Oral Answers to Questions
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I start by acknowledging, on VE Day, the debt that we all owe to that great generation who sacrificed so much for our freedom. We will remember them and their sacrifice forever.
The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, will make recommendations to transform our water system and clean up our waterways. The recommendations will form the basis of further legislation to fix our broken water system. A public call for evidence that ran for eight weeks and closed on 23 April received a very high number of responses. Those will be shared in detail when the commission publishes its recommendations. Sir Jon and the commission have held more than 130 meetings, including with regulators, environmental groups, campaigners, investors, water companies and consumer bodies. Engagement will continue ahead of the commission’s recommendations to the Government in a few weeks.
Emma Lewell
I echo the Secretary of State’s initial comments. South Shields has a long-standing problem with sewage being dumped in the sea at Whitburn. Just this week, Little Haven beach was handed a brown flag, and myself and local campaigners are completely fed up. The Environment Agency, Ofwat, Northumbrian Water, the council and the last Government all completely ignored our concerns. We have already requested a meeting with the Water Minister, and I hope she will confirm today that the meeting will happen very soon.
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her tireless work to represent the concerns of people in South Shields about those terrible problems with water pollution. Of course, my hon. Friend voted for the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which has given the regulator many more powers, including the power to ban undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses. I am sure she will be interested to read, as will I, the findings from the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe when they come forward in a few weeks’ time.
Liz Twist
As we act to protect our rivers and waterways from pollution, regulation will be important. The Environment Agency’s resources were decimated under the Conservatives. How will the 2025 Act give the Environment Agency the powers it needs to hold polluting companies to account?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government cut resources for regulation in half, and that is one of the ways water companies were able to get away with so much pollution. We have changed the law to allow regulators to recover prosecution costs so that they can carry out further prosecutions and stop those who have been polluting our waterways.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Can I make an appeal to the Secretary of State, and indeed his whole Front Bench, not to make farmers a scapegoat in any water reforms? Clearly, where farming and farmers are involved in bad practice, they should be penalised, but social industrialists, other employers, and indeed those in the public sector, might also pollute rivers. Water is a critical part of the food supply chain and agriculture. Farmers look after the environment on all our behalf—in the right way most of the time. My appeal to the Secretary of State is to please get the National Farmers’ Union and farmers involved and not let them become scapegoats.
Steve Reed
I of course agree with the right hon. Member. We are supporting farmers, many of whom were affected by very severe flooding recently, with the farming recovery fund. I am engaging constantly, and will be again today, with the National Farmers’ Union about those issues and many others.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
By 2050 we will need more than 4,000 additional megalitres of water a day, with rising temperatures resulting in a fivefold increase in drought risk. That is concerning news for farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, given the necessity of water for livestock and crops. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to consult farmers about reforms to the water sector, and does he know how important water is to food production?
Steve Reed
We recognise the importance of that point. The hon. Lady will be aware that, at the close of the price review process, we secured £104 billion of investment now and over the next five years to improve water infrastructure and ensure that we get water to where it needs to be. We have also increased flooding funding so that we can take the water away from where it should not be. All of that will support food production as well as many other sectors of the economy.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Officials and I continue to maintain regular engagement with the Scottish Government on many issues. While sewage overflow monitoring is a devolved matter for Scotland, we continue to share best practice wherever appropriate. The SNP Government should follow this Government’s lead and introduce robust legislation to clean up their waterways.
Chris Murray
The beautiful beaches of my constituency are marred by sewage-related debris. In Scotland, under the SNP, we do not even properly monitor sewage overflows. Meanwhile, in England, the Labour Government are making great strides to improve water quality—how I wish we had that in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State commit to working as constructively as possible with his counterparts in the Scottish Government so that they can learn from here how we can improve water quality in Scotland?
Steve Reed
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for highlighting the pollution and sewage on beaches that so concern his constituents. It is deeply disappointing that the SNP Government in Edinburgh are not following the UK Government’s lead in tackling sewage pollution. I agree with my hon. Friend that his constituents, like mine, and everyone else in Scotland and right across the UK deserve to enjoy sewage-free lakes, rivers and beaches. Sadly, that does not seem to be what they are getting from the SNP.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been subjected to an enormous increase in their water bills. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that his water review will seek ways to prevent the costs of water companies’ mismanagement being passed on to their customers?
Steve Reed
I am sure that the hon. Lady will be reassured to hear that the Government have ringfenced money that is earmarked for investment in water infrastructure so that it can no longer be diverted for payments on bonuses and dividends. If water companies attempt to do anything of the kind, the money will be refunded to their customers through a discount on their bills.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I add my voice to all those paying tribute to the greatest generation as we all remember VE Day. I know that many of us will be travelling back to our constituencies to join in celebrations up and down the country.
It is no wonder that the public are angry about paying the price for Conservative failure. By allowing water infrastructure to decay on their watch, the previous Conservative Government not only failed to ensure proper regulation of the industry but drove up costs of essential repairs, resulting in increased bills for customers. While I cannot undo the damage of the past, I can ensure that it never happens again. That is why funding for vital infrastructure has been ringfenced by this Government so that it can never be diverted for bonuses or dividends.
Rachel Blake
Roberto, one of my constituents, has seen his water bill go up by nearly 45% in the last two years, and other constituents have contacted me to say that their bills have nearly doubled in that time. I am pleased by what the Minister said about holding the previous Government to account for their failure to invest in infrastructure. What more can the Government do to hold Thames Water to account for its failure to invest in infrastructure, its poor service and these rip-off charges for consumers?
Emma Hardy
Roberto is right to feel angry about his bill increase, the past performance of water companies and the toothless regulation under the previous Government. We have already taken action to deliver our manifesto promise to hold water companies to account, ban unfair bonuses and introduce criminal liability with up to two years in prison. We have also created the water delivery taskforce to ensure that all water companies, including Thames Water, deliver on their promised infrastructure improvements. The Government will always support those struggling with their water bills. Indeed, this Labour Government and water companies are more than doubling the social tariff support over the next five years.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
What assessment has the Minister made on the cost of water bills from increases to regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity? I wrote to her in December about that and she replied in January. I am thankful for her answer, although it was slightly on the complacent side because she said that regulation 31 does not cause a problem to water quality just now. That is true, but the industry is burning down its assets to chemicals and equipment that have been regulation 31-tested, so a problem is coming. What assessment has the Minister made of when the solution will be delivered, and what effect will that have on water bills?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Everything relating to regulation of water is supported and looked at through the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which carries out an assessment to make sure we have the best water quality in the whole country. If he requires any further detail, he is welcome to write to me again and I will make sure I find it.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
On VE Day, it is important that we remember the huge contribution made by fishermen, fishing communities, farm workers and agricultural workers during the last war to keep the country fed. Later today, I shall unveil a plaque to the members of the Women’s Land Army, one of whom was my aunt, Jean Mead. They made a fantastic contribution during that period.
We negotiate a range of fishing quotas, and any future quotas will be agreed only if that is in the national interest. I am pleased that we are engaging closely with industry, trialling new methods to shape future allocations that will both protect stocks and support communities.
Harriet Cross
A recent poll by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation showed that 87% of Scots believe the UK should control access to our fishing waters. Two-thirds of seafood landed in the UK comes into Scotland and it is vital to our economy and to many of our coastal communities. Will the Minister show the House and rural and fishing communities across the country that the Prime Minister will not negotiate away any control of our waters during his EU reset later this month?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I recognise the importance of the Scottish fishing fleet and its contribution. She will have to wait a little longer to hear the full details of the outcomes of any negotiations, but I have to remind her that the sense of betrayal across fishing communities came under her Government’s watch.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
On this 80th anniversary of VE Day, I pay tribute to the city of Coventry, which suffered so grievously in the blitz. The commemoration was marked at the old and new cathedrals with the lighting of the torch for peace, a brilliant initiative from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to mark the contribution of my city to the war effort.
Natural England’s work to consider the Surrey hills national landscape boundary variation has reached the conclusion of the second statutory consultation phase. The responses received will be completed shortly and the analysis of those and the results will be published in early summer.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
On VE Day, I remember the role of Dunsfold aerodrome in my constituency, which played a vital role in the battle of Britain.
I thank the Minister for her response. She knows that the proposed expansion of the Surrey hills national landscape will have a huge impact by improving biodiversity and natural protection in villages such as Dunsfold, Tongham, Bramley, Wonersh and Shamley Green in my constituency. Before she makes the final decision on whether to go ahead, will she spare the time to meet me so I can explain to her just how important the expansion is to my constituents?
Mary Creagh
I am always happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. This and the Yorkshire wolds are under active consideration, as I am sure he is aware. There is a legal process to be followed ahead of that, but I know his constituency and will be very happy to meet to discuss the matter further.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defences in the worst condition on record. We are investing a record £2.65 billion in a thousand projects to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Following the recent storm season, serious flooding damaged the foundations of Radyr cricket club and exposed electrical cables, which forced the club to close and cancel practice until the site was made safe. The club is also situated next to important electricity infrastructure, which means up to 930 customers could be put at risk of disruption. I have been working with Councillor Helen Lloyd Jones to try and find a way forward between National Grid and Natural Resources Wales to establish who will take responsibility for securing the river bank and the electricity infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse, and my constituents continue to be vulnerable to further flooding. Will the Minister meet me to establish what the UK Government can do to try and help break that impasse before the next storm season hits?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are facing with flooding—I know at first hand how disruptive and awful flooding can be. As I am sure he knows, flooding is a devolved matter in Wales, but I would of course be happy to work with him and to facilitate the meeting that he requested.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Next month, a planning application for a biodigester near Haverhill and Withersfield in West Suffolk will be decided. It is the wrong location for many reasons, not least the risk of flooding as the proposed site is on flood risk zone 3 land. What are the Government doing to prevent development on land susceptible to flooding?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, the national planning policy framework is clear that where development in areas at risk of flooding is necessary, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, safe for the development’s lifetime and, importantly, will not increase flood risk elsewhere. We are also looking at other measures, such as sustainable urban drainage systems, to be included in planning as well.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
On the 80th anniversary of VE Day, I thank those who fought for our and Europe’s freedom and, indeed, those who worked our land and kept our nation fed.
Our peatlands store 26 times more carbon than forests. They improve water quality and protect communities up and down the UK from flooding. The Nature Minister rightly called peatlands our “country’s Amazon rainforest” and launched a consultation to protect them. She is right, because once they have been destroyed, they can never be replaced. At the very same time, the Energy Secretary plans to rip up 2,000 hectares of protected peatland on historic land in West Yorkshire for a vast wind farm development, opening up communities to flooding and destroying the peatlands that Labour says it wants to protect. How can the Government claim to be protecting our irreplaceable peatlands when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is actively considering destroying one of our most environmentally important landscapes in the country?
Emma Hardy
I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s ability to weave a question for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero into a question on flooding. He will have heard from the Nature Minister how important peatlands are and how essential they are for this country and heard our commitment to protecting them.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have discussed this serious issue in the Chamber before, and I know how seriously Members on both sides of the House take it. The Government make it an absolute priority to protect farmers from the dangers of this awful threat. The Government have stepped up measures to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease following confirmed cases in Slovakia and Hungary. Imports into Northern Ireland of live animals and susceptible meat products are prohibited from within the restriction zones surrounding the affected premises in Hungary and Slovakia.
Robin Swann
I join in the Secretary of State’s words on VE Day, especially regarding Northern Ireland’s contribution to our armed forces and through the armaments we supplied.
When I contacted the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland about his responsibilities, he actually told me that the issue no longer sits within his ministerial responsibility, but comes directly under the control of the Environment Secretary. What practical steps is the Minister taking to protect Northern Ireland farmers, especially in regard to the recent announcement of a case of African swine fever on 2 May in Slovakia, within the same geographical area as those foot and mouth outbreaks?
Daniel Zeichner
We work closely with the Minister in Northern Ireland for exactly the reasons that he would expect. We take this extremely seriously. There are a range of threats in Europe, and that is why we have not only put in place the long-established and well-trialled measures, but added additional protection measures to ensure that we are properly protected.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Farmers in Northern Ireland who fear foot and mouth, and even dog owners like me, rely on good veterinary support, but this is no longer the world of James Herriot; a number of large companies dominate the market. The Competition and Markets Authority says that remedies are needed. Does the Minister agree, and will he commit to reviewing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is clearly no longer fit for purpose?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can assure him that I and Baroness Hayman, who leads on this in the Department, are very well aware of the recent reports and the antiquated nature of the legislation. We will come back with proposals in due course.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues before. I know that she shares my passion for achieving the transition to the nature-friendly farming that we all want. The Government are investing £5 billion in farming over the next two years—the highest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. Through a range of measures delivered through the Government’s environmental land management schemes, we are supporting farmers to implement nature-friendly farming practices. We now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, and reform in the sustainable farming incentive will target funds fairly and effectively towards food, farming and nature priorities. We will announce further details later this year.
Ellie Chowns
On behalf of the Green party, on this special day of commemoration, I join colleagues from across the House in paying tribute to all those who sacrificed so much to resist and defeat fascism 80 years ago.
I thank the Minister for his response. We have indeed discussed these issues before and will continue to do so, I am sure. At the weekend, I spent time on two farms in my constituency—at both I met groups of farmers, including members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who told me of their huge frustration at being let down by the Government’s policy on farming and the lack of support. They recognise how vital farming is, including the transition to nature-friendly farming, for this country’s food security, nature protection and climate action. Does he agree with the farmers in my constituency about how vital the transition to nature-friendly farming is for those issues, and will he give us a date for when he will introduce such policies—
Daniel Zeichner
I am always interested to hear reflections from farmers. I have spoken to other members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network who are very pleased with the progress being made, but of course we want to go faster and further. We have over 50,000 people in the schemes and more money is being spent than ever before. We must recognise the important progress being made.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this extremely serious issue. To prevent the further spread of disease and manage the risk of avian influenza, DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have implemented well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and support recovery in local communities. Avian influenza prevention zones are in force across the UK. To further protect farmers and help communities, we are currently investing £208 million in the future of the biosecurity labs at Weybridge.
Sir John Whittingdale
Does the Minister agree that avian influenza remains an existential threat to the poultry industry, and—now that the French have decided to vaccinate their ducks—will he agree to the National Farmers Union request that we introduce the vaccination of seasonal turkeys in order to protect the entire industry?
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes a well-informed point. Vaccination has been considered for some time. There are trade issues, but as he says, the fact that the French are changing their position is useful. The Government are committed to exploring options for vaccination, and a cross-Government and industry avian influenza vaccination taskforce has been established. It published an initial statement on 7 March and will report more fully this summer.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Avian influenza, sadly, is still very much with us, having devastated both wild and domestic birds in recent years. With bluetongue still here, African swine fever on our doorstep and, alarmingly, foot and mouth outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, we face significant threats to our biosecurity. Disease surveillance, vaccination and control are crucial, centred with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which I thank in these challenging times. When will this Government finish the work that we Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge? Labour’s repeatedly re-announced £208 million is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for this critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words and his praise for the APHA. These are extremely important subjects. We face a range of threats. That is why the Government have increased security in terms of personal imports through the short straits in particular. On his point about Weybridge, we have had this discussion before. There is a major programme under way, which will take a number of years. It is already a world-leading facility, and this Government are committed to providing the funding that Weybridge needs to do its job. We are absolutely committed to that, which is why we have announced £208 million this year.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We are developing stronger climate adaptation objectives and improving the framework for action.
Tom Gordon
With the effects of climate change already being felt, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others have urged the Government to prioritise infrastructure resilience. Following the Court ruling on the third national adaptation programme, the Government pledged to strengthen the approach, but the Climate Change Committee called this “ineffective”. When will the Department publish its updated plans, and how will it strengthen them?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Of course, we welcome the Climate Change Committee’s assessment. The Government recognise the need to go further and faster to prepare for the impacts of a warmer world. For example, we are already taking active steps to include climate adaptation in our flood programme. For the first time, the Environment Agency’s flood risk modelling integrates potential impacts of climate change on flood and coastal erosion risk. The investment of £2.65 billion into maintaining flood defences will help to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Under the previous Government, fly-tipping skyrocketed by 20%, leaving communities buried under an avalanche of rubbish. This Government are clearing up their mess, tackling the waste cowboys, closing the loopholes that allowed waste crime to flourish and cleaning up Britain. We will hunt down the fly-tippers with the latest technology, including drones and mobile CCTV, introduce new powers to seize and crush vehicles and increase prison sentences to up to five years for those transporting waste illegally.
Gregor Poynton
I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the West Lothian Litter Pickers, who are doing so much in my Livingston constituency to reduce the causes and symptoms of fly-tipping and littering, but it is scandalous that their work is needed. In Scotland, the latest figures show that only 1.2% of fly-tipping incidents have resulted in a fixed penalty notice and a mere 0.2% in a criminal prosecution. Does the Minister agree that, in sharp contrast with this UK Labour Government, who are taking a zero-tolerance approach and cracking down on fly-tipping, the Scottish Government’s record in this area is, quite frankly, rubbish?
Mary Creagh
I am sorry to hear that the SNP Government are not taking firm action, but perhaps where we have led the way, they would like to follow. I congratulate West Lothian Litter Pickers and pay tribute to Keep Britain Tidy, whose Great British spring clean, backed by the Daily Mirror, helped to tackle the 30 million tonnes of litter discarded on our streets each year, including 5 billion cigarette butts. Each cigarette butt can poison 1,000 litres of water. If we are serious about marine litter, we have to pick up our butts—and perhaps a little less talk and a little more action from the SNP.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I recently met with the Philpot family at the diverse and successful Barleylands farm in my constituency. Fly-tipping is a major concern for them and other local farmers, and they are working together to address it. They told me that, although fly-tipping is a major issue, it is not the existential threat that the tax increases this Labour Government are imposing on them are, with the national insurance tax increases and the massive rises in agricultural property relief and business property relief. They are right, are they not?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on weaving in a farms question on fly-tipping, but he is right—[Interruption.] Calm down.
Mr Speaker
Please, let’s calm down; this is a very important day. I am the decision maker on whether questions are right or wrong anyhow.
Mary Creagh
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We know that fly-tipping is a very big problem for farmers. I have visited fly-tipping sites near Watford in the last month and spoken to farmers about what they have to do to clear them up. It is clear that many Tory-run county councils are not playing their part in cleaning up fly-tipping and making the prosecutions that act as a disincentive to these criminal businesses and their business models.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Annual variations in farm input costs are driven by global markets. UK fertiliser farm gate prices are tied to movements in the international markets, and UK fertiliser suppliers compete for market share, providing the best price they can for farmers.
Graeme Downie
Farms in my constituency and across Fife produce some of the highest quality grain in the world. However, many farmers are struggling to make a profit as imported grain is often produced at a different standard. That can undermine or undercut cereals grown in Scotland, which are produced to the highest standards. Scottish grain is a vital ingredient for high-quality Scotch whisky, and with the news this week of the trade deal with India, welcomed by the Scotch Whisky Association, demand for Scottish grain is likely to rise. What steps will the Minister take to increase standards for imported grain, and ensure profit for farmers in my constituency and a consistent supply for sectors including Scotch whisky?
Daniel Zeichner
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will always maintain our high standards. All imported products will continue to be subject to clear controls, including limits for pesticide residues. I join him in sharing the really good news on that trade deal: it is good news for Scotch whisky and good news for British producers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My farmers in Northern Ireland and Strangford, and farmers across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, produce some of the best products. Prices are rising, sometimes due to things we cannot prevent, but farmers need better prices from the supermarkets. What is being done to ensure that our farmers, who produce a quality product, get the right prices for the effort they put in?
Daniel Zeichner
I am always grateful for a contribution from the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, a series of fair dealing clauses were included in the Agriculture Act 2020; they are being brought into effect at the moment and we expect to see more progress made in that regard. He is absolutely right to raise the point that farmers should get a fair deal.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Fly-tipping scandalously shot up by over a third under the previous Conservative Government, and the public are rightly furious when they see their communities buried under an avalanche of rubbish. This Government will clean up our streets, towns and villages. We will support councils to identify, seize and crush waste criminals’ vehicles by closing the Tory fly-tipping loopholes that prevented tough action. We will increase sentences for dumping waste to up to five years, and we will make fly-tippers pay the cost of impounding their vehicles before they are crushed, because we believe that the polluter, not the public, should pay. This Government will call time on fly-tippers so we can restore people’s pride in their neighbourhoods.
Ben Maguire
The River Camel multi-use trail in my North Cornwall constituency attracts more than half a million users every year and brings over £3 million to the local economy. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss a river trail extension to Camelford as part of this Government’s manifesto pledge to create nine new river walks and connect thousands more people to nature?
Steve Reed
I am delighted to hear that people are enjoying the River Camel trail. It is wonderful to visit and we want to extend more of these walks across the country so that more people can enjoy them. I will of course make sure that the hon. Gentleman can meet the appropriate Minister to raise his concerns.
Mr Speaker
I call Diane Abbott—not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
As we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, I remember the great role that my constituency played, including 617 Squadron, flying from RAF Woodhall Spa; we must also remember and thank those women and men who formed the Land Army in order to feed our troops and our nation. Many of their descendants still farm the same fields that their ancestors farmed in the war, but that tradition is under threat from this Government.
Before Christmas, I warned the Secretary of State that a farmer had taken their life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. The Secretary of State responded with anger, and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health. This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their life because of the family farm tax. That is the Secretary of State’s legacy, but he can change it, because this change is not yet law. Will he set out these tragedies to the Prime Minister and demand that Labour policy be changed, or offer, on a point of principle, his resignation?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important matter, but I am bothered that nobody else is going to get in, so I hope the shadow Secretary of State’s second question is shorter.
Steve Reed
I express my regret that the shadow Secretary of State would seek to politicise personal tragedy in this way. It is immensely regrettable that she would seek to do that; none of us can know for sure what happens in matters of personal tragedy. It is beneath her to try to weaponise the issue in the way that she has done. This Government take issues of mental health very seriously indeed. We are setting up mental health hubs in every community, so that we can support farmers and others who are suffering from mental ill health. I gently remind her that this was a problem that escalated during her time in office as Secretary of State for Health, when she failed to address the problems that people are facing.
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I am simply confronting the Secretary of State with the realities of his policy. Another policy is distressing farmers and other people: the removal of our ancient property rights, first enshrined in the Magna Carta. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill gives a quango, Natural England, powers to seize private land, not for house building but for undefined environmental reasons. It can seize not just agricultural land, but our constituents’ gardens, and it does not even have to pay market value for that land. Will the Secretary of State now commit to an amendment to the Bill to save our constituents’ gardens, or is this Labour’s garden grab?
Steve Reed
As is so often the case from that particular source, that is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Nothing of the kind is happening. Rather than trying to politicise and weaponise the matter, the right hon. Lady would help herself and people who are genuinely concerned about those issues by sticking to the facts.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and note that even in those times of distress, woe and horror, some good relationships were formed. The seasonal worker visa scheme for 43,000 seasonal worker visas was announced a few months ago. That number includes 2,000 extra for poultry. At the National Farmers Union conference, the Secretary of State announced a five-year extension to 2030. That will provide certainty, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to analyse and assess very carefully what the industry needs to ensure it has the resources required.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On behalf of all Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I add my tribute to those who fought and died to secure our freedom. I also pay tribute to those in rural communities, like ours in Westmorland, who fed this country and welcomed evacuee children from the cities, and to our community in Windermere, who welcomed the children who had survived the Nazi death camps after the war. We remember them all with deep gratitude.
Has the Prime Minister consulted the Secretary of State on the potential impact on British farmers of the US-UK trade deal? It is a matter of fact that US animal welfare standards are worse than ours, which means that import costs are lower, so allowing equal access is not free trade—it is unfair trade. It is throwing our farmers under the bus, just as the Conservatives did through their deal with Australia and New Zealand. Will the Secretary of State support Liberal Democrat calls for the deal to be signed only if it supports farmers, and after a vote in this House?
