Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10 June 2025

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

USAID Funding Pause

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the USAID funding pause and its impact on UK international development.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank everyone who has come this morning either to participate or to observe. Although a decision about an American Government Department’s funding may seem distant in geography, it is dangerously close in consequence. The recent cuts to the United States Agency for International Development—USAID —by President Trump on his first day in office pose a grave risk to millions of people around the world, as well as to global stability. I believe they are either a mistake and a blunder, or a cruel and cynical ploy for popularity that will result in harm and suffering for the poorest on the planet.

The implications for our aid programme are threefold. First, the UK has effectively lost a key partner in aid, and one with which we have done great work in the past. Secondly, the sheer scale of the USAID cuts means that the gaps in funding cannot be filled by other donors, especially as almost all Governments, including our own, are now following the US example and reducing their aid spend to put more into their militaries. Thirdly, it could be argued that we, and indeed the world, should have seen this coming; we had become too reliant on the USA.

Having said that, I find it indefensible for the UK to follow suit and cut aid in an attempt to raise funds for increasing defence spend.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making some compelling points. Does he agree that the crucial point is that if Britain retreats from our role as a leader in international development, we not only undermine our unique soft power but leave vital regions exposed, ceding ground to the increasing assertiveness of hostile powers and geopolitical rivals?

[Brian Mathew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover many of those points. I find the cut totally indefensible and counterproductive. Apart from the soft power that our aid programme offers, it is a betrayal of principles we hold dear: reducing poverty and assuring global security.

On a personal note, aid cuts hit close to home for me. For much of my career I have worked in international aid, primarily in water, sanitation and hygiene, working to give people across Africa and the developing world access to clean drinking water, safe sanitation and good hygiene. Those simple things are vital to health, survival and prosperity.

According to WaterAid, the UK’s annual budget for WASH has already been cut by approximately 82%, from a high of £206 million per year down to a critical low of just £37 million a year in 2022. Further cuts are likely to this most vital of sectors. Such cuts will hardly dissuade potential refugees from coming to our shores; they may even drive those refugees towards us if life becomes increasingly intolerable as a result of climate change, war and famine.

One impact of USAID cuts is growing hunger. Globally, almost 50% of all deaths among children under five are attributed to malnutrition. The USAID-funded famine early warning system—FEWS NET—the gold standard for monitoring and predicting food insecurity, went offline in January because of Trump’s cuts, leaving organisations without a key source of guidance on where and when to deploy humanitarian aid. At the same time, other USAID cuts have led to feeding programmes themselves coming to an abrupt end. For example, therapeutic feeding centres in Nigeria have been closed, as have community-run kitchens in Sudan, at a time when famine threatens millions in that country. Meanwhile, thousands in Haiti have lost access to nutritional support. We are told that USAID emergency food rations are now rotting in warehouses.

The supply of HIV treatments and medication has been severely disrupted. The UNAIDS executive director has warned that if funding is not replaced, an additional 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths are expected over the next four years. We were likewise warned by a senior World Health Organisation staff member during the recent International Development Committee visit to Geneva that, with AIDS again running rampant, it is likely that drug-resistant variants of tuberculosis will now multiply and become a risk to us all, even in the developed north.

When healthcare systems are hit, sexual and reproductive health is often one of the first casualties.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I have been in contact with the International Rescue Committee, my former employer, about the impact that the USAID cuts will have on it. It is estimated that the cuts to that agency alone will mean that 280,000 people in Yemen will lose access to primary care, mental healthcare and reproductive healthcare, and 3,000 people in Lebanon will be left without education. That is devastating not just in terms of the humanitarian impact; we need to think about it in terms of our own stability and security. It means diseases left unchecked, which cross borders and become pandemics, and it means young people left without education and opportunity and at risk of further marginalisation and radicalisation. Does he agree with that analysis?

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I will continue with more figures that emphasise those points.

During the 90-day freeze, an estimated 11.7 million women and girls have been denied modern contraceptive care. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that that will lead to 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and 8,340 women and girls dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the impact that the cuts will have on women and girls. Does he agree that, as well as continuing to support women and girls through aid from this country, we must stand up for women’s and girls’ rights internationally? We have seen them rolled back in the past. That is why it is so important that we continue to do what we can to stand up for women, for example in Afghanistan, where their rights are being eroded every single day.

[Brian Mathew]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. An ActionAid project in Zambia safeguarding women from sexual exploitation was forced to close almost overnight.

Oxfam says that, thanks to the cuts to USAID, 95 million people could lose access to basic healthcare, potentially leading to 3 million preventable deaths a year, and 23 million children could lose access to education. When services collapse and diseases can spread unchecked, people lose hope, and they do not stay put. Migration pressures rise, conflicts hit new boiling points and markets react. As covid taught us all too well, deadly viruses such as Marburg and Ebola could leap from remote villages to our high streets in a matter of weeks, especially when the staff to deal with them have been given stop orders and removed from frontline duty.

We are already seeing other powers whose interests do not align with ours begin to fill the gaps left by USAID. China and Russia are expanding their influence in regions where western credibility is weakening. Just last week, some of us on the IDC heard from an official in the Burma/Myanmar freedom movement that USAID’s withdrawal has happened at the same time as China has made quick inroads to prop up the military and curry influence in its efforts to get hold of rare earth minerals from that troubled country.

The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a force for good in the world. Our work and leadership with British aid has not only saved lives but championed the best of our British values: fairness, the rule of law, health, education and opportunity across the globe. That is soft power in its most tangible form, and it is worth its weight in gold—and, more importantly, in lives and livelihoods. Sadly, we have made our own aid cuts recently, from the 0.7% GNI commitment down to 0.5% and then 0.3%. The reality is that with so much being spent on hotels for asylum seekers, instead of allowing them to work and pay their way while their status is determined, as little as 1% of UK GNI is now being spent on genuine aid.

We know what to do. We know that investing in WASH makes sense. We know that investing in girls’ education reduces child marriage, improves economic outcomes and reduces inequality. We know that investing in pandemic preparedness, vaccine infrastructure and vaccine research protects not just vulnerable people around the world, but our NHS and public health here at home. International development is therefore smart policy. It reduces the risks that we would otherwise spend billions more to contain. What should we do? We must reaffirm our commitment to restoring the 0.7% target and publicly commit not to just the rhetoric of aid, but to actually doing it—and doing it well.

The withdrawal of USAID has created a moment of reckoning; the world is watching and the vulnerable are waiting. I will end by paraphrasing President John F. Kennedy in his special message to Congress on foreign aid on 22 March 1961. We are aware of our obligations to the sick, the poor and the hungry, wherever they may live. It will both befit and benefit us to take this step boldly, on which will depend substantially the kind of world in which we and our children shall live. It is time for us to stand up and be counted.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. It looks like all Members will get to speak if they stick to six or seven minutes.

09:42

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate, which is a timely one, given that we are approaching 20 years since the Gleneagles summit held in Scotland in 2005. Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar Square calling on us to make poverty history. World leaders gathered in Gleneagles in 2005, and they rose to the challenge, cancelling debt for some of the world’s poorest countries and boosting aid.

In 2025, aid and development are firmly in the spotlight, but for very different reasons and in a very different context. While this debate is focused on the impact of USAID funding cuts, there is no doubt that those cuts will have a seismic impact on the landscape globally, and on our own approach to development. The US is the world’s largest aid donor, providing around 20% of all aid from the 32 members of the OECD. In February, we announced the very difficult decision that UK aid would be cut to boost defence spending.

While I welcome the uplift in defence spending, for people such as me and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes who have worked in development for many years, it was a painful decision. However, it is important to emphasise the difference between the decisions made in the United States and those made in the UK. While I will not comment too much on the rationales for different Governments’ decisions, the UK Government have been clear that this was not an ideological decision but one driven by financial pressures. I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will assure us, that there is a commitment to continuing to develop aid.

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

On the question of whether the Government’s decision was driven by financial motivations, does the hon. Member agree that whether it is 0.7% or 0.3%, the key is that UK GDP must rise, as her own Chancellor has said? If our economy shrinks, the 0.7% figure becomes almost irrelevant because it is 0.7% of a much smaller budget. All that matters overseas is the amount of cash they get, not the percentage of our domestic product, so we must drive the economy first before we try to deliver the mechanism that I am sure most of us are in favour of.

[Alice Macdonald]

The hon. Member is right; this is an internationally agreed percentage of gross national income, but too many countries have not met that target. As has been mentioned, some countries are stepping back, so it is important to be clear that we will keep our commitment to getting back to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. However, in this new reality, we must ensure that our aid delivers maximum impact where it is spent, that we take actions to mitigate the effect of these cuts and that we keep the commitment to return to 0.7% in the long term.

In that spirit, I will focus on five key areas where the Government should act. First, they must cut in-donor refugee costs. As many Members know, we spend a significant portion of our current aid budget in the UK on those costs, which were approximately £4 billion in 2023. That trend started under the previous Conservative Government—who also left us with huge backlogs in the asylum system—and I know that this Government are determined to tackle it. We have seen some progress in bringing down those costs, and provisional estimates suggest that they were £2.8 billion in 2024, but we need to continue that trajectory with a clear timeline and a commitment across Departments to get them down.

Secondly, we must maximise the impact of our aid. It is important that we align with the “leave no one behind” principle in the 2015 sustainable development goals. I would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister for International Development in the other place, because there are difficult decisions to be made, as members of the International Development Committee recently heard. It is important that Members of Parliament, including Back Benchers, clearly see the criteria and the vision against which those decisions are being made.

The “leave no one behind” principle must, as I alluded to earlier, include a focus on women and girls. It is clear that the USAID cuts will have a big impact in that area. In 2023, the US was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and family planning. Under the Conservative Government’s last round of cuts to the aid budget, we saw that women and girls were disproportionately affected, so it is important that does not happen again. I recently asked the Minister for Europe in the main Chamber whether women and girls would remain “at the heart” of our policy, and he assured me that they would.

At the International Development Committee, the Minister for International Development in the other place assured us that although there would be less money for women and girls in education, it would be mainstreamed across all the priorities. Can the Minister elaborate on how we will ensure that they are prioritised and, importantly, how we will continue to support women’s rights organisations? As UN Women has shown recently, there has been a detrimental impact, with many such organisations at risk of having to close their doors altogether. When we invest in women and girls, we get better outcomes, not only for those countries but for ourselves.

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

The UN has warned us that more than half of frontline, women-led organisations could shut down within six months due to global aid cuts. That is not just a funding crisis; it is a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring funding to those groups must be a priority if we are to prevent the complete collapse of women’s services in conflict zones?

[Alice Macdonald]

I fully agree. We have had programmes, such as the Equality Fund, where we have been clear on the importance of women’s rights-led organisations. I have met many women’s rights defenders of all ages who are doing amazing work. We must continue to back them and listen to them, because they know what is best in the context in which they work.

I am sure other Members will speak to the importance of investing in multilateral efforts, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund, which I also want to back. Those funds have a proven return on investment for the UK taxpayer. The World Bank’s International Development Association fund and the African Development Fund also have important roles to play in alleviating poverty, and we have been big backers of those in the past.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations, I would also like to underline the value of the United Nations. There is, of course, space for reform, and I am sure we are all aware of some of the flaws in the system, but it is a unique vehicle for coming together as a world to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face and to increase the value of our aid.

We must also look beyond aid to leverage other forms of financing, many of which we could leverage without cost to the taxpayer. As the Independent Commission for Aid Impact pointed out, foreign direct investment, remittances and other forms dwarf the overall aid budget, so I hope the UK will continue to lead on innovative financing. That includes how we can recycle International Monetary Fund special drawing rights. In 2020, we received an allocation of £19 billion from the IMF as part of the response to covid. We could re-channel that to provide zero-interest finance to low-income countries or through multilateral development banks. We could also put idle foreign reserves into action. A small portion of the UK’s largely idle exchange equalisation account could be used to support low-income countries.

The last Labour Government led on debt relief. I was proud of what we did at Gleneagles to lead those efforts. We must do so again, given that debt payments for low-income countries are at their highest for 30 years, with 32 African countries spending more on servicing their external debt than on healthcare. Given that 90% of low-income countries’ debt is governed by English law, the UK could do a lot to bring private creditors to the table to get the best possible deals. I hope the Minister can set out what we are doing in that regard, especially as we approach the conference on financing for development in Seville in just a few weeks’ time.

Finally, more broadly, we need a reset on aid and development. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we want to move to an approach founded on partnership, not paternalism, which puts the countries that have traditionally been recipients of aid in the driving seat. We have seen cases in the past. Indonesia, for example, used to be a recipient of Gavi funding but is now giving money itself. We need to look at success stories and say why they matter not only for tackling poverty but for increasing prosperity and tackling inequality, including in our own country. I see our development work as insurance; it is a downpayment for the long term to tackle some of the upstream drivers of migration.

I hope that we will continue to lead internationally, as we are domestically, on using science, innovation and technology to its best effect. Innovators, such as the John Innes Centre in the constituency next to mine, are doing amazing work to tackle hunger and climate change, and we must back those efforts to look at how we can support developing countries abroad.

We all know that tough decisions are having to be made in the extraordinary times in which we live, but I know that this Government are internationalists. I believe that our party will continue to lead and use all the levers at our disposal to tackle poverty and inequality wherever they are found.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to stick to the time limit as much as they can.

09:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for leading the debate. He and I have talked often about his previous job before he came here. I put on the record my thanks to him for what he did. His heart is in this debate, as was clear in his comments. This is a huge issue: since Trump signed the initial executive order in January, there has been a moral obligation on countries like ours to do our best to pick up what may be lost in terms of humanitarian safety, so it is great to be here to discuss that impact.

The United States is the world’s largest aid donor, providing 20% of all aid. In addition, in 2023 it was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and humanitarian aid. In March 2025, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stated that 82% of all USAID programmes would be ended. I will try to be respectful, but I have to say that if the richest country in the world cuts back on aid to that extent, it reflects badly on that country; I think there is something wrong there.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I are Christians, and we tithe our money so 10% of our income goes to charities and Christian work. We are not better than anybody else— I make that quite clear—but we do that because we feel we are morally supposed to. The reflection on the USAID programme is absolutely unbelievable and incomprehensible for a country with so much money.

I was telling my hon. Friend about a conversation between two American ladies—I do not know who they were—that I overheard in my hotel in Waterloo this morning. I heard one say to the other, “Oh, by the way, I had to get my leg done and it cost $100,000.” I nearly spilt my coffee on the floor—$100,000 and there was not another word about it. The US as a country has an obligation to others across the world, and it needs to play its part. I say that with respect and in all honesty.

The decisions that began in January have ultimately raised concerns about the continuity of global health and developmental support work. As my party’s health spokesman, my interest is piqued by the potential for humanitarian and health aid to be ultimately affected as a result. I understand that the Government have made some exceptions with waivers, but hundreds of thousands of people will undoubtedly be impacted because of those decisions.

According to The Independent, 912,730 women per week are being denied contraception. HIV vaccine trials in South Africa have been halted. Food and shelter programmes in refugee camps have been reduced or stopped early. US withdrawal has led to an increase in influence from outside actors such as China—let us beware China using its money to fill the space and therefore get what it wants. Up to half a million children could be at risk of outbreaks of malaria and cholera, which can be prevented in normal circumstances with aid.

Not only are such decisions impacting people across the globe, but closer to home the staff are ultimately out of employment as well. There is a disregard for the number of jobs that it could impact. The Minister has compassion and interest in this issue, and I do not think any of us will be disappointed in her response to our requests. In any discussions that she and the Government have with the US on this matter, the UK must work with other countries to meet development goals and ensure that those struggling across the globe are not left with nothing.

The UK has a stellar reputation for supporting countries facing poverty. In Northern Ireland we have several charities, non-governmental organisations and churches— I work with them all the time in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards—that are pivotal in supporting people in poverty. Charities such as Challenge Ministries, Mission Africa, Self Help Africa and Children in Crossfire come out of the churches and what they do. Their continued efforts reflect our commitment to supporting the nations who need help, and we must ensure that to some extent we continue to do that in the long term.

[Mr Campbell]

On the NGOs and the other groups helping people at home, the House of Commons Library summary indicates that over a quarter of UK aid has been spend on refugees based in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be better deployed overseas to try to assist the economies of developing countries, because of the concern about massive immigration into the UK? If those economies were helped and assisted, it would do more to reduce the numbers of people coming to the UK and offset the problems that we occasionally see on our streets.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments about what we should do are incredibly wise, because there would be benefits. Sometimes the full appreciation of that is not known.

I was at a Samaritan’s Purse charity event last Friday in my constituency, where I was quite critical of USAID. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, whose missionary work I am aware of, is also working with Samaritan’s Purse. Such people in my constituency and elsewhere fill the gap where the aid falls down. We owe a great debt to those NGOs, church groups, missionary organisations and the likes of Samaritan’s Purse for what they do and how they respond to emergencies, whether they are floods, earthquakes, war or whatever.

