Westminster Hall

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 17 June 2025

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Hydrogen-powered Aviation

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered hydrogen powered aviation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I will start by thanking everyone who has come this morning to participate in this debate. This subject sits at the crossroads of three major challenges facing our country today: our climate ambitions, our pursuit of technological innovation and our desire to kickstart domestic industry.

As the Member of Parliament for North Somerset, my constituency is certainly no stranger to the aerospace industry. Since the pandemic, Bristol airport has emerged as one of the UK’s fastest-growing airports, now serving 10 million passengers a year, with plans to increase that to 15 million passengers a year by 2040. Although many of my constituents have expressed support for the potential for the 10,000 or so additional jobs such an expansion may bring to my local area, many more have expressed concern over how it can be squared against the airport’s aim to achieve net zero by 2030.

Last week, we saw the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill enter the House for its Second Reading. That Bill will do much to spur and support the nation’s sustainable aviation fuel sector, in which Bristol airport is already a leading light. I—and I have no doubt many Members in this room—would echo those sentiments. I am a strong supporter of sustainable aviation fuel, and I look forward to seeing the transformational effect it will have on aviation emissions in the years to come.

The Government have already clearly displayed their vision and leadership in this space, and set forth a sensible plan to bring about the maturity of this sector. That is why I wish to focus our debate today not on the technology of tomorrow, but on that of the day after. Hydrogen-powered aviation presents one of the few truly scalable zero-emission pathways for the future of aviation, allowing us to meet our net zero targets while simultaneously keeping flying affordable and accessible.

We currently find ourselves in a fortunate position. The UK is already home to some of the most innovative aerospace companies in the word. From Airbus, located near my old house in Filton—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—to Rolls-Royce in Derby, we have a wealth of expertise to draw on, with a track record of innovative success. Aviation is currently responsible for around 7% of emissions in the UK today, with that figure expected to rise to 16% by 2035 unless meaningful action is taken soon.

Although in recent years we have had great success in decarbonising our power generation, cars, heating and many other sectors, the stark reality is that aviation is one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise. Currently aviation is primarily fuelled by kerosene, and although great strides have been made in sustainable aviation fuel in recent years, there are currently no cost-competitive alternatives available. As the world continues on the inextricable path towards even greater levels of globalism and integration, the aviation industry’s ability to move people and goods swiftly across continents will only continue to grow in importance.

However, as aviation’s role in the global economy continues to grow, so will its contribution to global emissions, unless we have the foresight today to take the necessary steps for tomorrow and begin supporting the nascent hydrogen aviation industry. In my constituency, Bristol airport has shown real vision and leadership by taking a leading role in the Hydrogen in Aviation alliance, which has laid out a clear case for immediate action to secure our comparative advantage, not just for the betterment of our environment but for the economic prospects. That is a part of this debate that is not spoken about enough.

Many years ago, the UK was an early innovator and pioneer in the offshore wind sector, but a slow, disjointed deployment saw many of the manufacturing opportunities shift abroad to Europe, China and elsewhere. Today we find ourselves in a similar situation with hydrogen. The next 10 years will be critical: either we develop a coherent policy framework, which encourages private sector investment, or we will cede our leadership to the United States, China, the European Union and others, who are already heavily investing in hydrogen-powered aviation. By 2050, the global hydrogen economy is predicted to be worth around $8 trillion. Let us not make the mistake of the offshore wind sector again. Let us be leaders in this space, and so reap the rewards.

The west of England boasts the largest aerospace cluster in the UK. I recently had the privilege of visiting my former university in Bath, and the science park it has developed in tandem with the University of Bristol. They are doing excellent work to realise hydrogen’s potential to transform the aviation sector. Those twin pillars of south-west higher education are working closely with Airbus and Bristol airport as part of the Hydrogen South West group, which aims to cement the position of North Somerset, Bristol and the surrounding area as a national leader in the field.

During my visit to the science park it was made clear to me that although they are excited about the role that hydrogen has to play in the future of the aviation industry, the ever-shifting net zero policy landscape—especially the perceived lack of clarity from the Government on hydrogen’s future role—has handicapped the sector’s ability to draw in private investment. The Government must make it clear to the private sector that they do have faith in hydrogen’s ability to transform the aviation sector, and that early investment into the nascent industry will be rewarded in future.

According to data supplied by the sector’s trade association ADS, the global aviation industry could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050, even by today’s lacklustre transition plans. As we have seen with sustainable aviation fuel, the scaling up of production to those levels will require not just significant private and Government investment, but years to develop plans, build plants and train a sufficiently skilled workforce. It is imperative that we get moving on this issue today.

Although in one moment we must applaud the Government for their work on sustainable aviation fuel, in the next we must begin turning and then fixing their gaze towards hydrogen. The Government have already signalled support of the sector by announcing £100 million for the development of hydrogen planes through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme shortly after coming to power last July. In the autumn Budget, the Government announced almost £1 billion for the aerospace sector over the next five years. Similarly, in the spending review delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, £500 million was committed to support the development of hydrogen infrastructure.

Over the past year, however, I have had innumerable conversations with leading figures in the sector, who have told me time and again of significant anxiety as to whether the UK Government envisage hydrogen having a direct role in the aviation industry in the medium to long term. While other countries push ahead with hydrogen, rightly seeing it as a valuable export market, we run the risk of being left in their wake—or contrails—unless we get a move on and make clear to the industry our steadfast support.

The experience of transition to renewables taught us that although Government investment can catalyse partnerships with the private sector, it ultimately must fall to the private sector to be the driver of change. Before the private sector will start the engine, it falls to this House and this Government thoroughly to investigate this area, set sensible standards and support the development of the necessary infrastructure, to enable a hydrogen-powered aviation future. To that end, I eagerly look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to support the industry further in the critical 10 years to come.

09:38

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for leading the debate and setting the scene so well. It is a pleasure to see the Minister and shadow Minister in their places. I look forward to the Minister’s response and helpful answers to our questions, to ensure we are encouraged by this debate that benefits will come to our constituencies.

Hydrogen is an alternative that is becoming more widely explored. There is no doubt it could and must play a part in the UK’s contribution to net zero targets. The ultimate secret to reaching net zero targets is how to do so without adversely impacting our constituents. I am not a sceptic—I never have been. Some people might be sceptics, but I am not one of them. I recognise the importance of meeting the targets, and hydrogen is one way to do that. Alternative forms of energy are being used in many transport paths, so it is important that we are here today to discuss the progression of our aviation industry.

I want to mention some of the things that are happening in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, a progression to hydrogen rather than fossil fuels has its benefits in terms of the transport industry. There are zero carbon dioxide emissions. Hydrogen is attractive for long-haul flights and has faster refuelling mechanisms. Of course, cost implications are very important as we move forward. Any new technology is always costly at the start, but as it gets easier to do, the cost implications reduce. At this moment in time the implications are incredibly large. Airports across the UK will require massive infrastructure upgrades. Most planes will require to be redesigned with larger storage capacity and the freezing temperature of hydrogen must be considered, so there are cost implications there. But for every airport across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do it better together.

Companies across the UK such as Airbus, easyJet, Boeing and Wrightbus in NI have looked at and announced plans for hydrogen-powered aircraft and other modes of transport. We just need to look at the transition that was made back home in Northern Ireland by Wrightbus in Ballymena, who developed a green hydrogen production facility capable of powering up to 300 hydrogen buses daily. It has taken some time to get there, but it was on the cusp of something new, and I understand that now almost every bus in London is a Wrightbus, with potentially more across the country. Furthermore, Airbus has announced plans for a hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft by 2035. That is another indication of the timeline. easyJet successfully tested a hydrogen combustion engine in 2022. There have been many advances—small steps now, but great steps for the future as we look forward.

We have spoken a lot today about the importance of our aviation and aerospace sector to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When we look at transforming capabilities for the future, the key word is investment, so I am keen to get the Minister’s thoughts on how he sees that investment happening with all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the beneficiaries of that. We are very fortunate to have a Minister in place who is a friend of Northern Ireland and who regularly visits. He has had discussions with the Minister back home at the Assembly to formulate ideas and move forward positively and constructively.

The key phrase is investment in the sector. I look at companies such as Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast and in my constituency of Strangford, which offers world-class aerospace engineering capabilities but is in the middle of a “buyover” that guarantees nothing for Northern Irish jobs. In the Chamber last week, when I had an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about this, they were agreeable to the idea of meeting unions and people who could “buy over” to ensure the continuity of jobs across Northern Ireland. How can we possibly talk about investing in companies like this but offer nothing to preserve the future? It is really important that we get it all together in the right way. Perhaps this is a reminder to the relevant Ministers that issues like this will not go away, and that Government intervention to protect the future of our aviation sector is imperative.

There are roles in which all companies across the United Kingdom can play a part, small to large. All of us have a role to play. Some are more critical, but all of them are very helpful. For the likes of Northern Ireland, for instance, we have smaller airports that are perfect for short-haul early flight trials. We are very fortunate to have Belfast International, Belfast City and Londonderry airports, but they are all for short-haul and domestic flights, although there is an indication that next year there will be direct flights to the United States of America.

On early flight trials I have one thought. Ards airport is a small constituency airport—we have the Ulster flying club—and there are possibilities for using that for early trials. Why not? That shows that the reach of this debate can go even further. We have green targets that we are planning to meet. It would be fantastic if the UK could be a global leader in green aviation, but we must never underestimate the cost, the time and the infrastructure that are required.

There is no doubt about the Minister’s commitment to the aviation sector, but I look to him to get an idea of his plans and strategy for the future. That is the encouragement that I am looking for today arising from this debate, and I seek reassurances about people’s jobs in the aviation sector. We need to retain people with the relevant skills, so in the event of any changeovers—for instance, at Spirit AeroSystems back home—we must ensure that jobs are retained and encouraged. The industry would be nothing without the workers in it, who make it what it is, and Government intervention is required to maintain its success.

I look forward to seeing what the future looks like for hydrogen-powered aviation, and I have a very strong and positive hope—indeed, perhaps a vision—that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can showcase what we have to offer for the future of aviation, and particularly for hydrogen-powered aviation.

09:46

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this timely and very important debate.

My constituency of Mansfield is just a stone’s throw away from East Midlands airport, which is one of the UK’s key freight and passenger hubs. It is important not only to our local economy, but to many of my constituents, who use the airport to get away on family holidays. With climate change being a significant concern to many of my constituents, and with the instability of hydrocarbon-based aviation fuel pricing as a result of numerous factors, including global conflict, I very much welcome the consideration of hydrogen-powered aviation as a practical and vital path towards sustainable flight.

The east midlands has always been at the heart of British industry and innovation, and now we must be at the forefront of clean technology. Aviation accounts for around 7% of our carbon emissions and the figure is growing, but rather than grounding its progress, we need to power it differently. Hydrogen offers us a really tangible solution: it produces zero carbon emissions at the point of use, and has great potential to fuel short and medium-haul flights by the mid-2030s—exactly the kinds of routes that operate out of East Midlands airport.

Hydrogen has real, tangible benefits over other approaches such as sustainable aviation fuel and battery power. We are already seeing British companies—including companies local to me in the east midlands, such as Rolls-Royce, and ZeroAvia in the south-west, which is working with East Midlands airport—investing in hydrogen engines. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to at least consider supporting that transition, not only to meet our climate targets but to protect and grow jobs in aviation, engineering and logistics in the east midlands.

Let us not forget that our constituents all want cleaner skies and to reach net zero, but they also want the opportunity to travel. Hydrogen-powered aviation can potentially deliver both, but to develop the technology to do that, we need the right investment in infrastructure, and particularly in research and development. We can turn regional airports into hubs of innovation that are important for the regions, and create a new export market in green aviation technology—that is not pie in the sky thinking. It will take some work to achieve it, but it is practical and necessary.

We should back British innovation and cleaner aviation. Let us ensure that the east midlands, Britain and the UK lead the world with this new, exciting technology.

09:50

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate, which is particularly important for the west of England.

Hydrogen-powered flights have real potential to cut carbon emissions in a notoriously difficult to decarbonise industry, while still allowing people to enjoy flying around the world, as the aircraft would emit only water vapour. The industry needs support now, however, which means thinking about the technology, infrastructure and regulation.

Airbus, where many of my constituents work, is aiming for hydrogen-powered airliners by 2035. Its studies suggest that UK hydrogen aviation could support up to 110,000 jobs in this country, and we absolutely have the potential to show global leadership. When I discussed the ZEROe project on a visit to Airbus last year, it was trying to decide between hydrogen combustion and hydrogen fuel cells. It has now plumped for the latter, although it does not rule out direct combustion in the future. It and other manufacturers are working in collaboration with academia, and there is some excellent knowledge in this area in our local universities. We need to back investment in research, development and manufacturing infrastructure. Other companies such as GKN, which has a base in my constituency, are also looking at hydrogen.

The west of England has a long history of innovation in aviation, going back to the days of Sir George White; it has many things that co-ordinate to make it a place to invest. For example, just outside my constituency, we have the Bristol and Bath science park, and we have the national composites centre. Hydrogen molecules are very small, so containing it is a challenge, but that is where the national composites centre’s expertise can help. In the science park, the institute for advanced automotive propulsion systems is also looking at hydrogen.

