Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(2 days, 2 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Hansard Text

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Wednesday 18 June 2025
[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Future of the Gas Grid

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(2 days, 2 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

09:30
Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the gas grid.

It is a pleasure to lead a Westminster Hall debate for the first time with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, in particular given that it is my birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you, everyone.

I thank colleagues from across the House for joining me in this important discussion about the future of Britain’s gas grid. First, I pay tribute to the men and women who work in our gas industry, from extraction and refining through to transmission and product engineers. They literally keep the lights on and our houses warm—not that we need a lot of assistance with heating in the month of June, but of course we rely on gas heating for much of the year.

Tom Collins Portrait Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend and office mate a very happy birthday. This is a very important debate, and I am grateful to him for securing it. I am looking forward to the discussion and I have much to share later, but for now I emphasise how timely the debate is as we face uncertainty in national security and a huge energy transition that will create opportunities as well as challenges.

Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I pay tribute to him for all his years of work in the gas industry and for the knowledge that he brings to the House and indeed to this debate. I look forward to hearing from him later.

Previously, I worked for the Energy and Utilities Alliance, which is a trade association primarily representing companies in the gas heating industry. Recently, however, I had a heat pump installed at home, so I will not be using gas at all in future. I am certainly not a believer in silver bullets or dominant solutions. That heat pump cost £15,000, though, and the installation was fraught with complications, so it is fair to say that I have mixed views in this space.

Gas is an essential part of our energy system, accounting for 40% of the UK’s total energy consumption and about a third of total electricity generation. Crucially, it provides vital flexibility to make up for peaks and troughs in generation from renewables, which should of course be our focus—but they cannot be the whole solution for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the Government’s clean power by 2030 mission foresees a role for gas power stations as flexible generation for up to 5% of demand, but it will take a huge amount of energy storage to enable us to reduce our gas usage for power generation even to that level.

Looking ahead, the National Infrastructure Commission and the Climate Change Committee have recognised that gas, in one form or another, will continue to play a vital role in the energy system for decades to come, as a crucial component of a diverse and secure energy supply. All realistic projections for the UK’s energy transition envisage a continued role for gas, alongside carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, which I will come on to.

A key area of interest to me—and, I am sure, to every Member wishing to contribute to this debate—is the role of gas in domestic heating. Nationally, the gas grid serves more than 24 million homes and half a million businesses. It carries three times more energy than the electricity grid does annually and, on peak winter days, that figure rises to five times as much. Eighty-three per cent of homes rely on mains gas, and in my Cannock Chase constituency 95% of households are on the gas grid. Meanwhile, 6,460 households in my towns and villages live in fuel poverty.

Given that gas heating is clearly the cheapest form of domestic heating we have today, the future of the gas grid is not just a technical issue, but a cost of living issue. Heat pumps are a potential solution for many homes, in particular those off the gas grid, but we have to be honest about the persistent cost barriers. With the average heat pump installation coming in at about £13,000 and only just over half of that paid for by the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme, heat pumps are clearly still the preserve of able-to-pay households and niche house builders.

Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government are doing really important work on social justice and the environment, but my constituency is similar to my hon. Friend’s in terms of fuel poverty. Is he aware that, of the £300 million spent on the boiler upgrade scheme over the past few years, only 3% of grants in Cambridgeshire went to Peterborough, the poorest constituency? As we advance and develop these schemes, we need to root social justice alongside carbon reduction.

Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to come to that point about my neck of the woods.

My fear is that, without a substantial shift in the cost barrier and a clear focus by the Government on inequality, as my hon. Friend said, decarbonisation inequality will widen. That inequality is apparent in the number of boiler upgrade scheme vouchers issued in the three years to March this year. That stood at just 27 for my Cannock Chase constituency but 316—nearly 12 times as many—in North Devon.

One solution that is not spoken about as much as it perhaps should be is the hybrid heat pump—the combination of a combi boiler with a smaller heat pump. Those systems typically use the heat pump for space heating and hot water production almost exclusively for most of the year, with the gas boiler supplementing it on cold days or when a boost of heat is needed.

Deirdre Costigan Portrait Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday. My constituency has very small houses with not much space, and heat pumps might not always be an option. There are lots of flats with no outside space. Does he agree that other technologies, such as heat batteries, might also be an option, and that it would be worth the Government’s considering whether they should be included in the boiler upgrade scheme and assessing whether the current VAT situation is the most useful?

Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Absolutely. That was a topic of huge discussion when I worked in the sector. I go back to my point that there are no silver bullets or dominant technologies, or at least there should not be. We need to ensure that each household—smaller properties, in particular, of which there are many in my constituency—has the right solution. She is right that we need to consider a range of options, and I am sure the Minister will touch on that.

Hybrids were the topic of discussion at a fascinating all-party parliamentary group for energy studies meeting last night. We heard from a Dutch energy expert who explained that hybrids are the norm in the Netherlands. Three provinces have told households that they will not be able to install heat pump-only systems, due to a lack of capacity on the electricity grid. Overloading of the grid is paralysing development in some areas of Holland. With our Government’s ambitious house building target, the message from our Dutch friend was, “Please make sure that Britain doesn’t end up where we are.”

The Dutch are finding that gas demand from households that have installed a hybrid heat pump is down by around 75%, while the increase in electricity demand is minimal. Given that our highly developed electricity and gas grids are very reliably serving the nation, that would seem to be a sensible balance for the UK, too. Substantially reduced gas demand opens the door for zero carbon gases such as biomethane and hydrogen to play a much bigger role in our energy future.

The main barrier to hybrids in the UK is a policy one. The policies we inherited from the previous Government are inconsistent on hybrids. The energy company obligation fully pays for a hybrid installation and the clean heat market mechanism gives 0.5 credits for a hybrid system, but the boiler upgrade scheme does not allow for hybrids at all. I hope the Minister can say something about the Government’s view on hybrids.

Our gas grid stretches over 275,000 km and its operation and maintenance provide highly skilled, well paid, often unionised jobs. It is estimated that the oil and gas sector supports one in every 160 jobs nationwide. Significantly for Scottish colleagues, that figure is around one in 20 jobs in Scotland. We are fortunate to have hundreds of thousands of some of the most skilled energy sector workers in the world. A gradual transition that leverages that as an advantage will help us maintain those good jobs, as well as our technological edge.

Gas is clearly a critical industry for many other sectors in the UK, such as glass, cement, ceramics and paper. Those sectors employ more than 1 million people and support essential supply chains, including in defence. Around a third of gas-reliant businesses say they cannot electrify due to technical or economic constraints. Again, those jobs are often in the high-skilled, high-wage sectors that we need more of. Hard-to-abate sectors such as ceramics, which as a Staffordshire MP I have to single out, depend on parliamentarians to navigate a way to net zero that does not leave them behind, and I believe that low-carbon gases could be the answer.

So what does the future look like? It starts with blending hydrogen into our existing network—a step our European neighbours are already taking. Blending even small amounts can kick-start demand in the hydrogen economy, lower the cost of the fuel and give the industry confidence to invest. I welcome the Government’s backing for the creation of a core hydrogen network and the repurposing of parts of the existing gas transmission system to carry 100% hydrogen to industrial clusters, power stations and storage sites across Britain. The Chancellor’s recent vote of confidence in Britain as a leader in carbon capture, utilisation and storage puts rocket boosters under that and will, of course, enable huge emissions reductions in some of the most greenhouse gas-intensive industries.

We also need to talk about the role of renewable gases, such as biomethane, which already contribute about 1% of our gas supply and have plenty of room to grow. Supporting the domestic production of low-carbon gases strengthens our energy security, supports rural economies and reduces emissions. In the light of the introduction of weekly food waste collections across England next April, our anaerobic digestion capacity will be more important than ever, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the green gas support scheme, which was extended to 2028 in the final weeks of the last Parliament, will be maintained at least until then, if not beyond.

What is required for us to decarbonise our gas grid, as other nations, such as the Netherlands, are doing? The replacement of our old iron mains is nearly complete, so that major hurdle is already being cleared. Other core infrastructure will need to accommodate hydrogen, but work is under way. For example, National Gas has already invested £350 million in hydrogen blend-ready compressors, and has demonstrated through its FutureGrid project at RAF Spadeadam that blending up to 20% hydrogen, and even operating at 100%, is both safe and feasible.

As has been discussed many times before, clear regulatory frameworks that enable innovation and investment are critical, as is public engagement, which we often overlook in these technical discussions about the energy sector. We need conversations with the public to be honest and inclusive, and to address concerns about safety, jobs, cost and fairness.

An energy system is only as resilient as the storage capacity that backs it up. When I first entered the energy sector way back in 2016, the Rough gas storage facility in the North sea was threatened with closure, and one of my first tasks was to furiously campaign for it to be rescued by the then Government. Sadly, they did not heed the dire warning from the industry, and Rough closed. It was able to reopen five years later, but only partially. With geopolitical events being what they are, we are suffering the effects of the previous Government’s short-sighted inaction. I am proud to be part of a Government who not only talk about gas storage but actively value it as a critical piece of national resilience.

I ask the Minister to strongly reject the inflammatory rhetoric around the transition that needs to take place in our gas grid, which is often designed to frame the issue in solely negative terms. Talk of ripping out boilers is as inaccurate as it is worrying for consumers. I also ask the Department to drive forward as quickly as possible the opportunities presented by hydrogen produced by carbon capture and storage and renewable energy. This transformation offers real opportunities, thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs, greater energy security by reducing our dependence on volatile international fossil fuel markets, and of course the chance to lead the world in green technology and innovation. The future of the gas grid is not about choosing between the past and the future; it is about building a bridge to a very British net zero.

09:43
Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this important debate and for his excellent and very well-informed contribution. I wish him not only a happy birthday but success with his new heat pump.

The future of the gas grid will impact all these islands. Gas is a critical component for more than half a million businesses across the country and all the workers that they employ. Research by Robert Gordon University suggests that if Scotland is successful in delivering its 2030 energy ambitions, the workforce—currently about 80,000—will increase by 25%. However, if it is unsuccessful, the workforce could fall by about 40%, with the loss of key skills, capabilities and associated supply chains.

A green future offers the possibility of new jobs by creating certainty for industry and investors. According to the UK Government’s 2021 hydrogen strategy, transitioning to green gases could create 12,000 jobs by 2030 and 100,000 by 2050. That would contribute to a thriving UK economy, increased production, improved public services and global leadership on the climate agenda.

New jobs and the associated economic growth will also complement electrification. Many workers in the gas industry have the very skills needed to secure a net zero future, and that future will be built in, and with, communities with a rich energy heritage, especially those in Scotland, as former fossil fuel jobs are replaced with green jobs.

Low-carbon hydrogen is required for all net zero scenarios. The UK needs to act fast and at scale to ensure energy security and independence to meet decarbonisation targets and achieve its legally binding net zero 2050 commitments. I appreciate that the Minister fully understands these matters.

Existing gas infrastructure can be adapted to deliver low-cost and low-impact net zero solutions. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, renewable biomethane gas can play a significantly larger role in the transition to net zero, reducing the overall cost of the transition and benefiting energy customers. Many of our European counterparts are already making very significant progress in these areas, and we need to catch up.

The Scottish gas network is already fuelling 10% of households in Scotland on their network with biomethane, and there are plans to grow that to 1 million homes by 2031. The prize on offer is not only a green gas that can sustainably decarbonise energy-intensive industries and retain jobs, but the growth of a new sector that will add up to 12,000 jobs by 2030 and £13 billion in gross value added.

A word about Peterhead power station in my constituency: commissioned in 1982, the power station continues to play a critical role in our energy supply, and also has the potential to play a major role in our future systems. The Peterhead carbon capture power station is a joint venture with Equinor, and the plan is to build a new 900 MW power station that will use technology to capture a minimum of 90% of carbon emissions. As I say, that is a minimum: SSE tells me that it could be as much as 95%.

The station would connect to a shared infrastructure being developed by the Scottish cluster, meaning that CO2 captured from the power station will be safely transported and stored offshore at the Acorn storage site. The existing station directly supports 80 full- time employees, three graduates, 13 apprentices and 30 contractors, but with the new development we could be talking about 1,000 new jobs during construction and 240 new jobs on an ongoing basis. I will come back to the issue of sustainability, because construction is one thing but sustaining jobs into the future is quite another.

I want to acknowledge the role of SSE Thermal in my local constituency in supporting local community projects. They are very important to local communities, particularly young people, schools, and businesses, as well as the environment.

Lastly, I will turn to Acorn. As the Minister knows, £200 million was announced last week to support the Acorn carbon capture and underground storage project in my constituency. I am sure that others have heard in the Chamber that it has the potential to capture and store the amount of carbon gas emitted since before the industrial revolution—that is the scale of the project.

The £200 million represented a start, but it is small compared with the £9.4 billion earmarked in the spending review for carbon capture, usage and storage before 2029. The investment is very welcome, especially in the context of the previous Government’s needless delays, but I also want to mention in connection with Acorn how important the connectivity with Grangemouth will be. Some of my colleagues asked me how many pipes there are between Acorn and Grangemouth. There are five, so there is no problem with the infrastructure. We do not need to spend billions of pounds building this thing; it is already there. That is really important to understand.

Given what is at stake for the north-east—jobs, supply chain opportunities and our green industrial transformation as part of climate action and economic growth—Scotland must be given our fair share. Two hundred million pounds is a start, but we want to see that figure climb very quickly, once the final investment decision is made, to the scale of the £22 billion already invested in England. As this debate has shown, the future of the gas grid is about working in tandem with projects such as Acorn, so the availability and implementation of funding is something that we should all push for.

I want to make one final point, from the workers’ perspective. I have spoken about the massive construction opportunities that will come with these projects. However, if we take a project such as the Viking project in the far north of Scotland, in Shetland, we are talking about 2,000 jobs during construction and a very small number—perhaps 200—afterwards, so it is fine to construct the projects, but we need to have solutions that work for people in the longer term. We need sustainability; we need regulation, so that workers are not taken advantage of; and we need to implement the Labour Government’s vision for better contractual terms and conditions.

I look forward to a very bright future for the north-east of Scotland, playing its role in our transition to a new future for the gas grid.

09:51
Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I think this is my second Westminster Hall debate, so I am still learning the ropes. Let me put on the record my GMB membership and the support that it has given me; and my previous role, before the election, as deputy general secretary of the Prospect trade union, covering workers in the gas and energy sector.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this debate. I have learned this morning that he shares his birthday with the legend who is Derrick Stone, who also happens to be my dad and who is celebrating his 87th birthday today.

Debates about the nation’s energy security are always of the highest importance, but given the ongoing events in the middle east and uncertainty around the world—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) said—debating the future and resilience of our energy system has become all the more necessary. The UK runs on gas; 40% of our energy comes from gas. Today every part of our country and economy still depends on it. Our national gas network collectively connects more than 30 large gas power stations, 24 million homes and half a million businesses. That includes several critical heavy industries—to name just a few, glass, chemicals, heavy machinery production, and sugar production and British Sugar around my constituency, in the east of England. They all need gas to produce their products for the British people and for us to sell to the world. We need those industries—and the 1 million jobs that depend on them—not only to stay in the UK, but to grow and thrive here and create more prosperity during the transition.

Our gas grid, with our world-leading national transmission system as the backbone, will play a leading role in the transformation of our energy network. As the Climate Change Committee recently said, many industries—such as those that I have just named—simply cannot fully electrify; they will always need a form of gas to keep their operations running. The discussion on the future of the gas grid is not about whether it will continue to exist, but about what will flow through it—natural gas, as we see today, or clean, home-grown forms of gas, such as hydrogen, in the future.

I am a passionate advocate for clean power and supporter of this Government’s green ambition. It will usher in industrial renewal and breathe new life into neglected towns and cities such as mine—Peterborough. It has the potential to create jobs, bring in new investment and deliver the long-term energy security that our country needs.

This is not just wishful thinking or some hypothecated plan for 10 or 20 years’ time. It is happening right now in places such as my constituency. Peterborough is fast becoming the King’s Cross of hydrogen—a hub where innovation, infrastructure and ambition meet. At the Peterborough gas compressor station, the crossroads of our national transmission system, National Gas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, has already announced £350 million to install new, state-of-the-art hydrogen-blend-ready turbines—an investment that initially will create 100 jobs and apprentices in Peterborough, with the potential to grow more across the UK. That investment not only will help locally to create jobs, boost the economy and grow our skillset, but will be vital in delivering the Government’s green growth mission nationally. Today that compressor station moves natural gas across the country to fuel heavy industry and power stations, but it is now able to move hydrogen instead, starting with a blend, and eventually moving to 100% hydrogen if we get there and decarbonising the country while protecting jobs in industry in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is the role Peterborough is playing in the green transition, and it is the future of the gas grid. Such projects show that hydrogen has a critical role to play in the future of British energy. I am proud that my constituency is playing a key role in supporting this Government’s ambitions and that transition.

However, to really kick-start that revolution there are some quick, easy actions that the Government can take. I have a few questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to expand upon in his remarks. Can the Minister confirm when we might see the release of the consultation on hydrogen blending into the gas transmission system, which was promised by the last Government and, we are told, may be coming shortly? That would help kick-start the hydrogen economy and unleash a wave of investment in Britain. What are the next steps in the Government’s plans for a core hydrogen network, as recommended by the Climate Change Committee and others, and how will that build on the exciting and excellent steps we have seen in recent days with Cadent and others through the Government’s announcements around hydrogen? Finally, what assessment can the Minister give us of the skills need and skill potential in communities such as mine that are crying out for good, decent, unionised opportunities that the gas transition could provide, not just in Peterborough but throughout the UK?

It has been a pleasure to speak with passion about my constituency again this morning, and also with passion about this Government’s drive to deliver us the green transition. Gas networks have helped build our industrial past and our current prosperity. Our gas networks of the future have the ability to power our transition and movement to net zero, while bringing communities with us.

11:54
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Dame Siobhain. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading today’s debate. We were counting down the last 10 seconds before the debate and the hon. Gentleman walked in on No. 8 —well done! He may have been a bit breathless. I wish him a happy birthday and thank him for his contributions in this House during the time that he has been here. They are always on subject matter that we are all interested in.

If we want to be progressive and visionary in this House, which we do, we need to look to the future for the things that are important. All areas of the United Kingdom are adapting their own strategies to contribute to net zero. Northern Ireland has set a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and developing renewable energy will be a key part of those plans. It is very important that we play our part. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) referred a number of times to the whole of the United Kingdom. He is right, because like me and others in this Chamber, with one exception, we are committed to this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and what we can do better together—not that we are better than anyone else, by the way. We see the advantages and it is important that we look forward.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I always enjoy the Minister’s responses to our questions. He seems relaxed no matter how hard the questions are. I will not ask any hard questions; it is not in my nature to do so, but I do ask questions to hopefully progress the debate. The Minister knows that my questions will come from a Northern Ireland perspective. He has always answered in the past on what we want to do and what our strategies are back home. I look forward to his contribution. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), in his place and I look forward to his contribution as well.

Only last year Northern Ireland’s gas operators took their biomethane case to Stormont. There are two operators, but I want to focus on Phoenix Gas. It has been stated that adding biomethane to the gas network could cut Northern Ireland’s carbon emissions where we have ambitious, but very much achievable, targets. Doing so would deliver significant benefits and create hundreds of new jobs. It is where the potential is. Northern Ireland wants to play its part because the spin-offs for us all are quite significant. Arguments for that include that biomethane is almost identical to natural gas and can be transported through the existing gas pipelines, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned. As we have already seen, it has been successfully injected into the gas network at Granville Ecopark in Dungannon. There is a strategy in place and significant progress there, but there is still a lot more to do.

Gregory Campbell Portrait Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend talked about Phoenix, and the other company is Firmus Energy. Consumers want to see more competitive pricing. In Northern Ireland, there is some degree of competitive pricing, but because the two companies operate in separate parts of Northern Ireland, they do not compete directly with each other. Consumers want prices to be driven down, but it seems to take a long time for Phoenix and Firmus to reduce their prices—they do not always change rapidly—when international gas prices fall.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. Yesterday, in the hydrogen aviation debate, we talked about how costly energy is at the moment. In the past, we had the tidal wave and sea project in the Narrows in Portaferry in my constituency. The pilot scheme was successful in showing that it could be done, but it did not provide a cheaper price. Today, however, it could. I am quite confident that with a better understanding, and better offers for the supply of gas grid in Northern Ireland, we could ensure that prices would drop—I am confident that they will.

The operators pointed to research by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy Research, which shows that biomethane has the potential to supply 6,000 GWh a year, equal to about 80% of the current gas distribution network demands. That shows the potential, and that it can be done. It would reduce Northern Ireland’s CO2 emissions by some 845,000 tonnes per annum, a fantastic contribution to net zero targets. That shows how Northern Ireland and the UK can work better together and contribute to net zero targets collectively, with advantages for us all. What is done here in England helps us in Northern Ireland, and vice versa.

