Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 June 2025

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

Space Industry

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the space industry on the economy.

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my non-financial interests. For the purposes of this important debate, I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space.

The global space industry is set to expand over the coming years as businesses take advantage of the huge drop in launch costs driven by tech billionaires such as Elon Musk with his SpaceX business and Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin. No longer is space the sole domain of Governments; it is available to everyone with an idea of how to exploit the opportunities that space presents.

Indeed, the global space economy in 2023 was valued at about $630 billion, but that number is expected to expand to $1.8 trillion by 2035—a compound annual growth rate of about 9%. Some optimists expect growth to outpace even that impressive figure, with expectations reaching as high as $2.2 trillion by 2035. Even for the most pessimistic economist, however, it is expected to still exceed $1.2 trillion, a figure that sees the global space industry outpacing global GDP over that period.

As I said, that growth is being driven by the 90% drop in launch costs over the last 20 years, but it is also being driven by commercial innovation in areas such as components and software. As clever people invent ever more clever things, deploying assets in the harsh and complicated area of space is becoming increasingly affordable. In turn, that has driven a broad set of investors to look to space for opportunities. Meanwhile, we have all become more relaxed and enthusiastic about the idea of space as a commercial entity in itself, and we already know that space has changed our lives enormously. After all, we have no excuse not to find a location or a fast route to a destination, now that we all have satellite navigation in our pockets.

That technology will enable fresh, new technologies. Companies such as Amazon are already looking at rolling out drone delivery services enabled by satellite navigation, and that will expand to things like driverless Uber taxis as we advance our driverless technologies. It is already the case that the technology behind satellite navigation goes far beyond just letting us know where the nearest pub is. Position, navigation and timing technology, or PNT, provides timing signals that enable our payment system. Who here realised that buying a ticket on the tube this morning, coming into work, was enabled by a satellite passing overhead at 17,600 mph?

According to a 2024 report by McKinsey, 60% of the growth in the space economy will be driven by five industries: state-sponsored defence, digital communications, supply chain and transportation, food and beverages, and consumer goods and lifestyle. The report also pointed out that space’s return on investment will be more than just financial. Space will play an increasingly crucial role in mitigating world challenges, ranging from disaster warning and climate monitoring to improved humanitarian responses and more widespread prosperity.

That is the fabulous opportunity globally, but what of the UK’s ambitions? Back in 2013, the UK Government set a plan to secure 10% of the global space economy. That plan would have given us about £180 billion of activity by 2035, but it feels like that ambition has been quietly dropped—not necessarily by this Government, but certainly over the closing years of the previous Government.

The UK space economy is valued at about £19 billion and supports some 52,000 jobs through nearly 2,000 businesses. That is a good start, but we need to be more ambitious. We need to decide what role we want to play in the global space economy, not least because the space economy will help us to address our productivity problems here in the UK.

At one end of the spectrum is the business of launch. Launch is, of course, a small part of the space economy, at about 10%—but launch is, to the purist, not really space. For sure, the space economy cannot exist without launch, but it is an enabler; it is logistics; it is the white delivery van of the space sector. It is, however, the most symbolic part of the space sector. It is the piece that fires the imagination; it is the image that excites people to follow space as a sector.

We have already had a successful horizontal launch from Newquay. Every part of the Newquay spaceport worked perfectly. The rocket separated from its Boeing 747 and successfully deployed the second stage into space. However, as we all know, a fuel filter in the Virgin second stage failed and the flight was lost, but Newquay performed in every way that it should have done. Later this year we will see the first vertical launch from the far north of the Shetlands. The SaxaVord spaceport has been working for years to develop the launch site, and it is entirely possible that the first launch from British soil will be with the British launch company Orbex.

The Government have financially supported both Orbex and the SaxaVord space centre, but those are private companies that also have private investors, which is crucial for the space sector. Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) cannot be here. He has had a prior engagement in his diary for a long time to go and judge a Blackface sheep competition, which he has to go to, but he has been instrumental in the success of the SaxaVord space centre, which has done an incredible job in delivering the first vertical launch from the UK.

Continued Government support for our launch sector is important. The Government have supported Orbex to the tune of £20 million this year, and that will pay for the development of low Earth orbit launches from SaxaVord. Orbex is keen to develop its product range, and its next milestone is medium Earth orbit with heavier payloads. Support for it to develop its next generation launchers could come from the European Space Agency and its European launcher challenge. The ELC programme is designed to turbocharge European launch opportunities.

With demand rising and the queue for SpaceX launches getting ever longer, there is a huge opportunity in Europe with the UK leading the charge. That is why the UK Space Agency is keen that the UK continues to support membership of the European Space Agency and its support for the ELC. Imagine our joy as a nation, with the Minister as the person partly in charge, when we see a British-designed and built rocket thrust skywards from British soil later this year. It will be a moment of intense national pride. But it is important that we have a follow-up to that key moment. We need to define what our ambition is for space and, to a certain extent, what we mean by “space”.

The last Government published a space strategy, but that was seen at the time as more of a list of hopes—a kind of manifesto, rather than a strategy with tactics and ambitions. We need to be clear about what it is that we want to do in this area that will undoubtedly increase UK productivity. We already know and recognise that the UK space economy broadly falls into five sectors. First, we have a strong service sector of downstream applications that are driven by satellites. This is the largest sector and includes satellite communications, Earth observation and navigation and timing services. Those sectors, as I have mentioned, power sectors such as agriculture, climate monitoring, finance, transport, humanitarian relief and defence applications. Because of the ever-increasing demand for data, the service sector is a lead growth driver for the space economy.

Second is our manufacturing and engineering sector, which manufactures rockets and satellites. The UK is a leader in small satellite manufacturing through companies such as Surrey Satellite Technology. But within this sector we have fascinating companies such as Magdrive, looking to develop non-chemical drive systems for in-orbit manoeuvring that will extend the life of a satellite significantly and, I believe, as much as twentyfold.

We also have lead companies here in the UK that look at the sustainability of space: Astroscale and ClearSpace. Both of them are excited about the upcoming announcement of a UK sovereign mission to literally clean up space debris. It would be helpful if the Minister could perhaps give us a clue about how that is progressing.

Then we have spaceports and launch—that great symbol of a spacefaring nation that I have already spoken about. Fourth is research and development, an area we have been strong at for decades. We are proud to have strong academic institutions doing extraordinary work in forging new technologies, including areas such as in-space manufacturing, where zero gravity makes for an interesting formation of crystalline materials. Fifth is space data and analytics, driven by huge leaps forward in artificial intelligence and big data.

But we should not see space as just about space stuff. I have long argued that we need to ensure we maximise the opportunity across all sectors of our economy, and that brings me to finance. The City of London has been innovative in finance for a few centuries now. It financed the growth of trade that built the British empire and our economy. Right now we have an opportunity here in London to seize the space finance markets. I look back at the inspiration given by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late 1990s. He saw an opportunity in the flagging UK film industry, so he created a financial trigger to encourage investment into that industry. Despite being abused by some who benefited from it, his tax break created investment into our film industry that has been transformational. The success of the UK film industry can trace its origins back to that single act. The Harry Potter franchise would have always been a huge success, but were it not for that single act of tax planning, those spells would almost certainly have been cast with an American accent.

That single act of tax planning can be adopted for the UK space industry. It does not need to be complicated, and it would generate more income for the economy than it would cost. Something as simple as, for example, tax-free commissions on space-related primary issues of bonds and equities would send a signal to the world’s top space financiers that the UK will be the centre of excellence for space finance. With all these bright financial wizards here in the City of London, space companies would be attracted to locate right here, to secure the finance and list on the London stock exchange.

It does not stop there. Our already strong space insurance market would get even stronger. Space legal services would grow. Our position as a global thought leader in the future of space would blossom, and—importantly, for our valuable financial services industry—the City would continue to be at the cutting edge of developing financial needs. It would create a symbiotic relationship between financial services, in which we are already world leaders, and the global space industry, in which we want to be among the world leaders.

I have spoken about how the Government can support the space sector, but I want to talk more about how the Government can be a customer of the space sector, and that brings me to the strategic defence review. The SDR looks good for space. It identifies the three main areas in which space is relevant to the Ministry of Defence. Watching situations develop from the height of space gives a spacefaring nation a tactical advantage over aggressors who do not have those advantages. We can not only look at the ground with the normal vision spectrum but use infrared Earth observation, which gives us the opportunity to spot a column of Russian tanks warming their engines in the dead of night ahead of an early invasion. Meanwhile, radio frequency observation gives us a chance not only to listen but to see where the enemy’s actors are located in a battlefield. We can see all sorts of activities across a range of spectra, in surprising detail.

Similarly, the SDR recognises that space gives us the advantage when responding to threats. Battlefield management and response can be orchestrated from space—again, giving us a tactical advantage. Of course, the SDR recognises that these space assets are, in themselves, a potential target, so defence of the space domain becomes as important a part of the MOD’s activities as defence of our own territories. Indeed, it is not just the MOD’s assets that need defending. While things such as Skynet are important to the MOD, position, navigation and timing satellites are important to our economy. As I mentioned, if we lose navigation satellites, we lose our entire payments system.

The SDR provides an opportunity for the UK space sector, and the trade body, UKspace, has already published an intelligent briefing note on the SDR, giving advice to members on how to take advantage of the review and what it means for the sector. It is optimistic, and so am I. Although the space section of the SDR’s 145 pages amounts to just one and a half pages, the document presents a lot of opportunities. The commitment to spend 3% of GDP on defence, and defence that seeks ever greater technologies, should be seen as a huge opportunity for the sector.

The document recognises that defence procurement is unfathomable for all but those with extensive experience—the primes. The review seeks ways of opening up Ministry of Defence procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, which is a very good thing. The MOD, acting as the Government as a customer for space, must be easy to navigate for those wanting to sell and to support the Government.

The SDR raised one area of concern, which is where space sits in Government and who champions it. The SDR suggests a Cabinet Sub-Committee or ministerial group that looks after space. I have seen this before, having been on the ministerial group of 12, from memory, who could claim an interest in space. Back in 2017, it included the science Minister who had the lead in his portfolio, me as a trade Minister, a Minister from the Department for Exiting the European Union, and Ministers from the Department for International Development, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Ministry of Defence and anybody else we could think of. Some Ministers did not have a clue why they were on it. Others did not have much of an interest. In due course, space became a Cabinet Sub-Committee, chaired at the start by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then by the Prime Minister. It met just once, I believe, and it was obsessed by launch, which is important but, as I have mentioned, represents just 10% of the space economy.

The problem is that space is both unique and ubiquitous. For a launch site operator, it is real estate. For a launch company, it is logistics. For PNT users, it is supply chain management. For internet users, it is data. For most, it is commercial. It is located in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but most would agree at this stage of the cycle that one thing space is not is a science project. That is not to level criticism at either the DSIT Secretary or his civil servants, who do an excellent job of championing the sector.

Should space be in the Department for Business and Trade? That is an interesting question. I am delighted to see the Minister from DBT here today, who is responding on the commercial aspects of space—a side of space that is bigger, more important and more relevant to our economy than the simple science of it. However, the sector would far prefer the lead Department to be the Cabinet Office, as it crosses so many Departments—that is what organisations such as UKspace are saying.

I will finish with an example that illustrates the point. I chair the advisory board of the Space Energy Initiative and am a non-executive director of Space Solar Limited, with no financial interest in either. That is a good example of how space will deliver something vital for humanity, which is energy. Humanity has always needed energy and developing energy has progressed our societies.

We started as hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago, but after we learned how to farm and ensure regular calories for ourselves, we developed the skills that gave us civilisation and culture. When we figured out that coal produced more energy than wood, we started the industrial revolution that continues today. But we now realise that we need to produce energy at ever-increasing levels. Indeed, we heard in yesterday’s statement that the UK will need twice the capacity by 2050, and I wager that we will need it earlier than that.

We need to deliver that capacity sustainably. Demand for energy will go through the roof: by 2030, the US will be producing around 4,000 TWh of electricity a year. Just one need, global artificial intelligence, will demand more than that. As we are all moving to electric vehicles too, we can see the colossal problem facing us. Nuclear is good, and we heard yesterday that there will be plenty of opportunity, but it will take time, be expensive, and produce waste that is tricky to deal with.

Wind and solar are renewable and relatively cheap, but they are not baseload and not dispatchable. They cannot be predictably turned on and off as demand changes. Gas is both baseload and dispatchable, but we want to move away from gas for good reasons. Biomass is not what we thought it was, and nuclear fusion is a distant dream.

We need something that is sustainable, baseload, dispatchable and cheap—step forward, space-based solar power. Sounding like the stuff of science fiction, it has been possible for decades. Photovoltaics in space have been around since Sputnik 2 was launched in November 1957. Energy beaming was developed by Nikola Tesla in the 1880s, and we are familiar with it every time we listen to Radio 4 in the morning and hear one of our colleagues being beaten up by Nick Robinson.

What has changed is a 90% reduction in the cost of launch. That makes the economic model feasible, so space-based solar power is developing at pace around the world. The lead development, with what we believe is the best technology, is right here in the UK in Harwell. I am pleased that the Government have supported the development of this leading technology with £10 million so far. We have seen support from the European Space Agency’s SOLARIS project, other innovation projects and a range of companies and universities.

When I first pitched this to an Energy Minister under the previous Government, he said, “Yeah, but it’s space, no?” I pointed out that nuclear power is not part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because it is built on farmland, and he eventually got the point. That illustrates how the Government can make mistakes by looking at where space is, not what space is.

Space energy solves a load of problems. Because a beam can be moved near instantaneously, it can not only provide gigawatts of energy but balance the grid very simply. Electricity can be exported to eastern economies before we wake up, and to the US when we sleep and demand here is low, improving our export opportunities and balance of payments. It is dispatchable, baseload, cheap and green. It will transform our economy with endless cheap, reliable energy. We have had good support from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but the first power will not be delivered before 2032, falling outside the Government’s target of carbon neutrality by 2030. Because of that arbitrary political target, we run the risk of losing the space energy race to other nations.

Although space-based solar power is an energy play, pure and simple, the associated engineering technology will transform our space sector. With satellites that are kilometres across, robotics are being developed in the UK to enable the manufacture and assembly of those satellites in orbit. The technology will enable the UK to take a lead in developing in-orbit assembly, thus further securing our place as a leading space nation.

We have the opportunity here and now to lead in energy—our most critical need and asset—and in the space sector. In yesterday’s statement, DESNZ made an interesting choice. Space energy can deliver gigawatts of space-based solar power within a decade, but the Government have chosen to invest £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion. There is no doubt that space energy is an engineering challenge, but nuclear fusion is a substantial physics challenge. I ask the Minister to come up and see for herself what genius is happening right here in the UK. We have an opportunity to seize the moment, but we must not be left behind.

Space is not just about where something is; it is about what it enables. Seizing both the metaphorical and literal high ground that space presents is vital for our economy, our productivity, our energy, our services and, frankly, how we save the planet.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Five people want to speak and we have about 40 minutes before the wind-ups, so you can work out between yourselves roughly how long you have to make your contributions.

09:50

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this important debate.

I am delighted to say that my constituency is part of the space economy, as it includes part of the Jodrell Bank site. Jodrell Bank is the home of the Lovell telescope—an incredible, major radio telescope that was first built at the beginning of the cold war, after world war two. It is part of the University of Manchester, so I should say that my husband is employed elsewhere in the university but has nothing to do with Jodrell Bank.

The site makes a major contribution to the local economy, and its science contributes to our country’s global scientific stature. Two hundred people are employed on the site, and more than 180,000 people, including a great many children, visit the visitor centre every year. Members present may have fond memories of a Jodrell Bank school trip, and I have taken my children there since they were tiny. The site welcomes about 200 school pupils every day during school term time, providing early inspiration that a science career might be for them. The Jodrell Bank workforce is so important, and local businesses have spoken to me about the importance of our young people having a science, technology, engineering and mathematics education.

Jodrell Bank is far more than an employer and a visitor attraction, however. It is also a world-leading research facility that, for more than 80 years, has been making internationally important contributions to our understanding of the universe. I am very proud that it is part of my constituency.

The work done at Jodrell Bank requires dark, quiet skies, which means that future space technology needs to be deployed in a careful, consultative and sustainable way. The world has changed enormously in the 80 years since Jodrell Bank was built. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned, where once there was a space race, there is now SpaceX. In that context, Jodrell Bank is also contributing to national space security and sustainability.

Scientists are now using the Lovell telescope and e-MERLIN—the enhanced multi-element, radio-linked interferometer network—to track satellites, monitor space debris and observe near-Earth asteroids using radar techniques. As space becomes increasingly congested and contested, that is a powerful and important capability in which the UK is playing an internationally leading role. It is vital to ensuring space situational awareness and planetary defence, which are key priorities of the UK national space strategy. This is not fantasy stuff: the possibility of satellite collisions risks everything from navigation to online banking, so this is crucial national infrastructure.

The increasing congestion of airspace has implications for air traffic control, and the economic value of supporting that work is very real. The world will, of course, continue to change—that is inevitable—and local businesses that are part of the aerospace industry could definitely move more towards space too. I spoke recently to Bird Bellows, an aerospace manufacturer in my constituency that creates bespoke, precision-engineered metallic bellows and flexible joints. It is incredibly specialist and is used to working to the very tight, regulated demands of the aerospace industry. Last week, I visited CLD, which, if the UK Government build infrastructure, is very likely to be the company that manufactures the fencing and other security that protects it.

It is fantastic that we have these local businesses, but there is real scope, particularly as part of the north-west’s investment in the net zero industrial cluster, for us to crowd in and work with academia and the manufacturing businesses in my constituency, of which there are many, to develop the space economy in my area. I want to see the high-skilled, high-value jobs and investment that can bring.

I am pleased that the Government are protecting record funding for research and development, which will be a relief to anyone who recalls the words of Jodrell Bank’s founder, Sir Bernard Lovell:

“civilisations that abandon the quest for knowledge are doomed to disintegration.”

Thanks to researchers such as those at Jodrell Bank, we may be safe for a while longer yet.

09:54

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on setting out the important case for the role of the space sector in the UK economy.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), who outlined the importance and significance of the totemic Jodrell Bank. Likewise, I will refer to an important and growing contributor to the space sector in my own constituency at Goonhilly—people have different ways of saying that, with some preferring a phonetic pronunciation—on the Lizard peninsula. In the early 1960s, the Post Office established a telecommunications and satellite base there that became a British Telecommunications base. In 2014, it was taken over by Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd, a local company that is cutting a significant reputation in the space sector.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for mentioning Newquay as a potential launch site. All those experiments are important. They may come with failures along the way, but as he said, we learn from things that do not go fully to plan to improve our technologies. There will be successes and failures at the cutting edge of the space sector, but we will learn from that process.

When I previously represented St Ives, before my nine-year sabbatical from this place, it took four or five years to get Goonhilly Earth Station on to the former BT site in 2014. Since then, it has been doing incredibly well, despite a difficult start on a small base. It has regenerated the site and generated a reputation as a place with world-leading capability. Its core business is deep space research and activity, as well as commercial and defence-focused communication services. It is currently supporting missions around Mars and observing solar weather, and it provided communications and support to enable last year’s private moon landing.

The space sector is important to the UK economy, but we cannot take a “little England” approach to global communications because Earth turns on its axis and exists in a wider universe. In that context, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, the positioning, navigation and timing—the PNT—of our sites in relation to the global sphere in which space science is being advanced is important. Goonhilly is in a critical location for tracking and managing satellites. The UK is an important geographic location from that point of view, but of course the context is one in which it has to establish contracts with companies and nations around the world.

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

On the point about other countries and companies around the world, UK firms have been locked out of EU space programmes such as Galileo since Brexit, and the lack of a UK alternative has stunted the growth of dual-use military space innovation. Does my hon. Friend agree that long-term funding in this area is vital to secure both economic resilience and defence sovereignty?

[Andrew George]

Of course I agree. Clearly, the stronger the links made internationally, the more they will benefit the UK economy. Having seamless relationships with other countries is important. My hon. Friend mentions the Galileo programme, but also relevant is US GPS. All these connections clearly need to be maintained and fostered.

Not only is funding an issue, but so are contracts. As well as making the point that the sector operates essentially in the global sphere, I want to highlight the need for co-operation with other countries on contracts. There is an essential role for the UK Government in fostering contracts, not just with the European Space Agency but with NASA. A lot of companies in the UK will be looking to the Government to play that role.

I do not wish to take up anyone else’s time, so my final point is that we—and the Government—must back smaller enterprises such as GES in my constituency and many others. After all, they are the source of innovation and growth in the sector. Yes, the larger companies to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest drew attention are very important; as he says, the space sector underpins 16% of UK GDP. A day without space would cost our economy £1.2 billion in its impact on financial transactions and so much else in how we live our lives in the modern world. This is an essential sector, but the small enterprises are there to expand the innovation frontier of the sector, and they are forging very strong links internationally as well. I urge the Minister to do all she can with the industry to facilitate contracts with NASA, the ESA and elsewhere internationally.

10:02

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this debate, which is really important, particularly to the people of Cornwall.

Cornwall’s unique geography gives us an advantage in a range of industries, and space is no exception, thanks to our remoteness, open skies and position jutting out into the Atlantic. Our growing space sector has enormous potential, not just for innovation, but for real economic opportunity across all our communities in Cornwall, which is really needed.

Spaceport Cornwall, which others have mentioned, is based at Newquay airport and in 2023 hosted the first horizontal satellite launch. Although the launch was ultimately not fully successful, it put Cornwall on the map and the spaceport itself worked perfectly. Ours is the first licensed spaceport in the UK and the only operational spaceport in Europe. With a 2030 carbon neutral target and the aim of being the first net zero spaceport in the world, it is also leading the way in making the space industry more sustainable. The spaceport education programme has done brilliant educational outreach in Cornwall schools, so there was a huge crowd in the middle of the night to watch the horizontal launch. A generation of Cornish children were inspired to reach for the stars, quite literally, and I really hope they will be able to do that from Cornwall in the future.