Obviously, it is no good having hydrogen-fuelled aeroplanes if we do not have the hydrogen, so we need large-scale investment in green hydrogen. It is all very well having zero emissions on our flights, but if the electricity is being generated from non-low carbon power in the first place, there will still be associated emissions. As the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a number of times in its inquiries, it is really important that the Government make a decision about the future use of hydrogen. Given that we will only ever be able to produce a finite amount of green hydrogen, I think we need to prioritise it for industries where there are no realistic alternatives, including aviation.

We need to be thinking about how we produce that energy, and again our area has something to offer the country, because we have the potential for new nuclear at Oldbury and we have the River Severn, where there was a recent commission on tidal power. We therefore have the means of producing green energy. We have expertise in all those areas, with excellent nuclear specialism in our local universities, the aviation expertise to develop its use in aviation, and the facilities that I described in the Bristol and Bath science park to help to tackle some of the problems associated with deploying the technology.

On infrastructure, we obviously need to think about not just how we are producing that energy, but how we are delivering it to airports and how we are storing it. Again, that comes back to the question about the future of the gas grid in this country—will it be repurposed for hydrogen at some point? Regulation and having the right regulatory environment are important. People are very aware that hydrogen is highly flammable, but we can make it safe by putting the right protocols in place.

Our 2024 manifesto set out taxation reform that would help to redirect people away from frequent high carbon flights. It is important that we give people a means of judging the carbon emissions from their flights. Many companies will be looking at their own net zero aims, and it is important that people understand the implications of their choices when flying.

Hydrogen-powered aviation has the potential to cut transport emissions and boost our economy through new jobs. The west of England is particularly well placed to support the industry. It is time to make sure that the regulatory environment is right and that limited public money is invested effectively.

09:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate and for continuing the conversation that we have been having over the last couple of weeks about the future of aviation—something it is always a pleasure to talk about.

Nothing is inevitable about the pollution in our skies. Aviation does not have to be the easy poster child for conspicuous consumption of resources and casual carbon emissions. It does not have to be part of the problems we face with a warming planet, melting ice caps and increasingly extreme weather. With the right choices, it can be part of the solution. Britain is already feeling the mounting toll of climate change: flash floods, record heatwaves and freak storms. That is not abstract; it is already costing lives and livelihoods across the country. Aviation contributes to that problem and we cannot pretend that it does not.

In 2022 alone, UK domestic and international flights produced nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 7% of the nation’s entire greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing changes, the Climate Change Committee projects that aviation will account for 16% of UK emissions by 2035. We cannot meet our net zero goals without tackling this issue. This debate is particularly well timed following the introduction of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week, which addresses the climate emissions of existing technology fuels.

There is good news beyond that, however, and aviation can be part of the solution to our fight against climate change. Thanks to scientific progress and industry innovation, we now have the technology to fly without fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel that emits no carbon when used. It is one of the most promising solutions for decarbonising aviation, whether by powering aircraft directly or by creating sustainable aviation fuels. That is not a pipe dream; it is already happening.

Hydrogen aircraft are being trialled, green fuel production is scaling up and aircraft around the world are beginning to prepare for a hydrogen-powered future. However, the UK risks being left behind unless we match ambition with investment. The ATI estimates that aerospace’s economic contribution to the UK economy could increase from £8.4 billion today to over £37 billion by 2050, driven by new low and zero emission technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft.

Britain’s aerospace sector is ready, but it lacks confidence that essential infrastructure exists, such as the hydrogen production that those aircraft will require. ADS, the UK trade association for aerospace, defence, security and space, estimates that global aviation could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050—3 million tonnes of which would be used in the UK. It is essential that we scale up the production of green hydrogen to meet that challenge, and enable the shift in the industry to take place. Investment is required in production, as is massive investment in refuelling systems and supply chains, as well as the planning approvals that are required to approve projects necessary for that development.

The ATI strategic programme has supported several key projects in the shift to develop hydrogen-electric propulsion systems, including ZeroAvia’s HyFlyer and advanced fuel cells for aviation decarbonisation projects, GKN’s H2GEAR and H2FlyGHT—lots of confusing acronyms and project names—and Project Fresson, led by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. Some of those projects, including those by ZeroAvia, have resulted in or will soon result in certification applications with the Civil Aviation Authority that will complete in the coming years—the earliest of them by 2026.

ZeroAvia, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), is backed by many huge investors, including Airbus, British Airways, and the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund. It is already attracting orders from airlines such as Alaska Airlines and United Airlines. Critically, it has also had investment from the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, which shows the immediate viability and attractiveness of investing in this technology.

Having raised over $250 million and grown a team of more than 200 employees across Gloucestershire and London, ZeroAvia is already making a significant contribution to the aviation industry. It is currently targeting certifying with the CAA a hydrogen-electric powertrain for planes with up to 20 seats, with the target of it entering service next year. The step after that will be developing an engine for larger 40 to 80-seat aircraft by 2028. The certification will require investment in the CAA to provide the skills and expertise to evaluate and then certify the aircraft as safe.

The advantage of ZeroAvia’s approach is the ability for airlines to retrofit the engines into existing fleets. This is not a tale about a technology of the future. ZeroAvia has already performed several world-first breakthrough flight demonstrations of its powertrain technology from its base at Cotswold airport. ZeroAvia is an incredibly exciting new entry to the sector, but existing aviation giant Airbus has also seized the opportunity of hydrogen. Its plans are bigger and depend on more infrastructure; as a result, Airbus recently announced its ZEROe hydrogen-powered aircraft programme would be delayed by a decade because of concerns about the availability of infrastructure to support hydrogen flight.

The ZEROe aircraft features an electric-propellor propulsion system powered by hydrogen fuel cells that uses the hydrogen to generate electricity on board through a chemical reaction, similar to the approach taken by ZeroAvia. The only by-product of this reaction is water, and when combined with green hydrogen production, the process is carbon-neutral. The ZEROe approach with propeller propulsion is the likely first-generation hydrogen powerplant type, replacing domestic and regional aircraft, like those ZeroAvia is already developing, for shorter flights.

That approach contrasts with the one Rolls Royce is taking with its project to modify existing technology engines to run on gaseous hydrogen, instead of requiring a conversion to electrical energy to power an onboard electric motor. Rolls showed the huge potential of that work back in 2022 when it successfully ran a modified AE 2100-A engine, which is a variant of the turboprop powerplant that equips the Saab 2000 regional airliner, which is a long-established and widely used regional turboprop.

The next stage of that work is to modify a Pearl 15 business jet engine, which is a twin shaft turbofan that currently powers the Bombardier Global Express, showing that this approach is potentially applicable to turbofans as well as turboprops. The direct combustion of hydrogen in a modified existing-technology engine shows an alternative route to harnessing hydrogen to decarbonise the aviation industry. These projects show the huge potential of this fuel to take aviation into the modern era of low and zero-emission operations.

There are three approaches: eSAF, fuel cell to electrical production on the aircraft and direct hydrogen propulsion. They are all viable technologies and approaches that the market, industry and research will understand and develop for the appropriate sectors. For now, those projects are all being held back by infrastructure availability, and I call on the Minister to fix that. I welcome his Government’s July announcement of the commitment of over £100 million for the development of hydrogen and electric aircraft through the Aerospace Technology Institute, and nearly £1 billion over five years to support innovation in the aerospace sector. There is no denying that those are serious, positive moves, but they must be only the start. If we get sustainable aviation fuel right, the benefits for cities such as London will be enormous. Clean flights mean cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer days lost to sickness, and longer, healthier lives. Getting it right would also mean economic leadership, new green engineering jobs, revitalised manufacturing, and a chance for Britain to lead the global hydrogen economy.

Of all transport sectors, on a first-principle basis, aviation is the one to which hydrogen is most applicable. In fact hydrogen will be essential if aviation is to make its net zero targets. Aviation is the most energy-intensive mode of transport and the most sensitive to mass, as the Breguet range equations that I explained to all hon. Members last week show. That is why aviation will be the most suitable use of hydrogen fuel in the future. Aviation has the least competition from other zero-emission pathways, due to their various shortcomings. The sector’s energy demand is plannable and high, creating significant offtake that can bring H₂ down the cost curve. Additionally, the professionalised and regulated environment of aviation is very well suited to handling the new fuel, and establishing standards and safety. Hydrogen’s success in aviation will be a major proof point against many existing investor concerns for other sectors.

I urge the Minister first to provide longer-term clarity to industry on the availability of hydrogen. The Government must signal their intentions on renewable energy and hydrogen production targets beyond 2040, and, to bring forward the business models for hydrogen transport, storage and power, they should also extend Aerospace Technology Institute funding to a 10-year horizon.

Unlike what we have heard from other hon. Members in this debate, this is absolutely not a call for flights to be grounded and Britain isolated. This is a call to fly smarter and cleaner, to back British science and leadership to build a better and more sustainable future. Aviation connects us to people, places and possibilities. It can drive innovation. It boosts economies and it brings the world closer together. With the right action, it can keep doing all of that without costing us our planet.

10:07

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) not only on securing the debate but on setting out the case for hydrogen aviation so clearly in his opening remarks. The Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week was but the precursor to this Westminster Hall debate—this debate was trailed in that one. I also congratulate all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

It is a pleasure to speak for His Majesty’s Opposition in this important debate on the policies of the Government of the United Kingdom on hydrogen-powered aviation. Aviation is a sector that underpins global connectivity, international trade, and regional economic growth, but its long-term sustainability requires bold innovation, and a clear policy framework that supports low-carbon propulsion technologies while enabling British industry to lead.

Let me be clear: hydrogen is not a hypothetical solution. It is a practical, viable and strategically critical path forward for decarbonising flight. The UK has a golden opportunity to lead the world in this technology, not just by developing aircraft but by creating the entire hydrogen aviation value chain, from production and distribution to propulsion and maintenance. When combusted purely, hydrogen emits only water vapour, unlike kerosene, obviously, which produces carbon dioxide. Moreover, unlike battery electric aircraft, hydrogen aviation scales better over distance and payload, making it suitable for not just short-term hops but future regional and potentially transcontinental routes. That is not only good for the planet, but good for Britain.

According to the Aerospace Technology Institute, the UK could generate up to £34 billion in GVA and support 60,000 jobs by 2050 through hydrogen powered aviation. That is thousands of skilled engineering, manufacturing and research and development roles across the country. These areas stand to benefit significantly from hydrogen aircraft production, airport infrastructure retrofitting and fuel supply chain development. In Bristol and Gloucestershire, Airbus and GKN Aerospace are already laying the groundwork for hydrogen propulsion and systems integration. In the midlands, particularly in Derby and Coventry, Rolls-Royce is developing hydrogen combustion engines in work that has the potential to sustain and expand our world leading turbo machinery industry. In Teesside, the Conservative Government-designated hydrogen transport hub is pioneering fuel production and logistics, with Teesside international airport poised to become a hydrogen aviation testbed. In Scotland, Prestwick airport is leading hydrogen aircraft trials and Aberdeen is already a recognised centre for hydrogen fuel development. Belfast, home to Spirit AeroSystems, is well positioned to play a central role in manufacturing structural components for the hydrogen aircraft of the future.

A successful future-focused aviation sector means more than environmental progress; it means greater reliability and connectivity for passengers, and competitive ticket prices driven by fuel efficiency. For business, it means faster, lower emission logistics, better access to export markets and the growth of regional airports as hubs for commerce and investment. There is an important distinction to be made here, and one that we in this place must be honest about. While hydrogen fuel cells offer lower energy losses and may suit smaller aircraft or drones, it is pure hydrogen combustion that offers the best chance of achieving decarbonisation for medium to large aircraft, especially within the constraints of airframe weight and power density. Combustion also enables more rapid retrofit of existing aircraft designs and is more compatible with current maintenance ecosystems and airport infrastructure. Simply put, hydrogen combustion is the most practical, scalable route for commercial aviation and the UK should be focusing investment accordingly.

It was the Conservatives in government who recognised that early on. Under the jet zero strategy established in 2022, we committed funding to Project FlyZero, supported by trials by ZeroAvia and Rolls-Royce. We ringfenced funding for hydrogen infrastructure at UK airports. We laid the groundwork for the SAF price mechanism that this current Government is carrying through with the SAF Bill. We established the hydrogen transport hub in Teesside, where our fantastic mayor Ben Houchen, now Lord Houchen, oversaw a combined £23 million funding package to kick-start the local hydrogen-based economy. We also made Britain one of the first countries to support regulatory frameworks for hydrogen-powered flight trials.

Turning to the new Government, the mantle has clearly democratically passed to them, and the test on whether hydrogen aviation can succeed lies with them. The promised expansion of the aerospace growth partnership, sadly, has been watered down. The Aerospace Technology Institute’s hydrogen propulsion roadmap seems to have stalled, and companies at the cutting edge, from Cranfield to Kemble to Prestwick, report difficulty in accessing follow-on support, despite clear potential and private co-investment. The Government must stop conflating hydrogen policy with overreliance on electric-only solutions, which simply cannot be scaled to long-haul aviation. A narrow vision such as that would be misguided; it is actively stifling British leadership in this vital sector. If we want to lead the next aviation revolution to match our leadership in jet engines with leadership in zero carbon propulsion, then ambition must be matched by action. That means committing long-term funding for hydrogen combustion propulsion research and development, providing meaningful and long-term support for airport hydrogen infrastructure trials, especially in regional hubs, accelerating the certification and regulatory pathway for hydrogen aircraft and aligning hydrogen production strategies with the wider UK aviation sector.