To conclude, both Governments have said in the past that more needs to be done to help low-income countries raise their own funds for development and to address climate change, especially in relation to poverty reduction. We should be proud as a nation of what we have done, while also encouraging our counterparts in the US to ensure that we do what we can to support as a collective.

I agree that every pound or dollar spent must not be wasted on political gesturing and must be spent well, but we must not stop spending altogether. That is my fear about USAID, because we have a moral obligation. I know that our US counterparts can work with us to find worthwhile projects, cut the political posturing and make a global difference, which is what we all need to do.

09:59

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

Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse; it is a privilege to have you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today.

Internationalism is at the heart of the Labour movement. When it comes to solidarity with the oppressed and victims of injustice, truly there are no borders. I want to touch on some recurring themes. The first is the ongoing dominance of Washington DC in our foreign policy. There is no doubt that the US continues to heavily influence our international approach. The American President challenged European nations to increase their defence spending at the same time as he cut USAID. The British people we serve deserve better than our nation’s meek obedience to Washington DC. Human rights, upholding and following international law, and using what global influence we have for peace and security should be at the forefront of our thinking and action.

The ripple effect of outside influence impacts our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy. A politician talking about “tough choices” almost always means that the poorest, the disadvantaged and the most vulnerable are at the wrong end of whatever the decisions are, whether at home or abroad. Domestically, the proposed cuts to welfare mean that disabled people are facing a life of forever poverty. With reductions in benefits and cost of living increases, on top of the added financial pressures involved in being disabled, it is accurate to say that, for many, the cuts would be lethal.

A deadly fate also awaits people in some of the most dangerous, volatile and destitute countries that rely on our overseas aid just to survive. Human rights and humanitarian law are essential for global security, and those essentials are under serious threat.

[Helen Maguire]

On global security, the Mines Advisory Group, a leading mine NGO, has been forced to shut down its operations in Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso and Mauritania and scale back in Iraq, Senegal, South Sudan and Sri Lanka because of USAID cuts. This is not the moment to retreat. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK must ensure sustained funding for humanitarian mine action to keep civilians safe and support post-conflict recovery?

[Brian Leishman]

Yes, the hon. Member has my absolute agreement.

In all honesty, the UK is contributing to the growing danger that I described. We continue to sell arms to human rights-abusing states and further compound that awful act by cutting overseas development aid, which prevents conflict, builds peace, increases global security and saves and transforms lives. I utterly reject the narrative that for defence spending to be increased, overseas development aid has to be cut. Pushing that type of politics is an example of dividing people, sowing discord and creating disharmony and suspicion—creating a society that is dog eat dog and to hell with your neighbour.

Cutting overseas aid is not only immoral but a completely false economy, because our security at home is made stronger when the security of others is guaranteed abroad. For example, on International Women’s Day earlier this year, Liberation organised for women from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Western Sahara to come to Westminster. Those women shared personal stories of hunger, illness, sexual exploitation and intimidation, and persecution. Our overseas aid helps to provide safety from those awful circumstances. I think we all agree that all politics is personal—with nothing more so than the stories those women shared with parliamentarians that evening.

Before finishing, I want to touch again on what I said about internationalism. The fight against inequality must be tackled here and across the world. Austerity and cuts, whether at home or abroad, should be rejected. Our Foreign Office must have a coherent, joined-up approach. It is our country’s duty to respond to the world’s crises, make humanitarian aid available, and promote peace and global security. My only ask of the Minister is that she take that message back to the Secretary of State.

10:04

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare my interest as co-chair of both the APPG on nutrition for development and the APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health.

This is a period of great uncertainty, not just because of what has happened in the US, but because of what is happening in the UK. Perhaps this debate is a couple of days early, because when the new Minister for International Development, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, appeared before the International Development Committee, everything was predicated on the spending review. Indeed, the Committee had to send back the Government’s response to our inquiry on hunger and sustainable development goal 2 because there was no substance in the reply, since everything was predicated on the outcome of the spending review.

I hope that tomorrow we will get certainty. I do not expect the Minister to be able to advance anything specific today, but it is important that we have that certainty, because uncertainty is one of the worst features affecting our ability to plan and to combat the issues that we face globally. Obviously, the US has contributed enormously to that uncertainty. It is still not clear what is happening in the US, and that is why I welcome the fact that the International Development Committee will soon visit Washington and New York. It will be a fact-finding visit, so that we can ascertain exactly what the approach is, and whether Mr Musk’s departure means anything for how these matters will be dealt with.

I do not want to dwell too much on regret about the American situation. I think that we have to move on, as others have said, to a new debate about the future model of development. The Government, through the Minister for International Development, have indicated that that is their view, but again, there have not been many clues as to exactly what that might mean. We have heard about a realignment of existing multilateral organisations; it is not clear to me what that means. What I am clear on is that the UK should continue to contribute significantly to Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid, because those are multilateral organisations that deliver on their own specific objectives but also provide a backbone for health services in many poorer countries. Without those interventions, there would not be a health service being offered at all, so it is vital that we continue.

Cutting mid-way through programmes is always chaotic. One of the most shocking things that I heard in recent evidence to the International Development Committee was about a US cut during the overwhelming of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We heard that the radio system, which was operated by volunteers, had to be switched off during that attack. That meant that people could not hear where the attack was coming from and where to go to be safe. I think that everybody who heard that evidence, from the guy who had to do that, understood how hard it was—and it was the direct consequence of a cut.

I want to focus on nutrition and give some key facts. A billion women and girls suffer from malnutrition, which impacts their health, productivity and economic futures. Malnutrition is a leading killer, responsible for one in five maternal deaths and nearly half of child deaths under the age of five. Malnutrition costs the global economy more than $1.6 trillion annually in lost productivity and potential. US aid cuts could lead to 1 million children with severe and acute malnutrition losing access to treatment annually. But it can be—and it has been—different. We know that for every $1 invested, $23 is returned to the local economy. Investing in nutrition is not charity, and it is not even the moral thing to do; it is a strategic decision and investment, and the UK, US and other funders should continue to do it.

The UK Government are being asked to invest £50 million in the child nutrition fund. The UK has historically been a leader in the funding of child nutrition interventions. In both 2022 and 2023, the UK committed £6 million to the fund, which has high-impact, cost-effective malnutrition solutions. With the funding crisis caused by US cuts, the ask is now £50 million.

I hope that on the IDC’s visit to the US, we will find out more about what is happening with HIV/AIDS, because there are competing suggestions about whether the US will return to funding. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) alluded to women and girls; one of the most important messages we have to get across is that in sub-Saharan Africa, it is women and girls who are most affected by HIV, and it is important to continue funding there.

I also agree with the hon. Member about the importance of science and innovation as we move forward in this new development world. I had the opportunity to visit the John Innes Centre outside Norwich, as well as Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, where a huge amount of research is going ahead. The research and scientific leadership that the UK can offer might be the replacement for the financial leadership we offered in the past.

10:11

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing the debate. The International Development Committee is due in a couple of weeks—if our visas are approved—to go to the US and have some of these discussions. It will be interesting to see what is said. I do not know whether I need to declare this as an interest, but I am the Labour party representative on the Progressive Alliance; our sister party is the Democratic party, and I campaigned for it in the 2012 election. I think it is obvious that my view is that we should not have the current US Administration, and their decision to slash the US aid budget was profound and devastating.

Turning to the UK context, as someone who has spent their entire career in the charity sector, I was heartbroken by the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, but it is important for the record to lay out some of the context for that decision. We inherited a horrific economy, the majority of the aid budget—a huge amount of that money—was going on asylum spend in hotels, and we faced a world in which Ukraine had been invaded by Putin and his forces. While I regret the decision to cut aid, it was taken in that terrible context, and because of the vital need to increase defence spending to 2.5%.

Why was the economy in such a state? It was because of the devastating Truss mini-Budget. Aid had already been reduced to 0.5% because of the decision that Sunak had taken, and Boris Johnson had abolished a world-leading Government Department. In addition, why did Russia invade? It was because—I should say that I do not mean this as a criticism of the last Government—the west collectively failed to stand up to Putin. We allowed him and Assad to do what they wanted in Syria; we took no action when Assad unleashed chemical weapons on his own people. Putin invaded Crimea with near impunity in 2014, and of course we had attacks on UK soil, including the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Taylor]

I will not, because I want to make a point; I find the moralising tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) a bit much. The reason the last Government were able to do what they did—slashing the aid budget, abolishing the Department for International Development and wrecking the economy—was that we have never had a weaker Opposition than we did when the hard left was sadly in charge of my party. Putin was emboldened, in part, by the hard left’s constant appeasement and apologism for the things he was doing, their downplaying of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and their suggestion that we send the sample from Salisbury back to Putin to test whether or not he was responsible.

[Brian Leishman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Taylor]

No, I will not, because I find the moralising tone completely infuriating. Having put that on record, I turn to the matter at hand: the horrible situation that we are in. I note with respect that other hon. Members have mentioned causes that they deeply care about, and I care about those causes—

[Mike Martin]

On geopolitics, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Taylor]

I will.

[Mike Martin]

If we put aside the internecine warfare of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about a retreat from the world. Retreating from the world as the west, the UK or the US, opens the door to creating more problems, and then we retreat further. Would he argue that that is what we are doing—vacating the field to our opponents?

[David Taylor]

I do not believe that is the case, because I believe the Minister is going to set out the ways in which we are still taking our place on the world stage, but I hear the hon. Member’s concern.

Hon. Members in this Chamber have passionately advocated for causes that they care deeply about. I respect that, especially the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes and his passionate plea for WASH. I could talk about a number of causes important to me, but what is most important is that we increase the size of the pie. For that reason, I have been working constructively with other Members of the House to put suggestions to the Government for how, given the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, we could look at other forms of development finance.

In the interests of time, I will not go over the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made about asylum seekers, remittances, special drawing rights, the exchange equalisation account and debt relief, but I will add to that list the need to release the Chelsea money as soon as possible. The Government announced recently that they are looking to take further action against Roman Abramovich. If that money is released into Ukraine, given that we have essentially said that we will protect aid spending in Ukraine, I hope that additional money can replace official development assistance going in, so that that ODA money can then support programmes in other countries.

We also have an issue with British International Investment. To be clear, BII does good things, but there is no need for additional capitalisation out of the 0.3% that we have, given that investments in assets can be realised. Finally, I highlight the international finance facility for immunisation, which is a way to leverage extra funding. We are urging the Government to look at other ways to do that in other contexts. There is already an international finance facility for education, and by using such facilities we can leverage funds times 10. Given the various summits that are coming up, including the financing for development conference that my hon. Friend mentioned, I urge the Government to look at those options, and to think innovatively about the additional finance that we can leverage to help to support the poorest people in the world.

10:18

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew)—who cut his teeth in the continent and the country in which I was born, Malawi—for securing this important debate.

We are seeing the dismantling of the world order that we created. I sincerely believe that we stand at a crossroads of not just policy, but principle. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on punching above its weight, not just militarily, but with moral leadership. Having said that, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), it was Tony Blair—the “hard left”—who said that Putin should have a seat at the table and gave him a pair of silver 10 Downing Street cufflinks.

With our moral leadership, through decades of smart and targeted overseas aid, we have saved lives and shaped the world in our image—an image that is just, resilient and humane. The decision that we have made to cut overseas aid by £6 billion is lowering our commitment, such that overseas aid will be at its lowest level in 25 years. That not only betrays the world’s most vulnerable people; it betrays us. It betrays who we are and what we stand for.

Let us be clear: aid is not just about generosity. We all know that. It is also about foresight. I am an optometrist, and this decision is extremely myopic. Aid is about security for us in the long term. It is about stability and recognising that the surest way to keep disease, conflict and extremism from reaching our shores is to invest in preventing them, rather than reacting in panic when they emerge. In my opinion, cutting aid while increasing defence spending is putting the cart before the horse. How can we talk about protecting our nation while we tear down the very programmes that prevent wars, contain pandemics—have we already forgotten covid?—and stabilise fragile regions?

These aid cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are unprotected lives, including children who are unprotected because they are unvaccinated, whose futures will be erased. For example, over the past four years our support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped to immunise 1 billion children. Now that we are reducing the funds for aid, we risk reversing decades of progress. Measles, polio, typhoid—these are not diseases of the past. They are clawing their way back and our retreat invites them in. We have seen what our aid can do. In just two years, the Reach Initiative helped to boost immunisation rates in conflict zones from 16% to 96%, reaching more than 9 million children. Are we now to abandon those children in the name of “sharpening focus”?

The UK’s aid has helped to provide antiretroviral therapy to 23 million people, distributed 133 million malaria nets and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), educated more than 1 million girls in the world’s hardest places. Are we about to cut this system to meet a political target or to mimic a short-sighted policy from across the Atlantic?

Aid fosters growth over time. Since 1960, the International Development Association has helped 36 countries through loans and grants; 19 of them have seen economic development to such a degree that they are now giving money to the IDA rather than receiving it.

Let us not kid ourselves. This aid cut is not about leadership; to me, it looks like retreat. While following the USA in gutting aid programmes might seem politically expedient, it is morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. This policy will stoke the very fires that we seek to extinguish—displacement, disease and extremism—and send their embers across the globe. And what of our standing on the world stage? Are we prepared to go from aid superpower to spectator, and to shrug while global poverty, education and health collapse under the weight of our absence? While we pull back, authoritarian regimes are—as we speak—filling the void with their influence, their ideologies and their terms. I believe that we should increase our investment in global health security, not scale it back. Our aid was not charity, in a world still reeling from covid and now facing new disease outbreaks; it was, in fact, an insurance policy against global collapse.

Now is not a time for retreat; it is a time for us to lead, with compassion, clarity and courage. We must not allow short-term politics to cause long-term catastrophe. We must restore our commitment to giving 0.7% of GNI, reassert our leadership in education in particular, global health and crisis response, and protect not just lives overseas, but the future of our nation and the values that we claim to defend.

We are not just donors; we are architects of a safer and more stable world. Let us not dismantle what we have built.

10:23

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is indeed an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this important debate.

Since the new US Administration took office in January, President Trump and Elon Musk have gutted USAID—the world’s foremost dispenser of humanitarian funding and expertise, through which America saved the lives of many of the world’s poorest people. Trump’s budget proposals to Congress for the coming fiscal year reduce foreign assistance spend by almost 85%, all while the need for it increases. In a deadly year, when 120 armed conflicts raging across the globe, the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity has nearly tripled in six years, from 135 million in 2019 to 340 million today. The nation that previously built development’s architecture has largely disappeared almost overnight. There is an urgent need for someone to step up and assume the convening and facilitating role that America once played. Many looked to Britain, and in that month, when we all held our breath, we were blindsided instead by this Labour Government cutting development spending to its lowest level this century.

It is difficult to fully comprehend the scale of the cuts to USAID or their impact. In 2024, America spent roughly $70 billion on international development. Its contribution represented 40% of all humanitarian aid recorded that year. But it is not just the money. Every other country, international NGO and development body relies on the humanitarian architecture that America built and supported. It was America that funded much of the most valuable data collection, which determined where other countries directed their resources. NGOs I have spoken to explained how American-funded analysis often provided the early warning system for looming hunger crises. Frequently it was money from the Americans that paid the administrative costs and overheads of NGOs working on the ground. That has been dismantled.

The world is already paying a heavy price for Trump’s and Musk’s decision to break American development leadership. Since the cuts, Boston University has been running a mathematical model of their likely toll. The model estimates that more than 300,000 people have died already, two thirds of them children. Every hour, the model believes, around another 100 people die. One can watch the number tick up almost in real time. A leaked memo originating with USAID estimated that the cuts would result in 200,000 children each year being paralysed by polio, that 1 million cases of severe acute malnutrition, which often results in death, would go untreated and that malaria would claim an additional 166,000 lives. There is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. Millions of the world’s poorest people, including the poorest children, have lost lifesaving medical care because of those cuts.

Perhaps the heaviest blow of all has fallen upon the global effort to fight HIV and AIDS. The President’s emergency plan for AIDS relief, credited with saving 26 million lives in the last two decades, received a 90-day stop work order in January. The Trump Administration have now asked Congress to claw back money, some already allocated to PEPFAR. As a result, the global HIV response has been severely disrupted. Modelling by the Burnet Institute estimates that it will result in a 25% drop in funding for the global HIV response, and as many as 2.9 million excess HIV-related deaths by 2030.

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. It is very important we emphasise that it is women and girls who will be most affected by those cuts. It is not those stereotypes sometimes presented by some in the US who are affected; it is women and girls.

[Monica Harding]

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will come to later.

USAID modelling suggests that the actions of Trump and Musk could result in 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases, such as Ebola, each year. When Ebola ripped through west Africa a decade ago, it had a case fatality of around 40%. It was kept from our shores thanks to a global response in which America and Britain played crucial roles. When we step back from funding and supporting global health initiatives, we put ourselves at risk. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for the Government to reaffirm our commitment to the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund, because it is the right thing to do for British interests.