Yesterday, I spoke in Westminster Hall on the potential benefits of hydrogen in aviation, as I referred to earlier. There are numerous sectors in which hydrogen could play a key role in the transition. The UK Government aim to establish up to 100 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The national gas grid is leading efforts to develop a hydrogen transmission backbone that will repurpose existing gas pipelines to transport hydrogen. Those visionary projects, which can deliver much for us all, are well in hand, but there is a lot more to do.

I look forward to hearing and witnessing how those developments play out in the future. There is so much that the devolved Administrations and institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can do to play a role in the transition to net zero, and this is one of those ways. I ask the Minister very kindly to engage, as I know he does, with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment back home to ensure that we can be leaders in our green and net zero plans together. Within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do that. Even our friends in Scotland can benefit and help us to benefit. That is the goal I try to achieve in this place.

Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with these continual references to Scotland. Of course, whatever the future constitutional arrangements—they are in some doubt—the gas network on this side supplies not only Ireland but, as I understand it, Belgium and part of the Netherlands. There is already a shared international context in how the grid operates.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course there is. The hon. Gentleman is a product of Northern Ireland, as his accent shows—although he is now very much a Scottish nationalist—and I believe he recognises the importance of working together. Whether that is within the United Kingdom or further afield is not the issue. I never want to see Scotland moving away from us, because he is my Gaelic cousin, and together with many others, we have the same history and culture; we just have a different idea about the constitution. The people of Scotland, of course, have already spoken on the constitution and, although I know that is a different debate, I say very clearly that we are always better together.

10:05
Tom Collins Portrait Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. What better birthday present could my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) have than debating such a crucial and timely topic? I anticipate that perhaps, as he blows out the candles on his cake, as someone who cares deeply about the energy transition, he might wish for something remarkably similar to a clean and green national gas network.

Electrification is inevitably going to be a go-to tool for decarbonising many parts of our economy, but it is equally clear that it cannot do everything. First, gas can do things that electricity cannot. Industry needs it: around half a million businesses in the UK currently rely on gas for their operations, and around 30% of those say that electrification is simply not feasible for them, technically or economically. Those businesses are spread across our nation, not just in clusters, so a national gas system is the only way for UK industry to not only survive but thrive.

Secondly, our national security depends on us having a multi-vector energy system. The UK has always ensured that homes, businesses and critical infrastructure have multiple energy sources available, typically electricity and either gas or oil fuels. As the world becomes increasingly uncertain and dangerous, now is not the time to roll back on the essential principles of security and resilience.

Thirdly, as we face the challenge of rapidly delivering an energy transition, gas provides us with vital flexibility and optionality, which means that we can make it over the finish line in our target time. Industry, transport and heat are all transitioning with uncertainty about the final mix of technologies. Government can secure the successful transition not by picking technologies to win or lose but by specifying a clear set of core energy vectors for the transition and investing in their core infrastructure. I put on record that those might be, for example, electricity, hydrogen and ammonia.

As a case in point, my hon. Friend mentioned that his installation of a heat pump was fairly typical, costing around £15,000. My discussions with industry indicate that the installation of a hybrid heating system, even a new one, would typically come in at under £7,000—a significant difference in the up-front cost, which is a major barrier for homeowners. Alongside that, installation times are shorter, and homeowners avoid the need to install hot water storage tanks or replace radiators.

Industry has already indicated that it will be ready, in four years, to make all its boilers 100% hydrogen-ready. It also indicated to a previous Secretary of State that it would provide price equivalence with the products in existence then. I recognise that the Climate Change Committee has tried to move us along by suggesting that there is no role for gas in the future of heat, but as someone who spent my entire career trying to decarbonise heat, I would humbly say that, although that guidance was well intended, it might be misguided.

Even as electricity remains our primary energy vector, reliable energy generation depends on large-scale energy storage, and that means gas. A system that can produce, store and utilise clean gas is vital for electrification to be successful. Although gas is seen as cheap and dirty today, it does not have to remain so tomorrow. Its versatility means that it will be a valuable resource in the future. While forecasts are for the cost of clean gas to reduce dramatically in the future, its role will be one where its value is recognised, and cost parity with today is not a prerequisite for a future clean gas market.

Private capital has successfully been released to deliver billions of pounds of investment into our gas networks, making them safe, fit for the future, and ready for future gases such as hydrogen and methane. More capital stands poised and ready to be invested. However, our previous Government, who should be congratulated on putting the UK in a leading position for a few years in the 2010s, then created a cloud of uncertainty that has left our gas industry in limbo.

Our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower should be a powerful beacon that burns that uncertainty away, but it must include a tangible future role for the gas networks in our envisaged energy system. Ambition must be converted into some techno-economic goals that are clear and certain. For gas, that means committing to two things: storage and transportation. The prize is for the UK to once again lead and be an innovating leader in a new global energy outlook.

It has become dazzlingly clear from my discussions with industry that storage is a key enabler. It provides a price and a sink for producers to make clean gas, and a price and a source for users to plan their transition. It could be delivered by establishing and planning a progressive build-out of a strategic national clean energy reserve, which could utilise private capital but, crucially, be publicly commissioned, operating in the national interest for resilience and stable markets.

For those markets to develop, storage must be backed up by transportation. Fortunately, that solution already exists in our world-leading gas networks and can be completed through the delivery of a national hydrogen backbone. We could make a decision on blending now, and that would unlock those markets and allow for the large-scale production of clean gas.

The key signal to unlock all that is reassurance from the Government that the gas system, having transitioned to low-carbon gas, has a future for decades to come. That single declaration—one line that says, “We can see clean gas playing a role in the energy future of our towns and cities”—would be transformational. With it, we can ensure that the industrial economy spread across our country has a sure and hopeful future of opportunity and renewal. With it, we can ensure that the UK’s energy system is resilient, robust, secure and a source of strength, not vulnerability, in our national security. With it, we can deliver a deep and rapid energy transition through agility, partnership and UK innovation. With it, we will be on a strong pathway to making the UK a clean energy superpower.

10:14
Joe Morris Portrait Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this important debate.

I, too, commend the Government’s commitment to clean power and our clean energy mission. I will speak about not industry but the impact of the gas grid on rural communities, because many of my constituents do not have the luxury of being connected to the gas grid. Many of them rely on other means of heating their homes, which are subject to price fluctuations and greater disruption, and then shut them out of opportunities. Before I turn to the impact on rural communities, however, I put on record my support for reaching net zero, decarbonising our economy and decarbonising our energy system; I look back at the relatively halcyon days when it was not politically controversial to say that, and hope at some point that we can get back to that.

It is vital that rural communities are at the heart of these discussions, and I hope that the Minister will bear them in mind when he goes back to his Department. For many communities across Northumberland, being shut out of the gas grid contributes to a wider feeling of being shut out from broader opportunities. They are unable to access the essential energy infrastructure that often facilitates the growth of small businesses and local economies and helps to attract tourism.

I read an article last week that said that people in the Coquet valley, of which I represent a small part—it is mainly represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith)—felt cut off and on the edge of society because they were not connected. That feeling is present not just in the Coquet valley, but across the rural extremities of Northumberland. When I hold my surgeries in those places, I get that feedback constantly. The fact that there is not just inadequate gas, but inadequate electricity and phone signal, emphasises that lack of connection. These communities are not just off the grid; they are shut out from opportunities that urban parts of our country often take for granted.

One of the major failures of the last Government was that they did not properly boost and invest in rural economies and the opportunities of people in places such as Otterburn. That has deprived rural residents of lower heating costs, efficient services and opportunities that individuals in urban regions access daily.

What can the Government do to ensure that rural communities such as those dotted around my constituency get the services they need and the energy they depend on—at the price that they deserve—to prevent that feeling of being on the edge of society? Rural communities must not be deprived of basic necessities purely because of their geographical location. We need to ensure that that feeling of being at the extremity ends with this Labour Government.

With the National Energy System Operator, we already have a highly resilient electricity system. I regularly see the community action, investment and spirit that is brought about by storm events, when communities club together to provide for one another. I know that is something continually looked at by communities and organisations working in Northumberland.

I wanted to come to this debate, not because I have any great industrial expertise—I will leave that to some of my illustrious colleagues who spoke before me—but because, in the past, MPs representing my constituency have not been the voice that rural communities need. It is important that MPs from Northumberland make sure that Ministers do not go back to their Departments without first considering the needs of communities that are not connected to the gas grid.

10:15
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am pleased to speak in this important and timely debate on the future of the gas grid. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this increasingly urgent debate and for his expertise on the matter, and I wish him many happy returns.

Gas has long been the backbone of how we heat our homes and power our economy. However, times are changing, and so must our approach to energy. The Liberal Democrats fully support a transition away from fossil fuels towards clean, home-grown renewable energy to deal with the energy trilemma that needs to be balanced in energy policy: cutting polluting emissions, protecting people, households and businesses from future price shocks, and strengthening our energy and national security through reliable home-grown clean energy supplies.

The future of our gas grid is a real challenge. It must be defined by clarity, urgency and care, addressing the challenges we have heard today with affordability, the promotion of alternatives—whether dominant or not—their costs, and the resilience and flexibility of our grid. We have heard about the importance of securing multi-vector energy systems throughout this transition, and that is key.

Gas remains the largest source of energy in the UK, accounting for more than half of our carbon emissions and providing 39% of the energy used across electricity, heating and industry. Although it is strategically important to our economy and to people’s lives, that dependency is also a strategic vulnerability. Around half of the UK’s gas is imported, and that reliance is our Achilles’ heel. In times of geopolitical instability, we are dangerously exposed.

The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin and the resulting spike in global energy prices highlighted just how risky it is to depend on imported gas. The Climate Change Committee, in its seventh carbon budget, made clear that if we transition away from gas, and there were to be another spike in gas prices due to an incident like the invasion of Ukraine, then by 2040 the average household would be 15 times less sensitive to those price shocks and skyrocketing energy costs.

Not proceeding with the transition does not just undermine our national security; it hits people in their wallets. That damages our businesses and economic growth. Energy has never been so costly, and that matters particularly in a cost of living crisis. Today, 11% of households in England live in fuel poverty, including nearly 9% in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire. That means many people have to choose between eating and heating their homes every winter. That is the lived reality of our dependence on the gas grid, tied to volatile international markets. We must remember that in 2022 prices peaked at more than 20 times the 2020 average.

It is clear that ending our overreliance on gas must be a national priority if we are to strengthen energy security, unlock low-carbon alternatives and bring prices down. We need resilience and flexibility in the grid, which is currently provided by gas. The Climate Change Committee and the National Grid have confirmed that, to meet our net zero targets, the UK’s natural gas use must fall by a staggering 90% by 2050, accounting for just 6% of our energy mix—and even then, only if emissions are captured through carbon capture and storage.

There is no escaping the scale of the challenge. With over 85% of UK homes still connected to the gas grid, we face having to overhaul our national infrastructure. Our gas pipeline network spans more than 284,000 km, or nearly seven times around the Earth, so simply abandoning the infrastructure is not an option. We are talking about a massive repurposing challenge. As we have already heard today, that repurposing also needs to cover green hydrogen, low-carbon hydrogen, biomethane, district heating and many other options.

Additionally, policy needs to look at demand, including for new homes and house building. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that no new homes should be connected to the gas grid after 2026, yet we have had dither and delay since 2016. Under the Conservatives, we ditched the zero-carbon homes policy and since then we have been building homes without proper energy efficiency and without the connections through solar panels to the grid that we should have had. We are also still waiting for the future homes standard and other standards to be brought forward.

Those actions were short-sighted, which is why it is fantastic that we have seen the Government take on board the private Member’s Bill promoted my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). It is “the sunshine Bill”, mandating that there will be solar panels on every roof. That Bill will come forward with the future homes standard, which is fantastic. In addition, the future homes standard is committing to low-carbon heating. Today, we have asked whether that mandates how we get to that low-carbon heating with dominant technologies, or whether it should be left to the market to come up with innovations. I will be interested to hear from people with much more expertise than me on that. However, given the time that has already been lost, we must move forward.

Let me pick up on the comments from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about rural communities. While we are considering the cost of decarbonising heating through solar panels, heat pumps and induction hobs, we also have to consider the many people in rural communities who live off-grid. These households also need certainty and direction from the Government about how they can decarbonise their heating. The situation in South Cambridgeshire is similar to the situation in Hexham, with one in five communities living off-grid and relying on heating oil. They are among 4 million people and 250,000 businesses in this situation across the UK, which are often served by small, rural, family-owned firms. In addition, off-grid homes are some of the most difficult and expensive to decarbonise because of their age, rural location and construction methods.

The National Grid’s “Future Energy Scenarios” report estimates that 1 million UK homes will require alternatives to electrified heating because of the high cost of local grid upgrades. Renewable liquid fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil offer a drop-in replacement for heating oil. These fuels have already been trialled in rural communities, and the Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland have embraced them as part of their decarbonisation strategies. We now need a comprehensive UK-wide plan and I hope the Minister will confirm that the forthcoming warm homes plan and future homes standard will also acknowledge and address the specific needs of rural off-grid consumers.

However, although we are hearing about the challenges and barriers, within this transition lies opportunity. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a just transition plan to protect jobs, retain skills and support communities whose economies are still built around oil and gas. That means a national retraining programme to help workers to enter the green economy, incentives for oil and gas firms to pivot towards clean technologies, ending the red tape that frustrates climate tech start-ups, many of which are in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, and finally—as many Members have already said—investment in hydrogen innovation, where the UK can lead with world-class research in its industrial base. We have heard today about hydrogen blending, which could make hydrogen 20% of the natural gas supply, helping to reduce the carbon intensity of gas and meeting the gas demand in the medium term while we adapt our infrastructure.

We are also looking at having a resilient and flexible energy system that could be supported by green hydrogen, with storage and flexible power. We welcome the Government’s recent announcement of investment in hydrogen, but we would like to see that investment being part of a comprehensive plan to support low-carbon technology across the board. We felt that such a plan was absent from the Chancellor’s most recent spending review, so, as we have already heard today, it would be good to get clarity about the role of hydrogen and the level of investment in it.

Like other Members, I have recently had a heat pump installed, and we are now completely off gas—off the grid—with an induction hob. As many have said, it is not easy, and it can be costly up front. We have to recognise that we need a 10-year emergency insulation programme, with free upgrades for low-income households and those for whom such decarbonisation of heating is not a possibility, which is what the Liberal Democrats have called for. All new homes must be built to the future homes standard, as zero carbon-ready from day one. We need investment in heat pumps and alternatives, with full cost coverage for the most vulnerable, and investment in low-carbon, green and wild hydrogen to provide greater flexibility in the grid. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase for bringing forward this debate.

10:25
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am pleased to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on moving his motion just in time, and on his birthday. He gave an excellent speech, once he got his breath back, and I thought his warning about an overloaded electricity grid was very wise.

There was a lot of agreement in the debate. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) joined the hon. Member for Cannock Chase in pointing out the prohibitive cost of heat pumps. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out the particular challenges for rural communities. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly did his duty representing that part of the country by talking about the jobs that depend on oil and gas.

The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), from the land of my grandmother’s birth, reminded us of the Northern Ireland experience and the importance of geography when we debate energy. That was reinforced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), who rightly said that we will continue to need a national gas grid, because of the nature of the demand for gas. I thought he was right to criticise the Climate Change Committee for proposing no gas for heating homes. I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) put it well when he said that Britain runs on gas. He noted the challenge of reconciling the policy to decarbonise with maintaining fairness for families.

We must always be honest about trade-offs when we talk about policy, which is one of the things about which I will try to warn the Minister. The Government may come to regret their failure to do so on several fronts, particularly on net zero. Sadly, that is a lesson, especially on net zero, that my party has drawn from its time in office, including the unhappy end of that time.

Many businesses will continue to use gas and do not have the option to go fully electric. Half a million businesses rely on gas, and not all of them will survive the switch to electricity. As the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned, big industries continue to rely on gas, such as chemicals, ceramics and—we have similar constituency interests—the sugar industry, among many others. Smaller businesses are just as affected. Chip shops, curry houses and many businesses I do not frequent will also face cost increases from electrification because of higher levies on their energy bills. Unfortunately, Ministers have said little to reassure those businesses that there is a plan to help them and to remember them.

This is also putting a significant cost on ordinary families. Let us look at gas boilers. I challenged the Minister on that during Energy questions last week, but the Energy Secretary and the ministerial team have refused to rule out new taxes, charges or levies on gas bills to fund lower levies on electricity bills, which means a net tax rise for the 80% of households that rely on gas. This was not even mentioned before the general election, although hon. Members will remember the promise to cut everyone’s energy bills by £300 by the end of this Parliament. Instead, energy bills have risen so far by an average of £111. While Labour sought to take the credit for the recent fall in wholesale gas prices, the policy costs for which they are responsible are rising.

Running down gas also denies how important it still is as a reliable source of power. Just this morning, a new National Gas report found an 18% increase in gas for power generation last year compared with the year before. At its peak, 65% of our power came from gas, with a half-hourly peak of 73%. This was caused partly by a major drop in wind power, which meant that we had to import more gas from countries as varied as the US, Norway, Qatar, Peru, Trinidad and other places. NESO might be planning another gas-free 30 minutes for the grid this summer, but the power of gas remains formidable and essential. People do not want to be forced to give up gas. Around 80% of the country relies on gas in some way or another. That is more than 20 million homes put at risk by any policy to force people off gas and on to less reliable and more expensive alternatives.

The Chancellor said during her statement on the spending review that

“energy security is national security.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]

We agree with that, which is why the anti-gas stance of the Energy Secretary is baffling. We continue to rely on gas—in any given year, 40% of the energy used in the UK comes from it. It is a flexible and reliable source of power. It ensures that there is inertia in the grid, preventing blackouts of the kind that we recently saw in Spain and Portugal, where a lack of conventional power generation from sources such as gas contributed to mass power outages. New data centres are connecting to the gas grid to secure on-site power, instead of using wind or solar, and with good reason. But the Government want to reduce gas to below 5% of our electricity supply by 2030, and use it only as a back-up for unreliable renewables.

The Energy Secretary is being very ideological and basing decisions on dodgy claims about global fossil fuel markets. There is no single global gas market in the way that he has described on several occasions. Fossil fuel prices are higher in Europe than America, which is more dependent on fossil fuels than we are. The prices are higher here because of policy choices.

For example, blocking new oil and gas licences in the North sea only makes us more dependent on expensive, dirtier foreign imports, to the benefit of others. We are importing oil and gas from Norway from the very same seabed that we could exploit, while insisting that we are “too good” and “too green” to do that ourselves. British businesses and jobs could be benefiting from this industry, rather than being cut off. The policy does not even work on its own terms, because liquefied natural gas has four times the emissions of North sea oil and gas. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned, 120,000 jobs in the North sea are at risk. It does not make sense to shut down our own gas production when Norwegian oil and gas continues to be drilled from the North sea.

That is why I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), announced that our party is committed to stopping the punishment of our domestic energy industry with damaging taxation. It is wrong for the energy profits levy to continue until 2030; we believe that it should be removed altogether, along with the ban on oil and gas exports. This change would actually increase revenue in the long run.

It is not just the North sea that we should worry about. Britain is the largest gas boiler manufacturer in Europe. Our gas grid is world-leading, but 130,000 gas engineers and 150,000 oil and gas sector jobs are now under threat. Deliberately winding down the gas industry is an extraordinary act of economic self-harm.

For all the Government’s talking down of fossil fuels, our gas grid is incredibly stable and resilient. The gas grid depends on over 30 large gas power stations, and the gas comes in through interconnectors, LNG imports, and from Norway and the North sea. Our gas grid is a vital connection point for the European gas supply, especially following the Ukraine invasion.

Major public investment has already gone into the gas grid to help modernise and reduce failures and leaks. This makes up 5,000 miles of steel pipes and more than 60 jet engines to move the gas around the country. Our gas grid can also play an important role in reducing carbon emissions through, for example, expanding the use of hydrogen. In contrast, the cost of decommissioning the gas grid has been estimated at between £46 billion and £70 billion.

The Government’s plans are causing major uncertainty for investors, businesses and workers when they should be standing squarely behind a critical industry that has an important role to play in our economic prosperity and energy security. Ministers are allowing policy to race ahead of the technology, threatening to destabilise the grid and our economy. It is clear that the gas grid has a crucial role to play in our energy mix if we are to protect families and businesses from rising costs. I do not doubt that the Minister will say that he agrees with that, but the test will be in action and policy, not words.