The hydrogen age is not coming. It is here, and unless the Government correct course, the opportunity to lead it will pass us by. The last Conservative Government laid the foundations for hydrogen-powered aviation. I very much hope that this Government, and this Minister, do not allow the UK to lose that legacy through indecision. I challenge the Minister, who is very thoughtful on this subject and has the best interests of aviation at heart, to ensure that hydrogen is part of that future.

10:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It was also a pleasure, as a young councillor, to serve under your leadership of Manchester city council in the early ’90s. As I said in a debate the other day, you were chairman of the airport that last built an international runway in the UK—the only one in 80 years. I learned a lot in that period, and I am always grateful to you.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) on securing an excellent first debate in Westminster Hall and thank other hon. Members for their contributions. Famously, my hon. Friend is a pharmacist by training and by trade; he actually lives in a village called Pill, which is probably the strongest case of nominative determinism I have come across in my political career. He is also a doughty champion for Bristol airport. He never fails to tackle me about the issue in the Lobby or the Chamber. The airport plays a crucial role in providing connectivity and enabling growth in the south-west, and I welcome the leading role that it has played in developing hydrogen, such as the recent Project Acorn trials, which demonstrated the safe use of zero emission ground handling equipment in an airside environment.

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions on the SAF Bill last week. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke well about his passion for this issue, and mentioned that hydrogen fuel produces only water vapour. It is good for the environment, jobs and airports. It can help general and commercial aviation.

Upon coming into government, I had to take some tough decisions. The Jet Zero Council, established under the last Government, was reasonably ineffective. It hardly met and it was unwieldy; people said that it had become a talking shop with limited outcomes. I made big decisions to refocus it, narrow it down and ensure that it had tangible outcomes.

For all the groundwork that the Opposition spokesperson said that the last Government laid, we have had to make tough decisions. We are the Government that introduced the mandate for SAF, which came into law on 1 January this year, and in the first Session of this Parliament we are making decisions about the revenue certainty mechanism. I am grateful to all hon. Members who are supporting that, but we should have been doing this years ago. We now have a Government who are committed to making progress, and we will continue doing so.

As the Secretary of State noted when introducing the Bill last week, the Government recognise the key role of the aviation sector in driving growth, and

“we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 1031.]

I want to see a future in which more passengers and goods fly while we transition to a greener aviation sector. In addition to introducing the SAF Bill, the Government have already established a SAF mandate, as I have said. The mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism will provide much-needed support to SAF producers, stimulating investment in domestic production, which we all want to see, by reducing financial risk and uncertainty for those producers and supporting the UK to become a world leader in sustainable fuel production. As I said in last week’s debate, the world is looking to us and asking us about our revenue certainty mechanism, because we are leading the world in that field.

As we all know, we are also acting to modernise our airspace. Earlier this month, we released a response to the consultation on a new UK airspace design service—UKADS—and support fund. UKADS will make flightpaths more direct and efficient, reducing unnecessary emissions and supporting flights with fewer delays.

Let us get to the subject in hand. I recognise the clear potential of hydrogen as a zero emission aviation fuel and what it could contribute towards greener aviation. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his customarily excellent speech, it produces zero CO₂. He is right that it is costly, but we know that the costs will become competitive as we scale up. He speaks well of Spirit in his constituency and the workers who work there in this field. I pay tribute to him and them for what they do in Northern Ireland.

Given our world-leading aerospace sector, we should seek to capture in the UK the jobs and growth benefits emerging from these technologies. The Government have already acted to support the use of low-carbon hydrogen in aviation through the SAF mandate, with eligible hydrogen rewarded through the provision of tradeable SAF certificates. Innovation led by the sector is key, and I welcome the work by Airbus and GKN on hydrogen technology in the south-west and the support provided by academia, such as by Bath University. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young); the south-west is well placed in the R&D world for this technology. Given her work as a former leader of the council and her expertise in the tech sector, I welcome her valuable contribution to the debate.

We will continue to co-invest with industry on a range of R&D projects, which a number of Members raised, including the development of hydrogen aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned. As announced in the spending review, we will invest more than £3 billion in the next four years in the advanced manufacturing sector on zero emission vehicles, batteries and aerospace technologies. I join him in congratulating Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, which I visited while in opposition, on its work.

The Government will further set out our approach to the advanced manufacturing sector in the modern industrial strategy later this month. That will benefit from the UK-US trade deal signed today, under which there will be zero tariffs on UK aerospace trade with the United States. I am aware that aircraft developers are moving at pace, with ZeroAvia announcing plans last month for a manufacturing base in Glasgow. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for mentioning it and for being a doughty champion for East Midlands airport near his constituency. He is right to mention the geopolitical situation. There are many reasons why we should make these changes, but energy security is one of them, given that we are in an increasingly uncertain world. He brings his previous tech experience to the debate, and I congratulate him on his contribution.

The wider sector should prepare for the adoption of this new technology and, to support those whole-system changes, the Government, the aviation and aerospace sector, and academia must work together. The Jet Zero Taskforce that I have established is a key focus for that collaboration, and I am pleased to co-chair the expert group alongside the Minister for Industry. Importantly, one of the task and finish groups of the Jet Zero Taskforce is reviewing barriers to the commercial operation of hydrogen aircraft. The group will report on its findings in the autumn, and I look forward to considering them closely.

As the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate said, regulation is critical. Improving regulation in the UK, and ensuring that it enables growth and does not unduly hold back investment, is an essential part of the Government’s growth mission and of delivering on the plan for change. For that reason, in March the Chancellor announced that in the current financial year the Department for Transport will fund the Civil Aviation Authority’s hydrogen in aviation regulatory challenge. This work is helping the CAA to collaborate with innovative companies through regulatory sandboxes, in order to develop a proportionate regulatory framework for them.

Finally, I will touch on the production of low-carbon hydrogen, which is essential not only for aviation but for the wider economy. We have strong domestic expertise and favourable geology and infrastructure to develop a thriving low-carbon hydrogen sector in the UK. We are delivering real projects to kick-start the UK’s hydrogen economy, as demonstrated by the recently signed contracts for projects that were successful in the first hydrogen allocation round.

Later this year, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will publish a refreshed hydrogen strategy to ensure that hydrogen achieves its unique role in the Government’s clean energy superpower and growth missions. Just last week, the Government announced over £500 million to develop the UK’s first regional hydrogen transport and storage network, boosting industrial regions such as Merseyside, Teesside and the Humber.

The week of the international Paris air show is an important time to reflect on the progress that we are making towards a greener aviation sector. I therefore reiterate my ambition on this important matter, as well as my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for securing today’s debate and to other hon. Members for contributing to it.

10:26

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I, too, thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It was fantastic to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the importance of mitigating any impact of this change on constituents and of challenging scepticism about hydrogen’s role. He is definitely on the bus when it comes to hydrogen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) is a champion of his local airport and of green hydrogen, which offers us strategic energy independence and jobs while also helping us to meet climate targets. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) talked about the innovation history in the west of England, a region that she said is up for the challenges of hydrogen while prioritising change in aviation.

Front Benchers made a number of important points, too, including about the risk of doing nothing for our ability to meet our climate targets; the skills needed to reflect the changes to regulation to go alongside the Government’s announced funding; the need for a long-term plan to drive investment; the fact that hydrogen is good for the planet and good for Britain; the role of the Government in providing leadership in this hydrogen age, not only in the UK but internationally; and the effect of a refocused Jet Zero Council on progress on catching up in order to meet our plans for a greener aviation sector. I also welcome the UK-US trade deal and its potential benefits for the nascent hydrogen economy. I thank all the relevant Members for bringing those points to the fore; I am certain that the Minister has heard them and will take them away.

We have heard today about the extraordinary opportunities across the country that the development of the aviation sector might bring. I have seen at first hand in my constituency of North Somerset that it is an incredibly exciting sector, which has long been at the cutting edge of innovation in this country; hydrogen-powered aviation is just the latest link in a chain stretching back over 100 years.

I get the sense that we are unified behind hydrogen-powered aviation. We all agree on the need to reach our legally binding net zero targets, and that we must do so in a way that maintains the affordability and accessibility of the modern aviation industry. I believe that hydrogen-powered aviation is the answer. Down the line, we might disagree on some minor tactical points, but so long as we agree on the overarching aim and strategy, I believe that we can get there.

Realising the potential of hydrogen-powered aviation is incredibly important, not just for the long-term regional economic prospects of constituencies such as mine, in which Bristol airport plays such a key role in our local economy, but for our nation as a whole. As we have heard, the aviation industry supports over 1.6 million jobs across our country and contributes over £120 billion to our economy every year. While we are here to recognise its contributions to our emissions, I think we agree on its importance to our future economic growth and, therefore, on the need to support its decarbonisation while not imperilling its expected strong growth.

I thank Members again for their contributions. I look forward to seeing how the sector continues to develop in the years to come. As they say, the sky’s the limit.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered hydrogen powered aviation.

10:30

Sitting suspended.

Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Cramlington and Killingworth constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to debate this important issue and to see the Minister for future of roads. It will come as no surprise to her that I will take the opportunity to talk about the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts in my constituency. We have become pen pals on this issue and I thank her for her responses and for meeting me about it.

I start by warmly welcoming the Government’s recent announcements in the regional growth statement, with £1.8 billion secured for the north-east; the emphasis on delivering capital projects in the spending review; and most importantly, the announcement on the Green Book. That will support transport infrastructure investment in communities such as mine in Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle.

For too long under the Conservatives’ Green Book we were disadvantaged—missing out on the investment we deserve due to outdated formulas. Those recent announcements show a Government committed to long-term growth and investment. I want that to be used to unlock the enormous potential of my communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. Before she was elected, she had a scheme that she wished to happen. Now, as an MP, she has the opportunity to push it forward, and she will hopefully get a response from a sympathetic Minister. Does she agree that if that infrastructure is not in place, it will hold back economic growth in her constituency? It is important to move that project forward, because with that every other project can move forward.

[Emma Foody]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member—it is as if he has seen the key points of my speech. This is a critical piece of infrastructure in my area for all the reasons he said and more.

One such game-changing project for the north-east would be the upgrading of the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts. Those who do not know about these roundabouts have never heard me speak in this place, because I talk about them a lot. Moor Farm is a major, strategic six-armed roundabout that links the A19, A1 and A189 and sits to the south of Northumberland, on the border with North Tyneside. This heavily congested and well used roundabout is a key gateway across south-east Northumberland to the Northumbria specialist emergency care hospital in Cramlington and to the new data centre in Cambois that the Government have been pivotal in supporting.

Seaton Burn links Northumberland and North Tyneside to the A1 and on through to Newcastle, as well as providing links to south-west Cramlington, an area of significant housing development, and the villages to the north-west of North Tyneside. These critical pieces of infrastructure form part of the south-east Northumberland corridor, as well being a key link to Blyth, Killingworth in North Tyneside, and Newcastle. Both roundabouts sit on the A19, which is of strategic importance to the north-east more widely, linking to the Port of Tyne, South Tyneside and Sunderland, and to key employment sites such as Cobalt Park, Follingsby Park and the International Advanced Manufacturing Park.

In earlier road investment strategies, Silverlink and Testo’s roundabouts, further south on the A19, have been upgraded. Those earlier works significantly improved traffic flows on the A19 through the north-east to south-east Northumberland. It is now possible to travel north on the A19 from Thirsk in North Yorkshire all the way to south-east Northumberland without hitting an at-grade junction—until Moor Farm roundabout. Surely, now is the time to finish the job and complete the junctions to the end of the A19 at Seaton Burn.

My area has seen significant housing developments in recent years, including estates such as St Nicholas Manor, the Fairways and West Meadows in Cramlington, and Backworth Park in North Tyneside, with future sites including Killingworth Moor and Murton Gap—all of which add pressure to the roundabouts. In 2022, the section of the A19 east of the Seaton Burn junction had an annual average daily flow of 44,300 motor vehicles, while the section of the A19 east of Moor Farm had an annual average daily flow of 33,900.

The result is that the roundabouts are past breaking point. Do not just take my word for it; the Department for Transport’s own statistics show that, between 2021 and 2024, there was an 87% increase in delays through the northbound A19 section of Moor Farm, and a 36% increase southwards. The A19 section of Seaton Burn saw a 31% increase during the same period, which has a knock-on impact on the A1, with an 18% increase in delays joining Seaton Burn on the A1 northbound.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and powerful speech about the significance of local road infrastructure. She mentions the A1, which is in my constituency, and I know Moor Farm roundabout well. Does she agree that as the Government make a massive investment in local transport, we really have to think about investing in key junctions up and down the A19 and the A1 so that we can improve road safety and efficiency for everyone concerned?