There is some hope. The situation is still fluid, and I urge the Government to impress upon the US Administration the moral and strategic imperative for development. Meanwhile, the US Administration have emphasised that America will continue to provide humanitarian aid and respond to disasters, at least to a degree. That is welcome, but if the funding is to be effective it must be provided in accordance with foundational humanitarian principles: impartiality, neutrality and independence. Israel’s Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American-backed scheme, disregards those principles. In consequence, it is dangerous, unworkable and profoundly insufficient. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to affirm Britain’s commitment to those principles and to all allies, and to urge American counterparts to do the same.

The decisions taken by the US Administration to slash and gut USAID are profoundly depressing; that our Government have followed their lead is even more so. Britain is withdrawing when our voice is needed more than ever. The slashed UK aid budget cannot fulfil our commitments. We hear that Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine are ringfenced. In the absence of the US, we wonder about those other humanitarian hotspots: Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Mali, Haiti and Bangladesh.

We hear that our Government’s priorities are conflict, climate change and health. What about women and girls, nutrition and education? At the same time, the Government toy with rhetoric and framing borrowed from the Trump playbook, saying that Britain is no longer a charity. Let us be clear and united: development serves British interests. It is not charity or a giant cash dispenser in the sky, but a deposit account for our safety and security. That is because funding global health is better than battling a pandemic; supporting peacebuilding is cheaper than fighting a war, or dealing with the terrorism that emerges out of instability; and aid in economic development and climate mitigation are better than coping with mass displacement and channel crossings.

Every crisis creates opportunities, and the American withdrawal is no different. While the USA dismantles overseas assistance—ripping out 85% of it, and the plumbing, too—Britain must use its tradition of leadership and step forward as a convening power, with bold and brave thinking and a long-term vision for aid, starting by laying out a road map for returning to 0.7% of GNI, as we are required to do by statute. That law has not changed. I worry about the Government’s failure to square that with the notoriously generous British public. The impact of the UK aid cut, alongside the US cut, has not been made clear. It will mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost worldwide.

Instead of short-term decision making and chasing domestic headlines, we must invest in a long-term vision for Britain and security for our future. We have yet to see any script from the Government on what Britain is for. How we behave now will define how we are seen on the world stage. We still have a seat at the table and we may say that we still have the expertise to lead, but if money does not follow, it would be arrogant to assume that we will keep that seat. Britain is compassionate. We do not have to follow America blindly; we can use our proud and long tradition in development and aid, look outwards and lead.

10:33

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing the debate. It is very timely, coming as it does one day before the Chancellor’s spending review announcement.

It is more than three months since the Prime Minister announced the reduction in aid spending, yet we still await a clear picture of what that means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) eloquently set out. I appreciate that there are challenges for the Minister but, like the international development sector and partners, I still have many unanswered questions about what this means for UK development priorities, especially in the context of changes to USAID.

Decisions about the levels of US aid are, quite rightly, a matter for the US Government, but we should acknowledge that this is the new reality we are working with. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to be across the changes and the detail, and to understand what they mean for the sector and our partners.

What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the changes to USAID? Understanding where the impact will be is crucial to ensuring that our programmes are as effective as they can be, given the global and domestic context. With that in mind, has the Minister assessed the number of UK aid programmes that are likely to be impacted and which sectors will be most affected? I would also be grateful for an update on her latest discussions with her counterparts in the US, as well as counterparts in other donor countries. Is she aware of any programmes or policy areas that the US is vacating where there might be appropriate opportunities for the UK to take on the mantle and further our own national interest?

Global health, as we have heard today, is an area where the UK has made a significant and positive contribution, for example to Gavi and the Global Fund. In 2020, while we hosted the global vaccine summit, it was the Conservative Government who committed £1.65 billion to Gavi. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. These interventions really do matter: Gavi has saved 18.8 million lives and the Global Fund 65 million. Those are not numbers, but real lives, real people and real results. Sadly, we are yet to see a pledge from this Government.

Another example of global health in action is the Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa programme. By working with African partners and the World Health Organisation to help to detect and tackle future epidemics and drug-resistant infections, the programme was integral to stopping Africa’s worst Ebola outbreak in 20 years. It is therefore rather concerning that we read in the press that the programme is at risk. Diseases do not respect borders, and we need to understand the risk of the changes for us at home. What assessment has the Minister made, ahead of the spending review, to inform her about how the global health budget should be managed?

On women and girls, the UK also has a good story to tell. In government, the Conservatives launched the women and girls strategy for 2023-30, which affirmed our commitment to the three Es: education, empowering women and girls, and ending violence. We worked with partners such as Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, demonstrating how the public and private sectors can work together to achieve maximum impact. Similarly, sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes are, as we have heard today, essential for saving lives and achieving gender equality, and, crucially, for empowering women. This is an area where the UK has a strong record of delivering.

As we are sadly all too aware, conflict has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often, they are locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and to build peace. The women, peace and security agenda we championed in government is about building a more representative and effective approach to tackling conflict and advocating for women’s rights in an ever more challenging world. It matters because empowered and engaged women make societies more prosperous and more secure. The Minister’s colleague, the International Development Minister, recently told the International Development Committee that education and gender are likely to be impacted by the changes to ODA. As a priority, can the Minister therefore help us understand how that will impact on the FCDO’s work in women and girls’ education, SRHR, maternal health and the broader women, peace and security agenda?

There are so many other areas I would like to raise in the context of changes to USAID. As ever, I am conscious of time, but it is important that we do not lose sight of, for example, strong institutions and capacity building, and tackling corruption and illicit finance. Without that, we cannot help partner countries to become stronger and better allies—something that is increasingly important in today’s ever more challenging world.

De-mining in post-conflict and active conflict zones remains crucial. In that area, funding to the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—great examples of British NGOs—has helped not to just support the clearance of explosives, but to raise awareness of the danger of mines and, crucially, train and build capacity in countries so that they can help to clear the mines themselves.

I would also like to touch on nutrition, which underpins good development. The recent Nutrition for Growth summit in March this year is yet another example of a sector left in limbo where the UK did not make a financial commitment.

It has been clear throughout this debate that there are still many unanswered questions and much uncertainty in the sector. I know that I am not alone in having received answers to written questions telling me to wait for the spending review. My latest tally of such answers is 59, and the story is the same almost regardless of the policy area. Similarly, the Shafik review of international development appears to have been left gathering dust on the Foreign Secretary’s desk. There are so many unanswered questions, creating much uncertainty in an ever-changing and complex world of conflict.

I have a specific and topical question to press the Minister on regarding ODA spending on Chagos. What funds from ODA will be used as part of the payments and support for Mauritius under Labour’s Chagos surrender deal?

Finally, how have the changes to USAID impacted the Minister’s decisions on UK development priorities? Has her Department made a full sector-by-sector, country-by-country impact assessment ahead of tomorrow’s spending review that takes into account the new development landscape we are operating in?

As we adjust to the new reality with respect to USAID, it is vital that the UK is alive to the impact on our international development programmes while ensuring effectiveness in our delivery. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I am sure, I remain patient and will wait until the spending review tomorrow, but let me reassure the Minister and her Department that if I am left with more questions than answers after that, I will keep asking those questions.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the lead Member to wind up.

10:42

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to have heard such excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and others who have direct experience in this important field.

To repeat the words of the Minister for Development in the other place, this is a very difficult time for the development sector. The world is changing and the post-world war two consensus is under significant strain. We face increasingly complex, interconnected and politically charged global issues. As we have heard, cuts to USAID, combined with funding decisions by other donors, including the UK, will have significant implications for tackling global development challenges. We are working closely with partners to understand the impact and provide support.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she has asked lots of questions, which is, of course, part of her job as spokesperson. However, she might want to cast her mind back to the period between February 2020 and December 2021, when she was the Minister and got the axe out so quickly that there were in-year funding cuts, job losses and an enormous tremor across the sector. I remember many people coming to see me, as the Opposition spokesperson, and saying, “Could the Government not at least take a considered view over time, not rush to do these things and try to have some respect for the sector?”

[Wendy Morton]

In my comments, I was appreciative of the challenges that any Government faces in such circumstances. However, I gently remind the Minister that this is now happening on her Government’s watch and, as she rightly acknowledges, my job as the shadow development Minister is to keep asking those questions. What the sector needs is certainty, and the Government clearly have not learned that.

[Catherine West]

On the tone of the speech by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), we should also remember the 2010 to 2015 period, when cut after cut in public funding inflicted quite a deal of pain on the recipients of that public funding.

[Monica Harding]

Does the Minister agree, though, that after receiving a note from the Labour Government saying there was no more money left, the coalition Government increased the aid budget to 0.7%? In fact, 0.7% of gross national income has been in the Lib Dem manifesto since 1970. When we were in government, we delivered it; when we left government, it was cut.

[Catherine West]

I think the hon. Lady may have a good debating point in this Chamber, but the result of the 2015 election says it all.

[David Taylor]

I want to add to what the Minister is saying. The point is that, yes, the coalition Government did protect the aid budget, but by cutting public services in this country to the core, they undermined public trust in Government. That meant that lots of people faced need, and it led to increasing calls of, “Charity begins at home; why are we spending this money abroad?” If we had kept the settlement that we had under the last Labour Government, whereby we invested in public services at home and abroad, we would not have ended up in this mess.

[Catherine West]

I think we are all making the important point that since the 2008 global crash, our economy has never really been the same and we have struggled to make progress, whether on wages and living conditions at home or on completely fulfilling our responsibilities abroad. As one says, we are where we are. General reductions in public spending are part of a broader set of pressures facing the international development system.

Support for multilateralism has been wavering for some time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) said, amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Many of our partners feel that the current system no longer responds to their needs. The combined impact of these two factors is significant, and let me briefly expand on them.

First, on the disbanding of USAID, it is inevitable that significant cuts will have lasting implications for how we tackle global development challenges. I cannot say how pleased I am that the International Development Committee will go to the USA to have face-to-face dialogue with friends about how we can save the most important elements of our programmes. Given the knowledge base of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is well known for his work on global health, HIV/AIDS, Gavi, Unitaid and the Global Fund, he will be able to make pertinent arguments with friends there. I would also ask the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his connections in the faith sector, to impress on all the different faith-based charities the need to continue their important work where they can and to have many people doubling their tithe.

[Jim Shannon]

I have suggested this in the past, because there is a real possibility of doing good things together: those organisations would be keen to work alongside Government through their NGOs, if that was possible. I think I have asked the Minister this before, but I am interested in whether she would by sympathetic to that idea.

[Catherine West]

I will certainly pass that idea back to the Minister with responsibility for development, because we always end up having good ideas in Westminster Hall debates.

The US is a key partner, but this is a matter for them. It is their budget. We have a strong relationship with the US that is founded on shared interests and common approaches. Together with our G7 and G20 allies, we carry strong global influence, and we must never stand back from that. That is why we are committed to working with the US and other countries on our shared priorities. We are in regular touch with US counterparts to share advice as they shape their development plans. As in any diplomatic relationship, we will not always align with the US, and we may want to focus on other things. That is normal. We will engage in a pragmatic way to understand concerns and find a way forward.

Many Members have mentioned the multilateral system. No single country can solve the global development challenges alone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for pointing that out as well as the importance of working with international financial institutions, which she learned through her experience before coming to this place. This is where we have to be much more innovative. We cannot just sit around the table and nod through reports; we have to put some life back into those systems so that we can enable the finance and the technical aid, which the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also mentioned. Through technical assistance and international financial organisations, we are not powerless —we can use them. There is an opportunity to rebuild trust, rebalance power and design a more effective, inclusive, co-operative and future-proof architecture.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, mentioned the 1970s. We must not forget, at a moment like this, what the development sector has done. So many more people lived in abject poverty before, and there is now a growing middle class, and much of that is down to really bright people, employed by NGOs in those countries, who are leading movements and improving the economy. Under 10% of people are now living at the poorest level, which used to be on $1 a day. The development Minister will know the statistic, but it has reduced to 9%. This debate, as well as lots of other evidence, is going into the spending review so that decisions can be made. We know that a preponderance of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is being taken into account.

[Alice Macdonald]

The other concentration of people living in extreme poverty is in conflict-affected states. As much as this is about providing humanitarian aid once disaster happens, we also have to invest in prevention in the first place. Would the Minister reflect on the importance of conflict prevention in our aid efforts?

[Catherine West]

Indeed. This is about not just aid, but the women, peace and security programme, which I spoke at in Manila a couple of months back, and the important work that we do in Colombia, Mindanao in the Philippines and other places to ensure that women have a voice. I am very aware that many Members in this Chamber understand the importance of empowering women to solve the difficulties relating to how communities live abroad in very poor or conflict-affected areas. The Government will continue their commitment to supporting women and girls by being a champion for them across the world—by showing up and making our voice heard. Quite a few international partners have mentioned to me at conferences that I am the first UK Minister they have seen for years. This is partly about our diplomatic presence, including at ministerial level, so that we can be confident champions of women and girls in our multilateral work, and improve the quality of mainstreaming in our growth, climate, health and humanitarian programmes.

[Wendy Morton]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to ensuring that half our development budget goes to women and girls?

[Catherine West]

It would be unwise of me, the day before the spending review, to give an exact figure. However, I reassure the right hon. Member that we will give extra-special attention to working with women’s organisations, particularly local organisations in crisis and climate-affected contexts, which I know are close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North. We will mainstream gender equality to put women and girls at the heart of everything we do.

We now have a champion for women, Baroness Harman. Some Members may remember her from this House, and she is not to be taken lightly. She will go over our proposals with a fine-toothed comb and support the work we do to help women political and economic leaders, like her, and activists in their home countries—those who have real legitimacy with their populations—to ensure that development and humanitarian programmes integrate women’s perspectives and needs, and address the barriers that they face. That is as relevant in conflict and peacebuilding as it is in education.

I will make some further brief points on global health. We will continue to invest in multilateral funds such as Gavi and the Global Fund. I know many here are champions of that work. There was an emphasis in this debate on child nutrition, which is paramount.

Moving on to the question of climate and nature, we will tackle climate change by backing investments that help countries to grow green and resilient economies. When we consider the COP meetings abroad, we see, following disasters and emergencies, that there is so much poverty and so much aid has to be spent. We must work harder through our financial institutions to bring forward prevention schemes for very climate-affected areas. Pakistan and the speech that Sherry Rehman made at COP two years ago come to mind, as do the Pacific islands—an area that my brief covers—which are literally under threat of sinking. Those are the sorts of areas where climate interventions are crucial and where climate will continue to be a very important point.

Members have mentioned some of the real hotspots we are looking at at the moment, including Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Myanmar, and I will briefly emphasise the importance of our humanitarian response. Colleagues will remember that following the dreadful earthquake in Sagaing in Myanmar, through support from the UK public together with the Disasters Emergency Committee match-funding UK citizens’ contributions, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was able to provide £25 million in total, equivalent to China, to those who were suffering. The International Development Committee has heard from Dr Sasa and others from outside Myanmar who are championing proper political reform, so that less aid will eventually be required once the political system gets up and running there.

Afghanistan has been mentioned as a crucial area, particularly for women and girls. I want briefly to talk up the importance of the BBC World Service and its Bitesize learning modules, through which women can listen to the radio and learn English and other basic subjects. That came out of covid, and it is an example of excellence. When a young mother with perhaps eight or nine children is washing their clothes, she can listen to English and hope one day to be able to use that to empower her and her family, and also hopefully to have an improved future. Those sorts of interventions are incredibly important.

The UK remains committed to playing a leading role in international development. We will work with our partners, including the US and the global south. I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) did sound very evangelical in his speech, I liked it. I think it is important that we do have a moral heart in a lot of the work we do. We know that working with the US and the global south to reimagine a development system that meets our shared priorities, builds new partnerships, and harnesses the power of trade, AI, technology and private capital will not be quick or easy. But by working together, we can build a system that is inclusive, effective and gives voice to all who have a stake in it.

10:58

[Brian Mathew]

I thank everyone who has spoken today; I am minded of the words of Jo Cox, who said that there is more that unites us than divides us. If we look back to the formation of the original Overseas Development Administration, that was under a Labour Government, as was the Department for International Development. But it was under the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition that the 0.7% of GNI was reached, so we have much to be proud of in terms of what we have done and what we need to do. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) mentioned the “Make Poverty History” speech by Nelson Mandela in Trafalgar Square. I was there, right at the front of the crowd. It was a proud day indeed.

I will end with another quote from JFK, because I think it is important to focus our minds. We choose to do the right things

“not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.

We need to stand up for aid and for people. Let us focus our minds on that and not just on rhetoric. The buck stops not just in Washington, but here.

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

Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Demand

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

The convention for 30-minute debates is that the lead Member makes a speech, to which the Minister responds, and only with prior permission can another Member make a speech. More and more, it has become the norm that Members intervene quite a lot. That is not really the point of a 30-minute debate, but I remind Members of the convention that the Chair should be informed by any Member who wishes to intervene.

11:01

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling demand for prostitution and sex trafficking.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. There is a group of people who do not get talked about enough in Parliament. In fact, they are rarely mentioned in public at all. We seldom hear from them directly, and we rarely knowingly encounter them on our screens or in person. It is almost as if they are invisible. I suspect that that is how they would like to remain, because if we heard what they said and saw what they did, we would want to stop them. This group of people is men who pay for sex.