10:34
Michael Shanks Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing today’s debate, and I wish him a very happy birthday. He gave a breathless speech, which was fantastic, and I do not know what better celebration he could ask for than being in Westminster Hall this morning. I thought at one point that he was going to tell us he got the heat pump as a birthday present, which would have been a significant contribution to the cause. Nevertheless, I hope he has a brilliant day.

My hon. Friend gave a brilliant speech, and in fact we have had a number of important contributions today, highlighting not only the breadth of experience that we have in this House, which I am always hugely impressed by, but generally our ability, particularly in this part of Parliament, to move outside some of our party political boxes and engage with the wider issue. I think that is hugely helpful.

I will return to some of the specific points raised in the debate, but I want to start where my hon. Friend concluded, with his critical point around rhetoric. We need to base the future of our discussions on the gas network in not only fact but pragmatism and a rational look at how we make the best use of an extraordinarily important resource. He also said something that we so often forget in this place: there is no one silver bullet for these things. There are a number of solutions, all of which will play a part in different ways, and we should not discount any of them. Crucially, as many hon. Members have said, if we get this right, there is the potential for tens of thousands of jobs, long into the future, which is so important.

I also thank everybody else for their contributions today. It was good to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), acknowledge—I think for the first time—that there are some lessons to be learned from the past 14 years, although I suspect he has learned the wrong ones, unfortunately. Nevertheless, I will return to some of his points.

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the future of our gas network—a topic that has for too long been overlooked by, in all candour, successive Governments. That is partly because the gas network is incredibly efficient. It works quietly in the background of all of our lives in one way or another, so often we do not talk about it as much as we talk about the electricity system, but it is incredibly important. I agree with Members about the importance of us having a diverse and secure energy supply; the importance of a gas network is not just to gas itself, but to our electricity system, where it currently plays a critical role.

The transition that is already underway is unstoppable, but it is also incredibly important for the future of our country and it needs to involve every community, so I welcome and agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and others about the importance of all communities and households being part of it. There is huge potential in the transition to improve on where some of our communities are, so that they feel, as he rightly said, not on the edges of society but part of the innovation. We all have work to do on that, so his message is very keenly heard.

Let me discuss some of the context, and then come on to some specific points raised in the debate. This Government have set out to achieve a once-in-a-generation transition in our energy system to ensure that it is fundamentally fit for the future and resilient and tackles, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) said, the energy trilemma before us: how we bring down bills, deliver on energy security and tackle the climate crisis.

Through the spending review, we will invest £13 billion into our warm homes plan over the next five years, helping to cut household bills by up to £600 through the installation of energy efficiency measures. We have secured development funding for the Acorn and Viking CCUS projects, which I will come back to later, supporting our clean power ambition and creating jobs and growth at the same time. By harnessing clean power from green sources in the UK, we also reduce our dependence on volatile fossil fuels. Geopolitical uncertainty in the world is never far away at the moment, which underlines how important it is that we move as quickly as possible towards that place.

As I have often said, our focus in our energy system is on the electricity system. This is perhaps understandable, given the scale of the transformation necessary there, but it is good to take time today to talk about the future of the gas network. To reiterate, the Government have the future of the gas network right at the heart of our thinking for the future of our energy system.

Gas has been part of this country’s energy story for centuries, from the use of town gas from the late 18th century to the discovery of natural gas in the North sea in the 1960s and the conversion programme. That was an extraordinary feat of transformation in households right across the country over the 1960s and 1970s, which I am far too young to remember. Some hon. Members will be old enough, but I am not naming any individuals.

Siobhain McDonagh Portrait Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Don’t look at me or you will find that your speech is very short.

Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will look over here, Ms McDonagh.

Our North sea gas supply and our gas storage infrastructure mean that we can deliver heat and power across the country whenever it is needed. The fact that we so often do not discuss the resilience of the system underlines how resilient it is and how well it does its work. Even during exceptionally difficult moments, such as the “beast from the east” in 2018 or after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the gas system continued to meet the needs of millions of consumers. It safely and reliably provides the energy we need.

As our largest primary fuel, representing more than a third of the UK’s energy consumption, natural gas is central to meeting our electricity demands, but it is also crucial that we look towards the future. The gas network itself—the system of underground pipes that transport gas the length and breadth of the country and meet the demands of millions of consumers daily—is critically important.

Looking to the future, the natural gas system is a key enabler of our net zero transition. It will allow us to phase out coal and reduce emissions faster than any other major economy. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out—I have the figure in miles and she had it in kilometres; that is the difference between Labour and the Liberal Democrats—there are 175,000 miles of pipework in the network associated with various infrastructure. It is an extraordinary thing, and we must remember the absolute scale of it. I pay tribute to the workers up and down the network who keep it going every single day, in really difficult circumstances at times. Some 26,000 workers are employed in the gas system, which demonstrates the size and scale of the industry.

However, it is important that we are not trapped in nostalgia about the system and that we have a clear-headed view of its future. The role of gas needs to change and has already begun to do so, so it is important that we set out how to get the change right. The Government are clear that making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of our defining missions, and that means that gas will play a smaller and smaller role in our electricity generation. That is the right thing to do. In a broader sense, net zero also requires a wide-ranging transformation of the rest of the economy. The transformation will mean a sea change in how infrastructure, industry, business and our homes work. The power sector, domestic buildings and transportation will all have to undergo significant change, and that will require not one solution but many things.

Part of the solution is the warm homes plan, which is about transforming our homes by making them cleaner and cheaper to run. We are also helping to unlock the potential of electric vehicle infrastructure right across the country. New clean heating solutions mean that fewer homes will rely on gas boilers. Our transition presents an incredible opportunity to build on the skills of the existing gas workforce as we build what comes next. That will lead to thousands of new jobs and training opportunities across the country. As we decarbonise industry, we will also see a growing role for carbon capture and low-carbon gases such as hydrogen and biomethane, which will help ensure that we meet our objective of net zero, while still providing secure, reliable and affordable energy.

One of my hon. Friends asked about the green gas support scheme. I can confirm that it will close for new applications in 2028, but we are looking at the responses to a call for evidence on its future.

It is clear that the gas network will continue to play a critical role in meeting our energy needs out to 2050 and beyond. Even when we achieve our clean power mission, as we will, gas will play an important strategic back-up role, so it will still be important to maintain that system. The Government are clear that gas use will decline overall, and that how we use gas in our system will change. We therefore have to think critically about this nationally important asset. We must repurpose it and make sure that we do not take any options off the table. We will set out our views on the future of the gas system in much more detail very soon.

We have to acknowledge the challenges, as this will not be straightforward. Ensuring that we remain energy independent and that the gas network continues to operate as needed during the transition means that we will have to make some difficult choices, and maintaining investor confidence is absolutely key. We must maintain the current system and drive in the investment that we need for the future. We have been working with Ofgem on its RIIO-3 plans for the price control period from 2026 to 2031, to make sure that investment in industry is fair and affordable. We also recognise that, as the demand for gas declines due to homes and industry increasingly relying on electricity, there will need to be an orderly transition across our energy network. We will continue to work with Ofgem on that.

A number of contributions focused on what the future of the gas network will look like. Given the country’s huge technological expertise and investment, to have such a secure and reliable network, we need to think about how we protect it while considering the different demands that will be placed on it in future—we are looking at all possible options in this space. We are aware of the need for clarity on the future of the gas grid and how these repurposing options fit within that, and we will say more on that in due course.

I will turn to two specific things that have been mentioned today. First, the potential of hydrogen is clearly quite significant both for heating and industrial demand. We are doing a serious amount of work and taking further evidence on how we repurpose our gas networks to enable that. Several Members, including my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is ever present in this Chamber—spoke about working together across the UK on solutions. I will resist being drawn into constitutional arguments, although it is difficult to resist that temptation. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about working together on skills and jobs. Indeed, perfectly timed for his contribution, I am meeting Minister Archibald from the Northern Ireland Executive later today to talk about many of these issues and our co-operation with Northern Ireland.

On the question of blending, a mix of natural gas and hydrogen could be used in gas networks to decarbonise our gas use. The Government are actively looking at the question of blending and considering the appropriate decision points. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes)—I think he said his constituency is the King’s Cross of the hydrogen world, which is an interesting analogy—asked about consultation on hydrogen blending. I can say that we will soon be publishing a consultation on transmission blending. On the core network, we agree that many benefits can be achieved from the hydrogen economy, but there are areas on which we require further evidence, as we really want to get this right. We are moving as quickly as possible, but we will need more evidence in some areas.

The Government want to provide strategic clarity on decarbonising home heating to best support our mission. To support that, we are assessing all the latest evidence, and we will consult later this year on the role of hydrogen in home heating. We also plan to bring forward a clear plan for industrial decarbonisation and a renewed industrial decarbonisation strategy, which will set out the strategic direction for our approach with industry.

The Government are enabling the development of the carbon capture, usage and storage sector to create jobs, reduce emissions and put the UK at the forefront of global CCUS. The Government are working on developing the strategic direction of CO2 transport networks. At the spending review, the Government announced that they will be providing development funding to advance the delivery of Viking and Acorn, with a final investment decision taken later in this Parliament.

I am grateful for the typically thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), who I have met a number of times, and we have had fruitful conversations. I was pleased to visit his constituency a few months ago, when I went to St Fergus, one of our most important gas terminals, and I welcome his comments on the Acorn project. We see it as a crucial project, and the funding we committed to it in the spending review will help drive it forward. It represents our commitment after years of dither and delay from the previous Government.

We think there is a role for biomethane in decarbonising all end users in the gas grid. It is already being used in the gas network, and we expect it to play a role in reaching our net zero target. It can be used flexibly, and that flexibility is valuable as it enables us to adapt to the hard-to-predict cost curves and deployment trajectories of existing technologies. Our biomass strategy sets out our ambition through to 2050.

With all repurposing and future use options, we need to determine the extent to which they are feasible, considering a range of factors. They must also be investable, to ensure that the gas industry can attract the necessary investment needed to build sustainable, viable networks. Crucial to that is that they have to provide value for money, providing affordable solutions for consumers who might use them.

To return to the point I started with, we need to be pragmatic on all this. Where repurposing is not viable, long-term consideration will be needed on whether we should decommission unused parts of the gas network and on the appropriate timeline for that. I want to be clear that none of this is straightforward. After successive Governments have not looked at this in the round, we are now grappling with how to deliver a future gas network that takes all the options into account and does not decommission things that we may wish we still had in the future.

There are lots of questions, and the Government do not have all the answers about the future, which is why the calls for evidence are so important. It is complex and challenging and, although we are not rushing, the Government cannot continue to ignore it. We are grappling with some of these big questions and will continue to work with industry and regulators on how best to meet the challenges.

The challenge before us is formidable but, like much of the energy transition we are embarking on, it is not insurmountable. As I frequently say, the point of being in government is to tackle the hard stuff. As with any issue that will outlive any Government, it is important to start the work now.

Our gas network will ensure that we can meet the transition challenges, providing us with the resilience and flexibility needed to deliver a fair, smooth and co-ordinated transition while protecting our energy security and independence in an affordable way. It can also be the foundation of new, innovative energy solutions to repurpose and adapt to future energy needs in a sustainable way.

Our plans announced in last week’s spending review set us on the right path, allowing us to build on those foundations. We need to harness the expertise and the passion within the gas industry, which I have had the huge privilege to learn from over the past 11 months in this job. We will combine that with the Government’s ability and determination to get this right as we broker a consensus on the way forward with a shared vision for the future of our incredibly important gas network.

As the Secretary of State set out at the International Energy Agency summit in London a few weeks ago, we will soon set out in much more detail our views on the future of the gas system. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Members present, not least because they have so many helpful suggestions about what the future will look like, and so much expertise to draw on.

Contrary to what the shadow Minister said, this is an area in which there is very little ideology. This is a practical problem that we have to solve as a country, so that the gas network is fit for the future, so that consumers benefit and so that we deliver on our energy security in the long term and have the opportunities for economic growth that the gas network can provide.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase again for securing the debate. I wish the rest of his birthday to be just as joyous as this debate, now that he has caught his breath. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

10:52
Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is genuinely a pleasure to lead this debate on my birthday. Some people might sooner spend their birthday at Alton Towers or on the sofa, but an energy wonk like me would rather be here, among such knowledgeable and passionate Members, to discuss an issue of such significance to our nation’s future.

I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful and well-informed contributions. I am pleased to see the amount of consensus, which is a rare thing or even a dirty word in the current political climate. Many of our constituents believe we spend our weeks shouting at each other, but this debate has been a prime example of the reasoned and respectful engagement that I think defines Parliament.

We have heard from three of our four nations and covered a huge range of angles, from affordability, jobs and industry through to resilience, flexibility and, most importantly, communities and people. I welcome the Minister’s statement of confidence in the gas grid of today and tomorrow. He is right to say that we need to be pragmatic, and I welcome the clarity he has given us today. I worked in the industry for many years, so I know that is something we have not always had from previous Energy Ministers.

I look forward to continuing this debate in the months and years to come. As the Minister said, tackling the hard stuff is what we do in this place. I look forward to a bright future for our gas grid and, therefore, our whole unique energy system. Once again, I thank you, Dame Siobhain, for ably chairing the debate and hon. Members for making it such a rich discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the gas grid.

10:54
Sitting suspended.

Marriage between First Cousins

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(2 days, 2 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

11:50
Siobhain McDonagh Portrait Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will call Richard Holden to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates. I call Richard Holden to move the motion.

Richard Holden Portrait Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on marriage between first cousins.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak on a topic that many in our country assume is already settled. People assume that the marriage of first cousins is prohibited, as it was for 1,000 years in England. Yet that is not the case today. Despite deep cultural, medical and societal reasons to avoid such unions, our laws have remained unchanged since the era of Henry VIII. To many, that is a source of bewilderment and bafflement—as it was to me, until I dug deeper and realised some of the real dangers that widescale first cousin marriage can bring.

The Church banned first cousin marriage in the fifth century. By the 11th century it had prohibited marriage up to sixth cousins. That ban was reversed by a Tudor monarch with a perhaps chequered marital record and we have remained broadly silent on the issue ever since. However, the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, society and our broader understanding have moved on, and our laws must do the same.

This is not a call for a legislative knee-jerk reaction. Silence, as Matthew Syed has powerfully written in The Times, does not constitute neutrality. Silence is a fundamental choice with serious consequences, both for children born with preventable disorders, and even more so for men and women denied basic freedoms and for communities fragmented from wider society. I urge the House and the Minister to recognise the scale of the issue and—I hope—the moral imperative to act. My argument rests on three key tenets: freedom, social cohesion and health.

During the last Parliament I worked with campaigners to end virginity testing and hymenoplasty. In doing so I stood on the shoulders of giants: brave women from many organisations who support young women trapped in oppressive familial and extended family tribal systems. I pushed for a private Member’s Bill, and then via amendments to the Health and Care Act 2022, with Baroness Sugg in the House of Lords helping as well; the Government accepted the argument by tabling their own amendments. When I picked up that campaign, via a chance encounter with an item on BBC Radio 1’s “Newsbeat”, there was no politician of any party leading the charge in this House. Some of the activists involved might have been a bit miffed that a new, unknown Back-Bench Tory MP was leading their cause—but they got me, and we managed to push through some of the changes that they had been fighting for so bravely and with such strength for such a long time.

What was the reason behind women being forced to undergo procedures that are at best pseudo-scientific, and at worst deeply harmful? It was unscientific concepts of virginity linked to gender-oppressive ideas of purity in an oppressive patriarchal culture. Often those were linked to forced marriages. Some of their stories will never leave me: young women who had had their education and ambitions cut short being sent to marry men they had never met—men chosen not for compatibility or affection, but to preserve family alliances, assets or bastardised notions of honour.

Such arrangements are not just about culture; they are also about control. The system is upheld by pressure and enforced through silence, and people attempt to justify it through tradition. When marriage is confined within families, the cost of refusal rises astronomically: it is not simply turning down a partner, but rejecting grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and the entire network of family and friends—and that has a price. Choice under those circumstances is no choice at all. That is why I see the legislation that I put forward in my private Member’s Bill, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, and the debate we are having today as an extension of the work I did in the last Parliament.

We have heard, rightly, about patriarchal systems that rob women of autonomy, but in cousin marriage those systems are particularly resilient. Why? Because the families are not just connected, but fused—inextricably joined. The pressure is not just external, from legal systems; it is intimate and wholly inescapable, especially when it is generation after generation.

Men are trapped too; I have been told of British Pakistani men forced into such arrangements by community and familial obligations, terrified to defy expectations and cut ties with cousins whom they often consider, because of the closeness of their relationship, almost as siblings. There are even cases of gay men and women who have been forced to marry out of familial obligation. That is not hypothetical: since raising this issue, I have been contacted by scores of youth workers, healthcare professionals and ordinary members of the community who have thanked me for raising it and asked me to keep going. They need politicians to speak up, because they feel that they cannot.

Beneath the surface and behind closed doors, there is support and a real hunger for change in these communities. Sadly, what is lacking is the political courage to match that quiet majority—and it is a quiet majority in all parts of our community: polls show that support for reform is not linked to the black, white or other populations, and a YouGov poll just a few weeks ago showed that a majority of British Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities back a ban on first cousin marriage. The vain virtue signallers who said that moves in this direction would be racist must take a look at themselves; they are the ones opposing a majority of the communities that they play-act at representing.

For people in the communities I am speaking up for—most of the British Pakistani community, where this is a big issue, and to a lesser extent the Traveller community—cousin marriage is entangled with status, tradition and expectations, and speaking out can be very dangerous. As with forced marriage and female genital mutilation, silence only enables the system. Only sunlight breaks the cycle, and that means naming the issue, debating it and legislating against it.

Some critics say a ban would infringe upon people’s freedom—but what freedom are we protecting? The reality for so many is a life predetermined by bloodline and birth order. We are not protecting a freedom; we are perpetuating oppression. Whose freedom, if any, are we protecting? Purely the freedom of the oppressor to oppress and keep down—not the freedom of the individual. The state already intervenes where power dynamics distort consent. We rightly outlaw relationships between teachers and pupils or therapists and clients, because of the imbalance. The same must apply here.

Let us not forget that most cousin marriages are not one-offs. In some cases, they are multi-generational. With each generation, the chance to choose diminishes further. The net tightens and lives are lost in the gaps.

I move now beyond individual freedom to the broader issue of social cohesion. Patrick Nash, an Oxford theologian, argues that cousin marriage undermines trust in public institutions; when communities marry inward, loyalty is channelled inward to extended families and clan structures, rather than to the important shared civic values of the nation state and wider society.

At Harvard, Joseph Henrich has documented how the decline of cousin marriage helped to build western liberal democracies. When families are forced to look beyond their kin networks for marriage partners, new alliances form. Societies move beyond tribal loyalty to a broader civic trust. Studies show that, where cousin marriage continues, there is reduced integration, lower social mobility and higher incidence of corruption. Why? Because when job, marriage, dispute resolution and identity all sit within the same extended family structure, wider society fades from relevance.

If we want a society that functions on the basis of fairness, where the rule of law prevails and where people engage beyond their own, we cannot allow closed family systems to continue to flourish unchallenged. So-called community leaders—often unelected and unaccountable—who derive their authority from familial networks become gatekeepers for those people and communities. They decide who speaks, who marries whom and who gets heard. This system is self-perpetuating. These are not British values, and those who perpetuate such systems should be exposed. In many cases, those leaders are the ones resisting reform, not because the arguments for change are weak, but because their own power depends on those structures being preserved. Reform threatens their influence. That is why this issue matters so much.

We must remember that cousin marriage is not a religious obligation, but a cultural tradition, and traditions can and must change. Other nations have already exhibited powerful leadership in this area; we should look towards countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark for a steer. Those countries are liberal democracies with incredibly strong human rights records. They are not reactionary or anachronistic, but fundamentally progressive. Why, then, are we allowing Britain to lag behind? We hear concerns about cultural insensitivity—I have been accused of it myself—but is it not far more insensitive to ignore the pleas of those trapped within those structures? Is it not condescending to assume that communities cannot adapt or reform?

We should be empowering individuals, not entrenching power in extended family hierarchies. The state’s job is not to ratify patriarchal bargains, but to protect liberty, health and the chance of every citizen to live a full and independent life. When cousin marriage is prevalent, society and integration suffer, and shared spaces become fewer; school catchments, neighbourhoods and even workplaces can fracture along the lines of extended kin. That is not diversity at its best, but division at its worst. It is not about faith or race. It is about what sort of country we want to live in: one ruled by fear masquerading as family loyalty, or one where each citizen stands equal, with rights and responsibilities to each other deeper than those of family and clan. Those fundamentals are the foundation of a modern nation state and ones I believe this Parliament, this Government and this House should uphold.