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the impact that such infrastructure has, not just on people in my constituency but on those across Northumberland and North Tyneside. His point about the A1 is well made, and I was about to move on to the fact that delays at the Seaton Burn and Moor Farm roundabouts have increased by 59% because of the traffic back-up on that section of the A1.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which is particularly important for us in Northumberland—we quite often get left behind, don’t we? People are frightened to use the Moor Farm roundabout, and they will take different routes to avoid it. Does she agree that the issue will become even more critical once we get the £10 billion investment in the data centre in Cambois, which is in my constituency, as well as the investment in the Energy Central project in Blyth and Ashington, and in the Port of Blyth? We need investment in the Moor Farm roundabout for individuals, for residents, for businesses and for the future development of our wonderful area.

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This investment is critical now, but if we want to see the growth that we need in business and in housing developments for our constituents in future, it is essential that we have these upgrades.

National Highways has confirmed that Moor Farm has a volume over capacity of 104% at both the morning and afternoon peaks. The agency’s own classification is that Moor Farm is oversaturated, and the frequent accidents and breakdowns can lead to congestion for literally miles. Barely a week goes by without such incidents, and it is local people and businesses who pay the price. The Carabao cup-winning Newcastle United hero Dan Burn recently had to step in to help a stranded vehicle on Moor Farm roundabout. Although I have every confidence in Dan Burn on the pitch, he cannot be there every day to save the day on Moor Farm roundabout.

In all seriousness, the current congestion causes misery for commuters and businesses, and without support and investment, the situation will only continue to get worse. It is for that reason that improvements have been drawn up, and Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts are being assessed as part of the next round of the road investment strategy. Their importance is also recognised by all local parties, including Northumberland county council, North Tyneside council, Newcastle city council and, indeed, the North East combined authority.

The north-east devolution deal, signed in 2024, stated:

“The government recognises the area’s priorities for improvements to the Strategic Road Network…such as the upgrading of A19 junctions North of Newcastle (Moor Farm…and…Seaton Burn).”

The north-east growth plan further recognises that upgrades on the A19 at Moor Farm and Seaton Burn are an investment in infrastructure priorities. The Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, has stated that the roundabouts sit on one of the region’s key transport corridors, and that it is “of strategic importance” to the north-east that they are upgraded. As Moor Farm and Seaton Burn sit on the strategic road network, however, the funding and responsibility sit with the Department for Transport and National Highways. Therefore, they cannot be upgraded through devolved funding to the North East combined authority.

I have touched on the nightmare that the current roundabouts are causing for local people, but it is not only that; as has been mentioned, they are holding back businesses, growth and investment in my communities. That has a direct impact on my constituents’ quality of life, because it puts at risk our ability to support the Government in their missions to deliver on growth and housing. Northumberland county council has warned that improvements to the junctions are critical to future growth aspirations.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Let me take the debate from the north-east to the south-east and Kent. The story that the hon. Lady is telling is very similar to that of the A21 Kippings Cross junction in my constituency. Of course, we have the opposite problem: the houses have all gone in, but none of the infrastructure has been built. Now that the spending review is giving lots of money to northern constituencies—I do follow her argument that they have been under-invested in for some time—what is there for the south-east? Where does the balance lie in catching up on the infrastructure that has not been built in the south-east, while all the houses have been built?

[Emma Foody]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s advocacy for his communities. However, I am afraid that communities like mine have missed out year after year after year. No matter who the Prime Minister of the previous Conservative Government was, they never put the infrastructure or the investment that was required into the north-east; finally we have a Government who are prioritising that, and I am afraid I am never going to argue against it.

Without the improvements to these roundabouts, Northumberland county council warns that they will remain a “significant constraint” on economic growth in south-east Northumberland, while North Tyneside council warns there is a “very real risk” that significant housing and economic growth, in line with national policy, cannot be delivered without investment into this critical highway infrastructure. There is also real risk that blocks placed by National Highways due to congestion affect the ability to produce a local plan and meet housing need across North Tyneside, with the Mayor of the North East adding:

“The lack of capacity is now constraining much needed plans for housing and economic development”.

South-east Northumberland is a key regional and national corridor for growth, including the Port of Blyth and Northumberland Energy Park, which will house the £10 billion data centre at Cambois. Businesses and local stakeholders have spoken to me ahead of the debate about their frustration and have provided real world examples.

Miller UK, which is headquartered in Cramlington, manufactures and supplies excavator buckets and attachments across the UK and the world. It has a significant number of trucks delivered on a daily basis, and it set out that

“Moor farm congestion impacts on delivery times and leads to increased running costs”.

Fergusons Transport is a logistics firm based in Dudley in North Tyneside, and it similarly expressed frustration at the delays, capacity and increased emissions. It added:

“This outdated infrastructure is holding our region back”.

George Smith produces exceptional upholstered furniture from its Cramlington factory, which is sold across the world. It has lost staff due to the frustrations of a commute involving Moor Farm, and said:

“A properly designed and delivered solution at Moor Farm would make a meaningful difference to our ability to attract and retain staff”.

Similarly, RENOLIT is a global family-owned specialist in high-quality plastic films and polymer solutions that is based in Cramlington. It also stressed the importance of delivering upgrades.

What is the cost of missed opportunities? There are the developments and investment that have not come forward, or are being held back, because of concerns that congestion at Moor Farm will lead to applications being blocked or that the mitigation costs are too high. Those missed opportunities are jobs and homes for local people that may be invested elsewhere, or indeed not at all.

I have said before that Moor Farm and Seaton Burn are holding back growth, investment and opportunity, so how can the Government support my region and community in getting those long-overdue upgrades? The Department for Transport and National Highways assessed the business case for the roundabouts in the latest road investment strategy pipeline. Under the previous Conservative Government’s Green Book criteria, they were found to be low or poor value for money. However, this assessment has been challenged by local councils and the North East combined authority, which highlighted that the assessment used traffic data from 2019.

As I said earlier, the Department for Transport’s own figures show that there have been significant increases in delays in recent years, yet that data was not used for the assessment, and the assessment also did not take into account all the housing developments in the pipeline. We are in a Catch-22 situation where only some future developments, whether employment or housing, are being assessed, yet there are business and development opportunities on key sites in Northumberland and North Tyneside that are not being brought forward due to the lack of certainty about whether they will be blocked or incur additional costs due to the roundabouts’ capacity constraints.

We know that assessments of the outcomes of investments in the north-east have significantly undervalued the impact before. Take the recent reopening of the Northumberland line in December 2024. Initially, usage was expected to be 50,000 by Easter 2025, yet with only some of the stations open to date, including Seaton Delaval in my constituency, figures show that 250,000 journeys have been made—five times the expected number of passenger journeys. Investment in infrastructure delivers results, and I have no doubt that with Moor Farm and Seaton Burn we would, similarly, see substantially more benefits delivered than the assessment implies.

That is precisely why the Government’s review and changes to the Green Book are so vital. A move to a place-based business case is absolutely correct, and for Moor Farm and Seaton Burn, it cannot come soon enough. From Conservative-led Northumberland to the Labour Mayor of North Tyneside, Karen Clark, and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, and local Labour MPs, we are universally agreed: to unlock growth, support business and finally end the misery for local residents in south-east Northumberland, north Tyneside and the wider north-east, these upgrades are essential.

The Government are right to place these decisions in the hands of those who know our communities best, and what delivers for them. I have previously asked, as has the North East combined authority, for this scheme to be judged as a test case for a new methodology for the Green Book. With the changes to the Green Book and the welcome move to place-based business cases, could the A19 north of Newcastle scheme be the test case for new methodology? With the growth that would be unlocked by bringing the scheme forward, overlooked in the previous methodology, will the Department for Transport work with local stakeholders to test this?

Our Government have rightly embraced devolution. Given the importance placed on these junctions to local stakeholders, and the fact that this was specifically referenced in both the deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan, what weight is placed on this in the road investment strategy assessment? What conversations have taken place between the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, given that local plan and housing targets could be at risk if this barrier is not removed? Now that the spending review has been announced, what is the timeframe for a decision on the next round of road investment strategy and the projects identified to go forward? Finally, despite the misinformation put out by Conservative councillors in Northumberland, can the Minister confirm that, under the previous Government, no funding had been awarded for improvements at the roundabouts, and no money for this project has been withdrawn?

The Government have ambitious missions to deliver growth and build the houses that our country needs. Cramlington and Killingworth, and the wider north-east, stand ready to support delivery, but right now the situation at Moor Farm and Seaton Burn acts as a blocker to growth, causing misery to residents and commuters and holding back investment. The voices of local people, business, councils and elected representatives is clear: we need these key junctions to be upgraded. They are holding back the enormous potential of the communities that I represent. Investing here and upgrading the roundabouts can help to deliver our missions, and I hope that this critical investment will be brought forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how we can work together to achieve that.

11:18

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

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I know how committed she has been to raising the importance of transport infrastructure in her constituency, frankly at every opportunity. Today, she has set out very clearly the challenges for her constituents and the communities that she represents. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s ambitions.

Reliable transport infrastructure is vital to everyone’s daily life, whether it is connecting communities, family and friends, providing access to jobs and training, or moving goods. It can boost productivity by helping firms to cluster and innovate, unlocking land for housing and development, and making places more attractive to live, work and invest in. The Government recognise the challenges facing communities such as Cramlington and Killingworth, and today I will outline what we are doing to maintain and renew our infrastructure, protect vital public transport services and invest in the long-term future of our transport system.

We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders, and by devolving power and decision making from Whitehall we are ensuring that local decisions are taken at the right level. I commend Mayor Kim McGuinness on her ambitions and vision for the north-east. The Government are backing those ambitions with real support, as my hon. Friend will be aware. At last week’s spending review, we outlined our commitment to the protection of vital public transport services and the maintenance of our road and rail networks. That reflects the Government’s recognition of the essential role that transport plays in driving economic growth, regional development and public service delivery.

Through the transport for city region settlements, eligible mayoral combined authorities will receive dedicated funding to deliver key local projects. The North East combined authority, NECA, will receive £1.8 billion from the TCR settlement between 2027 and 2032. That builds on the £573 million already provided from the first round of city region sustainable transport settlements.

[Ian Lavery]

I enjoyed the company of my hon. Friend the Minister in Cowpen Road in Blyth not too many months ago. Does she share my frustration, amazement and disbelief in Northumberland county council for criticising this Government for investment in transport infrastructure, when the A1 dualling has been announced more times than I can remember, and the Blyth relief road is waiting for investment. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 14 years; after every spending review, they would announce that they would pay for this and that, but it never happened. Yet, after mere months, Northumberland county council are criticising every decision that this Government have made. This Government will make a real difference to the transport infrastructure in Northumberland.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As my hon. Friend says, the last Government were good at making announcements, and very poor at putting real money behind those announcements. We are determined to do something very different. This unprecedented long-term funding certainty will enable enhancements and renewal of local transport networks, based on local priorities, helping to drive growth and productivity, support the delivery of new homes and decarbonise local transport networks.

I am aware of the specific concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth about the road infrastructure in her constituency, particularly the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts, as well as the challenges that need to be addressed around congestion and the delays impacting residents and businesses. As part of last week’s spending review, the Government announced £24 billion of capital funding between 2026 and 2030 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to deliver faster, safer and more reliable journeys. Already this year, the north-east has been provided with an extra £22 million for local roads maintenance. The opportunities for new enhancements to the strategic road network will be considered in due course, as part of the future road investment strategy, which will start from 1 April next year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for North Northumberland (David Smith) and Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for highlighting the needs and challenges of their communities. Now that the spending review has been completed, we will take decisions on how best to spend that money on both strategic and local roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked some specific questions, which I will try to go through. As she rightly noted, on 11 June, alongside the spending review, the findings of the Green Book review were published. They sought to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures a fair, objective and transparent appraisal of proposals across the country. As a Department, we will work with Treasury analysts to develop and embed any changes to the Green Book.

A new place-based business case taskforce will be established to define objectives for a particular place and bring together the relevant interventions that are needed to achieve objectives across different policy areas. This is about making sure that places like the north-east get their fair share of transport investment. The taskforce will also feature participants from local and regional government, as well as other Government Departments, and will identify appropriate test cases for place-based business cases, and what that means for existing proposals in due course. I note that my hon. Friend got her bid in early.

The deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan will allow the combined authority to enter into agreements with Government, other local authorities and National Highways to determine shared priorities for the strategic and key road networks. This closer working relationship, and strategies such as the north-east growth plan, will be an important consideration in the prioritisation of enhancements to the strategic road network in the north-east.

On local plans and housing targets, our Department has a close working relationship with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on a range of transport matters to support our ambitious goals for housing. The successful implementation of local plans is a key part of ensuring development in the right places. Local authorities are encouraged to develop plans in sustainable locations that are not wholly reliant on significant investment in the strategic road network. I recognise that in some cases that is hard to avoid, and it is essential that issues such as constraints on growth form part of the assessment of individual schemes, as my hon. Friend said, and wider investment planning for the network.