Goonhilly Satellite Earth Station on the Lizard peninsula is another pioneer in the space industry. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), so he has talked about it in some depth already. In 2021, it created the world’s first commercial lunar and deep space communications network, and it has a bilateral pilot with the UK space industry, which enables it to provide operational support to international partners. I hope, as I am sure the hon. Member does, that the funding for that will be renewed, because it is an incredible organisation. If the Minister is in the area, she should go and see it.

A number of innovative SMEs and start-ups connected to the space industry, as part of Cornwall space cluster, have coalesced around the spaceport in Newquay and Goonhilly. The cluster is growing exponentially; it now has 477 businesses, having grown by 47% since 2018, and generates £116 million gross value added. It represents what could be a strong, innovative growth sector in Cornwall, bringing specialist jobs to a place that very much needs them.

We in Cornwall also have some of the best space courses and career development in the country. Truro and Penwith college, which is in my constituency, offers apprenticeships and degree courses, including the world’s first higher national certificate and higher national diploma in space technologies. The University of Exeter offers space graduate, postgraduate and short courses and workshops, and is a world-leading university for related climate and sustainability research.

Cornwall is world leading in this field, but despite being operational, Spaceport Cornwall has received no launch funding for the past two years. We need a national space strategy that recognises the value of regional clusters such as Cornwall’s. We also need strong leadership. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest made a good point about ownership in government; the industry touches many different Departments, but someone needs to grasp it, take ownership and drive it forward. It is often innovative SMEs that drive growth in the space sector, and they need to be supported through contracts rather than one-off grants, as the hon. Member for St Ives said.

We must also ensure that the economic benefits of the Cornish space industry are felt by the people who live there, rather than just by people coming in and out—people doing the space sector to us. Our space industry is not just a collection of buildings and equipment; it is a thriving network of people, businesses and educational institutions that has the potential to bring great economic value to the duchy and lift children’s aspirations for generations to come.

10:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for leading the debate. He obviously has an incredible interest in the space sector; if he ever appears on “Mastermind”, this will be his chosen subject. I mean that in a nice way, because I believe that we can all benefit from his interest and knowledge. I am sure that the Minister agrees.

Space assets are crucial to United Kingdom national infrastructure, as well as safety and defence mechanisms such as navigation and communication. Modern technology is a wonderful thing—I do not quite understand it all the time, but that is just me—but we must not underestimate the contribution made by our space sector. For that reason, it is great to be here to make a contribution.

It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She is a friend of many of us in Northern Ireland, and we have brought many subjects to her attention. I appreciate that she always responds in a positive way, and Northern Ireland MPs will vouch for that.

I am going to give a Northern Ireland perspective. Some people, perhaps some not too far away, may wonder what Northern Ireland’s input into the space sector is. First, it is 8,000 jobs, so let us be clear that it is not just a small sector in Northern Ireland. It is an important sector; we are to the fore in ensuring that Northern Ireland plays a growing and successful part in the space industry, with a focus on satellite technology, aerospace engineering and data analytics. In particular, Northern Ireland has a rich history in aerospace engineering, defence and aerospace projects in my constituency—that is obviously where my interest comes from—as well as across the whole of Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In Upper Bann, I see at first hand the potential of the space industry, with my area having one of the strongest advanced manufacturing bases in Northern Ireland and being home to companies that contribute to aerospace and high-precision engineering, both of which are important to aerospace sector technologies. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to release Northern Ireland’s full potential in aerospace and in the contribution that it can make to the UK-wide air strategy, we need a seat at the table? Any future UK policies on aerospace and the space industry need to have Northern Ireland at the table.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fairness to the Minister, I feel that her intention is to ensure that that will happen. I hope she will confirm that today. It is important.

Our aerospace heritage brings more than 8,000 jobs to Northern Ireland. I am sure—indeed, I know—that the Minister is very much aware of the current breakdown of jobs, with Magellan Aerospace back home and the ongoing discussions regarding the Spirit AeroSystems takeover, which will have an impact on jobs in my constituency and further afield, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will just let the Minister know in advance that topical question No. 6 tomorrow will be on Spirit AeroSystems. The Parliamentary Private Secretary asked me yesterday to make sure that I got the booking in for that. I will send on the question officially, but that is what it will be about.

Northern Ireland aerospace has a 70-plus-year heritage and contributes £151 million to UK GDP. I know Thales operates in other parts, but some £81 million is in Northern Ireland itself, which highlights the importance of our contribution to the UK space sector and the economy. The Minister has visited Thales and will do so again, I hope, in the not-too-distant future. We cannot underestimate the impact that such industries have in the UK economy. Northern Ireland has successfully attracted investment and funding for space-related projects specifically, and we are keen to do more of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said. The Department for the Economy in the Northern Ireland Executive, for example, is actively promoting the growth of the space sector. It is very much a core issue for us back in Northern Ireland, including in the Department.

To give some information about what we do back home, on 24 May just over a year ago, Queen’s University Belfast was at the centre of plans to harvest solar power in space to produce a potentially endless supply of net zero energy, to help turn around the world’s climate crisis. That is very futuristic, but what do we know? Will the futuristic things we saw in “Star Trek”—“Beam me up, Scotty”—ever happen? I do not know, but with the progress of technology, someday it might be possible.

The fact that Queen’s University is involved and out there is an indication that such partnerships can very much show the way forward. Their incredible, fantastic work has brought two huge industries of the future together. It will give opportunities in the sector to hundreds of students who have a real interest in working in it. This is not just about today, but about the future and preparing our university students for that future, so that they can be part of it. The Minister might wish to respond to that as well.

In 2021, the then Conservative Government published a national space strategy. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who introduced the debate, had some input into that. It described the UK’s 10-year vision to build one of the most innovative and attractive space economies in the world. That was the previous Conservative Government saying that, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on progressing that 10-year plan and where we are now, because we all—the then Opposition, too, I think I am right in saying—supported that strategy and plan, as we could all see its progressive and visionary potential.

The strategy included the UK becoming the first country in Europe to achieve a small satellite launch from a UK spaceport, and establishing itself as a leader in commercial small satellite launch. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned that, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) would have, I am sure, had he been present, although the attraction of judging blackface ewes might just overtake it as a subject, because that is a hands-on relationship with his constituents.

Satellites are used for many different things, including navigation, communications, targeting munitions and threat analysis. We can be to the forefront in that. Currently, the UK relies heavily on the US and other nations within the EU for defence-related services. I therefore believe it is pivotal that we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in a position to use our own methods and technology to preserve our own safety and support our own military. I know we cannot do everything by ourselves any more—it is not wise or focused to do that—but it is important that we have the potential to do some of our own stuff. We need to have the US and the EU, and to work within NATO, but we also need to have the ability to respond on our own merit and our own ability.

The Government reported that, between 2022 and 2024, the total value of contracts secured by the UK through the ESA was £844 million, but I believe that we must do more to fund our own industry, so that we can become leaders in paving the way in the space industry. There is no reason why the companies here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot do that. Setting out this case has always been a passion of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest; he has always pushed this, and we should all support him in how we take this forward.

To conclude, protecting the UK space sector affects several areas, whether it be safeguarding against threats to sustainability or monitoring space incidents. We must do more to protect it. The contribution to the economy made by the devolved Administrations—this is one of the great beauties of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where four come together as one—pushed by the Minister here in Westminster to all our advantage, and by the devolved Administrations, cannot and will not be ignored.

I look to the Minister again for commitment and enthusiasm in ensuring that jobs are protected and the best decisions are made for the benefit of the United Kingdom space and aerospace sectors. I believe we can all benefit. I think the Minister is committed to that, and I look forward to her answers.

10:16

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. When we think about space, it is a natural instinct to look towards the skies, but actually someone wanting to find out a lot about what is happening up there could do much worse than dive one mile underneath the North York Moors—something I did a number of years ago when I went underground at the Boulby potash mine in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer).

I had never been down a mine before, and this was the second deepest mine in Europe. In the cage, we were swallowed into the darkness and down this incredibly deep lift shaft, then travelled miles underground, bumping around in a beat-up old Land Rover to get to the face of the mine. We then came to a state-of-the-art facility: an underground dark matter laboratory operated by the Science and Technology Facilities Council. It is positioned there because it is safe from atmospheric radiation. Part of what the laboratory does is enable research into dark matter, which will help us to understand how to survive in hostile environments—on Earth and beyond it, in space—and contributes to technologies such as quantum computing. That is just one of the facilities that forms the cornerstone of the north-east of England space community. I want to talk a bit about that today. I must also declare that a close relative of mine is employed adjacent to that sector.

When NASA decided to build the James Webb space telescope, that was of course a great national effort for the USA, but it came to Durham for the development and engineering of the telescope. It was Durham University’s centre for advanced instrumentation that constructed the infrared spectrograph integral field unit— I am sure that everyone here knows what those five words mean individually, although when taken together they might be a little more confusing.

We heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—I congratulate him on securing this debate—about the defence applications for such sensing technology, and there can be that crossover with different industries. But that centre at Durham University had the ability to develop and manufacture those components. We should be proud, as a nation, that NASA comes to the UK to obtain such components.

Space is happening in the north-east, particularly at NETPark, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), but also quite close to my constituency; many of my constituents work there, too. It is home to three of our catapults: the Satellite Applications Catapult, the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, and the Compound Semiconductors Applications Catapult. It also houses a number of companies. Filtronic makes mission-critical electronic components in the satellite supply chain; Lockheed Martin is working with Northumbria University on the North East Space Skills and Technology Centre; and Octric at Newton Aycliffe is the Government owned semiconductor manufacturing facility.

Interestingly, Durham University business school is also working on the legal and ethical aspects of space exploitation, as we put a framework around how we can globally work together in space. There are wider economic benefits in our region. Currently, the sector contributes £130 million to our local economy; 1,300 people are employed in about 48 businesses. But the north-east of England space cluster hopes to grow to 10,000 employees over the next few years.

Our regional strengths are in space manufacturing, earth observance, climate intelligence and connectivity. Having listened to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I think there are great similarities between the strengths in the north-east of England and in Northern Ireland—clearly, the satellite communications and technologies are similar; perhaps our shared history in the aerospace and defence sectors has enabled us to develop those.

However, there are gaps in this growing cluster and things we could do to enhance it. I have spoken a bit about the strength in our local universities, which provide early-stage research, and in the businesses. But there is a gap in the middle—there always is. Our catapult centres can help with that, but in the UK many sectors have suffered from having developed technologies but then not progressed them through the so-called valley of death, so that they are then exploited elsewhere. If we want to take advantage of our great opportunity for financial investment, identified by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—it could be the engine that really drives the growth of the 48 primarily smaller businesses in the north-east of England—then we need the Government to work with industry to de-risk and accelerate those technology investments. I hope that the Government will invest, particularly in those catapult centres at NETPark, while supporting small businesses as they develop those technologies as well.

Space is happening in the north-east of England. It is one part of the UK’s space economy. It will certainly be important for the future of the economy of north-east England and vital for our defence and aerospace industries, too.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front-Bench speakers. I call Victoria Collins, for the Liberal Democrats.

10:22

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for his passionate and expert input today; he certainly got my cogs turning. I am sure that the Minister has been taking notes.

Every day, 18% of Britain’s economy depends on technology orbiting 300 miles above our heads, from our morning coffee purchase to the GPS that may have got us here today. As I learned this morning, even paying for our tube tickets depends on the satellites above us. Satellites orchestrate our daily lives. Nearly one fifth of everything that we produce as a nation now relies on the invisible infrastructure spinning above us.

The UK space sector has achieved something remarkable: in just three years, it has grown from a £7 billion industry into a £18.9 billion powerhouse, with more than 52,000 jobs across the country. Today we have heard about Scotland, Cornwall, Northern Ireland and the north-east, with their vibrant and growing industry, manufacturing, launch capabilities and data. Further downstream, in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted, the Rothamsted Enterprises centre hosts companies such as Agrilytix, an agricultural monitoring system that uses satellite imagery and machine learning to provide enhanced decision support for smaller farms in challenging environments. Locally, I have also spoken to Daniel, a co-founder of Safe Citizens—a platform that alerts citizens’ mobile phones if they are in the vicinity of potentially dangerous incidents, while remaining anonymous and reducing battery use.

Overall, the space economy represents growth that is three and a half times faster than that of our broader economy. Yet despite that remarkable success, Britain continues to under-invest compared to our international competitors. Just last week, the Royal Society warned that the UK risks missing out on one of the most significant technological and economic opportunities of the next half century unless we adopt a more coherent, forward-looking vision for space. We have an opportunity to lead the world in one of the most significant economic sectors of the 21st century, but only if we act now with vision and purpose.

Let us explore more where Britain stands within the international space industry. We host more than 1,500 space companies and rank as the world’s leading producer of space research. Additionally, 50 UK universities, including Durham University, mentioned today, contribute to cutting-edge space technology. We attract more private space investment than any nation, excluding the United States. But here is the challenge: while we excel at innovation, we lag in strategic investment, as was eloquently highlighted by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). Our space sector could reach £32 billion by the end of the next Parliament, creating up to 50,000 additional jobs. However, that potential will remain unrealised without proper Government backing.

Additionally, the international context around space is experiencing unprecedented growth. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives talked about the importance of working internationally, as did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. That rapid expansion brings significant challenges that we cannot ignore. Space is becoming increasingly crowded and contested, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) also highlighted. We are witnessing a growing problem with space debris, as defunct satellites and rocket fragments threaten active missions and could eventually make certain orbits unusable for future generations.

Beyond environmental concerns, we are also watching space become increasingly militarised and contested. Without proper governance, space risks becoming dominated by whoever can afford the biggest rockets, rather than it serving humanity’s shared interests. Britain must advocate for responsible space development; innovation must serve society’s needs and not just commercial interests. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that space must be a national strategic priority, but one that is pursued responsibly. Last year, the Government met only 31% of their physics teacher recruitment target and only 37% of their computing teacher target—subjects at the base of our space industry. What are the Government doing to address those shortages? Unless they do, we cannot build the skilled workforce that our space sector requires.

To quote the great Tim Peake, life in orbit is “spectacular”. That is why, as Liberal Democrats, we are also committed to increasing research and development investment to 3.5% of GDP by 2034, which would position Britain among the world’s leading space powers. Additionally, we would invest in science, technology, engineering and maths education; the hon. Member for Congleton highlighted the importance of that as well as of teacher recruitment.

What is the Minister’s view, or the view of the Department for Business and Trade? How does it link with our industrial strategy and workforce planning to support regional space hubs—from Scotland’s satellite clusters to Cornwall’s spaceport—and provide long-term funding that allows researchers to develop breakthrough technologies? The Liberal Democrats would also introduce proof-of-concept funding to bridge the gap between academic research and commercial application. We would ensure that public investment in space technology benefits the public, not just private shareholders. I would be interested on the Minister’s comments on that.

The Liberal Democrats would also reform UK Research and Innovation, as well as the British Business Bank, to ensure that public funding supports the public good, allowing the British to benefit from advances in UK space technology. Finally, on the international front, we will champion co-operation through organisations such as the European Space Agency while advocating for environmental stewardship in space development. The orbital environment must be protected for future generations.

In conclusion, Britain stands at a crossroads. We can continue to punch below our weight while others shape the space economy, or we can reclaim our position as a global leader in science and technology. With proper investment, strategic vision and responsible governance, Britain can lead the world in space technology. In all, that would not only be an economic opportunity for our country, but ensure that we stuck to our responsibility to protect space for future generations.

I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest once again for securing today’s debate. Together we can strengthen our economy, creating high-skilled jobs and developing technologies that solve real problems for communities across Britain. By doing so, we can ultimately “reach for the stars”, like the children, mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), who were watching as rockets were launched into space.

10:28

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not only on securing this debate, but on his comprehensive opening speech—his knowledge is almost encyclopaedic. I also thank him for the leadership that he has shown on space in this Parliament and previous Parliaments, in particular as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for space.

We have had a very good debate this morning, with contributions of great quality from both sides of the House. In that cross-party spirit, let me say that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), in particular, hit many nails directly on the head. We clearly share an interest in the Satellite Applications Catapult, which has a base in my constituency, although I detected a note of disdain in his voice when he talked about battered Land Rovers. I would argue that a battered Land Rover is a sign that that great miracle of British engineering has been used properly and to its full capability.

It is a privilege to speak in this important debate on the state of the United Kingdom’s space industry, a sector of strategic importance to our national economy, scientific capability and future prosperity. Let me begin by making one thing very clear: the United Kingdom has the potential to be a true spacefaring nation. We have the scientific expertise, entrepreneurial ambition and geographic advantage to build a world-leading domestic space sector.

In my constituency, the space industry is totemic. From the Westcott space cluster and the national space propulsion centre at Westcott Venture Park, to UK Space Command’s headquarters and the national space operations centre at RAF High Wycombe at Walter’s Ash—the nation’s military hub for space operations, workforce development and space capability delivery—Mid Buckinghamshire stands out not only as a showcase for the space industry, but as an incubator for research and development. It is a true representation of the sector in its entirety.

The Labour party came into office with a good promise of a bold new era for science and technology. Its manifesto committed to supporting high-growth sectors, including space, and spending on sovereign capabilities to secure Britain’s place on the global stage. I hope the Minister can confirm that all that will become a reality, because in practice—and the Opposition are right to challenge the Government and kick the tyres when good promises are made—we have seen little more than rhetoric and inaction so far.

Since July 2024, the space sector has been left in policy limbo. Programmes vital to our future competitiveness have been stalled or scrapped. Promised investment zones with a focus on aerospace innovation have failed to materialise. I hope the Minister can correct that. The much vaunted Labour industrial strategy, which was supposed to support clusters in places such as Harwell, Leicester and Cornwall, remains a mystery. Perhaps she can confirm when we will finally see it.

The consequences are tangible and severe. We are already seeing UK-based satellite developers and launch technology firms relocate to more supportive environments abroad. Domestic providers face growing uncertainty in accessing long-term capital, while investors are left wondering whether the Government have any meaningful plan to support this vital sector. That is a blow not just to British industry, but to local economies. The space industry is not confined to a few square miles of south-east England; it is an ecosystem that stretches from satellite testing in Glasgow, to launch infrastructure in the Shetlands and mission control in Oxfordshire. Cornwall, as others have spoken about, also plays an important role. Every contract cancelled and every research and development grant deferred is a missed opportunity for skilled employment in communities that need it most. By contrast, under the previous Conservative Government, in late 2023, UKSA launched its national innovation programme, with up to £65 million distributed over four years, including a £34 million first tranche aimed at low technology readiness level disruptive technologies.

What of the young people inspired by the promise of a career in space science? The previous Conservative Government made education and outreach a priority. We backed science, technology, engineering and maths education, supported apprenticeships through the National Space Academy, and ensured that British students were represented in flagship European and international missions. Labour, by contrast, has made no clear commitment to supporting science education in the context of space, nor has it outlined any plan to secure future UK participation in global space exploration partnerships.

I must also raise the issue of our highly specialist supply chain, which sees components built in Wales, avionics manufactured in the midlands, propulsion systems designed in Surrey, and the excellent work of the national space propulsion centre at Westcott in my constituency. These are the unsung heroes of the UK’s space sector. They rely on steady R&D investment and long-term procurement planning. However, Labour’s failure to provide certainty on either means that many of those SMEs face an existential threat. They are simply relying on measures that we originally put in place.

The space industry, by its nature, is built on long-term vision. The last Conservative Government understood that. We launched the national space strategy, invested in sovereign launch capability through Spaceport Cornwall and SaxaVord, and worked to ensure that the UK could lead in space sustainability. We stood up for British science post Brexit by negotiating critical participation in global satellite projects. We now need a recommitment to that vision, which this Labour Government have so far failed to provide.

When will the Government publish a revised and fully funded national space strategy? When will they provide certainty for R&D tax credits to incentivise investment? When will they deliver on their manifesto pledges to support sovereign UK capability in launch, satellite navigation and Earth observation? If they are serious about Britain being a science superpower, they must start treating the space industry as the strategic asset that it is; otherwise, we risk watching our world-class talent, our world-leading innovation and our national ambitions quite literally leave for other shores.

Conservatives remain committed to the UK’s future in space technology. We will continue to make the case for ambition and leadership in a sector that speaks to the best of our country, scientifically, economically and aspirationally.

10:36

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I join everybody else in congratulating the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not just on securing the debate, but on the quality of the debate and the leadership he has shown as chair of the APPG for space. We have had an excellent debate and a lot of shared issues have been brought up. I was struck by the range of different parts of the country in which the space industry is thriving. It is important to understand and acknowledge that.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out the case for the space industry. I do not think I need to repeat any of that, but he spoke about understanding the economic and productivity benefits, as well as the huge benefits to humanity, of satellite technology; how we can mitigate the challenges that the world faces through space; the opportunities for other sectors, such as finance, that are increasingly becoming part of this landscape; and the role of Government as a supporter of space but also as a customer. All those points were very well made. He also talked about the work that UKspace does—it is right that we acknowledge the importance of that organisation—and about businesses from the SMEs to the larger companies, and the ecosystem as a whole.

I will come to a number of points, but one of the most important is that, in a couple of weeks, we will have our industrial strategy, which will set out and prioritise the sectors in advanced manufacturing that are crucial and where this Government intend to turbocharge growth. I cannot reveal the contents of the strategy, but I can say that we are on the verge of having it, and I hope that everyone here will appreciate what is in it.