Finally, I come to science and the health issue, because the best understood point against cousin marriage, though it is not core to my argument, is health. The Born in Bradford study, one of the UK’s most comprehensive birth cohort analyses, has followed 11,000 children.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. It is a difficult subject, and one that can be hard to listen to and respond to in a balanced way. I thank him for doing that well. Does he not agree that the science showing that the prevalence of birth defects doubling in cases of cousin marriage is reason enough to consider drastic legal action? While education is an enviable end-goal pathway, the stats show that it is not effective enough at present. In the interim, for the sake of children and communities, does he agree that action should be taken?

Richard Holden Portrait Mr Holden
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Member contributes so often to our debates in such a thoughtful way. He raises an important point about health, which I will develop. The health issues are of fundamental importance but, as I have said in my speech, there are broader societal concerns that mean this issue should be higher up the Government’s agenda more generally as well.

For unrelated parents, the Born in Bradford study found that around one in 40 children are born with serious birth defects. Among first cousins, that rises to roughly one in 15, even when controlling for poverty, education and maternal age. That is more than double the risk. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not an isolated issue. In some communities, cousin marriage remains par for the course—the typical, not the atypical. In parts of Bradford, for instance, over half of all mothers of Pakistani heritage are married to first or second cousins.

That is hardly new information; as far back as the 19th century, the British Medical Journal documented inherited risks from unions between first cousins. Charles Darwin himself was married to his first cousin, and he suspected a link between his marriage and the poor health of his children, three of whom died young and five of whom suffered from chronic illnesses or disability.

The genetic risks run from the well-known Tay-Sachs, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis to the under-recognised microcephaly, heart defects and intellectual disabilities. Those disorders are often lifelong, and the toll is felt not just by families, but by wider society—by the NHS, by our special educational needs system and across communities.

Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford, has written extensively on cousin marriage in British-Pakistani communities. Drawing on public health data, she highlights that children born to first cousins face roughly double the risk of serious genetic disorders compared with those of unrelated parents. Some have suggested that genetic testing could solve the problem but, while certain conditions can be screened for, many cannot. More importantly, testing does nothing to address the broader issues I have already spoken of around coercion and lack of real choice.

Moreover, as UK Biobank studies demonstrate, multi-generational first cousin marriages exponentially compound risk. The DNA profiles in such families begin almost to mirror those of siblings, or certainly uncle-niece relationships, which often carry much higher risks of severe birth defects, when first cousin marriage occurs generation after generation. In broader culture, people often think of the Habsburgs as a reference point, but this issue is more than mere historical curiosity; it is sadly representative of a contemporary crisis that continues to affect families today.

Behind every statistic lie families, clinicians and patients struggling to manage lifelong consequences. What makes this more painful is that so many of these conditions are entirely preventable. When the science is clear, it beggars belief that we still choose not to do anything. We must stop pretending that this is a marginal issue. The data is clear: it is not anecdotal, but systematic. The status quo is not neutral; it is a form of abandonment, and sustaining it is indefensible.

If we were to design a system that throttled personal freedom, threw in major health issues and undermined national cohesion, we could hardly do better than the widespread practice of first cousin marriage. We ban incest for good reasons. We recognise the power imbalances inherent to sexual relationships between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, uncles and aunts and their nieces and nephews, and parents and their children. We legislate to protect the vulnerable, so why are we silent here? Sadly, I fear that it is because we fear being called intolerant and it is sometimes easier not to look. The truth is that inaction is not neutrality; it is complicity. We must do better.

We need only to look at what has happened in recent days with the release of the report on grooming gangs. I think back to the Labour MPs who raised that issue at a much earlier stage, such as Ann Cryer, who spoke passionately about it almost two decades ago. There is a lot to learn from people who have gone before us.

My Bill currently sits before the House. I thank the Members who have already put their names to it, including the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), my right hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr Snowden), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott).

I urge the Government to take this matter seriously and to listen to the survivors, to professionals and to the silent majorities in the affected communities. We must stop treating such issues as a taboo. If the so-called community leaders had got their way, we would have kept marriage under 16 and we would not have banned hymenoplasty and virginity testing or people being taken abroad for forced marriage. This should not be a taboo issue; it is a public health issue. It is about liberty and integration.

The aim is not to condemn, but to liberate, in order to ensure that our country is one where freedom does not end at the edge of tradition, where cohesion is built on our common citizenship, not inherited constraint, and where children are not born into suffering that we have the power to prevent. We have a chance to take a lead and make a statement that in 21st century Britain, freedom, health and integration matter. I hope the Minister will hear that call.

11:17
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for securing this important debate and commend him for all his brilliant work to support women, in the previous Parliament and going forward. I know that he feels strongly about this issue and, as he said, has introduced a private Member’s Bill on the subject. It goes without saying that it is a sensitive and complex issue, which requires nuance and respect. I thank him for the way he presented his arguments today.

It is important first to understand the current law around marriage. In England and Wales, marriage law is governed primarily by the Marriage Act 1949, which outlines the conditions under which a marriage is considered void, meaning not legally valid. That includes situations where one party is under 18 or where one party is serving a whole-life order in prison. Under the Act, marriages between individuals who are considered too closely related are also considered void. Those relationships fall within so-called prohibited degrees of relationship, which include close blood relations, such as siblings, and certain step relations, such as someone marrying the child of a former spouse.

As we all know, the prohibited degrees of relationship in the 1949 Act do not include first cousins. To understand why that exception exists, it is helpful to consider the context. As the right hon. Member mentioned when he introduced his Bill and in his speech today, marriage between first cousins has been permitted since Henry VIII changed the law in order to marry Anne Boleyn’s cousin, Catherine Howard.

The list of relationships that are legally too close for marriage—prohibited degrees—has been around for centuries. It was first officially written into law in the Marriage Act 1835. It was updated by various laws passed between 1907 and 1931, and was eventually brought together into the 1949 Act. The law has continued to evolve since then; for example, the Children Act 1975 added a prohibition on marriages between adoptive parents and their adopted children.

There have been studies that seem to reinforce our anecdotal understanding that individuals from communities are increasingly moving away from traditional practices and opting for relationships outside their extended families. This shift reflects a broader trend of integration into wider society, alongside awareness of certain health and societal implications that are associated, as the right hon. Member mentioned, with cousin marriage.

Let me address the right hon. Member’s concerns about those health risks, and specifically the risk of congenital disease in children. There is a continued debate about the genetic risks involved in first cousin marriages. As my noble Friend Baroness Merron highlighted in the other place earlier this year, the NHS offers support for families who may be at higher risk of genetic abnormalities. The Government also understand the importance of having better data in this area, which is why the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service collects and analyses data to support doctors, charities and policymakers to improve treatments and care in England. NHS England has also recently published guidance to improve recording of national data on closely related couples.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s argument that banning first cousin marriage could promote community integration. We recognise that the practice is permitted in some faith communities, while it is not permitted in others. As I have said, this is a complex and sensitive area of law, and I am happy to continue to engage with him on it as the Government consider the issue more broadly.

The right hon. Member also suggested that banning first cousin marriage could help to reduce forced marriages. Let me be absolutely clear: forced marriage is a serious human rights violation. It is illegal and carries a maximum prison sentence of up to seven years. It is a complex form of honour or culture-based abuse, and our response must be comprehensive, with a focus on preventing such crimes, on supporting and protecting survivors and those at risk, and on bringing perpetrators to justice.

Tackling forced marriage is a key part of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. The forced marriage unit, which is a joint effort between the Home Office and the Foreign Office, works tirelessly to combat forced marriage, both at home and abroad. The unit provides a vital range of materials, including free e-learning. Last year alone, over 5,800 professionals, such as registrars, completed that training. A new forced marriage resource pack has also been launched to help raise awareness of forced marriage among professionals.

I recognise that there is a lot of interest across the House in bringing forward a number of changes to weddings law more generally. I know that many Members are keen to see changes brought forward quickly, but it is important that any such changes are made in the round. Just last week, during a debate on humanist marriage, I explained to a packed Westminster Hall that it is not possible for the Government simply to ignore the Law Commission’s 2022 report. We cannot ignore the fact that that report identified a number of complex and significant issues within the current legal framework.

Richard Holden Portrait Mr Holden
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I take the Minister back to a point she made about forced marriage? I understand her commitment, and that of the Government, on this issue, but surely she must recognise that when we are looking at a rate of first cousin marriages of between one in 200 and one in 500 in normal society, but a rate of one in two in certain communities, real questions must be asked. How can anybody in those communities really speak out about that issue and the concerns around forced marriage? It is so clear that the family ties are so strong, generation after generation, that they make it almost impossible for people to come forward.

Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I totally agree with the right hon. Member. He makes a very powerful point, which speaks to why we need to look at this issue very carefully. With certain groups engaging in this practice, we cannot just have a knee-jerk reaction; he mentioned that in his speech. Others are calling for me to have a knee-jerk reaction on humanist weddings, for example, and to just quickly lay a statutory instrument to make that change possible. I am not about creating piecemeal legislation in an area that is very complex.

I want to reassure the right hon. Member that the Government are not ignoring this issue. We are considering it deeply and in the round, but it is responsible of us to consider it carefully and with the appropriate communities, which he mentioned, so that we get a full picture of the situation.

That brings me to the central proposal in this debate, which is to ban first cousin marriage. It is worth noting that during the past 14 years, when the prevalence of first cousin marriage was higher than it is now, the previous Government, in which the right hon. Member was a Minister, took no steps to introduce a ban. As I have said, first cousin marriage is complex and sensitive, and this Government are considering it with the seriousness that it rightly deserves.

The right hon. Member will also be aware that in 2022, when the Law Commission published its comprehensive review of weddings law, the previous Government had ample opportunity to raise the issue of first cousin marriage in response to that report, but they chose not to respond at all. In the report, the Law Commission set out a number of issues with marriage law, including inconsistency and unfairness across different groups and faith communities. We are considering the report and the wider issues of weddings law, including first cousin marriage, and I want to put that on record today.

My officials are working hard on weddings law reform, as am I, and an update from the Government on our position will come very soon. I am happy to continue to engage with the right hon. Member and any other Members or those outside this place who want to discuss this matter further as we prepare our plan for weddings reform.

Question put and agreed to.

11:24
Sitting suspended.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(2 days, 2 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

[Matt Western in the Chair]
14:30
Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am pleased to see so many Members here. It is a warm afternoon, so if you wish to remove your jackets, you may do so. I do not necessarily expect a hot debate on this subject; however, a great many of you are expecting to speak, so we will start with a time limit of two minutes—and I am already anticipating that it could be reduced—and you may wish to prepare your speeches accordingly. I remind you all to speak through the Chair.

14:31
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for businesses in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, and I am delighted to secure this important debate. We need growth. It is a key part of the Government’s agenda and it is a fact agreed across the House: our economy has to get going again. I want to make the simple but firm case that the Government can secure that much-needed growth if they give our rural economy the support it needs.

For hundreds of years, our country was driven primarily by the rural economy. North Norfolk was a vital trading hub, with the Glaven valley becoming highly prosperous as a key component of the wool trade, importing shipments from Europe and benefiting from our ease of access to the Netherlands by sea. While the Glaven ports are no longer economic powerhouses, the rural economy continues to play a major role. Nowadays, about a quarter of businesses are based in rural areas, and they contribute a whopping £240 billion to the economy per year. However, we are acutely affected by the specific challenges that rural economies face.

When people in North Norfolk think about economic growth and success, they do not need to dive head first into the spreadsheets of the Financial Times to decide about business confidence; they take a look at what is happening in their communities. Their economic indicators are not hedge fund billions, but on the high street. They take things such as the expansion of Coffeesmiths in North Walsham as a sign that more people are visiting our rural market towns, and they see from the opening of new businesses in Stalham that the Norfolk broads and their communities retain their unique appeal.

However, people in North Norfolk also see the closure of our local bank branches and think about how small businesses and sole traders will struggle with their business banking. They see our inadequate public transport system and wonder how our businesses can recruit or young people can train outside the immediate area.

Adrian Ramsay Portrait Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Member is doing a great job in advocating for rural businesses. I was speaking the other day to the Suffolk chamber of commerce, which highlighted just how critical rural bus services are for people being able to get to work, training and other activities, and therefore how critical they are for our rural economy. Does he agree that we need better funding for rural bus services not only to support the economy, but to tackle social isolation?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree entirely—if only there was a buses Bill before the House. We are also going to get the Transport Committee’s report on buses connecting rural communities, and I would be interested in his thoughts on that in due course.

Meanwhile, rural residents see the Chancellor and the Business Secretary courting the banks and hedge funds, or flying overseas to seek investment. They know that that is important, but they would like to see similar care and engagement for the businesses that matter to them. The Chancellor is keen to get the ear of BlackRock’s Larry Fink, but what about the insights of Larry’s Pizzeria in Hoveton? Meg and Jamie, the hard-working owners, recently showed me how perilous the situation is for rural businesses like theirs. They have excellent reviews, a busy restaurant and a prime broads location, but the cash still just does not add up. The ever-growing cost of supplies, the broken business rates system and high energy costs mean that it has rarely been tougher for a rural business like theirs.

Business owners, employees, trainees and jobseekers have all shared their insights about how these rural economic challenges are impacting them. Chief among them is attracting, training and retaining the workforce. Although we in North Norfolk are proud to have the oldest population in the country, we are blessed with many eager and talented young people who are keen to cut their teeth in a range of sectors. However, the sad reality is that young people in rural areas are missing out on opportunities and seeing their career paths limited by the difficulty of accessing training, apprenticeships and early career development, which are simply too far away and take too long to reach to be feasible.

A large part of that is down to our public transport struggles. During the debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, I spoke about a young woman from my constituency who is eager to get an apprenticeship working in childcare, but buses will not get her to the right part of Norwich in time for the 8 am start.

Brian Mathew Portrait Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

High streets in market towns such as Melksham, Devizes and Bradford-on-Avon in my constituency suffer from a lack of footfall, which is exacerbated by poor public transport connections. Does my hon. Friend agree that improving bus and train services, as well as providing safe cycle lanes, is crucial for business development?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I wholeheartedly agree. It is not just the reduction in social isolation and the improved access to healthcare, but the access to training and development, and the ability of customers to get to places to spend their money in the local economy, that make the case for improvement in public transport such a compelling one.

As I was saying, a large part of this situation is down to our transport struggles. The would-be apprentice in childcare I mentioned cannot get to the right place in Norwich at the right time. Training providers themselves struggle to recruit and retain the necessary staff and professionals to deliver consistent and wide-ranging vocational training offers.

I want to highlight the work of one of my constituents in trying to tackle these training and employment challenges head-on. Mitzi from Mundesley has set up a business that employs young local people to turn empty second homes into affordable rental properties. She currently has three such young people—Jake, Jeremy and Sandor—and they are getting practical skills and training in the construction industry while helping to deliver much-needed affordable homes for people just like them.

Community-centred entrepreneurs like Mitzi are not a rarity in rural areas. People start the businesses that their communities want and need, and they provide just as much, if not more, than they receive. However, rural entrepreneurs such as Mitzi, and business owners and managers across rural areas, also struggle with a lack of networks and experience, which are more easily clustered in urban settings. In the square mile of the City of London, there are 22,000 businesses; in the 360 square miles of North Norfolk, there are 5,000. There is a lack of easy networking, shared expertise and experience, and paths to mentorship and training, which are far more viable in an urban business setting, and yet we have no less ability to develop cutting-edge innovation, global leadership and breakaway sector success.

Alison Bennett Portrait Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I was very lucky last year, on the day after the general election was called, to celebrate my birthday at Albourne Estate, which is a vineyard that produces exceptional English wine. As those of us in areas such as Sussex look towards devolution, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that businesses like Albourne are given support through the incoming mayors, and that those mayors have the powers in areas such as transport, training and skills to deal with the issues that he is outlining?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am grateful to that business in her constituency for providing such a great product, which I have sampled. It is mostly breweries in North Norfolk, so I think I will be safe.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend: devolution is a great opportunity. Whatever people feel about devolution, the opportunity that it provides, both in transport and for economic growth leadership, is clear and we must embrace it. Devolution is happening, including in Norfolk and Suffolk, and she has outlined one of the things in favour of it.

Clean Tech East, which is in a business park that straddles my constituency and that of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), is one example of sector-led success, but it is also a great example of the support that is needed from Government, which is slightly different. In particular, we need Government to empower local leaders to take action.

John Milne Portrait John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is good news that the rural prosperity fund has been extended for another year, but it has been reduced to £33 million this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a firm, long-term commitment to solving the challenges of rural infrastructure provision?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am relieved that my hon. Friend asked that question, because much as funding is welcome in all forms—I know that many of my constituency businesses and their supporters have applied for funds, received them and been part of schemes—we need long-term settlements, long-term funding and local accountability. We cannot just be queuing up to make our pitches to Whitehall; we must have things decided and delivered on the ground.

The support that is needed in rural areas is different. Rural economic development can be, and must be, more exciting, inventive and far-reaching than just building and leasing business parks. Even where they are useful, local authorities and local leaders have to get to the root causes of rural economic struggles and support businesses to address them.

Danny Chambers Portrait Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In Winchester we have the fantastic Sparsholt agricultural college, which engages with local businesses and stakeholders to ensure that it trains students in the skills that the local economy will need. A good example is its vineyard management course, which takes advantage of the amazing new vineyards popping up on our amazing chalk soil. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Government support to ensure that there are accessible courses to give students of all backgrounds the skills to drive our rural economy?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I totally agree. We are developing a bit of a wine theme here, but let me return to a subject that Members might have heard Liberal Democrats talk about a lot, which is care. We are proud to have the oldest demographic in the country in North Norfolk. We should not be afraid of the fact that we have a care industry, which we should celebrate and encourage, and in which we should create career paths and provide training opportunities. Workforce development is key to tackling rural economic development.

I am delighted that some innovative, locally led programmes have been delivered by Lib Dem-led North Norfolk district council. Business owners have told me of the positive experiences they have had with the support and training that is available, and many more will benefit from the recently launched Invest North Norfolk hub. Local leaders, however, need to break the mould and provide innovative, far-reaching support and strategy to supercharge every rural economy. The rural economy is far from immune to the general business challenges that many face across the country; in fact, many of those struggles are only made greater by the nature of rural areas. Rural businesses struggle more with access to funding for investment and seed capital, and they struggle more to meet the cost of decarbonisation.

At the same time, in North Norfolk we have seen large community benefit funds from energy giants that host renewable infrastructure in our area, but the restrictions on those funds are incredibly onerous and they eventually run short of projects to fund. There are only so many bus stops in North Norfolk that they can attempt to gold plate. If access to the funds were liberalised, allowing businesses to secure the important support that they need to grow, adapt and improve, they could have a greater and wider-reaching economic impact, and they could support wider aims to secure environmental benefits and benefits for the communities that their infrastructure affects.

Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I wonder whether I can make the case for real support from the Government for community benefit from renewable energy. It is being proposed at a fairly modest level by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but it is one of the biggest opportunities for rural Britain to transform its economy.

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have started the list, so let me reinforce and add my support to that ask. I hope it is something the Minister might be able to discuss with colleagues in DESNZ, to see whether some joined-up thinking might happen.

I have spoken much about challenges and struggles, but I also want to talk about the huge opportunities that our rural businesses could seize on with the right support from the Government. The unique character of our rural areas sets them up perfectly to benefit from some of the most exciting advances in science and research. Norwich research park, which is not in my constituency but is not far away, hosts many of the country’s world-leading research institutes in the field of agriscience, and they are making incredible scientific progress that could make our food and farming healthier, more efficient and more sustainable. Having such research excellence almost on our doorstep is incredibly exciting, and its location within touching distance of many of our farming and agricultural businesses provides opportunities for easy roll-out of a new generation of science. Our farmers could benefit from world-leading research, and our researchers are already benefiting from our world-leading farmers.

Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the trade agreement signed with the EU will stymie gene editing and the important research that the United Kingdom is doing in that field? In fact, the treaty will prevent us from rolling out gene-edited crops in the United Kingdom.

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am a cautious supporter of the latest developments in food science. I have met the researchers who are leading on the development of that scientific frontier and the safeguards as well. I am concerned about some of the detail. I accept that there is a difficult trade-off with the other demands that farmers make of me, to ensure standardisation for import-export and harmonisation with the European market that they can sell into. However, I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention; it is an important point, well made.

It is not just the deployment of research that can benefit our rural areas; these businesses add an exciting new link to our supply chain. With better connectivity and support for these new, progressive, science-led businesses to source locally, our rural businesses can see a huge boost from encouraging progress in our cutting-edge science and tech sectors.