On the spending review, schemes that are in the RIS pipeline, such as the A19 north of Newcastle scheme, are being considered for possible delivery beyond 2030. The Department expects to reconfirm those schemes that remain in the pipeline, and they will continue to be developed during the next period, when RIS3 is published early next year. I heard the points that my hon. Friend made about how the pressures on the network may have changed in recent times.

I will just touch on the point about local councillors. As with all schemes in the RIS pipeline, the proposals are funded for their development stages only, and there has been no commitment and no funding for their full delivery at any stage. To say otherwise is simply untrue.

In addition to considerations on the strategic road network, it is vital that we improve public transport connectivity. We are driving forward wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and the resources and powers to deliver better buses as we look to build a modern, integrated public transport system. My hon. Friend highlighted the difference that investment in local rail is already making in her region. This year, we are providing NECA with £24 million to support and improve bus services by putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders. That will help to ensure we meet the needs of the communities that rely on them, while protecting socially and economically necessary services. I understand that Mayor McGuinness is exploring franchising options that, if taken forward, would ensure that local bus networks across the north-east can be designed to work better for the people who rely on those services.

We have also just confirmed that from next year, we will be providing £900 million a year to maintain and improve bus services across the country, ensuring that they continue to be affordable and accessible to all. As part of the Government’s clean energy mission, we are also committed to decarbonising transport. The spending review confirmed £1.8 billion to support the uptake of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, including the provision of charging infrastructure along the strategic road network in England.

Active travel also plays a crucial role in the mission, and last week we were pleased to announce a further £616 million nationally to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure, and the north-east is already benefiting from more than £7 million this year to support the development of active travel facilities.

Our communities deserve transport infrastructure that supports growth, enhances mobility and ensures sustainability. The Government will shortly publish our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out a long-term plan for how infrastructure projects are planned and delivered. Today’s contributions will help us as we make decisions in the weeks, months and years ahead. We remain dedicated to delivering improvements that will make a real difference to people’s lives, including in the constituencies of my hon. Friends in the north-east. Through investment, innovation and engagement with local leaders, we will continue to transform transport infrastructure for the better. I thank all my hon. Friends for the cases they have made, making sure that I understand the needs and challenges faced by communities in their area. I look forward to working with them as we go forward.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

16:00

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On 29 December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding the application of the convention on the prevention of and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip. South Africa argued that Israel’s deliberate denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians could constitute one of the prohibited acts under the genocide convention by

“deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued an interim response, which recognised a “plausible risk” that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. The president of the ICJ at the time subsequently stated that the purpose was to declare that the Palestinians had

“plausible rights to protection from genocide”,

which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.

The ICJ’s ruling was very clearly not intended as a determination of whether a genocide had occurred; rather, it was intended to indicate that if some of the acts that South Africa cited in its case were proven, they could fall under the United Nations convention on genocide. Those acts were military operations in and against Gaza; killing, injuring or destroying life and preventing births; displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life; incitement and encouragement to genocide; the destruction of evidence; and genocide itself. At the same time, the ICJ called for “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services.

Today, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond imaginable. Oxfam summarises it as follows—

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House on the Crime and Policing Bill—the first of a number. We will suspend the sitting for 45 minutes.

16:01

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:57

On resuming—

[Ellie Chowns]

For clarification, since the Minister is not in his place and no one from the Government is here, is it correct that I continue?

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

The Parliamentary Private Secretary is here, and the Minister has just arrived.

[Ellie Chowns]

Marvellous. As I was saying before the Divisions, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific beyond imagining. Oxfam summarised it as follows:

“The Israeli military has killed over 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of children. Entire families and neighbourhoods have been destroyed…Israel is blocking all but a trickle of life-saving aid into Gaza - people are struggling to access basics like food, water, medicine and shelter… All of Gaza is at risk of a manmade famine. Starvation is widespread, and children and families are already dying from hunger…Israel has cut electricity to Gaza’s main desalination plant that supplied clean water to around 500,000 people.”

Last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said the territory was:

“The only defined area—a country or defined territory within a country—where you have the entire population at risk of famine. One hundred per cent of the population at risk of famine…Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth.”

It seems clear that what the world is witnessing, in real time, is the continued cruel and inhumane policy of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and collective punishment. We see this daily.

The BBC reported today that 51 Palestinians were killed today while waiting for flour at a Gaza aid site. This all happened since the ICJ’s 2024 assessment that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. If that risk existed then, it has existed every day since, and it is now absolutely undeniable. However, the UK Government’s actions and choices do not appear to recognise that risk, and it is not clear what they have done, if anything, to assess the risk of genocide before making policy decisions.

Amnesty International has done that work, however. It argues that there is evidence of a “calculated” plan to bring about the “physical destruction” of Palestinians in Gaza, and it concludes that factors that include the obstruction or denial of lifesaving goods and humanitarian aid, the killing of civilians, damage and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, and the restriction of power supplies taken together constitute genocide.

I do not have enough time to cover the extent to which all the tests are being met, but I do not think the Minister or any other Member can possibly be unaware that the Israeli military has targeted hospitals, refugee camps and schools, with multiple generations of families wiped out because of direct or indiscriminate attacks. They cannot be unaware of the vast damage and destruction inflicted on critical infrastructure, including essential parts of the food production system; hundreds of thousands of residential homes; water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; roads and energy infrastructure. No one can be unaware of how the Israeli authorities have issued large numbers of the civilian population in Gaza with evacuation orders that have caused repeated mass forced displacement under utterly unsafe and inhumane conditions, that Gaza has been under electricity blackout since the 11 October 2023, that power supplies have repeatedly been used as weapons of war, or that in March 2025 Israel shut off the electricity supply to a desalination plant for drinking water.

That is all occurring against a backdrop of well-documented statements from Israel’s political and military leadership that indicate a pattern of dehumanising, racist and derogatory rhetoric against Palestinians, which escalated significantly after the horrific and utterly inexcusable terror attacks of 7 October. That rhetoric from the Israeli Government includes statements calling for, or justifying, genocidal acts.

Consider, too, the other violations of international law that, as stated by Amnesty International, at the very least point to potential genocidal intent, such as incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Palestinians from Gaza, and the widespread destruction of cultural, historical and religious sites, including after Israel had already gained military control over them and where there was no apparent military necessity. Those are just some of the factors considered by Amnesty International in reaching its conclusion that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The UK Government have been crystal clear that it is for the international courts to determine whether or not genocide is happening in Gaza. I do not agree, but that is anyway irrelevant to the UK’s obligation under the genocide convention to act to prevent genocide. By definition, that must happen before it is established that a genocide has taken place. Indeed, the ICJ established in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that the threshold for taking action to prevent is where there is a “serious risk” that genocide might take place. Therefore, the UK has a clear and legal obligation to act to prevent genocide, along with all other signatories of the United Nations genocide convention under article I of the convention. This should not wait for a court determination; that will be too late.

Indeed, that argument was the basis on which South Africa brought its case to the ICJ, and it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law if prevention hinges on genocide being conclusively proven in court, by which time the targeted group in question may have been wiped out. On 14 May 2025, the Minister seemed to recognise that point and asserted that this Government

“have not waited for…the determination of international courts, to take action.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 353.]

He referred to the suspension of some arms licences to Israel and the sanctioning of some individual settlers, and even two individual Israeli Ministers, as examples of action that has been taken. While that is hugely welcome, I respectfully note that these actions do not amount to doing everything possible to prevent genocide.

Indeed, the implication of the Government’s position is that, because the courts have not made a genocide determination yet, they are not required to take a level of action that would constitute meaningful prevention, such as a full arms embargo, full sanctions against military and political leaders, a complete ban on all military co-operation, the suspension of the existing trade agreement, a ban on settlement goods and so on.

The Government will not even name the genocide in Gaza, but that is not the point I want to dwell on in this debate. Rather, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the UK Government are doing to assess the risk of genocide and to determine whether there is any potential that it might be happening in Gaza, because that should surely be informing every single decision they make in relation to Gaza.

The ICJ has been very clear that the risk of genocide is plausible. A September 2024 UN special committee warned that

“the policies and practices of Israel…are consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”

The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, found that

“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating”

that Israel has committed genocide

“has been met.”

Even if the UK does not formally recognise the assessment made by Amnesty International, the evidence accumulated must surely point to a possibility. For a responsible signatory to the genocide convention, that possibility is everything, because without having conducted an assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza, I fail to see how the UK can carry out its legal duty to prevent. An assessment of risk is also fundamental to any determination of whether the UK may be complicit in any genocide—for example, by continuing to provide F-35 parts via the global supply pool, which are used in attacks on civilians in Gaza.

Although I welcome the publication of a summary of the assessment process and decisions that led to the suspension on 22 September 2024 of some arms export licences, the assessment was limited in scope. It has three short sections entitled “humanitarian”, “treatment of detainees” and “conduct of hostilities”. It was concerned solely with whether UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law—IHL. There is no reference, for example, to forced displacement, the deliberate restriction of power supplies, or genocidal encouragement, incitement or intent. As such, that assessment falls far short of an assessment of the risk of genocide. Parliament has so far struggled to get a straight answer on whether such an assessment has been conducted, let alone get any assessment published, if it does exist.

On 6 May, during an oral statement on the middle east, my Green colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), explicitly asked the Minister:

“When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?”

This was the Minister's response:

“We assess risk. I can confirm that those assessments are ongoing and that a prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is part of them.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]

On 14 May, replying to an urgent question in the House, the Minister advised that there were ongoing assessments in relation to international humanitarian law, and that these considered all the relevant tests. He specifically cited the genocide convention when making that point. The following day, I used a written question to ask for the most recent risk assessment to be published. The reply I received on 3 June referred me not to an assessment of the risk of genocide, but back to the Government statement of 2 September in relation to export licences. The statement, which is definitely not an assessment of the risk of genocide and which was made more than six months ago, begs the question: has there been no more recent assessment? Has there been any assessment of the risk of genocide?

The Government’s submission in Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade suggests that such an assessment does exist. It stated that the FCDO’s assessment and the Government’s conclusion is that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That was their assessment in 2024.

I asked about that again in an oral question to the Minister on 4 June, the day after his unilluminating written reply to me. I asked very specifically if he would publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay. His response indicated that there has in fact been no genocide risk assessment. He said,

“the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there was a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 348.]

Again, that refers back to the assessment, which is not an assessment of a risk of genocide.

In the meantime, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) asked a written question, which elicited a response confirming that there have been regular IHL assessments since the beginning of the conflict on 7 October 2023, and that these assessments are continuous, with the latest due to be finalised before the end of the month. What still has not been confirmed is whether these include an assessment of the risk of genocide.

My purpose in securing this debate is simple. I want to know whether the UK Government have carried out any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. In case I have not made myself clear, I do not consider the assessment that led to the change in export licences in September 2024 to be a test of genocide. The Minister himself appears to have already acknowledged that that one, or any other assessment that may or may not have been conducted, met a lower bar by being focused solely on the risk of breach of IHL. I very much trust that he will not cite that in his reply today. I also trust that he will not retreat to the Government’s well-worn position that it is for the international courts to make a determination of genocide. For the purposes of this debate, I accept that that is the legal position and it needs no further explanation at this time.

I think I have demonstrated that there is a wealth of evidence of the risk of genocide, and that there is widespread acceptance that that is the case. Now I simply want to understand—yes or no—whether the UK Government have conducted any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. Preventing genocide goes to the heart of our obligations under international law—under the genocide convention—and it seems unconscionable that such an assessment would not have been conducted. We need to know. On that note, I look forward to the Minister’s unambiguous reply. I am sure he will understand that I will seek to intervene on him if an unambiguous yes or no is not forthcoming.

17:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for securing the debate. As she alluded to, we have had many exchanges on events in Israel and Palestine.

Let me start by setting out a little of the legal position in relation to the 1948 convention on genocide. The convention was clearly born out of the horrors of the second world war. It was a solemn commitment by the international community to say, “Never again.” Today, upholding the convention is of paramount importance to the Government. I thank the hon. Member for her thoughtful contribution on the issue.

Complying with international law is a fundamental part of the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I can confirm that we continue to treat all our international legal and humanitarian obligations seriously. That is what our assessments are focused on, and we abide by all of them, including those under the genocide convention.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little progress, and then of course I will.

More than 75 years after it was created, we remain fully committed to the responsibilities set out in the genocide convention. As the hon. Member knows, the long-standing policy of the UK Government is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. That allows a decision to be made in the light of all available evidence, in the context of a credible judicial process.

The hon. Member asked repeatedly for a risk assessment of genocide. There is a difference between the lower bar of the serious risks that we determined in the September assessments and the higher bar. I recognise that she would prefer different answers, but as a Minister I must attend to the legal questions on me, which are at the lower bar. I will not speculate about legal determinations beyond that. I have confirmed repeatedly, to her and to the whole House, that the Government understand our legal obligation under the genocide convention and we have met it. We have set out the assessments that we have made and we continue to keep them under review.

[Ellie Chowns]

The Minister is relying on arguments that, as I have articulated, do not answer my question. He says that the Government take their responsibilities under international law seriously, including the responsibility under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide. Does he recognise that we cannot wait for a court to determine that genocide has occurred if we are to prevent that genocide? We have to act before that. Does he recognise that by repeatedly relying on the assessments relating to export licences and IHL, he is not addressing the question? Has a risk assessment of genocide in Gaza been conducted by the Government? It should be, if we are to fulfil our obligations under international law.