Steve Reed
There have been no announcements yet, and I cannot pre-empt them, but we have been crystal clear that we have red lines. We will not allow British farmers to be undercut on environmental or welfare standards in the way that the Conservatives did when they agreed a trade deal with Australia; it undercut British farmers and caused them immense damage. We will never go the way of the Tories; we will stand four-square behind our farmers, and I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats feel the same.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a similar theme, I congratulate the Government on securing a good deal for our farmers in the India trade deal, which was welcomed by the president of the NFU, who said it showed that this Government have “clearly listened”, in marked contrast to the previous Government. What assurance will the Secretary of State give me that our farmers will still be included in negotiations on the US trade deal?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the trade deal with India; it is a £4.8 billion boost to the UK economy, and very good news for our whisky and gin producers—and for the producers of salmon, lamb and chocolate, which are all now tariff-free exports to India. This Government will always negotiate in the national interest, and that is exactly the approach we will take with the US trade negotiations.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
Today we mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day. It has been 80 years since the allied victory in Europe that brought an end to the second world war. I pay tribute to the extraordinary courage, sacrifice and determination of our veterans and all who made that victory possible. Their legacy lives on in the freedoms that we cherish and enjoy to this very day.
Let me be absolutely clear: victims are waiting far too long to see justice. That is completely unacceptable. It has hit confidence in our criminal justice system, and this Government simply will not stand for it. That is why we are committed to working with the Crown Prosecution Service and partners across the criminal justice system to slash those backlogs and get cases through the courts more quickly. A review is ongoing of how we can reduce the backlog, and I am confident that what emerges from that review will mean that we can get delays down and set about the kind of reform that will deliver the change that the public deserve to see.
Patrick Hurley
On the topic of backlogs across the justice system, the Ministry of Justice’s successful campaign to recruit more magistrates is stretching the capacity of local training committees to provide sufficient mentors and appraisers to support new appointees. What more can the Government do to fill the gap in training capacity to better serve the interests of justice?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role that magistrates play in our criminal justice system. As we seek to reduce the intolerable court backlog that we inherited from the previous Government, I have absolutely no doubt that magistrates will continue to have a crucial role. It is essential that any new magistrates receive the right level of training, and I am happy to raise the matter that my hon. Friend has spoken about with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution are critical in reducing backlogs in the courts. I urge Ministers, in addition to holding the review, to look very carefully at the opportunities to use mediation more, particularly mandatory mediation.
The Solicitor General
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. I know from my days in practice that mediation and ADR have a very important role to play. It is critical that we get this intolerable backlog in our Crown courts down, and this Government are taking substantial action to do that. We have increased the number of Crown court sitting days. As I referred to, the Lord Chancellor has asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review of our criminal courts, and we are also increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates courts.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Criminal Bar Association has reported that more than 1,300 cases were adjourned last year due to a lack of available prosecuting or defence barristers—a 20-fold increase since 2019. In the south-west, there are half the number of legal aid providers that we have in London, and my inbox reflects that, with many constituents unable to access legal advice or representation, particularly in housing cases involving rogue landlords and unscrupulous management companies. Meanwhile, Citizens Advice has closed its branches across Cornwall. What assessment has the Solicitor General made of how these regional disparities in legal aid provision are driving Crown court backlogs, especially in rural areas such as my constituency of North Cornwall?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue. It is crucial that justice be accessible for everyone in this country; indeed, access to justice is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law. That is why we have undertaken a comprehensive review of civil legal aid, and in December, we announced a £92 million boost for criminal legal aid solicitors. Starting this year, we will also be introducing free independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape. There is much more to do—we are clear about that. Clearly, there are deficiencies in access to justice, but I can assure the hon. Member that this Government understand the scale of the problem and are committed to addressing it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Solicitor General
The Government’s safer streets mission is not just about town and city centres; it applies equally to our market squares and rural village greens. Rural crime can have devastating consequences for communities. This Government are committed to cracking down on crime and disorder in rural areas, with tougher powers for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour and prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. That is why the Crown Prosecution Service works closely with local police forces to tackle those offences.
David Chadwick
According to the latest figures in the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society’s rural crime report, in 2023, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% year on year to £52.8 million, with criminal gangs targeting farms up and down Wales—including, unfortunately, in my constituency. Prosecution rates for livestock theft in particular are very low—often below 1%, despite the huge financial and emotional toll that this type of crime takes on farmers. What actions are the Government taking to tackle those low prosecution rates?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue. We know that rural and farming communities face acute and bespoke threats from criminals, including highly organised crime groups that are exploiting our rural communities. He has referred to livestock theft, but those communities also face fly-tipping and machinery and fuel theft. We are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, and are also committed to further funding for the national rural and wildlife crime units. We have announced additional funding for those units, because we recognise just how critical it is to crack down on rural crime. I should also mention policing, because our neighbourhood policing guarantee covers the entirety of this country—not just urban areas, but rural areas too.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government are determined to crack down on the scourge of economic crime, and the Serious Fraud Office does crucial work to tackle complex fraud, bribery and corruption. Under its new director, the SFO has opened nine new overt investigations and charged 16 defendants. Just last week, I saw the SFO’s crucial work at first hand when I observed a dawn raid carried out in relation to a new multimillion-pound bribery investigation.
Johanna Baxter
The vast majority of UK businesses play by the rules, but fraud is estimated to cost UK taxpayers—including my constituents—between £55 billion and £80 billion per year. What is the Serious Fraud Office doing to encourage businesses to self-report wrongdoing?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the vast majority of businesses do play by the rules, and fraud is so damaging precisely because it undermines everyone who plays fairly. That is why this Government are so determined to tackle it. I welcome the SFO’s recently revised guidance, which aims to drive up the number of corporates that self-report wrongdoing. That is a positive development that will foster good corporate citizenship, and it is an important contributor to this Government’s economic growth mission.
Lloyd Hatton
I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. Since their introduction in 2015, deferred prosecution agreements have resulted in the SFO raising some £1.7 billion in fines, yet those DPAs have dried up—the last DPAs that the Serious Fraud Office signed were some four years ago, in 2021. I welcome the SFO’s new strategy to ramp up enforcement, including new guidance to make it simpler to report crimes, but I believe we can and must go further. Can the Solicitor General outline what steps the Government are taking to support the SFO in ensuring that whistleblowers are also incentivised to come forward?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The director of the SFO has expressed strong support for the financial incentivisation of whistleblowers, and the SFO’s five-year strategy commits to exploring options, working with partners in the UK and abroad. Reform would require careful assessment, and it is right that any suggestions that could enhance the SFO’s efficiency and our ability as a country to tackle serious fraud, bribery and corruption are properly considered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One thing that concerns me in Northern Ireland is criminal gangs and former paramilitary gangs being involved in all sorts of crime, now including economic crime. They see business as a way of creating more wealth for their criminal activities. What is being done to take on these criminal gangs, whose tentacles reach right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, indeed, further afield, which we also have to address? Criminal gangs have to be taken on and have to be taken out of operation and put in jail. Do the Al Capone on them—put them in jail for economic crime.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is absolutely right that fraud does not stop at national borders, so it is vital that enforcement activities do not stop at national borders either. That is why the SFO takes co-operation with international partners extremely seriously. In fact, most recently, the director launched a new international anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce with Swiss and French partner agencies to strengthen existing ties between these countries and to lead to greater joint working on cases, as well as the sharing of insight and expertise. I would argue that we need more of those agreements and greater international co-operation to tackle the issue that he raises.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I wish to add my own tribute to those who bravely fought for our freedom.
Marks & Spencer is a much-loved cornerstone of the Great British high street and an important part of our economy. Many Members right across this House will be shocked to learn that over half a billion pounds has been wiped off its value following a serious ransomware attack. Harrods and the Co-op have also been attacked, and yesterday the Legal Aid Agency was attacked too. Can the Solicitor General confirm what role the Attorney General’s Office has played in ensuring that the criminal justice system treats such attacks robustly? How is it overseeing the response of the Crown Prosecution Service and other relevant agencies to economic and cyber-crime more broadly?
The Solicitor General
The shadow Solicitor General raises an important issue. We know that this type of crime is on the increase, and it is clearly vital that enforcement agencies and the CPS give it due prominence. She refers to some extremely well-known and much-loved brands. It is important that all those agencies play a role in enhancing awareness of this type of crime, such that it can be properly prevented. The SFO in particular plays a role in raising awareness of online crime so as to protect the public as well as businesses.
Helen Grant
I thank the Solicitor General for her response. Can she confirm what assessment she has made of the economic and legal risks posed by ransomware attacks on large UK businesses? Can she give an indication of what steps the Government are taking to ensure that companies of national economic importance are better protected and supported in the aftermath of such incidents?
The Solicitor General
As I said, the shadow Solicitor General raises extremely important issues—issues that the Government are alive to. This is a cross-Government issue, frankly, and it is important to all those partner enforcement agencies. I can assure her that work is ongoing and is being done to protect businesses and the public from these kind of attacks.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
I am aware of the tragic case to which my hon. Friend refers, and which he has been campaigning on. I would like to take the opportunity to extend my deepest condolences to the family of Harry Parker. Every single death on our roads is completely unacceptable, and increasing the safety of our roads is a priority for this Government.
Will Stone
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Harry Parker was 14 years old when he got run over. The person who took his life did not have a driving licence or any insurance, and did not stop, yet last November the charges were dropped. This is partially down to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Will my hon. Friend review section 3ZB and meet me to see how we can close the loopholes?
The Solicitor General
It is fundamental that our roads are safe for all who use them, and that those who break our road safety laws are brought to justice. That is why we are committed to delivering a new road safety strategy, and the next steps will be set out in due course. The Government keep motoring offences under review, including those for driving unlicensed and uninsured. As my hon. Friend knows, the CPS prosecutes matters independently of Government, but I would nevertheless be more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Solicitor General
Just last month, National Stalking Awareness Week served as a sobering reminder of just how crucial it is that perpetrators of stalking are dealt with robustly. This Government are absolutely determined to protect victims of stalking, which is why we are taking action by extending stalking protection orders so that courts can impose them on conviction and acquittal, giving victims protection when they need it most. We are also conducting a review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and we are empowering the police to release the identities of online stalkers.
Olly Glover
I thank the Solicitor General for her answer, which largely anticipated my subsequent question. I recently met a constituent at a surgery appointment who, alongside her family, has experienced significant psychological trauma as a result of stalking, and who has concerns about the police response. In the light of what the Solicitor General has said about strengthening stalking protection orders, what more can be done to ensure that the police are briefed and supported to implement them, so that families can live their lives in safety?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I am glad that I largely managed to pre-empt his question with my first answer. Stalking cases are on the rise. We are seeing more referrals to the police and, indeed, more convictions. This Government are taking strong action on stalking, because we recognise the scale of the issue. We are introducing statutory guidance to empower the police to release the identities of online stalkers, which we recognise is extremely important. I mentioned that we are extending stalking protection orders, which is clearly important too, and the review of stalking legislation is ongoing to make sure that that body of law is fit for purpose. My colleagues will update the House on that in due course.
Mr Speaker
That completes questions. May I just say to the Serjeant at Arms that I am very concerned that Members who had questions on the Order Paper have not been allowed into the House? Can we take this up with the police? They have no right to stop a Member entering this House. I take it very seriously.
Before we proceed to the business question, I should inform the House that the Government have indicated that there will be a statement this afternoon on US-UK trade. The timing of that statement has yet to be established, but it will appear on the annunciator once it has been confirmed.
Business of the House
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 12 May includes:
Monday 12 May—Remaining stages of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Tuesday 13 May—Opposition day (7th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 14 May—Consideration of Lords message on the Great British Energy Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Thursday 15 May—General debate on solar farms, followed by general debate on long-term funding of youth services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 May—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 May will include:
Monday 19 May—Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill.
Wednesday 21 May—Opposition day (8th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 22 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 May and return on Monday 2 June.
Jesse Norman
This is of course the 80th anniversary of VE Day, when all Britain rejoiced at the defeat of fascism and the end of the war in Europe. I am sure I speak for the whole House in putting on record once again our profound thanks and our celebration of the immortal memory of that extraordinary generation who—through their courage, their selflessness and their sense of duty—made victory in Europe possible. Let us all pray that we can be worthy of their memory.
If I may turn back from the sublime sweep of history to the mundane business of our politics, the Government have made valiant efforts to crowd the airwaves on trade this week, but the unfortunate truth is that they have had another dire week in office. The financial facts of life have not changed: growth is stagnant, as a nation we have to raise defence spending rapidly and the Government have made themselves a prisoner of their fiscal rules. Before the Leader of the House starts in on the local election results, may I remind her that, for all the horrors of last week, the Opposition still ended up with three times as many council seats as the Government?
Let us look at those cost pressures a bit more closely. Just eight months after a 22.3% increase in pay for junior doctors—an increase described at the time by the British Medical Association as
“a good enough first step”,
the House will recall—the BMA has now announced it will ballot its members to strike for more pay.
Meanwhile, the somewhat unlikely pairing of Tony Blair and Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB trade union, have both denounced the Government’s decision to ban offshore licences in the North sea. Blair described it as an “irrational” policy “doomed to fail”, the backlash to which threatened to “derail the whole agenda”. He said it was caused by Ministers afraid of being cast as “climate deniers”. He is not talking about the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, of course; he is talking about all the Ministers and MPs on the Government Benches who know better, but are too frit to say so.
Gary Smith said that “climate fundamentalism”—that is the Secretary of State for Energy—would
“accelerate the decline of domestic oil and gas production and increase our dependency on gas imports”,
directly contrary to the Government’s supposed growth strategy. As he pointed out:
“Across society, bill-payers will question why they are subsidising a domestic clean power sprint that is offshoring UK jobs and value.”
Only today, we have had the news that Ørsted is mothballing its giant new offshore wind farm, as it has made it clear it is holding out for even greater subsidies, knowing that the Secretary of State has no choice, and has in effect said that he has no choice, if he wants to hit his targets. We all want a just and rapid energy transition, but does the Leader of the House not think that the words of Tony Blair and Gary Smith are simple common sense?
There is one other issue that I think we should highlight. The Leader of the House has received universal condemnation for dismissing concerns about grooming gangs as “dog-whistle politics”. In response, she put out a tweet that conspicuously did not contain an apology for what she had said. The Secretary of State for Health said that her remarks were “indefensible”, but the truth is that she has talked in the same way about grooming gangs from the Dispatch Box, when she accused people of jumping on bandwagons on 9 January this year in business questions.
I hope we can agree now that this is an extremely serious national issue and that no one, whether or not they hold public office, should be deflecting or denying its seriousness. I hope that in her response now, the Leader of the House will put aside party politics, avoid criticising others and speak from the heart. So I ask her: has she now watched the Channel 4 documentary, and if so, how does she feel about it? Does she agree that the dismissal of these entirely valid concerns has been one of the factors behind what even today remains a huge continuing national scandal. Will she now back the call of many victims for a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs. Finally, would she like to take this opportunity to speak directly to the hundreds of vulnerable women involved, and say sorry?
Lucy Powell
Mr Speaker, further to your statement, talks on the US trade deal developments continue at pace. With your permission, the House will be updated later today. I will come on to VE Day shortly, but may I first address the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising what I said on an episode of “Any Questions” last week, so that I can be absolutely clear with the House today, and especially to the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and grooming gangs, that I am very sorry for those remarks, as I made clear over the weekend. I, and every member of this Government, want your truth to be heard, wherever that truth leads. Your truly appalling experiences need to be acted on, for those responsible to be accountable and face the full force of the law, and for justice to be served. I would never want to leave the impression that these very serious, profound and far-reaching issues, which I have campaigned on for many years, should be shied away from and not aired—far from it. No stone will be left unturned.
What the victims want, first and foremost, is for action to be taken and for the many, many recommendations from previous inquiries to be implemented in full, including mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, for which I have called for nearly a decade. Shockingly, those recommendations remained sitting on the shelf until we came into government last year. Baroness Louise Casey, who conducted the no-holds-barred inquiry into Rotherham, is carrying out an audit on the scale, nature and characteristics of grooming gangs. She will be reporting soon. It will include the questions on ethnicity. Every police force in England and Wales has been asked to look again at historic grooming gangs cases. They will be reopened, where appropriate, to get the perpetrators behind bars. I hope the House is left in no doubt about my commitment to these issues and my apology to those victims for any distress I have caused them.
I was surprised to hear the shadow Leader of the House try to claim some success in the local elections for his party. I am not quite sure that that is what those on the Conservative Benches are feeling.
Let me address the issue of our need to move to being a clean energy superpower. I am afraid that yet again at the Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman and his party are showing a serious misunderstanding of the economics and the reality of the transition to net zero. We face the worst cost of living crisis in generations, because his party left this country exposed to international fossil fuel markets as a direct result of their failure to invest in clean energy. It is only by investing in clean energy that we will bring down bills in future. He might want to remind himself of what his former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said about this issue:
“the sceptics say that the green transition will cripple business, we say they could not be more wrong.”
This is a global race for the jobs of the future, to get bills down, and that is exactly what we are doing.
The right hon. Gentleman should know better than anybody that new oil and gas in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, because oil and gas is traded on the international markets and therefore we are locked in. The only way to decouple that is by investing in cheaper renewable energies, as the Government are doing. It was a previous Conservative Energy Minister who said in 2022:
“more UK production wouldn’t reduce the global price of gas.”
The right hon. Gentleman might want to remind himself of that.
We have all come together in the Chamber today to honour our veterans and all those who played their part in securing peace and victory in Europe and ending the second world war. Today, we mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, and will shortly recreate the procession of Members from the Chamber to a service of thanksgiving on 8 May 1945. In addressing the House on that day, Winston Churchill conveyed his
“deep gratitude to this House of Commons, which has proved itself the strongest foundation for waging war that has ever been seen in the whole of our long history. We have all of us made our mistakes, but the strength of the Parliamentary institution has been shown to enable it at the same moment to preserve all the title deeds of democracy while waging war in the most stern and protracted form.”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 0, c. 1869.]
As we represent our parliamentary democracy today, these words ring as true now as they did then. We will never forget the sacrifice, bravery and spirit and the millions of lives lost in defeating fascism.
Today, we also remember Her late Majesty the Queen, whose youthful, joyous celebration symbolised VE Day, and whose long reign shaped the peace and prosperity that followed it. Today and every day, we remember the immense contribution of the second world war generation and thank them for their service.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Women’s Aid reports that 82% of domestic abuse cases go unreported. Reporting and prosecution rates are disproportionately lower for black and minoritised survivors. Does the Leader of the House agree that consistent collection and publication of disaggregated data is key to assessing whether Government actions are working for all women?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As she knows, violence against women and girls is a national emergency and tackling it is one of the key missions of this Government. I agree that this data needs to be brought to light and disaggregated.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day by commemorating the sacrifices made not just by those who fought and fell in the second world war, but by those who continue to serve our country in our armed forces and all who support them, including their families, who often spend long periods of time away from their loved ones.
Last week’s local elections were the first time in history that the Liberal Democrats beat both the Conservatives and Labour at the same local elections. We are proud of the trust that voters placed in us, meaning that our party now controls more councils than the Conservatives.
Last week also saw some of the most widely divided results our country has ever seen. The winner of the West of England mayoral election, from the Labour party, took the seat with just 25% of the vote; put another way, three out of every four voters put their cross in somebody else’s box. However, the lowest winning vote share was in Cornwall, where the winner in one race—a Liberal Democrat—was elected with just 18.9% of the vote. Just seven and a half percentage points separated the top six candidates.
It is clear that we are witnessing the end of the traditional two-party system—[Interruption.] Like it or not, our antiquated first-past-the-post system simply is not designed to cope with a multi-party system—at least, not for those who believe in fairness, as I hope the Government do. Will the Leader of the House now grant time for the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to be debated in full, and will she encourage all her colleagues across Government to finally support the proposed move to proportional representation?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating all those who were successful in last week’s elections and in paying tribute to the many councillors and candidates who were not successful for their campaigning.
The hon. Lady raises some important issues about turnout and engagement in elections. We both have a political challenge to ensure that people are engaged in the debate and feel energised and enthused to take part in elections, but we also need to look at how elections are conducted. This Government are committed to bringing forward an elections Bill in due course, which will address some of these issues.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I am delighted that the United Kingdom stands on the brink of a trade agreement with the United States. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is vindication of the firm, but fair, calm and measured approach of the Prime Minister, in stark contrast to the shrill voices from those on the Conservative Benches that would have landed us in a trade war weeks ago?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. May I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his determined, consistent and stoic leadership in this area, which is bringing dividends to this country, and will ensure future prosperity and growth through the trade deals that he has agreed to?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Let me make some additions to the business that the Leader of the House has announced. Next Thursday, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Work and Pensions Committee. On Thursday 22 May there will be a debate on access to NHS dentistry, followed by a debate on dementia care. In Westminster Hall, on 13 May, there will be a debate on the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities. On Thursday 15 May there will be a debate on funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund, followed by a debate on World Asthma Day. On 20 May there will be a debate on pensions for people living overseas, and on Thursday 22 May there will be a three-hour debate on the EU-UK summit.
Yesterday, the renowned charity, StandWithUs, published a report on antisemitism on university campuses. Dozens of students have given their testimony to the failure of universities to protect them and their rights. They have come out with a series of recommendations, including sanctions against universities that failed to protect students and an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of why universities are not protecting students. Can we have a statement next week from the relevant Minister on what is going to happen to make sure that Jewish students are protected on our campuses?
Lucy Powell
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing the forthcoming Backbench Business. I thank him, too, for all his work. He raises an important report that is out this week. This Government stand firm on antisemitism. We need to root it out on all our university campuses, and wherever it exists in our society. I will ensure that he gets a full update from the relevant Minister.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As the chair of the medicinal cannabis under prescription all-party parliamentary group, I have worked closely with Hannah Deacon, the mother of Alfie Dingley, over the past eight years. This woman has changed the law, but, sadly, she lost her fight with cancer the day before yesterday. Will the Leader of the House pay tribute to her and send condolences to her family, as the work that she has done has changed the lives of so many young children living with epilepsy? Will she join me and Hannah’s friends who are here in the House today? This woman was incredible, and I just wanted everybody across this House who has had the opportunity to work with her to know that, and to stand in solidarity and send their love to the family—to Drew, Alfie and little Anni.
Lucy Powell
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending all the love and best wishes to my hon. Friend and to her dear friend, Hannah Deakin, and her friends who are here in the Public Gallery today. I remember my hon. Friend mentioning and raising this campaign many times on her behalf. I can truly say that Hannah has changed the lives of many and she has changed policy. Her life will be long remembered by many, many others and we all pay great tribute to her today.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Many members of the grooming and rape gangs that systematically abused white working class girls have never faced justice, and neither have the councillors, officials and police officers suspected of collusion and cover-up. Can we have a debate on the need for a national inquiry into these disgusting crimes? Will the Leader of the House tell us please who exactly it is she believes is using these horrors as a “dog whistle”?
Lucy Powell
Everybody up and down this country is horrified about the crimes that have been committed over many, many years by despicable grooming gangs. That is why we are, first and foremost, implementing the very many recommendations from the recent inquiries, most of which sat on the shelf until the general election last year. Those recommendations include mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is something I have campaigned on for many years, as have the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the victims of these terrible atrocities get truth, justice and accountability wherever that is needed.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Yesterday I spoke with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the progress of the treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—sometimes known as the global ocean treaty. I was assured that, as far as the Department is concerned, the matter had been dealt with and was all done, and I was assured that was also the case with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but when I spoke to colleagues from the Cabinet Office, they had not heard of it. The Leader of the House will know that the United Nations ocean conference will take place next month, and it is really important that we get ratification of that treaty for the conference. The world is looking at us, and if we want to take leadership on this issue, we need to act.