However, we must not forget the middle of the chain. Still, too much of what is grown and reared in North Norfolk is shipped elsewhere for value adding and processing. With greater support for local leadership, we could create more resilient local supply chains from R&D all the way through to the finished product. That could vastly reduce food miles and improve quality standards and innovation. Additionally, many researchers, scientists and more might choose to come and live in North Norfolk if we had the necessary public transport links to make us a commutable destination. Instead, they are contributing to the overheating of the housing market in our main city.

Alison Hume Portrait Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech, as is his norm. While tourism is vital for our rural economies, he touched on accommodation, and many businesses in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby are finding it harder and harder to employ enough staff because of the increase in short-term holiday lets, which is forcing local people to move out. Does he agree that the Government must urgently bring forward registration of short-term holiday lets to avoid our rural areas being overwhelmed, so that employees have somewhere to live and businesses enough people to employ?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On balance, I agree—partly to manage the local housing supply and encourage the local tourism economy, but also for reasons of public safety and improved standards. The people I speak to and who approach me are usually the ones whose standards I have no worries about, but there are many out there who probably would benefit from registration. That is the right, balanced approach, so I support what the hon. Lady says.

Going back to buses, with the right public transport infrastructure constituents of mine could commute to the many thousands of jobs emerging in what is fast becoming the global centre of excellence for agritech. Likewise, those bringing their expertise to Norfolk could more fully enjoy the environmental and lifestyle benefits of our county and my constituency, while bringing a new and expanding clientele to our local businesses.

I look forward to hearing from many others about the rural businesses in their areas. I am grateful for the interventions so far and I expect that we will hear of many shared challenges and frustrations, but I am also excited about the opportunities just waiting for the support they need to kick-start them. The rural economy is a sleeping giant waiting to be awoken. Let us do for rural and coastal communities what we did as a country for industrialised towns and cities in the second half of the last century. We just need the Government to grasp the reins and tackle the challenges that we face.

James Naish Portrait James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I believe there was a rural White Paper in 1995, followed by a similar one in 2000, but then a 15-year gap until the productivity plan and another eight-year gap until the “Unleashing rural opportunity” paper of 2023, which was 28 pages in total. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a clear, defined rural strategy that ties all those elements together to release the potential of rural Britain?

Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the perfect platform to remind the House of my support for a coastal communities Minister—but that is outside the scope of this particular debate. This issue requires not only strategic vision and leadership from the top, but empowerment and resources on the ground; if another strategy will help that, I support it. The number of papers the hon. Gentleman referred to reminds us all of the cross-party ambition here—we just have to get on and do it, and this feels like a good time to grasp that nettle. We already contribute hundreds of billions to the economy, but there are billions more just waiting to be unlocked all over our country. With real support, vision and strategy, we can transform the rural economy into the powerhouse it has been before and should be in the future.

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is good to see so many Members bobbing; I remind Members that they should bob throughout if they wish to be called in the debate. I am going to set a two-minute time limit, but we may have to reduce that at some point, given the amount of interventions that have been taken—I am not criticising that but, when speaking, please bear in mind that should you take an intervention you will prevent others from speaking later.

14:49
Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.

Rural businesses are a core part of the economy in places such as Macclesfield, which—as you will know, Mr Western—is a beautiful part of the world, on the western edge of the Peak district. Field, farm and forest bring, in equal measure, community and economic activity. Businesses are vital in rural areas, be they the local pub, the farms that feed us or the businesses that support the tourism industry—a critical part of the economy in my area.

Rachel Gilmour Portrait Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

At the end of the high season for tourists, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should reduce tourism VAT to lower prices and allow businesses to increase investment, particularly in coastal and rural communities such as those in my constituency? That would boost growth in tourist economies. There is such a system in Italy, France and Spain, and it brings much more money in.

Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree that we should be open-minded about such measures, just as I was open-minded about taking interventions—although that may change.

On that point, I want to celebrate the value of the visitor economy, which has been mentioned. It has risen to more than £1 billion in Cheshire East, which means that 10,000 jobs depend on that sector in my area. Many hon. Members have spoken, and no doubt will speak, eloquently about the challenges facing rural businesses, and I will talk briefly about a couple of those challenges too.

First, Macclesfield residents have great difficulty finding transport, so they are reliant on a car to get around. If they want to go to a local pub such as the Rose and Crown in Wincle or the Swan Inn in Kettleshulme, and they do not have a car, they must depend on bus routes that are unreliable, infrequent or simply not there. I welcome the more than £5.5 million in extra funding from the Government for Cheshire East council to improve local bus services, and I hope that we continue with efforts to improve rural transport connectivity and the road network—for those hon. Members were present for my Westminster Hall debate on roadworks in Cheshire, the B4570 remains closed from Macclesfield through Rainow.

Secondly, digital connectivity is incredibly important. In many parts of my constituency, phone signal is impossible to come by. I looked at Ofcom’s network coverage map prior to this debate, and there is limited data and not much voice access over huge chunks of my constituency. That strongly affects businesses, because we all know that internet access is a critical part of the rural economy. I welcome the schemes that are supporting further roll-outs, but more needs to be done.

Thirdly, I am sure that other hon. Members will talk powerfully about the impact of energy costs on rural businesses, and I am keen to hear more about what the Government are doing to ensure that those costs are reduced. The Country Land and Business Association powerfully said in 2024 that the rural economy was 14% less productive than the national average. If we close that gap, £40 billion extra could be added to England’s gross value added.

Our rural economy is critical, as is investment in it. There is a great opportunity for us, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the good work that the Government are doing to support that.

14:52
Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As we know, rural businesses are the backbone of our communities, but they are being asked to compete with one hand tied behind their back. Across South Devon, local entrepreneurs—farmers, shopkeepers, tradespeople, producers and publicans—are working tirelessly to keep their communities vibrant, providing jobs, supporting local supply chains and bringing people together, but the odds are stacked against them.

One of the most urgent and unacceptable barriers that rural businesses face is poor broadband and mobile phone coverage. In some parts of my constituency, people cannot send an email without it crashing halfway, and taking card payments is a gamble. How can a small rural business compete in a digital economy if it cannot get online? Poor coverage is not just an inconvenience; it is a direct threat to livelihoods.

I will also address the way in which the Government are implementing the extended producer responsibility scheme, which is hitting local hospitality businesses hard. I welcome the Government’s efforts to make manufacturing more sustainable, but that must not come at the cost of adding further financial uncertainty for small businesses that are already under pressure.

The New Inn, a historical pub in the small village of Moreleigh in my constituency, has been informed by the brewery that supplies it that prices will increase by 7p per bottle of beer and cider and up to 21p per bottle of wine. The brewery will not deal with the bottles afterwards, however, so the pub also has to pay for the disposal of the glassware. The proprietor said:

“in effect we are paying twice…The hospitality trade is being unfairly targeted by this government. Trading is becoming increasingly difficult. After our business just surviving Covid—we are still paying the bounce back loan—then being hit with the Employer’s NI hike and now this, I am beginning to wonder if after 14 years it’s really worth it any more.”

These pubs are not major polluters; they are local employers and community hubs. They are vital to the social and economic life of our villages and towns. More than just pubs, they are third spaces and social hubs that are vital to community life. Yet under this scheme they are treated the same as massive supermarket chains. That is unfair, out of touch and economically harmful.

14:59
Elaine Stewart Portrait Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. It has taken until 2025, but Barr, a rural south Ayrshire village, is finally able to enjoy a mobile phone signal. I was pleased for the community; I had my photograph taken with residents, and the local papers covered the story. It should have been a non-event—this is 2025, after all—but rural communities are too often left behind when it comes to digital connectivity, which is why it was an important moment for Barr. That is the first of three points that I want to make about businesses in rural communities such as Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock.

My second point is that businesses employ local people, and people buy houses and spend their money in the local community. Sometimes the issue is finding local talent, and that is made more difficult by a skills mismatch. Take green energy: many rural communities are hosting new wind farm projects, but vacancies for local engineers and maintenance staff for wind farms are not always easy to find. I am sure that that is also common in many other areas. We have talent in Ayrshire, but we do not have the right skills. We need to train our young people with the right skillsets for local jobs for the future. I want growth deals, such as the Ayrshire growth deal, to invest in skills for the future, and I made that case to the Scotland Office yesterday.

My final point is about broader infrastructure such as transport. Poor road connectivity and limited public transport options hinder people’s access to work. The A77 in Ayrshire is in desperate need of an upgrade. It is plagued by congestion and shocking road surfaces, which make travel difficult for residents and businesses alike. Last week, the Government announced £15.6 billion for transport in the spending review. The spending review shows that the Government are backing the devolved Administrations. Those funds should be used directly to ensure that Scotland’s transport network is efficient and accessible. I have again written to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, about the state of the A77.

I want to finish on a broader point—

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am afraid you are out of time.

14:59
Damian Hinds Portrait Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western.

The family farm tax was a hammer blow to our agricultural businesses. We understand that the Government seek to raise money, but there is an alternative on the table: the so-called clawback proposal. I hope that the Minister will update us on that and, if the Government do not think that the clawback proposal would work and raise potentially even more money than the current policy, I hope that he can explain that.

More broadly, the Government have said that they will increase spending on environmental land management schemes, but they are cutting back in other areas. The overall budget for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is coming down in real terms. What will that mean for our agricultural businesses?

Beyond specifically rural businesses such as farms, rural constituencies have all manner of other businesses that just happen to be in rural areas. As colleagues have said, those businesses face additional challenges, first among which is connectivity. I hope that the Government will do more on the shared rural network; it is going quite well in Scotland and Wales, but we need more of it in England.

On the transition to VoIP—voice over internet protocol —we need to ensure that businesses have proper power back-up systems in place for power cuts. We need a rapid expansion of banking hubs, because the loss of banking infrastructure is felt particularly in rural areas, where banks are more spread out, and we need full utilisation of the national post office network.

As well as dealing with problems, we must seize opportunities. A couple of colleagues have already mentioned the wine sector, which is a great growth opportunity for rural areas. Much more could also be done on tourism, both inbound and domestic, as well as agritourism. We need to ensure that young people growing up in our constituencies have the same opportunities as others, and that means a particular focus on T-level industrial placements for children from rural areas, as well as ensuring that they can get to work; I would love to see a national version of the wheels to work programme, renting scooters to young people.

14:59
Terry Jermy Portrait Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my Norfolk colleague, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for securing the debate.

One of the real pleasures of being a Member of Parliament is visiting businesses across the constituency. That is something I aim to do regularly in South West Norfolk. I have two questions when I visit: what are your challenges, and what are your opportunities? The responses are nearly always the same: skills and connectivity.

The Heygates flour mill in Downham Market is nearly 200 years old. When I visited, the owners told me that they have to bring over engineers from Turkey, which is a big flour-producing country, to service the machines. They cannot recruit engineers locally, so they bring them in from Turkey at great expense.

On healthcare, 85 million drip bags are produced every year in Thetford in my constituency. Those businesses tell me that they are moving away from having people on production lines and towards automation, so they need trained, skilled individuals to help with technology. They struggle to recruit locally for that critical part of our healthcare system, located in a rural community.

The Wissington sugar beet factory near Downham Market is the largest sugar beet factory in Europe. The owners tell me that they have vibration sensors on the machinery, linked with artificial intelligence, so they can proactively plan maintenance to reduce the number of breakdowns, but they struggle to recruit people with the right skills.

Those are the issues that come up time and again. Hon. Members have already mentioned connectivity, and I would agree that issues with connectivity in the broadest possible sense—mobile phone signals, broadband, trains, buses and road infrastructure—really hold us back in my part of the world. I therefore ask the Minister to comment on skills and connectivity.

15:01
Sarah Dyke Portrait Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech.

Small rural businesses are the heartbeat of the economy in Glastonbury and Somerton, but many are in crisis. The Government’s increase in employer’s national insurance contributions is an aggressive measure that disproportionately burdens the rural economy. Jacqueline, the owner of two businesses in my constituency, has gone from being in profit to laying off four members of staff. The Liberal Democrats have opposed the rise at every turn, knowing the devastating impact that it will have on rural businesses.

The Chancellor’s choice to introduce permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026 will punish significant rural employers at a time when the Government should be supporting them. The Kings Arms in Charlton Horethorne is a thriving rural pub, but the owners contacted me recently to say that the changes to business rates could cause its closure. Overt Locke, a Somerton hardware store, is also experiencing economic collapse. Indeed, it did close—the previous owners had to sell up—but luckily the new owners, Rob and Louise, have resurrected the business; however, it will be profitable only if business rates relief is sustained at 75%.

The Liberal Democrats would scrap the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy that taxes land value, not productive investment. When rural businesses fail, we lose not just livelihoods but the social and economic fabric of our countryside.

15:02
Maya Ellis Portrait Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this brilliant debate.

My constituency is a fantastic mix of urban pockets and vast rural areas, with some incredible businesses, including Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses, James’ Places hotels and Massey Feeds. I have just come from the Countryside Alliance awards in the House of Lords, and the hottest restaurant in the north-west, Eight at Gazegill, has just won the rural enterprise award.

Hon. Members have raised really important issues, including affordable housing, transport and congested country roads, but I want to focus on a particular point that I am concerned about following the spending review last week. My rural constituency in the county of Lancashire and many other areas across the UK are about to lose the last pockets of business support funding.

The areas that remain without a mayoral devolution deal are predominantly rural shire counties, and in the spending review it was confirmed that the shared prosperity fund will end in 2026. It was obviously meant to be a bridging fund to replace the millions of pounds of regional development funding that areas such as Lancashire used to receive from the EU, and it predominantly funded business growth hubs and other business support.

As of next year, all local growth and business support funding will be channelled into mayoral areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that further plans will be made to continue supporting innovative and high-growth businesses across our non-mayoral areas; otherwise, we are set to miss out on huge opportunities for innovation in the often more community-driven and community-embedded businesses that we value and want to encourage.

I am conscious of time, so I will end by saying that I look forward to the Government building out our strategies to understand rural economies more. I support the calls for a proper strategy. We need to grip the rural opportunity in this country, and that starts with the rural businesses that keep those areas thriving.

15:04
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. In eastern and mid Devon, we have many ordinary medium-sized and small businesses, but they are facing extraordinary barriers, including being held back by a lack of reliable broadband in rural areas. I appreciate that that is not in the Minister’s brief, but I urge him to lobby and talk to his colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to try to get some movement on the issue.

Under the recent spending review, the 99% target for national coverage moved from 2030 to 2032, which was deeply disappointing. According to Ofcom’s “Connected Nations” update in January, only 56% of premises in mid Devon have access to full-fibre broadband, which is way below the national average.

Daniel Lennox lives in Sidbury with his family. He works remotely and he runs a home-based business called Stagely, a digital platform that helps people to discover regional theatre productions. The business sets out to showcase local productions, and it is backed by Innovate UK. It is exactly the kind of enterprise that we want to be encouraging. It is creative, based in the community and part of the future digital economy. However, it cannot run properly, given the lack of a decent internet connection to Daniel’s property, which has been left with a part-copper line that is unreliable, slow and not sufficient for a digital business.

Daniel’s case is far from unique, and while I welcome the Government’s £5 billion investment in Project Gigabit, the delivery is falling behind. We must ensure that rural businesses such as Daniel’s on the edge of villages succeed, and that they do not fail because of unreliable or unavailable broadband.

15:06
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Portrait Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for bringing forward this important debate.

I would like to celebrate the success of Orford General Store, which, just 45 minutes ago in the House of Lords, was highly commended in the Countryside Alliance’s national award category of best village shop. Susan and her team have built an incredible business that supports the local and regional supply chain. It procures from more than 50 local businesses, acts as an important champion of local and regional food producers, and supports the local community. It is, of course, just one example of the many local businesses across Suffolk Coastal that demonstrates the best of our rural businesses.

In Suffolk Coastal, we have 4,210 businesses, of which 4,135 are small or micro businesses. It is those small businesses that make up the lifeblood of business in rural areas. Micro, small and medium-sized businesses truly drive the regional and local economy. They do more than just invest directly and indirectly; their local money employs local people, uses local contractors, sells local produce and celebrates the best of our local offering. They provide local services to our community.

In fact, those businesses are more than just the lifeblood; they are the bones that hold us together and the very organs that make rural life possible. More needs to be done to ensure that we truly understand the challenges that they face.

I am conscious of time, but I am going to provide a shopping list of some of the issues that we would like to be addressed. Digital connectivity has been talked about a lot. We also need investment in our B roads; we have no motorways in the entirety of Suffolk, and B roads are the lifeblood of our areas. Transport, housing, planning restrictions and a cashless society are also challenges for rural businesses. I support the hon. Member in calling on the Government for a rural strategy.

15:08
Victoria Collins Portrait Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this excellent debate. In preparation, I surveyed local businesses to hear from them directly. What came through loud and clear is that rural businesses face the same mounting pressures as many others. As one business in Tring said:

“The cost of business is the highest it has ever been.”

Another told me:

“Currently, there is no incentive for small businesses to employ staff or even start up.”

I grew up helping my mum on the shop floor in a rural market town, so that breaks my heart. Such businesses are the backbone of our community.

Practically all the businesses who responded cited the combined impact of Government Budget measures, from the employment costs faced by Claire in Wheathampstead, who runs 2by2 Holidays, to Tring Martial Arts Academy and DJ’s Play Zone, which are reducing operating hours and workforce, and shelving expansion plans. How does that support the growth of our economy?

Accountants are often the canary in the coal mine when it comes to business health. AngloDutch accountants in Tring confirms that numerous clients, especially in hospitality, are struggling with employer’s national insurance increases alongside rising business rates. There are also the rising costs of day-to-day operations, from energy bills to products, as highlighted by Savage’s and Tabure in Berkhamsted. The cost of living has an impact on customers too. Chantal from Wheathampstead tells me that people simply are not buying like they used to, a concern also raised by businesses such as iQuilt.

As has been mentioned, our rural businesses face additional structural burdens. Connecting people to businesses in person or online is hindered by terrible internet and inadequate transport services. Flamstead, Markyate, Gaddesden and parts of Wheathampstead are in the worst 10% for connectivity nationwide. What is more, under the Conservatives, Hertfordshire saw the biggest cut—56.5%—in vehicle mileage on bus services from 2016 to 2021. I call on the Minister to take action for our rural businesses.

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I remind Members to keep an eye on the clock. The time limit is two minutes.

15:11
Dave Robertson Portrait Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate.

In Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages in my part of rural Staffordshire, we have an amazing number of great local businesses—far too many to name in only one minute and 45 seconds. Many businesses are held back by poor connectivity, both broadband and 5G. Although the Government’s investment of £5 billion at the spending review is welcome, we need to crowd in private sector investment to drive the much faster roll-out of broadband and 5G.

There is a potential lever for us to pull on broadband. BT Openreach owns the infrastructure that broadband providers rent—the poles and holes, as it is referred to in the industry. The rental of that infrastructure is charged by the metre, not by address or business, which means that access to it is 20 times more expensive in rural areas. Although I welcome Ofcom’s ongoing review of that charging structure, I hope that the outcome will reduce costs for rural businesses and level the playing field between what is urban and what is not.

There is also work to do on 5G, because the current roll-out is the slowest in the G7. The simple fact is that we need more masts; 5G works better because it is higher frequency and shorter range. Unfortunately, the tower companies that own the masts are driving down rentals for landowners and litigating against them using legislation introduced by the previous Government. Our Government should look at how the market structure operates, and how legislative change could allow a competitive market to bring forward new masts to provide the physical infrastructure to allow that connectivity to happen.

15:12
Jamie Stone Portrait Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to make two brief points that have been raised with me in the highlands. First, the gov.uk One website is proving difficult, with customer services support problems. I do not expect the Minister to reply but I would be grateful if that could be passed on to civil servants.

Secondly, on 1 November 1965, the then Labour Government had the wisdom to put in place the Highlands and Islands development board. That was a red letter day because it helped to halt depopulation of the highlands, boosted little businesses and got them off the ground. It was a great body, and many of us in the highlands had cause to be grateful for its work over the years. Today, it exists as Highlands and Islands Enterprise which, I am bound to say, is not what its ancestor once was, notwithstanding its best efforts. The budgets are lower and it is less able to target resources.

Hon. Members know that I have a cordial relationship with the Scottish National party. We have worked together over the years in a friendly and amicable way, and I am saddened that its representatives are not here today to listen to my words. I wish they were, because perhaps they could take the message back to their masters in Edinburgh to say, “Please, look at this problem. It is too bad that this excellent organisation is withering on the vine.”

The Minister would be within his rights to say, “That’s devolved, mate.” But there is something called the Scottish election coming up next year, so I am speaking through the ether, as it were, to the structure of the Scottish Parliament in a year’s time: “Please remember my words, look at Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and think about building it back to what it once was.”