[Mr Falconer]

I understand that the hon. Member does not like the answers that she has been provided with, but they have remained consistent, because our position is consistent. I can assure her that, armed with the full legal advice of the Government, I am confident that the Government are complying with the genocide convention. She raises the very—

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will not give way again.

The hon. Member’s question—“Surely, we must not wait for a formal determination?”—is incredibly important. I want to reassure hon. Members that we do not wait. Where there have been provisional measures issued in the ICJ case, we have both abided by those measures ourselves and called on those affected, including the Government of Israel, to abide by them. We have taken a series of steps, and we have led the international community in many of those steps. We recognise the gravity of what is happening in Gaza, in the west bank and across the region. We are trying to take steps equal to the scale of that challenge and we will continue to do so.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

We have heard repeated constantly the stance that genocide is a matter for a competent court—that has been a long-standing position of the Government—but we also know that a determination has been made, or has allegedly been made, because lawyers acting for the Government in court have said so, that that matter has been considered and that there is no genocide. Does the Minister understand why the British public are perplexed by what is being said in the House vis-à-vis what has been said in court?

[Mr Falconer]

I understand the complexities of these questions. I recognise that the judge has not yet opined in the judicial proceedings to which the hon. Member refers. Once the judge has done so, we will all be in a position to consider his findings. I have set out the Government’s position, as I think the hon. Member said, at some length, over a series of appearances in Parliament and outside of it, and through written questions. I will try always to explain why it is that the—

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

This morning I was at a very moving service at St Paul’s cathedral to recognise the 30th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. One of the VIP guests was His Excellency the Palestinian ambassador. Would the Minister have any idea why he was considered to be such an important guest at such an occasion?

[Mr Falconer]

I was not at the event and I cannot speak to who was invited or why, but obviously I speak to Dr Zomlot on a regular basis. He is personally affected by the crisis in Gaza and across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt in the Government about the depth of human suffering that is being experienced each and every day—that was experienced overnight—by people desperate to access aid in Gaza. The position that I am laying out in relation to the legal tests that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned is to reassure the House that we take our obligations under the convention incredibly seriously. The long-standing position about determination is that it is for a competent court. That does not stop us taking action in response to the tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes.

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

Recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report about accountability for Daesh crimes, including genocide. A number of recommendations in that report pertain to issues applicable to other situations that have been referred to today. I want to press the Minister on the issue of universal jurisdiction. Would he and the Government consider a change in the law to allow for the prosecution of genocide regardless of a perpetrator’s nationality?

[Mr Falconer]

I am of course very happy to consider the recommendations of the Committee. We do have extrajudicial—I will be careful on the legalities of it, but as I understand it, British courts can look into crimes of genocide outside the UK where a UK national is involved. If the recommendation of the Committee is that that should be expanded, we can take a look at that, but that is the current position. At the risk of stating the absolute obvious, it is a criminal offence to commit genocide in the UK and it is a criminal offence to commit genocide outside the UK if you are a UK national, and our courts have competence to hear that.

I want to be clear on our position in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and its stated intention to hold territory indefinitely. Israel’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance is unjustifiable. Israeli settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and settler violence against Palestinians is unacceptable. Extremist rhetoric inciting unlawful violence against Palestinians is abhorrent. The House has heard about steps we have taken in recent days to respond. We have equally been clear in our condemnation of Hamas for its heinous terrorist attacks on 7 October, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire referred to, its cruel holding of hostages and its use of civilian infrastructure in conflict, which places civilians at huge risk.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked of the International Court of Justice, which is considering a case brought under the genocide convention by South Africa against Israel. It has issued provisional measures, including on humanitarian access. We respect the Court’s independence and its authority to issue binding orders, and expect Israel to follow them under international law. Separately, the International Criminal Court is investigating what is happening in Israel and the OPTs. We fully support that Court’s role in investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes and holding those responsible accountable, including delivering justice for victims.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Nearly a year ago, in an advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories unlawful. It clearly specified obligations on all states not to provide any economic, diplomatic, political or military support that helps to perpetuate that unlawful occupation. The UK Government’s assessment of the advisory opinion has not yet been published. Will the Minister advise us when that assessment will be published and whether he believes that the UK Government are in full compliance with the advisory opinion?

[Mr Falconer]

I want to clarify about the advisory opinion, which we are still considering—it was long in the making and has broad implications—that the UK agrees with the central position that the hon. Member describes, which is that settlements are illegal and should cease. That is not a novel element of the advisory opinion for the UK Government. [Interruption.] I will make some progress, if I may.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister give way on settlements?

[Mr Falconer]

Let me make a little progress, and then I will be happy to.

Let me set out what the Government are doing. We have called on the Government of Israel repeatedly to comply fully with their international obligations. We do so in private, with Ministers, and in public, through co-ordinated public statements with partners. We have built strong international pressure on Israel to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including through the Security Council. We have voted repeatedly in the Security Council to that effect, demanding the lifting of restrictions on aid in Gaza in line with humanitarian law. We have also taken action to address settler violence and extremism, including the sanctions last week against Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich for inciting extremist violence, which constitutes an abuse of Palestinians’ human rights.

I give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on settlements.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister. Will he address the question I have previously raised in the House? Trade in settlement goods is trade in the proceeds of crime, so will he ban it?

[Mr Falconer]

Ms Jardine has reminded me that I have one minute left, so I will answer the question and then conclude. Goods from illegally occupied settlements come under different trading provisions than those from green-line Israel. That is a question for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that we keep under regular review. As the hon. Member is aware, others are looking at these questions, but at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.

Let me conclude rapidly in order to give the hon. Member the final word. I want to reaffirm that the Government are meeting their international obligations, including those under the genocide convention. We continue to maintain that genocide determinations are a matter for a competent—

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Falconer]

I am about to hand over to the hon. Member. Our commitment to international law is firm. It applies everywhere without exception, and our record reflects that.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

The Question is—[Interruption.] Order. The Member in charge does not have the right to wind up a 30-minute debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Disabled People in Poverty

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

17:28

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Most hon. Members present will be aware that this debate takes place in the shadow of the publication of the welfare Bill, probably tomorrow, which could usher in some of the deepest and most severe cuts to disability benefits since 2010.

We already know that the current benefits system is not working. Some 700,000 families with a disability are already living in poverty, and 75% of people who turn to food banks are disabled or live in a disabled household. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions in March this year revealed that 4.7 million people in disabled households are facing hunger, and unsurprisingly, women make up the majority of those disabled people and carers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I withdrew my name so that other Members would have time to speak, but I will make a small intervention. In Northern Ireland, over a fifth of the population aged 16 to 64 are disabled. Among the UK regions, Northern Ireland has the lowest disability employment rate and the largest unemployment gap between disabled and non-disabled persons. The fact is, if someone is disabled and in poverty in Northern Ireland, they are really in trouble. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is up to this Government, and this Minister, to give us the changes that we need to help those disabled people in poverty in Northern Ireland and elsewhere?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I agree, and later I will talk about disabled people and how employment may be a route out of poverty.

Any losses through changes to benefits will overwhelmingly fall on those who are already the poorest in our society. The Government are right that the social security system is in need of reform, but benefits are far from generous, and they often fail to cover the essentials of living. The process of claiming support can also be extremely complicated and confusing, and that often leads to individuals incorrectly filling in the forms or finding the process too difficult to even start. The assessment process, which is outsourced to five private companies, can be slow and is often open to appeal.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My constituent in Langport, Samantha, is a recipient of personal independence payment. She had treatment for endometritis and is struggling with cancer. Her PIP review was submitted in 2024. It comprised 100 pages of evidence—an onerous process that took six weeks to complete—and she is still awaiting a decision. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise my concern that the Government’s intention to make what is already a burdensome process more challenging will discriminate against the most vulnerable in our society?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

All the things I described need to be addressed, but the fear among disabled people is that the changes outlined in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, which may or may not find their way into the Bill, amount to piling more cuts on to an already broken system.

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

In my constituency, 23,000 people receive universal credit and 11,000 receive PIP. I have asked what impact the changes will have on people going into poverty or being helped into work, and I have had very few answers. Estimates from Health Equity North show that the changes will amount to about £22 million a year being taken out of the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly unconscionable for us to decide to produce that outcome without any evidence to demonstrate the benefits? We are effectively voting blind, and that is simply not acceptable.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will later talk about the evidence that we need to see before we come to a vote.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case. Further to the previous intervention, 44,000 disabled people in my constituency risk losing PIP. They are absolutely horrified, because they will not only lose their dignity but be pushed into serious poverty. This is not the right way to do things, and it is certainly not the Labour way to do things. Does he agree that the right choice would be to tax the super-rich, so they pay their fair share?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

We absolutely have to look at our taxation system and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, rather than saving money on the back of disabled people.

Even the Government’s own assessment shows that the changes are likely to have a significant financial impact on claimants. For example, tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment so that individuals will be required to score four points in at least one category will mean that 800,000 people lose the daily living element of PIP, with an average loss of £4,500 a year. The points system is already deeply flawed, especially for those with dynamic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The domino effect of tightening PIP eligibility will be severe, because it acts as a passport to other support—150,000 people are set to lose their carer’s allowance if someone they care for no longer qualifies. That could mean a loss to a household of £10,000 a year.

We know that having a disability is expensive: on average, households that have someone with a disability need over £1,000 a month more to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. The proposed changes to the health element of universal credit will freeze the benefits of over 2 million people, and an estimated 730,000 new claimants will get a lower rate of £50 a week.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sensitivities involved in considering, discussing and voting on such a serious matter require, at the very minimum, an equality impact assessment? It is only through such assessments that we can understand the impact on residents up and down the country.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree. I will come on to that later in my speech.

Those individuals I mentioned—the 730,000 new claimants who will get the lower rate of universal credit—will see an average loss of £3,000 a year. The health element of universal credit will also be cut for those aged under 22, removing vital support that helps young people into work, education and training. The Government cannot claim to want to help young people into work while taking away their safety net. People in all those groups are already struggling to make ends meet so, in reality, the figures are likely to be an underestimate of the scale of the pain being proposed.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that 1.3 million people who currently get the standard daily living award will no longer qualify, which is significantly higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimated 800,000 people. As a result, 350,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line. In total, over 3 million households will lose out, with as many as 100,000 children being pushed into poverty.

I have heard Ministers repeat the claim that only one in 10 PIP recipients will be affected by the proposals, but that is based on the false assumption that people will get better at filling in the claim forms and that more people will be successful in scoring four points. There is absolutely no evidence to show that that will be the case. The one in 10 figure also does not take into account the potential new claimants who will lose out.

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

On the suggestion that there is no evidence, does the evidence not come from when the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee looked at previous assessment changes?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I have not seen that evidence, but what I have seen points me in a different direction.

We already know that PIP is an underclaimed benefit, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, and that fewer than half of the disabled people who are eligible to make a claim do so. I would therefore argue that the recent increase in the number of claims is largely the result of declining public health in this country combined with the increased financial hardship that disabled people are facing.

The Government have suggested there has been an unsustainable rise in the benefits bill, but as a percentage of GDP, we are spending the same amount on working-age benefits as we were in 2015. Cuts to social security are not an economic necessity; they are a political choice. It has been suggested in the media recently that the transitional arrangements for someone who loses their PIP will be extended from four to 13 weeks, but that only delays the fact that the Government will be making people permanently poorer.

It is right for Ministers to say that work can be a route out of poverty, and that disabled people should be supported to find a job, but the proposed £1 billion of support comes in only at the end of the Parliament—three years after the cuts have been introduced. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 45,000 to 90,000 people might find work through that proposed employment support, which cannot possibly offset the 3.2 million people who are having their benefits cut. It is a completely false equivalence.

As hon. Members know, PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so cutting it is likely to undermine efforts to get people into employment, rather than supporting them into gainful work. Too often, the attitude of employers is the real barrier to disabled people finding a job. Reluctance to offer flexible working patterns, harsh sickness absence policies and disability discrimination are the blockers that many disabled people face. Tackling those would be an important place to start.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I will give way to somebody who has not already spoken.

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

The hon. Member is talking about barriers to disabled people, particularly those in poverty. I am running a campaign calling on the Government to make sure that people with disabled bus passes can use them at any time of the day, rather than just after 9.30 am. Does he agree that that would be a great way to alleviate the poverty of disabled people?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a campaign that I would put my weight behind.

[Neil Coyle]

On the hugely important issue of discrimination that my hon. Friend touched on, does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that the Government inherited a position where the Department for Work and Pensions was being investigated for unlawful discrimination against disabled people? That is another of the issues that the ministerial team and the Government are having to fix—issues that they inherited from the chaotic and incompetent Governments of the previous 14 years, five of which were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward.

There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.