Lucy Powell
I can assure my hon. Friend that, given my responsibility for the business of this House, I am well aware of the need to ratify the treaty and all that that involves. We are committed to doing so, and I can assure him that we will do so in good time.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Last week the Permanent Court of Arbitration allowed the UK to uphold the ban on sand eel fishing around the UK, including around the Isle of May in my constituency. The ban is doing so much to support the native puffins there. It also affirmed that policies banning sand eel fishing are based on scientific evidence. However, the impact of the remainder of the judgment is unclear, with different rulings in relation to English seas that muddy the waters considerably. Will the Government bring forward a debate in Government time so that the House can fully hear and consider their response to this ruling?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the impact that the ruling is having on fishing in the hon. Lady’s area. I am not aware that the House is to be told of any developments, but the Government will ensure that she gets a full ministerial reply, and if the House needs to be updated, it will be.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency has the most leaseholders in the country. I commend this Government’s work to give leaseholders the accountability that they should have. Will the Leader of the House support me in inviting the Minister responsible to come and talk to the leasehold action group here in the Cities of London and Westminster about mandatory qualifications and securing accountability against their landlords?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The feudal leasehold system is a plague for many homeowners in our country. Many of the issues she has in her constituency I share in my own, and I know that the Minister responsible for leasehold, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), would be delighted to meet her constituents, as he recently did with hundreds of mine, to discuss this Government’s plans for leasehold reform.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
In March the complaints commissioner concluded that the Financial Conduct Authority failed to identify risks relating to the owner of the funeral firm Safe Hands Plans, despite receiving information about breaches and other serious risks connected to the company. As a result, Safe Hands went into administration in 2022, with those who had invested in funeral plans losing thousands of pounds. Can we therefore have a statement on the role of the Financial Conduct Authority in the collapse of Safe Hands and the need for redress for constituents who have been impacted by this situation?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising Safe Hands, which is an issue for many MPs across the House. I will ensure that he gets a full update from a Minister and that time is found to discuss some of the issues raised by this case.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
On Saturday I will be joining hundreds of people from across Beckenham and Penge at Beckenham Rugby Club for a rugby tournament and beer festival. It is a fantastic example of how our small businesses support and enhance our local communities, and I would like to thank Matt and his team at the Three Hounds for all their work on this event. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing everyone attending a great weekend?
Lucy Powell
I do love the sporting questions from my hon. Friend, for which he gets quite a lot of cut-through. I join him in supporting all those from Beckenham Rugby Club on what sounds like a great day out.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I welcome the UK-US trade deal and congratulate the Prime Minister on it? It is very much in the national interest, although the devil is in the detail. May we have a debate on that trade deal and the concerns of British farmers about chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and antibiotics in pig farming? Will the Leader of the House assure the House, Shropshire farmers and British farmers that British agriculture is safe with this trade deal?
Lucy Powell
We can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. There will be a statement to the House later today—these issues are still unfolding—but he is right to praise the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade for the amazing work that they have done to get us to this point. He will be aware that the issues of food standards and agriculture have been red lines for the Government in those trade talks, and he will get the details later today.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
We are currently facing a chronic staffing crisis in adult social care, which has led to increasing recruitment from overseas. Migrant workers now make up 16% of the workforce in England. While many arrive in good faith, they are too often met with extortionate recruitment fees, wage reductions, exploitative working conditions and the ever-present threat of deportation should they raise concerns or lose their jobs. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have witnessed a shocking litany of failures, negligence and exploitation of migrant workers at the hands of a private company in my constituency of Stockport. Many workers have not been paid or have found themselves in overcrowded, substandard housing, and at times without any work at all. As such, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the exploitation of migrant workers?
Lucy Powell
We totally condemn the exploitation of international care workers by rogue employers in the sector. We are taking robust action, including by revoking sponsor licences where that is deemed to be the case. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets an update on his case.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I was concerned to read reports in the newspaper earlier this week that train stations will not be allowed to have step-free access if they have fewer than 1,000 passengers a day or are within 30 miles of a station with step-free access. People in rural areas will not be able to use the train if there is no alternative public transport and they cannot access a car. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time so that we can talk about the importance of people in rural areas being able to access public transport and, in particular, stations such as Whitchurch in my constituency, where there is no step-free access to the southbound platform?
Lucy Powell
The issue of step-free access at stations is always raised with me at business questions. I assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to the Access for All programme, and the Rail Minister is reviewing what we can do to support it better. I will ensure that the House is updated on that.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have today announced best value updates for five local authorities, including Warrington borough council. The findings for Warrington have highlighted a number of serious conclusions that must be addressed. However, we should also recognise the pressures that local authorities faced under the last Government, with significant reductions to funding and increased demands on their services. Warrington council must now go further and faster to improve, restore trust and deliver best value for my constituents. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate the important topic of local government finance and the actions that the Government are taking to support local authorities?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising issues in Warrington. She is right that the Government have given record levels of funding to local government—£69 billion this year, I think—and are committed to restoring services and local government in places such as her constituency.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Baby Jack was just 16 months old when, on Boxing day 2022, he passed away from sudden unexplained death in childhood, which was incredibly heartbreaking. It is something that unfortunately we just do not know enough about. I want to commend Jack’s parents, Cheryl and Darren from Silsden, whom I have met. They have been fund- raising on this issue ever since that fateful day. This weekend they will be taking on their biggest challenge: cycling from Leeds to Liverpool along the canal. I hope that hon. Members across the House, including the Leader of the House, will join me in sending our thoughts to Cheryl and Darren and their eldest son Louis on their fortitude and determination, and wish them the very best of luck in their cycling challenge this weekend.
Lucy Powell
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending the very best to Cheryl and Darren with their fundraising activities this weekend. I am really sorry to hear about the sudden death of Baby Jack—what an awful thing for any parent to go through. That they have been able to turn that into fundraising and campaigning is truly commendable. I look forward to them hopefully passing through Manchester on their way from Leeds to Liverpool.
Victory in Europe Day: Commemoration
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, I ask that you now suspend the sitting so that we may attend at Westminster Abbey to give thanks and to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day—the greatest victory in the history of our great nation.
Mr Speaker
We will now follow in the footsteps of our predecessors 80 years ago. On 8 May 1945, hon. Members formed a procession out of the House of Lords, where they had secretly relocated because the House of Commons Chamber had been destroyed during the blitz. Today, we shall again follow the Mace, but this time from our own Chamber, through the bomb-scarred Churchill Arch, which stands as a permanent reminder of the fortitude of those who stood firm through the war.
Environmental Audit Committee
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee Statement on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee. Mr Toby Perkins will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not speeches. Questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Government Minister, and Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to present the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the role of natural capital in the green economy. This report was initiated by my predecessor as Chair, the right honourable Philip Dunne, the former Member of Parliament for Ludlow. I wish to pay great tribute to him for his excellent contribution as Chair. Mr Dunne enjoyed what I suspect is an unusual distinction of having both asked questions and answered them in the witness sessions that led to this report. Having originally initiated the report in January 2024 and then seen Parliament dissolve before the report could be published, he was kind enough to return as a witness in December 2024 to brief the successor Committee on the evidence that his Committee had heard and to provide his own insights.
I wish to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude and, I know, the gratitude of members of the Committee past and present to our former Clerk, Martyn Atkins, who recently left the service of the Committee for a period of absence after many years of service to the House. Martyn has played a huge role in the work of this Select Committee and many others and will be very much missed, as will Chloe Jago, who recently stood down as press officer on the Committee after five years of excellent service to take up a role closer to home.
I thank all those who have contributed to this report, the many people and organisations who submitted written and oral evidence, the Committee staff—particularly Alex Farnsworth, who has worked tirelessly to complete the report—and the members of the current and predecessor Environmental Audit Committee.
Let me turn to the report itself. We were delighted to see that recommendation No. 1—that the Government should produce an impact assessment of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—was satisfied within a day of our report being published. At this pace, we really could get somewhere. However, we still need to learn more about how the nature restoration fund will interact with biodiversity net gain. I am glad to see that the Minister is here to expand on that in his response.
The Dasgupta review made clear the value of nature. Nature and the services that it provides underpin both our economy and our way of life. In 2022, the Office for National Statistics found that the UK ecosystem’s services were equivalent to 3.5% of GDP, or £1.8 trillion. The UK has experienced significant biodiversity loss in recent decades, with the “State of Nature” report 2023 showing an average of 19% species abundance decline across more than 750 species between 1970 and 2021.
The Committee agrees with the Government that economic and financial decision making should support the delivery of a nature-positive future and we would like to hear a repetition of that commitment and, indeed, to see it actualised in the forthcoming spending review.
The Committee agrees with the assertion of this Government and the previous Government that, in a time of spending restraint, taxpayer money alone is no longer sufficient to deliver the necessary level of environmental restoration, so private finance must play its part. We were pleased to hear from the Minister for Nature that work is ongoing to better quantify the current size of the annual investment in natural capital. The Committee therefore recommends that, within 12 months, the Government provide a report to Parliament on current and projected levels of private investment into nature recovery in England, so that we can see both the progress that has been made and the size of the funding gap.
For the Government to deliver on protecting 30% of land by 2030, they must provide landowners with the confidence to invest in nature restoration. The long-promised land use framework will help, and will give assurance that there is a strategic approach to balance the competing needs for our land in regard to food production, nature restoration, renewable energy, residential and commercial development, and other areas. It will, however, require a natural capital approach to be embedded throughout Government.
The Committee heard concerns that the changes to the agricultural property relief regime had added to uncertainty, although the Government’s decision to give nature investments equal treatment under inheritance tax at least answers the charge that the Government were prioritising nature recovery ahead of food production.
Voluntary drivers of market demand alone will not deliver the demand that the Government need. Compliance mechanisms and the expectation of future compliance requirements will drive market demand, so the Government should look at bringing in increased compliance requirements, such as by expanding biodiversity net gain requirements or mandating corporate disclosure of nature-damaging activities.
The Committee seeks assurances that the proposed new nature restoration fund is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, Government investment in nature recovery. Without clear support for biodiversity net gain, Ministers risk causing uncertainty in nature markets, which could undermine investment in restoring nature. It will be good to hear a full-throated defence of BNG from the Minister in his response to the report—a defence that we heard from him, and indeed from myself, when in opposition.
Although the Committee supports an approach that allows nature recovery initiatives to be pooled, the Government must ensure that we do not end up with nature recovery miles away while there is a further eradication of nature within urban settings. One of the strengths of BNG is that the communities that suffered the nature blight also benefited from the recovery of nature locally. It will be good to get a commitment from the Minister about that principle remaining in place under the nature restoration fund proposals. Nature can grow hand in hand with our economy, and money from growth should go back into helping nature thrive.
The report provides the Government with a road map to restoring nature by capitalising on our huge national strength as a global financial leader. It cautions the Government not to undermine the progress already made and offers our support for the measures that help nature’s recovery come hand in hand with the economic growth that the Government rightly demand.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in support of the Committee’s report, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on the way in which he has led the Committee and on how he took up the remnant of this report from the last Parliament as the first report for our Committee in the new Parliament. He is right to recognise that natural capital is the foundation of our economy. With the spending review next month, does he agree that the Government should set out precisely how they have taken a natural capital approach to the evaluation of spending decisions? Does he agree that the new national wealth fund should be empowered to invest in the natural capital project, as highlighted in our report?
Mr Perkins
To return a compliment, my hon. Friend is the only person who was there at the start of the evidence and at the end, and we are very grateful for the continuity he provides. He is right that, as the Committee’s report lays out, we need to see a natural capital approach embedded right through Government. The forthcoming spending review is a great opportunity to see that, and I really hope that we do. He makes an important point about the national wealth fund; it provides a huge opportunity and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that both at this juncture and in his response to the report, which we will get from the Government in due course.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I commend the hon. Member for the quality of the Committee’s first report of this Parliament. The National Trust has warned that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a “licence to kill nature” and the Office for Environmental Protection has advised the Government that it is a “regression” in environmental law. Does he share my concern that a nature restoration fund could create risks to the UK economy by undermining our natural capital, and does he agree that without substantial private investment in nature, Government pledges to protect 30% of land by 2030, halt the decline of species and improve people’s access to green spaces could be at risk?
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I will start at the end of his question. He is absolutely right, and we agree with the Government that we need to be able to attract more private investment if the 30 by 30 aspiration is to be realised. It was notable that when the Government came to the Committee, they made it clear that they did not yet know—as their predecessor Government did not know—exactly how much was being raised by the private sector. The starting point of assessing whether the Government are on track to meet their targets is knowing how well they are doing right now. One of the recommendations in the report is therefore that the Government should get on with identifying the full scale of the current level of private sector investment. We will absolutely look to do that.
The jury is still out on whether the nature restoration fund will be a good or a bad thing. It offers real potential. A one-for-one approach on small schemes is sometimes expensive to provide and offers relatively limited value, so there is real value to a pooled approach that enables money to go in so that wider-scale improvements can be delivered. However, as I said, we need to be really sure that that does not mean that urban areas get the blight and rural areas get all the nature gain. We need to see it delivered close to where the initial plans are being delivered.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the publication of the report, which reminds us all once again that nature is the true foundation of all wealth in our country and around the globe. A wide range of environmental organisations and eminent academics —including Sir Partha Dasgupta, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge, whose review for the Treasury underpins the Committee’s entire report—have publicly written to warn that proposed plans in the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill are
“not a tool for ecological recovery”
but
“a licence to kill nature, with no evidence to suggest this would in any way help our economy.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that when leading economists, former Government advisers and leading conservationists with decades of collective experience have expressed such deep concerns about Government legislation, Ministers must listen and think again?
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that and for the excellent contribution he is making to the Select Committee. Professor Dasgupta is hugely respected, and his warnings should be taken very seriously indeed. I think that all Labour Members recognise the need for growth, but we demand that it comes hand in hand with nature recovery. We are one of the most nature-depleted nations on Earth and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, nature is the foundation stone on which all economic growth should be built. A nation that prioritises economic growth over our environment is one heading down a dangerous and foolish path. We have heard some really positive commitments from the Government, but we need to see them actualised. I completely agree with what he said.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and welcome this excellent report, with its focus on the value of natural capital. On such an important day as Sir David Attenborough’s 99th birthday, I am sure that Members across the House will wish to join me in expressing many happy returns to him for his important work in this space.
In coastal and rural constituencies like mine in South East Cornwall, the natural world and its biodiversity are both cherished and central to local jobs and to the economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that integrating natural capital into policy through tools like the nature restoration fund and the nature markets framework offers a vital opportunity for the Government and land managers to restore and increase the UK’s natural capital in ways that strengthen nature, boost local resilience and improve wellbeing for communities and for future generations?
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations. As I say, it is not my report; it is ours. I thank her for her contribution to the Committee. She is right about that commitment, and I think all of us on the Committee are driven to make sure that growth is hand in hand with nature, rather than at its expense. I agree with her entirely.
St George’s Day and English Affairs
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered St George’s Day and English affairs.
I am grateful to my colleagues who co-sponsored this debate, and I wish all those right across our island home a belated but very happy St George’s day.
The cross-party support for this debate speaks to the power of St George and our collective pride in our Englishness. While the debate brought many colleagues together for all the right reasons, regardless of background or political persuasion, we as a House must be very clear that no political party, politician, region, faith, colour or creed has a monopoly on patriotism or pride in our national identity.
We gather here 80 years to the day since VE Day—the day of victory in Europe, victory against fascism and victory for decency, democracy and all that makes England and our United Kingdom great. As we celebrate 80 years since the end of the most terrible global war in modern history, I will, like many other colleagues who would otherwise be here, head back home to my constituency to celebrate with my neighbours, friends and constituents. I pay tribute to all those who fought so that we could live. I give thanks for their lives and legacies, and on behalf of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I rededicate myself to building a world that is more tolerant, more respectful and, yes, more peaceful. As Churchill said on this day 80 years ago,
“Long Live the Cause of Freedom! God Save the King!”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
From Newcastle-under-Lyme to North Northumberland, from Newquay to North Yorkshire and everywhere in between and beyond, St George’s day is a time to celebrate England and our Englishness and to show pride in our country—my country—and in our values, our flag and our history. My Englishness is central to my identity. My family roots are from all over the Commonwealth, and I have spoken in this House before about my grandfather who left the colonies, as they were, to help the war effort here in the United Kingdom. Yet it is in England where I was born and raised; it is England that shaped me and allowed someone of my mixed background to thrive, succeed and get on in life. That is the story of our England.
I have said in the House before that I am proud of my Englishness and my Britishness, and of the simple truth that in our beloved country—“this blessed plot”, as Shakespeare once called it—we can be anything we want to be with the right support, a work ethic, real opportunities and a good heart. There is so much that any, many and all of us could say about our nation home, but the time limits do not allow me that opportunity—although, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are well known for your indulgence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank him for doing so. It is important. I am one of those people— I suspect many of us are—who are proud to be English and proud to be British; I recognise them as different things that we should celebrate uniquely. Does he agree that those who seek to use Englishness to divide us, rather than bring us together, do a huge disservice to what being English is all about? Does he also agree that those of us who believe that we can have huge patriotism and pride in our Englishness, but who also recognise the values of inclusivity and generosity that our nation has shown over the years, need to do a much better job at defining exactly what it is as we go forward in difficult political times?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very important intervention. There is so much more that brings us together, and it is incumbent on all Members of this House to make that case, and to focus on bringing people together, rather than pushing us further apart.
England’s greatest asset is its people. That is nowhere clearer to me than in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the northern corner of the ancient county of Staffordshire that is my home and my constituency. Our people are hardworking, and many are God-fearing, decent folk who do not walk by on the other side, but who turn up to be counted. We see that in our national health service, in our schools, on our railways, in our veterans’ centres and in communities up and down England. We saw it during the pandemic and in the struggle alongside the people of Ukraine against Putin’s tyranny. We see it every single day.
One of England’s greatest features is our countryside, and my home of Newcastle-under-Lyme has plenty of it. Our farmers, who produce food of the greatest quality to the highest standards, deserve real and meaningful support. They feed us, work hard and lead the world when it comes to tending to and caring for our land, and I urge Ministers in this Government to keep that in mind. Where the previous Government failed, we must listen, learn and turn up to be counted.
The contribution of the English language to western literacy is simply immeasurable. England was home to the greatest writer of all time, William Shakespeare, and the works of Shakespeare alone continue to put England head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to influence on global literature. Alongside him, England can claim T. S. Eliot, the Brontë sisters, George Orwell, Jane Austen and many more.
English music is some of the most popular and influential music of all time. Still today, the Beatles— I see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey)—are considered by many to be the greatest band of all time, but that is a debate for another day. Alongside the Beatles, we have the Stones, David Bowie, Amy Winehouse, Queen, Adele, Elton John, Kate Bush, the excellent Joan Armatrading, Cilla Black, Oasis, the Clash, Pink Floyd and, of course, Robbie Williams—a man of and from north Staffordshire, whose mother lives in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
England has made some of the most enduring and significant contributions to music of any nation on our planet, and that is without mentioning the many other cultural endeavours mastered by the English. English film remains dominant globally. A new James Bond film is still one of the premier cinematic events, and no tariff will get in the way of that. Christopher Nolan, an Englishman, is arguably one of the most exciting and skilled film directors working today. We give thanks for actors like the late Dame Maggie Smith and the late and wonderful Glenda Jackson, formerly of this parish, and to those still going strong like Dame Joanna Lumley and Dame Judi Dench, who I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday with last year—[Interruption.] A story for another day, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As the birthplace of Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the iconic Spitfire plane; home to a university; birthplace of a Prime Minister—albeit that he moved to Australia to serve in that high office—and the home of the founder of the modern circus, Philip Astley; the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme has left its mark on English history and culture. If that is not enough, we also have the popular Stoke City clown icon Nello Baldwin—a constituent of mine. Speaking of Stoke City, I could not make this speech without mentioning England as the home of the beautiful game. With the local football landscape back home in mind, I of course also pay tribute to Port Vale.
Today it is important to call for action to ensure that the truths of England’s story and potential are preserved. We must work to ensure that people across England, and indeed all across the United Kingdom, continue to feel pride in our flag and our communities, and feel hope for the future and respect for our past. Any talk about love for flag and country must be matched by an investment in the people who make them what they are —investment in our national health service, our education and employment support services, our arts and culture, and our villages, towns and cities.
I do not want my speech to focus solely on the past, when there are so many exciting things to say about England’s future, but it would be remiss of me not to touch on some parts of our history that fill me with a particular sense of reverence. Our democracy is one of the oldest in the world. An English Parliament has existed in some form since the 13th century, and monumental events, such as the signing of the Magna Carta, have solidified England’s position in history as a forebearer of individual rights and freedom of political expression. Those rights were fought for and hard won across centuries by brave women and men who had the vision to see a better country and a better world for all of us.
There are many things I could say about England’s relationship to the wider world, but one of the enduring strengths of our country that I always come back to is the courage, tenacity and character of ordinary English people right across history. England is home to people from all over the world, and we are much better for it. Of course, we cannot forget that England, too, left its mark on all corners of the globe.
For some—misguidedly, in my view—talking England up is alien to them. To speak of the exciting future ahead of us in the vibrant country that we have become is difficult for some to do. All they seem able to contribute to our national conversation is a view of England as a nation in decline—a nation once great, now not. I have spent much of my several minutes speaking outlining the incredible successes and achievements of England’s past, but for those people, there is nothing more to England than its past. To them I say, “You don’t know England.” We have faced our fair share of adversity, and today of all days reminds us of that, but as Disraeli said:
“The English nation is never so great as in adversity.”
I am never so proud to be English as in those moments. It is when times are toughest that I am blown away by the courage, tenacity and generosity of the good people of this country.
The English have always found a way to get on, persevere, and, as Churchill put it, “keep buggering on”, whether after the destruction of two world wars or through the heartbreak of a disappointing Euros final. We will continue to do so. I will continue to look back at our past with the respect and reverence that it deserves, and look forward to our future with hope and optimism, because doing so is part of what makes us English, and things can only get better.
I leave my final words to the last verse of one of my, and my late grandfather’s, favourite hymns. He moved to this country in the late 1940s to help ensure that we beat fascism and defended democracy. I shall resist the temptation to sing the verse to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Disappointing? Not for some.
“I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England’s green and pleasant Land.”
We have much to do, in this House and in communities right across the country, so let us get on with. Happy St George’s day to one and all!
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is fast establishing a reputation as an effective parliamentarian and a thoroughly nice chap. His speech was appropriate and excellent in every single way, and I agreed with everything he said. It is not often that Labour MPs quote former Tory Prime Ministers—that was certainly a first, and we all much enjoyed it.
Of course, as we all do, the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the famous people from his constituency. Well, I can match that for Lincolnshire. I can talk of Sir Isaac Newton, John Smith of the pilgrim fathers, the great poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Joan Plowright. I can also mention one other person who came from Lincolnshire. I do not want to break the cosy consensus of this debate, but it is a lady whom I greatly admire. I believe that she restored greatness to this country when she was Prime Minister—I need not even mention her name because she is so famous.
St George is a saint. He was not English, of course. When the far right try to capture the flag of St George, they should perhaps try to remember that he was an Anatolian Greek. I think it is quite good that our national saint is not actually English, and that we know virtually nothing about him. What we do know is based purely on legend and is almost certainly wrong. I think that says much about the easy-going nature of the English people.
We are surrounded by saints here. In the Undercroft, we have St Etheldreda, St Edward the Confessor, St Margaret of Scotland, St Edmund and many more. In Central Lobby, we have the four great patron saints of our countries. There is a well-worn joke about St Andrew being on the way to the bar, St Patrick on the way to the exit, St David on the way to this Chamber, where we all like to talk, and St George on the way to the Lords.