15:14
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. South Northamptonshire is 92% agricultural, forest or semi-natural, so it really is a quintessential rural constituency. It is home to 5,300 businesses, of which 5,200 are small or medium sized. Reports say that almost a quarter of British businesses are in rural constituencies, but they often feel that their voice is not heard. That will certainly not be the case on my watch. I run a series of business breakfasts where I listen to the concerns that they raise, and they all say that they need support to be able to grow. That is across all sectors, from Yummy Grains, just outside of Towcester, which sells granola and free range eggs, all the way up to BPY Plastics in Brackley.

The Government talk about growth, but the policies such as the hikes in employers’ national insurance disproportionately affect small and medium-sized enterprises. Whittlebury Hall, for example, is a huge employer in my constituency and the hike hit it with a bill of nearly £1 million bill overnight. That makes offering new jobs totally unsustainable. The hairdressers and beauty salons in my constituency are scared that they will not be able to continue to offer apprenticeships. Indeed, it is said that by 2027 there will be no new apprenticeship starts.

The 95 pubs in my constituency, such as the White Hart in Hackleton, supply local jobs for local people, but this Government’s policies are really hurting them. As for my farmers—my poor farmers—please do not get me started on them. They do absolutely all that they can. They work relentlessly, but this Government are not giving them the ability to plan correctly. Changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief, the sustainable farming incentive and capital grants, as well as the double-cab pick-up tax and the fertiliser tax all make things unsustainable. They are the backbone of our society. Establishing and running a business is a risk, and we need to give our entrepreneurs some security and some hope for the future. I ask the Government to go back to the drawing board to help back British rural business.

15:17
Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to make the case for a review of the VAT system. VAT starts at £90,000 and above, and I think that that level should be increased to £250,000. The UK has 3.1 million sole traders. Many of them do not want to grow above £90,000 because they do not think they are in the business of administration, and quite a lot do cash business in March just to get past that. If we lift the limit to £250,000, many of them would employ an apprentice or two. Some might become quite major. We would enable a junior level of people who were not particularly good at school to join the trades sector, in plumbing, for example. This is a fantastic opportunity if we want to take the foot off the neck of micro-businesses and would allow us to grow a worthwhile SME sector.

15:18
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Since the election last year, our rural businesses have been let down by the Labour Government. Their family farm tax has had a grave impact on the rural economy. Constituents talk to me of the enormous worry that that proposal is causing them. It threatens their family businesses with a huge tax bill when the owner of the farm dies. It is causing investment in rural areas to fall as families wonder how they can pay the tax; many will be forced to sell productive land or assets just to pay it. That not only is deeply wrong, but puts our food security at risk. If we combine it with the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the Government seem to be designing a system to cause as much damage as possible to family-run businesses in rural areas.

New taxes are not the only issue causing harm to businesses. Look at the disastrous scrapping of the sustainable farming incentive scheme earlier this year. The SFI was one of the main sources of Government support available to farmers, but it was closed to new applications with no warning whatsoever in a move the National Farmers Union described as “crushing”.

Digital infrastructure is critical to supporting the rural economy. Across Somerset, the Government have scaled back plans to install gigabit-capable broadband. In my constituency of Bridgwater, average speeds are already far below the national average, and now 1,450 properties have been descoped and are not included in the new deal. In the spending review, the target for Project Gigabit has been pushed back from 2030 to 2032. Minister, how can we close the productivity gap between urban and rural areas when digital infrastructure is not a priority for the Government?

15:20
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the welcome focus on our vital rural businesses. When we talk about rural business, we are talking about the lifeblood of our countryside. In Taunton and Wellington, and across Somerset, businesses are not just economic units but the backbone of our communities. Family farms are not taxation units for inheritance purposes; they put food on our tables. The Government should think hard about their family farm tax, and should do so urgently.

Rural entrepreneurs face rising costs across the board, unreliable infrastructure and a postcode lottery in support. Constituents in villages such as West Hatch, Staple Fitzpaine and West Buckland, as well as those around Wellington, simply cannot get reliable broadband or mobile signals. Transport is another key concern, which is why the Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have provided compensation for rural firms, such as Apple Campers, Western Recovery Services and TLC, that are losing business due to the closure of junction 26 on the M5 for three whole months under National Highways requirements.

Public transport is also essential. It is about connecting the parts of our UK economy to make a stronger whole. Banking and postal access are also vital to our rural businesses. Although I welcome the introduction of the banking hub model in Wellington, as I know the Minister does, it is somewhat bizarre for residents to see, in a town that has no post office, a building with the Post Office logo above the door and window that is not a post office and does not provide post office services. That craziness is straight out of “Yes, Minister” and needs to change urgently.

Rural businesses do not ask for special favours. All they ask for is fairness and for a level playing field for infrastructure, support and services.

15:22
Llinos Medi Portrait Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Diolch, Cadeirydd—it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. SMEs employ nearly 750,000 people in Wales, with a combined annual turnover of over £50 billion. There are more rural businesses in Wales, at 46.2%, than in the UK as a whole, at 31.9%. Supporting rural businesses is therefore especially important for the Welsh economy.

The spending review announced an increase in R&D funding to benefit businesses. However, Wales makes up 5% of the UK population and yet received just 2% of the R&D spend. We need a fair R&D funding policy to ensure that Wales’s proportion reflects its population share. The Federation of Small Businesses in Wales is calling on the UK Government to set a target that half of all direct Government business enterprise expenditure on R&D funding should be directed to SMEs.

The spending review also announced billions of pounds for improving transport connectivity in English regions, such as Manchester. However, there was nothing for rural Wales. Poor transport links in rural areas are a drain on businesses’ time, and it limits their ability to grow. Ynys Môn also has some of the worst digital connectivity in the UK, with 35% of the constituency receiving gigabit broadband, compared with 78% of the UK on average. Business needs both physical and digital infrastructure to flourish.

There are changes that the Government could make now to support specific industries. An example is food and drink. I declare that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hospitality, events, major food and drink businesses in Wales. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have introduced a guest beer agreement as part of the Scottish pubs code. This could benefit Bragdy Mona and Bragdy Cybi breweries in my constituency. The pub code is currently under review, so I ask the Minister whether the Government will look at the merits of including a guest beer agreement in the pubs code, as has been done in Scotland.

The Government must use their industrial strategy to prioritise rural businesses, which are the backbone of our rural communities.

15:24
Adam Dance Portrait Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There are over 3,400 fantastic businesses in Yeovil that provide amazing services for our communities, from big employers such as Screwfix and Leonardo to local businesses such as Ben Russell’s hairdressers or the Somerset Cheesecakery in Ilminster. Thanks to terrible Government Budgets, unfair trade deals and soaring energy prices, many businesses in Yeovil do not feel supported by central Government. This Government can change that.

I am sorry if this sounds like a list of local demands but, well, it basically is. The Government changes to national insurance are an unfair jobs tax. Let us get rid of that, and instead, reverse Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increase the digital services tax to 6% on social media giants and raise the remote gambling duty for online gambling companies.

Next is our family farms. Farmers deserve some actual support, because in Yeovil they have lost trust in this Government. To start, the family farm tax has to go, or at least be delayed until April ’27 as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee suggests. We also need to strengthen the grocery code so it has some actual teeth to support farmers.

Finally, our high street businesses need banking hubs. I was happy to have secured a banking hub for Crewkerne, but, despite having the same needs, Chard and Ilminster were denied one because they had cash machines. They are not alone. Will the Government expand the criteria for approving banking hubs and commit to rolling out a few more than 350 banking hubs?

I could go on about funding for vital bus services, such as the No. 11 bus in Yeovil, and the need for better broadband, greater investment in apprenticeships, greater defence spending to support jobs in Yeovil and so on, but time is short, so I will just say that I hope the Government take on board my asks and those from hon. Members today, because then we might finally start to get a Government who help rural businesses thrive rather than getting in the way.

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Last, but certainly not least, I call Jim Shannon.

15:26
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The book is very clear, Mr Western:

“the last shall be first, the first shall be last”.

Today I am the last; the next day I will be the first. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for setting the scene so well. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective—I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I always sew it into debates, and I have one question for him at the end.

As the MP for Strangford, a wonderful mixed rural and urban area, I have the ability to see success in both areas, which I am thankful for. Although there is no doubt that business is more difficult to carry out logistically in rural areas, I believe there is greater potential—it is massive. Rural businesses in Northern Ireland are a vital part of the economy, with 58% of all businesses located in rural areas, although they only account for a smaller percentage of the total employment—21%—and a turnover of 25%. However, they are still critical for the area. The businesses are heavily concentrated in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fishing and construction.

Support for rural business is available through various initiatives, such as the rural business investment scheme and the rural business development grant scheme. They are administered by the local Ards and North Down council, but the money comes from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the tackling rural poverty and social isolation framework. I commend my honourable friend and colleague Councillor Alderman Robert Adair.

The development grants are between £500 and almost £5,000, and are available to micro-enterprises based in rural areas to support sustainability and growth. Over the last short time, £100,000 has been allocated to 32 rural businesses in my area. The scheme is oversubscribed. It was an annual scheme, but there is a question mark over what will happen in the future. I highlight that to the Minister—it is not his responsibility, but he is an hon. Gentleman, a good Minister and he does good for us all. Will he engage with the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we continue to have the business growth that is available in my constituency of Strangford and across all of Ards and North Down?

15:28
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate and his excellent opening speech, which touched on Liberal Democrat enthusiasms such as buses and microbreweries, but also his characteristic interest and enthusiasm for the opportunities created by science and tech in rural areas as much as across the rest of the country. Small businesses have had a tough time for years. I thank my hon. Friend for his eloquent speech, particularly outlining the challenges that businesses in his constituency face and touching on the broader challenges facing rural businesses in all corners of the country.

When I speak to businesses, their owners repeatedly tell me that their bills are too high, and that causes them to question their future, as they see their neighbouring shops and businesses close down. As we have seen, soaring energy costs over the past few years and costs related to transport, energy and supply chains can disadvantage rural businesses, and many of the Government relief schemes that exist do not sufficiently account for unique rural pressures.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes to national insurance contributions announced by this Government. The changes are an unfair jobs tax that will hit small businesses, social care providers and GPs. The NICs changes present an additional challenge to businesses already struggling with rising energy prices, interest rates and input costs. These businesses were hammered by the previous Conservative Government, who broke their promise to reform business rates, and instead trapped businesses under mountains of red tape, stopping them trading internationally. Making things even harder for small businesses and their workers will not grow the economy. Raising the employment allowance will shield only the very smallest employers, but thousands of small businesses will be seriously affected.

A significant amount of the income of many businesses goes straight out the door via our outdated businesses rates system. Business rates are harmful for the economy, because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than taxing profits or the fixed stock of land. I am sure the Government would agree with that assessment, given their pre-election promise to overhaul our business rates system. Nearly a year into this Government’s time in power, however, and this commitment seems to have been forgotten. Meanwhile, businesses across the UK are continuing to struggle with a system that is unfit for a modern economy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to replacing business rates in England with a commercial landowner levy based solely on the land value of commercial sites, rather than their entire capital value, thereby stimulating investment and shifting the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. I urge the Government to consider this change.

The decline of high street services in rural areas has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks, post offices and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. This has significant consequences for residents, particularly older people, those without digital access and small businesses—not least the confusion it appears to be causing in Wellington. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 banks have closed across the UK, including hundreds of rural branches, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now lack a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services.

The challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out, and we believe it is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I urge the Government to prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. Alternative solutions such as banking hubs are being developed, but there are not enough of them, and the Government should be facilitating more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them, and prevent the digital exclusion of people in rural areas.

As high street services close, rural public transport has also been cut, making it even harder for residents to reach alternative services.

Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend recognise that rural communities always seem to carry the burden of losing out on everything? They have the businesses struggling to get people through the door, they lose their public transport and they lose their health provision. I am seeing that in my constituency, where a rural village is losing its GP surgery, but there is no bus to take people to the proposed GP surgery in the nearby town. We need to support our rural businesses because they are the backbone of these rural communities, and they are keeping these rural communities alive.

Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is always the danger that we get into a vicious circle of declining transport provision leading to declining demand for services, which then lose viability and are withdrawn. The point about investment in public transport that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk made so eloquently at the start of this debate would go a long way to managing some of those issues.

Bus route reductions leave some villages with little to no public transport, which worsens isolation. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country, but they are particularly crucial in rural areas, where accessible local amenities and services are greater distances apart.

Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In fact, in the spending review, the whole of rural England was given a seventh of the money for transport plans that was given to urban areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not sufficient to sustain and improve the rural bus transport network as much as we need?

Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way that some of the infrastructure and transport investment moneys have been distributed in the recent spending review has raised some eyebrows. Investing in rural bus services would certainly boost our struggling town centres and high streets, which would lead to economic growth.

The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes the most. Although the Government have made their red lines on taxation clear, a 50% increase to the bus cap is just taxation by other means. The Government have been left to make difficult choices, but they cannot allow the burden of fixing the Conservatives’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives before seems to understand that for rural communities, having a reliable bus service is critical to enable daily tasks and commutes to be completed. I was also reflecting on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk about the impact of a lack of suitable transport infrastructure on training and the workforce.

Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed many of the Government’s public infrastructure and public transport investment announcements. However, we are concerned by the lack of provision allocated to rural bus services. Many communities without combined authority mayors—from Cumbria to Cornwall, and Norfolk to Newton Abbot—seem to have been left without new support for their transport networks. The Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to make sure that these areas see the investment that they so desperately need.

As the Government start implementing the new public infrastructure announcements, they must put the construction sector on a sustainable footing by introducing, in tandem, an industrial strategy to actually implement the projects. The general secretary of the Prospect trade union warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for new defence and nuclear infrastructure projects. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted a shortage of skilled works as a critical stumbling block for growth. Workforce shortages often disproportionately affect rural areas, with limited local training opportunities and housing affordability issues exacerbating the problem, making it harder for businesses to expand.

As we await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, I ask the Minister to ensure that it will include a strategic framework to effectively address the needs of businesses in rural areas, by collaborating with local, regional and devolved authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to establish how the strategy will support and facilitate industrial regeneration and innovation across all UK nations and regions. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I look forward to scrutinising the details of the proposals as they are brought forward.

Businesses and rural areas of the UK face a distinct set of challenges compared with their urban counterparts. Although Government support exists through various grants, loans and initiatives, several issues, including infrastructure challenges, the phasing out of EU funding and higher costs related to transport, energy and supply chains, can disadvantage rural businesses more severely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk for securing this debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps the Government are taking to ensure that businesses in rural areas receive the additional support they so desperately need.

15:37
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone). We have had many great contributions from across the Chamber. Given the number, I will not seek to name all the Members who spoke; I will just pick three at random who I thought were particularly good: my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox).

It is a privilege to speak on a subject that is close to the hearts and livelihoods of so many of my own constituents in my rural constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire. I pay tribute to the immense contribution that rural businesses make to the United Kingdom. Whether they be in farming, tourism, food production, forestry, hospitality or manufacturing, or our rural innovators, these enterprises are not simply economic units; they are custodians of heritage, engines of local employment and lifelines for communities that could otherwise be left behind.

Some of the challenges have been picked up through the course of the debate. We will start with communications. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the shared rural network in 2020, which was a £1 billion joint programme, at that point, with mobile operators to attempt to eliminate the so-called notspots in rural coverage. Many of those spots were found in my constituency and some still are, such in as the village of Cuddington. The initiative is transforming how farmers, tourism operators and remote workers do business, but it is clear from the debate, and indeed my own experience, that there is still some way to go. As others have said, if we cannot solve the communications challenges in the digital age, that will hold everyone back.

A thriving rural economy also depends on a fair tax system, which is why successive Conservative Chancellors took steps to freeze fuel duty—a vital measure for those who live miles from the nearest market, school or supplier. It is why we increased the VAT threshold for small businesses and championed business rates relief for village shops and pubs, demonstrating their community value as well as their commercial one. We also froze alcohol duty, offering a crucial boost to rural pubs, breweries, cider producers and vineyards, which are often vital employers and social hubs in rural areas. These measures reflect a Conservative belief in letting enterprise breathe, rather than smothering it under tax and bureaucracy.

We also need to combat rural crime far more harshly—another area in which I speak with some experience from this place. What began as my private Member’s Bill grew into the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. Once the Government finally introduce the secondary legislation required for it, it will protect farming businesses from agricultural machinery thefts.

Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On that point, I recollect a visit I made in 2023 to one of the fantastic farms in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to his doughty and indefatigable campaigning to create that new offence, which protects farmers from rural theft and is an important change to the law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal encampments are also blighting our rural communities? In Denmead and parts of Southwick and Fareham, we have had real challenges with illegal encampments. The last Conservative Administration introduced more police powers to move on some of the groups that cause a nuisance, destruction and intimidation, and sometimes engage in illegal activity. Of course, we respect the rights of minorities, but does he agree that a lot more awareness needs to be raised among the police and communities so that we can combat the scourge of illegal encampments more successfully?

Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I remember my right hon. Friend visiting the farm. It was in my constituency at the time, but the boundary changes actually took it away from me. Preventing the theft of machinery from not just farms but all rural businesses, which suffer so badly when equipment theft takes place, is a critical measure that we have to get right.

I take the important point that my right hon. Friend makes around illegal encampments. Any illegal development needs to be clamped down on in whatever form it takes. I pay tribute to Thames Valley police’s rural crime taskforce for some of its work on that. It would be good if the Minister could work with Home Office colleagues to extend that work across the whole country, and push the Minister for Policing, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to introduce the statutory instruments that would bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act into full force.

Let us turn to the direction of travel on rural business under this Government, which gives me real concern. First, as others have mentioned, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes to the NICs thresholds place a disproportionate burden on rural employers, many of whom already operate on the tightest of margins. For a rural farm employing five seasonal workers, or a family-run dairy business with a handful of long-serving staff, these extra costs are not abstract; they are the difference between hiring and firing.

The sharp rise in the national living wage is hitting rural sectors, with seasonal and low-margin employment—especially farming, food processing and rural tourism—hit particularly hard. These sectors do not have the luxury of passing on costs to consumers in the same way that some of the big urban retail or tech companies do. They face fixed contracts and price pressures from supermarkets, and this change risks hollowing out jobs that were previously viable.

Compounding that is the change to business property relief, which will strip tax protections from many family-run rural enterprises such as holiday accommodation and equestrian centres, undermining succession planning and deterring future investment in those rural businesses. Labour has targeted the very dynamism that it claims to support.

Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a serious threat to rural enterprise. By relaxing environmental safeguards and expanding compulsory purchase powers—removing hope value protections from prime farmland—the Bill risks allowing developers and central authorities to override local rural businesses and agricultural land. The removal of green belt-like protections from the mythical grey belt areas also paves the way for large-scale development in what were previously safe rural areas. Rural entrepreneurs now face heightened uncertainty over their long-term investments and succession plans. Farmers, holiday let providers and small rural manufacturers alike may wake up to find their economic foundations undermined by top-down planning interventions.

The Employment Rights Bill threatens significant administrative, legal and recruitment costs for rural businesses, which are estimated at up to £5 billion across the economy and are disproportionately heavier for small rural businesses, jeopardising their ability to hire flexibly or offer seasonal work.

But perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour’s recent change to agricultural property relief: the family farm tax. This is not simply a tweak to inheritance policy; it is a direct assault on the ability of farming families to pass on their land and their livelihoods from one generation to the next. An estimated 40,000 farming jobs will be lost under Labour’s plans to force all farmers to stop farming on up to 20% of their land.

The Government’s estimate of 27% of farms being impacted is based on outdated APR claims data from 2021-22 that does not reflect rising land values or the full economic picture of commercial family farms. Nearly 40% of farms rely on a combination of APR and BPR to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The £1 million threshold applies to both combined, making it far more restrictive than the Government’s modelling suggests. In my constituency, this is already causing disinvestment. I have spoken with farmers who are now deferring expansion, shelving plans for tourism ventures and, in some cases, considering breaking up long-held estates that have supported jobs and communities for generations.

Farm shops have, after years of successful trading, made the difficult decision to close. On rural high streets, costs have risen 15%. At Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates in Wendover in my constituency, this is already leading to job losses and reduced hours for the staff they have been able to retain. The Pink and Lily pub in Lacey Green shut in February, just seven years after it first opened.

Rural Britain does not ask for favours, but it does demand fairness. It wants policies that reflect the unique challenges of doing business across distances, in smaller labour markets and with greater exposure to the weather, the global economy and regulatory interference. That is why the Opposition will continue to champion low tax, light-touch regulation and a level playing field for rural enterprise. The future of the rural economy cannot be sustained on sentiment alone; it must be underpinned by policy that understands the realities of rural life. On that test, thus far, Labour is failing.

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him to allow a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion at the end.