Sex buyers rely on being unseen while they ruin lives, leaving us as a society and the individual women to pick up the pieces of the carnage they cause. The demand from men who pay for sex fuels a brutal prostitution and sex trafficking trade. It funds predatory websites that make millions of pounds advertising women for sexual exploitation every day and causes untold trauma to some of society’s most vulnerable women while undermining equality for all women.

This debate is an opportunity to bring the demand for sex and sex trafficking out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Who are the men who create this demand? To answer that, I will read their own words, written on a website on which men anonymously rate and review women who they have paid for sex:

“No smile, her atrocious English made the interactions even more impossible.”

“I asked for OW”

—oral without a condom—

“which she did reluctantly...This was a very sub-standard service from someone who is not interested in providing customer satisfaction.”

“She basically just laid back, shut her eyes and let me get on with it. She made no noises. I put up with about 5 minutes of her lying there-like a side of beef before sitting up.”

“Bad attitude. Everything was off limits.”

“Finally, I got her to lay there, but it’s like shagging a dead fish.”

I am sure we can all agree that those remarks are sickening. Men who buy sex review women as if they are reviewing an Xbox game. Those comments prove that men who pay for sex treat women as subordinate sex objects whose role is to service their sexual desires, and they represent just a handful of the approximately 28,000 reviews left on one sex buyers website.

Researcher Alessia Tranchese found that the most misogynistic reviews were posted about women disrupting buyers’ fantasies, such as failing to adequately pretend that they wanted to have sex with these men. Negative reviews of women were used as a tool to control their behaviour—publicly punishing resistance while rewarding compliance with their sexual demands. Sex buyers may delude themselves into thinking that paying money absolves them of responsibility for subjecting vulnerable women to unwanted sex, but the opposite is true. It is not possible to commodify sexual consent; the money is coercion. As the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls states:

“prostitution is intrinsically linked to different forms of violence against women and girls and constitutes a form of violence in and of itself.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. It is a hard subject to speak about and it is incredibly hard to listen to—not because of the hon. Lady, but because the subject content is so graphic. I know that the hon. Lady is aware of the Northern Ireland legislation, but does she agree that there is a need to make profiting from the prostitution of others illegal with criminal repercussions? The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 does this. Will she join me in calling for UK-wide legislation to protect vulnerable men and women from the exploitative sex industry? I know that the Minister is always keen to answer, and she does well.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I will come to that later, and yes, I do agree with those comments.

The most recent research into the scale of paying for sex found that 3.6% of men in the UK report having paid for sex in the previous five years. Men who are most likely to have paid for sex are single, aged from 25 to 34, in managerial or professional occupations, and report high numbers of sexual partners. Shockingly, but not surprisingly, it was revealed last month that multiple members of the Scottish Parliament have paid for sex. We can only predict that Members or former Members of this House have too.

Demand is not inevitable, and the law plays a pivotal role in whether this minority of men choose to pay for sex. In one UK study, researchers asked over 1,200 sex buyers whether they would change their behaviour if a law was introduced that made paying for sex a crime. Over half said that they would definitely, probably or possibly change their behaviour. While sex buyers are driven by male sexual entitlement, ultimately, they do it because they can. The law is not just failing to stop these men; it is making it easy. Not only is paying for sex legal in England, Wales and Scotland, so are the pimping websites advertising thousands of women each day for sex buyers to choose from.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this debate. Does she agree that pimping websites are facilitating sex trafficking of women, making it easier for traffickers and organised crime groups to profit from the dehumanising, violence, exploitation and trade of vulnerable women?

[Tracy Gilbert]

These websites function as massive online brothels. They are the go-to place for traffickers to advertise their victims. I have said it before and I will say it again: pimping websites are making it as easy to order a room and to sexually exploit as it is to order a takeaway.

I want to talk about the women who face the devastating consequences of prostitution and sex trafficking for the rest of their lives. In a 2016 inquiry, the Home Affairs Committee found that a number of prostitutes were in a vulnerable position. Evidence from St Mungo’s showed that one in four women living in its housing services was a current or former prostitute. Its evidence also showed that, of its residents who had experienced rough sleeping, one in three was a current or former prostitute. In 2022, Beyond the Streets published a report by Grayce Collis and Dr Katie Thorlby that found that 78% of women actively seeking support to leave prostitution needed support with their mental health, while 71% needed support with their relationships with friends and family, which are often broken, and 63% needed support to access employment and education. Tragically, a database managed by National Ugly Mugs recorded 180 murders of prostitutes across the UK between 1990 and 2016. Evidence from Agenda to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry stated that

“Women in prostitution are 18 times more likely to be murdered than the general female population.”

Behind those statistics are vulnerable women, who all too often feel there is no escape from the exploitation they face. Fiona Broadfoot told Sky News in 2018 that she was physically abused and exploited by her pimp from the age of 15. She detailed how she was introduced into prostitution within two weeks of first meeting him. She was arrested; her pimp was not. Her criminal convictions have followed her out of prostitution, resulting in employment and education opportunities being snatched from her.

Operation Fasthold, a joint operation between Police Scotland and the Home Office, showed that women are trafficked into the UK to meet this demand. In that case, it was mainly women from east Asia, uprooted and coerced into prostitution, afterwards finding themselves at the mercy of our asylum process, stuck in low-paid work or at the hands of another criminal gang. In Edinburgh, over this weekend, 142 women were advertised for prostitution on one website alone. Five of the top 10 adverts are explicitly posted by so-called agencies, so the site does not even try to hide the organised nature of this exploitation.

The devastation and exploitation of women continues, and something has to change. The law must deter demand for prostitution and sex trafficking, and reflect the reality that prostitution is violence against women by holding perpetrators and profiteers to account and, crucially, by supporting victims. A growing number of countries and states have adopted this approach: outlawing paying for sex and profiteering from the prostitution of others, while decriminalising victims of sexual exploitation and providing support and exit services. Those countries include France, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Their experiences show that demand for sex buyers and the trafficking of women to meet that demand can and must be deterred.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this crucial debate to Westminster Hall today. I wonder whether she has noticed the private Members’ Bill tabled by Ash Regan of the Scottish Parliament, which looks to do exactly what she has described by decriminalising the sale of sex. Would she like to congratulate Ash Regan and wish her luck with her Bill?

[Tracy Gilbert]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I will come back to that point later in my speech.

Sweden was the first country to criminalise paying for sex while decriminalising victims of sexual exploitation. The more than two decades since the introduction of its 1999 Sex Purchase Act have provided evidence of its effectiveness. Since that pioneering Act was introduced, demand has dropped significantly, public attitudes have been transformed and traffickers are being deterred. An analysis by the European Commission concluded that the Act, coupled with proactive policing,

“has created a less conducive context for trafficking.”

In Ireland, an evaluation by researchers at University College Dublin reported that, under the country’s demand-reduction legislation, there was

“an increased willingness amongst women”

in prostitution

“to report crimes committed against them and in their improved relationship with Gardaí overall.”

In France, there is strong public support for the demand-reduction laws, which is significant given the importance of changing public attitudes and deterring sex buying. An Ipsos survey found that 78% of the French public support the legislation on prostitution, and 74% think that prostitution is violence.

Demand for prostitution and trafficking is not inevitable, and the law has a critical role to play in deterring it. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) mentioned, I welcome the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill, introduced to the Scottish Parliament by Ash Regan MSP, which looks to replicate the lessons learned from other European countries. I hope that all Members of Scottish Parliament will consider the legislation carefully and support it as it makes its way through Parliament. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether UK Government will be looking to bring forward similar legislation.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation and has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to outlaw pimping and paying for sex, and to decriminalise victims of sexual exploitation by removing sanctions for soliciting. I am proud to be among the more than 50 Members of Parliament who are signatories to those amendments. 

The proposed reforms are backed by survivors and best-practice frontline support services, such as the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Scotland, nia, Women@TheWell and Kairos, whose representatives I recently met and heard from. These vital amendments will help the Government to meet our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls by reducing the demand for prostitution. I urge Ministers to accept the amendments, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on which amendments may be accepted.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate her on securing this debate, however short—we are all managing to squeeze little bits in. Does she agree that those who argue that outlawing pimping websites will just drive this all underground are absolutely wrong? Actually, the reverse is seen: prosecution rates go up, so the demand decreases.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I agree. One piece of misinformation surrounding the actions that I have proposed is that outlawing pimping websites would simply displace trafficking to the dark web, making no impact on the scale of sexual exploitation. That claim lacks both logic and evidence. Advertising victims of sex trafficking on the dark web carries multiple disadvantages and barriers for both traffickers and sex buyers. It requires technical expertise from the traffickers to post the adverts and from sex buyers to locate and access the adverts. Advertising on the dark web would substantially restrict the customer base that traffickers could access via their adverts, as well as making it harder to advertise victims in the first place.

A similar myth is that outlawing paying for sex would just drive prostitution underground, making it harder to identify victims and perpetrators, and have no impact on the scale of offending. There is a logical fallacy underlying that claim: men who pay for sex must be able to locate women to sexually exploit. Police officers’ support services can look at exactly the same adverts as sex buyers to locate victims and perpetrators. In short, if sex buyers can find the women being exploited, so can the police.

Perhaps the most destructive myth of all is that being paid to perform sex acts is work, making the men who pay women for sex ordinary consumers. We need to be absolutely clear as policymakers and as a Parliament that there is no such thing as sex work. Giving someone money, accommodation, food or other goods or services in exchange for a sex act is sexual exploitation and abuse. It is never acceptable, and our laws must reflect that.

I thank hon. Members for making the time to attend today’s debate. I hope that, together, we can start to end this exploitation of women. I conclude with the words of Mia de Faoite, a survivor of prostitution, who said that demand reduction legislation that criminalises sex buyers and decriminalises victims works because it puts sex buyers

“at risk of bringing what they do in the dark into who they are in the day.”

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for securing the debate. The depth of her knowledge and passion about this issue was obvious as she spoke. The men she spoke of in her opening remarks, and the reviews that she read out—she could have read out some that were considerably worse, so the House may appreciate the editing—are utterly despicable. Those men disgust me in their attitude towards women generally, and the suggestion that they should be able to pay for somebody’s horror and then give them a bad review should not sit well with anyone.

Like my hon. Friend, I have a long-standing interest in these issues. I have worked for many years with women trafficked for sex, women sold into sexual slavery from childhood and women forced into sexual exploitation essentially through their circumstances. Today, I still very regularly meet such people. I met some women who were in that situation, or had been in it historically, just last week. We all want to be driven by their voices. I am deeply grateful to everyone who continues to advocate for action to tackle demand for prostitution and sex trafficking and for better support for victims and survivors to recover. The idea that people should be criminalised for it is something that worries us all.

Before I respond to some of the specific points, it is worth outlining that sexual exploitation can take different forms. The trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation is modern slavery. The demand for sexual services is undoubtedly driving that horrific crime. The profit that criminals are making from that exploitation makes it even more sickening. For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped in sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. The daily abuse that they suffer is truly horrific, and my hon. Friend spoke to that.

Any individual who wants to leave prostitution, or who has been sexually exploited, must be given the opportunities to find routes out and to recover. Let us be clear about the scale of this problem; the nature of it makes it difficult to accurately estimate the numbers, but it is something that we have looked at. Research commissioned by the Home Office and conducted by the University of Bristol found that it is not possible to produce a single prevalence estimate for prostitution; however, it assessed a number of existing estimates made over the last 25 years, which range from 35,882 to 104,964 people.

We know that potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation make up a large proportion of referrals to the national referral mechanism, which is the framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery to appropriate support. The most recent statistics show that in 2024 sexual exploitation either partly or wholly accounted for 3,266, or 17%, of all referrals. Of those who are sexually exploited, the majority were female, at 79%. However, prosecutions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do not reflect that.

I am determined to see more trafficking offenders brought to justice. In my modern slavery action plan, I have set out actions we will take together with criminal justice system partners to improve criminal justice outcomes for all modern slavery offences, including the trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation. Prostitution offences and modern slavery are complex and multifaceted crimes, which are often linked to other offending, and people are often victims of multiple elements. Because of that, we have a multifaceted approach, including the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, a commitment to halve violence against women and girls crimes within a decade, and our modern slavery action plan. We will continue to tackle the threat from all angles.

It is clear that much more must be done. We must go further to prevent sexual exploitation by supporting law enforcement to identify and prosecute exploiters and by disrupting the sexual exploitation that is facilitated by online platforms, as hon. Members have mentioned. More broadly, through Safer Streets, we have committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. That effort will be underpinned by the new VAWG strategy to be published this year. I do not want to step on its toes and say what will be in it, as it has not yet been published. I would also probably be fired if I did—actually, I do not think I would be. For the first time, adult sexual exploitation, and the proper understanding of it, will be reflected. As we develop the new strategy and work to tackle modern slavery, we are considering how to tackle the issues raised today and ensure that victims and survivors are supported to recover.

I suspect that everyone in this Chamber is aware of the ongoing debates about the legislative approaches that have been mentioned. I look forward to having further conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—I have already spoken to her many times about this—when the Crime and Policing Bill reaches Report stage next week. Anyone who has worked with me on such issues knows that my primary focus is on outcomes that improve lives.

I want to stress this clearly: legislation alone does nothing. It is illegal to commit domestic abuse—welcome to the world. Twenty-five per cent of referrals to the national referral mechanism come from children being forced into slavery for drug trafficking, but drugs are illegal. The idea that we can write something into legislation that, in and of itself, will solve this problem overnight is absolutely for the birds. The illegality of drugs has not stopped the trafficking of children for drugs in our country, so we have to look at legislative models and at what will actually work. I am only interested in actual outcomes.

As the Minister, I will use every lever available to me to clamp down on sexual exploitation. The Government’s position will be informed by the views of victims and survivors, the voluntary and community sector, which works directly with victims and survivors, the police and others.

In the time I have left, I want to talk about adult service websites. As Members are aware, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response needs to reflect that. Online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for the content on their sites, and must take proactive steps to prevent criminals from using their sites. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services. As of 17 March, they need to implement safety measures to protect users from illegal content, such as that set out in Ofcom’s codes of practice, or face significant penalties.

We are going further. Clause 13 of the Crime and Policing Bill will equip law enforcement with new tools to disrupt sexual exploitation that is facilitated through online platforms. Law enforcement will be able to apply to the courts for an order to suspend the IP and domain names for the specified period of up to 12 months when they are being used for serious crime, including offences relating to sexual exploitation—it will not take us very long to find one that is. We are in the foothills of this legislation being rolled out, but I look forward to some clear action being taken.

The Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of trafficking and sexual exploitation through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific perpetrators. The Government will keep policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation under review. We want to ensure online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate exploitation from their sites, and we will take further action to achieve that if necessary.

To those sites—those of us who have worked in this area know what they are—I say this. We are coming for you; the law is not on your side. You must be cleaned up or further regulation will have to come. We cannot have sites on which people can buy and sell human beings.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for securing this debate, and I look forward to the debates that we will have as the legislation progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

14:30

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of introducing a capital disregard for payments made to UK residents under the Republic of Ireland’s Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and to introduce this debate. I welcome the Minister and thank him for giving his time to this important matter. I thank Members from across the House who are present today and have been so supportive. Ahead of this debate, over 100 MPs and peers on a cross-party basis signed an open letter in support of Philomena’s law. That included nearly every mainstream party in Britain and Northern Ireland. In the Public Gallery, we are joined by Irish community organisations and survivors, as well as Philomena Lee’s family—her daughter Jane and grandson Joshua.

I will begin by reminding Members what happened to Philomena Lee. Philomena was 18 years old when she became pregnant, and as a result was sent to Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, in Ireland. There, Philomena gave birth to her son, Anthony. They lived there for three years before she was forced to give him up for adoption. Anthony was sold to a couple in the United States; Philomena would never see him again.

Philomena’s story brought the scandal of Ireland’s mother and baby homes to a global audience through the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, where she is played by Dame Judi Dench. The film also stars Steve Coogan, who plays Martin Sixsmith, the BBC journalist who helped Philomena Lee in her heartbreaking search for her son. I am delighted that Philomena’s law has the support of Philomena Lee and her family, as well as the public backing of Steve Coogan. This campaign to change the law seeks justice for thousands of women like Philomena and their children, who were resident in Ireland’s mother and baby homes.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I and many others have watched the film. Does he agree that although many of us are very critical of the media—I am among them—on this occasion, a matter was brought to wider attention that otherwise might not have been? We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who were involved in the broadcasting of such a film.

[Liam Conlon]

I completely agree, and it shows the power of film and culture to tell such stories.

Mother and baby homes were open in Ireland for more than seven decades until the 1990s. During that time, 56,000 so-called fallen women were sent to those cruel institutions, and 57,000 children were born or placed in them. The women’s only crime was the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. There they suffered the most horrific mistreatment and abuse. Women were used as unpaid labour. Others, like Philomena, had their children forcibly adopted, sometimes overseas, never to be seen again. Too many women died in these institutions, and infant mortality was shockingly high.