Later this year, we will hopefully see, for the first time, British satellites on British rockets launching from Scotland. I am putting in my bid to be there, and everyone else is welcome to do the same. I imagine it will be quite a thing to see; it is very exciting. We will also host a global space finance summit at the end of this year. I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will be able to come to that event, which I think will be an important and useful opportunity to bring in the finance element of this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) talked about Jodrell Bank and the Lovell telescope, and made important points about STEM education— I think pretty much everyone mentioned the importance of that. We have set up Skills England and, through our industrial strategy, we are working with the Department for Education to ensure that we tilt towards the courses that we need. Of course, STEM is key to that. My hon. Friend was also right to talk about the north-west cluster.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about Goonhilly and the importance of that resource to the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about that, too, and about the importance of Spaceport Cornwall and the skills there.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland, as he always does. He was right to highlight the importance of the defence and aerospace industry there and, in that context, the continued importance of the debate on Spirit. I think we can all be grateful that we were in this place when he said, “Beam me up, Scotty!”—I enjoyed that contribution.

As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) hit the nail directly on the head, as he always does in relation to many different sectors. He talked about going down the Boulby mine, the cluster in the north-east and the importance of avoiding the valley of death scenario that we face in many different sectors, where we get brilliant research but do not quite manage to bring it to commercialisation, it goes offshore and we lose all that talent. Those were all very good points, well made.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the national debris mission. It is going through the next stage of approvals and is a live procurement, so I cannot comment on it, but I wanted to ensure that I responded on that.

We have all talked about the importance of our space industry here in the UK. It is the largest in Europe by revenue, by number of companies and by workforce, and, as was mentioned, it is one of the most productive parts of our economy, with almost 2.5 times the average labour productivity. As the Minister for Industry, in the past year I have had the opportunity to visit and speak to many of those fast-growing space companies. They include homegrown talents such as Space Forge, which I am sure several of us will have met, and BAE Systems, and companies from overseas that have chosen the UK as one of their homes, including ClearSpace and Lockheed Martin. I have had the opportunity to talk to them about their plans for growth and how the Government can support their ambitions, as well as engaging with the trade associations UKspace and ADS, which so keenly support our industry.

As I said, the industrial strategy will come out in a couple of weeks. It will be a 10-year long-term plan. One of the eight growth-driving sectors that we have identified is advanced manufacturing, and we will use the strategy to engage with businesses on the complex areas of policy that we need to address, including finance, planning, energy costs and grid connections, so that we can promote long-term growth.

We want to help more space companies to industrialise, and that means better access to finance and more strategic ways of working with individual space companies. It also means concentrating our efforts on a more targeted portfolio of space capabilities. In other words, we already do this well, so let us take full advantage of that and get a competitive edge. For example, we know that space technologies and services play a vital role in climate action, maritime domain monitoring, telecommunications, the gig economy and apps that rely on persistent positioning. The UK is already strong in the services and applications that space technology enables. Ensuring that space companies can overcome the complex and capital-intensive challenges to excel in these areas will be key to growing the industry now and in the future.

We also want to create a more resilient supply chain, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest talked about, while improving regulations, which will be needed to enable more activities in our space industry. Of course, DBT does a lot of work in this policy area, but other Departments are important too—I will come to the challenges in a minute. Of course, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology takes a lead, and the MOD, which published its new strategic defence review last week, is clear that being first in NATO means accelerating and enhancing our military space capability, so it recognises that there is more to do. We need to go further and faster, especially working with commercial companies. Towards the end of this year, all Departments will publish clear delivery plans that set out their priorities for space, their capabilities and exactly how we will work to deliver those priorities.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the challenges that he had in government navigating the many industries that are responsible for space. We inherited that challenge and have not entirely resolved it. So many Departments have an interest in space for legitimate, very good reasons. A group of Ministers has met to talk about the challenge, and we are planning what to do. I am sure that as soon as we have anything to say on that front, we will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise the challenge. So many things are happening in space, so many aspects of our lives are affected by it, and so many Ministers have a huge interest in it. That will always be the way, and we need to navigate that in a way that enables us to be laser focused on our priorities. We have a clear strategy and we are very ambitious about what we want to achieve.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this topic. We are absolutely committed to supporting our fantastic space industry, and are already investing in and supporting it. Last month, I celebrated Space Forge’s latest fundraising round, in which it secured £22.6 million. I was pleased to announce the opening of OHB’s new base in Bristol at the Farnborough international airshow—I think the hon. Gentleman was there. Earlier this week, I announced the Government’s support for a space industry partnership between BAE Systems in the UK and Hanwha Systems in South Korea, which is a massive step forward for one of the UK’s leading companies. We have really strong examples of international partnerships, the financial impact and the foreign impact, showcasing the power of our space industry to reach out around the world.

[Andrew George]

The Minister mentions the importance of international partnerships. In the context of the unpredictable environment in which negotiations take place, particularly with regard to trade with the US, what conversations have taken place between the UK Government and NASA? It is clear that a lot of UK companies, large or small, depend on ensuring that such relationships and future contracts are well founded.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. NASA and the European Space Agency are both really important in terms of ensuring that our companies get the contracts they need. We will work with our American counterparts on that. My focus with our American counterparts in recent weeks has been more on the UK’s steel industry, automotive industry and aerospace industry, up to a point, but I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s point about NASA. Of course, we need to support our companies in getting contracts, and we work closely together.

We can have different views about the future of space. Tim Marshall’s great book on the future of geography, which I have read, talks about space not in the context of a leap into a beautiful, unknown world, but as a continuation of the power struggles here in the UK, so it is important to work collaboratively across all kinds of agencies if we are to find a way forward. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), talked about how we navigate the legal future of space. That is an important point, and why we are supporting the space industry by giving an 11% uplift to the UK Space Agency’s 2025-26 budget. I hope that increase shows the direction of travel. Our trade strategy will come out in a couple of weeks. The world of exports is important to our space industry, and we need to ensure that we support advanced manufacturing and space through our trade strategy.

I hope Members are reassured of how important we see the space industry as being. We see it as one of the key growth-driving sectors. The industrial strategy will set out exactly what we are going to do. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about the risk of losing world-class talent and industry from these shores; he will be an expert in that, as so much of it happened under the previous Government. We are trying to ensure that we attract and keep people here, and build young people’s talents to develop a space industry that we can all be proud of. Watch this space in terms of the industrial strategy; I look forward to coming back and talking about it.

10:51

[Mark Garnier]

I thank all Members who made a contribution to the debate. It has been fantastic to hear from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), as well as the Front-Bench contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).

It is a great pleasure to see so many different people and so many new MPs contribute to this debate from such diverse parts of the world, rather than just hearing the same old characters talking about the same old stuff—

[Jim Shannon]

I’m always here.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is always here.

A number of important things have come up in this debate, one of which is the importance of the clusters. We have heard talk the north-east cluster and the Cornwall cluster. For me, Cornwall is incredibly important: as the hon. Member for St Ives knows, my spiritual home is in Newlyn. My grandparents were Newlyn school artists, and I was brought up looking across Mount’s bay to Goonhilly downs. We also heard how Jodrell Bank is incredibly important as an inspiration; I remember being inspired by what was going on there as a child back in the 60s.

We can see that there are extraordinary opportunities. Businesses across the whole of the country are involved in the space sector. We are seeing extraordinary things going on in, for example, Northern Ireland, which has a very good aerospace legacy. Queen’s University Belfast is using that legacy in looking at the phased array antennas that are being designed and built to enable space-based solar power. That is an incredibly important and successful piece of work. When we eventually get to the stage in which space-based solar power stations are beaming energy back to Earth, Queen’s University Belfast will have been absolutely instrumental.

I have been heartened by the views of many Members. The clusters are very good, and Members will be pleased to hear that I know all the cluster chiefs, one way or another. In Cornwall, Gail Eastaugh is the pushiest of them all. She is truly dynamic and an absolute advocate for Cornwall. We had a drop-by space event a few months ago to promote the space cluster; people turned up with their little banners, but Gail brought something the size of the Chamber wall in order to promote Cornwall—it was very good.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth made a point about Newquay spaceport, which we must remember was a success. It was not the Newquay spaceport that got it wrong; a fuel filter in a Virgin rocket got it wrong. We must never forget that everything we wanted to do was a brilliant success.

I thank the Minister and the shadow Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, for their contributions. The sector is very exciting, and I get the sense that people are unified behind all this. We know there is a grand strategy and we want to be dominant in the sector. We might have disagreements or arguments over the tactics to achieve that, but if we share the common vision of a grand strategy, we can get there. It is incredibly important for our economy, our productivity and the future. As a mature economy we need to find ways to be increasingly productive in order to deliver a better quality of life for everybody, and space will absolutely deliver that.

The Minister spoke about the industrial strategy, and in a couple of weeks I will take a forensic look at that. The global space finance summit at the end of the year is so important. We have a lot of important sectors in the UK economy that we take for granted, and those sectors need space as much as space needs those sectors. If we want to continue to be relevant in the financial services sector, we have to be relevant for the most modern type of finance and the most modern types of opportunities. That is why we have to be good at space finance and think carefully about it. I would very much like an invitation to come along and speak at the summit.

I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. I get the sense that there is a strong unity of vision in the room, and this is a fantastic opportunity. As they say, to infinity and beyond!

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the space industry on the economy.

10:55

Sitting suspended.

Theft of Tools of Trade

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may speak in this debate only with permission in advance from the mover and the Minister, but they may intervene with the permission of the speaker who has the Floor.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing for the theft of tools of trade.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Over recent years, we have seen a surge in thefts from tradespeople, particularly thefts of essential tools from vans and workplaces. According to industry, one in 10 tradespeople will fall victim to tool theft this year alone. For many, it will not be the first time or, sadly, the last. The same proportion have already experienced this devastating crime three or more times in their career.

Tool theft is not a victimless crime, and it is not petty. The average cost of stolen tools stands at almost £3,000 in each instance. When we add that to £1,500 for vehicle repairs and £2,000 in lost earnings and business disruption, we are suddenly looking at £6,000 to £7,000 in immediate losses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right to raise the issue. I am sorry to say that tool theft is a critical issue in all our constituencies. In my constituency we have a tradition of working in construction, but vans are regularly broken into. Does she agree that there is a cost to this disgraceful theft not only in tool replacement, but in lost jobs and time? In 2022, more than 40,000 cases of tool theft were reported across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland alone, it costs £1.5 million annually, but that does not come close to describing the true cost.

[Amanda Martin]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Gentleman notes, it is not just about the money. The real damage cannot always be calculated in pounds and pence or in immediate loss. More than 40% of victims report reputational harm; one in 10 said that the damage to their business standing was significant. Tragically, more than 80% report a decline in their mental health. Let us not forget that the construction industry already has one of the highest suicide rates of any profession in the UK.

Tool theft is happening in every part of our community. It happens to people who are the very backbone of the British economy—our electricians, our plumbers, our carpenters, our gas engineers—and too often it is without consequence.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I was shocked to hear that the cost of GPS theft, including from tractors, had increased by 137% between 2023 and 2024. It is clear that the theft of high-tech farming equipment can be linked to organised gangs with connections to illegal markets in Europe. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking our hard-working police and the National Farmers Union for raising awareness of the links between rural crime and organised crime groups?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. My dad was a policeman, so I will always want to thank the hard-working police. We have been working with the NFU on some of the areas that my hon. Friend mentions.

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

Does the hon. Member agree that the scourge of rural crime, especially the theft of essential agricultural tools and equipment, demands a two-pronged approach, with more bobbies on the beat who are known in their local area, as well as significantly harsher sentencing? Theft in our rural areas seriously affects people’s ability to earn a living.

[Amanda Martin]

I completely agree. Under 14 years of Conservative rule, the cuts to policing and criminal justice were shocking. We have to ensure that we put more police on the streets and work to enact the Bill.

Between 2010 and 2024, charges for theft and burglary plummeted. In 2015, police in England and Wales solved about 9.4% of all theft. In under eight years, that figure had dropped to 4.6%. For burglary, the figures are even worse: only about 3.5% of domestic burglaries have resulted in a charge being recorded in the past year. In practice, that means that for the vast majority of these crimes, nobody is held to account.

We are living with the consequences of 14 years of cuts to policing and to our criminal justice system. Since 2010, police numbers have been slashed, police community support officers have been gutted and community policing has been dismantled. As a result, court backlogs have ballooned. Theft, from tool crime to shoplifting, is now often met with a shrug. In fact, some retail chief executives and tradespeople report that shoplifters and thieves now openly brag that no one will even bother turning up. Why would our trades- people feel any differently?

As many hon. Members will know, I have been campaigning on the issue for more than six months. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill. We are still running petitions, and we have had conversations with Ministers and many meetings and conversations with victims and with people across the sector.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her work. In the last Parliament, my private Member’s Bill received Royal Assent as the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. It requires some statutory instruments to be passed, in the first instance on agricultural theft, but it is written in such a way that it can incorporate tool theft from builders’ vans and so on. Does she agree that a necessary first step in tackling this scourge is getting those SIs made?

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the hon. Member for all his work. Yes, I agree, but we should not prioritise just one thing; all levers need to be pulled. As well as making those instruments, we also need to ensure that we are pushing the element that I am describing. Even when tools are marked they are still stolen, so the Government need to use all possible levers to protect our tradespeople.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a champion for our tradespeople and I commend her work. A constituent of mine had his tools nicked three times. There is the cost of repairing any damage, the cost of replacing the tools, the loss in earnings while he waits and the cost of the insurance premium, as well as the reputational damage. Does my hon. Friend agree that increased sentences would not only act as a deterrent, but give the police a justification for giving tool theft a higher priority in their stretched workload?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. One of the reasons for pushing my Bill is deterrence. I will come on to the policing element and how we can better record this crime.

I have been working on the issue since December. I thank all hon. Members who attended my brilliant breakfast reception: I have been energised by the levels of cross-party support for the campaign, and I was pleased that hon. Members from many different parties joined me in helping to raise awareness of it. I reassure the trades community that whatever the outcome of my private Member’s Bill, I will continue to campaign on the issue and will bring all those who want to join me, in or outside this House, along on that journey.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and thank her for her steadfast campaigning. Like many hon. Members, I have had conversations with tradespeople on the doorstep. I have had loads of messages and emails thanking her and supporting her campaign. Rob Waring, who runs Midland Central Heating in Cannock, told me that its vans have been broken into twice. It is now considering not putting its livery on the vans, for fear that they will be targeted again, but even that will not offer much meaningful protection. Does my hon. Friend agree that although we must focus on the real-world effects of tool theft, we should also consider the fact that the fear of tool theft is holding back our sole traders and small businesses?

[Amanda Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work. He is absolutely right: the impact on reputation and on mental health goes way beyond just the tools that are stolen.

It is important to explain the reform that I am asking for. The current sentencing guidelines for tool theft do not reflect the gravity of the crime. Because most tool theft involves tools valued under £10,000, it is placed in harm category 3. Unless the courts actively use their discretion to raise the harm rating, the impact on the victim is downplayed. However, that category does not reflect the true damage, the lost income, the van repairs and the mental strain, which we have heard about from several Members today.

I am therefore asking for two simple but significant changes to the sentencing guidelines. First, I am asking the Sentencing Council to explicitly list theft of tools of trade as an example of “significant additional harm”. That would prompt magistrates to consider placing offences in harm category 2 even if the monetary value falls below £10,000, because that would reflect the emotional, reputational and business damage that these crimes cause.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the grafters of this country, who are fed up with having the tools of their trade nicked. Does she agree that the action and sentencing changes that she is asking for must apply to the tools of any trade, be they the GPS on tractors, which we have heard about, or the tools that were nicked from my barber’s? Does she agree that we must look at sentencing for theft of the tools of any trade?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. To me, the issue is tools of trade. We have also been in talks with the beauty industry, because many of its members have had a van driven into their front window and had everything stolen in exactly the same way. Although the theft itself may not cost more than £10,000, having to deal with the window, the loss of work, the damage and the effect on the mental health of employees very much adds to it. The tools of all trades are really important.

The first element that I am asking for is an increase from harm category 2 to harm category 3. The second element is standardisation of the sentencing guidelines language to reflect the total financial losses—plural—instead of just the value of the stolen goods. That includes the van damage, missed contracts and lost earnings, all of which are currently invisible in the sentencing process. Taken together, those reforms would increase the chances that offenders will face more serious consequences that are truly in line with the crime that has been committed and the damage that it has caused.

I make it very clear that this is not just about building more prisons. With prison places, I know that we were left in a desperate hole after the last Government left; I also know that our Government have committed to building more prison places. This is about building more accountability and, importantly, having fewer victims.

I would be supportive of my Bill resulting in strong and meaningful community sentences, with compulsory unpaid work, electronic tagging, alcohol and sport abstinence tags, restrictions on travel, and other community solutions. Those punishments are tough and visible. Crucially, they are rehabilitative. It has been proved that they lead to fewer victims, which is what we need to ensure. They keep offenders out of the revolving door of repeated crime, and they challenge the root causes of reoffending.

Many of these thieves are not masterminds. They are opportunists. They rely on the belief that they will never be caught, or that if they are, they will never be punished. In the case of tool theft, many simply are not. We must break that cycle and restore a basic sense of justice for working people. We must ensure that the true extent of this crime is recognised by the courts.

It is time for us to listen to the people who make this country work: the plumber up at dawn, the roofer out in the cold all year, the carpenter working late, the welder braving the sparks and the painter steady on his or her ladder. They deserve to be able to work without constantly looking over their shoulder in fear of having their livelihood taken away. Reforming the sentencing guidelines to tackle the theft of trade tools is essential to valuing our tradies properly and recognising their contributions to our small business economy and to society as a whole. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join my campaign. It is time we sent a clear message that tool theft will not be tolerated. We need to stand up for our tradespeople and make sure that the justice system does, too.

11:13

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Tool theft is a growing problem affecting tradespeople in Hemel Hempstead and across the country, as we have heard. It is no exaggeration to say that an epidemic of van and tool theft has been left in the wake of the last Conservative Government. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for campaigning so vigorously on the matter.

I want to raise a harrowing case from my constituent Mr Rogers, who told me a devastating story. He ran a showroom in our beautiful old town, but over three separate break-ins he lost more than £10,000-worth of tools, including a specialised CNC machine that was essential to his business. Unfortunately, despite clear CCTV footage showing the suspect’s van registration, police responses did not yield results. Key evidence was never collected and no arrests were made.

After the second theft, Mr Rogers was refused insurance. After the third, with no tools and no support, he was tragically forced to close his business. Despite his resilience and strength, the impact on his mental health was devastating. Other hon. Members will recognise the impact that the issue has on the mental health of their constituents, because Mr Rogers’s case is not isolated. Only 1% of stolen tools are ever recovered, and many tradespeople live in constant fear of theft. These crimes destroy livelihoods, disrupt families and cause long-lasting emotional harm.

That is why I strongly support the Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill, which, if implemented, will introduce tougher sentences, recognising the unique harm caused by these crimes. Combined with Labour’s Crime and Policing Bill, for which I had the pleasure of serving on the Public Bill Committee and which will restore neighbourhood policing and strengthen victims’ rights, those measures will deliver real protection for people in Hemel Hempstead and beyond.

More police, stronger laws, tougher sentencing: those are the solutions that people like Mr Rogers need. Tool theft is not a victimless crime. It ruins lives. Our tradespeople deserve better. We rely on them, and it is time that they were able to rely on us. I encourage every Member to support the legislation brought forward by my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, and to support our Government’s Crime and Policing Bill.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Let me start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. I met Bill on a number of occasions and was always impressed by his courtesy, kindness and sharpness of mind. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice. I would particularly like to recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman from 2022. On behalf of the House, I extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis, his children and all those who knew him.

I thank my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. She is a doughty campaigner on the subject, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and has championed it inside and outside Parliament. As she said, such crime has a real impact on people’s lives and businesses. I thank her for continuing to bring it to the Government’s attention.

The small businesses affected and damaged by tool theft are anchored in their local communities, give life to their local economies and make a positive difference to people’s lives. They are truly the lifeblood of our country. I acknowledge the very real and often devastating impact that the theft of tools has on individuals, families and businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) illustrated very effectively the devastation and personal impact in the tragic case of his constituent. For many tradespeople—plumbers, electricians, carpenters, builders and countless others, including the tradesperson that he referred to—their tools are essential for their livelihoods. When those tools are stolen, the consequences are not just financial loss; as hon. Members have said, it disrupts work, delays income and impacts professional reputation and confidence.

For those reasons, the Government take the theft of tools of trade extremely seriously. We understand the frustration and anger felt by victims and the calls for tougher action. That is why we are addressing the issue with a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that focuses on prevention and enforcement.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has been named as one of the top hotspots for tool theft in the United Kingdom, with tools stolen every 12 minutes according to police force data. Does the Minister agree that, although this is primarily a devolved issue, we should be looking at what is being done in Great Britain and replicating it in Northern Ireland, such is the extent of the problem across the United Kingdom? Will he reach out to his counterparts in Northern Ireland to discuss the issue?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that, sadly, this problem is not restricted to only some parts of the United Kingdom, and all parts of the UK need to learn from each other. I will certainly reach out to the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter.

Let me talk about prevention. We know that many tool thefts occur from vehicles, particularly vans used by tradespeople. That is why we have strengthened our response to vehicle-related crime through the national vehicle crime working group, which involves an established network of vehicle crime specialists across every police force in England and Wales. Those specialists are working together to share intelligence, identify emerging trends and co-ordinate regional responses to tackle this issue more effectively.

This is not just about reactive policing. It is about proactive and intelligence-led operations that disrupt criminal activity before it escalates, and about ensuring that police forces are equipped with the resources and information they need to respond swiftly and effectively to reports of tool theft. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime to take forward a programme of work to drive down these crimes. That includes training police officers on the methods used to steal vehicles and working with industry to address vulnerabilities in vehicle design and security.

We are supporting law enforcement in disrupting organised criminal networks that profit from tool theft. That includes targeted operations, collaboration with regional organised crime units, and investment in training and resources for police officers to improve their ability to investigate and prosecute tool theft cases effectively.