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

Does the hon. Member agree that these proposed or suspected cuts to PIP and other benefits are a sword of Damocles hanging over disabled people in this country? Although the savings are expected to be about £4.5 billion across Britain by 2029-30, that does not factor in any of the broader systemic costs, especially those borne by the NHS and local authorities, which could well negate or even exceed that sum.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care.

Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published.

Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.

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

My constituency is the home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Army Training Centre Pirbright, and is just next door to Aldershot, so veterans, many of whom have career-acquired disabilities, are an integral part of our community. According to recent statistics, 16% of disabled veterans are unable to heat their own homes, and the Trussell Trust says that more than half are considered to be food insecure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we offer disabled veterans bespoke support to compensate them for their careers and the lives they have given in the service of our country?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Veterans, like every disabled individual, should get the support they deserve.

Labour created the modern welfare state, underpinned by universalist principles, to provide dignity and fairness to people when they need a helping hand. That, in my view, is what we should be doing now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak in the debate, they should bob. We have only 20 minutes before we have to move to the Front Benchers at 6.6 pm, so please keep speeches very brief or go for an intervention instead.

17:46

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), my colleague from Dorset, on securing this important debate. I will attempt to edit my speech as I go along to buy back some time.

Ensuring fairness starts with recognising those who need support the most. The foundation of real support is ensuring that help reaches those who face the greatest challenges. The additional costs of disability—mobility aids, home adaptations, specialist care, heating and travel—add up and are all substantial. Scope estimates that disabled households need an extra £1,010 per month to achieve the same standard of living as a non-disabled household. Nearly 4,800 people in my constituency receive personal independence payments, of whom 40% receive the highest level of support.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

One of the most common reasons why people claim PIP in Yeovil is poor mental health. Does my hon. Friend agree that to support vulnerable people’s mental wellbeing, the Government must urgently change course on the proposed cuts to PIP and introduce proper staff and accessible mental health hubs in every rural community?

[Edward Morello]

I absolutely agree. The costs for disabled people who live in rural areas include more expensive journeys to access healthcare, unreliable and sparse public transport, and higher energy bills for heating homes that are often older and less efficient.

Hundreds of my constituents have expressed their concerns to me over the last few months, and I have retold some of their stories in this Chamber. Each one represents a wider failure. The Government’s own analysis shows that the proposed changes to PIP will push 300,000 people into poverty. About 150,000 carers stand to lose carers allowance due to the knock-on effect of losing PIP eligibility, harming those who care for the most vulnerable. I urge the Government to change course.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I urge Members to keep as close to a minute as they can.

17:48

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is extremely disappointing that the Government are pressing ahead with the cuts. They should have learned the lesson from the winter fuel payment debacle. Ahead of the coming votes, we will hear a lot of Government spin about how it is really about helping disabled people, but it is not. Labour colleagues should remember one key thing: the Government plan to slash £7 billion from support for disabled people. They cannot cut £7 billion from disabled people and then credibly claim to be helping them.

The devastating consequences for our communities are clear: 300,000 to 400,000 more disabled people will be pushed into poverty, 700,000 disabled families who are already in poverty will be pushed deeper into it, and at least 800,000 disabled people will lose PIP—the support they rely on to eat, wash, dress and use the toilet. It is immoral and I will vote against it.

In conclusion, I say to Labour colleagues: this change will become a millstone around the necks of not just the Labour Government but every MP who fails to vote against it. In the coming days, Ministers will call in MPs, and there will be the carrot and the stick. They will be urged not to vote against the cuts, and all sorts of promises will be made. But the minute the vote has taken place, MPs will be dropped and their phone calls will stop being answered. From the day of that vote up to and including the day of the next general election, they will be left to face their constituents alone—left to pick up the pieces in their constituency as thousands are thrown into hardship.

I urge MPs not to sit on their hands but to vote against this change. It is immoral. But the Government should save us from that choice by thinking again and dropping these cruel cuts.

17:50

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Analysis from Policy in Practice has found that four of the 10 UK local authority areas worst hit by the welfare cuts are in Wales—and we only have 22 local authorities—impacting 6.1% of our population at a cost of £470 million.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “Poverty in Wales” report, which was published last week, found that 37% of disabled working-age adults in Wales are already in poverty, compared with 19% of non-disabled working-age people. According to the report, relative poverty increases by 219% among households affected by the loss of both personal independence payments and the healthcare element of universal credit in Wales, with the average depth of poverty among affected households increasing by 65% to £538 per month.

If the administration of the social security system were devolved to Wales, the needs and experiences of disabled people in Wales, rather than cost savings, could be placed at the root of welfare provision. More than four in 10 PIP claimants are already in the bottom fifth of the income distribution; the removal of this lifeline, at an average financial cost of £4,500 a year, will inevitably increase the rate of poverty in Wales and across the UK. The UK Government must urgently stop their welfare plans and instead listen and work with disabled people to address the challenges they face, rather than exacerbate them.

17:52

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

It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate.

Fourteen years of austerity, followed by a global pandemic and then a cost of living crisis, has led to out-of-control inequality in Britain. People and communities have been hammered by austerity cuts to welfare, the NHS and the public services that bind us together and are the civilising force in our society. There is no doubt about it: cuts cost lives.

Last July, people voted for all that suffering to end. They were offered change by Labour. No one from any part of the country thought that, after 14 years of Tory austerity and welfare policies that robbed people of their dignity, the change they voted for would be billions of pounds in cuts from the welfare budget. People voted for something else, and I will be voting for something else.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Talking of austerity, Kirklees council has been devastated by the cuts imposed on it by the previous Government. Some 18.9% of people in Kirklees are recorded as disabled. Does the hon. Member agree that taking away PIP from nearly 4,200 residents in my constituency will put an even greater burden on council services that are ill-equipped to bear it?

[Brian Leishman]

I completely agree. I am glad the hon. Gentleman brought up the subject of local authorities and the added burden on them of picking up the pieces from this horrendous proposal.

As I said, I will be voting for something else. I will be voting against the cruel welfare reforms that the Government have put forward. A Labour Government should always lift people out of poverty, not put people in it.

17:54

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

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

If we are to be serious about tackling poverty among disabled people, we need to be honest and focused on tackling its root causes and on making sure that the system is sustainable. The overwhelming driver of poverty among disabled people is low levels of employment. Only 54% of disabled people are in work; that is 30% lower than the average for people without disabilities. Shockingly, 43% of disabled people are economically inactive, and our employment rates lag far behind those of other countries, such as Canada’s at 62%. We cannot just ignore worklessness as the driver of poverty. The JRF says that people in full-time work are five times less likely to be poor than those in no work.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

No thank you; I have very little time.

We have to deal with the root causes, so we have to focus on work. We also have to deal with the sustainability of the system, which is currently unsustainable. PIP claimant levels have risen at twice the level of underlying ill health. The rise since 2016 alone is equivalent to the entire police grant for England and Wales. If we are to sustain the system for the long term, we must make it sustainable. The proposed changes will not affect 90% of people. They will protect the most vulnerable and make the system fit for the future. That is why we should support them.

17:56

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate.

Of the 13,132 disabled people who live in my constituency, 5,110 claim PIP. Cutting benefits without tackling the sky-high extra costs that disabled people face is unconscionable. Scope’s research shows that the monthly extra cost incurred by disabled people living in London is currently £1,469, which is notably higher than the UK-wide figure.

The Government’s claim that the cuts will increase employment is not backed by any assessment. Their own impact assessment found that the cuts will result in 250,000 more people in relative poverty, of whom 50,000 will be children. Disability benefit cuts will affect 3.2 million current or future claimant families. What I heard recently about the proposed cuts to disability benefit from disabled constituents at an event organised by the Disability Advice Service in Lambeth only deepened my conviction that the cuts are wrong and deeply damaging. Sadly, the Government are not listening.

[Ian Byrne]

The Government got it completely wrong when they cut winter fuel payments last year, forcing them into a damaging U-turn this month. Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than make another gross error by pushing through brutal cuts to disability support, the Government should admit their mistake, withdraw the plans and introduce a wealth tax instead?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. A wealth tax would be a start, and there are other ways in which the Government could look for savings on disability benefits. They could start with the US multinationals that make a profit off the humiliating PIP assessments. Maximus, the US firm that tests eligibility for UK disability benefits, recently reported a 23% rise in profits, making £29.1 million in the year ending September 2024. That is yet another example of a private company profiting while people are forced into financial vulnerability.

In last month’s PIP debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I reiterated her point that it is never too late for the Government to change course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) just pointed out. The Prime Minister recently doubled down on plans to proceed with the cuts, but it is not too late. There can be a change of course, and I urge the Government to reconsider this very cruel group of cuts.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I am sorry, but as we are now very short of time, I have to ask everybody to keep to a minute.

17:58

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this timely and important debate.

More than 6,000 people in my constituency claim personal independence payments. Hundreds of them have written to me and I have met many of them and their families at listening events I have held across the constituency. One clear thing they all say to me is that being disabled is already a full-time job. Of the 6,000 people who claim PIP in my constituency, 40% will never work; 30% are in work; and approximately 30% are awaiting some form of treatment.

I have been seeking assurances from Ministers on behalf of those constituents who are in work thanks to their PIP, and the answer I keep getting is that they may score differently next time around. If those people lose their payments, they will not be able to afford to pay their bills, and they could lose their jobs and their homes. How are we to get people into work when we are pushing others out of it?

PIP has never worked for disabled people and the Government should work with the disabled to design a positive vision for PIP. The Green Paper is not a meaningful reform; it is tweaking the same bad policies.

17:59

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The diagnosis is wrong and the treatment is no cure; all these cuts will do is to displace the cost and displace the problem. It was not disabled people who broke the NHS waiting lists. It was not disabled people who removed the access to mental health services. It is not disabled people who are experiencing a healthier life expectancy. It is the system, which has failed them for 14 years, that has done that to them—which is why we must change direction and not progress with these cuts.

Above all, employers have a major responsibility. Of course Access to Work is not working when people have to wait 85 days to get the support they need. When life spirals out of control, people need a state behind them. The sequencing is wrong, the proposals are wrong and ultimately the outcomes will be devastating.

18:00

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate.

It is clear from some of my colleagues’ comments and from some of the discourse on this topic that many politicians do not understand the lives of disabled people. In the UK, disabled people face an extra average cost of nearly £1,000 a month. That is not optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was never built with disabled people in mind.

A persistent and damaging myth is that the personal independence payment is a benefit for those out of work. It is not a benefit. PIP is not income replacement; it exists to help to cover the extra costs of disability, whether someone is in employment or not. In fact, many recipients rely on it to stay in work, using it to overcome the additional barriers that working life presents.

There are significant and deeply concerning disparities between disabled and non-disabled people in employment opportunities and fair pay—17%, according to the TUC. That is really unfortunate, but I fear that we are focusing on the wrong things. This system should not be about punitive measures; it should be about encouraging employers to do the right thing, including making reasonable adjustments.

18:02

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

The level of destitution among disabled people in England is not just a problem—it is a national disgrace. Three quarters of adults receiving health-related universal credit are experiencing material deprivation.

Poverty among the disabled is the deliberate outcome of an economic model and a style of governance designed to serve the interests of ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations. Under this Labour Government, there can be no moral or fiscal justification—none at all—for maintaining the lowest corporation tax in the G7 alongside a social security net so threadbare that hundreds of thousands of disabled people have already fallen into poverty, let alone cutting back further the support that it provides, which would result in even more widespread destitution.

18:03

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 10,000 people are in receipt of PIP or the health element of universal credit, and they are frankly terrified. Already more than 6.3 million people with a disabled family member live in poverty, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the full impact of the Government’s measures could push an extra 400,000 people into poverty.

It is also important to stress that, although the Government’s package of employment support is welcome, the number of people back in work will be nominal. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 1% to 3% of people who have their benefits cut will be helped back into work.

While I recognise the dire financial situation that the Government inherited, balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable is not morally right when options such as taxing wealth more fairly are available. I should stress that that particular option has widespread public support, and indeed support from many millionaires themselves. I ask the Government to please do the right thing and scrap these cuts.

18:04

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

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

From discussions I have had in Clwyd North, it is clear that our systems need urgent reform. I have heard too many stories from PIP claimants of unacceptable obfuscation and delay that have led to both mental anguish and financial hardship. That has to stop.

I welcome the measures already being taken, but we urgently need to do more. We must waste no time at all in the review of the PIP assessment to make sure that it is fit for purpose, including the assessment criteria and the descriptors. We must also be more ambitious and far-reaching with employment support, both for those seeking and those already in work. I know it can be done. In Clwyd North, local authority partners work with DWP colleagues, the third sector and local employers to create bespoke pathways into work from any starting point. I am pleased that their work is now a Wales inactivity trailblazer, but that kind of support must not be the exception; it needs to be the norm.

18:05

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

There is a clear link between disability and poverty, particularly in rural communities such as mine, where poor public transport adds to difficulties accessing basic medical appointments and makes it either really difficult or really expensive.

I wanted to ask the Minister about the PIP process. It is a horrible process—I know it painfully well. Residents are having to wait for up to a year to receive a decision and money. There is no financial benefit to the Government, because the money is backdated, but all the while that people are waiting they are presenting in crisis at the jobcentre, the hospital and the GP service, which is costing an absolute fortune and ruining lives. Will the Government look at the PIP process and aim to speed it up, so that we can help more people and save costs in the system?