Many survivors who escaped moved to Britain as a direct result of the mistreatment they experienced in mother and baby homes. In some cases, they came because they thought that disappearing from Ireland was the only way to protect their families’ reputations. Thousands came to this country for a fresh start and to build a new life, but they carried with them a great deal of internalised shame as well as the secret of what had happened to them. For lots of survivors, including Philomena, it was not until much later in life that they felt able to confront what had happened to them and share the details of those traumatic years with their families, often revealing long-lost relatives in the process.

It was a significant day in 2021 when survivors finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach Micheál Martin for what he described as:

“the profound, generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children”.

That was followed by the mother and baby institutions payment scheme to provide compensation for what happened to them. The scheme opened to applications in March 2021. It represents a measure of accountability for what happened and aims to acknowledge the suffering, and improve the circumstances, of former residents of mother and baby homes.

However, for more than 13,000 survivors living in Britain today, what was meant to be a token of acknowledgement and apology has ended up becoming an additional burden. That is because under our current rules, any money accepted through the payment scheme is considered to be savings, and it could see recipients lose any means-tested benefits—such as housing benefit, pension credit or financial support for social care—that they receive.

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

I pay tribute to the fantastic work carried out by Irish Community Services in Bexleyheath in my constituency. It is supporting a number of survivors who are in those circumstances and would lose their means-tested benefit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to look at disregarding the rules, so that survivors can keep both their compensation and any benefit that they are entitled to?

[Liam Conlon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work of Irish Community Services in Bexleyheath is outstanding, and I will discuss some of the work of other community groups shortly. We absolutely need to see an indefinite disregard.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member not only on securing this debate, but on leading the charge on this issue in the House and commanding such enormous and widespread cross-party support. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied? We all agree with what he is calling for, and we hope the Minister may agree with it later, too. However, it is not good enough just to agree. There is a real urgency about getting justice for those women who were affected, and for their descendants and families, to whom we all pay tribute.

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for being the constituency MP of the real-life Philomena, whom I know she has been supporting. She is right that for many of these survivors, the clock is running.

Broadly speaking, impacted survivors now find themselves in one of three situations. Some accepted compensation before realising the negative impact that it could have. Other survivors have received an offer of compensation, but they have delayed accepting it because of the uncertainty around how their benefits or social care might be impacted. Finally, there are survivors who are not making an application at all until the picture becomes clearer.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this important issue alongside Irish community groups here in the UK. As he will know, thousands of survivors left Ireland for Britain, with huge numbers of them settling in the north-west. They were scarred by the physical and emotional abuse that they had faced, but they were also disturbed by the ease with which powerful institutions could abuse their power without question. Does he agree that more needs to be done to reassure survivors that those administering the scheme will be trauma-informed and act solely in the interests of survivors, and that those who apply for compensation will suffer no detriment to their current entitlements?

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. I know that she is a tireless advocate of the Irish community in Salford, of which she is part. She is absolutely right, and I discussed this issue with Patricia Carey, the survivors’ advocate, in Dublin over Easter.

There are survivors who will not make an application at all until the picture becomes clearer, and that is contributing to the incredibly low take-up of the scheme by eligible survivors in Britain. At just 5%, the take-up rate here falls far behind that in Ireland. Unfortunately, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in making applications or accepting offers risk people not living long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due.

Let me give just one recent example. A man who was born into a mother and baby home became so concerned about the impact that any compensation would have on his benefits that he held off making a decision for as long as possible. Sadly, after finally accepting the offer, he passed away within a matter of months, unable to benefit from the compensation that he was due. I think we can all agree that the situation is unjust.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. It is clear to me and to all of us who support his campaign that it is about justice. Does he agree that the low uptake of the scheme might also be down to a significant amount of internalised shame, as expressed by my own family members who have been affected by this? What he is doing today is putting a full stop to that shame and drawing a line to say that this will never happen again in any of our institutions, in Ireland or in the UK.

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that she has a strong personal connection to this issue. She is right to note that for decades women lived under a cloud of secrecy and shame. Having the conversation publicly in this campaign is partly to deliver justice and also to tackle the stigma of being in a mother and baby home.

Philomena’s law seeks to right that wrong. It proposes the introduction of what is called a capital disregard, which would mean that any compensation from the scheme is ringfenced. It would enable survivors to apply for and accept the payments without fear that doing so would negatively affect their benefits. There is strong precedent for such a solution. The same mechanism has been used for many other special compensation schemes in the past, including supporting the victims of Windrush, those affected by the 7/7 and Manchester bombings, the blood contamination scandal and many more. One change in the law could have a significant impact on the lives of thousands of survivors, and that is what the campaign seeks to deliver.

Before I conclude, I want to turn to the many Irish community and civic society organisations, some of which are represented here today. For many years, they have done vital work to support survivors across the country. I am delighted that we are joined by Rosa from Irish in Britain, Patrick from the Fréa Network, Séan and Katie from the London Irish Centre, Noelette from the Luton Irish Forum, Manisha and Simon from the Coventry Irish Society and so many more. From family tracing to support groups and counselling, to practical help with payment scheme applications, those groups are on the frontline, working around the clock to get the best possible outcomes for survivors.

Ireland’s mother and baby homes were cruel institutions. More than 100,000 women and children were either placed in them or born there. Thousands of them suffered horrific mistreatment and abuse and were forced to live under a cloud of secrecy and shame. After decades of campaigning, survivors finally received an apology from the Irish Government and access to a redress scheme, but 13,000 survivors living in Britain today are at risk of not being able to access compensation without the fear of losing means-tested benefits.

That is by default rather than by design, but it is firmly within our gift to correct it. Philomena’s law, named after the courageous Philomena Lee, and in tribute to every survivor in Britain, will do just that by ringfencing payments. We can do it; we have done it already for victims of other scandals, including blood contamination and Windrush. Although I appreciate that it is unprecedented to ringfence payments from a foreign Government, everything is unprecedented until it happens. We have an opportunity, through Philomena’s law, to help to deliver justice and, in doing so, show thousands of women and children survivors the empathy, kindness and respect they have so often been denied throughout their lives.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I should also mention there is likely to be a vote shortly, at which point we will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes to allow Members to vote.

14:43

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing today’s debate and congratulate him on bringing forward a ten-minute rule Bill on Philomena’s law. I am proud to put my name to that Bill as a co-sponsor, particularly as I represent a significant Irish diaspora in my constituency, with close ties between the UK and Ireland. I hope the Minister understands the importance of those ties.

As has already been outlined, Philomena’s law is named after Philomena Lee, who was 18 when she became pregnant and was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, where she gave birth to her son Anthony and lived for three years before being forced to give him up for adoption. We have heard about the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, which told the story of her painstaking search to be reunited with Anthony.

Philomena’s story sadly struck a chord for thousands of mothers and their children who not only suffered in those cruel institutions, but were ever changed by the lasting mark it made on their lives. With great thanks to Luton Irish Forum, which does brilliant work supporting our Irish diaspora, I am honoured to share a snippet of the story of my constituent, Christina, who is here today. She has been really courageous in sharing her story and allowing me to mention her in my speech.

Christina was born in a mother and baby home in Rathdrum, County Wicklow. Christina’s mother escaped and ran away with her just weeks after her birth, but subsequently left Christina on the doorstep of a church in Dublin. Christina spent much of her life being passed from foster family to foster family, where she experienced physical abuse, taunting and humiliation, including from those caring for her and neighbours on the street where she lived. She eventually reconnected with her mother during her teenage years, after hiring a detective to track her down, and realised that she was living in Dublin, just minutes from where Christina was working in a factory.

Unfortunately Christina and her mother never forged a close relationship, but it is important to ensure that these stories are heard, because the trauma Christina endured and the shame associated with mother and baby institutions in Ireland unfortunately mirrors the story of tens of thousands of women and children who experienced harsh conditions and mistreatment, with many fleeing to England to escape. It is right that the Irish Government opened the mother and baby institutions payment scheme for survivors of mother and baby homes in March 2024 to recognise the impact of the time they spent in those institutions. However, for those now living in England, further hurdles remain and are preventing those eligible for the scheme from accessing the compensation they are entitled to.

Survivors who accept an offer of payment from the scheme could lose a range of means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, pension credit and financial support for social care, as the payment would be treated as savings. This complicated and unfair situation has made the payments scheme, which was supposed to be a token of apology from the Irish Government, into an additional burden and hurdle for many. The uncertainty and stress involved is causing yet more trauma for survivors, and many eligible applicants have delayed accepting the money they have been offered or not made applications in the first place as a result.

Sadly, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in accepting offers or making applications run the risk that many people will not live long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge in his efforts to implement Philomena’s law, which would put right this unfair situation through the introduction of an indefinite capital disregard and would ringfence any compensation accepted through the scheme so that it would not impact benefits or social care calculations.

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her eloquent articulation of Christina’s story. Does she agree that the capital disregard functionality could be extended to future compensation schemes? Instead of each campaign group going through the trauma of trying to get an exemption for people on means-tested benefits, it could be stipulated that, when a compensation scheme is deemed to come into law, the capital disregard is automatically part of it.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a hugely pertinent point; I know the Minister will have heard it very well.

Although compensation for survivors will not reverse the damage and trauma inflicted, the least we can do is to ensure that those who are eligible get the payments they deserve, that the process is as easy and stress-free as possible and that we provide them with the kindness and respect that they have too often been denied.

14:48

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) not just on obtaining this debate here today, but on the extremely important campaign that he has led the charge on. When we get elected as an MP we think, “What am I here for?”. It is about agency, and it is about seeking justice for our communities. The community of 13,000 women across the United Kingdom deserve that justice.

I will reflect on what we have heard in the debate and the forced adoption that was inflicted on those youngsters. I was not aware that Philomena had had her son Tony for three years before being forced to give up her child.

14:49

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:49

On resuming—

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

The new finish time will be 4.12 pm.

[Steve Darling]

Just before the Division, I was looking to talk about trauma and the significant impact that it has had on those young women’s lives. We know it may have impacted them for their whole lives, and as Liberal Democrats we feel that justice must be served, and without delay. I look forward to the Minister giving some hope to those who could benefit from this system concerning how it could be put into action—hopefully in a matter of months, rather than years.

I have an admission to make: I have never seen the film “Philomena”—probably because I would find it too upsetting, having been adopted myself. Between 1949 and 1976, 185,000 children went through a system within the UK where a culture of adoption existed around certain mother and baby units up and down England and Wales. Jon Holmes, who many of us will know from Radio 4 comedy, did a very good “File on 4” programme on the impact on those individuals, particularly the mothers. Although he was adopted, he never found his birth mother.

I was very fortunate: although I was adopted in Birmingham, my parents, Eric and Penny, who were outstanding adoptive parents, moved down to Torquay. About 15 years ago I found my birth mother, Pam, living only nine miles from Torquay. We meet regularly and have had Christmas dinner together, but it is evident how what she went through with losing me has left her with trauma and an emotional scar throughout her life. I am sure that that was also the case, if not amplified to a large extent, in the mother and baby units in Ireland, where there were significantly more state-sponsored institutions involved in the forced adoption and forced labour, and a sense of shame on individuals.

We need to see that justice is brought to bear on this situation. We need to see Philomena’s law enacted. Capital disregard was applied in relation to the 7/7 terrorist attacks and the institutional sexual abuse of children. In recent months, the same principle has been applied in respect of tainted blood; that measure has only recently gone through the Commons. I implore the Minister to ensure that we drive Philomena’s law, as a matter of urgency, and let it take flight.

15:06

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I am proud to speak in this debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon). I applaud his tremendous dedication in campaigning for Philomena’s law. I am also here to represent Liverpool’s Irish community and diaspora, in particular the survivors and victims of the Irish mother and baby homes scandal.

The survivors faced appalling treatment in those homes. I join colleagues in welcoming the Irish Government’s compensation scheme for survivors of the scandal. Many survivors came to England as a direct result of their experiences, either to flee their past or because they were sent overseas on leaving the homes. The Liverpool Echo reports that up to 40% of the 38,000 former residents eligible to apply for the compensation scheme now live in the UK. One of the survivors who came to England was Philomena Lee, after whom the law is of course named. Her father would not take her back after her time in the Abbey, so the Church sent her to work in a delinquent boys’ home in Liverpool. Philomena lived in my great city for the first two years of her time in England, before moving back. I join colleagues in welcoming Philomena’s daughter Jane and her grandson Josh, who are, as has been mentioned, in the Public Gallery today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge highlighted that, as things stand, when survivors of the scandal who live in Britain accept the compensation owed to them, they risk losing access to means-tested social security support. Some face the choice between accepting the compensation and receiving the means-tested benefits they are entitled to. The proposed Philomena’s law would address that injustice by ringfencing compensation that is accepted so that it would not affect benefits or social care calculations—stopping a further injustice. I place on record my support for the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme (Report) Bill, and I join my hon. Friend in urging the Government to take up that proposal.

I also place on record my thanks to that magnificent institution in my city, the Liverpool Irish Centre—a vital part of Liverpool’s social fabric and an institution I have enjoyed working with and visiting over a long time; I am extremely proud to frequent it on the odd occasion. I am very pleased to say that the Liverpool Irish Centre is working with Fréa to help those affected by the scandal, and I thank it for everything it does in this area.

When I first read about what happened at Irish mother and baby homes, watched the film and saw how people in power initially responded, it really resonated with me. I have also seen at first hand the playbook that is used when institutions cover up wrongdoing and hide their mistakes. For me, it was Hillsborough where, just as with the mother and baby home scandal, we saw state institutions treat working-class people with contempt, only to deceive and conceal their wrongdoing.

In this case, the institutional cover-up lasted for decades, with victims such as Philomena, who did not get the truth until her son had tragically passed away without ever knowing the love his mother had for him. The lack of accountability and justice for those victims and survivors lasted for far too long, but this is far from an isolated case. Here in Britain we also often see the pattern of state cover-ups and the refusal to accept wrongdoing and accountability. That is why we desperately need a Hillsborough law in the UK, ending the culture of cover-ups where state bodies commit acts against their own people only to try and hide them from those very people.

I conclude by reiterating the call for Philomena’s law and by calling on the Government to introduce a Hillsborough law worthy of the name, as a legacy for all those who have suffered at the hands of the state. I hope my Government are listening intently to this, because we will accept nothing less than what the victims of all state cover-ups deserve.

15:11

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This is an absolute travesty; we have heard of this situation time and time again, with many different examples. I personally pay tribute to Philomena—my constituent—and to her daughter Jane and her grandson Josh, who are here today, for their courage in speaking about their story. I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) on securing this debate and on leading the charge in this House. Many organisations have been campaigning on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will deliver good news today and also convey a sense of urgency.

We can hear from the speeches in this debate the jarring gap between the profound sense of wrong that happened on the one hand and the “Computer says no” system on the other. I hope sincerely that the Government recognise that gap, come to the right conclusion and respond with urgency and with compassion. That is the very least that the affected women, their families and their descendants deserve.

15:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) on securing this debate and on pursuing his private Member’s Bill. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon.

It is worth reflecting on the stories we have heard. I particularly enjoyed the account shared by the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and it is great to see Christina in the Public Gallery. The point about the age profile for compensation was particularly poignant to hear; these are women who have lived their entire lives with that uncertainty. I was particularly interested as well in the account from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); I do not have the same community of Irish men and women in my constituency, so it was good to hear of the connection that he has and of the impact and role of the Irish community in his constituency.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has the privilege, if that is the word, of having Philomena in her constituency—

[Daisy Cooper]

An honour.

[Rebecca Smith]

An honour—yes, I like that. It is also great to see Jane and Joshua here.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) always makes very good local connections and shares his own stories so well. This has been a really interesting debate and, although we had the break for the Division, we have been able to hear some good stories.

As the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge has rightly set out, the mother and baby institutions payment scheme was introduced by the Irish Government to compensate those who had spent time in those institutions in the Republic of Ireland. Today we have heard many of the stories of those who were impacted. Anyone who has watched the tear-jerking film “Philomena”, starring Judi Dench and Steve Coogan—unlike some hon. Members, I have been able to see it, and I admit to having cried—will be familiar with this story. It is very moving to see the impact that the backgrounds of these men and women have had on them for the rest of their lives.

As we have heard, an astonishing 35,000 single mothers gave birth in these homes throughout the 1900s. These women were ostracised and pushed into the homes so that society could forget them. The most infamous case is of Tuam house, where 802 infants tragically died over a 36-year period. Across those 18 institutions in Ireland, 9,000 children died. We are not just talking about the women. Children lost their lives as well: 15% of all the children who lived in those homes. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that was a travesty.