Saints unite; politicians divide. I have many times expressed in this Chamber—it is rather an unfashionable point of view, but I will mention it briefly—the importance of religion in binding people together. Religion, on an ecumenical basis—being proud of one’s religion and its social ethos—should be a unifying factor. All the great religions have much the same moral creed, and I think the decline of religion in England has been rather sad.
The theme I want to talk about, so that I do not indulge entirely in clichés, is the essence of a nation being a sense of community—a community in which everybody is in a project together, all doing their bit. Sadly, there has been a decline in that sense of community in our nation. For instance, my parents, although English, were brought up in France. They came here as refugees in 1940 when the Germans invaded France because they had British passports, and they met in Bletchley Park. They had a very mixed upbringing, but they had a complete dedication to this country. When my mother was very old, she would still insist, despite being very infirm, on tottering off to the polling booth. The wartime generation, who we are celebrating today, had an absolute sense of duty and community, and we want to recreate that.
Let me make one or two points that may be more controversial. There are some factors that are breaking our sense of community, and, frankly, we all saw from the results last week that they are fuelling a feeling of disillusion. One, of course, is illegal migration. We have got to understand that this infuriates everybody. It does not just infuriate right-wing people who do not like the idea of migrants. It also infuriates many people who are working hard and feel that some are taking advantage.
I do not want to make any criticism of migrants, and I do not want to attack them personally. Take a Somali migrant—why is he trying to come here? Because for hundreds of years, his family could fish off the coast of Somalia, and then we in the west sent in huge trawlers to take all the fish away and took away his livelihood, so he resorted to piracy. Quite rightly, we then sent in warships to deal with that, so once again, they were starving, and he is now on the way here. I do not think we should approach the issue of migration in a nationalistic way. What I liked about the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was that it was patriotic, not nationalistic, and it tried to heal divisions.
The fact is that illegal migration is an open wound in our society. It is not just the cost of it, with £4 million a day spent on hotels; there is also a sense for many in our country that people who could apply for asylum in the proper, normal way are bypassing that route. We have seen from a study in The Daily Telegraph this week how easy it is to pay a people smuggler, come over here, be put in a hotel and act as a courier. That is really infuriating people.
Our fate in the Conservative party, because we are no longer in power, is that we are dependent on the Labour Government solving this problem—and they will have to solve it, because we cannot go on as we are. It is fuelling a great sense of anger in the nation. The Government have to get a derogation from the Strasbourg Court, as I have argued many times, in order to arrest, detain and deport people, and then this horrible trade will stop immediately.
Of course, there is a humanitarian point to be made here: these people smugglers are putting lives at risk, and people are dying. They are feeding on human misery. We cannot do much about it in the Conservative party; Labour is now in power. My advice to the Government is that if they want to resist this sense of disillusion in society, with people turning away from both the Labour party and the Conservative party, they have to do something about it.
They have to do something about legal migration, too. There is a great sense among people who are working hard here that people are pouring in or have poured in. I blame my Government as much as any other; I do not make a party political point here. The Labour party has taken over a difficult issue. We all know the reasons to do with the pandemic and all the other excuses, and about how we had to keep the NHS and our care homes going, but the fact that the Conservative Government allowed 1 million people in legally last year is infuriating people, and it is depressing wages. It might be good for overall GDP, but it is certainly bad for individual wealth. Again, we can do very little about it in the Conservative party, but the Government need to act. I know they are trying to take steps.
This is relevant to the debate about St George because it is about trying to recreate a sense that we are one nation, and that everybody works hard, everybody pays their taxes, and we get benefits such as free education and free health so that when we fall ill we are helped by the state. I was talking to a constituent only today and she is clearly a lady in some distress. She cannot move but has just had her personal independence payment cancelled. She has been told she has to work from home, but she cannot work from home because she does not have those sorts of skills. Ever more people are feeling angry that they have done their bit and worked hard, but when they fall ill or need benefits they are not being helped. We have to all work together to try to again get that sense of the wartime spirit—that is a bit of a cliché, but it is about a time when everybody mucked in, everybody had a job, everybody did their bit and there were, frankly, very few freeloaders.
I represent an agricultural constituency. One might wonder why I am now getting on to that subject, but again there is a sense among people in agricultural constituencies that the Government do not understand their point of view. We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire. We are leading on green energy with wind farms in the North sea; there is no opposition to them, but we are angry that entrepreneurs are importing solar panels from China made by slave labour and covering 10,000 acres in my constituency with no proper local planning. We are not against solar farms and we are not against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; we just want a sense of fairness that local communities have a say in this and there is some sense of proportion.
I think I have said my bit. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and hope we have a very good and worthwhile debate.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this important debate. It is poignant that this debate is happening today, on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day—a day to commemorate the sacrifice, bravery and resilience of so many, as well as the courage to stand up for what is right. That, to me, is the embodiment of St George’s spirit.
Sometimes the magnitude of the privilege of being in this place really hits home, and today is one of those days. Looking around, I am thinking more than I usually do of the sacrifices made by so many veterans and current service personnel from Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages, across the country and across the Commonwealth. I have thought more deeply than probably ever before about the sacrifice of my own dear grandparents during the second world war and the sacrifices of my very loved family members currently serving our country in the Royal Air Force. It is such a privilege to stand here in this place and pay tribute to them in the spirit of St George and all the good that he can represent.
In the past, St George’s day was marked by grand festivities across the land, with feasts, parades and community gatherings that brought people together in celebration of what it meant to be English. If ever we needed to revive that spirit, now is the time. We should take full advantage and celebrate our shared heritage and rebuild pride in our country and hope for the future, because patriotism is much more than rose-tinted nostalgia, and it is not the preserve of one political party or ideology.
Too often, patriotism is wielded as a weapon, its true meaning lost in the noise of performative gestures and narrow nationalism, but the patriotism I value is showing up for the people, places and principles that define our country. This St George’s day, I launched a campaign in Weston-super-Mare to make St George’s day a bank holiday. I invited my constituents to add their support to the campaign and was struck by the variety of responses we received. Many embraced it with enthusiasm, while others met it with scepticism and cynicism. It got me thinking again about why patriotism should feel suspect or shameful for some. We need to own it, because this love of our country is not exclusive to any one faction or class. It is deep pride in who we are, our shared values, and the common ground upon which we all stand. True patriotism is not about clinging to an idealised past either; it is about striving for a fairer, kinder, more just future. It is about compassion, decency, the rule of law and a good dose of common sense. And it is not blind loyalty either; it is principled commitment to making this country better for everyone.
For me, patriotism is about the everyday things in life that make England the best place in the world to live. It is walking along Sand Bay beach in my constituency, as the sea breeze whips through the air and the rain bats us in the face, making sure that we feel alive; it is listening to my favourite Frank Turner album, “England Keep My Bones”, bursting with pride about the country that I am from; it is fish and chips on the Grand Pier; it is Wallace and Gromit and Victoria Wood on TV; and it is a pot of tea to warm up after taking the dog for a walk around Ashcombe Park.
It is also standing up to injustice and caring enough to say, “We can do better than this.” Loving your country does not mean settling for the way things are, but striving for how things could be. It is about people finding their voice among those loud and vexatious people who seek to dominate with hate and division. Those who show up, do the hard graft, and organise and campaign for a better future are the patriots. So too are the teachers who stay late to help a struggling student, the single parents juggling work and family, and the many volunteers who give up their free time to serve their communities, driven not by a need for recognition but by a deep love for their neighbours and their country. Those are the everyday patriots who are too often left out of the national story.
Meanwhile, there are those who wrap themselves in the flag, while eagerly chipping away at the values it represents: equality, freedom and justice. My grandfather, a proud Dunkirk veteran, who did not like to talk about any of his time during the war, knew who those mendacious charlatans who would wear the flag but not represent any of its values were, and he instilled in each and every one of his grandchildren how to spot them. He gave us a few tips about how to take them down as well.
It is time that we reclaim patriotism as a unifying force for good. We should not shy away from it; we should own it, because what is more patriotic than striving to make this country fairer, kinder and more inclusive? From the suffragettes to striking miners, from steelworkers to civil rights campaigners, our country has always been full of people who love this country enough to demand better. If we abandon patriotism to those who use it as a blunt instrument of exclusion, we allow its true spirit to be distorted. We must champion a different kind of patriotism that is not performative or exclusionary, but principled and inclusive; one that honours and supports our armed forces, but also the carers, the bus drivers and the immigrants working tirelessly in our health and care service to look after our sick and elderly.
Loving England does not mean pretending everything is fine, but caring enough to fix what is not. It means believing in the uniqueness of our communities, the warmth of our people and the promise of our future, and it means making sure that every single one of us, regardless of background, is part of that story. Let us renew that commitment, not just to symbols and ceremonies, but to real, meaningful patriotism—the kind that brings people together, strives for fairness and justice, and dares to imagine a better country for all.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to take part in this very important debate on St George’s day and English affairs. I commend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing the debate. I will say a bit more about the hon. Member later on, because I believe that he is a fine addition to this House and that he demonstrates patriotism in all that he does.
Before I do so and before I speak more generally about St George’s day, may I say that today we also meet in solemn remembrance and in proud celebration of 8 May 1945, 80 years ago, when the guns fells silent across Europe? Victory in Europe Day marked not just the end of a long and brutal war on our continent, but the triumph of courage, unity and unyielding resolve over tyranny. In Romford, Essex and across England, the church bells rang out, neighbours embraced and families paused to remember those who had lost loved ones, but also to welcome those who had returned. We remember the generation who faced that unimaginable darkness with unwavering bravery: the soldiers who fought on land, at sea and in the air; the families who endured the blitz; the workers and nurses who kept our nation going; and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
Let us never forget that peace is not simply inherited, but earned, and it must be defended anew by each generation. As we reflect on Victory in Europe Day, we honour our past by committing to a future shaped by democracy, justice and international co-operation.
I pay tribute to my father, Frederick William Rosindell, who was an officer in the Royal Air Force during the second world war and flew transport planes. He also served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, with which he trained in Canada during the second world war. We owe so much to all my constituents and their loved ones who served during that conflict and gave us the freedom that we enjoy today. I was proud to be at the town hall in Romford today alongside the mayor of the London borough of Havering, Councillor Gerry O’Sullivan, to raise the VE flag in tribute to all those who served King, Queen and country and gave us the freedom that we sometimes but should never take for granted.
St George’s day runs deep. We should all celebrate the spirit of St George with great pride. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British heritage and of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George—my deputy chair is none other than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—I am so pleased that we are able to speak today in this general debate about our Englishness and all that it entails. The hon. Member spoke passionately about flag, country and people, and as far as I am concerned that sums everything up. I again thank him for everything that he does to promote British and English patriotism and respect for our heritage and traditions in this place and across the country. As I said earlier, he is a fine addition to the House of Commons.
Thanks to the kind permission of Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I hosted a parliamentary St George’s day reception in the state apartments in Speaker’s House on St George’s day on 23 April. That celebration brought together English music, food, wine and politicians to celebrate our country and all that is great about our heritage. I offer a special tribute to the band of the Romford Drum & Trumpet Corps, which played the fanfares on that day, and to Kerrie Kavanagh, who organised that.
I also offer a tribute to the wonderful pianist, Drew Steanson, who played English music on Mr Speaker’s grand piano in the state apartments, and to the outstanding opera singers, Terry Bosshard and Marie McLaughlin, who sang “Jerusalem” and the national anthem for us. I cannot possibly forget the Silverhand Estate winery in Kent, which donated the magnificent English sparkling wine. I also offer a tribute to all those who volunteered their time and effort to make it such a special annual occasion, which Mr Speaker hosts for us here in Parliament. I am pleased to let Members know that they will be able to avail themselves of the opportunity again next year, as Mr Speaker has already invited us to host another St George’s day reception.
I pay tribute to Nick Dutt, the chairman of the Royal Society of Saint George, for the work that he does, and to Cliff Trowse, the co-ordinator of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George. I do not think I am meant to show props, but I will do so for one second if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the foundation charter of our branch of the society here in Parliament, which was inaugurated on 23 April 2009. I invite all hon. Members of all parties and Members of the other place to join the Royal Society of Saint George here in Parliament to show support for England and our traditions and for the magnificent work of the society not only in this country, but throughout the world.
I also pay tribute to Tony Appleton, the magnificent town crier of Romford. He is also a royal town crier—he announces royal births outside Buckingham Palace—but he is the Romford town crier, and he was in Parliament on 23 April two weeks ago to ring the bell and announce the order of service for the day. Finally, of course, I pay tribute to Barry Hearn OBE, who kindly supported this year’s event so generously.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned some great people—national treasures, great figures in the culture and history of our country—but he forgot a few. I will mention one or two who regularly attend our St George’s day celebrations here in Parliament. Of course, we cannot forget Su Pollard, who comes to our St George’s day event most years, or Patti Boulaye OBE, who also attends and regularly sings for us in Speaker’s House. Finally, I would like to mention Vicki Michelle MBE—from “’Allo ’Allo”, of course. What better person to remember on this day of VE 80? I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; if you could convey our thanks to Mr Speaker for hosting that wonderful event, I would be grateful. I hope that hon. Members will join us next year.
Although the great feast day of St George, the patron saint of England and Englishness, is now celebrated with zeal in this place and in many towns and villages across our country, it is notable that in wider cultural and civic life the celebration of Englishness can sometimes be frowned on and English culture can even be demeaned by some. That is part of the reason for the existence of the Royal Society of Saint George, under royal patronage. It has the noble object of promoting Englishness and the English way of life, which I am proud to support as both a Member of Parliament and chairman of the society’s branch in the Houses of Parliament.
It is, however, important to note that the need for greater recognition and appreciation of England and her people runs beyond the level of culture, deep into the roots of our constitutional and devolutionary arrangements. Under the devolutionary arrangements enacted at the turn of the century, with pieces of legislation such as the Scotland Act 1998 that created the Scottish Parliament, regional parliaments were also created. For the first time in centuries, the unifying linchpin of these islands—the Crown in Parliament—seemed to have been wrenched out of place. It is demonstrably true that this has weakened the national unity of our nation and caused some regional, nationalistic and factionalised tendencies, which I believe run counter to Britain’s cultural, institutional and constitutional heritage. However, it is the reality we must operate in today, even if we do not relish it.
Perhaps the most intellectually consistent response would be to advocate for the reversal of devolution, but of course, there is unlikely to be such a political appetite today to do so. What must be acknowledged is that England, the most populous region with the biggest economy, is the only home nation not to have her own devolved Parliament. This has created a democratic deficit in which the proud people of England—such as those in my constituency of Romford, Essex—are left with the rich cultural heritage I outlined earlier but a rather diminished democratic voice.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend will know that I am a very strong supporter of this Parliament and this United Kingdom. I was not, of course, a Member of this House when devolution was introduced, but had I been here at the time, I most certainly would not have voted to break up our United Kingdom in the way that we have done by creating different Parliaments and Assemblies across the UK—including the London Assembly, which I would love to see abolished very soon.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I appreciate that the hon. Member is speaking about St George’s day and English affairs, but I would just take issue with his use of the phrase “break up” to describe the effect of devolution on our country. We devolved some of the power closer to the people so that they felt more represented. That was not an attempt to break up the country. I say as a member of the party which, along with the Labour party, was instrumental in achieving devolution that it was to hold the country together while allowing people to feel closer to where decisions are made.
Andrew Rosindell
I have the utmost respect for the hon. Lady, and she makes an extremely valid and important point. Nobody wants to break up the United Kingdom, and I did not intend to cause offence by saying that. I believe that all Members of Parliament should be equal. Elected representatives should be equal, but if we create different types of elected representation at different levels, it means that English MPs have a different role from Scottish MPs, because they have MSPs in Scotland, who have another role. By doing so, we are muddling up our constitution, and I regret that that happened, but we have to move on. That is now a quarter of a century ago, and we need to think about the future.
There have been certain attempts to deconstruct that democratic deficit. We had English votes for English laws, also known as EVEL. That procedure was brought into the House. Unitary authorities and mayoralties have been created across England, and we are seeing more being created as we speak. The procedure for creating mayoralties is too remote and the procedure to make them meaningful and to appeal to people who feel ignored is looked at with contempt. These mayoralties are not supported by most people. I think they believe in local democracy at a truly local level, and that is not solved by creating vast regional mayoralties and assemblies that are not in tune with local people in local communities.
There may be merit in the new devolutionary arrangements being considered at local government level, but those will only be effective if they address the cultural, economic and political realities of the localities with which they are concerned. For example, yesterday I led an Adjournment debate about the London borough of Havering and Essex devolution. Apparently, Havering is not allowed to be considered as part of devolution in Essex. In that debate, I highlighted how successive regional London authorities and the plans for Essex devolution have ignored the local Essex identities of my constituents, particularly in Romford. That has happened under successive Governments.
The historic counties, in the patchwork of traditional England, will play an important part in devolution. I hope the Minister will take back the point that perhaps the historic counties and the ceremonial counties could be aligned to avoid the muddle and confusion. Many Members and I have to debate with people over whether places such as Romford are really Essex or London—what are we? It muddles a lot of people’s minds and creates a lot of confusion, and it needs to be resolved. Aligning the historic and the ceremonial counties would go a long way to solving that. It would mean that local government could be purely for administration and the provision of local services, and it would mean that people’s local identities were not mixed up.
I therefore request that the Government open up a discussion and a plan for restoring all the facets of the English way of life, so that my constituents no longer feel that they are being ignored. It is an obvious but integral point that any attempt to deconstruct and replace the current devolutionary arrangements can only be successful if hard-working people, like my constituents in Romford, Essex, are listened to and heard. I am sure that all Members of the House would agree that their constituents’ voices must be heard. English democracy might then be restored to the place of pride it used to occupy, just as the English cultural repertoire that had pride of place in Speaker’s House earlier this year made such an impact on so many of us.
As we reflect on our proud English history, our magnificent British traditions, the Commonwealth of nations, the British overseas territories, the Crown dependencies and the wider British family, and all that our forebears achieved in giving us the magnificent land and magnificent island nation that we have today, I can do no better than to quote the words of Sir Winston Churchill:
“Advance Britannia! Long Live the Cause of Freedom! God Save the King!”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on bringing this debate to the House. I am delighted to join Members from across the House in celebrating St George’s day and English affairs, for it is only right that we take the time to celebrate our history, our heritage and our national character, to reflect on what it means to be English, and to come together in unity and pride.
I fondly recall marking St George’s day last year as a Minister in Downing Street, where we hosted an event that brought together business leaders, charities, veterans, community leaders and voluntary organisations—outstanding members of the community who all play a vital role in our country. It reminded me just how proud we should be of our country. We must take pride in our history in order to instil the richness of our culture and our values in the next generation, and to reclaim what Britishness means to us all.
For a small country, we have well and truly punched above our weight. We have defended the world not once, but twice, in two world wars—something that must never be forgotten. Before this debate, we rightly marked the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day over in Westminster Abbey. The great-great-grandson of Sir Winston Churchill lit the candle of peace 80 years on from Sir Winston’s famous speech, in which he told the nation that the war had ended. Like so many other Members, we will leave the House straight after this debate to go back to our constituencies. I will be going to Comberbach in Tatton to share in the VE Day celebrations this evening.
As we reflect and commemorate VE Day, we must ask ourselves one crucial question: have we lived up to the example set by those great patriotic individuals who fought and died to protect our freedoms and give us peace? For peace and freedoms do not just happen; they are fought for. In pondering that question—and we may have different answers—we need to rethink what our duty is to one another and to our country, to make sure that we do stand up for those same freedoms today, and to protect the legacy of those who stood before us and made the ultimate sacrifice, for we cannot and must not cower to those who deny our great past, or be traduced by those who are embarrassed or who denounce it. The voice of the right-minded majority must remind those detractors of what we stand for and what we have given the world.
Our great country was the cradle of the industrial revolution, and the birthplace of the computer and the internet. We gave the world football, rugby and cricket. We discovered gravity and evolution, and we eradicated smallpox. We have produced literary geniuses such as Shakespeare, Dickens and the Brontës, great composers from Elgar to Britten and, from my home town, the Beatles—those four lads who took music to the world. We have produced artists such as Constable, Turner and, yes, even Banksy. Innovation and entrepreneurialism are in our country’s DNA, and that must be remembered and continued.
I know that our English character is to be stoical—to find a queue and wait patiently in it—and not to brag. In fact, we would rather hide our light under a bushel than extol our virtues, but now is not the time for that. In an era of speed and fast communications, when facts can be lost and fake becomes real, we need to remember who we are and what we have given to the world. We are a positive voice in an ever-more complicated and dangerous world, and we need to take heed of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which rightly celebrate their national days. We must do the same, too.
Let us be clear: it is time for the majority of law-abiding, hard-working and patriotic people of England to have their say, to stand up for our values—the values of honour, courage, faith and freedom, which have stood the test of time—and to sing with one voice that we are proud of England, proud of Great Britain and proud to be British. We need to take on the mantle of St George, the warrior saint who is the patron saint of England, as a symbol of strength, conviction and righteous purpose, who reminds us that our nation has never been afraid to stand up for what is right.
In the Chamber where I am delivering this speech, and where we have all spoken so positively today, let me say that I am very proud, as I know we all are, to serve in this Parliament. It is the mother of Parliaments, and the heart of a thriving democracy that has been the model for so many other countries around the world.
Let us speak with one voice, with pride and unity, and say clearly and unapologetically that we are proud to be English, we are proud of our past, and we believe in our future. Today we stand together to celebrate what makes us all English, to celebrate that we are all British and to remember, today of all days, victory in Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Allow me to start by thanking the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for proposing this debate and congratulating him on his excellent introductory speech. He talked about the importance of seeing the flag of St George as a positive, and avoiding the temptation in some quarters to demean it. That point was also made by the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme also talked about the influence of English language, culture, sport and history all over the world, and highlighted the courage and tenacity of the English character.
Of course, today of all days, I join all Members across the House in paying tribute to the English and British people who fought in the second world war—enabling us to have this debate today—to protect democracy across Europe.
Like the hon. Member for Romford, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned singing, and I surely speak for the whole House when I express my disappointment that he opted not to sing to us, but I hope he will rectify that on a future occasion. He also paid tribute to former Prime Minister Winston Churchill—as did the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Romford and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey)—who exemplified public service, as do Members of this House to this day.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough took us through a little of the history of St George, and I will do a little bit more of that. Legend has it that St George slew an evil dragon that was plaguing a local town and saved a princess. It is traditionally a Christian celebration, as the story goes that St George offered to kill the dragon only if the town converted to Christianity. However, the historical record points to the fact that George was likely among those who suffered for their faith during the last great persecution of the Church initiated in the year 303 by the Roman emperor Diocletian.
In fact, it was not until the mid-13th century that George became firmly associated with the English nation, especially with the Crown and at times of war, and it was not until the time of Henry VIII that the St George’s cross became the national flag. Veneration of George has always had a strong popular dimension, and this was helped along by his dragon-slaying powers. Depictions of the saint in combat with the fearsome serpent date from at least the ninth century. A revival of contemporary St George’s day celebrations emerged in the 1990s, with the St George’s flag a regular feature at sporting events, in churches and in use by local government and other public bodies.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has some important contributions to make. We have Dragon hill near Uffington, where legend has it that St George slayed the dragon, and the quintessentially English village of Upton has the recently refurbished George public house, which is very much enjoyed by parishioners of that village and many from further afield. Elsewhere in Oxfordshire there is the St George’s tower in Oxford castle, a key battleground of the English civil war, which is key to the foundations of our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
But it is also interesting to note that St George and St George’s day has an international dimension to this most English of special days. It is a day of celebration in, among others: Hungary, Portugal, Spain, German, Brazil, Serbia and Greece. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned calls for St George’s Day to become an English national holiday, calls supported by English Heritage and the organisation in which the hon. Member for Romford is very active, the Royal Society of St George. I am sure that is something that many Members would support.