Enforcement is the other critical pillar of our approach. The maximum penalty for theft is seven years, which is substantial, and that is available to the courts for the most serious and persistent offenders. We must ensure that our judicial system continues to respond appropriately to offences involving the theft of tools and recognises the serious impact of those crimes. It is absolutely right that sentencing decisions remain the responsibility of our independent judiciary.

Our courts are best placed to assess the full circumstances of each individual case, drawing on the evidence presented. That includes careful consideration of the harm caused to victims—so ably highlighted by hon. Members in this debate—the culpability of the offender and any aggravating or mitigating factors that may influence the seriousness of the offence. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system and ensures that decisions are made impartially, free from political influence.

Courts are required by law to follow sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. Those guidelines are designed to promote consistency, transparency and fairness in sentencing across England and Wales. The current sentencing guidelines for theft already provide a robust framework that enables courts to take full account of the seriousness of offences involving the theft of tools of trade.

Specifically, the guidelines identify a range of aggravating factors that may warrant a more severe sentence. Those include offences that are of a sophisticated nature, that involve significant planning or that are committed over a sustained period. Where such factors are present, the court is expected to treat them as indicators of higher culpability or greater harm, which can lead to an uplift in the sentence. That should ensure that the most serious and disruptive forms of theft—such as those targeting tradespeople’s essential tools—are dealt with appropriately within the existing framework.

The sentencing guidelines for theft explicitly require courts to consider the broader consequences of the offence when determining the appropriate sentence. That includes the consequential financial harms suffered by victims, which, as has been highlighted, may involve not only the cost of replacing stolen goods, but, sadly, lost income and significant business disruption.

Hon. Members have also drawn attention to the wider impacts on mental health and general wellbeing. I hope the courts bear those in mind and hear that clear message. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North highlighted those issues very well in her speech, but other hon. Members also amplified them in their comments.

The guidelines also direct courts to take into account the wider impact on businesses, particularly where the offence affects the ability of a tradesperson or small enterprise to operate effectively. In addition, emotional distress caused by the offence, such as anxiety, stress or a loss of confidence in personal safety, is recognised as a significant factor in assessing harm. That should ensure that the impact of this type of crime is properly reflected in the court’s decision.

With regard to compensation, it is important to note that courts are required by law to consider making compensation orders in all cases involving injury, loss or damage. Compensation orders require offenders to make financial reparation to their victims, ensuring that offenders are held accountable through not just punishment, but restitution.

As an independent body, the Sentencing Council decides its own priorities and work plan for producing or editing its guidelines. It is of course open to individuals to approach the council to ask that it does so, and I encourage my hon. Friend—as well as hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and others who are concerned about the issue—to share their concerns with the council. I encourage it to look at the matter closely. Knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that she is ahead of me on this journey and that that is already in hand.

On improving the sentencing framework, the Government launched an independent sentencing review in October to comprehensively examine the sentencing framework in its entirety. The sentencing review published its recommendations in May, most of which the Government have accepted. We will bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to these important reforms. As my hon. Friend indicated in her remarks, there is a need for tough, visible and effective punishments, which is what the Government are committed to delivering.

We recognise the growing public and parliamentary concern about tool theft. My hon. Friend has carried out a real public service by shining a light on the issue, which resonates with people across the country, and she has rightly built cross-party support, as we have seen. As she said, she has been energised by the campaign, but the campaign has also energised others, including the Government, so I thank her for that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to support her, and campaign groups have been raising awareness and calling for action.

I reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackling this type of crime. We fully recognise the vital role that tradespeople and small business owners play in our economy and communities, of which they are the lifeblood. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) said, they are the “grafters of this country”. We are determined to ensure that they are protected from the disruptive and damaging effects of tool theft.

Tool theft is not a minor inconvenience; it is a serious crime that undermines livelihoods, causes financial hardship and erodes public confidence. That is why we are taking robust action to prevent these offences and ensure that those who steal the tools of someone’s trade are held accountable and brought to justice through the full force of the law. Tool theft will not be tolerated. I look forward to discussing this important matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North as she continues her campaign, part of which will be meeting with me next week.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

15:14

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered child poverty and no recourse to public funds.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, on the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

I would like to start by paying tribute to the organisations in my constituency and across Yorkshire that work tirelessly to help migrant families, including South Yorkshire Refugee Law and Justice and City of Sanctuary Sheffield, and the organisations that provided me with valuable evidence and research ahead of this debate, including the no recourse to public funds partnership, Praxis, COMPAS—the University of Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy and Society—and the Institute for Public Policy Research.

Given the spending review today, the recent announcement on the immigration White Paper and the pending child poverty strategy, this debate could not be more timely. According to recent research by the IPPR, there are an estimated 1.5 million children in the UK living in poverty in families with migrant parents, accounting for more than a third of all children in poverty. Children in families with migrant parents are also more likely to be in very deep poverty, amounting to 21% of migrant children, compared with 8% of other children.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that since 2019, there has been a 92% increase in the number of migrant households experiencing destitution. Despite those shocking statistics, the no recourse to public funds policy—which amounts to a blanket ban on access to the social safety net for the majority of migrants in the UK—remains largely absent from conversations about poverty and inequality.

No recourse to public funds is a condition tied to various immigration pathways: those without status, those seeking asylum, those with “British citizen: children” status, and children in families who have not secured EU settled status. It prohibits millions of people from receiving benefits, including universal credit, child benefit and personal independence payment, and from accessing social housing. The policy disproportionately impacts women, people of colour, low-income households with dependent children where family relationships have broken down, including victims of domestic abuse, and those with disabilities and long-term health conditions.

Research by the Women’s Budget Group found that the risk of living in poverty for migrant women with dependent children is particularly high, as they are more likely to be dependent on their partner both for their right to be in the UK and financially, as their ability to work is often restricted by labour market barriers, access to childcare and NRPF conditions. A study by Citizens Advice found that more than 80% of its clients who sought advice on no recourse to public funds and non-EU migrants’ access to benefits were from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Part of the reason that this policy remains absent from the wider conversations about poverty is the information gap. The Home Office does not collect data on how many children are currently impacted by NRPF in the UK, although I hope the upcoming transition to Atlas will allow the relevant data to be released soon. Estimates suggest that at the end of 2024, there were approximately 3.6 million people with no recourse to public funds conditions.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that the Home Office should not just be collecting and publishing data more regularly but should participate fully in the child poverty review, to ensure that this issue is resolved in the way it needs to be?

[Olivia Blake]

That is absolutely right. I will come on to the review later in my comments, but I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record.

The IPPR and Praxis estimate that around 722,000 children are affected by NRPF restrictions, of whom 382,000 are living in poverty. The NRPF partnership found that around three quarters of children subject to NRPF are likely to become permanent residents or British citizens. Also, migrant parents with NPRF conditions do not get the same help with their childcare costs, including the extended entitlement for working parents and universal credit support. That creates a double penalty. Without that support, many migrant parents, especially single mothers, are limited in their ability to work, while simultaneously being excluded from accessing income top-up from the social security system if their earnings fall short.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking my intervention, and it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq. Earlier this year, I held a consultation event on the Child Poverty Taskforce. One of the themes that came out starkly was that many children in migrant families act as interpreters for their own parents, who do not speak English, and often they attend appointments, miss school and are exposed to situations and correspondence that children really should not be exposed to, which adds to the inequality that these young people are facing. Does my hon. Friend agree that this “adultisation” of children really should not be happening?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, I agree completely that there is huge pressure on young people in migrant families to provide such services. There is also pressure on young carers who are migrants as well, which is another concern. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Young people should not experience such situations, but sadly they often do.

IPPR and Praxis found that a significant proportion of migrant parents are held back from working because they face barriers to accessing childcare; currently, 40% of migrant parents do not use childcare, as they or their partner are unable to secure employment. I know that the Government believe that these things are privileges that need to be earned and that migrants coming to the UK should be able to support themselves financially. However, we should not view basic necessities as some kind of reward. They are lifelines that help people to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and their homes warm, nor should we ignore the fact that migrants already pay into the system through tax contributions.

We also need to view NRPF in the context of wider systemic barriers in our immigration system, such as prolonged routes to settlement, high visa fees and the immigration health surcharge. Together, it all creates a perfect storm whereby families face never-ending cycles of destitution, homelessness and uncertainty. Children should not pay the price for that.

We know that growing up in poverty has terrible short-term and long-term consequences.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and I thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing it. Does my hon. Friend agree that children should not be penalised in this way, especially when there are delays in determining applications from those with have no recourse to public funds? It is not their fault. In my constituency of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, the child poverty rate is over 47%, but it would be even higher if we included those children. Why should children be made to suffer just because of a delay in determining people’s applications? Those children would be the future of this country and contribute through the tax system and the development of this country in coming years.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That statistic makes a stark point. He also makes a strong point about why the Government should consider these issues in the upcoming child poverty strategy.

We know that growing up in poverty has terrible short-term and long-term consequences, and there is mounting evidence to show the wide-reaching impact of poverty, particularly on migrant children. Children in affected households experience food insecurity, overcrowded housing, barriers to education, and serious mental and physical health risks. Poverty can also impact children’s opportunities to develop their social skills and build meaningful relationships during critical formative years. Therefore, I question the line of argument that says that these restrictions are in place to promote integration.

In their joint inquiry on the impact of immigration policy on poverty, the APPG on migration, of which I am a co-chair, and the APPG on poverty and inequality found that the no recourse to public funds policy is a huge contributor to deep poverty, child poverty, isolation and vulnerability. I am grateful for the ministerial response to our letter about the inquiry, but I urge Ministers to look at some of the findings in the report. Perhaps they could follow up on that point in writing. The findings are unsurprising, given that the widening of the policy was introduced by the former Government, as part of the hostile environment, with the very intention to make life more difficult for migrants in the UK. However, destitution by design policies are not just inhumane, but ineffective and very costly, with local authorities often having to foot the bill.

Councils provide essential safety net support to safeguard the welfare of families who have no recourse to public funds and are at risk of homelessness or destitution. That often leads to local authorities providing long-term support for households, with the average period of support lasting more than 600 days for families with children, and longer for adults with care needs. That places enormous pressure on already stretched local authorities, which receive no compensation or direct funding to support families with NRPF.

The NRPF Network found that, from within the 78 local authorities that supplied information for 2023-24, 1,563 households were being supported by the end of March 2024, at an average annual cost of £21,700 per household and a total annual cost of £33.9 million. In 2023-24, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds, and it did not get any compensation for that. COMPAS estimates that the number of families receiving local authority support in England and Wales has risen by over 150% since 2012-13, with local authority costs rising by almost £230%.

Despite statutory obligations under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, support for migrant families from local authorities remains very inconsistent. Many families remain locked out of local authority support as the threshold for accessing it is highly conditional, and there can be robust gatekeeping from local authorities—as they try to protect their budgets, I am sure. There is therefore an urgent need to standardise section 17, and to clarify guidelines on financial and housing assistance to ensure consistent support across local authorities.

[Neil Coyle]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that London councils spend about £46 million on providing emergency support to families affected by this condition? It makes a mockery of the claim that the policy is about no recourse to public funds, which is clearly a misnomer when such significant levels of public funds are being used.

[Olivia Blake]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made that point, because London Councils itself has previously described this issue as a

“direct cost shunt resulting from central government policy.”

The Local Government Association continues to call for this ambiguity to be resolved so that councils can support families affected by NRPF, many of whom it says are at risk of extreme hardship. This is not the edge of poverty; this is deep poverty.

That leads me on to another important point: legal aid. Certain visa holders can submit a change of conditions application to the Home Office to have NRPF conditions lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. The process itself has been found to be unlawful in the High Court on numerous occasions, most recently because of lengthy delays in how decisions are being processed. There is an urgent need to address the long-term sustainability and accessibility of the legal aid system for immigration cases. In South Yorkshire, two out of five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases across Yorkshire in 2023-24. This means that many migrants are being prevented from exercising their legal rights to apply for leave to remain, to change or renew their status, or to lift no recourse to public funds conditions.

In that context, I am concerned about the proposal in the Government’s recent immigration White Paper to extend the qualifying period for British citizenship to 10 years. That will lock more families into prolonged no recourse to public funds status and will inevitably pile more pressure on local authorities to pick up the pieces. We know that high visa costs and constant uncertainty prevent parents from planning long term, and the requirement to reapply for visas also heightens the risk of falling out of legal status. The IPPR found that 82% of migrants who borrowed money for visa renewals were in significant debt. I am also concerned that this short-sighted move undermines integration and creates an ever-growing population of second-class residents.

In a survey of its clients, Praxis found that three in four migrants feel that being on the 10-year route prevents them from feeling that they belong in the UK, despite most having lived here for over a decade. With a consultation on the immigration White Paper expected in the summer, will the Government consider the wide-reaching consequences that extending the qualifying period will have for migrant children, in particular? Has an assessment been made of the number of children and families who are likely to be pushed into poverty as a result of the White Paper’s proposed reforms?

Finally, I will end on the child poverty strategy. I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the distinct challenges faced by migrant children living in poverty and the confirmation that the strategy will include all children across the UK, including migrant children. However, this commitment must be matched by the Home Office’s meaningful involvement in the strategy’s development. The delay in publishing the strategy presents a valuable opportunity, as we now have the chance to turn the page on the hostile environment policy and work towards a strategy that genuinely encompasses all children. The strategy will fall short if it excludes this significant cohort.

Targeted action will be necessary for this group of children, as many levers that might help to lift other children out of poverty will have no impact on them. Given that, can the Minister say more about the cross-departmental work to provide solutions that specifically address this cohort? The lack of systemic data and official figures on the numbers affected by NRPF makes this particularly challenging. How can we deal with the distinct challenges faced by migrant children without knowing how many are affected?

I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when the Government will provide accurate and up-to-date information on how many families and children are directly restricted by NRPF and how many British-born children are affected by this policy. The Child Poverty Action Group, the UK’s leading child poverty charity, has called for NRPF to be abolished for families with children, and the Work and Pensions Committee recommended in its 2022 inquiry that no family with children should be subject to NRPF conditions for more than five years.

[Tahir Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that child poverty is a political choice, and that we as politicians—especially this Government—can take action to address it? Immediate action should be taken to make sure that no one suffers for longer than necessary.

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point that we have choices. This is not inevitable, and the upcoming strategy is an opportunity that will hopefully allow us to turn the corner for many families.

The all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality and the all-party parliamentary group on migration concluded in their report that the Government should limit the NRPF condition, especially for those on routes to settlement, to a maximum of five years. At a minimum, the Government should consider extending child benefit to migrant families with NRPF and expand funded childcare entitlement for working migrant parents.

However, we also have to be honest that the most effective way to lift children out of poverty is to abolish NRPF entirely and to allow families to meet the thresholds for support via the existing means-tested welfare system. I know that this will not be the Government’s position, given their previous stance on this issue, but I ask that as many mitigations as possible are considered for this vulnerable group of children.

According to COMPAS, removing the NRPF restriction for families with children under the age of 18 would lift significant numbers of children out of poverty, and the NRPF Network has found that lifting NRPF restrictions for families with children would result in a positive net value of £872 million over 10 years. Around two thirds of adults in the UK think that migrants should be able to claim the same welfare benefits as British citizens within three years, according to the National Centre for Social Research, which shows that the public are on the side of migrant children.

In our joint statement in the inquiry report, which I have referenced quite a few times and which I hope the Minister has an opportunity to read, the co-chairs and the members of the APPGs remarked:

“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that policy is sometimes designed to push people into poverty in the hope that it will deter others from moving to the UK, even though there is little evidence that this would indeed be a deterrent.”

While reducing poverty should be a policy objective shared by the whole of government, sadly the evidence and research that I have presented today shows that, unfortunately, poverty and migration continue to be treated as completely separate issues. Given the large number of children who are impacted, that is completely wrong, and there should be moves to address that across government.

We can all agree that child poverty has no place in one of the richest countries in the world in the 21st century. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that action on child poverty will be

“a measure of what this Government does”.

Let us take the opportunity to take the necessary steps to alleviate poverty for all children in the UK, not just those with British passports.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. A number of Members are bobbing, so we will calculate how long everyone will get. To start, I call Kirsty Blackman.

14:51

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and I appreciate your chairing of it, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing such an important debate. The subject has been one of my hobbyhorses for a significant number of years.

In Aberdeen, we have seen a massive increase in the number of people who have no recourse to public funds. Despite the fact that Aberdeen is not a dispersal authority, a few years ago, third sector providers and those who provide licensed support found that they were struggling with new issues that we had not seen before. We started a volunteer group called the No Recourse North East Partnership, which is now run by the Grampian Regional Equality Council, whose purpose was to see what support could be provided to people who have no recourse to public funds. It looked at issues mentioned by the hon. Lady, including what local authority support is supposed to look like and the consistency of that support. I agree that there is still inconsistency in local authority support. Local authorities are often not being funded for the support that they provide. In some cases, they are terrified that they will upset somebody’s immigration status and the person or family will be deported because the local authority has provided them with some level of housing or financial support.

The landscape is incredibly messy. It would be great if the Local Government Association and COSLA in Scotland could get together with the Government to agree what pathways should be in place. Local authorities have a responsibility to protect children and to ensure that they are not suffering from the extremes of poverty, for example by being homeless, but they are unsure exactly what action they can take when somebody has no recourse to public funds. If we had an agreed pathway, everybody would get a consistent level of support, but we would also need funding to flow from the Government for that to happen. Although I do not think it should be down to local authorities to have to fill that gap, such an agreement would be a step in the right direction.

If it were up to me, I would get rid of no recourse to public funds entirely. I do not think it is a status that anybody should be faced with. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam said, none of us wants any child to be living in poverty. That is not the future and that is not why any of us is here in Parliament; we are here to make our constituents’ lives better. I do not see how having the status of no recourse to public funds, which ensures that children are growing up in poverty, is a good thing for anyone. As the hon. Lady said, it does not discourage people from coming here from other countries, and those children are not responsible for which country their parents were born in.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I apologise that I was not present at the start of her speech. I understand what she says about children, but no recourse to public funds applies to people who arrive in this country to work or to contribute to the economy. Is she saying that anyone should be eligible to claim any benefit in Britain from the moment they arrive, even if they have literally just stepped off the aeroplane?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would be quite happy with that. I have no issue with it. I think that no recourse to public funds should not apply to anyone. I especially do not think that it should apply to any family with children under five. So many issues are created by no recourse to public funds.

Obviously, there are eligibility criteria for other social security funds. You cannot get universal credit if you are earning a hundred grand a year. Eligibility conditions are in place, and in some cases those conditions make a huge amount of sense, but if a family is here and has not been here very long, why should they not be able to claim PIP if they are working and need a bit of extra support in order to work? Personally, I do not see a problem with that, but then I think that migration is a good thing. I am not standing up in the main Chamber telling my constituents and the general public that migration is terrible and we need to stamp down on it.

Aberdeen is a significantly better city thanks to the number of people who have come from different countries to live in it. I love the education that my children are getting about how different cultures work, because of the number of people in Aberdeen who have different backgrounds. I think that is a good thing that we need. We need migration. Scotland has a very different landscape. We are in favour of migration to Scotland, particularly for some jobs. For the economic growth that the Government are striving for, we need migration in Scotland.

To return particularly to NRPF and child poverty, as I said, if we cannot get rid of no recourse to public funds entirely, getting rid of the situation in which families with children under five are subject to no recourse to public funds would be a good step forward.

As the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam stated, there is a significant issue around the numbers. I do not have much faith that the Government will be able to produce any numbers on how many people have no recourse to public funds. I have asked a string of written parliamentary questions about this issue in the past. The previous Government were very clear that they had no idea how many times they had stamped “no recourse to public funds” on somebody’s visa. Trying to find out that information may be incredibly difficult. The No Recourse North East Partnership really struggled to identify the number of people in Aberdeen who needed our help and support, or who could potentially fall into a situation of poverty if they were, for example, made redundant or homeless, or had similar issues. We would like to know the number who could potentially be in that situation, and whose children could be in extreme levels of poverty as a result.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the hon. Member aware that the Work and Pensions Committee looked at this issue in a previous Session and put the figure at, I think, about 125,000 families with dependants? But the question is: why would the SNP policy be for children under five only, when the Work and Pensions Committee has already suggested that anyone with dependants should not be subject to no recourse?

[Kirsty Blackman]

As I said, I do not think that anybody should be subject to no recourse, but I looked at children under five as a first step, because those years are key. If it is going to be anybody with dependants of any age, I am equally happy with that. I am speaking in this debate as a Back Bencher about the issues that I have seen, rather than advancing the SNP policy. I should maybe have been clearer about that at the beginning, but this is about what things look like in my constituency and the concerns that have been raised with me.

I have heard doctors and health professionals talk about issues with rickets and malnutrition. Those are issues that we have not seen since 50 or 60 years ago, when people did not have access to good quality food. Food banks should not have to fill the gaps when we have a responsibility to all the children, everywhere, on these islands.

My other concern is about the dependency on other individuals that no recourse to public funds creates for families. If they cannot get support from the state, they may rely on friends to lend them money, support from religious communities, immoral lenders, or taking part in sex work to get money to provide food for their children. I have seen situations in which people who are being supported by religious communities are in relationships with significant domestic abuse and domestic violence, but cannot separate from their abusive partner, because they know that they will lose the support of the Church, and that is the only thing ensuring that their children are fed. I do not think that is an appropriate situation for the UK Government to force families into.

I wrote to the previous UK Government about that issue in relation to an individual constituent who was divorced from her partner. She was not able to have any relationship with her family, who lived in an African country, because they were so angry about her divorce and had threatened significant violence against her. I had written to the Home Office, suggesting that there was a real problem and that the children needed to be fed and supported. The Home Office said to me, “If she has such a problem with the situation, she can go home.” That was the only response it could think of. We have a responsibility to that woman and those children to provide them with a level of protection, because they are living here and it was not safe for the woman to go back to the country that she had been born in.