It is clear that there is agreement across this House on an issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge has alluded to in his private Member’s Bill. Although no amount of money can replace the loss of a child or atone for the trauma that was inflicted, these single mothers have rightly received compensation that ranges from €5,000 to €125,000, depending on their stay. The question is whether the compensation those women received should have an impact on the benefits that they are entitled to as a UK resident. There are 13,000 surviving inhabitants of those homes who moved here to start a new life free from the judgment of the Irish society that they grew up in. As of April 2025, 6,462 applications had been made, with just 11% from UK residents. That means that 700 of those applications are from UK residents, stripping these women of access to benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to. We have heard that described plainly across the Chamber in this debate.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I associate myself with the remarks made across the Chamber about the travesty and life-changing trauma that so many women and children experienced. Does the hon. Member agree that, if Philomena’s law is applied by the UK Parliament, Northern Ireland should be included as part of the United Kingdom, given that a number of women and children will be living in Northern Ireland and encountering the same problem with benefits?

[Rebecca Smith]

The hon. Lady is a true champion for Northern Ireland. I cannot comment on how that would happen; the Minister is better placed to say whether that is possible. But clearly Northern Ireland is as much a part of the island of Ireland, depending on where one’s politics lie, and it would make sense to include anyone who experienced this. I am not in the position of the Minister in being able to say what might happen in the future.

In this debate we have also well-rehearsed the compensation payments for other well-known scandals: the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the compensation for victims of 7/7, and the Windrush scandal. We know the argument: those people are all eligible for full benefits and their capital is not regarded. Although I appreciate that a precedent can be set, the difference that makes this situation slightly more difficult is that the payments originate from another country. The situation is unique when compared with the others, but ultimately the precedent is clearly there.

Traditionally, the Department for Work and Pensions has opposed the step of disregarding capital payment from additional financial schemes. However, the scheme was only set in motion in 2021. Now that the dust has settled and it is clear that many are not claiming the money they are entitled to because of that lack of disregard, it will be interesting to hear whether the Department plans on changing its mind.

Although in government the Conservative party did not endorse the introduction of a capital disregard for these compensation payments, the issue was also not discussed to the same extent at that time. That is why the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge requires our congratulations; we are three or four years into the scheme, the dust has settled, and it is clear that there are problems with people applying—we cannot get away from that fact.

Under the previous Government, the Irish Government expressed that they would press other Governments to introduce dispensation for these capital payments within their welfare systems. However, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, said in March 2024 that no such approach had been made by the Irish Government. One of the questions for the Minister is whether in his time in office such an approach has been made by the Irish Government. One could argue that the onus is on the Irish Government to provide the list of individuals likely to be impacted by this approach. With the consent of those individuals, that information could be shared with the Department for Work and Pensions so that we at least know who might be in line for that support.

More work is necessary to calculate how many people currently in receipt of welfare benefits in the UK might be impacted, because not everyone who can claim compensation falls into that bracket, and the financial pressure that a lack of dispensation places on them. What sums have been done and what are the numbers likely to be? What would the cost be if the capital payments for this scheme are disregarded when it comes to benefits?

This is an extraordinary situation, as I have already alluded to, and I agree entirely with the position. I wait to see what the Minister and the new Government decide. In 2021, the Taoiseach of Ireland, who, as we have heard, was involved in setting up this scheme, said of the report that brought it about:

“This detailed and highly painful report is a moment for us as a society to recognise a profound failure of empathy, understanding and basic humanity over a lengthy period. Its production has been possible because of the depth of courage shown by all those who shared their personal experiences with the commission. The report gives survivors what they have been denied for so long, namely, their voice, their individuality and their right to be acknowledged.”

That, for me, sums up the entire argument. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

15:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine, and to do so in a debate on such an important and emotive subject. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing it. He has spoken passionately today, as have all Members who contributed, and has done so consistently in his fight to bring forward Philomena’s law. I want to say on the record what a champion he has been for that cause.

As we have heard, this was a painful, scandalous and shameful episode in Ireland’s history. It is impossible to imagine the trauma that the women and children who were sent to these institutions suffered; the heartbreaking accounts of their experiences are distressing in the extreme. What happened to them is truly appalling—all the more so because it was only in 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. It is absolutely right that the victims of the scandal are at last receiving some kind of redress through the mother and baby institutions payment scheme in Ireland.

The payments can never, ever put right the terrible suffering that those women were forced to endure. No amount of compensation can make up for what they lost, but compensation for them and their family members is an important acknowledgment of the wrong that was done. Norma Foley, the Irish Government’s Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, recently highlighted how disappointed she is that not all the religious bodies involved have offered meaningful compensation. It appears that only two religious orders have contributed to the scheme in Ireland, so there is still quite some way to go to ensure that there is proper accountability and responsibility for the impact that time in these institutions had on the lives of those women and their children.

What does this scandal mean for the United Kingdom and our social security system? Due to the close historic ties between Ireland and this country, there has always been movement of people from one to the other. My constituency of Stretford and Urmston, much like that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), has a long history of drawing in families from Ireland, which contributed to the economic and cultural growth of the area and helped to shape the communities of today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) continued the theme highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford of the north-west’s significant Irish population and the contributions made by those Irish people to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool in particular. Other Members referenced the same thing in their communities, and the point is not lost on me. The same is true for many of the constituencies that are not represented here today, particularly urban areas where there is a significant Irish diaspora.

It is therefore not surprising that some of the people affected by this scandal are now living in the United Kingdom. The Irish Government estimate the number of applicants to the compensation scheme will be in the region of 34,000. They estimate around 40%—13,600—are living outside Ireland, with the majority assumed to be in the UK, though some will be in other countries too, particularly the United States.

However, as queried by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is no way of knowing exactly how many of those affected and now living in this country are also in receipt of an income-related benefit. On the question of cost, it is simply not possible to give a firm figure or determine the implications of the change, were it to be adopted. It is even less possible to speculate on how many might, at some point in the future, claim an income-related benefit. That is an important factor.

Income-related benefits such as universal credit, housing benefit and pension credit provide a taxpayer-funded safety net for people in various circumstances and on low incomes. The nature of those benefits and the rules under which they operate are approved by Parliament. To ensure that money is directed to those most in need, rules have been developed over many years setting out not only conditions of entitlement, but how a person’s financial and personal circumstances affect the amount they receive. That means income, such as earnings or pensions as well as capital and any savings above a certain level are generally taken into account; that is the point of income-related benefits.

The more money a person already has, the less they can expect to receive from the taxpayer. However, the social security system recognises that, in certain cases, the money or capital someone has can be ignored—or, as the terminology has it, disregarded. In pension credit, for instance, there are 28 separate categories of capital that are disregarded. Examples relevant for today’s debate include various compensation payments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge and others highlighted some examples. These disregards cover medical compensation, such as payments in respect of infected blood; payments in respect of an historic wrong, as was highlighted, including those concerning Windrush and child migrants; and payments resulting from specific events, including payments relating to Grenfell tower and the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund.

The number of disregards has grown over time as Parliament has responded to tragic events and scandals, such as the recent Post Office scandal. We must not forget that income-related benefits are paid for through general taxation, so disregarding a compensation payment comes at a cost to the taxpayer. That is why, when deciding whether a new disregard is appropriate—unfortunately, we live in a world where tragic events and scandals happen—several factors are considered: where the event took place, who is responsible, how many people are affected, and whether it is proportionate to amend the law.

What all the examples I have given have in common is that the circumstances that gave rise to that compensation payment either occurred in this country or involved events for which the UK Government have direct responsibility or liability. The events that are the subject of this debate were a truly horrendous episode in Ireland’s history. We heard multiple references to the film “Philomena,” which I saw a very long time ago—not knowing what it was about, but because Judi Dench was in it. I will watch anything she is in, as I think she is amazing. As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, the film hits particularly hard as one watches it and sees what people endured.

Philomena’s example, what we have heard from her and her family’s Member of Parliament, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and Christina’s story, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), show just how significant an impact these events had on so many lives. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the Irish Government have taken responsibility, apologised and set up a compensation scheme to address the wrongs that occurred.

Let me address the Opposition spokesperson’s intervention on the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about those from Northern Ireland who spent time in mother and baby institutions. My understanding is that Northern Ireland is setting up its own scheme, but of course social security matters are devolved to its institutions. Whether Northern Ireland and the Republic establish a reciprocal agreement is a matter for them—such is the nature of devolution. I assure the hon. Lady that a scheme is in development.

Before securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which shows how strongly and passionately he cares about this issue. I assure him that both the Minister for pensions and the Minister for Social Security and Disability—I am sorry to disappoint everybody, but I am neither—are already carefully considering whether to legislate to disregard payment from Ireland’s mother and baby institutions payment scheme.

A decision on that has not yet been made, partly because, to answer the hon. Member for South West Devon, conversations are ongoing across the Government, with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials, as well as directly with the Irish Government, about whether it is possible and how it might work. It is raised at that level frequently, because of the historical relationship between the two nations. I realise that Members will be disappointed that I am unable to confirm today whether a scheme will be put in place.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is not unusual in this House for Ministers to say that things are actively under consideration. In a previous Parliament, I have been in this room when Ministers have said that repeatedly. If it is under active consideration, can the Minister please say when that might conclude? Is he in a position to give us a deadline today, or is he able instead to write to every Member that has contributed to this debate within the next 14 days with a deadline?

[Andrew Western]

I am going to disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, because I am unable to give her that assurance today. Conversations between the UK and Irish Governments, as well as conversations between Government Departments, are ongoing. I do not want to suggest that we are leaning one way or another, or that a decision is imminent.

The hon. Member for South West Devon set out how unprecedented a decision this would be. We regularly receive requests for scandals and issues that have happened in other countries to be considered for a disregard in this country. For instance, when the coalition Government were in power, the Magdalene Laundries was one such example where a disregard was not put in place. More recently, we saw this with the Australian child abuse scandal and with Gurkhas seeking a disregard to the 28-day rule around the allocation of pension credit.

This would be a significant change with broader ramifications, but that is not to say that we are not looking to take that change forward. Thought still needs to be given to this, and conversations need to continue. I am grateful to all Members for the opportunity to set out the current conversations, and to hear directly about people’s experiences.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the Minister for his response in relation to Northern Ireland, but I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Executive is just the postman for social benefits. The UK Parliament is sovereign. For something of this nature, given the small number it would impact and the small cost, I would want Northern Ireland to be part of the conversation from a UK-wide perspective, so that we go hand in hand, because constituents in Northern Ireland are as deserving as those here in GB.

[Andrew Western]

I do not want to openly disagree with the hon. Lady, but I gently say that social security matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, although of course it seeks alignment on issues wherever it is able to do so, and I welcome that. The fact that it is looking at its own scheme related to people from Northern Ireland who were in mother and baby institutions in Northern Ireland points to the flexibility within the devolved system. However, I accept the point that she makes about the importance of ensuring that, were the UK Government to apply a disregard, we would look to have conversations with the Northern Ireland Assembly about that also being applicable in its jurisdiction.

As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not just to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony about Christina’s story and more information about Philomena’s story.

[Daisy Cooper]

I know that the Minister is just about to respond to the fact that we have heard powerful testimony. I understand that he is not in a position to set out any deadlines today, so I implore him to make a different commitment. Will he please commit today, in front of the many people who have joined us, to use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between our constituents who are affected by this issue and the relevant Minister, so that they can speak directly to those in power who may be in a position to make decisions in due course? Will he please commit to doing everything he can to ensure that our constituents have their voices heard by those at the top?

[Andrew Western]

I will happily take that request back to the Department; clearly, it is a matter for the relevant Minister. However, I can perhaps liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who has led this campaign, to see whether such a meeting is possible, and I will happily update all Members on whether or not we are able to convene that meeting.

As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony. I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate, everyone who has come along to listen and everyone who agreed to have their story told. As I have said, no decision has been made yet. We are very much listening to those who have been impacted by this issue. It would be a significant change—setting a precedent—but none the less we are keen, as I have said, to continue talks with the Irish Government and across Government before coming to a decision on this matter.

15:36

[Liam Conlon]

I will sum up by paying tribute to the many excellent contributions this afternoon. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about the importance of film and culture in telling these stories. That was a reminder that this law is called Philomena’s law, because it was Philomena’s story that brought this issue to a global audience and really broke the mould by allowing people to discuss it. It lifted the cloud of secrecy and shame for so many. I offer a huge thank you to everyone involved in the film “Philomena”, not least Philomena herself for her courage in telling her story.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) spoke eloquently about the role of Irish community organisations, including Irish Community Services, which is in his constituency. Again, I thank those Irish community organisations, including Irish in Britain, that are represented here today.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke about the need for timely justice, especially given the age profile of survivors. I thank her for her support for Philomena and other survivors across Britain. In response to her question about whether we can facilitate a conversation with survivors to ensure that their voice is heard, we had an event in Parliament a couple of months ago, and it would be great to organise something similar and invite a Minister to attend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about trust in institutions more broadly, which was a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). She is right that there is now significant distrust among survivors as a result of what happened to them; these homes were state sponsored, as well as being sponsored by the church. It takes an incredibly long time to repair trust, and that is why the integrity of bodies such as the survivors’ advocate’s office is also important, because there we have people with lived experience leading the process and the way that it is administered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) spoke about her really powerful and personal connection to this issue, and about what could be learned in the future to prevent the dither and delay that we have seen around this issue from happening to other people in the years to come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) shared the story of her constituent Christina Kavanagh, who is here this afternoon with us. I say to Christina, “It is a real honour to have you here.” It is a reminder that we should never forget the human picture in these discussions, because when we talk about numbers, behind every single number is a real person—a life. We are doing this for you, Christina, and for many others. I also thank my hon. Friend for being such a fantastic supporter of the brilliant Irish community in Luton.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made a really powerful contribution to the debate, with personal testimony about the long-term impact of the trauma this issue has caused families. That will continue for many years to come, both in Britain and in Ireland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby was right to draw comparisons with Hillsborough, and he spoke of his support for a Hillsborough law. There is no greater champion of the Irish in Liverpool, which is sometimes referred to as the 33rd county of Ireland due to its fantastic population. I know he is a long-standing supporter of the Liverpool Irish centre, which has done amazing work in advocating for survivors, so I thank him for his support.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) was right to comment on the scale of the institutional abuse and its impact. In this House and this country, we often talk about the number of people killed during the troubles and the impact that had. Far more people—women and children—died in those institutions than were killed throughout the entirety of the troubles, and that casts a long shadow on Ireland and on people in Britain.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that wherever those people are, we need justice. That should know no borders. It is really important that the devolved institutions, central Government and local authorities work together to deliver that.

I thank the Minister for his remarks, for meeting me and for starting talks with the Irish Government and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this issue. It is really appreciated. He has been a fantastic champion of the Irish community in Stretford and Urmston and across Manchester. He is right to note the comments made by Minister Foley in the Irish Government. I had the pleasure of meeting her in Dublin over Easter. On a personal level, I really support the need for religious orders to step up in Ireland. The campaign has been led by our sister party in Ireland, the Irish Labour party. Importantly, Ivana Bacik, the leader of the Irish Labour party, has brought it forward to the Dáil and the Oireachtas, and I urge them to deliver justice for the victims.

I appreciate that we do not know exactly how many survivors are on means-tested benefits. I suggest that it is probably higher than for the average population, because a lot of those women were incredibly vulnerable when they came here, and a lot of them would have been incredibly isolated. A survivor told me that often the first thing that a person coming from Ireland to Britain would do was seek to join the community that they were part of in Ireland, but the women who left those institutions sought to be as far away from them as possible because of the shame that followed them. They wanted to build a new life, and in doing so they often became isolated, and they have had very difficult lives since. They were often very vulnerable at the time and remain very vulnerable today. Although we do not have a number, I expect that it will be higher than for the average population.

I appreciate that the UK Government are responsible for events, but they are also responsible for people. We are responsible for the large number of those women and children who have been living in Britain for many decades, so that should be our focus.

I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, everyone who has come here this afternoon and everyone who has contacted me. I thank the more than 100 MPs and peers who signed an open letter on a cross-party basis in support of Philomena’s law. We have had support from public figures such as Steve Coogan and, today, “Derry Girls” star Siobhán McSweeney. I really appreciate it. I know we have a long road to travel on this campaign —hopefully, not too long—but I am determined that we will do that. I will keep campaigning until we do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of introducing a capital disregard for payments made to UK residents under the Republic of Ireland’s Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme.

15:44

Sitting suspended.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for people with ADHD.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I thank the Minister for being here for the debate.

Allow me to take Members through what ADHD diagnosis and treatment looks like in Oxfordshire. Say a 14 or 15-year-old boy is exhibiting symptoms of ADHD. They find themselves easily distracted at school. Their high energy levels are coming through in all the wrong ways; they talk noisily through class and find it hard to sit still.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. Does he agree that one fantastic way to support young people with ADHD and their teachers is to have universal screening for neurodiverse conditions at primary school and to increase teacher training on such conditions?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend has been a fantastic advocate for people with neurodiverse conditions and I wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion.