18:06

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

Let us say it straight: disabled people have been let down by 14 years of Tory Government. The number of disabled people in working households living in poverty doubled under the Tories’ watch, to 1.3 million people last year and the pay gap for disabled people is higher now at 13% than it was a decade ago.

I will touch briefly on the upcoming PIP reforms—I did have a bigger speech planned, but we are short on time. An unsustainable welfare system, one that does not enjoy public support or give disabled people enough good support, does disabled people no favours. What does do them a favour is scrapping the work capability assessment and providing extra funding to get people into to work. To have no answer to the additional 1,000 people a day who are currently going into the PIP system is to keep one’s head in the sand and to provide no real answers to the failure of the current system, which is not flexible or supportive enough.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Ryan]

I will not give way. The principle of the social contract of the welfare state is at stake, and this Government are defending it.

18:07

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this extremely important debate. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, as many Members have alluded to, or a benefit that gives people their best lives; it helps them to live lives that are bearable—that is the reality of it. It allows people to get through what many of us in the Chamber would think of as a challenging life, rather than actually living their best life.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I spoke to Jacqueline from Street, who is unable to work and is absolutely desperate. Heartbreakingly, she told me that if her PIP is removed, she is prepared to take her own life. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the vital support that PIP payments provide to the most vulnerable in society is not a luxury, but a lifeline?

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. I have received, as I am sure many colleagues have, disturbing commentary from constituents, where people are already desperately worried, 18 months ahead of any reductions.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted some key barriers around poverty. Members have already alluded to the extra cost of living, but one barrier that I am particularly alive to, as a disabled person who went to a special educational needs school myself, is the lack of ambition for youngsters. It was an exception in my school if someone did an O-level; the highest we were expected to do was CSEs. There is a significantly lower level of educational attainment for people with disabilities.

Hon. Members have already alluded to the barriers to getting into work. Those may be simple misunderstandings, because people with disabilities can do things; they may just have to do them a little differently. It was with great pleasure that I met earlier this week with Turning Heads, a community interest company run by Alan Tilley for people with learning disabilities—appropriately, since it is Learning Disability Week. Alan shared with us that 75% of people with learning disabilities are out of work and that 86% of those people want to work.

[Rachel Gilmour]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a remarkable institution in my Tiverton and Minehead constituency called Foxes Hotel, which trains people with mental disabilities to become employed in hotels and hospitality centres across the country. In fact, one young lady from Foxes works in our kitchens in the House of Commons. It is not all doom and gloom, but suffice it to say that Foxes is known within the disabled community as the Oxbridge of training—it is unique, and is not the norm. Did my hon. Friend know that?

[Steve Darling]

I am reminded of the gentleman who won “Strictly Come Dancing” last year, who said that what people with disability need is “opportunity, support and determination”. My hon. Friend’s example demonstrates that in spades.

I will not spend too much time discussing Access to Work, but it is a broken system. It should be there to support people, but it undermines them through massive delays in assessments. In south Devon, businesses that support people have closed down because they are owed so much money. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot closed because of a lack of money, due to the arrears owed to it by Access to Work.

I am concerned that Ministers are getting confused—I will be extremely upset if they do so today—about employment and PIP. They should not be confused. PIP is purely about ensuring that people can live what many of us would see as normal lives. I represent the most deprived community with a Liberal Democrat representative, Torbay, and I am concerned that the cuts to PIP will see cash sucked out of some of our most deprived communities across the country. That is money that would go to people doing support work such as cleaning, helping people to go shopping, taxis and so on being sucked out of what are already our most impoverished communities. There are some real challenges there. The real killer is that 150,000 carers could lose support funding—£12,000 per household. That will push people deeper into poverty and further into destitution.

[Neil Coyle]

Can the hon. Gentleman remind us whether the disability employment gap and the disability poverty gap rose or fell when his party was in government?

[Steve Darling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—I always look forward with great relish to his interventions.

I am concerned at the lack of consultation around the cuts. That is perverse. I am also concerned that the Government may be rushing the proposals through, perhaps even without a Bill Committee, but rather a Committee of the whole House. Will the Minister assure us that the Bill will receive appropriate scrutiny?

18:13

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I shall be as quick as I can. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I fully recognise and share all the concerns that people have raised on behalf of constituents facing the cuts that are coming down the line.

Nevertheless, the Government are right in their overall objective of trying to tackle the challenges in our welfare system, which traps too many people in economic inactivity and presents an unsustainable cost to taxpayers. We have seen an onflow to both PIP and the UC health element, which doubled in the last Parliament. The PIP budget alone will rise by 50% in this Parliament, to £35 billion. Those figures are not affordable over the long term.

Nevertheless, the Government’s plans are crude and cruel. The Government are effectively proposing to scrap the standard rate of PIP altogether. Some 87% of people on the standard rate of PIP will fail the four-point test, so we are effectively doing away with that benefit altogether.

Mention has been made of the 14 years of the last Government. The fact is that this Government had 14 years to prepare for government, and—in response to a fiscal crisis that they created—they are having to rush through these crude and cruel benefit plans.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Johanna Baxter]

Talking of cruelty, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is cruel that the number of people from working households living in poverty more than doubled under the Conservatives’ watch, from 600,000 to 1.3 million? Is that not cruel?

[Danny Kruger]

There were significant issues presented by the benefit reforms that the last Government introduced—again, in response to the fiscal crisis that they inherited. Many of those reforms were very positive in terms of getting people into work. However, I recognise that the axe fell disproportionately on certain members of the community, and I recognise many of the challenges faced by our constituents over the years.

Nevertheless, I insist that the benefit changes introduced some important reforms to help people get into work, as well as significant increases in support for disabled people. Carer’s allowance and disability living allowance increased significantly, and the WorkWell programme introduced at the end of the last Government helped disabled people into work. Some genuinely positive measures were introduced.

[Neil Coyle]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about DLA is interesting, given that his Government and the Lib Dems abolished it. My question is this: has the £12 billion that the Conservatives said they would cut from the Department for Work and Pensions budget during the last election been identified or outlined? What would his party have done and where would those cuts have fallen?

[Danny Kruger]

Let me come on to where I think the Government could be doing a better job.

To conclude my concern with the current plans, we will not see significant savings, as hon. Members have said, because the costs will be shunted elsewhere in the system. We should be very concerned about what will happen to local authority budgets and the NHS. The cause is the Government’s failure to introduce the substantial reforms needed to the way our benefit system, and in fact our wider economy, works.

The solution needs to be a much better assessment system. I am glad that the Government are proposing to review the assessment process for PIP and UC; I think they should be doing that before they introduce these significant cuts to benefits. We need assessments that recognise the fluctuating nature of many of the conditions that people experience. That is particularly the case with mental health, but there are also increasing numbers of young people who come forward with claims and the assessments do not take account of their conditions. We need a more human system, which is why it is important to introduce more face-to-face assessments.

Most importantly, we need more support for people who are far from the labour market. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German); we need a process led by civil society. That was a key part of the reforms introduced under the last Government, but I do not think they went nearly far enough. A whole system of universal support, alongside universal credit, is the way to support people who are far away from the labour market. It is about not just the benefit levels, but the support that is given.

We need to listen to disabled people, and I am grateful for the input that I have had from disabled people’s groups as we look forward to the coming changes. We also need to listen to employers and put them in the driving seat with the reforms. We have a real problem in this country: in the UK, only 12% of employers offer phased return to work support, whereas in Germany that figure is 34%. We could do so much better at helping employers to provide support for people who are trying to get back into work.

I will conclude by stressing that Access to Work needs to be improved. We doubled spending on that in the last Parliament, but more needs to be done. Finally, and most of all, we need a growing economy. With unemployment up, inflation up, debt up and taxes up, we have a disjointed approach. Unless we get properly well-paid jobs, we will always struggle with the welfare bill.

18:18

[The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. It has been a good debate. I would normally run through all the people who have spoken, but there have been so many—I will try to cover some of the points that have been raised. However, I begin by saying that the level of poverty among disabled people demands our attention and action, and it is right that we discuss it today.

Disabled people, like everybody else, have the right to dignity, the right to work and the right to have power, choice and control over their lives. When someone is in poverty, regardless of whether they are disabled, they are robbed of the opportunity to choose how to live their own life, which is why the situation we face today is so very shameful. When the Tories left office, 14 million people were in poverty, including 6.3 million people living in households in which someone is disabled—enough to fill Wembley stadium 70 times over, and more than the population of Scotland. That is a moral, social and economic failure on a colossal scale, and this Government have already taken urgent action to tackle it by delivering our plan for change, putting more money in people’s pockets and raising living standards.

Some of the specific anti-poverty measures in last week’s spending review are really important. For the first time, we have taken a long-term approach to the household support fund so that local authorities can properly plan, and we are turning the fund into a crisis and resilience fund so that we can properly deal with the issues that come up from time to time when a crisis tips somebody into long-term poverty.

Last autumn, we introduced a fair repayment rate for universal credit by reducing the maximum amount that can be taken from people’s benefits to pay for what they owe from 25% to 15%, meaning that 1.2 million of the poorest households will keep an average of £420 more in universal credit. As my dad used to say, “Out of debt, out of danger.”

[Ellie Chowns]

Today the Minister has heard many MPs, representing their constituents, express their huge concern about the effects of the PIP cuts on disabled members of our communities. She says that she cares about disabled people in poverty and about dignity. Why are her Government refusing to raise funds through a wealth tax so that our disabled constituents can have the support they need to live full and supported lives?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. I do not just say that I care about poverty; I have spent nearly a year working on a child poverty strategy to repair the damage the Tory Government did to this country. We will bring forward proposals as soon as we can to deal with the poverty crisis—I have mentioned several of them already.

The hon. Lady asks about a wealth tax. We have put VAT on private schools and private jets. We have removed exemptions from inheritance tax, which is a wealth tax. We have doubled stamp duty, which is a wealth tax. We are increasing capital gains tax and abolishing non-dom status, which meant that wealthy people could escape the taxes they owe. I do not accept that we have not taken steps to raise money through taxes so that we can pay for the public services this country needs so that working-class people can escape poverty. That is what this Government have done. [Interruption.] I will continue before I lose my temper.

We are expanding free school meals in England to all children with a parent receiving universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament, and that is on top of our roll-out of free breakfast clubs. As I just mentioned, our child poverty strategy, on which Ministers right across Government have been working extremely hard, will reduce costs, support families with better local services and increase incomes, because we know that is the best way to tackle poverty.

As I mentioned, the extra money we are collecting through taxation will help to rebuild our NHS, with an extra £29 billion a year for the day-to-day running of our health service, so that disabled people can get the healthcare they need. We are also extending the £3 national bus fare cap, helping people to maintain their independence.

I want to respond to some of the points that Members have raised, particularly on the PIP review, which is already under way. I know that Members will be involved in that work but, just to be clear, it is already happening.

[Johanna Baxter]

The Government’s consultation on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, led by the Office for Equality and Opportunity, recently closed. Can the Minister update the House on the findings of that consultation and when we might expect a formal Government response?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend raises an important manifesto commitment. I will relay her request to the Minister for Disability, who I am sure will update her.

We are anxious to get on with it. As many Members have said, it is important to reset some of the assumptions that employers have about the capabilities of disabled people, and the assumptions about whether disabled people should be included in our economy like everybody else.

On how many people will be affected by this, I point out that all the numbers that have been mentioned, including the numbers we have published on the poverty impact of the policy change, are static. They assume that nothing else changes by 2030.

While I understand the very correct concern that the employment support system this Government inherited was nowhere near what it should be, I can reassure Members that change is already happening. We are already getting on with Connect to Work and building a new jobs and careers service. I currently spend half my life with frontline work coaches in jobcentres, including disability employment advisers who are anxious to do better and are moving forward with a changed system. We are not waiting to get on with the change; the change is already happening.

[Ayoub Khan]

On the £5 billion cut to PIP, does the Minister agree that it is not just a lifeline for the most vulnerable in our society but is £5 billion that ends up in the economy? For that reason, does she not agree that a holistic impact assessment needs to be done? It ought not to be rushed, so that Members can review it and come to a sensible conclusion.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for his point, because it is one of the other things I wanted to clarify. A number of Members have mentioned money being taken out of communities. Having been a Member of Parliament during the actual austerity years under the Conservatives, I can say that the benefit and other changes made under austerity clearly had a huge impact on certain parts of the country.

That is why the spending review set out our investment plans. I have already mentioned the funding for the NHS and other areas through which we will be supporting the very communities that need to be lifted. I refer the hon. Member to the distributional analysis published alongside the documents last week, where he will see that this Government are prioritising lifting the communities that really need to be lifted.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has gone now, but I want to say that veterans can be supported through the armed forces independence payment, whether in work or not. That is separate from PIP, and no changes are proposed to it.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will wind up, because we are out of time. I have no doubt that these discussions will continue over the coming weeks, and I look forward to engaging with everybody here on them. [Interruption.]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I am sorry, but we have to put the Question quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty.

18:28

Sitting adjourned.