I agree that the length of time it takes for decisions to be made is a real problem. We have just had a visa approved for somebody whose case we have been helping with since July 2024, and that is a short period of time compared with some of them. One chap who has just had his visa approved has three children who have been struggling with no recourse to public funds. Thankfully, the school has stepped in and given them free school meals to ensure they are fed—but again there is no consistency in the decision making on free school meals, partly because we do not know which children it is who have no recourse to public funds, whose parents are not currently able to bring in an income and are not getting state support either. If there was more understanding about which children were in those categories, schools would be better placed to provide support.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Does the hon. Member agree with me that it is also invidious that young people in Scotland who want to apply for the Young Scot card, which allows them free travel, have to produce a British birth certificate?

[Kirsty Blackman]

My understanding was that there was some flexibility and that the Young Scot website stated that, if somebody did not have a birth certificate, they could go in person to speak to the local authority. I still disagree that that should be the case; there should be more flexibility. There are issues with birth certificates, particularly for children born in other countries—for those born in Ukraine, for example, the birth certificate might have been left behind when they fled. That is a problem. All young people in Scotland should be able to get the Young Scot card and the free bus travel that it entitles them to. I have actually been in touch with my local authority about the issues with applying for those cards, so I agree that there needs to be more flexibility.

Lastly, there is the issue of legal aid and the geographical spread of legal support. Despite the increasing numbers of people applying for visas in Aberdeen, we do not have much in the way of immigration lawyers, and we are Scotland’s third city—we are not a small place by any means. A lot of the Home Office infrastructure, for example, is in Glasgow and Edinburgh. People need to go down there to get their biometrics done, which is an expensive three-hour journey on public transport. Much more could be done in terms of legal aid immigration lawyers and the Home Office’s own infrastructure so that people can better access the visa systems.

Today I would like a commitment from the Government that they will try to make the system better. It does not feel as though any Government that I have been faced with have tried to make the immigration system work for people who want to come here, live in our country, contribute and be part of these islands. Rather than the Home Office, under Governments of any colour, continuing to penalise people for having the audacity to want to live here, it should support people, welcome them, get rid of the hostile environment and say, “We welcome people to come and live here. We want you to be part of our communities.” People will never be able or willing to integrate if we keep saying, “We do not want you here”, and taking three years to decide on visa applications. Anything the Government can do to reduce child poverty would be incredibly helpful. I hope the child poverty strategy can include children whose parents have no recourse to public funds.

15:04

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this important and timely debate. I say “timely”, because we have just heard from the Chancellor today a statement about her spending plans for the coming years, yet there was no significant mention of a strategy or funding to alleviate child poverty, aside from a partial extension of free school meals. This is after we were told that the Government would not agree to lift the two-child benefit cap that continues systematically to drive families into poverty every single week. We were promised a taskforce and a Government-endorsed strategy by spring. It is now June, and we are yet to hear a peep from the taskforce. Instead, we hear numerous rumours that the strategy report could be given to us as late as November and that, while the Prime Minister backs lifting the cap in full, his chief of staff is blocking it.

As the MP for Liverpool Riverside, the most deprived constituency in the country, where one in two children are now living in poverty, it is disheartening to say the least that children living in poverty are so low down the list of political priorities for the first Labour Government in a generation. I am proud that Liverpool is a city of sanctuary. As a port city, we host some of the oldest diverse communities in Europe. We are a proud city of migrants—the world in one city.

We cannot talk about child poverty in Liverpool without recognising that the children of migrants and asylum seekers are disproportionately living in poverty, especially those impacted by the no recourse to public funds condition. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 1.5 million children in migrant families live in poverty, making up more than a third of the total number of children in poverty. More than half of the children living in families with no recourse to public funds live in poverty, and recent analysis by the IPPR has shown that those children also face a far higher risk of deep poverty.

We know that child poverty is a major driver of life outcomes, from educational attainment to health and income levels. No child should have their opportunities limited by the circumstances they were born into. Our policymakers must take action to level the playing field and ensure that every child living in this country has the chance to thrive and achieve their potential. Will the Minister agree to go back to the Government and ensure that accurate and up-to-date data is provided on how many children, including British citizens, are affected by no recourse to public funds? Will he outline any analysis that the Government have done on how many children are in poverty as a direct result of it?

[Chris Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that no recourse to public funds is a question not just of child poverty, but of deep poverty? NRPF children are significantly over-represented among those children in the UK who are in deep poverty—and those children are often either British themselves, as she said, or on an ineluctable pathway to citizenship. Does she agree that that is the group the Government need to look at in the first instance?

[Kim Johnson]

I agree about deep poverty; I might come to that point in a moment.

The End Child Poverty coalition, a fantastic campaign group of more than 120 organisations, from trade unions to faith-based groups and national and local children’s organisations, has said that abolishing NRPF entirely would have the greatest impact on removing children of migrant families from poverty. Will the Minister guarantee that he will take what we have heard today back to the child poverty taskforce and make the case for abolishing NRPF entirely, to alleviate the worst pressures on migrant children and give them a fair start in life? A Labour Government should always take action to benefit the most vulnerable in our society. We must settle for nothing less.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake); this debate is so important—that is why we are all here—and she set the scene incredibly well. She was a sponsor of early-day motion 1317, which called for greater protection for children suffering from poverty, and she has debated these issues before. I say to her with all honesty that I think her constituents should be extremely proud of her record in this House, including this debate and others that she has been involved in.

Across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and further across the world, poverty is a heartbreaking and very sad reality faced by too many children and families. Child poverty is extensive, with parents doing their absolute best to make ends meet in a world in which tough decisions must be made in order to survive, given the extreme costs of daily essentials. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), in her contribution, told some graphic stories of what mothers have to do to survive and feed their children; she too set the scene very well. The fact that people feel that they must take those steps to protect their children gives us an idea of their desperation. Again, she set the scene so well. We of course acknowledge the pressures on migrant parents living in poverty, and I believe we have a responsibility to protect migrants with children who come here legally.

There is no constituency across this United Kingdom that has not experienced elements of poverty. I will give some stats from Northern Ireland to add to the debate. The figures are staggering, but they give some background to the scale of the situation. Official data indicates that a substantial number of children in my Strangford constituency live in poverty, and in 16 of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland more than 20% live in relative poverty. That tells us the impact in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: we have comparatively high levels of wealth, but 20% of children in Northern Ireland still live in poverty. The stats also show that child poverty in Northern Ireland has increased in recent years, with relative poverty rising from 18% to 24% between 2021 and 2023.

Poverty has significant consequences for child development. We often say—the Minister has probably said this in the past—that children who do not have a decent meal to start their day have restricted physical and mental capacity to engage in the classroom and with their friends, and missing meals leads to poor health outcomes. When it comes to the development of a child, it is really important that meals are available; where they are not, it causes educational difficulties and increases mental health problems too.

In the past few years of my life as an elected representative, I have been incredibly shocked by the stats on mental health conditions in children. I find it incomprehensible. It is hard to gauge why it is happening. The fact that children as young as eight have mental health problems tells me that there is a real need to help those children and parents directly.

Parents are being made to choose between a warm home and a warm meal. No parent should be left to make that choice. The statistics have remained stagnant. My constituency office deals with these issues weekly, and that tells me where we are. I am glad that MPs are able to help, but we can only do so because of the organisations on hand to help people.

I have a wonderful relationship and partnership with the churches, organisations and food banks in my constituency, which I have built on over the years. They help people regardless of age, nationality and immigration status. Within minutes of a quick phone call, the food bank in Newtownards makes sure the family has what they need. Sometimes we go and collect it, sometimes they deliver it and sometimes the person is able to get somebody else to go and get it. The main thing is that we have an organisation that can help, and we are really indebted to it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that that should not be the case? Those families should get support without needing a food bank to step in. Some people will always fall through the cracks, but it feels as if this is a system-wide problem, rather than just a couple of individuals falling through some cracks.

[Jim Shannon]

It is wrong that that happens—I always say that—but the food bank brings together the church, Government officials and people with good will. It is about the generosity of people. I hope that that does not sound negative to the hon. Lady, because it is not supposed to be, but I see the positives of food banks. I understand the reasons for her position, but I am always moved by the goodness of people who say, “This week, I am going to contribute some of my income to the food bank.” Uptake of the food bank in Newtownards is significantly up on the year before. She is right that it should not have to happen, but it does happen, and it is good that people step up.

I have met food bank representatives in my constituency, and the work they do each day to help others is incredible. For parents with babies, the food bank provides nappies, milk formula and other essentials that children require, which are increasingly expensive. The food bank steps outside the norms and, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will know, it helps people with pets, for example. Those who are diabetic can access certain types of food that will not impact their diabetes. With inflation at just over 3%, we have to recognise the importance of food banks.

There must be greater capacity for free school meals across the UK, as I have said before in this House and directly to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The figures highlight the need for change. In March 2024, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health revealed that 109,000 children in Northern Ireland were in relative poverty. With some 97,000 to 98,000 children receiving free school meals in Northern Ireland, there is a potential shortfall of around 11,400 children who are eligible for assistance and are not claiming.

What happens in Northern Ireland is not unique—it happens everywhere in the United Kingdom—so how will the Government reach out to those who are unable to take advantage of the system put in place by the Governments here and back home in Northern Ireland? More must be done to make parents aware of what they are entitled to.

I will bring my comments to an end, but I look to the Minister for reassurance that he hears the comments of Members from across this United Kingdom. Our children are important. I do not doubt for one second that he agrees with what we are saying, but I suppose we are looking for how we can address this issue—it is about solutions. First, support for parents is pivotal. Secondly, support must be accessible. Thirdly, we have a responsibility to ensure that we do not make life harder for our constituents.

I am ever mindful that responsibility is sometimes devolved, and that the devolved institutions sometimes have the responsibility, but this place could be the great convincer—it starts here at Westminster and filters out to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—in how to do it better. With great respect, I ask the Minister to engage with the devolved institutions to protect our children, get them out of poverty and, importantly, give them the best possible start in life.

15:18

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) for securing today’s debate. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

For any child in modern Britain to grow up in poverty is inexcusable. We must consider the impact that the no recourse to public funds regime has on child poverty across the UK. According to stats from Action for Children, 7,772 children in Glasgow North East are growing up in poverty. That translates to 11 children in every class of 30 growing up in families that cannot afford the basics: heating, food, clothes and even personal hygiene products. That is a matter of national shame, and I think we all feel the same about that.

Of those children, some will be living with no recourse to public funds. As the NRPF partnership points out, the sheer number is unpredictable because the data is not available—we simply do not know. However, we do know that NRPF conditions will bring any child closer to, or further into, a life of deprivation and poverty.

Like other colleagues, I hope the Government will consider redesignating child benefit so that it falls outside the NRPF policy. I, too, hope that the upcoming child poverty strategy will include detailed consideration of the conditions in which refugee and asylum-seeking children live. We must ensure that the children of families fleeing persecution, who often wait many months for a decision on their asylum application due to the backlog created by the previous Government, do not fall through the net of basic support on which any child living in the UK should be able to rely. Our aim, as a Government, must be to root out poverty everywhere and in every family.

15:21

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this important debate—it is also clearly important to her.

No child in Britain should grow up in poverty. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is nothing short of a political choice that millions of children go without the basics, including food, housing and opportunity. It is a choice that the last Government made repeatedly.

Liberal Democrats believe in a fairer society in which every child has the chance of a bright future, regardless of their background, postcode or parents’ immigration status. Look at what happened under Conservative rule—there are more than half a million more children in poverty since 2015. That is not a policy failure; it is policy working exactly as designed. Choices such as the two-child benefit cap, cuts to universal credit and the freeze on child benefit are not abstract figures; they are deliberate decisions that hit the poorest families hardest. Families with no recourse to public funds—those in the UK on visas or seeking asylum—were even harder hit, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam rightly said.

It is morally indefensible that a child could go hungry simply because of their parents’ immigration status. Children are children, and they need food, care and opportunity—that should not be conditional. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to permanently extend free school meal eligibility to children in NRPF households. It is a victory for decency and common sense, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats helped push for it. However, we must go further.

We need automatic enrolment for free school meals so that no eligible child is left behind due to bureaucracy or poor information, because red tape should not be a barrier to feeding hungry children. Although the Government have extended free school meals to families on universal credit, strict income thresholds still apply to NRPF households, and that must change. We must ensure that all children in poverty, without exception, have access to free school meals.

Longer term, Liberal Democrats are clear that we want to see universal free school meals for every child—no stigma or barriers, just fairness and nourishment for all. Let us not forget that the NRPF policy was never designed with child welfare in mind. It has grown over decades into a rigid system that denies thousands access to the most basic safety nets, especially during crises such as the cost of living emergency we are facing now. Yes, some families can apply for a change of conditions to gain access to public funds, but that process is far too complex and burdensome, requiring specialist support that many families cannot access. The Government must simplify the system and make it navigable and humane, because when children go hungry, we should not ask their parents to fill out a 40-page form, often in a second language, to prove their destitution.

Around 3.5 million people in the UK currently hold visas that usually come with an NRPF condition. We do not even know how many of them are living in hardship, because the Home Office, as we have heard, does not track that data. That is not governance; it is negligence. While local authorities are left to pick up the pieces, they do so with dwindling resources and with impossible decisions pushed on to them by a central Government who wash their hands of responsibility.

Liberal Democrats believe it is time to stop punishing children for the immigration status of their parents. It is time to stop hiding behind bureaucracy and to make the moral and political choice to end child poverty once and for all.

15:24

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I offer my thanks and appreciation to the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) for her speech, and for securing the debate. She expressed very well the complexity of migration and the welfare system, which I will come to.

It is important that we get our migration routes right, recognising the great difficulty of safe and legal routes in our system, and how much we could do better on that front. I recognise that, in previous years, we facilitated large-scale asylum and humanitarian visa routes through the Syria, Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes. Leaving aside the question of safe and legal routes for refugees, we have seen large-scale migration flows and visa awards in recent years. That has put significant pressure on different aspects of our society, from wages and housing to public services and welfare.

The hon. Lady gave a compelling account of the challenges of hardship faced by migrant families. Other hon. Members also spoke eloquently of the impact of poverty, particularly on children, as illustrated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). My concern with the general proposal made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam and others is that it does not refer to the likely dynamic effects of effectively abolishing no recourse to public funds status. It would induce a pull factor if we were to signal or enact instant or speedier eligibility for public funds to people claiming asylum or on a visa. We would inevitably and significantly increase the demand for places in the UK, and we need to acknowledge that.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam mentioned the sanctuary city of Sheffield, and the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) did the same. I represent part of Swindon, which is also a sanctuary borough, thanks to the Labour council. I met social care providers this morning who talked about the immense pressure that the increase in migrant families is placing on public services in Swindon, including on social care and children’s services. Inviting many more people to come and live with us is not without consequence.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would like to correct the shadow Minister. The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and I both mentioned the pull factor, and the fact that there is no evidence for it. On stretched public services, the fact that people coming to study can no longer bring dependants has decimated the social care sector in Aberdeen. We normally rely on those dependants to work in our care system, and we are struggling to look after our elderly people as a result.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry if I missed the hon. Ladies’ references to the pull factor, but I simply do not believe that the offer, or the lack of offer, of support has no effect on the demand for places in the UK. I think people will factor in those considerations when deciding whether to apply for a visa here. If we are offering additional public finances, that would make a more attractive offer.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s point about the labour market and the availability of people working in social care, although that is perhaps a topic for another day. The point was also made by the care providers in Swindon I spoke to this morning. They also said that this country could do so much better in supporting and training care workers who were brought up here.

Leaving aside the potential dynamic effect of ending the no recourse arrangements, I do not think the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam sufficiently acknowledges the pressures on the system that are a consequence of high rates of migration. Studies suggest that around 1 million people are likely to get indefinite leave to remain—estimates vary between 750,000 and 1.25 million— which is 1 million people coming down the pipeline, as it were, and likely to have recourse to public funds.

Because of how the immigration system has worked in recent years, we are talking about people who are overwhelmingly on low wages and who come with dependants, notwithstanding the genuine contribution that many of them will make. Overall, on a pure analysis of the numbers, they and their families will represent a fiscal loss to the country over the time they are in the UK.

Even based on the very optimistic assumptions about lifetime earnings that the OBR uses, the 1 million or so people who are expected to get indefinite leave to remain in the coming years will have a net fiscal lifetime cost to the country of £234 billion. That is what we are looking at with the current system.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, but I want to push back a bit on his comments about what I was implying. There is a net contribution from migrants—we know that to be true—and it is not all about costs. If some of the things I outlined in my speech happened, there would be a benefit of £800 million to the economy. We have to consider it in the round.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I recognise the complexity of the subject we are discussing. The hon. Lady has cited evidence that contradicts mine. I need to look into the study she mentions, because my strong understanding is that, on the basis of the overall immigration we have welcomed in recent years—and, frankly, it is my party that is responsible for it—the net fiscal effect is negative.

Of course, there are many migrants who contribute economically, and there are many migrants who contribute even if they are not contributing economically; not everything is counted in pounds and pence. But if we are talking about the fiscal effects, I am confident in saying that, based on the number of people expected to achieve indefinite leave to remain, who the hon. Lady presumably wants to have recourse to public funds earlier, we are looking at a significant increase in the financial burden.

I want to acknowledge the point that the hon. Lady and other Members have made: the current system shunts costs around the system. The consequence of people living in poverty might be that the Department for Work and Pensions does not bear the cost, but other parts of the public system do—local authorities most of all. That is not an argument to say, “In that case, let the DWP provide the money,” because overall, we would be spending a lot more, and as I said, inviting more people to come if we did that. However, I acknowledge that it is not as if these costs are not borne at all; some of them are borne elsewhere.

I want to end by making a very obvious point. Our welfare system remains one based on contribution in principle and, to a certain degree, in practice, in so far as the national insurance system still exists. In the public mind, there is rightly an expectation that, for the sake of fairness and trust in the system, we should maintain an arrangement whereby welfare is funded by and is for the benefit of citizens of this country. There are, of course, many exceptions to that—other people make contributions, and other people are eligible for support—but that is the basis on which our system depends.

My strong view is that the proposal by the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam, echoed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—and I think the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), made a similar point—effectively to scrap the no recourse to public funds arrangement would terminally undermine, weaken and eventually destroy the basis of our welfare system, which is that people pay in and receive.

To conclude, I look forward to the child poverty strategy. If we are serious about reducing child poverty, including for those children living in migrant families who are here now, we need to reduce the flow of low-wage families into the system in the first place, whether from abroad or through our own failure to support families in this country. That means extending the qualification period for ILR, which my party has suggested, and it is good that the Government are now considering following suit.

We should obviously be helping families with their finances through meaningful and effective reform of the welfare system. We should be supporting the community infrastructure that gives support to families and young people, and we should be creating well-paid jobs through an economic policy that stimulates growth—not taxing jobs out of existence, as the Government are sadly doing. Those are the best ways to support children in poverty.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call Keir Mather MP, who is making his Westminster Hall Dispatch Box debut as Minister for the day.

15:34

[Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) for securing this incredibly important debate. She has a formidable record of advocating for the rights of migrants in this place, and does so on behalf of her constituents in Sheffield, who share her belief in safety, security and dignity for all who live in our country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken so passionately in this important debate. The speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown the real and emotive human stories that lie at the core of this policy, and the delicate balance of priorities that any Government must maintain to provide dignity to those who seek to build their lives in the United Kingdom while maintaining an immigration system that is managed and fair, and that, importantly, commands the support of the British public.

I will come to some of the specific points that hon. Members have raised, but I will first briefly set out the Government’s position in broad terms. The House has ably demonstrated its familiarity with the details of the long-standing policy in question, but I will none the less provide some necessary context. The no recourse to public funds policy seeks to ensure that those coming to the UK do so with the ability to support themselves and their families. That is to ensure that migrants can begin building their lives in Britain while avoiding unexpected pressures in the welfare system.

When applying for permission to enter or stay in the UK, most migrants must demonstrate that they can financially support both themselves and their dependants. On that basis, a no recourse to public funds condition is attached to their permission to enter or stay. That means that most temporary migrants will not have access to benefits that are classed as public funds. Those in the UK without an immigration status who require such a status are also subject to the NRPF condition. There are certain specific exemptions to the NRPF condition—for example, certain benefits, such as those based on national insurance contributions, may still be accessed.

As part of the NRPF policy, there are a number of safeguards in place to protect vulnerable migrants. For the purposes of this debate, I will outline the safeguards in place to protect migrant children specifically. First, local authorities have a general duty, as imposed by children’s legislation, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. Hon. Members have noted some of the difficulties that local authorities face in doing that work, and I will take those away from this debate. That support does not depend on the immigration status of the child or their parents, and as such local authorities can provide basic safety net support through financial assistance for those most in need.

Although asylum seekers and their dependants are not typically eligible for mainstream benefits, where they are at risk of destitution, the Home Office has a statutory duty to provide basic accommodation and a cash allowance to cover their other essential living needs. Support generally consists of basic accommodation and a standard weekly allowance that is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that it remains sufficient. Additional financial support is also provided to pregnant women and young children to encourage healthy eating. Such support is at a level equivalent to that provided for the same purpose to British citizens on low incomes. Additionally, asylum-seeking children receiving that support are entitled to free healthcare, schooling and school meals.

As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam, migrants here under the family or private life routes, the “Appendix Child Relative”—CRP—route, or the Hong Kong British national overseas route have the option to apply for a change of conditions to have the NRPF condition lifted for free. My hon. Friend also ably described a lot of barriers to people seeking to access that scheme, which are important to takeaway, especially in how they relate to people’s ability to speak English and navigate the world of legal aid.