Imagine a young girl who works hard to mask her symptoms just to get through the day. Her GP refers her to child and adolescent mental health services, but the waiting list is so long that the service is functionally irrelevant. She knows that by the time she gets seen, she will be 18 and so kicked out of CAMHS and into adult mental health services. But since February 2024, Oxford Health’s waiting list for adult assessment has been closed. It is a dead end—there is no service. For all intents and purposes, the NHS does not exist. In Oxfordshire, there were 2,385 on the waiting list in March, while capacity is 26 assessments a month. That means the waiting list is seven and a half years long. It is no wonder the list is closed and has become meaningless.

But suppose you are one of the lucky ones with a diagnosis and a treatment plan: guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence dictate that there should be an annual review of your condition. Your GP is told to continue to prescribe controlled medication, but then says they will do so only until your next annual review by a specialist. However, specialist reviews are not a commissioned service in Oxfordshire, so once someone hits this limit, their GP stops prescribing and their symptoms immediately worsen.

In July 2024, I started working on such a case—one of the first in my inbox. A constituent warned me that she was leaving CAMHS and would have no access to care. After her case was escalated to Oxford Health, it was negotiated with her GP that primary care would continue to prescribe until her next review was due. I had hoped that would buy us enough time to find a solution. In February, I was told by the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board that it would decide on reopening waiting lists for young people aged 18 to 25 in March. That would allow reviews for that cohort to take place again.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on a really big issue in Northern Ireland, where the waiting list for assessment is five years for children and eight years for adults. We have the added complication—I do not know whether this is the same in the rest of the UK—that schools will not accept a private diagnosis, so people are stuck. Something needs to be done for those who go down the private route so that their diagnoses are accepted at an earlier stage, rather than their having to go down the NHS route.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about the impact of going private. Far too many children—and the parents who pay—are forced into the private sector; the least we can do is make sure that that marries up properly with NHS provision.

March came and went, and only today I received a response from Dr Nick Broughton, the chief executive of the BOB ICB. He confirmed that the plan is still to fund a service for 18 to 25-year-olds, but he could commit only to a timeline of “Q3 2025”. I hope Members will forgive my scepticism about that coming to fruition. Again and again, dates for care have been pushed back, and they are contingent on everything going to plan. Luckily, my constituent is still getting the treatment she needs through the right to choose, but I understand that ICBs are going to be given the option to restrict that right—what happens then?

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is laying out many of the issues that my constituents face. He talked about his constituent using the right to choose. A number of my constituents have taken that route and got a diagnosis, but they cannot access medication because of the shared care model. That is a problem my constituent Helen raised with me—it is having a massive impact, and her ability to pay is being stretched. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to review the shared care model, so that those with an ADHD diagnosis can get the treatment they need?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

We absolutely need a review of how shared care works. If someone goes through a diagnosis and needs treatment for ADHD, or any other mental health or neurodivergent condition, the last thing they need is for barriers to be put in the way.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an important speech on behalf of his constituent. He mentioned the diagnosis process; I have seen in my casework that constituents in hard-to-reach communities find it difficult to navigate the ADHD process, and some appeal to the wrong groups for advice and information. Ultimately, they end up on the waiting list for even longer, because the people they reached out to were not the right ones. Does the hon. Member agree that Government and local authorities need to work together to provide targeted information to marginalised groups and hard-to-reach communities, so that people do not fall even further behind their privileged peers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Lady makes a point about local NHS bodies working together with central Government. Where is the accountability? No one is taking responsibility for patients, and they are suffering as a result. In what world is the NHS running on its founding principles when it comes to ADHD? The alternative to non-existent ADHD services in Oxfordshire and across the country is fully private care. This is a two-tier system baked into how we do health.

I am not naive. The healthcare professionals I have spoken to tell me that they are overwhelmed by a sudden large rise in ADHD cases.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent review conducted by King’s College London that looked at evidence from 40 studies in 17 countries? It found no clear evidence of an increase in the prevalence of ADHD; rather, there was greater awareness and acceptance, which was likely to cause more people to seek help and diagnosis.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that increased awareness of a condition naturally leads to an increase in the number of people seeking diagnosis. I believe the same was true of left-handedness when that became less of a taboo.

I am told that seeing every person who is on a waiting list could cost as much as £3 billion to £4 billion. We must therefore find a way to target urgent, psychiatrist-led care where it is most needed, and to triage early so that the most severe cases get support, along with those who are already taking powerful medication. To that end, I welcome and commend the Government on the launch of the taskforce in March 2024. From the discussions that I have had, however, I know that the communication with ICBs has not been good enough.

The initial data from the taskforce shows that an estimated 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, with more than half a million on waiting lists. To end this farce, we need a system that is adapted to manage the new volume of patients with appropriate levels of care. It does not help to say that there is an overdiagnosis of mental health conditions, as the Health Secretary has said; rather, we need to look at models that will diagnose and treat all patients using the most appropriate tool for their level of need. A good start would be to include ADHD in the 18-week pledge on first appointments. Currently, ADHD treatment is not considered a consultant-led area, even though GPs cannot diagnose. Waiting times should be defined by ICBs, with NICE guidance.

The consequences of getting it wrong are clear. ADHD is a leading cause of school exclusions, lower academic achievement and increased drop-out rates, and 25% of the UK prison population has ADHD, with untreated symptoms often driving impulsivity and crime. Untreated ADHD is also strongly linked to substance misuse, family breakdowns and severe mental health issues.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I speak as the mother of man who was not diagnosed with ADHD until he was 31. Fortunately for him, he has a very good employer who has made his life considerably easier than it might otherwise have been. However, I am appalled to have found out recently that great institutions such as the British Army, the RAF, the Royal Navy and the police actively discriminate against people with ADHD and simply will not employ them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply outrageous? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to change that?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention and join her in that call.

For some constituents I have spoken to, it is simply a case of having access to a service that keeps their condition managed well, just as we provide for diabetes, thyroid conditions, hypertension and other chronic conditions. If we get that right, people with ADHD can get on with their lives, build families and bring in taxes for the Exchequer just like everyone else.

Before I finish, let me touch briefly on the severe ADHD medication shortage that so many Members have shown interest in. To my knowledge, the most acute need has now abated, and fortunately most of my constituents are getting the medications they need, but what plans do the Minister and the Government have so that it does not happen again? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:11

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

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

I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this important debate on support for people with ADHD, and for sharing the experiences of his constituents in Oxfordshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman and others wrote to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) about many of the issues he raised today; I hope he found the Department’s response to that letter useful. I thank other colleagues for their interventions. These issues also affect my own constituents, and I see them in my inbox, so I understand their impact on families and communities.

First, we must be honest about the challenges. The Government inherited a broken NHS with too many patients facing long waits to access services, including ADHD assessments and support. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare that the growth in demand for ADHD assessments nationally has been so significant in recent years that it risks completely overwhelming the scarce resources available. The report also shows that, at current rates, it would take on average eight years to clear the backlog of adult ADHD assessments and that for many trusts the backlog would not be cleared for decades. We absolutely recognise the need to better understand the factors behind the rise in demand for services to ensure that we offer the right support.

The hon. Member for Henley and Thame asked why his trust has closed its waiting list. In preparing for the debate, I asked officials to give me a clearer understanding of what is happening in the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB, which saw a near 50% increase in referrals year on year between 2019 and 2024. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had contact with the chief executive. The trust felt that it could not cope with that level of demand because it viewed it as an unmanageable risk to patient safety and staff wellbeing. That is why it made the difficult decision to close the waiting list for new adult ADHD assessments in February last year. That was the trust’s decision.

As someone who worked in the system over the peak years of austerity—some people may remember them—I completely understand how trusts are often confronted with such decisions. The recent growth in demand seems quite exceptional. Integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services in line with the health and care needs of the people they serve. It is up to local decision makers to make tough choices, because they know the situation on the ground better than Ministers in Whitehall.

I understand that the ICB has established an ADHD programme steering group to stabilise its services, and it is working with local partners, including people with lived experience, to develop a new service model aimed at addressing health inequalities, providing a single-service model across the ICB, with a single provider, and providing support for people who do not benefit from medication. I understand that the trust is working to open a service for 18 to 25-year-olds as an interim measure to help those who transition from children and young people’s services to adult services, which we know is a difficult time in their lives. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will maintain a close watch on those commitments.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Following on from the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), I know that this is a devolved matter, but the issues are exactly the same in Northern Ireland as in GB, with long waiting lists and a lack of access to services. Does the Minister agree that people with ADHD are being discriminated against right across the United Kingdom because of the lack of access to services? Does she also agree that, in the interim, those who go for a private diagnosis should be able to enter into a shared care arrangement so that they can access the medication that assists them to function day to day, live normal lives and be part of our society?

[Karin Smyth]

I will come on to shared care agreements. As the hon. Member says, this is a devolved matter, and I am focusing on support for issues facing ADHD services in England and what we are doing to support trusts to get back on top of waiting lists and improve access to services.

First, NHS England has commissioned an independent ADHD taskforce, which is working to bring together those with lived experience and experts from the NHS, education, charity and justice sectors. The taskforce is developing a better understanding of the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including timely and equal access to services and support. I can confirm today—I know that this will be of interest to many hon. Members—that the taskforce will publish its interim findings shortly, with a final report expected after the summer recess. The interim report will helpfully focus on recommendations that support a needs-based approach, beyond just the health system, in which people can access support based on their needs, not their diagnosis. The report will also set out recommendations for support to be provided beyond medication, and by healthcare professionals other than specialists.

Secondly, NHS England recently published an ADHD data improvement plan to inform future service planning, and on 29 May it published management data on ADHD waiting lists. Thirdly, it has been capturing examples from ICBs that are trialling innovative ways of delivering ADHD services and using that information to support systems to tackle waiting lists and provide support.

Fourthly, as part of the Government’s five long-term missions, we have launched the 10-year plan to deliver the three big shifts that our NHS needs to be fit for the future: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. All those shifts are relevant to supporting people in all parts of the country with a range of conditions such as ADHD.

Fifthly, we are supporting innovation. Earlier this year, at a parliamentary event, many of us will have met innovators who are supported by NHS partners. I heard about the QbTest technology that complements the knowledge and skills of clinicians as part of the ADHD assessment process. I understand that 70% of NHS children’s ADHD services already use that technology, and the evidence suggests that it has a positive impact in making the assessment process swifter and simpler.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Will the Minister comment on the fact that in Oxfordshire there is no commissioned service for the specialist reviews that NICE requires annually as a condition of being on the powerful medication? How can it be that someone can be started on medication but have no route to continue on it because they cannot get their annual review?

[Karin Smyth]

I am not aware of the detail of the pathway in the hon. Member’s ICB. I suggest that that is a matter for him to discuss with the ICB, which will have heard his question about how it is delivering those services on the ground.

Members raised issues around shared care agreements and the difficulties that people with ADHD are experiencing in accessing medication through such agreements, particularly when they have received a diagnosis through a private provider. It is the responsibility of secondary care specialists such as consultants, rather than GPs, to initiate treatment of ADHD. However, sometimes a shared care agreement, in which the GP takes over monthly prescriptions and routine monitoring once the patient is happy with their medication and dosage, can be put in place. The General Medical Council, which regulates and sets standards for doctors in the UK, has issued guidance to help GPs decide whether to accept shared care responsibilities for any condition. NHS clinicians need to be content that any prescriptions or referrals for treatment for any condition are clinically appropriate. All shared care arrangements are voluntary, so even where arrangements are in place, practices can decline shared care requests on clinical or capacity grounds.

If I may, Ms Jardine, I will take the opportunity to update the House on the supply of medicines, which has also been raised by colleagues; I understand that it was raised at business questions recently, too. The Government recognise the difficulties that some people have experienced with accessing ADHD medication due to medicine supplies. We know how worrying and frustrating those shortages are for patients and families. I am pleased to say that we have resolved many of the outstanding issues affecting the supply of lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine capsules, atomoxetine oral solution and guanfacine prolonged release tablets. However, some specific manufacturers continue to have issues with methylphenidate.

We continue to work with manufacturers to resolve remaining issues. In fact, I met the medicine supply team this morning, as I do very regularly, to make sure we are on top of these issues as much as we can be. The team is working hard to make sure that the situation improves. Where issues remain, we are directing suppliers to secure additional stocks, expedite deliveries where possible, and review plans to support continued growth in demand for the short and long term. We have worked with specialist clinicians during this time to provide comprehensive guidance to healthcare professionals where there is a disruption to supply. We keep the Specialist Pharmacy Service website up to date with the latest availability of ADHD medicines. I commend it to people listening to the debate and to hon. Members. It also provides comprehensive guidance on switching to alternative treatments, supporting clinicians to make informed choices with their patients.

I can assure colleagues that, as the Minister responsible for medicine supply, I will instruct officials to keep a close eye on this issue, so we do not see any of the progress we have made undone. I plan to hold an event, hopefully in Parliament and possibly in the autumn, to keep updating hon. Members on this issue, because I know it is one that concerns us all.

In closing, I want to address the young people who may be watching or tuning into the debate at home. I know it is tough for many neurodivergent kids today. You might be stuck on a waiting list, suffering at school or struggling to find your medicine. We really do care about this. We are trying to get to grips with some of the problems we found when we came into office, and I hope you will start to feel that progress within the next few years.

[Rachel Gilmour]

May I bring the Minister back to the subject of my earlier intervention? Will she, as a matter of urgency, take it up with the Home Secretary and get a decision? We should not discriminate against people with ADHD by preventing them from joining the services, whether it be the police, the Army, the Royal Navy or the RAF. I am so shocked about this I am like a dog with a bone—I cannot let it go.

[Karin Smyth]

I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a reply on that issue.

I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame for securing this important debate and for giving me the chance to put on the record some of the issues the Government are addressing. The Government know there is much more to be done to get better access to timely diagnosis and support for all our constituents, but I hope the actions I have set out today provide some reassure to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting suspended.

Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for mass transit in West Yorkshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Last week, I was delighted to have secured this debate, and the confirmation of its date came through just an hour before the news that the Government will indeed be investing £2.1 billion in West Yorkshire’s public transport, including more than £1 billion for a new tram in Leeds and Bradford, so I am now even happier to have secured it and to be leading it.

I will start with the background to that decision and explain why it is such a huge moment for my home city, Leeds, and for our home region of West Yorkshire. Leeds is currently the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system—that is such a well-known fact that if I had been given £1 every time I heard it, I could have personally financed the mass transit system 10 years ago, with spare change for a space programme—but transport aficionados and Members from my part of the world will know that that was not always the case. Leeds had a horse-drawn tram as early as 1871, and at its peak the network—which did not have horses by that time—had 476 trams and 124 miles of track. But while the horses did not leave us completely, the trams did. What had once been one of the largest urban transport systems in the UK was finally closed down, and in 1959 we saw the end of our tram system.

Leeds was often referred to as the “motorway city of the seventies”—I think that even appeared on a stamp—because we became entirely reliant on the car, which has held us back in some respects. There is only so much traffic that can be added to our roads before they have to be expanded, with new lanes added and traffic systems rethought—and often only for temporary benefit, before the next solution has to be considered. To their credit, policymakers and politicians figured that out—it is not something that we have just come to ourselves.

Trams can carry approximately four times as many passengers as a typical bus, and they massively increase the transport capacity of any region. They are versatile and can run alongside road networks where needed, because they can be segregated from traffic to avoid congestion and improve journey times for passengers. Trams are also very consistent. That is why politicians have tried multiple times, without success, to bring mass transit back to Leeds.

We have had everything: plans for trams; a trolleybus scheme; an elevated railway that was not dissimilar to the monorail in an episode of “The Simpsons”; and even, if we care to go back far enough, an underground proposal. That has left some people in my city highly sceptical of the announcement last week, because we have been burned too many times.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this welcome debate. I spoke to him earlier, and I know that this has been a passion of his since before he became an MP. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I am sure she will not let him down when she replies—no pressure, Minister! Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these transportation routes and hubs, which residents in London take for granted, take decades to build, but without sustained investment they are simply dreams? Does he also agree that Government and the Minister need to commit substantially to projects and give a small slice of the Budget to achieving them without onerous conditions?

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the hon. Member for his incredibly timely contribution—I could not agree more.

One reason that some residents of Leeds were sceptical last week was the repeated failures of previous Governments of different colours to deliver the transport improvements that we know we deserve. I am here to say that this time it is different. The money for the tram system has been committed and announced by the Government, in conjunction with the combined authority. The obstacles have been removed, and I will spend the rest of my time as the Member of Parliament for Leeds South West and Morley ensuring that the system is actually built.

The system will provide the boost that Leeds needs to compete with other major cities in the UK that already have their mass transit systems in place—but we have some things that they do not. As well as a newly promoted Premier League team, we can already boast the largest financial and professional service sectors outside London and the highest rate of growing businesses outside the capital, depending on how that rate is measured. The mass transit system will help us to supercharge these sectors, and more, once it is finally completed.

The funding provided by the Government allows for construction of phase 1 of this scheme—I will give just a bit of information on phase 1 for those who are not familiar with it. It provides two main tram lines. We have the Bradford line, which connects Leeds city centre to Bradford city centre, with an option to connect through Wortley too. I am very much advocating for that option, since Wortley is in my constituency—and not just because there would be a stop right next to my house.