Contributions to the debate have also reflected on what Englishness means to us today. St George’s Day is an opportunity to take pride in our country’s achievements, including the pivotal role England and its Parliament played in the birth of modern democracy. England’s story is one of community spirit, innovation and compassion; our strength lying in the rich tapestry of rural villages, bustling towns and global cities that make up our country. We believe that patriotism should never mean exclusion. To be proudly English is to embrace the rich diversity of our country, and the rights and freedoms we all share.
Hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Romford, talked about what England needs to thrive. The Liberal Democrats support the establishment of a UK constitutional convention to draft a new federal constitution, clearly defining powers at each level of government, based on democratic engagement, liberal values and fair resource distribution. The convention must develop an inclusive structure for government in England, giving all regions a say in how they are governed. Every part of England should have the right to secure a devolution deal that works for local people and is tailored to the unique local dynamics of England’s regions. Devolution must come with proper funding. Councils and combined authorities need a sustained increase in funding, reflecting demand and reversing the severe pressures facing local services.
We back the creation of a UK council of ministers, bringing together devolved Governments and English regional leaders to collaborate on national policy and uphold the principles of federal co-operation. Decisions on local government reorganisation must be driven by councils and communities, not imposed without consultation. It is unacceptable for changes to bypass district councils and exclude public input. It is essential that any devolution should promote inclusive economic growth, better public services and democratic accountability, so that we can continue to ensure that England is a great place.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a privilege to rise on behalf of the shadow Culture team to mark St George’s day. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate.
“With St George in my heart keep me English, with St George in my heart I pray, with St George in my heart keep me English, keep me English till my dying day.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be English and so should we all. Far from being just a nation of shopkeepers, as wrongly claimed, England’s accomplishments are vast. We have given so much to the world: from the writings of Shakespeare to football, rugby and cricket, and to parliamentary democracy itself in this mother of all Parliaments. England’s history is one of heroes and bravery: Nelson, Wellington, Churchill; good triumphing over evil; freedom overcoming tyranny; and the sacrifices of the greatest generation, which we rightly celebrate this week for VE Day, 80 years on. And we give thanks to our incredible armed forces serving today.
We Conservatives are not ashamed to celebrate England’s long and storied history; to remind the world that England is not a sleeping lion, but a proud and great nation ready to roar again. England’s culture is living, breathing and shaped by the people who have called this green and pleasant land home in times gone by, and by all of us today. We should never take that inheritance for granted. Culture matters: it binds us together, gives us a common identity and pride, and it provides the foundations for our civic life. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that one of the most important roles of every Government is to protect and promote the cultural fabric of our nation.
St George is more than a figure of legend. As our patron saint, he represents ideals that are woven deeply into the English character: courage, service and honour. His story has inspired generations to stand firm in defence of what is right, and it remains a powerful symbol of national unity and Christian faith. Those values and his inspiration were exemplified by those we commemorate throughout this week with our VE Day celebrations nationwide.
While in this House on the anniversary of VE Day itself, I want to recognise the immense sacrifice those veterans made for us. For our tomorrow, they gave their today. Their courage, service and duty must inspire us all in this House. I am a proud uncle today, as my seven-year-old niece took my great-grandfather Jack’s and my great-uncle Bill’s medals to her school party.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote Sir Winston Churchill’s words 80 years ago today:
“We were the first, in this ancient island, to draw the sword against tyranny. After a while we were left all alone against the most tremendous military power that has been seen… But every man, woman and child in the country had no thought of quitting the struggle… This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.”
I am sure that every Member will have seen how these values are preserved and expressed in not only our institutions, but our everyday lives and throughout our history, traditions, literature and music, and in the spirit of local communities around the country.
We must make sure that English culture—both historic and contemporary—is properly supported and celebrated, which means protecting heritage sites, funding grassroots arts, civil society and music, championing English literature in our schools, and giving local communities a stronger voice in how their stories are told and preserved. This is not about nostalgia; it is about an enduring national pride and having the confidence to tell England’s stories, warts and all, and teach the next generation that our past is not to be erased, but to be understood and learned from.
We must be clear: English identity is not exclusionary. It is inclusive, civic-minded and rooted in shared experience. From the village green to the city high street, from brass bands to bustling markets, English culture thrives in our community—not in Whitehall, but in areas such as my home of Bexley, and in every town and city across our great country.
In this House, we rightly celebrate the Union of our United Kingdom. But England, with its unique blends of peoples, cultures and voices, must never, ever be taken for granted. In this St George’s day debate, the Conservatives will continue to proudly fly the flag not just for tradition’s sake, but for what it represents: an England that is resilient, creative and confident in its future. Let us therefore support and invest in the cultural life of our nation, not only for the obvious economic return, but because our culture is the heart of our nation and we should be proud of it—every field, every hedgerow. Together across this House, let us reaffirm our commitment to telling England’s story—rich, complex and full of hope —with a renewed pride.
In closing—if you would indulge me one final time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will quote Shakespeare’s “Richard II”:
“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself…
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this important debate, as well as the co-sponsors of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). We have heard incredibly heartfelt and powerful speeches today from the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and the Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).
The twenty-third of April—the feast day of St George—has been celebrated in England for hundreds of years and remains an enduring symbol of our heritage and national spirit. St George himself was a soldier of the Roman empire who stood up for his beliefs, refusing to renounce his faith even in the face of persecution. His unwavering courage made him a symbol of strength, fairness and perseverance, earning him sainthood and recognition across the world. Those values of courage, strength, perseverance, fairness and decency are a distillation of what it means to be English—so much of which we see reflected across our society, throughout our history and in our present day.
To be English is to be proudly part of the United Kingdom. We are brought together by our shared values, faith in democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance. As a family of nations, we are stronger together than we are apart—strengthened by our diversity and bound by our common endeavour. It is of course fitting that we reflect on these values, as we mark VE Day today, and remember all those who fought bravely for our nation. On the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe over the forces of fascism, we honour the sacrifices that they made for our freedom.
As we have heard throughout this debate, St George’s day gives us the perfect opportunity to celebrate our heritage—to reflect on what makes England great and to unite people under a shared sense of belonging and national pride.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Lady speaks passionately about the importance of St George’s day, but will the Government consider making St George’s day a public holiday in England? We can learn from the wonderful example of Ireland where St Patrick’s day is a public holiday throughout the island of Ireland. Can we not do the same for England?
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Member makes an important point. I will not be able to respond with a positive answer right now, but as he is a powerful advocate and campaigner, I know that he will continue to make the case to this Government.
England is a nation of invention and innovation, as others have pointed out. From the creation of the world’s first vaccine to the invention of the computer and the world wide web, we have been at the forefront of technology, science and healthcare, making a global impact on the challenges that define our times. We have so much to be proud of. We are a nation of creativity and culture. We are the land of Shakespeare, Austen, Brontë, Newton and Magna Carta, and the land of one of the oldest Parliaments in the world. We are the mother of Parliaments. England has given voice to the plays, literature, songs, television programmes and films that have defined the stories that have been told for generations.
Hon. Members have powerfully and beautifully described the rich heritage and culture that defines this nation, but we are also a nation of sporting success, from football and cricket to triumphs in world cycling, Formula One and much else. England has a proud history of entrepreneurial ingenuity, from the pioneering trades of our market towns and historic mills to today’s thriving tech hubs, creative start-ups and world-class financial centres. England’s spirit of enterprise has adapted, innovated and driven progress, shaping our economy and influencing the world, from the industrial revolution to the digital age.
England is also a place of distinct beauty. From the enchanting Cornish coastline to the rugged wilderness of Northumberland, the tranquil lakes of Cumbria and the majestic cliffs of Dover, our landscape captivates, inspires and is cherished by people who live here and by people who visit.
Beyond the achievements lies something more powerful—our sense of service and community. We see this commitment every day, from the courage and bravery of those in the armed forces to the compassion and skill of our doctors and nurses in the NHS, from the dedication of our teachers to the generosity of volunteers in our charities, faith groups and community organisations across the nation. Together, their efforts embody the very best of England and the United Kingdom.
We are proud to be a nation that fosters opportunity and aspiration for all. This is where someone from a working-class background can rise to become Prime Minister, and where a British Hindu can hold the highest office in our country as Prime Minister. On a personal note, it is a great source of pride for me to be responding to this debate as a Minister of the Crown. I say that as someone who was born in Bangladesh, was elected as Britain’s first Bangladeshi-origin MP—and whose father was born in 1937, was 10 years old during partition, at the end of empire, and came to this country in the 1960s to work here and make a life for himself. It is a great source of pride that Englishness and Britishness is about all of us, and that I and others in this House can feel that we too belong and are English as well as British, alongside our multiple identities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme demonstrated when talking about his heritage and background.
Closer to home, Members mentioned events in Speaker’s House. Events like those and the St George’s day festival in Trafalgar Square help to celebrate our rich heritage through music and Morris dancing—I have not tried the latter, but perhaps Members will be inspired to do so after this debate. We have also seen a bustling parade in Manchester, with an array of community groups and local residents coming together to show how proud they are of their local area, local heritage and our identity.
Sadly, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there are some who seek to divide us. It is on all of us to make sure that we fight against the forces of division. Such individuals seek to sow division between us and our communities and to create an idea that English national identity is an exclusive, white-only identity. That is not the case. We see that in this debate today and in the contributions we have all made. Identity is not pure; it is mixed and complex. We must stand up for the values of respect, tolerance and fair play; they are the essence of Englishness and Britishness, and define us as a nation.
The Government are committed to investing in our communities and channelling a spirit of pride, perseverance and positivity that reflects the best of St George’s day. Through our plan for change, we are focused on what matters: easing the cost of living, restoring pride in our public services, making streets safer, building the homes people need, expanding opportunities for all and supporting our veterans with real homes for heroes.
We know that this change starts with what matters most to local communities—the places we call home. The “English Devolution” White Paper sets an ambitious new framework for English devolution, moving power out of Westminster. Mayors will have a range of powers across housing, planning, transport, energy, skills and employment, and more, in order to deliver the missions that we have set out to transform our country. The new £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million in funding over the next decade for 75 communities across the UK, including 58 in England. The plan will lay the foundations to kickstart local growth and drive up living standards.
We will also invest in our heritage. English identity exists in our heritage and culture, and this Government will protect the places that form our communities. England’s finest heritage buildings are an integral part of our culture. We are allocating £15 million for heritage sites that are at risk, providing grants for repairs and conservation to heritage buildings, with a focus on the sites in most need. This funding will restore local heritage, such as shops, pubs, parks and town halls.
We are also providing just under £5 million for the heritage revival fund to empower local people to take control of and look after their local heritage. It will support community organisations to own neglected heritage buildings and bring them back into good use. As we take pride in these places, we must also protect them for the generations who walk these paths after us. We will also support our businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive, and the Government will publish a new small and medium- sized enterprises strategy later this year.
This Government will protect our shores against external threats and against those who seek to harm our way of life or divide us. We have shown that through our biggest defence investment since the end of the cold war.
Our strength as a nation is measured not just in what we stand against but in what we stand for, which is community, service and a shared belief in a better future. We must inspire the next generation to carry forward the best of England through education, opportunity and the belief that no matter who you are or where you come from, you belong, and you can help shape this country’s future.
I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their powerful contributions to this important debate. On VE Day, we honour those who gave their life for our freedom and for a better tomorrow. As the Prime Minister said at the recent St George’s day reception at 10 Downing Street, let us take pride in our national identity and in all those who keep the country going.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to all colleagues who spoke in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had to return home for a family emergency; otherwise, she would have taken part. The same goes for my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson).
I am grateful to the Father of the House for his wise words on immigration, faith and communities. I am grateful for his compliment, which will do wonders for my reputation in the Government Whips Office. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who gave an excellent speech—that is no surprise because he went to school in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who mentioned English sparkling wine, while I forgot to. That is no surprise, because he is a man who keeps it successful and thriving. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) knows that Merseyside has an important role in my family’s life. I thank her for her speedy talk on England’s character and history. I enjoyed her typically lefty reflection on the power of Banksy, and thank her for that. In all seriousness, she gave an important speech and, like her, I am proud to be British and proud to be English.
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for his generous comments. He wanted me to sing. I want to get re-elected, so I am not sure that singing would be a good idea. If I did it not here but at home, I suspect that my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), would have something to say about it, so I will not take up his invitation. I am grateful to both the shadow Minister and the Minister for their generous remarks and the uniformity of their comments.
This has been an excellent debate, celebrating all that is good about England, all that we have achieved and all that we must do together. It is no surprise, but it is also unfortunate, that there were only three parties represented in the House for the duration of the debate: the Labour party, the Tories and the Liberals. Let that be a lesson to many in our communities up and down England. England is a great country, where so much good has been done, but there is so much more to do, so let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered St George’s Day and English affairs.
Brain Tumours: Research and Treatment
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that Brain Tumour Awareness Month took place in March; further notes that there has been no progress in NHS treatment of brain tumours in 20 years and that they are the biggest cancer killer of people under the age of 40; calls on the Government to demand that the National Institute for Health and Care Research take action to spend the £40 million provided by the Government for brain tumour research in 2018 for innovative and meaningful drug trials, following the death of the late Baroness Tessa Jowell; and further calls on the Government to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to undertake research into the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours and to require the NHS repurposing service to consider the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours.
On Saturday 27 November 2021, Margaret collapsed in front of me without warning. She lay on the floor convulsing in epileptic fits. By 4 am, two young doctors at University College hospital told me that she had a brain tumour. On the Wednesday, as I approached her bed on the ward, she said, “Look at that doctor. He can’t look at me—the news from that scan must be really bad. Bring him over.” Of course, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, she was always right.
My brilliant sister Margaret—the fiercest, strongest, bravest, kindest woman I have ever known—had a glioblastoma brain tumour. When it comes to such brain tumours, there is an average life expectancy of nine months from diagnosis and a five-year survival rate of just 5%; there has been no improvement in NHS treatment in 20 years; and the UK is graded 27th out of 29 comparable countries for its performance. Glioblastoma was the only opponent that my sister had never beaten, but over 18 months, she gave it her very best shot.
Standing here, just six weeks before the second anniversary of her loss, I remain as determined as ever to fight for a cure for this savage cancer in the face of what can only be described as indifference from the NHS, the pharmaceutical industries, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and, I regret to say, most of the cancer charities. In fighting this, I believe that we can find a path to improved treatment for not just glioblastoma but all rare cancers. However, that will happen only if we—Members of this House, cancer campaigners, patients and the bereaved—make it happen, because the system currently conforms to Einstein’s definition of madness: it continues to do the same thing but expects different outcomes. Don’t get me wrong; the system would like to cure glioblastoma, but it is just proving a bit difficult.
What is laughingly described as the gold standard of NHS treatment has not changed in 20 years. It includes surgery, which does not actually remove the tumour, a brutal eight weeks of radiotherapy, and then as much temozolomide chemotherapy as someone can take, which in Margaret’s case was not very much. Then, nothing from the NHS. Those with savings, homes, pensions or the ability to fundraise use everything they have to travel to other countries where people believe that those diagnosed with a terminal disease should have access to all available treatments. In Margaret’s case, that person was Dr Sahinbas in Düsseldorf. As for those for whom that is not an option—and there are many—our holy, revered NHS expects them just to lay down, take their fate and die. Just as I would not let Margaret lay down and die, we should not let anyone in the UK simply lay down and die from a glioblastoma. Here is how we can change things.
First, we need early diagnosis. In the vast majority of glioblastoma cases, the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams can diagnose the tumour from an MRI scan. In most cases, they wait for surgery, which could take a full eight weeks from the MRI. Given that developing groundbreaking immunotherapy treatments are based on giving the drugs ahead of surgery, early MRI diagnosis would allow improvement in treatments and outcomes.
Secondly, we need drug trials. The only way to find a cure for glioblastoma and other rare cancers is through drug trials, but as those with such cancers know, there are none. NHS trials have collapsed and the pharmaceutical industry concentrates on the large, lucrative conditions: breast, prostate, bowel and lung cancers. If we believe that no cancer should be left behind in a country with some of the most innovative pharmaceutical companies and a healthcare system as universal as ours, the Government should broker a partnership between that industry and the NHS to make sure that new or repurposed drugs are trialled for all cancers. They should share the early risk; the NHS should run the trials and the drug companies should be expected to provide the drugs. Will the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Care directly support a test case project for glioblastoma treatment, in which a strategy is developed with AstraZeneca, which has set up a rare cancer unit?
Thirdly, we must keep costs down. Costs are always a barrier to more drug trials. However, trials carried out through the National Institute for Health and Care Research are conducted at a reduced cost. To keep costs down, trials into glioblastoma and other rare cancers should automatically be NIHR-badged, and all funded trials should be given access to NHS resources.
Fourthly, the mission of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency should be reviewed. The MHRA is the gatekeeper of drugs licensing in the UK, and it understandably requires that all data on all trials be published, but in my personal experience from speaking with pharmaceutical companies, that is a barrier to them providing their best and most innovative drugs. While I accept that all information should be published, information on drug trials should be published for their respective cancers. If a drug that was originally for lung cancer is trialled on glioblastoma, that should be recorded separately.
Fifthly, we need to change the purpose of the NHS medicines repurposing project to provide existing drugs for trial. Many of our leading medical oncologists believe that there is already a drug in use that could improve and maybe even cure glioblastoma, but it has never been trialled. That is why I am calling for the repurposing of the NHS medicines repurposing programme; we should add the aim of supplying existing drugs for the treatment of glioblastoma and other rare cancers.
I have submitted these five proposed pledges to the Government’s consultation on the national cancer plan. They are born out of my personal experience of talking to anybody who moves about glioblastoma over the last two years. I am only one MP, with a GCSE in biology, but I hope with all my heart that my submission will be taken seriously, and that the Government will grab it with both hands to ensure that nobody else goes through what my sister went through.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for that moving speech. I would like to place on the record my love and admiration for her sister Margaret.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). This is a debate that I wish we were not at. I wish there was no need for us to have this debate, but sadly there is. This is an issue that I have come to know more about personally in the last few months, after a young constituent came to me. Archie is a 22-year-old elite athlete from Edinburgh, training for the Commonwealth games and the Olympic trials. He was diagnosed with an inoperable and terminal IDH-mutant low-grade glioma—a rare form of brain tumour that disproportionately affects younger people. As I say, he is 22 years old.
However, there should be good news, because there is a new highly promising drug—so promising, I am told, that the trials were stopped midway through, and those on the placebo were given the drug, because it was proving so successful in inhibiting the growth of the tumour. It was developed in Edinburgh and is available to eligible patients through a named patient programme, through which it is being administered free of charge, but not everywhere—only, in Scotland, in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Tayside areas.
However, Archie has not been given access to the drug because of the routine blood-testing and the cost to NHS Lothian. I and his MSP have written to NHS Scotland and the Lothian health board, and I have written to the drug company, to ask how we can make the drug available. It seems the cruellest of things that a drug is available, having been partly developed in Archie’s own city, but he cannot have it. I know that the NHS is devolved, but drug policy is not. It seems unfair that we live with a situation in which lifesaving treatments are decided by postcode. People are passed from pillar to post only to be told that they cannot or will not have treatments that are available, and that the only options are radiotherapy, chemotherapy and the other interventions that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden described, which could be replaced.
One word covers a lot of the excuses that we have been given: affordability—as if we are dealing with anything other than a human being whose situation is no fault of their own. I understand the pressures on finances, on resources and on the NHS—we all do—but that cannot mean a limit to our ambition in what we can do for those who are suffering. We are all here because we believe that we can make a difference. I certainly did not come here with the intention of sitting back and accepting that I could not help when it comes to health or that we would talk about saving money when we should talk about saving lives.
I count myself lucky to have met so many dedicated and strong people since I was invited into Archie’s home to talk with him and his family about the challenges they face and how we could help them. One of those people is Dawn from the Astro Brain Tumour Fund, whose son Shay was diagnosed with a grade 2 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. He said:
“Chemotherapy and radiotherapy. That’s what the future holds for me. After battling through an awake brain surgery, months of rehabilitation, waking up every day battling this disease in my own head, putting a smile on my face for those around me, just to have to go through another year of turmoil and appointments, only to be left with potential long-term cognitive issues and even further away from the 24-year-old I knew on 9 April 2021. That is not a cure.”
It is no longer good enough to say that treatment is too difficult or expensive. Families are crowdfunding for treatment and looking abroad. This is not the NHS that Bevan envisaged; it is not the NHS that any of us wants. We are letting people down if we do not do as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden suggested by testing such drugs on everyone and making them available everywhere. When such a drug comes up and can save people’s lives, surely we should ensure that it is available throughout the country, without geographical limits.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for the way she has pursued this issue seriously and with such emotion. I knew her sister Margaret. She was a Labour party organiser and I knew her for 45 years. She terrified me, to be honest, over the years, but I always admired her commitment to the Labour party and the wider community. I think Margaret would be proud of her sister for the speech she made today and the work that she has done.
I congratulate the Milan group, a women’s group in my constituency—they call themselves a ladies group. It is a group of Asian ladies who came together when one lost their daughter to a brain tumour. They come together every year, including last weekend, when they raised £2,500 for the Brain Tumour Charity. Each year, they get me to do something. This year, I sang in Punjabi, and they had to lock the doors. The previous year, I danced to bhangra music—I tried to purchase the video off them because it was going viral at one point. That raised a large amount of money and shows the commitment in the wider community, as people become more aware of the situation and of the impact of brain tumours, particularly among children. People realise that something must be done.
I want to make a particular point to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has said. There is a desperate need to look at the mechanisms by which new drugs are brought forward and trialled and people can access those trials. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, and we met one family who were desperate to get on to a trial of a particular drug, but the drug was being delayed through the mechanisms we have at the moment. I completely understand the processes we have to go through to ensure that a drug is safe and does not cause harm, but there is frustration at how long that takes and the fact that some people who have no other option are not being allowed to access those trials quickly or effectively enough. On that one occasion, we met the drug company, and as an all-party group, I think we did have a beneficial effect in bringing forward the trials and enabling some of the sufferers to access those trials, which we hope will be successful.
One of the most important points my hon. Friend made is that the system just is not working at the moment. It is producing an element of frustration and a lack of confidence in the NHS, which is disappointing. That is because the treatments are not being brought forward quickly enough, the access to the trials is tortuous to say the least, and there does not seem to be any mechanism by which we are co-ordinating better with the pharmaceutical industry and trying to set priorities for it. My hon. Friend mentioned why the industry concentrates on other cancers—because that is where the big profits are—but there has to be some way in which we can incentivise these companies to focus on this range of conditions.
The problem is that there are so many types of brain tumour, and it is difficult to see a company investing a large amount of money when there might be only a limited impact on a small group of patients. However, that is where Government come in. The resourcing of the experimentation, research and trials is so important, and that falls to the state. My hon. Friend has made the point in previous debates and in meetings of our all-party group that, even where the money is there to enable that to happen, it is not getting out there. We have gone through the different organisational structures to investigate what the issue is. I think it is a lack of leadership, and that needs to come from Government.
One of the suggestions I put to the Minister is that there needs to be a conference—it might be a one-off—where we bring everybody together again. The Government have put forward their proposals in the cancer strategy, and they have looked at the pathways, but a new element of zest is needed. We need to bring the pharmaceutical companies in and have an honest discussion about whether the existing structures are working well enough and whether there needs to be some rationalisation, to ensure that we are more effective and speedy in our actions and to investigate what the pharmaceutical companies need in order for research to be undertaken speedily, more effectively and with greater patient access.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, there is an issue with the funding of individual drugs. If there is to be a rationing process, it is better to be open and transparent about how rational the implementation is across England, Scotland and Wales. At the moment, there seems to be a bit of a postcode lottery in people’s ability to access these individual drugs, in particular when they are being developed for trial.