Migrants who have been granted leave to remain under the Homes for Ukraine, Ukraine family and Ukraine permission extension schemes all also have recourse to public funds. If there are particularly compelling circumstances, discretion can be used to lift the NRPF condition on other immigration routes.

Further to that, migrant children subject to the NRPF condition have access to various initiatives that are in place across the United Kingdom to support disadvantaged children. Those include free school meals, which are subject to certain eligibility thresholds; funding for schools to support disadvantaged children; 15 hours per week early years entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds in England; 15 hours per week early years entitlement for three to four-year-olds in England; support for children with special educational needs and disabilities; and local authority grants for help with the cost of school uniforms for low-income families. The Home Office continues to work across Government and with stakeholders to review and adapt the support given to disadvantaged migrant children, in line with evolving policies and legislation.

I turn now to some of the issues raised by hon. Members in the debate. The first is the issue of data collection, which was discussed very ably by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam noted the adoption of the Atlas casework system, which will automate a large proportion of casework and could create new opportunities for data collection overall.

The ability to collect data about the total number of people who are part of the scheme is challenging. The Home Office works with stakeholders who produce that data, but work is ongoing within the Home Office to gather information and explore what can be provided as evidence. As I am not the Minister responsible for this policy, I cannot comment in specific detail about how that process will operate, but I wanted to assure my hon. Friend that that work is ongoing.

My hon. Friend also ably raised the issues regarding application processes for the lifting of conditions and the language barriers that migrants can face; those points were also powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam also raised the issue of British-born children not having access to public funds. In that set-up, there is usually one parent who can claim public funds, but I hope to provide her with some reassurance about where that is not the case when I talk later about how the no recourse to public funds system will intersect with the Government’s child poverty strategy.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was right to predict that we might have a difference of view on NRPF and its merits as a whole, but she also talked about the human outrage that in this country there are still young people and children who display signs of malnutrition and rickets. The Government are steadfastly committed to eradicating the scourge of those diseases right across our United Kingdom through, for example, the roll-out of free breakfast clubs in primary schools across the country. Extending free school meals to young children whose parents are in receipt of universal credit will mean that half a million more children across the United Kingdom will have access to free school meals, which will also have an enormous impact.

The stuff that the Government are doing around the edges will also have an enormous impact on the food poverty that children experience every day. I point to the £13 million that was recently allocated to 12 charities to ensure that food grown by British farmers is provided as quickly as possible to children facing food poverty. It is such work, writ large, that will allow us to make a dent in this scourge.

The individual cases that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North spoke about are particularly distressing; I am certain that they will have shocked everybody in this Chamber. I am not sure when she received the correspondence from the Home Office that she referred to—[Interruption.] She indicates that it was under the previous Government. If she would like to reach out again on that specific issue, or on any other casework matters, I will be very glad to ensure that that information is passed along to the relevant Minister.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who is no longer in his place, asked whether the Home Office will have a role in the development of the child poverty taskforce, which I will turn to later. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) also made very important points about the impact of child poverty in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) spoke with characteristic experience, expertise and passion on the plight of people in her constituency, particularly the children in poverty. I politely and respectfully disagree with her about the extent to which the Government are committed to tackling the scourge of child poverty across our country.

The child poverty taskforce will report later in the year, because it wants to produce a long-term and holistic approach to tackling this scourge and the details need to be right. However, that does not mean that we have been unable to take concrete action to make a real dent in this awful problem. I point to the extension of free school meals to half a million more children, which will lift 100,000 children in England totally out of poverty; supporting 700,000 families through the fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions; a national minimum wage increase for 3 million workers; rolling out free breakfast clubs in our primary schools; and the household support fund being extended until March next year at a cost of £742 million. In my view, those actions will have a concrete impact on child poverty.

[Kim Johnson]

I appreciate my hon. Friend taking my intervention, and the things that he just mentioned are great. In London, Scotland and Wales, there are universal free school meals. However, schoolchildren from my constituency sent postcards to the Prime Minister last year, asking, “If you have them in London, why can’t we have them in Liverpool?” Breakfast clubs are great. I have one of the poorest constituencies in the country. One school in my constituency has free breakfast clubs, and the only reason why it can do that is that it has been doing it for a long time. Setting up a breakfast club is a problem for a lot of schools; it costs money, time and effort, in terms of changing school rotas. So although breakfast clubs are great, we need to go further. We need to be big and bold. The Sure Start programme was big and bold, and we need to do something similar.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the achievements of the last Labour Government in making progress on this issue. She is also right to hold my feet to the fire and say that no distance is too far when it comes to tackling child poverty. That needs to be at the core and be the philosophy of everything that this Labour Government seek to achieve. At the same time, though, we need to recognise the progress that we are making, get behind it as a Government and be able to action the art of the possible in the immediate term. Supporting those policies will mean that, due to the increased roll-out of free school meals, 100,000 children will not be in poverty who otherwise would have been.

I turn to the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). When I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons in an Adjournment debate, he was uncharacteristically not in his place, so I am very grateful that we have had the opportunity to interact with one another two years down the line. He is right that the scourge of child poverty is present right across the United Kingdom, and that a child growing up in Northern Ireland who is facing that issue needs just as much support as one growing up in England, Wales or Scotland. As someone from a party that wants to improve the life chances of children across the entire Union, I think that point is incredibly well made. That is why, when the child poverty taskforce reports later in the year, there will be a nationwide strategy to improve the outcomes and life chances of people across the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member also pointed to the incredibly important issue of the impact on educational attainment for children living in poverty, and especially food poverty. It is an outrage that children in this country are unable to learn because they are too hungry to focus in class, and he made that point incredibly powerfully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) similarly made an important point on that subject, and she raised the important issue of delays in the asylum backlog, which the Government are laser-focused on driving down. I remember how powerful her maiden speech in the House of Commons was, and how it touched on experiences, both in her life and in her constituency, relating to the impact of hardship. Her points today were incredibly well made.

I turn to the child poverty taskforce. As many hon. Members have ably said, a single child living in poverty in Britain is one too many. Tackling this scourge and providing every child in Britain with the ability not just to get by, but to live a happy, rich and fulfilled life is at the core of this Labour Government’s mission for our country.

The child poverty taskforce was announced in the summer of 2024, with the objective of improving children’s lives and life chances and tackling the root causes of child poverty in the long term. Poverty scars the life chances of our children. In the 14 wasted years of Conservative Government, child poverty numbers increased by 900,000. We continue to grapple with that legacy today, with 4.5 million children now living in poverty in the UK and 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.

I am pleased to confirm that children whose families are in scope of the NRPF policy will be included in the child poverty strategy. Officials are working closely with the Cabinet Office and with officials across Government on the detail and delivery of this new initiative, and specifically its application to children who are subject to NRPF. The Government are grateful to stakeholders for their support in facilitating discussions to build our understanding of child poverty among migrant families. That included hearing from those families themselves, to listen to the challenges they face and to have meaningful discussions on possible solutions.

The Government have recently announced, via the immigration White Paper, a review of family policy, and the findings from this taskforce will be utilised for future policy development in this space. Work in this area remains ongoing, so I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam will understand that I am not in a position today to offer substantive comment on the detail. But I can say that the Minister for migration and citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), is meeting her counterpart in the Department for Work and Pensions next week to discuss in more detail what the Home Office’s role will be in delivering the child poverty strategy.

To conclude, the NRPF policy is, and will continue to be, a means by which we maintain a managed but fair immigration system. Temporary migrants coming to the UK are expected, in general, to support themselves and not rely on Government support, but it is right that the policy is continually reviewed and assessed for its impact, particularly in relation to migrant children. This is something we take incredibly seriously, and I point to the Home Office’s involvement in the child poverty taskforce as evidence of the Government’s continued commitment to protecting vulnerable children.

I offer my thanks to all my hon. Friends and Members across the House who have participated in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam for securing it. These are sensitive, complex issues and it is right that we discuss them thoroughly and carefully. I believe that has very much been the case today.

15:50

[Olivia Blake]

It has been really helpful to hear from other Members on a number of issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke about the inconsistency in local authority support. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) painted a vibrant picture of the community she represents and the deep poverty felt by the migrant communities within it. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking so passionately about child poverty. He spoke about the use of food banks and the mental health impacts of poverty on children in particular, which I was very moved by. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) made it clear that NRPF deepens the poverty that young people experience, and highlighted the opportunity that we have with the child poverty strategy.

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for her focus on free school meals. That issue has been addressed but it points to a challenge: if the move to free school meals is based on receipt of universal credit, we need to ensure that young people with no recourse to public funds are not lost in that, because we won that battle in the last Parliament during covid to ensure that they could get access to free school meals. We just need to make sure that their eligibility does not slip through the cracks if there is a different way of coming up with the numbers of who is eligible and who is not.

I thank the shadow Minister and congratulate him on his first outing—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Actual Minister!

[Olivia Blake]

The acting actual Minister. I congratulate him on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I was really heartened by some of the things he said, but once again, I want to make sure that all the measures in the child poverty strategy take into account the fact that these people are not eligible through means-tested criteria, so support based purely on those will not benefit these children. I think the Minister has heard that point and the many others that have been made today. I thank him for taking that back to the Minister responsible, and I look forward to reading more on this issue as the months draw closer to the child poverty strategy being developed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered child poverty and no recourse to public funds.

15:52

Sitting suspended.

Outdoor Education

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

15:19

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I will call Tim Farron to move the motion. As is the convention with 30-minute debates, only interventions are permitted, not whole speeches, because we need to allow time for the Minister to reply, as well as for all those lovely interventions that are coming.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered outdoor education.

It is an absolute joy to serve under your guidance, Dr Huq. I am happy to take some interventions, but I shall do my best to leave at least 10 minutes for the Minister at the end.

It is my privilege to chair the all-party parliamentary group on outdoor learning. It is also my privilege to be the Member of Parliament for many outdoor education centres in the lakes and dales of Westmorland and Lonsdale: the Bendrigg Trust at Old Hutton, which supports young people with disabilities; Brathay, near Ambleside, which develops young people from challenging backgrounds; the Outward Bound Trust on Ullswater; Patterdale outdoor education centre; the Field Studies Council centres at Blencathra and Lindale; the YMCA at Lakeside; and countless others, including the many university, local authority, charity and privately owned centres; as well as all the freelance specialists who use the outdoors to infuse our young people with joy, resilience, physical and mental health, and new skills and perspectives.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He mentions the joys of spending time in the great outdoors, and I thank him for mentioning Patterdale Hall, which is a truly excellent outdoors centre that I benefited from a great deal. Last month’s Supreme Court judgment, upholding the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, shows just how precarious our rights of access to nature are. Following that landmark ruling, does he agree that the Government must urgently introduce primary legislation to expand the right to roam on land and water across England?

[Tim Farron]

It is vital to ensure that people have access to nature. As somebody who represents national parks, I always think that they are there for everybody, not just those of us who live there. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Outdoor education is crucial to our economy, culture and communities in Cumbria, and we are deeply proud of the whole sector and the many hundreds of people who work in it. The benefits of outdoor education experiences are obvious to anyone who has ever gone for a hike through a muddy field while wrestling with an Ordnance Survey map, abseiled, potholed, spent the night camped in a lakeland forest, climbed a rockface or kayaked down a river. These are experiences that form young people and stay with them for the long term. We know, not only through academic research but powerfully through our own experiences, the transformational and tangible good that outdoor learning delivers for the lives of children and young people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tim Farron]

Go for it.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is absolutely right, and I support his endeavour to ensure that the Minister will respond positively to him. In February 2025, the Education Minister in Northern Ireland launched the outdoor learning project to enhance pupils’ experience of outdoor learning, with some £4 million invested for pre-schools, nursery schools, primary schools and special schools to buy outdoor furniture and equipment to enhance high-quality outdoor learning. If you want to get your feet muddy, come to Northern Ireland.

[Tim Farron]

It is an offer I dare not refuse. In a moment or two, I will say something about cross-party working across the devolved nations, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point as to how Northern Ireland is taking the lead.

Research from the University of Cumbria demonstrates the benefits for young people of widening their horizons, building their confidence and character, and nurturing a love of learning, greater awareness of nature and an intelligent approach to risk. Once a child has overcome their fear to crawl through a dark and cramped cave, wade through a fast river or work with a classmate to build something, other challenges in their normal lives back at home are put into perspective.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Viki Mason is a forest school practitioner in my constituency who provides amazing outdoor education for primary schools, but the schools continually struggle to find funding for her services and those of providers like her. Does he agree that if we want young people to grow up with the benefits of the experiences he describes and with an appreciation for the natural world around us, so that we can protect it and encourage them to protect it, we must ringfence education funding for outdoor education at the very earliest stages of learning?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree; I will say more about that in a moment.

Building on the benefits of outdoor education for the rest of the curriculum, the rapport built between teachers and students during a week-long residential where both are immersed—often literally—in the glory of nature means that when life returns to normal the next Monday in the classroom, those students are much more likely to engage, listen and learn. Outdoor education is a wonderful investment with guaranteed returns for the individual, for society and, indeed, for the Exchequer.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

We know about the importance of the educational benefits, but does the hon. Member agree that outdoor education can be used to tackle knife crime in urban areas? Will he join me in thanking Mike Harrison, who owns Green Trees forest school in Swindon, for his hard work on that?

[Tim Farron]

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in thanking Mike. Yes, the societal outcomes are huge beyond the classroom. The increased love of learning, better engagement and greater curiosity about the natural world are all part of delivering better outcomes for young people in general throughout their lives.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, as one in eight children living in urban areas does not have a garden, we should encourage some sort of exchange programme between rural and urban schools so that they can also enjoy the outdoors and benefit from it?

[Tim Farron]

That is a great suggestion. I will happily take the other intervention.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful point about the value of outdoor education within the education system. Does he agree that the Ofsted assessment mechanism is a great tool for encouraging greater use of the outdoors and of sport and activity per se? Would he suggest that we look to make sure that any outstanding school must provide great access to the outdoors?

[Tim Farron]

The problem is that, at the moment, many schools do not provide that. It is often because of a sense of being beleaguered and lacking the financial wherewithal to do so. The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point.

To back up, on a day when we are talking about Treasury matters, the University of Cumbria’s research demonstrates that there is a social return on investment of £4.32 for every pound spent on outdoor education as part of the curriculum. Research funded by the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through Natural England looked at the experience of schools and students who had access to outdoor education opportunities: 95% found that those experiences made lessons more enjoyable, 85% reported a positive impact on student behaviour, 92% reported improved engagement of students with learning and 92% reported increased student health and wellbeing.

The frustrating news is that outdoor education is becoming much more difficult to access. Some 13% of students never visit the natural environment or spend meaningful time outdoors, rising to 18% of children in the most deprived parts of our country. A third of children never, ever have lessons outside. Outdoor education centres are facing difficult times: 30 of them have closed in the last eight years. Learning outside and going on life-changing residentials is, sadly, becoming the preserve of schools from wealthier areas.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

The incredible outdoor educators we have in and around Worcester, including the Bramblewood Project, have shown just how transformative outdoor education can be for students who would otherwise struggle to engage with education. We have seen incredible impacts on children with special educational needs and disabilities, but every child and every person can benefit from a real and living relationship with nature. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that outdoor education should be not alternative provision, but provision?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I will try to flesh out a little in a moment.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

In Winchester, we are fortunate to have the beautiful south downs and a lot of very productive farms. We had Open Farm Sunday last week. Does my hon. Friend agree that outdoor education, engagement with farms and agriculture and residential weekends are a great way to inspire the next generation of agricultural students, conservationists and environmental scientists?

[Tim Farron]

Yes to all those things. It is important to recognise that if we give people a sense of excitement of being in the outdoors, we open their imagination to making those sorts of choices in their studies and careers and later in their private life.

I am grateful to the outdoor education professionals who share their expertise with me regularly. They identify the barriers to young people accessing outdoor education, which include the steady erosion of school budgets. Outdoor education is seen as a nice add-on, but not essential, so it gets downgraded or dropped altogether to save money. Schools either do not do outdoor education visits at all or they reduce them from week-long to two-day affairs, with worse outcomes as a consequence.

There is also a culture of risk aversion that infects schools, teacher training institutions and society as a whole. Over the last couple of generations, we have sought to protect our children from danger and the unpredictable to such an extent that we have perhaps done them greater harm by denying them experiences that would have given them resilience, wisdom and better mental and physical health.

Over my years as the Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I have seen trends in the issues that local people seek my help with at my surgeries, on the doorsteps and via my inbox. The issue that has grown most in volume is the utter tragedy of worsening mental health among our young people. I will continue to fight for every one of those young people and for their loving but often terrified families to get the care they need through mental health services, but why can we not choose to do something radical today that will reduce the number of people suffering mental ill health in the first place?

The outdoors is the antidote to many of our ills. Time on outdoor residentials pulls us out of our comfort zone. It makes us rely on others and experience the scary wonder of being relied upon by others. It teaches us that we can do things we thought were impossible. It nurtures an ability to solve problems and to rise above the panic that freezes us when crises hit. It builds relationships and the capacity to form friendships, skills that are transferable and, above all, the resilience to help us cope with the stuff that life will chuck at us.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend’s rich evocation of outdoor education reminds me to reflect on my own time doing things like the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. Although Surrey Heath might not have the soaring topographies of his constituency, what we do have is extraordinary outdoor education provision such as Briars Field forest school, which provides vital outdoor education, particularly for young children with special educational needs who otherwise could not access mainstream classrooms. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those offerings that provide a genuine alternative to the classroom and profoundly change young people’s mental health?

[Tim Farron]

Absolutely. That builds on what I am saying. When it comes to poor mental health, it feels like we are figuratively fishing struggling people out of water, when perhaps what we really need to do is build their resilience so that they do not fall in in the first place. Ironically, of course, we do that in part by pushing people into the water—after an entirely appropriate risk assessment, of course.

Education and policy of successive Governments has failed to prioritise outdoor education to the extent that it has become for many a nice luxury at best, rather than the essential that it ought to be.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Farron]

I will take one more intervention.

[Caroline Voaden]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument about the mental health benefits of outdoor education, which I wholeheartedly support. Does he agree with me that if we are to inspire the next generation to appreciate, understand and love nature and promote nature recovery, we need to introduce them to nature? In that spirit, will he commend Grenville House in Brixham and Forest and Beach outdoor education in my constituency, along with all the other schools that promote the Ten Tors expeditions on Dartmoor, for the vital work they do?

[Tim Farron]

I absolutely will. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about integrating outdoor education in the curriculum as a whole.

To turn the situation around will take a serious, conscious and deliberate effort, and I want the Government to take this opportunity to make that happen. This absolutely has to be a cross-party mission. By the way, this is a small half-hour debate, and yet there are more people here than in many hour and a half debates, which shows how important this is to many people. There are no Conservatives here, but I want to pay tribute to two of them: Sam Rowlands, a Member of the Senedd in Wales, and Liz Smith in the Scottish Parliament, who have so ably led campaigns to increase access to outdoor learning. It is a joy to work with and learn from them.

I met the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), recently, and was impressed by his engagement and interest in the issue. I raised with him a point that I want to raise with the Minister here today; I also have a specific request to make—a few of them, actually. Here we go.

First, will the Minister conduct a review of access to outdoor education experiences in our schools? Specifically, will the Department for Education conduct a review of which children and schools are accessing outdoor education opportunities and which children and schools are not accessing those opportunities? Will she ensure that the review analyses why those who are not getting outdoor education experiences are missing out? Then, having identified those barriers, will she come to Parliament with a plan for systematically tackling them? Will she review the capacity in the sector to ascertain our ability to provide access in reality for every young person?

My second ask is for a nature premium, modelled on the existing PE and sport premium, for the 18% in the poorest of our communities who never even visit the natural environment. Children whose imagination is captured by the outdoors in early life through outdoor education are much more likely to make their own choices in an environmentally beneficial way through the rest of their life. Will the Minister look at the evidence from the trial in Glasgow, which is supported by a private donor, and commit to rolling out the nature premium across the country?

My third ask is basically three asks in one. There are three reviews happening right now that should have outdoor learning at their heart and could transform opportunities for young people if the Government choose to seize the moment. First, DEFRA’s access to nature scheme is under review. It provides residentials for young people at schools where more than 30% of children have pupil premium funding. Is the Minister involved in that review, and is she pushing for that scheme to be maintained and extended?

Secondly, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Government’s youth strategy. I understand that the interim report is due out this month. Is the Minister involved in the review, and has the Department for Education pushed for outdoor education to be central and integral to the youth strategy’s mission to radically improve outcomes for our young people?

Thirdly, on the Department for Education’s own curriculum review, will the Minister say something about her work to ensure that outdoor learning, including the importance of residentials, becomes central to the curriculum at both primary and secondary level? At the moment, I have to say, the signs are not encouraging: in the draft curriculum review, the word “outdoor” appears just once. How can the Minister reassure us that the final review will not completely miss this golden opportunity?

My final and fourth ask is an ambitious one, but surely this is the time to be ambitious for our young people. If the Government want to do something utterly transformational that will improve education and mental health outcomes, tackle obesity and physical poor health, and increase life chances and cohesion in our society, they should support my presentation Bill, which calls for every child to have an entitlement to a week-long residential outdoor education experience at primary, and then again at secondary school.

Schools should be fully funded to provide those experiences. Outdoor education centres should be involved in the design of those programmes, and they should be given the ability to expand capacity. No child should miss out because their parents could not afford it. The value would be immense. It would light the blue touchpaper on a lifelong love of nature, adventure and the outdoors. It would build citizens who can cope and thrive in the modern world. It would mean happier and healthier people, better learners, better workers and a better country.

[Shockat Adam]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

I had better not, because I am running out of time.