The second line is the Leeds line, which has the potential to connect our hospitals, Leeds railway station, Elland Road stadium and the White Rose shopping centre to each other. I am also very excited about the White Rose stop, which is the confirmed stop for that line; although the rest of the stops are out for consultation, all lines finish at the White Rose. The shopping centre is in my constituency, and I spent much of my early life there, working there throughout my A-levels and university, so I know what it will mean for jobs in my constituency and what it will mean for the communities I represent if we are able to link them up under this unified transport system with the tram in the White Rose centre. It is a really important move for our region and for my constituency.

While I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, I am very hopeful for phase 2 of the plans. Phase 2 should connect more locations in our region directly to the network, allowing many more constituencies to feel the full benefits of a mass transit system on their doorstep. It is clearly important that not only Leeds and Bradford, but the whole of west Yorkshire should benefit from these plans.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I am determined to find solutions for growth in our region, and so is every member of the APPG. Mass transit is key to achieving that, and it has certainly been popular among residents and businesses in west Yorkshire. The combined authority spent a bit of time last year speaking with individuals and businesses across our region—5,000 in total. Two thirds of those they surveyed backed the Bradford line and three quarters backed the Leeds line—so mass transit is extremely welcome. The two lines will improve transport for nearly 675,000 people.

All this would not have been possible without the tireless work and commitment of Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire. Tracy has been the strongest advocate for mass transit in our region ever since she took office. It formed a key part of her manifesto last year and now she is delivering on that promise. Her fierce desire to grow our local economy and to build infrastructure that benefits everyone in west Yorkshire is an inspiration. Her efforts mean that we can take advantage of devolution in full. The transport scheme is part of the local growth plan and will see the creation of about 33,000 new jobs, new homes and about £26 billion of extra growth in our region over the next decade.

I must also make a commitment to the Weaver network, because our brand-new franchised and integrated transport system is key to that network. It would be remiss of me not to state how pleased I am that all our buses are being brought back into public control under one banner from 2027 onwards. Although the tram will bring the huge benefits that I have already spoken about, our buses are just as important. In my constituency, the Ardsley and Robin Hood ward is very poorly served by the current bus arrangements. I will work with Tracy Brabin to change that, because, sadly, it is not just true for Ardsley and Robin Hood, but for many routes and networks across my constituency. The Weaver network will connect that franchise bus network with our trams and our train services, as well as linking up with active travel routes. It is the unified transport system that our region deserves.

Before I conclude, I thank all my colleagues who have contributed to the campaign to secure a tram network for west Yorkshire. I also thank my constituency neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Her support for this project has been consistent and it has been incredibly welcome.

We know that this investment is a vote of confidence in west Yorkshire. It is a vote of confidence from the Government; they know how much we have to offer and how much potential our region has. It is just the start of our plans to unlock our region’s potential.

I have some questions for the Minister to consider. Can the Government confirm that the funding provided to the combined authority will be flexible and will allow phase 1 to be built in full? How will they work with the combined authority to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver this infrastructure? What is their latest assessment of the economic benefits that the project will bring to West Yorkshire? How do they envisage working alongside the combined authority to take advantage of the opportunities created by our mass transit system once it is completed? Are they as optimistic as I am that the case for any second phase of the project will be even stronger once the impacts from the first phase are felt? I will be very grateful if the Minister takes those questions into account when she delivers her closing remarks.

I put on the record my thanks and appreciation to all those who share our region’s ambition, and everyone who has supported this project. It gives me great pleasure to say that we will have spades in the ground for the tram in 2028, and that finally—finally—it is time for trams in West Yorkshire.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

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

16:41

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Jardine.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for securing this important and timely debate. After years of waiting, we are finally getting a mass transit network worthy of a great world city, thanks to the Government’s support for West Yorkshire transport and the tireless efforts of our Labour Mayor, Tracy Brabin. This investment must benefit everyone, including my constituents in Leeds North West. Let us make sure there are no delays in moving from phase 1 to phase 2, establishing strong connections across our region.

Leeds Bradford airport is welcoming thousands of travellers this summer with a new terminal, offering a more comfortable start to their holidays, but it remains poorly served by public transport and has no proper rail link to the city centre and communities. As we embrace mass transit, we must seize the opportunities to connect the airport to the network, ensuring that the Weaver network is ready for take-off with no delays.

Beyond those large-scale projects, our communities need reliable, affordable bus services, as my hon. Friend said. Towns and villages such as Otley and Pool-in-Wharfedale deserve fast, frequent connections, and those heading to Horsforth—recently and rightly voted one of the best places to live in the UK—should not have to rely on taxis for a night out. That is why I support the moves by the Government and the combined authority to bring our buses back into public ownership, and I will back national and local efforts to make that happen.

16:42

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate on such an important topic.

The recent announcement of local transport investment marks a significant milestone for West Yorkshire—particularly the long-awaited mass transit system, which will finally bring trams back to the region. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a mass transit network across Leeds and West Yorkshire; as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without one, so the funding is very welcome.

Transport challenges do not stop at city boundaries, however. People’s lives span towns, villages and rural areas, and so must the solutions. We need a truly Yorkshire-wide approach that encourages cross-boundary collaboration, unlocks regional growth and serves all communities, not just urban cores. In that spirit, I want to focus on the fantastic work of Liberal Democrat councillors across West Yorkshire, who have been campaigning tirelessly on public transport issues over a number of years.

To wind the clock back a bit, I was at one point a West Yorkshire Liberal Democrat councillor. Interestingly, at that point in time, my council ward was wrapped around on three sides by North Yorkshire. I was raised in West Yorkshire, but educated at Selby college, so I know all too well the issues with cross-boundary transit. Therefore, while the Liberal Democrats and I welcome this new funding, a proper Yorkshire-wide approach is key to ensuring that infrastructure does not end at those arbitrary lines.

Let us look around West Yorkshire: councillors on the ground in Bradford, including Jeanette Sunderland, have been campaigning for over a decade to improve bus connections to Apperley Bridge rail station—a vital link that is still missing for over 15,000 homes. Without it, many are cut off from easy rail access, limiting opportunities for work and education. Councillor Brendan Stubbs has rightly been calling for urgent action to secure funding for a new Bradford bus station. The current station, as we know, is crumbling and unsafe, and new facilities must integrate effectively with the proposed tram network to serve Bradford’s future needs.

In Kirklees, local councillors John Lawson and Baroness Pinnock have raised concerns about the Dewsbury-Cleckheaton bus lane proposals. Objections are focused mainly on safety risks, disruption from construction and potential congestion. Many argue that simpler, lower-cost measures, such as improved traffic light control and enhanced bus reliability, would provide better value for money and cause less disruption.

Turning to the White Rose shopping centre that the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned, I think it is good that announcements have been made for phase 1. My concern is that the work on the train station there was already under way, but it was paused after it went over budget of the £26 million originally anticipated. If we are being honest, there has been a bit of a face-saving exercise put on by the combined authority.

[Mark Sewards]

I appreciate that time is short. We are making good progress on getting the paused White Rose train station, based on Churwell Hill, restarted. I have been working very closely with the combined authority to ensure that that station is built, and I am pleased to say it will be soon.

[Tom Gordon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his campaigning on that issue, but I return to the point that we need a comprehensive integrated transport network that links up everything. What we have seen previously is a piecemeal approach that has not necessarily thought through how we would go about something like this. While it is welcome that it is on the way to being resolved, it is a damning indictment of the situation up until now.

The funding announced is exactly the same as that announced under the previous Conservative Government —to the penny, so I question whether it is new funding or just a repackaging and reallocation of existing funding. I am sure the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will pick up on that point; he almost certainly will.

Turning to the work of the combined authority and the West Yorkshire Mayor: back when I was a councillor in Wakefield, we voted on the agreement to enter that authority. In that consultation, the only local authority in West Yorkshire that did not want to enter a combined authority or have a regional mayor was Wakefield, principally because it had previously been asked if it wanted a mayor and had voted against it. There were also concerns about powers being sucked up from local authorities to a new combined authority.

Speaking to local councillors across the piece, there is still scepticism about whether that is happening or whether the resulting transport decisions have been in the interests of everyone in all corners of West Yorkshire. The new mayor promised to fix the buses in her first term and she ran her re-election campaign based on that, so I think there are questions to be answered there.

When we look further afield, we have issues with rail links out of Leeds into other places across county boundaries, such as Harrogate and Knaresborough, with that link between Harrogate and York. While it is welcome that funding has been announced for West Yorkshire, we did not get a single penny for North Yorkshire under the Labour mayor, David Skaith.

Rounding up in the interests of time, we want to see a properly integrated transport plan with proper funding—a Transport for Yorkshire approach to make sure that no one is left behind.

16:48

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As everyone else has done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate.

West Yorkshire and the city of Leeds have long been underserved by transport connections; that is common ground across this Chamber. Research from the Centre for Cities in 2022 found that just 38% of the population can reach the city centre within 30 minutes by public transport. That is a very low percentage for a city the size of Leeds.

As the former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made clear in his 2024 policy paper, that leads to below-average productivity in the area, and a critical catalyst for improvement must be better transport connections. The hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley was also right to allude to a long history of promises, half promises, schemes and plans to improve transport in Leeds, going back many decades. He was generous enough to say that it was a failure of Governments of multiple different colours.

I will go back just to the 2000s, when there was the supertram proposal, which the hon. Member might remember. It was a 17-mile system with 50 stations, but it was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005 because of cost overruns. In the interests of time, I will not read out the juicy quote from the leader of Leeds Council, but I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with it. In 2007, that proposal was replaced by the bus rapid transport scheme with FTR. That had some of the benefits of the supertram, but with lower initial capital costs, and it was replaced in 2012 by Wright StreetCars. Also in 2012, the trolleybus network proposal was approved by the Government. The scheme was allocated £173 million of public money to be in operation by 2018. From memory, it involved two park and rides and a bus system into the city centre. That, in its turn, was dropped in 2016—again, because of cost overruns and delays.

Then we jump forward to 2021, to the West Midlands combined authority and the mass transit scheme with light rail and tram-trains, or bus rapid transport. I am pleased to say that in 2023, it was given the go-ahead by the Conservative Government of the time, and £2.5 billion was allocated for the mass transit system, funded in full for Leeds and West Yorkshire by the Secretary of State’s predecessor Mark Harper. That was a firm commitment supported by the Treasury at the time.

On last week’s announcement by the Chancellor of £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, I can see how the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley might feel a little sceptical—they have been burned more than once. The plan now is to get the spades in the ground in 2028. It is almost as good as the previous Conservative Government’s plan, which was to get spades in the ground in 2027. The number is remarkably similar to what was then Network North policy.

It is worth looking at the numbers. In 2023, it was announced that £2.115 billion would be allocated, so it was a bit of a surprise that last week it was £2.1 billion. The Chancellor has knocked off 15 million quid, but it is absolutely a re-announcement of existing policy.

[Katie White]

Does the hon. Member agree that although those announcements were made, like many other announcements, such as those on hospitals, they were never funded, and so the Treasury never allocated the money to them. He is right that there was a similar intention, but we are fulfilling on the delivery of that intention.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The answer is that this is spending from 2026 to 2031, so of course we do not have the allocation in 2023. We will have it in 2026, however, and it is part of the Government funding process. If the hon. Lady asks me where that money is coming from, it is from the savings made through the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. In rail terms, that was £19.6 billion.

[Tom Gordon]

On that point, I had an interesting interaction with the Secretary of State for Transport. I asked her about the reallocation of that HS2 money, and she referred to it as “fantasy money”. What does the hon. Gentleman say to the point that it is a reallocation of money that the Secretary of State says did not exist?

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is an interesting point. If it is fantasy money, this is a fantasy announcement from last week. I suspect that the Treasury has realised that it is not fantasy money. It is the scheduling of capital expenditure in five-year periods, a bit like we have with road networks and the road investment strategy. In the RIS system we have a five-year forward allocation of resources, and this is just the same, so there is a little political sleight of hand here.

A report by Steer suggests that a light rail vehicle with a capacity of 200 operating every three minutes can carry up to 4,000 people per hour in each direction. That is equivalent to about 50 fully laden buses. The aim now is to get it up and running in the mid-2030s. But if the past is any guide, the biggest risk to the project is delay and cost overruns. With that in mind, I ask the Minister these questions. What steps is she taking to ensure that costs are contained and deadlines do not slip? Has the West Yorkshire combined authority set out a timeline for the environmental and technical work to enable the development to proceed on time? Can she outline what discussions she has had with the mayor to ensure that upgrades to heavy rail infrastructure, such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, are fully integrated? Can she provide assurances that tomorrow’s transport budget will not see cuts in other areas? Will this scheme actually be delivered? We shall wait and see. I certainly wish it well, but I understand why the residents of West Yorkshire feel sceptical.

16:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this timely debate and on his passionate words in support of his city and region.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s support for West Yorkshire’s ambitions and why we are committed to working hand in hand with local leaders to deliver transformational change. West Yorkshire is a region with enormous potential. Home to 2.4 million people and a £67 billion economy, it contains some of the fastest growing towns and cities in the country. However, it also faces significant socioeconomic challenges. Productivity has lagged behind the national average for 15 years. Too many people still live in areas of persistent deprivation, and poor connectivity is holding back housing, regeneration and access to opportunities. Around one in five people in West Yorkshire live in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods nationally.

Improving transport connectivity is key to unlocking growth across West Yorkshire. Better links between Leeds and Bradford—just 9 miles apart—will help to reduce reliance on car travel, which currently accounts for 74% of journeys.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am very conscious of time, and I want to make a bit more progress.

Leeds remains the largest city in western Europe without a mass transit system. For a city of its scale, potential and ambition, that is unsustainable. That is why Government intervention is vital and why we are already acting. We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders and communities to build a modern, integrated mass transit network. Those ambitions, as we have heard, stretch back years, but setbacks have not weakened the determination, and I commend Mayor Tracy Brabin and the West Yorkshire combined authority for their persistence and vision.

The Government have backed the ambitions with real support and real money: £200 million has already been provided in development funding, to enable the combined authority to progress its plans. That includes a £160 million allocation from the first city region sustainable transport settlement. Now, I am pleased to confirm that the support is growing under the new funding settlement announced last week. As a Government, we have made a £15.6 billion commitment to improving local transport across the north and the midlands, to be delivered through transport for city regions settlements. Between 2027 and 2032, West Yorkshire will receive an impressive £2.1 billion—a strong vote of confidence in the region’s plans.

It is right that prioritising use of the funding will be for West Yorkshire to decide on, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) will be making the case for improved transport connectivity, including to Leeds Bradford airport. We are bringing £30 million of transport for city regions funding forward into the next two financial years, to support early preparation and delivery of schemes. Most importantly, the combined authority has confirmed that this funding will enable the delivery of phase 1 of West Yorkshire mass transit, connecting Bradford and Leeds city centres, to begin. Mayor Tracy Brabin is keen to have spades in the ground from 2028. Of course, the period beyond 2032 is for a future spending review. Beyond mass transit, TCR funding will also support a new bus station in Wakefield to replace the existing facility, and a modern bus station replacement for Bradford interchange, expanding services and improving reliability across the region.

Our support extends beyond finance. With West Yorkshire combined authority, we have put in place a new model for working together. It features a joint sponsor board and close collaboration between Government officials and the combined authority. We are working side by side to progress at pace, align with national priorities and support delivery, so hopefully there will not be the kinds of hold-up that we have seen in the past.

The prize and the benefits of mass transit to West Yorkshire are clear. It will improve local transport for over 675,000 people, many of whom are from communities currently disconnected from opportunity. It will reduce congestion, cut carbon emissions and enable access to jobs, education and services, especially for those who do not have a car. It will support transformational regeneration, housing and growth, particularly in areas such as central Bradford that have previously been overlooked for major investment.

The scheme complements wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and bus franchising. We welcome the introduction of the Weaver network, which will mean a single brand across the transport network in West Yorkshire and will make transport easier and more accessible for passengers. Together, those efforts will build a modern, integrated public transport system worthy of this growing city region, which is central to the growth ambitions of the Government and the country.

Looking ahead, we will continue close collaboration with the combined authority to move from planning to delivery. Key milestones include submission of the strategic outline business case for approval in 2026, when many of the questions that have been posed in the debate will be explored and fulfilled; route consultations; and the development of a growth prospectus to maximise the economic benefits of mass transit in West Yorkshire. That will include an employment and skills action plan to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver the programme. Our shared ambition is to see spades in the ground in 2028, and I assure Members that the Department is fully committed to enabling that ambitious timeline.

The Government back West Yorkshire’s mass transit ambitions because better transport means better lives, safer journeys, cleaner air, more opportunities and stronger communities. I once again congratulate my hon. Friends on their support and advocacy for this absolutely vital investment. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) nodding along with that. The West Yorkshire region has huge potential, and this Government will give it our backing into the future.

17:01

[Mark Sewards]

The Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) tempted me to make interventions, but I resisted then and I will resist now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for mass transit in West Yorkshire.

17:02

Sitting adjourned.