We need a fresh initiative. I am sure the Government will commit to doing all they can in the coming period, and I hope that more resources will be applied, but unless we get the structures right, the application of those resources will be as frustrating as it is at the moment. As I think the Minister can understand, there has been an expression of frustration at each of our all-party group’s meetings, because the structures are not implementing what the Government themselves want: the wise investment of resources and a more effective link-up with private sector pharmaceutical companies. We need some form of breakthrough event to enable us to move forward more effectively and more rapidly.
Finally, I pay tribute to the various charities, including the Brain Tumour Charity, that are doing such hard work to raise funds and to give hope and comfort to people as their families go through this appalling experience. I thank them for all the support they have given us in the all-party group.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for sharing her story and for all her endeavours in this House on behalf of her sister and others. I hope she will forgive me for saying that she has a big heart, and she expresses that in this Chamber often. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said he was afraid; I cannot believe he would be afraid of anybody, but I am sure she was not too formidable no matter what the case may be.
For any family to receive the news of a brain tumour is instantly worrying, and we think of all who have lost their lives to this dreadful illness. Just recently we mourned with a dear friend of mine whose daughter went to hospital with a suspected stroke and within two months had gone to eternity with a glioblastoma brain tumour. She gave me an image of a red squirrel in the nearby Mount Stewart estate, run by the National Trust, and that will always have pride of place in my office.
In Northern Ireland, 2,043 brain tumour cases were diagnosed between 2017 and 2021—some 409 cases per year. At the end of 2021, there were almost 5,500 people living with a brain tumour, with the diagnoses occurring between 1997 and 2021. During that period, 53.2% of brain tumour cases were among women—as in the case that I know of and in that raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.
If I was to ask for one thing out of this debate today, it would be for extra money to be made available for research and to find the cures, because that is really what we want. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. In the UK, 16,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour each year, and incidence rates of brain tumours are significantly higher in Northern Ireland and Wales than in other UK countries. Brain tumour cases are projected to rise in Northern Ireland by some 36% by 2035, which is really worrying. The Minister always endeavours to give us the answers we all seek, and I ask her to work alongside the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to see how all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can work together to take on glioblastoma cancer and tumours.
Despite treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, some patients find themselves resistant to therapy and they relapse and unfortunately may face death after some 15 months. Queen’s University Belfast is making giant strides in research and repurposing existing drugs to ascertain if they can make a difference to these dreadful statistics. While it is thankful for the funding given by Brainwaves NI and other charities, the Government need to assist those charities and other groups by making funding available to the highly qualified scientists who could find a cure and have a path to take, but have been precluded from doing so due to the lack of money. The statistics are startling: more children and adults under 40 die of a brain tumour than of any other cancer, yet only 1% of national research spending goes on brain tumour research. More research and more spend could make a great difference; this must be rectified.
The difficulty is that no symptoms are unique to brain tumours. Headaches, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision or weakness of the limbs can be due to other pressure effects within the brain. A tumour can also cause seizures due to infiltrative effects on the brain substance. There are many symptoms, including deafness, visual disturbance, and problems with the sense of smell.
I want to give a wee example. My parliamentary aide had been suffering from a 10-day headache. She is the one who writes all these speeches for me every week—a very busy lady. She booked an eye test after she did some research and asked for a further intensive scan, which she paid for herself. Thankfully in a way, it turned out that her eyes had deteriorated but that the headaches were not due to anything that she had feared. There is a good point to make here: how many young people would not think to do this or would say, “I can’t afford to do that”? How much awareness is there that a headache is not always down to dehydration? How many people understand that an eye test is an essential part of our healthcare? Perhaps the Minister would consider making eye tests free at source for those who work, as well as those on benefits, to increase the number of people having an eye test who need one but just do not think about it.
In conclusion, ever conscious of time, I understand that money is not unlimited and that the Government must make effective use of funding, but when I stood at the funeral service and watched the heartbreak of my friend, I thought that there is nothing more important than stopping that heartbreak in Northern Ireland and across this great United Kingdom. Research is the key and we must find the promising research as a matter of urgency. I hope that the debate today will be a step in the right direction.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate. She is a tireless campaigner on this issue, which is clearly very close to her heart. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for co-sponsoring the debate. Their joint sponsorship demonstrates the cross-party nature of support for tackling this issue; no matter which party we belong to, we can all get behind that.
My constituent, Alex, from Horwich, got in touch with me about his story. With his permission, I would like to share some of that with hon. Members today. Alex’s powerful testimony reminds us just how important it is that we support efforts to improve treatment for those suffering from glioblastoma and brain tumours more broadly. In June 2023, Alex suffered a seizure at home and was initially diagnosed with epilepsy, but he was later diagnosed with a glioblastoma. Despite going through surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, a process that must have been incredibly difficult to bear for his wife, Emma, and children, Joseph and Eloise, the cancer returned.
Alex has recently had his secondary surgery at Salford Royal and told me that, though the teams and lead doctors he has dealt with have been outstanding, the treatment available has hardly changed for 20 years, as colleagues have already noted. I will read some of Alex’s own words, as they speak much more eloquently than I can to the struggles that he has faced. He says:
“The real challenge was knowing what to say to our loved ones, especially our kids. We chose to drip-feed relevant information, allowing life to carry on, even during GCSEs. Whether that’s right or wrong, I don’t know, but we keep going and that’s what matters.”
One in three people in the UK knows someone affected by a brain tumour. It kills more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, but receives just 1% of the national spend on cancer research. Since his diagnosis, Alex has fundraised vigorously for Brain Tumour Research, and recently arranged for Bolton town hall to be lit up in honour of Brain Tumour Awareness Month.
On Alex’s behalf, I praise the amazing work done by brain tumour charities, such as Brain Tumour Research, for all they do in raising awareness and funding research, and the staff at the Christie and Salford hospitals for their outstanding care, despite the constraints around treatment. Those charities clearly cannot do it all on their own, and the Government must support where they can. As well as increased, better-used funding, I would like to see more clinical trials and faster diagnosis and treatment by the NHS. That is vital given the speed with which the illness can take hold and the challenges associated with diagnoses.
Finally, I echo calls by colleagues and the Brain Tumour Charity for a national brain tumour strategy, and I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration. Such a strategy is vital given the current shortfalls in the research landscape that have held back progress to date.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I too thank and commend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing the debate. It has been a pleasure to work with her and we are all in awe of her single-minded relentlessness on this topic, from which we can all learn.
I have a similar story. Two years ago, I received a call from my nephew and my two nieces asking me to come over quickly. I jumped in the car and drove as fast as I could to my sister’s house, where I found her semi-conscious on the floor, which was the start of a journey over the past two years. She was diagnosed with a glioblastoma. She underwent surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. She is somewhere up there in the Gallery now, and she is doing incredibly well. She is an absolute inspiration to everyone who meets her in her raw courage, determination, empathy and joy in the world. We do not know how it goes from here, but she brings home in her thinking how wonderful and beautiful our world is. She has also been a driving force. We have raised £60,000 and counting so far for the Brain Tumour Charity, which does a wonderful job, and she has brought people in left, right and centre who have suffered or are suffering from GBM or have lost loved ones to GBM. She is engaged, thoughtful and determined, and my heart goes out to her.
I will mention the stats. We know that there are 120 types of brain tumours. Some 12,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour every year and—the nasty one—5,300 people die from a brain tumour each year in the UK. In May 2018, the Government announced a research fund of £40 million on the back of the death of Baroness Tessa Jowell to encourage new research into brain tumours, administered through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. On that day, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), said:
“At this agonising time, I hope her family can draw comfort from the fact that her legacy will be lives saved and heartbreak averted for thousands of other families.”
However, three years later, in May 2021, the then Health Secretary reported that just £8.8 million of that £40 million had been allocated for dedicated brain tumour research. Three years after that, in March 2025, under a new Government, spending to date directly on brain tumour research was just £11.3 million. Concerningly, a little bit of text was added after that, which said:
“plus an estimated £31.5 million in infrastructure”.
I have three key questions for the Minister, which I would love some answers to, because more than 5,000 people dying each year is far too many. This has been going on for far too long. We need to do more and fulfil the promises that this House has made.
The three questions are as follows. Will the Minister confirm that the new wording is not an attempt to include the £31.5 million of infrastructure spend in the £40 million headline number, with a view to getting the NIHR and the Government off the hook on their commitment to spend the full £40 million that they have committed to new research into brain cancers? Will the Government commit to allocating and spending the £40 million within a decade, which is already far too long, of their original May 2018 commitment—by May 2028, which is three years from now? That is doable if we put our minds to it, and we need the Government’s help. Will the Government stand by the May 2018 commitment to host an annual global conference to bring together world experts on brain cancer? That has not been done, and we committed to that as a House. Will we stand by that, commit to it and kick off a conference by the end of the year?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I salute the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. Hopefully we can turn her personal tragedy into a national triumph if we work together. She is absolutely correct in saying that individually, certain types of brain tumours are very rare, but collectively they are very common. The simple fact that only 1% of our national cancer research funding goes to them is absolutely unacceptable.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a national health service optometrist. I will speak on that topic, because a simple eye test can detect a brain tumour, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. I have unfortunately—or fortunately, in certain cases, because we have been able to detect them early—been in the position of seeing people who are completely asymptomatic or people coming in with a simple headache having brain tumours detected. That is why I really want to emphasise that the avenue of using eye tests is undervalued and underutilised. They are completely un-invasive, cost efficient and accessible, and they can save so many lives. Is it at all possible for us to have a national awareness campaign as part of a broader body to ensure that eye tests can be linked to brain tumours, so that they can be detected?
John McDonnell
I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal in my constituency, who lost their daughter and have been doing fundraising. One of the most effective things they have been doing is ensuring that at local community events there is a stall that provides information about how to access a diagnosis. That has proved to be incredibly effective, as a range of other professionals have picked up on the information. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal for their creativity.
Shockat Adam
This is about awareness campaigns. People should be aware that 39%—I think—of children unfortunately diagnosed with a brain tumour experience some kind of sight loss or vision changes, and one in three people diagnosed report a problem with their vision that converts into a brain tumour. An eye test cannot detect all brain tumours, but it is a really valuable tool.
Over 112,000 people have signed a petition demanding that brain tumour research is no longer left behind. These are not just signatures; as we have heard from today’s powerful testimonies, they are families, and they are stories of lives cut short and missed chances. We cannot allow that to continue any longer.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this debate. It has been a privilege to sit through such excellent speeches on this very important topic. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s sister Margaret would be very proud of her, and I am sure that my hon. Friend’s sister is proud of him too.
As the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend have outlined, a brain tumour diagnosis can be utterly devastating and life-changing. Some 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with a primary tumour, while many others are diagnosed with a secondary tumour that has spread from elsewhere in their body. Primary tumours are largely unpreventable, and cause the death of more adults and children under 40 than any other type of cancer. As primary brain tumours do not spread around the body like other cancer types, they do not receive the same staging categorisation.
Current NHS programmes for diagnosing cancers earlier do not include brain tumours, as they focus on targets and improvements for catching more cancers in stages 1 and 2. Nearly half of people diagnosed—49%—are found to have a so-called benign tumour, a grade 1 or 2 tumour that grows more slowly. Those tumours are not technically cancerous, so they are not covered by previous cancer plans or initiatives for improving cancer care. However, the treatment and care for patients with a low-grade tumour has long-lasting impacts and can be life-altering.
I would like to mention the experience of my constituent Madi Ruby, who has tirelessly campaigned and fundraised on this issue. She has experienced both a grade 1 and a grade 2 tumour. She first experienced symptoms of a brain tumour in 1995 with numbness in her right arm, and went on to write backwards and develop headaches. She went for a CT scan when that numbness spread to her foot and she was involved in a minor car accident. Only then was she diagnosed with a grade 1 meningioma measuring 6 cm, which was removed—she was only 23 at the time.
Although that surgery was successful, Madi developed partial epilepsy. She was eventually discharged after five years of clear scans, but as we have heard, tumours still impact lives. She has had poor mental health and become depressed, and in 2013, her brain tumour returned. That tumour has also been removed, but she still deals with partial epilepsy, constant headaches and migraines, and suffers daily. She is also an inspirational person; she has bravely spoken out about her depression, trained to be a counsellor, and is now an associate dean responsible for nursing and allied health professionals at Wrexham Glyndŵr University.
I also want to mention my constituent Shaun Burgess, who raised more than £11,000 for the Brain Tumour Charity and the Meningioma Support Group by running 3,000 miles across Shropshire last year. He was raising money after his wife Mo was treated for a non-cancerous tumour, but not everyone diagnosed with a brain tumour gets that second chance; Shaun has lost a friend to a more aggressive brain tumour.
We must end the tragedy of people losing their lives because treatment for brain cancer took too long to start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has outlined, progress on the treatment of brain tumours has not been good enough. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer should be a top priority for any Government, and the UK should be a global leader in cancer research and outcomes. I urge the Minister to listen to the pleas of Members from across the House on that point today.
For so many people, diagnosis and treatment are too difficult to access. My constituency is a typical example. The major hospitals in Shrewsbury and Telford face a number of challenges and regularly have some of the longest waiting times in the NHS for cancer screening and treatment. In December 2024, just 64% of patients were treated within the 62-day period, despite the target being 85%. The average across England was much better, but still poor at 71%.
Not only do too many people live in treatment deserts, but when they are finally offered the treatment they need, it is hard to access. Anyone living in rural North Shropshire would say that. Having waited anxiously for weeks or months for a scan and the result, they then, if the news is bad, have to travel extremely long distances for the treatment they need. Most of North Shropshire is an hour and a quarter away from a radiotherapy centre on public transport. For patients with brain tumours, public transport is fundamental if they can no longer drive. One of my constituents has faced exactly that problem, having had their driving licence suspended by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency after being diagnosed with a tumour. Apparently that could be remedied if his consultant provided a BT1 form, but he has not been able to get through to the doctor. In the meantime, he is trapped without freedom in a constituency with some of the worst public transport in the country.
Ongoing funding issues, which we know are a huge challenge for the Government, continue to afflict brain tumour patients in a number of ways. Another constituent of mine told me their experience after being referred to a care navigator following their diagnosis. The care navigator’s job is to contact patients on a monthly basis, seeing whether they have any problems and concerns and guiding them through an experience that is extremely traumatic. However, the care navigator position has now been cut, and my constituent has been left in the dark, with growing anxiety and no one to speak to. No one should be going without treatment because there is not enough equipment, and no one should suffer because there are not enough staff to support them.
What would Liberal Democrats do? We would recruit more cancer nurses, so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. For brain tumours, we would like to see an improvement in diagnosis, the care people receive and the range of treatment options available. Diagnosis targets need to reflect the fact that brain cancer does not occur in stages in the way that other cancers do—otherwise, we risk brain tumours falling through the cracks of NHS targets and objectives. Low-grade brain tumours, such as that suffered by Madi, need renewed attention, including in the upcoming cancer plan, which we look forward to seeing.
The Liberal Democrats have committed to boosting cancer survival rates more generally by passing a cancer survival research Act, which would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into the cancers with the lowest survival rates, such as brain tumours. We would halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity and ensuring that every patient starts their treatment for cancer within that 62-day urgent referral target. We would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. Measures such as Margaret’s law, which the hon. Members who secured this debate have pressed for, would be an important step in the right direction to improve research in glioblastoma in particular, and I urge the Minister to consider that too.
Do the Government have any future plans for allocating support to research into vaccine treatment for brain tumours, which has reportedly shown remarkable progress against glioblastoma in recent studies? Too many patients with brain tumours have been let down by previous Governments over many years, and I hope that this Government will step up and make brain tumours, cancer and NHS care their No. 1 priority.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I start with a personal apology to my constituents on this VE Day. While I cannot stand there in person among those marking our victory in remembrance in Hinckley and Bosworth in north-west Leicestershire, I am carrying out the very duty that people gave their lives to protect. The sacrifice of those who fought in world war two ensures that the work of this Parliament and democracy itself endures. Their courage lives in every free debate, every vote cast, and every moment we serve the public good. That should never be forgotten or taken for granted. I am therefore privileged to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to such an important topic that resonates with so many—brain tumours.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this debate. I was also pleased to hear this important issue raised only yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), talking about his constituent’s remarkable and inspirational story about overcoming glioblastoma. Although the Prime Minister did not respond with details about brain tumours specifically, these are important opportunities to raise and debate this topic while telling the human stories, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister today.
One such story is an example from my own constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, involving Katherine and Simon Tansey and their daughter Isla. I have told this story in the House in years past, but it is so poignant that I am not shy about telling it again. We can choose to be affected by the world or we can choose to affect the world, and my constituent Isla chose the latter. In August 2017, seven-year-old Isla Tansey woke up unable to walk. After many horrible treatments, surgery and radiotherapy, she was diagnosed with DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—in January 2018. Isla’s mum described the terminal illness as the most traumatic and heartbreaking experience for a family to go through.
Sadly, Isla passed away in July 2018, but not before inspiring thousands around the world with her positivity and creativity through her hobby: painting stones and pebbles. Isla asked others to join her by painting their own stones with any design, but she asked them to include the hashtag #islastones and the words “photo.post.rehide”, and then to send pictures to a dedicated Facebook page for her to see. They were subsequently to leave the stones somewhere hidden so that when they were found, they could spread a little bit of the joy that Isla had given them.
Isla’s mother Katherine hoped that one day a child might find the stones, learn about Isla’s story and become a researcher in childhood cancer. Thousands of people took part, and more than 149 countries were involved. Although Isla could no longer walk, she loved to see where all the stones ended up and where they would travel next. This included the Taj Mahal, New Zealand, Disneyland and America, with one stone reaching Antarctica. Through the stones and the people who made them, hid them and posted their photos, Isla travelled the world.
The hashtag #islastones grew to a community of over 65,000 members from all across the world. In 2019, a year on from Isla’s passing, a world record was set at the Celebration of Smiles event in Hinkley for the largest display of painted stones, with 8,542—all in remembrance of Isla. Off the back of that, Simon and Katherine set up the Islastones Foundation to raise research grants, awareness and smiles to help fight childhood cancer. They were awarded the Points of Light award from the then Prime Minister in 2023.
Why does this matter? We have all heard the statistics in this debate, but these are the real stories behind the cases, and our constituents all rightly ask for real understanding, for listening and for something to change. I am reminded of the quote:
“Your life is a message to the world. Make sure it is inspiring.”
Isla’s message was truly inspiring, and I hope the Government’s message on cancer and brain tumours will be the same.
I turn to the substance of the debate. It is clear today that Members are asking for greater priority to be given to accelerating research into brain tumours and treatments. The motion partly focuses on the £40 million of funding provided by the previous Government for research into brain tumours, and I understand the frustration of MPs from across the House at the speed of allocations to projects since 2018.
At this point, I must pay tribute to the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission for its work with the NIHR. This collaboration has led to the NIHR issuing funding calls for researchers to evaluate treatments for brain tumours and to expand the network of trials for brain tumours, including the national brain tumour consortium. Looking over the debates, I noticed that the Minister said on Second Reading of the Rare Cancers Bill:
“In the five years since 2018-19, the NIHR has invested £11.3 million directly in brain cancer, with a further £31.5 million to enable brain tumour research in 227 studies involving 8,500 people. The commitment remains in place. I can confirm that there is no upper limit on that funding. We are exploring additional research policy options to encourage more clinical trials in early phase research and the development of medical devices and diagnostics.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1434.]
That is of course encouraging, but campaigners want to see projects up and running as soon as possible. To that end, would the Minister consider the calls from Brain Tumour Research to create a set of dedicated funding streams for early-career researchers, improved access to clinical trials and better integration of brain tumours in cutting-edge cancer initiatives, especially given the proposed abolition of NHS England?
It is that deep desire to get research moving into potential new treatments that led to the Rare Cancers Bill, proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), was pleased to support the legislation when it was introduced in March. I was glad to note that the Bill received Government support, and it was endorsed by the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research and other patient groups. I welcome the Bill’s intention to encourage industry to concentrate more research on treatments for rare and less common cancers, including brain tumours, particularly through the review of the orphan drug regulations. However, it is vital that there is alignment with the national cancer plan, which is likely to set the direction of cancer policies for the next five to 10 years. Can the Minister confirm whether the key measures in the Bill will be included in the upcoming national cancer plan?
As well as accelerating research into brain tumours, we must take steps to increase participation among those personally affected. One of the aims of the Rare Cancers Bill is to get more patients into clinical trials for rare cancers, including brain tumours. It is sobering that the Brain Tumour Charity’s survey found that only 12% of respondents have participated in a clinical trial. We also know from the Institute of Cancer Research that brain tumour clinical trials have the lowest recruitment of any cancer type. This is why the last Government asked Lord O’Shaughnessy to review the barriers to commercial clinical trials in the aftermath of the covid pandemic. I know that the Government have stated that they are committed to implementing the recommendations of the O’Shaughnessy review, but can the Minister provide further details on what progress has been made to date?
On a side note—but a related one—at a recent VE Day celebration in Donisthorpe I met a constituent who raised with me the issue of the acquired brain injury strategy. That cross-party initiative has been championed by the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is now a Labour Minister. Somewhat fortuitously, I was able to tell my constituent that I was taking part in a debate on brain tumours today. She and the likes of Headway and the Child Brain Injury Trust are keen to ensure that they are able to support people through the changes that the Government are pushing through on personal independence payments and disability support, so would the Minister consider reviewing or updating the acquired brain injury strategy in the light of these changes?
Finally, I want to end on a positive note. The discussions between the MHRA and Northwest Biotherapeutics are providing hope that people living with new or recurrent glioblastoma may have access to a new treatment, DCVax-L, which could make a real difference in prolonging their survival from this terrible disease. It is important that we build on these developments, and take steps to reduce barriers to research in brain tumours and access to new treatments as they develop. After all, as one brain tumour survivor said:
“Hope is the anchor that kept me steady through the storm of my diagnosis”.
I hope that this very debate will bring hope to those suffering and their families, and will demonstrate that the Government are listening and working for better outcomes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this vitally important debate. They have both been powerful voices in this place for more research, greater care and better treatments for patients with brain tumours. My hon. Friend spoke so powerfully, as always, and in the name of her sister Margaret. I thank the hon. Member for Witney for sharing his sister’s story. I commend her for her fundraising activity and wish her the very best. The hon. Member asked three very clear questions, which I hope my response will cover.
I also thank other Members who made powerful contributions in what has been a very constructive debate. I hope my responses will answer their queries, but if not, I will endeavour to write to all Members following this debate about any gaps that are left. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about disparity of drug access. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked for zest, and spoke about the requirement for it. He expressed the frustrations of the APPG and others at the speed at which we are able to make progress. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the importance of research, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about clinical trials. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) brought his expertise on optometry to bear, and spoke about how useful an eye test can be. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, talked about low-grade tumours. I commend her constituents, whom she spoke about, for their work.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for sharing the story of Isla’s stones. What a powerful metaphor and a powerful remembrance. He also spoke about the acquired brain injury strategy. My remarks will focus on brain tumours, but I can confirm that the ABI strategy remains in play and in development. I will update the House on that as soon as possible. First, I pay tribute to some fantastic charities for their advocacy—the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research, Cancer Research UK and Tom’s Trust, to name just a few.