There is so much catastrophising about the state of society—so much gloom-filled misery among our politicians and commentators. There was a headline in The Daily Telegraph this week—I do not know whether you saw it, Dr Huq—that said: “Britain is heading for utter oblivion”. I mean, come on—get a grip. It is time to do something transformational and positive, not sink into this spiralling, miserabilist narrative, whining about decline and saying that the past is always better than the present, that our problems are all insurmountable and, above all, that it is always somebody else’s fault. I am not having that, and nor are my communities in Westmorland and the outdoor education sector. In the lakes, the dales and the other wild places of our wonderful country lie the biggest, best antidote to so much that is wrong. Those are the raw resources, and we should get out there and make them our own. Let us deploy those resources.

That is why I beg the Minister: agree to our requests for a departmental review of the barriers to outdoor education, roll out the nature premium across our country, expand the access to nature scheme, reassure us that outdoor education will be at the heart of the curriculum review and the youth strategy, and make outdoor education experiences an entitlement for every single child. If that sounds like a lot to ask—several problems to solve, an overwhelming challenge, almost like a mountain to climb—I know some people who have the skills to help her. The outdoor education sector, the Institute for Outdoor Learning, the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and the all-party group are eager to be part of her team as she acts as the Government’s internal advocate and champion for outdoor education.

16:19

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I was so gripped by speech made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that I forgot to get any water; I will pour some while I am starting, in case I get a frog in my throat.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and the incredible passion with which he presents these issues. It is, rightly and understandably, not the first time he has raised them with me. I admire his passion, particularly because he represents a part of the world that has an absolute abundance of outdoor riches and opportunities. For him to advocate so strongly for children who do not necessarily have those opportunities on their doorstep is truly admirable, and I respect the arguments he is making in that regard.

I also agree that children and young people need to have that rich experience. As the Minister for School Standards, I know there are many demands on the curriculum and a lot of interest in the curriculum and assessment review, in the hope that it will deliver a broad and rich curriculum, enrichment and opportunities for all young people. Fundamentally, as a Government, we are determined in our mission to break down barriers to opportunity; we know that, as children grow and develop, giving them opportunities and a rich and broad curriculum is not only right, but what drives high and rising standards. The two things are not unrelated.

I do not have time to pay tribute to all the other contributions, but there is clearly a lot of passion in the Chamber about this subject. The hon. Gentleman set out very well the arguments for why we need to enable children and young people to have experiences that will help them develop resilience and build skills for life, so that they can handle life’s ups and downs. For many people, spending time outdoors is how they take care of their mental and physical health.

The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that a growing body of evidence links access to nature to a range of positive health outcomes for young people; it helps them to develop a deeper understanding not only of our planet and the world in which we live, but their place within it. There is nothing more humbling than the sight of an enormous mountain or a huge lake, and I agree with him on the importance of being able to have those experiences.

We need an evidence base before we implement or mandate any changes in our school system. I need to discuss that so that I can come on to the hon. Gentleman’s asks at the end of my speech. To build on the evidence that we already have, we are supporting research by the University of Oxford, which is looking at how the mental health and wellbeing of young people can be improved through nature-based programmes that would be delivered by schools. Outputs from this research will be published with the Department for Education and shared during summer this year. That further research will help us to understand the specific benefits of spending time in nature and ascertain which nature-based activities provide the strongest impacts and outcomes for young people.

However, as the hon. Gentleman also passionately set out, access to the benefits provided by nature is unevenly distributed among children and young people, with the most disadvantaged being the least likely to reap the rewards. Children in deprived areas have less access to green space and spend less time in it than those in the most affluent areas. Deprived inner city areas have only a fifth of the amount of good quality green space as the most affluent and children in the most deprived areas spend 20% less time outside. That inequity impacts health, wellbeing, development and career choices. It puts barriers in place for people that can last throughout their lifetime. As a Government, we are determined to break those down.

In April 2022, the Department for Education published “Sustainability and climate change: a strategy for the education and children’s services systems”. Through that, we have emphasised the importance of young people growing up with an appreciation of nature and a strong understanding of climate change and its causes, and of ensuring that they have the skills to help to create a sustainable future for us all. We believe that education settings have to play their part in shaping a sustainable future and helping young people develop responsible behaviours and a sense of responsibility for the world in which we live.

I appreciate that it is not quite the same as being in the beautiful Lake district, but the National Education Nature Park is delivered in partnership with the Natural History Museum and the Royal Horticultural Society, and it is helping to deliver on the vision by bringing together all the land from across education settings into a vast virtual nature park. It inspires children and young people to get involved in taking practical action to improve the biodiversity of their school grounds, while developing a greater connection to nature and learning about its role in climate change. Through the National Education Nature Park, children and young people can participate in outdoor education at low or no cost and within the boundaries of their own education setting.

[Shockat Adam]

Will there be consideration for children with sensitivity issues and special educational needs in that programme?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes. The particular Nature Education Park is for schools to use and adapt as required. I appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises. Ensuring that all children have access to an excellent education is a priority for this Government, and that includes children with special educational needs and disabilities.

One of the things I want to focus on is our absolute determination that all children have access to a wide range of enrichment activities. That is an important part of our mission as a Government to break down barriers to opportunity. That might mean Duke of Edinburgh’s award participation, accessing outdoor education through the combined cadet force, accessing local youth services or building trips into outdoor education settings. The Department has committed to publishing an enrichment framework. That will be non-statutory, but there will be very clear guidance for schools on developing their enrichment offer. For some schools, that will include a variety of outdoor education opportunities.

I want to be clear about mandatory class time in a natural setting. The Department does not—and cannot, under the Education Act 2002—prescribe how class time should be used to deliver the national curriculum subject content and certainly cannot prescribe activities outside school time. Setting a minimum expectation for access to nature would remove the school’s discretion over the additional content of its curricula, which they are enabled to tailor to their local environment and to choose what to do within their extracurricular activities and timetable. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale knows that many schools choose to do that.

Pupil premium funding is regularly used by schools to ensure equal access to those opportunities and that cost is not a barrier for some families to participate. I was chatting to people at a school just last week about that very thing—making sure that all the activities made available to all students are fully funded by the school. More generally, we are focusing on the quality of teacher training because, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, some teachers do not feel confident. We are investing in teacher training because teachers know how to get the best for their students and need support and training to offer the best opportunities for the students in their area if they deem that taking classes outside will aid their learning. Geography is a good example of where taking students on outdoor activities will certainly enhance learning, but there are many examples in other subjects as well.

I am afraid that I have no time left to respond to the other, specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I am more than happy to respond further in writing. I did not want to take away his opportunity to come back with a final comment, if that is the order of the day.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

indicated dissent.

[Catherine McKinnell]

No—I just carry on and finish? Fine. I am very keen and more than happy to look further at the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The curriculum assessment review is an independent process. It is evidence led and we are very much looking forward to its outcomes. The hon. Gentleman is a passionate campaigner. He will continue to advocate on these issues and I will continue to listen and do what we can as a Department to make sure that every child has enriching opportunities.

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

NHS Funding: South-west

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered NHS funding in the South West.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. For me, the NHS is a family affair, as my wife has served it for more decades than she would want me to admit and my son is a registrar at Torbay hospital.

This time last year, many of us were out pounding the streets at the general election, and the NHS was a big plank of what many of us talked about. It was one of the key themes on which the Liberal Democrats fought the election. We knew the NHS was a shambles, but we did not know the challenge that would face the new Government when they came to power. The Minister for Care highlighted that the money for the new hospital programme ran out in the March just gone, and there was a £6.6 billion hole in the programme’s budget. It was a real challenge for the new Government, but equally, their “waves” approach has caused real concerns in hospitals across the south-west and in our communities. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister for Secondary Care could address that today.

I will focus on Torbay hospital as a useful example of the challenges we face across the south-west. It is the third oldest hospital in the UK, with only 6% of the estate up to standard. Some bits are very good, such as the endoscopy and out-patient units, but those constitute an extremely small proportion. Someone suffering from cancer has to go to a number of locations across the hospital where there are real challenges. That is not the offer we want for those suffering from that disease. There have been almost 700 sewage leaks on the site, often infecting clinical areas, resulting in closures and delays of service to our community. The tower block of the hospital is swathed in scaffolding—not for a rebuild, but to stop clumps of it falling off and braining passers-by. There are some massive challenges, which have impacted our world.

Wave 2 mitigation bids went in in February from affected trusts. Torbay bid for £183 million to collapse the tower block and ensure that we have four fit-for-purpose wards built. I understand that the white smoke from the Government is yet to appear. So far, we have had only £7 million to help tackle some of the challenges, which hardly touches the sides.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the NHS in the south-west into the spotlight. Does he agree that the pressures on Musgrove Park hospital, due to the closure of the Yeovil maternity unit, put staff in an almost impossible position, with 30° heat in summer and leaking roofs and walls with holes in them in winter?

[Steve Darling]

I agree that staff are the NHS’s most important asset and what makes it tick, which my hon. Friend is right to highlight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am here to support the hon. Gentleman; I congratulate him on bringing this subject forward for debate. He is right to highlight issues with cancer care. It is the same for us back home: only a third of those referred by GPs begin treatment within the target time. Does he feel that there is money to be saved through the administration in the south-west trust area? If there is, perhaps that could help.

[Steve Darling]

That is very insightful. After being around medics for many years, I know the concern about the increase in managers. Equally, I know that integrated care boards, which I will come on to now, have real challenges with the savings that they are making. There is talk of merging ICBs, including, in the far south-west, a merger in Cornwall and Devon. Both ICBs are relatively challenged, and I fear that it could be a marriage of two bankrupts. Perhaps it would be better to look at a bigger footprint, including Somerset.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I welcome and echo the hon. Member’s comment about an inappropriate marriage in respect of the Devon and Cornwall ICBs. They have quite different issues. I commend the work of Cornwall’s ICB, of course, but we have to recognise the specificities of the peninsula penalty and the unique challenges facing both our areas.

[Steve Darling]

That is also very insightful. There are lots of good staff throughout the NHS, including in ICBs. It is about unlocking their potential, which I hope the Minister can do.

I was suggesting a bigger footprint, which could include Somerset and maybe even Dorset, as well as Devon and Cornwall, to give greater corporate capacity. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. Perhaps she will give some guidance on when we will hear about the ICB merger. A larger ICB could reflect the footprint of a mayoral authority; I fear that we could be poorer country cousins if we have only two county mayors in the west of England.

The real challenge with our ICB is that we are looking at a quarter of a billion pounds in cuts to services for Devon. The Exeter trust faces £69 million in cuts. The way to save money is mostly by not filling posts, so that is a real challenge. In Torbay, the figure is £42 million. We have an integrated care organisation, as a result of the merger of NHS acute and social care services, and people often say that is the direction in which we should be going. It saves 60 beds in the hospital by ensuring that we get people out of hospital sooner and into their own homes, where they want to be. However, I worry that the organisation is threatened by the quarter of a billion pounds-worth of cuts to services in Devon coming down the line; I fear for its future. I know that the Government actually want to move in the direction of services working together—it is so important.

The last area I want to touch on is Getting It Right First Time. I have heard from a number of professional sources that they feel that is a metropolitan approach that does not always work well in areas with significant rurality, such as Devon, mostly because it does not take into account some of the deprivation we have, our coastal communities, rural communities and the need for travel, or the fact that our population is older than those in metropolitan areas. We have older folk who are perhaps more digitally excluded. The approach does not always work.

We have seen that in respect of a procedure called PPCI—I will not share what that stands for, but it is an intervention used when someone is having a heart attack. They have a balloon inserted through their groin that goes up to the artery, and a stent is inserted to prevent a blockage in the system. A proposed merger in the offer will see people from south Devon drive past Torbay hospital and go 24 miles up the road to Exeter. That was originally the out-of-hours service, but it is now the emergency service, so when someone is thrown in the back of an ambulance, assessed and told, “You need this intervention,” they will go up to Exeter.

As my son says to me, “Time is tissue.” A consultant told me that if we push forward with this approach, it could result in greater debilitation and deaths. As a result of campaigning, the can has been kicked down the road on two occasions, and the ICB is due to return to the issue again at the end of July. I thank the medics who stood up and shared their concerns about the issue, as well as the thousands of people who signed our petitions on it. This situation shows how, because of the challenges in more rural areas, Getting It Right First Time does not always lead to the right solutions.

I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on wave 2 mitigation, on the challenges in relation to ICBs and, finally, on coronary care issues in south Devon and how we can ensure that we are providing an appropriate service for our communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. Given how many people wish to speak, we will start with a two and a half minute limit.

16:44

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was not expecting to be called first, but thank you very much, Dr Huq.

Each year, Cornwall, which has a population of 650,000, welcomes around 4 million visitors, drawn by our beautiful beaches and coastline. Tourism is a key part of our economy and provides a livelihood for many, but the downside is the pressure on our public services. Some areas in Cornwall treble in population, and that has a profound impact on our NHS and our only hospital, the Royal Cornwall hospital in my constituency.

In 2021, our hospital was on black alert all summer, and 30% of those attending A&E were not registered with a Cornish GP; the August bank holiday saw almost 700 people go to the emergency department. Hospitals in other parts of the country tend to see reduced pressure in the summer, but the Royal Cornwall is under pressure all year—winter and summer. We also have a super-ageing population—that is not my term, but the NHS’s—because many pensioners choose to retire down in Cornwall.

The current health funding formula does not reflect that seasonal reality or sufficiently account for factors such as population sparsity, rurality or poor transport links, all of which make healthcare much more expensive to provide and all of which affect Cornwall. Our health services are therefore very much overstretched.

The South Western Ambulance Service is the worst-performing ambulance trust in England, and its performance is worst in Cornwall. An April 2025 SWAS performance report showed that Cornwall had the worst category 1 mean response time—nearly 11 minutes, compared with the national target of seven minutes. It is the same for category 2, and the handover time is high as well.

Those ambulance delays have serious consequences. We have ambulances waiting outside our hospital, and in December 2023 two of our coroners wrote to the Secretary of State with a concern about avoidable deaths as a result. They were keen to stress that the challenges are systemic; they are not the fault of the trusts, and they are too big for a single doctor, nurse or paramedic to fix, and too big for the hospital trust or ambulance trust to fix on its own.

The waiting times have actually reduced well over the past year, partly because of the Government’s focus on health and partly because of the work of local health partners and the granular work of the voluntary sector down in Cornwall, including organisations such as the CHAOS Group, Volunteer Cornwall and Age UK. Our foundation trust struggles with large numbers of legacy buildings that have been taken over by NHS Property Services, and it is being charged for rent and maintenance that has not been delivered. Giving control of those buildings back to the trust would help. Our mental health funding is also low, with many patients having to go out of county to be treated.

In summary, our health system is at breaking point. To tackle the systemic issues, we need to recognise that rural and coastal areas face higher costs and additional pressures for care, and we need a fairer formula that truly reflects seasonal demand and rurality.

16:44

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for securing this debate.

I am here to focus specifically on fertility treatment in Devon, which is one of the costs we have because of the atrocious funding situation to which the hon. Member referred. The Devon integrated care board is not currently funding fertility care for local patients in line with Department of Health and Social Care expectations, and is not following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in their entirety. Its policy is not based entirely on the clinical factors recommended by NICE, but is based instead on previous clinical commissioning group policy, economic factors and additional non-clinical factors, which are all understandable, but that is not good enough for local patients.

NICE states:

“Commissioners…should commission sufficient capacity within specialist fertility services to provide 3 full cycles…for women aged under 40 years who meet the criteria for IVF…A full cycle should include 1 episode of ovarian stimulation and the transfer of any resultant fresh and frozen embryo(s)”,

and that any previous cycle counts towards that total. NICE guidelines also state that women under 40 who meet the criteria for IVF treatment

“should be offered 3 full cycles of IVF”

with a cycle defined as including one episode, as I have said. A full cycle ends either when every available but viable embryo has been transferred, or when one results in a pregnancy.

Devon ICB incompletely funds only a portion of one cycle. It has made up a different definition of a cycle, and, in the commissioning policy, defines a cycle as

“one…fresh and one…frozen implantation of embryos. A frozen embryo transfer episode will only be available if there are embryos generated from the fresh cycle suitable for freezing.”

That does not include any remaining embryos from the first cycle of stimulation, nor the remaining two cycles recommended by NICE. Devon should be funding three full cycles, and it is not.

That means that we are living in a legitimate postcode lottery: people with a PL, TQ or EX postcode are being completely sold short. I believe we need to treat this, and we need to see what the Government can do to mitigate the problem and to encourage ICBs such as Devon to ensure that just living within their health authority should not mean that people cannot access the treatment that others in other parts of the country can access, particularly those under 40 years old.

16:46

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In less than a year, this Government have recruited 1,700 new GPs, delivered 3.5 million new appointments and cut waiting lists by more than 200,000. Just today, we heard in the Chamber the good news from the spending review: a record cash investment increase, in real terms, of 3% every year up to 2029, the equivalent of £29 billion extra a year. That will help to put our NHS back on the road to recovery.

In Dorset, we are already seeing the impacts of the investment. Dorset ICB has seen 13,600 extra urgent dental appointments. The public health grant for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council is up from £22 million in 2024-25 to £23.3 million in 2025-26. There have been four surgeries identified for enhancement in Bournemouth, one of which is in my constituency, and the waiting list for University Hospitals Dorset trust is down by 1,715 between July and now.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for setting out so clearly the work this Labour Government are doing to fix our NHS. Will he take the opportunity to welcome the investment of some £100 million being delivered by this Labour Government that will totally rebuild the emergency department and critical care unit at Dorset county hospital? Does he share my belief that fixing the front door of our national health service is essential for driving down waiting lists in Dorset?

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I, of course, welcome that investment and it will benefit both his constituents and mine.

We are also seeing significant investments in the Royal Bournemouth hospital. Just yesterday, I was standing on top of the Coast building at the hospital, at the topping-out ceremony. The Coast building will feature 110 new beds across four floors, a larger kitchen and a catering facility. If we look across from the top of that building, we will see the new £91 million Beach building that houses the emergency department from the Royal Bournemouth. Services moved into that building in May, and it will also contain a maternity unit, critical care and a children’s unit, which will be moving in next year.

These developments are all part of a £500 million transformation of University Hospitals Dorset sites, which is much needed and will have a critical impact. These investments across hospitals, and across Dorset, will improve care for the people of our region—for my constituents—and will support our staff, who have been really looking for light at the end of the tunnel after 14 difficult years of Conservative rule, so that they can care for patients in modern, purpose-built facilities.

I would like more. Despite all the investment and the upcoming reform, I would like the funding formula to be changed so that it reflects the age profile of our local area. The south-west and especially areas such as BCP have a much higher older population, but not the funding to match. Our house prices are high but, unlike in Hampshire, UHD staff do not get pay weighting. I would also like to register concerns about proposals to create new subsidiary companies in Dorset and Newcastle. I have called for a pause in those processes, because I have concerns about the terms and conditions. Existing staff who are TUPE-ed into a subco have their existing terms and conditions protected, but I am concerned that when new staff are recruited into subcos, they do not have existing NHS terms and conditions. That could particularly affect lower-paid roles.

In conclusion, I thank the Government for their prioritisation of our NHS. I feel that the NHS is firmly on the path to renewal and is in safe hands.

16:50

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Across Bath, people wait far too long for the NHS care that they urgently need. There are proven ways to bring down waiting times and boost NHS capacity, but they are not always used to their full potential. I recently visited Bath Clinic, an independent sector provider with the infrastructure, staff and capacity to deliver high-quality secondary acute care. Bath Clinic ringfences slots for NHS patients. If the slots are not filled, they simply sit empty. Valuable appointments are wasted while my constituents in Bath linger on waiting lists without any good explanation. I understand that, across England, ICBs are planning to commission between 5% and 20% less activity from private hospitals this year, while the latest data—from March—shows that NHS waiting lists are getting longer.

The longer patients wait, the more complex and costly their care becomes. Using independent sector capacity in the limited way that I have described gets people the treatment that they need when they need it, and helps them to return to work and to their lives. Everyone suffers when those slots are not used. This is not a criticism of the NHS or its dedicated staff. It is a call to make full use of every available resource to support them. The independent sector is not a replacement, but the capacity is there and it could make a real difference. This is also an issue of choice. The NHS constitution enshrines patient choice, so there is no excuse for not offering it.

I have one question for the Minister: can she help me to understand why independent sector healthcare providers are not being used? Services such as Bath Clinic are ready to help and they have capacity that otherwise will simply go to waste.

16:52

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on the debate. I will try, in my remaining two minutes, to cover four subjects very quickly. The first is about the fair funding question or whether the funding to an area is sufficient. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) rightly referred to the seasonality of the pressures and the rural nature of the geography, but in Cornwall there is also the issue of the peninsularity of the geography. People cannot call on an emergency service to the north, south or west in a place such as Cornwall and therefore we need to make provision for services so that they can cover all eventualities. Also, this year, during the settlement process, people are talking about cost improvements within the ICB spending programme over the future year. In Cornwall, it is a cost improvement—the rest of us might describe it as a cut in services—of £108 million, which is about 7% of the budget overall. That will create tremendous pressure in areas such as ours.

The second issue is value for money estimates. I visited a brilliant project very recently: the Helston Gateway project, which has created a new GP surgery across 20 consultation rooms, and achieved that on the basis of a building cost of just £1,400 a square metre, which is half the cost that people would get if they went to private sector contractors doing it through NHS development programmes and certainly significantly less than in the private finance initiative programmes of the past. I strongly urge Ministers to look at such brilliant initiatives as a brilliant way to provide services.

The third issue is stopping private sector organisations cherry-picking the profitable parts of the NHS and therefore undermining acute sector trusts. Finally, I would welcome clarity as to why the acute trust in Cornwall is not having its debt written off, unlike other provider trusts and ICBs.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

The aim is to take the three Front Benchers from 5.09 pm, which means that the time limit is dropping down to two minutes each.

16:55

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on securing the debate.

GP funding is in crisis. I have met representatives of individual practices in my Newton Abbot constituency, as well as the 28 practice managers from around the district. They all have a funding crisis. The recent GP settlement was described to me as unsafe, unsustainable and unfunded.

