s long and historic relationship with Hong Kong. Forgive me if I run out of time, Ms Lewell. I hardly need to tell the House how deep and strong our people-to-people and trade links with Hong Kong are. That is why the Government will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong. Since the launch of the British national overseas visa route, we have granted more than 219,000 applications, and we will continue to welcome and protect all Hongkongers who have made the UK their home in recent years. The Government recognise the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms that are threatening Hong Kong’s way of life.

I briefly turn to Taiwan, which the Opposition spokesman raised. The UK—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:29

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