Innovative research is vital in our fight against this devastating disease if we are to offer people the most cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care. The Department of Health and Social Care, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, invests over £1.6 billion per year in research. In the past financial year alone, it invested over £130 million specifically in cancer research. That has enabled 261 brain tumour studies to happen in the NHS, involving 11,400 people in potentially life-changing research over the past six years. Since 2018, the NIHR has directly invested almost £12 million in brain tumour research projects; it has also spent around £37.5 million on wider infrastructure investments in facilities, services and the research workforce, making research possible. In addition, over five years, between 2020 and 2024, the Medical Research Council committed more than £18.5 million to brain tumour research.
Our investments are having an impact. NIHR-funded research has shown that a new targeted drug combination treatment can give better outcomes for one of the most common types of paediatric brain cancer, but of course there is still so much more to do. Too little is known about how to prevent, diagnose and manage brain tumours, and they remain one of the hardest cancers to treat and a challenging area for research. That is why we are committed to furthering our investment in brain cancer research and have already taken some steps to stimulate scientific progress. I would like to offer the House just three examples from the past year.
First, in September, the NIHR announced a new package of funding opportunities for brain cancer research for both adults and children. Secondly, in December, the NIHR established a new national brain tumour research consortium. The consortium brings together research from a range of disciplines and institutions to drive faster scientific advancements in how we prevent, detect, manage and treat brain cancer. This complements the NIHR’s dedicated funding call on research into wraparound care, rehabilitation and quality of life for patients with brain tumours. It has received a high volume of applications, and those applications are under consideration by an independent expert peer review panel.
Thirdly, the Department is working actively as a member of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to fully support the vision of bringing the best care to all brain tumour patients in the UK. Together, we will work with the brain tumour community to accelerate research and bring new insights to the field. This summer, the mission will launch the Tessa Jowell allied health professional research fellowship to train early-career health professionals in conducting vital research on how we improve patients’ quality of life.
The commitment to spend at least £40 million on brain cancer remains in place. The limiting factor has not been restrictions on funding, or funds being spent elsewhere, and every research proposal assessed as being fundable has been funded. My Department is now focusing on how we grow the scientific community working on brain cancer to get more research funded. We are committed to increasing spending on brain cancer research, and the £40 million target is not a funding ceiling—it will not end there. However, it is important that only high-quality applications be funded, so that public funds are invested well and produce impactful and usable research evidence. We will continue to work hand in glove with partners who fund research on new scientific discoveries, such as Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and brain tumour charities. We stand ready to translate these much-needed discoveries as quickly as possible into new treatments for patients via the NIHR.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden raised the issue of partnerships with industry to develop treatments, and I can confirm that we are committed to working with the pharmaceutical industry and others with the common aim of creating a faster, more efficient, more accessible and innovative clinical treatment delivery system. We expect these efforts to attract more commercial investment in clinical research, and to yield a broad and diverse portfolio of clinical trials in the UK, so that we can provide innovative treatment options for patients, including those with glioblastoma. The new brain tumour research consortium, to which I have referred, will bring together people to work on that, and will work to detect, manage and treat rarer and less survivable cancers in children and adults.
Clinical trials are a crucial part of cancer research. They are the key to advanced medical progress, improved patient outcomes and more hope for the future. Britain is already one of the best destinations in the world for clinical trials, but we want to go further. On 7 April, the Prime Minister announced action to accelerate the set-up and delivery of clinical trials; the time taken to set up studies will be cut to 150 days by March next year, down from 250 days, according to the latest data, which was collected in 2022.
The Department of Health and Social Care is committed to being a world-leading destination for clinical trials. Work is ongoing to streamline and reform the set-up and delivery of clinical trials through digitalisation, and by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. That is driving a “right research, right setting” initiative, and we are moving from reactive to proactive portfolio management, including by supporting the workforce and continuing to embed a research and innovation culture across the health and social care system.
The Government also support the private Member’s Bill on rare cancers, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). The Bill will make it easier for clinical trials on rare cancers to take place in England by ensuring that the patient population can be easily contacted.
This Government are committed to backing innovative clinical research ecosystems in the UK, so that British patients can be among the first to benefit. We will bust bureaucracy, fast-track clinical trials and give patients improved access to cutting-edge treatments and technologies, including for brain tumours. “Be Part of Research” is our landmark service, allowing people from all walks of life across the UK to find and participate in research relevant to them, which could transform lives. I urge everybody watching at home to sign up to “Be Part of Research” and to get involved.
We have spoken about medicines repurposing, whereby medicines approved for a particular condition are used in new ways to treat different conditions. Repurposing drugs may have particular value for rare cancers, such as brain cancers, for which drug development has been limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden noted, NHS England has suspended its medicines repurposing programme, but not because it is unimportant; it has shown that opportunities to use existing medicines in new ways can be delivered without the support of a formal repurposing programme, including, for example, through local off-label prescribing. This creates opportunities for NIHR and other funders to support proposals for clinical trials that use repurposed drugs for rare cancers. We will help researchers work with industry and clinicians to strengthen the evidence base for new drugs, and for new uses of drugs, so that we can find out how patients can best be helped.
Helen Morgan
How well will that work be co-ordinated if it is done on a local, sporadic basis, and how will the repurposing of drugs be co-ordinated centrally if NHS England is no longer undertaking that work?
Ashley Dalton
NHS England has found that creating that environment does not necessarily provide new and better ways of repurposing drugs, and that can be done far more efficiently and far less bureaucratically by using local off-label prescribing. We are looking at how we can incentivise researchers and clinical trials to explore repurposing drugs.
We are determined to make the NIHR and other funders grasp opportunities to support those proposals. We will help researchers work with industry and clinicians to strengthen the evidence base for new drugs.
The NHS is working hard to diagnose and treat cancers on time. There is more to do on early diagnosis and faster treatment, in order to improve patient experience and survival. The NHS is focused on improving diagnostic waiting times, and on providing MRI, CT and other tests to reduce cancer waits, because, as Lord Darzi’s investigation has shown, we face significant challenges if we are to bring this country’s cancer survival rates back up to the standard of the best in the world. We know that the best way to improve survival for those with brain tumours, and with all cancers, is to diagnose patients early and treat them quickly.
In our first six months, 80,000 more patients received a diagnosis or an all-clear within 28 days than did in the previous year, thanks to investment in cutting NHS waiting lists. In March, more than 80% of patients in England referred for cancer had it ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days—it is the first time that target has been met in years—but we must go further, and we will. Our reforms to cancer care will see more than 100,000 people diagnosed faster, and thousands more starting treatment within two months across the NHS.
There is no single solution to this complex challenge. That is why my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has been clear that there will be a national cancer plan published later this year. This plan will ensure that rarer cancers, including brain cancers, will not be left behind. It is my absolute privilege, as a person with cancer, to be driving that cancer plan. I am delighted that we have so far received more than 11,000 representations as part of the call for evidence. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that her contributions and all others will be taken seriously.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also talked about low-grade cancers. There is a difference between staging and grading, and it is important that we are clear about that. Low-grade brain tumours are considered non-cancerous, and they grow more slowly and are less likely to spread, but although low-grade brain tumours are generally non-cancerous, they can have similar serious symptoms, and require surgery or radiotherapy to treat them. The Government are investing in new life-saving and life-improving research to support people diagnosed with those cancers.
In closing, for those affected by this devastating disease, every discovery, every treatment and every moment matters. We recognise that more needs to be done to stimulate high-quality, high-impact research into brain tumours. Through our targeted package of support, that is what we will do. We completely understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least because three Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are cancer survivors. We know how terrifying it is to receive a diagnosis. We have sat in waiting rooms, hoping for good news and fearing the worst—and we have heard the worst. We have had those difficult conversations with our loved ones and seen the devastating impact on their lives. That is why we are committed to making a real difference for patients with brain cancer. We will leave no stone unturned until they get the first-class care that they deserve. I look forward to further discussing how we can achieve this when I meet members of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours next week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh to wind up.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind words about Margaret. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I appreciate that they have been taken from their constituencies, where there will be great celebrations for the 80th anniversary of VE Day.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate. I suggested to the Committee that I did not want last Thursday because it was polling day, so when I was offered 8 May, I did not really feel that I could refuse. I say to the Minister, the shadow Ministers and all hon. Members that if we rely on the system as it is, there will be no progress. The only way to bring about progress is to intervene and to challenge. To that end, I am delighted to say that in July we will be launching the first drug trial in Margaret’s memory, to try immunotherapy on people with glioblastoma. We will be doing that only on one site, at UCL and UCLH. That is because the structure of drug trials in the NHS continues to be so difficult—this was identified by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his report—that going to more sites would take years. People diagnosed with this condition have not got years, so we all have to intervene.
Most Ministers in the previous Government and those in this Government have been incredibly well organised and well motivated. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, which has made our trial possible at this speed, but unless we personally get involved, no great speeches, wishing or hoping will make a change. The system does not want change. We have to enforce change.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that Brain Tumour Awareness Month took place in March; further notes that there has been no progress in NHS treatment of brain tumours in 20 years and that they are the biggest cancer killer of people under the age of 40; calls on the Government to demand that the National Institute for Health and Care Research take action to spend the £40 million provided by the Government for brain tumour research in 2018 for innovative and meaningful drug trials, following the death of the late Baroness Tessa Jowell; and further calls on the Government to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to undertake research into the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours and to require the NHS repurposing service to consider the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours.
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to ask this, but we need to understand what is happening about the trade negotiations and the statement that may be coming. I ask because three of us here—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) and I—have planes to catch. I understand that others in the Chamber have made travel arrangements as well. If the statement is not happening, let us go.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While Members are aware that a statement is expected on trade negotiations, I have no further information on the timing. His comments are now on the record. I suspend the House until further notice. The Annunciator will give further information, and bells will be rung before the House resumes.
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It had been the intention of the Government to make a statement to the House this afternoon immediately following the scheduled press conference by the US President and the words of our own Prime Minister. Both of those sets of remarks were delayed, with the result that, at this relatively late hour, the Government would now suggest respectfully to you that it would be more courteous to the House to be able to provide all Members with the opportunity for a full statement on Monday. If that does not—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Government have to come forward with a statement. They converted an urgent question to a statement this morning, so a statement has to be made. What the Minister says cannot be done on a point of order, as that would be unfair. I understand that people were going around telling Members to go home as there would be no statement, because Downing Street had decided that. We do not do business like this: it is totally wrong. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I am sure he would like to update the House on the position now, and I would of course expect the details to come on Monday.
Mr Alexander
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I of course defer to your judgment and will issue the statement—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not my judgment; these are the rules of the House. An urgent question was put in, and it was converted by the Government into a statement, so it is for the Government now to come forward with the statement.
Trade Negotiations
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me make the statement, as requested.
Within the last couple of hours, a deal has been announced by the Prime Minister and President Trump respectively. I therefore welcome the opportunity to update the House on the terms of the agreement that has just been reached. Back in February, I stood before the House and said:
“What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 182.]
It is this approach, which the Government have taken, that has brought us to the front of the queue today. Indeed, no other country has been able to secure an exemption from the tariffs imposed by the United States until today.
In March, the United States Government announced tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos. This was followed by an announcement of a global tariff, with the UK on the lowest rate of 10%. Throughout this period, the UK Government have been engaged in an intensive and continued dialogue with the Government of the United States to advance the UK’s national interest in this challenging and changing global trading environment. The deal we have agreed is the first step in delivering on the commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and President Trump in February to reach an economic deal in our respective national interests.
First and foremost, the deal will protect UK jobs, while laying the groundwork for increased transatlantic trade and investment. As the Prime Minister has commented within the last hour,
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
To that end, I can inform the House that the deal we have secured secures reductions to the 25% tariffs imposed by the United States on the UK car industry. UK exports to the US will face a lower tariff of 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles. That is positive news for iconic British luxury brands such as Aston Martin, Bentley and McLaren, but it is also good news for our country’s largest vehicle manufacturer, Jaguar Land Rover, which employs 34,000 employees directly in the UK, with 135,000 further jobs in its wider supply chain. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders pointed out, the US is Britain’s second largest car export market. A deal like this was desperately needed to support jobs and economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
Furthermore, the deal secures the removal of the new tariffs the US imposed on steel and aluminium in March, through duty-free quotas. It reinforces our commitment to the steel industry, following our swift action last month to protect British Steel and its 2,500 employees.
Turning next to agriculture, for the first time ever, the deal will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market. Currently only a few other countries, such as Australia, enjoy such access. This is a major opportunity for British farmers to increase their exports to the world’s largest consumer market, helping them to grow their businesses. Let me be clear that the import of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high animal welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—standards.
On economic security, the deal will ensure co-operation on non-market policies from third countries, investment security and export controls. With the United States Government, we will continue to advance the UK’s national interest in key sectors where discussions continue, such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, copper, lumber and film production. We will seek the best possible deal and outcome for these vital parts of our economy, and those working on our critical infrastructure. We have also committed to further negotiations on tariff reductions to enhance the UK-US trading relationship. Without this Government’s swift action, the economic impact of US tariffs would, candidly, have been extremely severe.
Following agreement on the outline of the deal today, there will now be a process of formal negotiations with the US on a binding legal framework. The negotiations aim to deliver an ambitious set of outcomes in areas such as digital trade, tackling non-tariff barriers, agreeing mutual recognition agreements for industrial goods and an agreement on domestic services regulation, collaborating on economic security, and upholding standards in areas such as intellectual property and labour practices.
I can, of course, confirm to the House that hon. Members will have the chance to scrutinise the deal we agree with the United States Government, as well as legislation implementing the deal. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade have told the House, we are not seeking to change existing statutory scrutiny processes. It is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to make its voice heard on this important set of issues.
I am pleased to confirm that the Secretary of State yesterday briefed the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on progress in the negotiations. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement.
As a Government, we are grateful to businesses across the United Kingdom for their extensive and continued engagement in recent weeks, and look forward to continuing that engagement through the remaining negotiations.
I would also like to place on record the Government’s gratitude for the work of officials here in London and in Washington for their efforts in securing the first stage of this agreement today.
It will have escaped nobody’s attention in this House that this agreement with the United States has been reached on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. That victory was secured not simply by the heroism and courage of the British armed forces, but by strong transatlantic alliances that have served us well over the eight subsequent decades. In the coming years, the Government of the United Kingdom will continue to work to secure international agreements that uphold our national interests.
For all those reasons, I commend the statement to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you for ensuring that the House had the opportunity to hear this statement today, Mr Speaker.
Free trade betters us all. It has lifted billions from poverty and has made us the country we are today, and the country that had the ability to join the fight for Europe’s freedom 80 years ago. Unfortunately, this is not the historic free trade deal we were promised. Any reduction in tariffs is welcome, but British businesses are still facing higher tariffs now than they did in February. This is not the deal we were promised, and the Government still have much work to do.
Let us be crystal clear: it is our freedom to make our own trade policy that made even today’s deal possible. I hope the Government are now converted to our cause, and regret the 48 times they tried to take us back into the European Union. As the Government limber up for their surrender summit later this month, I ask the Minister to rule out today—once and for all—any form of dynamic alignment.
We are the only party whose position on trade with the United States has been consistent. When the Conservatives published the opportunities for a deal in 2020, the now Prime Minister said he would never countenance an agreement, the now Education Secretary called it foolish, and the now Energy Secretary said it was a spectre hanging over us.
The Conservatives do welcome the news of a reduction in selected tariffs on things like automotive exports and steel today. Any reduction is better than no reduction; jobs and investments were at risk, and all mitigation is to be welcomed. However, if I have understood the Minister correctly, we are still not back to the position as it was at the beginning of February. Perhaps he can clarify that British goods will still be more expensive in the US than they were before—for all the talk of the special relationship, that puts us in the same category as countries like Burundi and Bhutan.
More than what is in this deal today is what is not. From the little the Government have shared, it is clear that it does not go anywhere near far enough. It is a Diet Coke deal—not the real thing. It is not the comprehensive free trade agreement that a true plan for growth requires. What about the film and television industry, which was being threatened earlier this week with a 100% tariff? Can the Minister assure us now that there will be no such imposition?
What is the price of this deal? Will the Minister set out clearly to the House the trade-offs that have been made? I note with concern that two days on, we have still not had sight of the detail of the UK-India trade deal. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see the full detail of both deals? How does this deal defend our beef, lamb, pork and poultry farmers, with not just words, but actions? Does it protect the special status of Northern Ireland, and does it cover the British overseas territories?
In the meantime, while businesses continue to suffer and struggle with elevated US tariffs and as they face quotas and uncertainty, will the Minister finally take steps with his colleagues to ease the burden his Government chose to impose on them? Will he announce a pause of the devastating jobs tax until a full trade agreement can be concluded and stop the surge in business rates so many businesses are facing, and will he finally shelve the unemployment Bill that is already seeing British businesses cutting jobs and choking under 300 pages of incoming red tape? Lastly, will he ask the Prime Minister to sack his Energy Secretary and finally produce a real policy to cut energy prices to globally competitive levels?
If the Government are serious about helping businesses, now is the time. What we see is that once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.
Mr Alexander
Where to begin, Mr Speaker? As I sought to reflect in my statement, and as the Prime Minister remarked only a few minutes ago,
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
It is significant that two former Conservative Prime Ministers —the former Members for Henley and for Maidenhead, as I recollect—sought and failed to deliver a US trade deal, in the same way that the former Government failed to deliver a deal with India. Important though it is to hear the views of the Opposition about trade deals that were not done, I think it is also important to hear from the Government about trade deals that have actually been done.
I am grateful, none the less, that the shadow Secretary of State found it in himself to welcome the tariff reductions that have been achieved. I think there will be relief at JLR in particular this evening that the calm, cool-headed approach taken by the Prime Minister and the negotiators has yielded a significant reduction of tariffs to a critical supply chain and a critical set of British exporters.
On Brexit, I respectfully say that this House has debated Brexit innumerable times over the years since 2016. I simply observe that we as a Government are more interested in new markets than in old arguments, and that there have been plenty of opportunities to rehearse those old arguments. I can also assure the House that, as we look ahead to the first EU-UK summit on 19 May, having delivered deals with India and the United States, we are now looking to reset that relationship with our friends, neighbours and partners in the EU, not least because three of our five largest trading partners are actually members of the European Union.
On the specific points about the film industry, we continue to negotiate on the UK’s behalf—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems to suggest that we can unilaterally declare the policy of the United States. Negotiations involve two parties. That is a lesson that the Conservatives could have learned when they failed to secure a US trade deal in the past. It is by listening and working together with our partners in the United States that we have been able to make progress today. As the Prime Minister said:
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
There is further work to be done, and we fully intend to take that work forward.
On agriculture, I think it is important to say that the red line that we maintain consistently in relation to SPS measures has been protected. I am grateful to have the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the Front Bench with me. We have maintained those critical animal welfare standards. All of the speculation in relation to chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef has turned out to be unfounded.
It is important to recognise what was agreed today. Let me be clear to the House: this agreement will provide the United States with an initial tariff rate quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, increasing by 1,000 tonnes per year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes. Let me put that in context for the House and for those on the Conservative Front Bench. The previous Government agreed under the UK-Australia FTA to a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year, which incrementally increases to—wait for it—110,000 tonnes per year, and ultimately becomes unlimited, subject to the safeguard regime. A sense of balance, proportion and understanding is required when discussing not only the safeguards that have been maintained and protected by the British Government, but the deal that has been struck in relation to beef. We need to keep the market access granted to the United States in the context of the wider economic benefits that this deal has secured for the United Kingdom.
On the rather diminishing political points that the shadow Secretary of State sought to make in relation to domestic legislation, I can assure him that the domestic legislation and the programme of the British Government remain unchanged as a consequence of today’s landmark deal. As far as I am aware, that is also the case in relation to the membership of the Cabinet. I am very relieved to say that it is the Prime Minister who is in charge of choosing members of the Cabinet, not the Conservative party, although the shadow Secretary of State does have a distinguished record of service alongside Liz Truss in a previous Government.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for helping to ensure that this moment was possible. Let me add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington, Lord Mandelson, for getting this deal done. It would appear tonight that a small, common-sense retreat on duties and agriculture have unlocked a major reprieve for tens of thousands of jobs in our car and steel industry.
Will the Minister clarify for us tonight when those tariff reductions will kick in? Will he confirm that there is nothing in this bargain that compromises our ability to strike the boldest of resets with the European Union? It would be a mistake to strengthen transatlantic relationships and then short-change cross-channel possibilities. Can the Minister confirm that he will facilitate a debate in this House, if not a vote on the treaty?
On Tuesday, I will recommend to the Select Committee that we commence a full inquiry into this treaty, so that we can report back to the House, but a vote would help us understand who stands where in standing up and protecting British jobs.
Mr Alexander
Let me begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in Jaguar Land Rover and the wider west midlands economy and to the diligent and demanding work he does on the Business and Trade Committee, which makes a major contribution to not only trade policy but business policy here in the United Kingdom.
To clarify the point my right hon. Friend made on the auto industry, the UK exports around 100,000 cars a year to the United States, and this quota will ensure that most manufacturers now pay the preferential rate. The agreement has removed the 25% tariff that the US applied to UK cars on 2 April. The agreement has been welcomed by the UK auto industry in the last couple of hours, including by Jaguar Land Rover, which is the largest exporter to the US. We are committed to continuing to support the automotive industry, which is a point my right hon. Friend has made powerfully in recent days.
On his second point, I can assure my right hon. Friend that notwithstanding the significant progress we have made in relation to the United States—as I said, jobs saved but job not yet done—a great deal of work is continuing on the UK-EU summit that is due to take place on 19 May. He is right to recognise the importance of twin-tracking our approach, as it were, by recognising the salience and significance of the United States as the country that is comfortably our largest single trading partner while recognising the European Union as our largest trading bloc, which covers about 46% of our trade.
Turning to the economic security aspects of the deal, I pay particular tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, as I know this issue has been of great interest to the Business and Trade Committee. I think he will take a lot of encouragement from what emerges in the agreement, specifically in relation to export controls and investment security. One might almost think that the negotiators had been reading his Substack.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Sadly, the world has changed dramatically in the few months since Donald Trump took office in the White House. We need to reflect on the shared values we have with key countries across the world. We need to look to Canada and stand up to Trump as it has done, and we need to make sure that we build economic relationships with countries such as Canada, Australia and the countries in the European Union—all countries that share our values.
I am pleased that the Minister spoke of scrutiny, because we must ensure that there is scrutiny. We need a vote in this House on these proposals. We need to protect the NHS and ensure that we are not selling our farmers down the river. We must also ensure that there are no cuts to taxes on high-tech industries, which the US may be pushing for. Will the Minister address the matter of a vote in this House? That would be extremely helpful. Donald Trump tends to be a weathervane, and he could come back for more. I also feel for our pharmaceutical industry, so what assurances can the Minister give them?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the case he makes for seeing trade as not simply a bilateral issue but a multilateral issue, I think there is a broad consensus across the House. As well as the work we have taken forward in relation to the United States today, we continue to work with friends and partners in a range of different fora, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and the European Union.
On his specific question about scrutiny of trade within this House, I echo the confirmation that the Prime Minister gave in the Commons only a few days ago that we are not anticipating any change to the process of scrutiny for trade matters in the House.
On the two substantive political points, first, it is worth the House recognising that there is no change to the United Kingdom’s digital services tax as a consequence of the agreement reached today. Secondly, I know that there has been widespread concern not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches but right across the House about measures to tackle the evil of online harm, but I can confirm again there has been no change as a consequence of the agreement reached with the United States.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Minister for coming forward with his statement, but the Table Office has not received a copy of it. I am wondering where it is and when we will see copies of it. Can it be handed in so we can get it printed for Members?
Let us move on to Dame Meg Hillier.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the team at the Department as well as our team of officials under Lord Mandelson in Washington. This is a major step forward in a short time. Given how long trade agreements normally take, this is an impressive step.