GP funding is complex, but in essence it has two parts: the global sum and the quality outcomes framework. The global sum is meant to cover basic costs, including salaries, facilities, and so on, and the QOF extra services, but it does not cover any of it. Practice managers across south Devon have told me that the global sum is £121.79 per patient per year. That works out as less than paying to take a dog to the vet for an annual check-up, or about a third of the cost of servicing a modest car, such as a Renault Megane. That sum is also then modified by the Carr-Hill formula, which, perversely, can reduce the sum in areas of deprivation. The Royal College of General Practitioners wrote in an open letter to Government last year that this formula is no longer fit for purpose and has contributed to the widening health inequalities across the country.

Practices in the areas of greatest deprivation have patients with more complex needs, yet they do not receive proportional funding to address those needs. For example, Buckland surgery in my constituency has 4,000 patients, but the Carr-Hill formula reduces the funding to the equivalent for 3,200 patients. Practice managers are juggling numbers to make things work. Some surgeries are short of a full-time GP; just imagine the impact that has on patients. No wonder it is difficult to get an appointment. That is unsafe. The Government have said that from October GPs must offer an open access service; that means that all available slots are booked, so emergency appointments cannot be seen. That is not sustainable.

16:57

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for securing this vital debate.

I start by thanking the amazing NHS staff across Yeovil. The NHS makes me so proud to be British, but our NHS in Somerset has been left on its knees, particularly Yeovil hospital. First, we had the closure of the hyper-acute stroke unit and now we have had the temporary closure of the maternity services. As I have said before, I am worried that the decisions made to protect patient safety in Yeovil may undermine it. That is why we continue to push for the safe reopening of maternity services as soon as possible. It is also why I will soon submit a second call-in request on the decision to close the hyper-acute stroke unit at Yeovil. I again urge the Minister to join local health leaders in committing to fund and maintain a general district hospital in Yeovil.

Without enough properly supported and funded staff, the NHS cannot function. That is partly why Yeovil hospital is in the state it is in. What steps is the Department taking to encourage people to work in the NHS in the south-west, and what future guidance and support will the NHS in Somerset get to maintain staff, and to improve working culture and staff mental health?

Our GP practices and our dentistry desperately need support, too. I am really pleased to have received confirmation from the Minister that Crewkerne health centre and Church View medical centre in Neroche are set to receive a share of the £102 million for GPs to deliver upgrades to their practices. It is a shame that our other practices have not been so successful.

More must be done. The Government must get on with fixing the NHS dental contract and I am worried about the implications of the cuts and mergers faced by the ICBs. Although we are taking steps in the right direction, more must be done to fund our NHS, so that people in Yeovil get the safe and local healthcare they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that someone will probably end up falling off the call list; there are people standing to speak who were not on the list and who were not standing at the beginning of the debate. Let us see how we go.

16:54

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. The NHS is a vital service. I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and many other health professionals who look after my constituents. Bridgwater community hospital, Burnham-on-Sea War Memorial hospital and GP practices across the constituency provide the health services that people need.

Hon. Members will know that during the five years of coalition Government and nine years of Conservative Government, spending on the NHS rose in real terms every year. However, increased spending alone will not fix the problems in our region. NHS productivity fell during the pandemic and, despite recovering, is still lower than it was in 2019. We need improvements in both productivity and service quality.

My constituents have raised the difficulty of getting GP appointments when they need them. Last year, the Government announced a large pay rise for junior doctors with no strings attached. What is the result of that? Less than a year later, junior doctors are back asking for more and threatening to go on strike unless they get another above-inflation pay increase. I want to see our NHS staff paid more—they do vital work in our community—but those increases must come with improved productivity and service for our constituents. How does the Minister propose to provide more GP appointments? My constituents also find it difficult, if not impossible, to find an NHS dentist. What steps will the Minister take to improve dental care in the south-west?

The Government have announced that they will abolish NHS England. I sincerely hope that will reduce bureaucracy and lead to improved services and shorter waiting lists, but if it results in the same people being shuffled around and given different job titles, few savings will be made. I wish the Minister well as she endeavours to improve healthcare across our region.

17:01

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on securing this debate. Following the Chancellor’s spending review announced in the House today, I am appalled that Cornwall and the wider south-west have been seemingly overlooked yet again, with Swindon the closest place to get a mention. Hospitals such as North Devon district hospital in Barnstaple, which serves thousands of my constituents, are crumbling before our eyes, as is the Camelford GP surgery.

Our constituents deserve to get appropriate care when they need it and, crucially for those living in rural areas, where they need it. With the recent cuts to bus routes such as the numbers 11 and 12 by the previous Tory-run council, residents of Bude, Launceston, Padstow and many other towns do not have a direct public transport route to their cancer appointments at Derriford hospital. Those routes urgently need Government funding.

Our Liberal Democrat policy aims for every cancer patient to start their treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, but for many cancer patients in Cornwall, disruptions to vital transport links make that much more difficult. All the while, the number of cancer patients waiting over four months for treatment more than doubled between 2020 and 2023 under the previous Tory Government.

In comparison with the plans laid out today in the spending review, the Liberal Democrats would invest in a rural fund for our GPs, dentists and pharmacists so that, for example, my nine-year-old constituent Sophie would not need to wait 12 hours at A&E in Treliske with a tooth infection. That sort of investment would significantly reduce the number of visits to our hospitals in the first place. At the same time, we would tackle the fundamental issues that hold back our social care system; solve the care crisis with cross-party talks; introduce a fair deal for our carers, with a higher wage and a new royal college of care workers; and, finally, get our NHS back on track. We owe it to our brilliant NHS staff and our patients across the south-west.

17:03

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

My constituency, which straddles the Devon-Somerset border, has a disproportionately elderly population. We have perhaps even greater and more regular healthcare needs than some other parts of the country, but significant funding shortfalls have hit GP practices particularly hard.

In the coastal west Somerset area, we have what are termed dental deserts. The percentage of adults in my constituency seen in the last two years by a dentist falls well under the national average. A&E departments see the effects of that down the line. The failure to treat ailments at an earlier stage often leads to conditions deteriorating and to serious complications, leaving A&E departments overwhelmed.

Let us not kid ourselves: the strains on A&E capacity are downstream from the insufficiency of GP and dental services, whose raison d’être is to provide routine and preventive care. We need a systemic overhaul to shore up GP and dental services so that they are fit to tackle the problems at their onset and remove some of the pressure on accident and emergency.

I am all too aware that healthcare professionals tend to practise where they trained, so we want to swell the ranks of our nurses, doctors and dentists in Tiverton and Minehead by providing locally based training colleges. In Tiverton and Minehead, we also have a shortage of pharmacies. Let us be clear: this is about essential medication. Finally, I have often talked about the lack of transport facilities in my constituency. The paucity of healthcare provision across my constituency coupled with the significant shortcomings in public transport creates a bleak picture indeed.

17:05

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, Dr Huq. In every Budget that I have seen over the past 15 years, either as a Treasury Minister or as a constituency MP, more money—whether it is 1%, 2% or 3% more—has gone into the NHS, yet there is still a demand for even more money at the next fiscal event. In the south-west, there are 5.7 million people, 30% of whom live in rural areas. We will always have limited resources, so we have to be radical in organising them differently. I urge the Minister to look at not just how we deal with care based on the physical location of acute hospitals, but how we deliver more localised digital care and investment in relevant digital infrastructure.

The chief executive of the Bath, Swindon and Wiltshire hospitals group tells me that a national approach to AI would be hugely welcome to unlock the delivery of radiology, pathology, clinical administration and risk stratification in a much more effective way. We have to level with our constituents that services cannot all be delivered at the local hospital if we are going to have the best service and the appropriate aggregation.

I urge the Minister to address the issue of digital systems. How can we bring them to a different level and deal with demand management? Demand is outstripping supply, and we have to look at investment in public health. To that end, I urge her not to move most of the Porton Down campus to Harlow, which would save a considerable sum of money that we could use in the south-west.

17:07

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on securing the debate. I will be as brief as I can. I would love to talk about the lack of NHS dentist appointments in West Dorset or the problem with the funding model for community pharmacies, but instead I will just make the point that integrated care boards such as NHS Dorset are being asked to cut their staff by 50% on top of previous cuts of 30%. These are the people who ensure that frontline services run smoothly, and I am concerned that gutting their capacity in such numbers so quickly risks destabilising the very system that we are trying to fix.

Although NHS Dorset has a plan in place to break even, it is reliant on delivering £190 million in savings. The trust has requested £14 million in additional financial support, but remains £22 million short of its funding target. There is also a pressing need for capital investment in digital infrastructure to help modernise hospital estates, such as Dorset county hospital, to streamline services.

The closure of the maternity unit at Yeovil means that Dorset county hospital in Dorchester is picking up much of the slack; it is looking after more patients with no additional cash. The fact is that delivering services in rural communities in the south-west is more expensive than it is in urban areas. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that rural communities are no longer left behind?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that we will now move on to the Front Benchers, starting with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

17:08

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for bringing forward this important debate.

We have been reminded by hon. Members that the Conservative legacy is pensioners left in agony, waiting for hours for an ambulance that may not come in time; women forced to give birth in unsafe, overstretched conditions; and people having to pull out their own teeth—in the 21st century—because they cannot find an NHS dentist. We have heard from hon. Members that the south-west has some of the longest ambulance waits in the country, some of the worst repair backlogs, and waiting times for GPs and dentists that are simply unacceptable. That is not just a strain on our health services but a daily struggle for families, carers and patients across our region.

The Liberal Democrats believe that people deserve better, and that they should be in control of their own lives and health. That means people getting the care that they need, when they need it and where they need it, without them having to fight every step of the way. Instead of lurching from one crisis to the next, as previous Governments have done, we have a plan. It starts with early investment in community health—in GPs, pharmacists and dentists—so that fewer people end up in hospital to begin with. We will finally fix the crisis in social care, so that people are not left stuck in hospital beds with nowhere to go.

If we expect to rely on our NHS in future, we simply must invest in it. We need not just big grand schemes but investment in the simplest yet most important things. For example, in my own patch in Mid Sussex, the Princess Royal hospital recently had only one of its four lifts working over a weekend.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much more expensive to provide services in rural areas than in urban areas? An example is the pharmacy funding model, which relies on footfall. On a recent visit to Modbury pharmacy, staff told me that they are really struggling to stay afloat because they do not have enough footfall, and they cannot reach the national payment threshold that would enable them to survive. Does she agree that we need to look at rural exceptions for critical services such as community pharmacies?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about rurality, which is obviously a big issue in the south-west. It is also a serious issue in Sussex where we have things in common with the south-west, such as having an older than average population and all the challenges that come with that, as hon. Members have mentioned.

Hospitals want to be able to sort those issues out, but they are left juggling priorities, barely scraping by with the current levels of funding. Things do not work if we do not look after them, and if we do not look after our health system, it will not be able to look after us or our loved ones. Although I am sure that the Minister will make the point about capital investment in the NHS, which is welcome, the future looks very uncertain and precarious for our ICBs, as a number of hon. Members have said.

Soon after ICBs were first created, they had to cut their budgets by 30%. They have now been asked to cut their budgets by 50% on average. Indeed, for Sussex, the cut is more than 50%—it is 53%. It is no surprise that Sussex and Surrey have formally proposed merging their ICBs, which, by running at the same time as local government reorganisation and the creation of a mayoralty, means we will end up with an ICB that does not have the same footprint as the new incoming mayor.

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

What does my hon. Friend think about how ICB funding is weighted? I contend that the formula overemphasises the size of each ICB and the size of the registered population, but does not account sufficiently for age, given that older people require more funding spent on them.

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. It is vital that when we look at per head of population funding, we think about the different factors that actually drive up the true cost of delivering healthcare across the country, which obviously varies by region.

On ICBs, I will press the Minister on three points. First, on the timescale for cuts to be delivered by ICBs, they have to be completed by the end of 2025. The Sussex ICB had about three weeks to make that initial submission to the Department. Does the Minister think that those timescales are realistic and achievable? Secondly, what will the cost of the redundancies be for ICBs? Has that calculation been done? For Sussex, we are looking at more than half the workforce losing their jobs. Thirdly, what is the impact assessment for patients and the service that they will receive as a result of cuts to ICBs?

For too long, social care has been treated like the back door of our public services. It has been overlooked, underfunded and taken for granted. That must change. That is why we must once again ask for more urgency on social care reform. I believe that personal care should be free at the point of use, just like the NHS—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

17:14

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and a privilege to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on securing the debate at such a timely point, following today’s spending review.

The focus on NHS funding, particularly in underserved regions such as the south-west, is welcome, so that every area of the UK is properly equipped to meet the healthcare needs of all communities. I, too, represent a predominantly rural constituency, so I am keenly aware of the unique challenges in healthcare provision facing remote areas. Geography should not be a barrier to treatment, but for many in the south-west and beyond, it still is.

We heard in the spending review today that the NHS will receive a substantial cash uplift. We must ensure this money is spent in the most effective way possible. We do not have the allocations yet, but can the Minister enlighten us on whether there will be an amount allocated particularly for rural healthcare. The spending review document talks about efficiencies of £9 billion to be achieved by the Department of Health and Social Care. Can the Minister elaborate on how those efficiencies will be achieved?

Much has been said already about the financial pressures facing integrated care boards. The Government’s proposal to restructure NHS clusters in the south-west into larger conglomerates is presented as a move towards greater efficiency, but care must be taken that this does not come at the expense of local responsiveness or patient outcomes. NHS England is legally required to assess the performance of each ICB annually and publish its findings. However, the Government have decided at the same time to abolish NHS England—a decision they took without a proper impact assessment.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentions patient outcomes, but in Plymouth we have patients awaiting assessments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder being left in limbo and unable to move forwards. Does she agree that the current refusal by some GPs to enter into shared care agreements is effectively blocking access to a diagnosis for adults pursuing ADHD assessments through the right to choose?

[Dr Johnson]

I would need to look at that separately and come back to the hon. Member on it, although he should perhaps direct his question to the Minister, as she has control at the Department at the moment.

The problem with cutting both the ICBs and NHS England is that it risks destabilising the very structures that are designed to deliver care simultaneously. The chief executive of NHS England has stated that legislation will be required to change the duties on ICBs. When do the Government intend to introduce the health Bill and, when they do so, can the Minister rule out the removal of the duty in the Health and Care Act 2022 requiring integrated care systems to commission dental services?

In paragraph 5.12 of the spending review, the Government say that 92% of patients will start consultant-led treatment for non-urgent health conditions within 18 weeks, but The Times has reported that the figure is closer to 80%. Can the Minister please clarify where the 92% figure has come from, and if she is unable to do so today, will she write to me?

Much of this debate has been about infrastructure. Since the last general election, Ministers have pledged to deliver the new hospitals programme in full, without caveats or conditions. However, in Torbay, for example, the rebuilding has been pushed back, with construction now expected to begin between 2033 and 2035. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), Ministers have given the greenlight to rebuilding Derriford hospital’s new accident and emergency facility. Can the Minister confirm if there are plans to bring any of the other projects forward?

Let me turn to national insurance contributions. The Royal College of General Practitioners has described the national insurance increase as,

“the straw that breaks the camel’s back, forcing them to make tough decisions on redundancies or even closing their practice”.

The Government’s promise to recruit more GPs is welcome, but hiking national insurance puts that pledge in jeopardy, as GPs will have no choice but to cut staff numbers. This is a false economy, so will the Minister use any of the money allocated today to help those services, such as GPs, air ambulances, hospices, pharmacies and others, that are affected by the national insurance contribution rise?

It will not have escaped Members’ notice that, despite the Chancellor promising that the NHS plan would arrive by spring, we are now at the start of summer—indeed, the Government promised that they had one before the election last year. Will the Minister provide some clarity on when we can expect this long-awaited plan?

17:19

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for securing the debate. We could have had more time, as this is an important issue for us all across the whole south-west. I thank colleagues for taking part.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the system has real challenges receiving deficit funding in our part of the NHS recovery support programme. He will rightly be following that closely. In the autumn Budget, which I think virtually everyone in this room disagreed with, the Chancellor took the necessary decisions to put our NHS on the road to recovery, with a more than £22.5 billion increase in day-to-day health spending and over £3 billion more in the capital budget over this year and the last. Today, the Chancellor has announced the conclusion of the spending review, with £29 billion more day-to-day funding in real terms than in 2023-24. There is a £2.3 billion real-terms increase in capital spending over the spending review period—something I hope everyone welcomes.

The SR puts the NHS on a sustainable footing by cutting waiting lists so that by the end of this Parliament 92% of patients will start consultant-led treatment for non-urgent health conditions at 18 weeks, delivering on the Prime Minister’s plan for change commitment and prioritising people’s health. To respond to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), we do encourage use of the independent sector for capacity, and that is a decision for ICBs to make sure they achieve those standards. The settlement also supports the shift from analogue to digital, with a total investment of up to £10 billion in NHS technology and transformation between ’26-27 and ’28-29, and an almost 50% increase from ’25-26. I agree with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that technology offers huge opportunities in geographies like ours.

Thanks to the Chancellor, we are taking the necessary steps towards fixing the foundations of our NHS and making it fit for the future. Since coming into office, the Government have published our urgent and emergency care plan, which will support the NHS across England to improve the timeliness and delivery of care to patients requiring urgent and emergency care over the next year, including for next winter. We are delivering on our plan for change through the accelerated roll-out of the NHS app. We will create an NHS fit for the future and continue to invest in the latest technology, shifting healthcare from analogue to digital.

Our investment and reform in general practice, to fix the front door to the NHS and bring back the family doctor, includes an additional investment of £889 million. We have published our elective reform plan, which will cut waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks. We have exceeded our pledge to deliver an additional 2 million appointments, tests and operations—we have delivered over 3 million more. Waiting lists have fallen for the sixth month in a row and have now been cut by over 219,000 since we came to office. The Government have committed to a10-year health plan that will lead the NHS to meet the challenges set out in the plan for change to build the NHS for the future, and it will be coming very soon.

I know that hon. Members across the House share the concerns of the hon. Member for Torbay about the crumbling NHS estate after years of neglect. I wish to assure Members that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given us the funding to begin reversing the trend of decline in the south-west and nationwide, with health capital spending rising to £13.6 billion this year.

In the south-west region, allocations have been made totalling £448 million in operational capital, empowering systems to allocate funding to local priorities; over £238 million from our constitutional standards recovery fund to support NHS performance across secondary and emergency care; and £83 million from the £750 million estates safety fund to deliver vital safety improvements, enhance patient and staff environments and support NHS productivity. This includes £7.3 million for Torbay hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Torbay; £10 million from our primary care utilisation fund for improvements in the primary care estate; and almost £5 million to help to reduce inappropriate out-of-area placements for mental health patients in the south-west.

ICB allocations have been talked about a lot today. For the south-west, they have been confirmed as totalling £11.5 billion out of a total of £116.7 billion allocated for England. The regional allocation per capita for the south-west is above the national average. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) that the signs are being seen in their constituencies.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to just complete these points, so that I can try to address as many points as possible.

In the constituency of the hon. Member for Torbay, the local ICB, NHS Devon, receives £2.5 billion of the £11.5 billion for the south-west. The allocation per capita for Devon is higher still, and above the south-west regional average. Likewise, NHS Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly ICB received just over £1.2 billion of that £11.5 billion total. The allocation per capita for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is above the south-west regional average and national average.

To respond to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), I understand from NHS England that the ICB has had the debt written off, so that might be something he wants to follow up. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and others talked about funding allocations—we could talk about this for a very long time. They are difficult things to get right, and are controversial, but the funding formulation does account for older people and for rural populations.

The latest financial performance position publicly available is for quarter three of last year. It showed an overall deficit position of £51.7 million against the year-to-date plans, of which Dorset ICS had the largest variance of £27.7 million. Final end-of-year positions are still being finalised and will be made publicly available in due course. For ’25-26, NHS systems overall have received £2.2 billion of deficit support funding in their allocations. All systems in the south-west have now agreed a balanced plan for ’25-26. The position on deficit support for ’26-27 will follow the spending review settlement for individual organisations agreed as part of the planning guidance process.

NHS England will continue to support all organisations to deliver financially sustainable healthcare through a range of improvement measures, some of which we have heard about today. Devon integrated care board, and three trusts within the ICB, are currently part of the recovery support programme, which provides intensive support to challenged organisations. Where organisations are struggling significantly, the Department of Health and Social Care provides cash support to support the continuity of patient services—obviously, that is critically important. So that colleagues are aware, I am personally meeting with finance colleagues from NHS England and the Department of Health every week to support that work. We are clear as a Government that we need to be certain that every pound of taxpayers’ money is used to best effect, and that best practice is followed in this region and across the entire NHS.

The hon. Member for Torbay asked about coronary services, and that is a local decision. NHS Devon and Torbay Foundation Trust have proposed undertaking a test-and-learn process for out-of-hours primary percutaneous coronary intervention. That service will be provided in Torbay and Exeter, which would involve a temporary change to provide out-of-hours services at Exeter only. Members will be aware that the ICB was due to make a decision on the pilot at its board meeting in May. However, following significant local feedback, the ICB has decided to reflect on those issues raised, and I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay will be following up on that. The ICB will be providing an update at its board meeting in July.

In conclusion, the Government are taking the necessary steps to fix the NHS, and the Chancellor’s spending review settlement puts the NHS further on the road to recovery. I assure Members that we will write back to them on any other individual points raised.

17:27

[Steve Darling]

I thank all colleagues for coming and joining this debate, however short people’s interventions may have been. I also thank the Minister for casting at least some light on this subject, but what we have heard from other colleagues from all over the south-west has been very enlightening. I am sure that there is much more for us to go away and campaign on, but this has been truly debated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered NHS funding in the South West.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.