15:48
Gareth Thomas Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is genuinely a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western—thank you for your reminder of the etiquette at the end of the debate—and to respond to what has been an extremely important debate on supporting the many remarkable rural businesses across the country. In the usual way, I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate, and for what I understand is a long-standing interest in this vital issue for our rural community.

If there were any doubt about the importance of the rural economy, the sheer numbers of hon. Members who have contributed to this debate have surely put that to bed. I say gently to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that I heard some impressive speeches from Members on this side of the House, but I none the less recognise the significance of the contributions from those on the other side. Such was the range, I fear that I will not be able to do justice to all the different points that were made. I recognise that one or two contributions were as much about getting me to deliver messages to other parts of Government as they were about my own Department.

Rural businesses are without doubt the lifeblood of our countryside. More than half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, contributing over £315 billion a year to the economy in England alone. The diversity of the rural economy is striking: 86% of rural businesses span sectors beyond just agriculture, forestry and fishing. The Government fully recognise the immense potential for growth in our rural areas. That is why we are committed to creating the right conditions to allow rural enterprises of all kinds to thrive and succeed.

First, we are taking steps to improve rural infrastructure —the keys to unlocking that growth potential. The hon. Member for North Norfolk waxed lyrical about the significance of rural bus services, which I absolutely accept. He will be only too aware of the significance of the decisions, to which I think he alluded, that the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will bring into force. It will put decision making about what bus routes should be provided into the hands of local leaders across England, including in rural areas. That will allow local communities to determine for themselves how best to design their bus services, so that they genuinely have control over routes and schedules, helping both local communities and—crucially, in the context of this debate—rural businesses.

Joe Morris Portrait Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On transport, it is not just buses but road infrastructure that is important for our communities and businesses, whether that is the Lord Crewe Arms in Blanchland, in the south of my constituency, or Falconry Days in Simonburn, in the north. Filling potholes is important to ensure that we can get to appointments and to businesses, but the lack of advertisements from councils on when they are conducting roadworks impacts tourism businesses. Does the Minister agree that Northumberland county council could do a far better job of communicating with small businesses about when it is repairing roads, so that tourism bookings do not drop off?

Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am disappointed to hear that my hon. Friend’s local county council is not liaising about roadworks more effectively with small businesses in the rural areas that he represents, and I hope that it will hear his intervention and take action. He is right that we need to ensure that we are investing not just in buses—I will come back to that point—but more generally in the roads that serve rural and urban areas. We have committed more than £2.3 billion for local transport links in smaller towns and villages, which I hope will make a real difference in all the communities where hon. Members have expressed concerns about the quality of bus services.

A key theme that has surfaced in this debate—certainly a lot of Government Members were keen to stress it—is digital connectivity. I hope that the fact that the Government are investing over £1.9 billion in broadband and 4G connectivity will help to give confidence across rural and urban communities that the crucial issue of digital connectivity is being taken forward in a way that supports residents and small businesses. Good digital and transport connections are essential for rural businesses to access markets, suppliers and talent.

As well as taking steps to improve rural infrastructure, we are backing rural entrepreneurs and businesses with finance and advice. The British Business Bank has supported more than 200,000 businesses, in every constituency of the UK, to grow over the past decade. Its regional funds provide vital debt and equity finance to firms outside London and the south-east.

Meanwhile, our nationwide network of growth hubs offers free, impartial guidance to rural enterprises on everything from start-up to scale-up. I hope that the business growth service, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has announced, and which we will say more about shortly, will also help to make a significant difference to rural businesses in terms of the quality of advice that they can access.

Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister acknowledge the disparity in energy price between rural areas and urban areas? Businesses in urban areas can access mains gas and pay 6p per kilowatt for their energy, whereas businesses in rural areas pay 24p per kilowatt for their energy. What a disadvantage that is for rural areas.

Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman underlines the need for significant investment in green energy. Other hon. Members referred to the need to support renewable energy, particularly community renewable energy schemes, as part of the solution to issues around rural prosperity and to tackle the energy challenges that we are all familiar with.

We are investing directly in rural areas through schemes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which is worth £33 million this year. That funding will provide capital grants for new business facilities for product development and community infrastructure improvements that benefit local economies.

We are committed to sustaining vital services and amenities in rural areas. Our £2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming ensures continued investment in environmental land management and nature recovery, underpinning the agriculture sector. We are also working to enhance access to banking, particularly in rural areas, including through the roll-out of banking hubs across the UK by the end of this Parliament.

Rural businesses can also look forward to benefiting from measures such as reforms to the apprenticeship levy, helping them to invest in skills—a key concern that was raised in this debate. I know that rural businesses, as well as businesses in urban areas, are really concerned about that.

We also heard a couple of contributions from hon. Members about the significance of post offices in their communities. Again, I recognise the critical role that post offices play in rural communities, and indeed, the potential for the Post Office to do more. As some hon. Members will know, we are bringing forward a Green Paper on the future of the Post Office shortly, which I hope will give further confidence about the potential for the Post Office to do more in rural areas, as well as more generally.

Jamie Stone Portrait Jamie Stone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will for the last time.

Jamie Stone Portrait Jamie Stone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister may or may not know, although I thank him for it, that a banking hub will shortly open in Wick, in the extreme far north of the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if he could ask his civil servants to come up and take a look at it once it is up and running, because there might be something to learn from it as to how other very remote parts of the UK can be serviced.

Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to invite me to come to Wick, but I will certainly pass on the invitation to my officials. We are keen to learn from the experience of the banking hubs that have worked, that are up and running, and that are now seen as being effective. There is more that the Post Office can do to provide more of the services that banking hubs provide, and we are keen to work with the financial services industry to make sure that that happens.

Hon. Members asked a series of questions about tax and I suspect that we will come back to those issues in a number of forms. I just say gently to the Opposition spokesperson that we inherited a very difficult financial situation—a £22 billion black hole. If we are to provide, as we rightly should, the schools, teachers, hospitals and police forces in rural communities, difficult decisions had to be made about the finances going forward.

Lastly, we also want to make sure that we are opening up new markets for businesses in rural communities to access, which is why the trade deals that we have agreed with the United States, India and—crucially, too—the European Union are so significant. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance of rural businesses to growth across the UK. We know that there is more to do in this space and we are determined to do it.

15:59
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I just reflect on the fact that this debate, far from being a game of constituency bingo, has seen hon. Members from across the House bring forward genuinely new issues and new ideas, for which I am deeply grateful.

I will end on a reminder of the importance of skills and the trade strategy. Just this morning, we were talking in the Transport Committee about the impact of boom and bust on rail infrastructure. We must get the offering right for our young people so that they can better enter training in rural areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for businesses in rural areas.

Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(2 days, 2 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

15:59
Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will call Emma Lewell to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

16:01
Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the removal of asbestos from non-domestic buildings.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. Asbestos was banned in the UK in 1999, yet we still have one of the highest levels of deaths from mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos in the world. Asbestos continues to be the leading cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with the latest figures showing it causes the death of over 5,000 people per year.

This year new data has come to light showing that in my constituency people are dying from asbestos at a higher rate than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. In the north-east, with our legacy of heavy industry, we are sadly no strangers to the harms from asbestos. My generation has grown up surrounded by families whose dads, granddads, uncles and loved ones have suffered horrendous deaths from exposure to asbestos. We now know that even some of their wives have died from inhaling the fibres that were left on their overalls after work.

My own dad was a welder in the shipyards. He once told me about a day in the 1990s when he was told to go and work below deck. When he got there, he could see asbestos floating among and around all the lads he was supposed to join working that day. I remember when I was a little girl and the council came to do some work on our house. My mam asked me to keep out of the way because asbestos was found in our walls.

Just today I spoke to a constituent who worked in a local comprehensive science lab in one of our schools in the 1980s. He told me that after the fume-cupboard mats were changed in six of the schools’ labs, asbestos was disturbed. Upon re-entering the room, he saw thick layers of it on top of the cupboards. He and his colleagues refused to go and work in there, but the school sent all the pupils back into the classrooms regardless.

This is not our history. It is our present, too, because increasing numbers of teachers, school workers, porters, cleaners, caretakers, nurses and military personnel continue to come forward to say that they were exposed to asbestos in their respective workplaces.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I commend the hon. Lady. The stories she tells about her father in the shipyards resonate with me and my constituency. They used to say that the asbestos was almost like clouds of snow; I wonder how anybody could survive that. Between 1985 and 1994, 527 asbestos-related deaths took place, with men making up 88% of them. That suggests that asbestosis continues to be a significant health concern, particularly among the older generations who were exposed to asbestos in the workplace. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must act now and that consideration has to be given to the older generations, who might have been exposed to asbestos in their working days and are now suffering with illnesses as a result?

Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Member for cleverly pre-empting some of what I am going to say in my speech. He is absolutely right, but we also see people coming forward now, so it not just a historical issue. It is something we need to deal with right now, before it gets worse.

I pray to God that I do not end up suffering from it one day, but if our homes and public buildings have led to people being exposed, it is not a stretch to say that I and those around me could also have been exposed and could end up unwell. We know that from the point of feeling unwell to diagnosis can take up to and above 30 years.

Recently, the Daily Mail, as part of its ongoing campaign, revealed an asbestos ticking time bomb in our supermarkets. I am not being alarmist when I say that the investigative work undertaken by journalist Steve Boggan makes it clear that asbestos is all around us, including in this building. Of course, we know that it becomes a risk only when it is disturbed, which is why successive Governments have maintained the policy that if it is left in a reasonable condition, it should not be disturbed. But that is a risky strategy that I would say is no longer valid, because as asbestos ages, it breaks down, which means the deadly fibres are released and then inhaled. Asbestos-related disease is not only in our past and present; it will be in our future if we do not act.

Matt Rodda Portrait Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I commend her for the honesty and sincerity with which she deals with these very difficult issues. She is right that, across the country, a large amount of building stock and commercial properties have this terrible material, and that a large number of illnesses and deaths may well still to be come. Does she agree that it is important for the Government to look at the matter, investigate it further, and see what more can be done to try to prevent the worst?

Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister would also agree, because in his 2022 Work and Pensions Committee report, he asked for a central asbestos register and a deadline for the removal of asbestos from non-domestic buildings. The previous Government rejected that recommendation. Even now, people are still shocked when they discover that, despite the 1999 ban, there is no national database or register and, as a result, the Government do not have a comprehensive picture of where asbestos is. Consequently, there is no strategic plan to have it safely removed.

I thank the Minister for his engagement with me on the issue to date, and for his consideration of a census, whereby it will be mandatory for the owners of non-domestic buildings to advise if their buildings have asbestos or, if the building was built before 1999, they believe it to be there. He has promised to meet me and the Health and Safety Executive as it works towards timelines and a delivery plan, but I hope he can offer some updates today. As we continue to push for net zero and retrofitting, it makes sense that we start to remove asbestos as soon as possible.

I again make the plea that we start the census and the removal of asbestos in South Shields, and that the Minister helps me to discuss with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care a specialist clinical hub for South Shields, to improve diagnosis, care and support.

These are all familiar asks to the Minister, not just from me but from long-time campaigners such as the TUC, Asbestos Information CIC, Mesothelioma UK and so many more who have seen the pain that asbestos causes and are living with it daily. I pay tribute to the work that they have done and continue to do and, in particular, to the kindness that Liz Darlison from Mesothelioma UK and Steve Boggan showed me after I spoke about my lovely grandad at Prime Minister’s questions.

My grandad, John Henry Richardson, was a sheet-metal worker. He worked in shipyards all over the north-east, and then went on to work in the Elsy Gibbons factory, making water tanks. While he was there, they introduced an annual health check scheme, and they found a shadow on his lungs. He retired at 62 through ill health.

Grandad always had a terrible cough and had struggled with his breathing for years, but because he worked in heavy industry, no one thought it was serious. In our area in the ’80s and ’90s, most men who worked in heavy industry had persistent coughs. As my mam said, everyone thought that was just part of the job. Grandad ended up with three inhalers and could not walk anywhere, even to the local shops. It would take him half an hour just to walk down the small flight of stairs in his house because he had to stop on every single one to catch his breath.

My grandad spent the first five years of his forced retirement travelling all over the country for medical tests, and at constant hospital appointments. He kept saying that the Government were hoping he would die before they had to pay out his compensation. When he was 69 years old, he was admitted to hospital with a heart attack because his heart could no longer take the pressure. After nearly a week in hospital, he suffered another heart attack. He was surrounded by my family, listening to the slow, dying breaths of this smart, kind, gentle, hard-working family man as his heart broke away. A little piece of ours broke away with him too. He died in a hospital that most likely had asbestos in it, and those caring for him have probably also gone on to suffer from this awful disease, which will continue to haunt the north-east and elsewhere for generations to come.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful, personal speech, which is extremely important. Does she agree that it is not just the likes of her grandad and all those who worked in heavy industry, manufacturing, the pits and shipbuilding who are suffering from the likes of mesothelioma? As she said, it is now about where the asbestos currently lies—in Parliament, schools, police stations, town halls and NHS buildings. Asbestos-related diseases, particularly mesothelioma, have a latency period of up to 40 years, so the problem has not gone away. In this country, 5,000 people die of mesothelioma every year—more than in road traffic accidents—so we have got to get a grip on it.

Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend, my colleague from the north-east, for that powerful intervention. He is absolutely right: in my grandad’s time, we did not know about the risk from those devastating fibres, but we now do, so we absolutely cannot let this happen to anybody else.

The last time the House debated this issue was under a Conservative Government. We now have a Labour Government, and it is in our party’s DNA to do right by workers and the people we represent. The memories of those we lost mean that the sufferers of this silent killer, and I, will certainly not be silent until the Minister gives us what we are asking for, and what he asked for previously before he was elevated to his current esteemed position.

16:13
Stephen Timms Portrait The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western—for the first time, I think—and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) for bringing this important debate to the House. She made the point that this is the first time under the current Government that we have had the opportunity to debate this issue, so I congratulate her on securing this debate.

I share in the grief of all those who, like my hon. Friend, have lost somebody close to them as a consequence of exposure to asbestos. As she and others reminded us, it is still by far the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK—it is responsible for 5,000-plus deaths per year—and many people live with the impact of asbestos-related disease. I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of the journalist Steve Boggan, who has highlighted this topic very helpfully.

Hanging in my office in the House of Commons, a few yards from here, I currently have a portrait of Mavis Nye and her husband, Ray. Ray Nye became an apprentice in the Chatham dockyard in 1953 and worked there for a number of years. Asbestos was everywhere. In 1957, during his apprenticeship, he met Mavis. He refers to that encounter as

“the most wonderful thing ever to enter my life”.

They married, and Mavis used to launder his overalls. At some point she breathed in asbestos dust. Fifty years later, in 2009, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

We have heard about very long latency periods. It appears that in Mavis’s case, it was 50 years before she was diagnosed. Thanks to pioneering treatment at the Royal Marsden hospital, she lived for another 14 years. She and Ray established the Mavis Nye Foundation to inspire mesothelioma victims. She was a force of nature. She sadly died in 2023, but it was her wish that her portrait should be hung in the House of Commons. In fulfilment of that wish, it hangs in my office this afternoon. It will soon be returned to Ray, but I am glad that we have been able to fulfil that wish and help celebrate the contribution of a remarkable woman—just one of the many thousands who have died as a result of earlier asbestos exposure in the last couple of years.

In Britain we have a mature and well-established approach to the management of asbestos in buildings. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive and other regulators, requires duty holders to assess whether asbestos is present, what condition it is in and whether it gives rise to a risk of exposure. The duty holder must then draw up a plan to manage the risk associated with asbestos, which must include removal if it cannot be safely managed where it remains. There is an existing legal obligation for duty holders to remove degrading asbestos and to share details of asbestos in their premises with people who work regularly in a building and may potentially disturb or damage materials which contain asbestos.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I place on record my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the sterling work that he has done with regard to mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease in the past, but what has been mentioned is not working. We need the same as in other parts of this nation, where there has been a programme of statutory removal, but we are not doing that here in England. I wonder if my right hon. Friend can say why we are different from other nations of the UK.

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will come on to address exactly the point that my hon. Friend raises. He is absolutely right to do so. Let me just make the point that asbestos does need to be removed before any major refurbishment work or before demolition. Under current arrangements it will eventually be removed, albeit over an extremely long time.

There are around 40,000 notifications of asbestos removal jobs every year. The HSE inspects to check that duty holders are managing asbestos effectively, both in the public and commercial sectors. Those inspections, I am pleased to say, have been significantly stepped up since the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report published in April 2022, at a time when I was Chair of the Committee, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred. That report was critical of the decline in the number of asbestos inspections and enforcement notices since 2010. The report pointed out that between 2011-12 and 2018-19, while the total number of enforcement notices from the HSE fell by 10%, the number of asbestos enforcement notices had fallen by 60% to less than 200 in the year 2018-19.

Increased activity by the HSE on asbestos since then has seen the overall number of enforcement notices climb to over 300 under the Control of Asbestos Regulations in 2024-25. Inspection activity is a means of providing assurance that the regulations are effective and that those with duties are complying with them. For example, between September 2022 and March 2025, HSE inspectors have visited over 1,000 schools to inspect their arrangements for managing asbestos. They found good levels of compliance in those 1,000 schools with the responsibilities to manage the risk of asbestos—albeit with 8% requiring enforcement notice action to improve their performance. This is particularly important given, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the proportionately higher number of cases of asbestos-related diseases among retired teachers compared with other professions. So it is right to focus on schools as a particularly pressing issue, along with hospitals and NHS premises, which she also mentioned. In the last year—2024-25—this work was expanded to include inspections of local authority head offices and premises. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) referred to council buildings as being of concern, and he is absolutely right to do so, so current plans for this year—2025-26—include a further 600 visits to schools and local authorities to be completed by March next year.

The HSE is also focused on the management of asbestos in commercial sectors. In 2024-25, its inspections dealt with the management of asbestos more than 2,330 times. Of the buildings found to contain asbestos, 40% required either written advice or an enforcement notice. This was the first year of a multi-year focus on asbestos in commercial sectors.

Together with the guidance on asbestos published on the HSE website, communications campaigns are important in raising awareness and understanding. The Asbestos—Your Duty campaign was launched in January last year to reach those responsible for the maintenance and repair of non-domestic buildings built before 2000 and to raise awareness of the legal duty to manage asbestos. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington made the point that the current arrangements are not always working, and we need to draw people’s attention to their legal responsibilities. That campaign is running alongside the Asbestos & You campaign, which focuses on reducing exposure to asbestos for tradespeople.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Can my right hon. Friend say if there are any records of the children who were in the same working environment as a lot of the teachers who, sadly, have passed on? Is it the duty of the inspectorate or a responsibility of a Department to hold records of the children in that working environment who might wait 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years before a little tick of asbestos dust triggers mesothelioma?

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. I am not aware of any data about that. From time to time, however, one hears of or comes across people who have succumbed to mesothelioma in their 20s or 30s, and an obvious possibility is that they were exposed at school to the dangerous asbestos that led to that catastrophic outcome.

Both my hon. Friends have pressed the case for asbestos to be removed, and I want us to have a better understanding of the size and scale of the asbestos legacy in the built environment and an evidence base for future strategic decisions on removal. I have been working on this with the HSE since last July. I chaired a roundtable event with stakeholders last October to explore the issue and consider what we need to tackle Britain’s asbestos legacy effectively.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the Work and Pensions Committee made a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a national digital register of all workplace asbestos, bringing together into one accessible place all the separate records maintained—all over the place—by law at the moment. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 already require duty holders either to survey premises constructed before asbestos was banned or assume that it is present. A lot of duty holders commission external consultants to fulfil their obligations under the regulations, and they maintain records on their own databases, so compiling a national register would be a less gargantuan task than may initially be assumed. Establishing a national register would require significant resource from duty holders and the Government, at a time when resources are tight. With the HSE, I am looking at how we can develop better information on asbestos in buildings, and on ways of gathering a robust and reliable dataset to provide the foundation to inform longer-term strategy for the removal of asbestos.

If we cannot at this stage commit to a national register, a one-off asbestos census may be the way to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields suggested. The solution is likely to be a phased approach to improving information on buildings containing asbestos, to help us build an objective and reliable evidence base. A better understanding of the costs and associated impacts for the Government’s own estate—schools, hospitals and so on—would be a good place to start, before considering wider roll out. HSE is considering how best to take that forward in a way that will ensure we can obtain reliable, standardised data.

Alongside that, HSE is supporting digitalisation of built environment data, using building information modelling, or BIM. That approach enables improvements to the identification, recording, sharing and use of information on health and safety risks such as asbestos. The possibility of a surge in asbestos removal, triggered by actions on the part of the Government, needs to be planned for. Asbestos requires specialised waste disposal and removal, in many instances by licensed contractors. We would need to avoid the risk of duty holders removing asbestos without proper controls, and not disposing of it at licensed sites. That would present a significant exposure risk in itself.