However, as has been mentioned, we know that President Trump has made rattling sounds about tariffs on the film industry. The creatives and technical businesses in my constituency who contribute to our film industry are obviously nervous about that. Will the Minister reassure us that he is putting his shoulder to the wheel on this issue and not resting on his laurels on the triumphs achieved so far?
Mr Alexander
Mr Speaker, on your point, I apologise again for the statement not being available. As was clear from my initial remarks, there was some confusion within Government as to the best way to proceed, but I hope that through my officials we will provide it to you as a matter of immediacy.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just so that we completely understand, the Government decided they were making a statement, so there was no possibility of anything else. The House was suspended and had to resume; we could not leave it in limbo forever. The point was that there was a statement coming. Thankfully, the Minister made a statement. Hopefully, we can get copies of the statement to everyone. I was bothered about us being in danger of sending people home, saying that there was to be no statement. That was never, ever the case. I am disappointed that Members were advised to leave the building 30 minutes ago on the claim that there was to be no statement.
Mr Alexander
Mr Speaker, the responsibility was ours, and for that I apologise. I hope that through my officials we will be able to furnish the House with the statement that is requested.
In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, I assure her that it is not my personal style or the departmental habit to rest on laurels. It will not have passed her notice that it has been a somewhat busy few months in relation to trade policy, not least given the historic changes in the global trading environment we are experiencing on a daily basis. Notwithstanding that turbulence and the challenges in relation to trade policy, it is a matter of quiet satisfaction that we were able to get the India deal over the line earlier this week. Through that process of quiet, engaged, diligent diplomacy and a great deal of hard work by officials, negotiators and others, we have been able to secure this agreement today. But I assure her that the work goes on.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the Trumpian philosophy that is “The Art of the Deal”, you bully your opponents and then, two months later, withdraw some of the threats, and they kneel down in adoration while they are reduced to where they were before. That is where we are.
We are celebrating the end of the second world war. Before the second world war, people could walk from Lincoln to Grimsby across derelict farms. I want a real assurance from the Minister that he will protect our beef farmers, because this is the start of an attack by America on our beef farmers.
Mr Alexander
As so often in the past, the Government will always act in the national interest in protecting Britain’s farmers and our food security. I would rehearse the numbers that I shared. If the right hon. Member is concerned about the volume of access to the UK market, I respectfully suggest that that might be a question for him to direct to his Conservative Front Benchers. Under the UK-Australia free trade agreement, a beef tariff quota of 35,000 tonnes a year was agreed, which increased to 110,000 tonnes after 10 years. In contrast, what has been agreed with the United States today will provide it with an initial tariff quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, rising by 1,000 tonnes a year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes.
In relation to the right hon. Member’s observations on “The Art of the Deal”—there is a great deal of commentary on that in pretty much every newspaper at the moment—my compass tends to be “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, rather than “The Art of the Deal.” Sun Tzu, as the right hon. Member, as a learned and wise individual, will be aware, said:
“Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.”
I observe that in the eight years since Brexit, the previous Government did not publish a trade strategy.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Like buses, we wait ages—years—for a trade deal with a major global partner, and then two come along at once, within a week. It is a major vote of confidence for the position of Great Britain on the global stage. With a bit of déjà vu, I commend again the Minister, the Labour Government and in particular the Prime Minister for the calm and collected manner in which they have consolidated this agreement when, by the way, others failed for years. While markets are up and tariffs are significantly down because of the announcement of this agreement, will the Minister confirm how this UK-US trade deal will benefit my Slough constituents and lead to economic growth and jobs?
Mr Alexander
As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I am always nervous as to whether buses turn up or not, but I appreciate the analogy.
It has been a busy week for the Government and for the Department for Business and Trade, but it is right to recognise that, by happy coincidence, we have seen both the India and US deals agreed within a couple of days. However, those couple of days were preceded by many months of quiet work and diplomacy, and that is why my hon. Friend is entirely right to recognise the Prime Minister’s personal contribution to the agreements, with Prime Minister Modi and now with President Trump.
After the clown show that we had witnessed in recent years and the cavalcade of chaos that we saw under previous Governments, when I saw that image of the Prime Minister sitting alongside President Trump in the Oval Office a couple of months back, I felt what I judge was a widespread sentiment among the British public, which was a sense of relief that we had a serious man in what were undoubtedly serious times. The serious man—the serious Prime Minister—has engaged in serious diplomacy to get to this agreement today, and as he recognised, with the reduction in tariffs that has been secured, not least in relation to the auto industry and the supply chain that stretches to many parts of the United Kingdom, there will be significant benefits for the United Kingdom as a result.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome this deal. The politics and detail aside, it is worth acknowledging that the Prime Minister’s strategy towards the US—low-key diplomacy, mediation-led over the past few months—has led the United Kingdom to the front of the queue. In addition to Peter Mandelson, I would thank Varun Chandra, civil servants and others for getting us to this position. What practical support can the Minister provide in assistance for business and farmers in North Yorkshire to take advantage of this deal?
Mr Alexander
Let me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I noticed his tweet—I am not sure if one calls it that or X—earlier this afternoon, which reflected his question and which spoke to a wisdom, maturity and experience in recognising the British Government’s work. I genuinely appreciate the graciousness with which he made that public observation, even before doing so in the Chamber.
I echo exactly the sentiment that the right hon. Gentleman has described in relation not just to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Ministers, but to those individuals in the British system, both in Washington and in London, who have been working pretty much flat out to try to secure an outcome to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
On the opportunities for British farmers, the right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that, far from some of the concerns that we have heard from Members on the Front Bench, there are significant opportunities for the UK given the reciprocal character of the agreement reached today. We will work as the Department of Business and Trade with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that British farmers are fully apprised of the opportunities that the new market access potentially offers to them.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the second major trade deal in a matter of days? Our agricultural sector, our automotive sector and our steel sector will all be grateful. I have learned to be wary of enthusiastic posts from President Trump on the subject of trade, but this really does seem to be a win, win, win.
As my right hon. Friend said, there is more to be done and negotiations carry on. Will he confirm, as the Minister for Future Digital Economy and Online Safety did to my Select Committee, that online harms are not on the negotiating table? Can he say whether the digital services tax is on the negotiating table? Can he also say a little bit about the issues about labour practices that he mentioned in his statement?
Mr Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for her focus and concern, regarding both the work on online harm and the digital services tax. As I sought to reflect earlier, those remain undisturbed and unchanged by this agreement. We have listened carefully to the concerns from different parts of the House on online harms, and we have worked hard to advance the UK’s national interest in the agreement that is reached. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the significance of the move in tariffs in relation to steel and aluminium, which, again, represents a significant benefit to the foundations of the UK economy. In that sense, we worked hard in the course of this deal, not just for automotives and the supply chain, but for steel and aluminium.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
One area that is important to this country and worth billions of pounds is defence. What changes will the deal bring to the proposed defence industrial strategy for the big primes and for small and medium-sized enterprises, which this Government, and all of us, want to support?
Mr Alexander
Only in recent days I have been involved in discussions, notwithstanding the work we have been doing on India and the United States, in relation to the defence component of the industrial strategy. We aim to bring the industrial strategy and its defence component to the public in the coming weeks and months. A huge amount of work is happening within Government. The hon. Member is right to recognise that one of the challenges is how we can have defence procurement in the United Kingdom that does not simply reward some of our outstanding primes, but recognises that the character of modern warfare is changing, whereby we are moving from a small number of large platforms being the central feature to a large number of small platforms. We can look, for example, at drone technology in Ukraine and the transformative effect on the battlespace. We are therefore deeply mindful of the point he makes: we need to ensure, in terms of defence procurement, that we have a whole-economy effort that recognises not least the digital and technological contribution of modern warfare. Digital is a key part of the agreement we have reached today, and we will work closely with the United States to advance our shared interest.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Thank you for making this statement possible, Mr Speaker. I welcome this statement and congratulate the Minister, the Labour Government and all our officials in the UK and US who have worked incredibly hard on this, as he says, over several months. I said in the statement on the India free trade deal earlier this week that this is in contrast to the abject failure of the Conservatives, who did not deliver any deal at all. Yesterday, the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, published a report prepared by Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group, which detailed a hit of £6.2 billion to the west midlands GDP from US automotive tariffs. The report also said that a deal within 45 days is absolutely essential, and that an imperfect deal is better than a delayed deal. Does the Minister agree that this deal is a total vindication of the Prime Minister’s approach to work in the spirit of co-operation with our partners in the USA and Europe to deliver a deal that would benefit the whole of the UK?
Mr Alexander
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless efforts in promoting the economic development of and opportunities for his constituency. I last spoke with Richard Parker only two or three weeks ago when we were together. I am fully aware—not least given his background with PwC, as I recollect—that he is deeply invested in economic development and the opportunities for the west midlands, and he has brought that commercial acumen to bear already in office. On the west midlands, perhaps the signature feature of today’s announcement will be the benefit accrued to Jaguar Land Rover, as well as to other luxury car exporters to the United States. Given the scale of Jaguar Land Rover production within the United Kingdom and the reliance on the US market, it was critical that we worked under the huge pressure of time to deliver a cut in tariffs affecting autos. In that sense, the quota agreed today and the reduction in the tariff level will be a real and meaningful benefit to JLR and its supply chain.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on this trade deal? It is an historic moment. I believe that it is in the national interest, but of course we will have to see the details, and the devil is in the detail. It appears from the statement that there are lots of details still to be worked out. I also pay tribute to Lord Mandelson, our ambassador in the United States.
The Minister mentioned managing to keep red lines around hormone-reared beef and chlorinated chicken, and of course that was mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). He also mentioned lamb—I do not think the Minister mentioned lamb—which is important to Shropshire farmers. What has not been mentioned is antibiotics in pigs. This nation eats a lot of pork. A lot of that is reared in Shropshire. Could the Minister assure Shropshire and British farmers that the pig industry in this country is still safe as a result of this deal?
Mr Alexander
I hope I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The SPS arrangements were, as I said, an absolute red line for the United Kingdom. We were keen, both in public and in private, to reinforce the Government’s continuing focus on upholding animal welfare standards here in the United Kingdom. In relation to his broader points about the deal, I am grateful that he has brought his experience and expertise to bear in the House in his judgment that, going by even this initial setting out of the deal, it is clearly in the national interest that we are in a position to have a quota allowing a reduced rate for the export of UK cars, for example. We would otherwise have been looking at very serious consequences for major British manufacturers. I am grateful to him for his generous words. I will ensure that Lord Mandelson, as I am now obliged to call him, is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s generous tributes—he is never averse to receiving compliments.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for his statement, and I wish to put on record my thanks to him, the Prime Minister and our excellent trade negotiators. The Minister has spoken a lot about tariffs so far, but might he talk about the non-tariff and non-quota trade barriers to further economic development between the United Kingdom and the United States, and about where we will go in the ongoing negotiations?
Mr Alexander
It has been a feature of the last few months, since the President was elected, that people have thought that trade policy and tariffs are synonymous. My hon. Friend is exactly right to recognise that a growing proportion of trade is conducted electronically. The UK is an almost 81% services-based economy. We therefore have a huge interest in non-tariffs barriers—not just barriers at the border but barriers behind the border. That is an area of focus in the agreement, and one that will require further work, as is appropriate and right. We were working under huge time pressure to address the tariff issue, for the reasons I have set out, but he is entirely right to recognise that we will take forward an ambitious agenda on non-tariff barriers.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Although a reduction in tariffs is welcome, the past four months have shown the UK Government that President Trump is an unreliable partner, not just in trade but in defence and security, climate and the international rule of law. In contrast, closer relations with our trusted allies in the EU have never been more important. Given that Trump has previously described the EU as “a foe”, “very nasty” and “an atrocity”, will the Minister provide an unequivocal assurance that there are no conditions whatsoever attached to the deal that will constrain the UK’s relationship with the EU, which is the UK’s largest trading partner?
Mr Alexander
I can do no better than refer to the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech towards the end of last year, when he said clearly that we do not want to have to choose between our friends and allies—between dealing and working constructively with the European Union and with the United States.
On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, it is important to recognise that the United States is our deepest and strongest defence ally. For the past 80 years—we should remember the day on which we are gathering—the United Kingdom has worked hand in glove with the armed forces of the United States to keep the world safe. I saw for myself, in previous conflicts such as Afghanistan, the extraordinary heroism and courage that American service personnel brought to bear alongside British personnel, so it is right to recognise that, as well as taking forward this economic agreement, there is a strong and enduring security foundation to the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. All that said, of course we stand ready to work with the European Union as we look ahead to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether there are any conditions. The single biggest concern expressed by many commentators related to SPS, given that that was one of the key agricultural areas on which the previous Government foundered in their negotiations with the first Trump Administration. That was a red line for us in these negotiations—a red line that I am glad to say we have protected.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, the Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson and all involved in this work for getting the deal over the line. Unlike some Opposition Members, who seem intent on talking down the Government’s positive work and our country, I find the deal really positive. Does the Minister agree that this trade deal, the one with India and the fall in interest rates announced by the Bank of England are positive signs that the Government’s plan for change is working and will start to benefit people in my constituency and across the country?
Mr Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous roll-call of honour. It would probably do my career prospects in the Department for Business and Trade some benefit if I added the Secretary of State to his roll-call of Lord Mandelson and the Prime Minister.
Of course, the latest cut in interest rates from the Bank of England will be welcomed by hard-pressed families seeking to make their mortgage payments in communities right across the country. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has commented on today’s US agreement that it is
“jobs saved…not job done.”
The work goes on in relation to sorting out the fiscal mess that we inherited and raising the trend rate of growth, but I hope that both the US deal today and the cut in interest rates will be welcomed in all parts of the House and the country.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the economic landscape has changed dramatically since 26 March: we have had the trade deal with India, we have had today’s pact with the United States, the Employment Rights Bill will come into law later this year, and there is much more besides. In the interests of transparency to this House, and indeed to the country, will he request a summer forecast update from the Office for Budget Responsibility that incorporates all the latest updates and let us know what the public finance impacts will be?
Mr Alexander
As a mere Minister of Trade, I am not sure the Treasury would look kindly on me telling the OBR when to update its forecasts. I am a Trade Minister, not a Treasury Minister, but I have noted the hon. Lady’s observation. She is entirely right that the economic landscape has changed. It is right to recognise that many of the promises that were made in the past about us seeing major trading blocs bringing barriers down have been set aside in recent months and years, and we are seeing major trading blocs putting barriers up. That is why today’s deal is so significant.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and this Labour Government on achieving not just one trade deal but two historic deals in the space of a week. I am a vegetarian, but many of my constituents like nothing better than a chicken curry on the streets of Southall Broadway. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that this deal will protect our British food standards and, in particular, that chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef will remain illegal in this country?
Mr Alexander
First, I am grateful for the catch-all congratulations to the whole Government; it is a sentiment I heartily endorse, and I will ensure it is heard by other colleagues. In relation to my hon. Friend’s substantive point, I can assure her that curries are not just a favourite in Ealing Southall; in most of our major metropolitan cities, there is nothing quite as British as a chicken tikka masala. That is a huge tribute to the 1.9 million people of Indian heritage who live in the United Kingdom and the immense contribution they have made over the decades not just to our cuisine, but to our country. She raises a really important point in relation to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. There was a lot of genuine concern before this agreement was reached today, and I can give the House the assurance she is seeking that there is nothing in this deal that compromises the safety standards of either poultry or beef. We were clear that that was a red line, and we have delivered on that red line.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. There has been a great deal of reassurance for the car industry and agriculture, but there has been no mention of the Scotch whisky industry or the drink and food industry in general. In Edinburgh, as in much of Scotland, that is a huge concern. Should we expect details next week, or are there assurances he can give us now?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, and I say that as a Member with a constituency interest: I have the Glenkinchie distillery in my East Lothian constituency, which I am delighted to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited this week, in the light of the deal that was struck with India.
In relation to this deal with the United States, it is right to recognise that further work and negotiations will continue, not least in relation to some of the broader sectors that it does not cover. It is also right to recognise, in this week of all weeks, the extraordinary significance of the Indian trade deal that was struck for the Scotch Whisky Association. Members need not take my word for it; they can look at the words of the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, who described in glowing terms the significance of the Indian market and the precipitate decline in the tariffs that we have secured in that deal. We have more to do, but broadly this has been recognised as a very significant and positive week not just for Scottish whisky, but for Scottish salmon and, I am delighted to say, Irn-Bru, which will also benefit from access to the Indian market.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
In the Vatican, in the last hour, the cardinals have elected a new Pope; and we wish the new Holy Father well, and give thanks for the life of Pope Francis. Of course, we send our best wishes to the Catholic community in Newcastle-under-Lyme and up and down our United Kingdom.
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the confirmation that he has given several times to colleagues that imports of hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken will remain illegal under this deal. That is good news, and important for my farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and farmers up and down the country. Will the Minister expand a little further on what exact engagement took place with farmers and their representatives before this deal was agreed, and what support will be pledged to farmers now, because that is important to my farmers and those up and down the country?
Mr Alexander
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s observations. I was unaware on arriving in the Chamber that a successor to Pope Francis, who is greatly grieved and missed on both sides of the House, has now been announced, and of course we wish the new pontiff well in the spiritual leadership that role will require—and I say that as a proud Presbyterian and member of the Church of Scotland.
On the broader point about engagement with farmers, I also have a farming constituency, and I was on a farm in east Lothian only last Friday, hearing directly from farmers about the impact of the market challenges faced by farmers not just here but internationally. Through our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there is a lot of engagement regularly with farmers. Naturally and appropriately, that Department was involved in the cross-Whitehall processes that led to the negotiators being able to reach agreement today, and I fully anticipate further opportunities for dialogue with farmers in the future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
We have had huge amounts of tariffs put on the UK, and then a trade deal to reduce them; there have been positive impacts on some industries, and potentially negative impacts on others. Today’s announcement of a UK-US trade deal has therefore given rise to more questions than answers. On one side, we have US officials hailing the deal as “dramatically increasing” access to the UK agricultural market, which I am sure will ring alarm bells for many. On the other side, we have the UK Government claiming that the agreement is balanced and fair. First, will the Minister categorially confirm that no reductions to UK food standards, environmental protections—which have not been mentioned yet—and animal welfare rules have been conceded in this agreement? Secondly, what is the true impact of the tariff arrangements on British farmers and growers? We have heard vague claims of reciprocal access, but have the Government conducted any assessment of the economic impact for UK farmers, their practices and their opportunities?
Mr Alexander
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and early on he mentioned a trade deal to reduce tariffs; that is exactly the deal we have sought to secure and have secured today. He is right to recognise that there are continuing challenges, not just for the UK but for many countries, in relation to protectionism and higher tariff rates, but today represents significant progress on the terms, as I have described. On animal welfare and food standards, I reassure him about everything I have said on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; we made that a red line and were very clear about it, and were unwilling to compromise. I also assure him that there is nothing vague about the reciprocity I described in terms of the opportunities for beef farmers.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that this deal will not in any way undermine the nation’s SPS rules and regulations, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that there will be a degree of nervousness among British and indeed Welsh farmers, especially beef farmers, for although the tariff rate quota agreed is modest compared with that agreed under the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, it does of course come as an addition, and farmers will be worried about the cumulative impact. I think the Minister has mentioned this, but will he confirm that the 13,000 tonnes represents the maximum tariff quota for beef that has been agreed, and has any tariff quota been agreed for lamb, pork and poultry?
Mr Alexander
Forgive me: I was shuffling through my papers and missed the hon. Gentleman’s final point, but I am happy to write to him. He is absolutely right, I can assure him, to recognise that compared to the tariff quotas agreed under the Australia deal, negotiated by the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Henley, there is much more proportionality—a much more modest increase—anticipated under the quota in the agreement reached today. I recognise his point that there are continuing challenges for farmers in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to seek to address those.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef, but will there be protections in place for egg products? Hens raised in battery cages are illegal in this country, but not elsewhere in the world, so will it be illegal to import egg products from hens raised in those poor conditions elsewhere?
Mr Alexander
We have not compromised our animal welfare standards in any aspect of what we have agreed on behalf of the United Kingdom today.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for dragging the Minister to the House tonight to explain the terms of the deal. After hammering farms with the family farm tax, it now looks like Labour is selling our farmers down the river, allowing cheap, low-quality imports from the United States. President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture has said:
“This deal puts our great American Agricultural Producers FIRST!”
Is she wrong?
Mr Alexander
It is hardly a surprise that a member of the Trump Administration should talk about America first. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the north star by which we have negotiated is the UK’s national interest. Today’s agreement reflects the quiet but determined diplomacy of a serious Prime Minister to deliver a deal. The hon. Gentleman’s party does not have a great track record on serious Prime Ministers, or on beef quotas. To put today’s announcement in context, the hon. Gentleman’s Government agreed to a UK-Australia FTA with a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year. That might be a point that he wants to make to farmers in the Borders.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Welsh farmers have been reaping the rewards of high beef prices over the past few years. That has been the one piece of good news in the industry. They now hear that another Government have signed another trade deal allowing even more beef imports into our country. Why have the Government decided to include beef imports in the deal, and to kick our farmers in the teeth again?
Mr Alexander
I simply do not recognise the aeriated contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made. He has an important and legitimate role in representing farmers in his constituency and more broadly, but I assure him that if he looks at the numbers, including the quota agreed by the previous Government, and the relatively modest shift in the tariff rate quota on beef that has been agreed today, his concerns will be allayed.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I hope that the Minister will recognise why UK farmers might raise an eyebrow at the assurances that he has given to the House. They have been let down time and again since July through this Government’s policies on the family farm tax, the sustainable farming incentive, double cab pick-ups and fertiliser tax—the list goes on and on. Brooke Rollins, the US Secretary of Agriculture, said after the deal was announced that
“it can’t be understated…how important this deal is”
for American farmers, and that it will “exponentially increase” US beef exports to the UK. The Minister will understand why that raises concerns for our farmers. Will he assure farmers up and down the country that in any further trade negotiations with the US, their interests, livelihoods and futures will not be on the table?
Mr Alexander
It would be remiss of me not to start my answer to the hon. Lady with anything other than humble congratulations on her time in the London marathon. Having run it twice, I would have seen her at the starting line, but that would have been the last time I saw her. It was a minor consolation to me that my time was somewhat faster than that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). All that being said, she makes a serious point about British farmers. I assure her that the interests of British farmers, rural Britain and the wider agricultural sector is a constant feature of our thinking in Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Despite the reassurances from the Minister, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel really anxious about being thrown under a bus yet again as a result of this trade deal, especially after the trade deals agreed by former Conservative Governments with Australia and New Zealand, which undermined British farmers and food standards. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that this deal with the US will not undermine British farmers? What measures will he put in place to ensure that low-quality, low-welfare products do not enter the UK?
Mr Alexander
I reiterate the points that I sought to make earlier. Imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high standards of welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high and continuing SPS standards. I can put it no more clearly than that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
East Hampshire farmers will be relieved to hear what the Minister has said about food standards, including on hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, after everything that has happened to them in the last period. Obviously we will have to see the detail, and see what else is in the agreement.
I will ask about online safety. The Minister has said already that there has been no change to the digital services tax and no rowing back on the online safety regulatory regime. Can he confirm that no commitments have been made that would curtail the freedom of this House to make further changes in this area?
Mr Alexander
On today of all days, I will not suggest that there should be any fetters or constraints whatsoever on this House when it comes to introducing legislation on online harm, or any other issue.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that I never want to be put in this position again? I remind people that before we send Members home, we ought to think to tell them that there will not be a statement. I think that was bad. The Chair of the Select Committee complained to me, because he was told to go away. We should not be doing this. In this House, we need to work together. This House should be respected. I will stand up for the Back Benchers. Please never put me in this position again.
On behalf of this House and all the Roman Catholics across the United Kingdom, particularly in Chorley and Lancashire, I wish the new pope well.
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.)