In March, I attended part of the HSE’s asbestos research summit, which took place in Manchester. That brought together world-leading experts on asbestos, with duty holders, employer groups and mesothelioma support groups. I am pleased to say Liz Darlison was there. The summit was to inform where we should focus our efforts to ensure we continue to understand the nature of the asbestos exposure risk across the country.

Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can tell the Minister is coming towards the end of his comments. I know resources are tight but people are dying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) said, at a rate of 5,000 a year. As the Minister knows from the start of my speech, that is happening in my constituency at a faster rate than anywhere else in the country. Could he consider beginning a census in my patch of South Shields so that we can trial it and see how it works?

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I welcome the opportunity to discuss that proposal with my hon. Friend, to see what we can do. At the research summit, we talked about the need to ensure that everybody involved in the asbestos ecosystem understood their role and the impact their behaviours can have in preventing exposure for themselves and others through their activity at work.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the Asbestos Victims Support Group’s case against Cape plc, the producer of asbestos, and the claim for £10 million for research and development. If so, does the Minister support the claim?

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am aware of that claim, and think there is a strong case. The HSE is working through the suggestions from the research summit to develop a broader programme and will publish the areas of focus for research later in the year. The aim is that that prospectus will shape work in this field for decades to come. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of work under way and a lot more progress still to be made. My hon. Friends are absolutely right to make the case for the goal of an asbestos-free Great Britain and a plan for asbestos to be removed across the country. I am grateful to them and others for continuing to press the case and for their support. I look forward to further discussions with them, and agree that we still need to do a great deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Political Prisoners

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(2 days, 2 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

16:30
Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the detention of Jimmy Lai and other political prisoners internationally.

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I speak today on behalf of my constituent Jimmy Lai, who has been detained abroad since December 2020. Mr Lai was on trial for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition through his work as a newspaper publisher. The offence has been ruled unlawful and arbitrary by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. I called for this debate to draw attention to what Mr Lai has suffered over the course of his detention and to bring together parliamentarians from across the House to speak with one voice on the matter of his detention and the detention of other political prisoners abroad.

Mr Lai is a much-loved father and grandfather, and a British citizen. He is 77 years of age, and is being held in solitary confinement in the blistering Hong Kong heat. This will be his fourth summer suffering temperatures that regularly reach 40°.

Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I make this intervention with your indulgence, Mr Western, because I am engaged in another debate in the main Chamber, and I apologise to the hon. Lady because my intervention deals with another individual, although I fully support her and congratulate her on raising the Jimmy Lai case, which I have argued many times. I hope she makes her case, and I am sure she will—it is a terrible thing.

However, there are other cases, and the person I want to mention, who is often forgotten, is Ryan Cornelius. He has been incarcerated for 17 years in the United Arab Emirates. The UN has said exactly the same: this is an illegal incarceration for which there is no legal basis. He has often been in solitary confinement. The British Government—not this one, necessarily, but all Governments—have too often failed to raise his case in the way they should. I mention the case because the Foreign Office needs to do its duty in raising it, regardless of the business deals that it wants to make.

Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our task today and for raising that important case.

Despite Mr Lai’s being told that his trial would last only 80 days, today marks the 1,630th day of his detention. Every day that he is detained, his health deteriorates further and his family rightly worry about his chances of survival in prison. The detention of Mr Lai is a human tragedy that undermines the very principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law on which our international order relies. The idea that a British citizen can be detained by a foreign Government for standing up and expressing the British values of democracy and freedom of speech is an affront to all of us in this House, and across the country, who hold those principles dear.

Mr Lai’s son Sebastien has campaigned tirelessly and admirably for his father’s release; I know that many hon. Members here have had the honour of hearing directly from him and Mr Lai’s legal counsel. At this very moment, Sebastien is addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and recently he has been in the United States and Canada to meet senior officials and lawmakers in both countries. Next week, he travels to Brussels to meet European parliamentarians and the European External Action Service.

James Naish Portrait James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She has just mentioned Canada; I understand that the Canadians are considering granting honorary citizenship to Jimmy Lai, as a small but significant contribution to demonstrating their commitment to him. Does she agree that that is something that the British Government could consider?

Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; later in my remarks, I will come on to using all possible levers to secure Mr Lai’s freedom.

When Sebastien is at home, he is my constituent—a man deeply concerned about his father’s welfare. That is the position in which I speak to the Chamber today: as a Member of Parliament standing up for my constituents in the face of unbelievable, state-sanctioned cruelty.

I am grateful for the work of this Government and Members across the House to secure Mr Lai’s freedom. Already, Sebastien has met people across Government, and it has been encouraging to see the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister call for Mr Lai’s immediate and unconditional release. We cannot stay silent while Mr Lai remains detained. The Government calls for his release are welcome, but I want to see those included urgently in any trade negotiations and international meetings that Ministers of all Departments conduct with their Chinese counterparts.

I also support the calls for the Prime Minister to meet Sebastien to discuss his father’s case. We must use every lever at our disposal to make the case for Mr Lai’s safe return. The attention and time of our most senior politicians represent a clear signal from our Government that we will not let the international spotlight shift from Mr Lai’s arbitrary and illegal detention.

Mr Lai is not the only British person to be detained politically overseas. He was not the first and he will not be the last, and this debate is about the wider issue of unlawful detention. We cannot forget Craig and Lindsay Foreman or Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British citizens who remain imprisoned in Iran and Egypt, respectively. The events of the past few weeks, months and years have shown that inter-state relations have significant potential to get more tense, not less, and with that comes the potential for more political imprisonment of British nationals. We need to ensure that all British citizens imprisoned overseas have the same support and advocacy that Jimmy Lai has had.

Every day that my constituent Mr Lai remains in detention abroad is a day that the life and health of a British citizen is put at risk by a foreign state, and another day when democracy is undermined across the world. We must bring him home and we must bring him home now.

16:38
Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. It is heartening—at least, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of this debate, but I think there will be cross-party unity on this issue, and an important statement from the UK Parliament not only to our Government, but to the world that we stand united behind the need to free Jimmy Lai. I am honoured to speak on his behalf.

Recently, I met Sebastien Lai and his legal team in Parliament. I was struck by the determination that Jimmy Lai’s son is demonstrating, not just here in the UK, but around the world, to galvanise international diplomatic support. There are expressions of support from the US Congress, other international organisations and Parliaments around the world. I am afraid it feels as though the UK Government are lagging behind, particularly when we remember that we are talking about a British citizen.

As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, Jimmy has now been imprisoned for more than four years. He has been imprisoned under the Chinese state’s Hong Kong national security law, which effectively criminalises democracy and citizens’ freedom of speech against the Communist dictatorship. He has been denied his choice of legal representation and refused access to independent specialist medical treatment in prison. In October last year, Amnesty International recognised Mr Lai as a prisoner of conscience, and in November the UN working group on arbitrary detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, and called for his immediate release.

As I said, the call for Jimmy’s release is backed by not just the United States of America, but Australia, the Canadian Parliament and the European Parliament. I learned from my meeting with Sebastien and the legal team that his trial has been the victim of an abuse of process; it was originally set for a date earlier this year, but it was pushed back and adjourned and we now have a trial date for 14 August this year. Procedural rules have been perverted and twisted against Mr Lai’s legal team. We can see this for what it is: a perversion of justice and a distortion of human rights.

I am very concerned about the actions that the Government do not seem to be taking at this time. I come here in the spirit of collaboration and cross-party unity, but I worry about the backsliding by the Government, particularly in the case of Jimmy Lai. I have several questions for the Minister about the case, which I hope he will address. What conversations have there been between the Foreign Secretary and his opposite number in the Chinese Communist party? What specific discussions has the Prime Minister himself had about Jimmy Lai’s case and prospects for his release? In their pursuit of closer economic ties with China, what actions have other Departments, notably the Treasury, taken to use the dialogue that they so value with the Communist party as an effective means of diplomacy and to do the right thing—in other words, to release Jimmy?

Gregory Campbell Portrait Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As the right hon. Lady is posing her questions to the Minister, perhaps she will come to this one, but if she does not, will she agree to add that the Government need to get together a coalition of international Governments who are on our side—she has already named some—to put significant pressure on the Chinese authorities to do the right thing and release Jimmy Lai?

Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Absolutely. The irony cannot be lost on us that this is a clear case of human rights violations. I note that the legal team representing Mr Lai hails from Doughty Street Chambers—a renowned human rights chambers in London and the old stomping-ground of our very own Prime Minister. If there were ever a human rights case for the Prime Minister to work on and be an advocate for, this is it. I can imagine that many years ago, he might well have taken up this case, had it come through the doors of Doughty Street Chambers. We have our very own human rights lawyer in Downing Street; if there were ever a time for him to deploy his legal skills, his human rights zeal and his passion for civil liberties, it is here and now, on behalf of our British citizen Jimmy Lai. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for his comments.

I will finish by recalling my experience at the Home Office and by asking the Minister some further questions on the broader issue of China. We are supposed to be challenging China, not appeasing it. At the Home Office, I saw the impact of Chinese bellicosity in the UK. The list is too long for this Chamber, but in recent years we have been on the receiving end of prolific and malicious cyber-activity by APT10—one of the best known hacking groups—on behalf of the Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army; the targeting of UK parliamentarians and diplomats; vulnerable policing and security services due to the prevalence of the digital asbestos of Chinese technology; transnational repression of Chinese dissidents in the UK through “Chinese police stations”; Confucius Institutes throughout UK academia, many of which are run effectively by the Chinese Communist party under the guise of their “Chinese talent programmes”; covert and unlawful acquisition of data; espionage; supply chain disruption and control of critical national infrastructure disguised as investment.

As Home Secretary, I enacted the National Security Act 2023, which set about injecting more transparency into how China does business and carries out activities in the UK. I have been urging the Government to list China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. They still have not done that, and they seem to be refusing to. I ask the Minister: on what grounds, particularly in the light of the human rights violations of Jimmy Lai, can the Government possibly justify not listing China on the enhanced tier of that scheme, if we are to take the threat posed by China seriously for the grave one it is? In conclusion, Jimmy Lai is an elderly man, a British citizen and the victim of grotesque human rights abuses. If we, in this House—and this Government—cannot stand up for him, then we do not deserve to be here.

16:46
Douglas McAllister Portrait Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and congratulate and commend her on all she is doing to help secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and her tireless work to keep his case high on the political agenda of this House, the media and the public.

Today’s debate references other political prisoners. I would like to highlight the current ongoing arbitrary detention of my West Dunbartonshire constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal. Jagtar is a British national, who has been arbitrarily detained in India since 2017 on political charges carrying the death penalty, based on a confession extracted under torture. On 4 March 2025, Jagtar was acquitted of all charges in a case at the district and sessions court in Moga, Punjab, after the court rejected the allegations against him made by Indian authorities. Prosecutors had seven years to present credible evidence against Jagtar and failed to do so.

However, Jagtar has not been released because he is facing eight other cases, which are essentially duplicates—all are based on the same so-called “confession”: his name signed on a blank piece of paper after police tortured him with electricity and brought petrol into his cell and threatened to burn him alive. For Jagtar to remain imprisoned after his acquittal while standing trial in other cases based on the same facts, torture confession and inadmissible and unreliable witness evidence, would be a mockery of justice. Under the double jeopardy principle, which protects people from being put on trial twice for the same crime—and is enshrined in both international law and India’s constitution—the remaining cases against him should be dropped.

Following his acquittal, Jagtar’s conditions in prison have deteriorated significantly, and he has been placed in a solitary cell. Speaking to the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs on 2 April 2025, Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet said:

“Jagtar’s conditions in prison have deteriorated. He’s had his basic privileges taken away, and he’s isolated in a cell on his own, not allowed to speak to other prisoners…As a result, he’s feeling mentally tortured.”

His family report that those more stringent conditions continue to date, and are affecting Jagtar mentally. As a result, Jagtar’s family are becoming increasingly concerned for his wellbeing.

The UN working group on arbitrary detention found in May 2022 that, under international law, Jagtar’s detention is arbitrary and lacks any legal basis, and that his fair trial rights had been gravely violated. It determined that Jagtar’s detention was based on discriminatory grounds owing to his Sikh faith and status as a human rights defender, and that he was subject to torture. The UN called for Jagtar to be immediately released.

The UK Government must act now to secure Jagtar’s release. This moment in time is a unique opportunity to secure a resolution with Indian authorities and bring this young British man back to his family in Dumbarton in my home of West Dunbartonshire. Without decisive diplomatic action, he faces being imprisoned for decades while the remaining trials drag on despite the complete lack of credible evidence against him.

I joined the APPG on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs because of my constituent’s detention, and it was there that I learned about Jimmy Lai and the other UK citizens unlawfully detained across the world as political prisoners. I implore my Government to redouble their efforts in securing the release of Jimmy, Jagtar, Ryan and all our unlawfully detained constituents.

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I would like to get everyone in with about equal amounts of time. Hopefully, we can do so with four minutes each.

16:51
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for setting the scene so well. I have spoken about the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai on many other occasions in Westminster Hall and asked questions about it in the Chamber. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, because I want to mention the human rights that have been denied to him.

Democracy has been ignored. The hard hand of China and the Hong Kong authorities has come down strongly on democrats, of which Jimmy Lai is one, whose only crime was to speak up for democracy, liberty and freedom. It seems to me that those democrats did that without violence, but with a verbal strength, and I commend them for it. Hong Kong was once a bastion of western principles. I have supported many debates on it and sponsored pro-Hong Kong democracy events in this House to highlight Jimmy Lai and others.

The Chinese Communist party has denied Jimmy Lai his right to worship his God with freedom. He is a practising Roman Catholic. He is not able to have the mass he wants or the freedom of religious worship that he had before he was put in prison—for some 1,630 days, let us remember. His health has deteriorated and he is in a worsened condition.

Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. I say this circumspectly and with great respect to the Minister and the Government: there was a time when a British passport meant more than it perhaps means today. There was a gunboat diplomacy in that. If a UK citizen was under threat, they could expect the full weight of British authority to be used on their behalf. That does not happen today. But what we do, or try to do—the Minister and the Government do this all the time—is exercise the diplomacy that we need to.

Jimmy Lai’s staunch criticism of the Chinese Government led to his arrest in 2020. His story is a rallying point for those defending democratic values and human rights in the face of increasing authoritarianism. His trial began in December 2023, with his son Sebastien fighting for his release. Jimmy Lai testified for 52 days. Closing arguments were scheduled for August 2025. The 77-year-old has lived in Hong Kong since he was 12 years old. Having stowed away on a fishing boat from China and worked as a child labourer in a garment factory, he built up a fashion empire. He has been an advocate for democracy since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China. He set up a magazine in Hong Kong.

Jimmy Lai has never held a Chinese or Hong Kong passport. Hong Kong authorities deem him to be a Chinese citizen because he was born in mainland China, even though he is as British as what you are, Mr Western, and what I am. Mr Lai has homes all over the world. It is only right that we advocate for his release.

I am reminded of Romans 12:18:

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

That is a call not only to personal conduct, but to public policy. It urges us to pursue peace, and I believe that we should do that in every way we can—not passively, but intentionally, as far as it depends on us.

My request today is to free Jimmy Lai. I hope the Chinese Government are listening—they are probably not listening to Jim Shannon, the MP for Strangford. Perhaps they are not listening to any of us. I am one of those people who could not go to China even if I wanted to. I have no wish to go to China, by the way, Mr Western. You will never see me on a plane going that way, and never see me on the beaches, wherever they have beaches in China. I am interested in human rights and freedom of religious belief. Jimmy Lai should be freed.

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. We will now formally make speeches four minutes long.

16:55
Tony Vaughan Portrait Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this vital debate. I commend her for her work fiercely fighting for her constituents. I declare an interest in this debate as the chair of the all-party parliamentary China group.

Jimmy Lai’s situation is desperate and his treatment wholly unacceptable. I am deeply concerned by the treatment that Mr Lai, a 77-year-old British citizen, has received at the hands of the Hong Kong authorities. He has been a tireless campaigner for democracy and human rights in Hong Kong. He has already been sentenced to five years and nine months in prison for a separate case relating to his now closed newspaper, Apple Daily. His lawyers have confirmed that he has been denied independent medical care and is allowed out of his cell for a mere 50 minutes a day. That is inhuman treatment. He is a frail, elderly man who is 77, has diabetes and has lost considerable weight, yet he remains a man of immense courage and unyielding spirit—qualities to which I want to pay tribute today. If he is found guilty he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

As chair of the APPG, I have raised Jimmy Lai’s case in person several times with Chinese officials, including in January when I visited Beijing as part of a visit by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. The Chinese believe it is an internal matter for them, but raising his case firmly has been my duty. It is important that a message is sent by this House and by UK parliamentarians that his treatment is not acceptable.

Blair McDougall Portrait Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an important point about making the case to China. Does he agree with me that this is about more than just Jimmy Lai, because the rights that Jimmy Lai was exercising when he was arrested were guaranteed under the joint declaration, and that brings into question whether China is a reliable partner on all sorts of other international agreements, too?

Tony Vaughan Portrait Tony Vaughan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must not forget that Hong Kong still, it is said, has a common law system, so Hong Kong must observe the common law and the basic principles attached to a fair trial. That is the bedrock of what the common law is about. It has been a privilege and inspiring for me to meet Sebastien Lai and his father’s lawyers. I pay tribute to them and their work.

Because of our fundamentally different political and economic systems, conceptions of democracy and human rights in China and in Britain will inevitably be different. But we must not relent from pushing and raising the case, given that Hong Kong has a common law system, and the international obligations that apply to China and Hong Kong must be upheld. I was encouraged to see that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case when he met President Xi at the G20 in Brazil. I urge the Prime Minister to meet Mr Lai’s son and his lawyers. The UK must of course work closely with our allies to continue to raise his case with officials at every level of the Chinese Communist party. China and Hong Kong should understand that Mr Lai’s case and the treatment that he has received is damaging the standing of China and Hong Kong in the world.

But beyond questions of legality, reputation and soft power lies the case of a frail, elderly man who deserves better, more humane treatment. I call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai.

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am afraid I am going to have to reduce speeches to three minutes.

16:59
Connor Rand Portrait Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate and on her powerful advocacy.

I want to focus specifically on the Jimmy Lai case and what it means to the sizeable Hong Kong diaspora that I am fortunate enough and proud to represent in Altrincham and Sale West. First, I briefly pay tribute to Jimmy Lai and the Lai family. I have been fortunate enough to meet Sebastien Lai, and I was struck by his dignity and resolve in the face of unimaginable difficulty. He told me in stark terms of his fear for his father’s health, and he was honest in saying that we are in a race against time to secure Jimmy’s release. I told Sebastien that I would do whatever I could to push and press our Government for his father’s release.

I have made the same promise to my Hongkonger constituents because for them the case feels deeply personal. It is a poignant illustration of why they were forced out of their homeland and a chilling reminder of what could happen to the loved ones they left behind. It is a reminder that, as one of them said to me, “If it can happen to Jimmy, it can happen to anyone.”

Every day that Jimmy Lai spends in jail, every bounty placed on pro-democracy activists and parliamentarians, and every act of Chinese aggression here and abroad strikes yet more fear into the hearts of Hongkongers in my community and around the world. That is one of the reasons why the case matters so much: not just because Jimmy’s release is morally right and not just because it would reunite an innocent man with his loving family, but because his ongoing imprisonment sends a message that China can disregard freedom with impunity. We must change that.

I know that the Government have raised the case repeatedly, but the situation has not changed—things are clearly not working, and historically the UK has a poor record of securing the release of UK citizens detained abroad. I ask the Minister: what new strategies can we adopt? Other Members have referred to trade talks, but surely, alongside important security considerations, the case must be an influencing factor in the decision on whether to approve a Chinese mega-embassy here in London.

I know that the Government will consider those questions and what more they can do to secure Jimmy’s release, in keeping with our party’s proud history of standing up for human rights wherever we can.

17:02
Warinder Juss Portrait Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), sitting on my right, who is Jagtar Singh Johal’s MP. It is about Jagtar that I will speak this afternoon.

Jagtar Singh Johal is a Sikh, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Although Jagtar is not one of my constituents, I represent the Wolverhampton West constituency, which has a large and engaged Sikh population. Not only the Sikh population but non-Sikh constituents have expressed deep concern about Jagtar’s treatment and have consistently urged me to encourage the UK Government to take meaningful action. The allegations of torture, the length of detention without trial and the lack of due process in Jagtar’s case amount to a serious and unacceptable breach of international human rights. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has concluded that his detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law.

On 6 November 2024, during Prime Minister’s questions, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire mentioned that Jagtar’s imprisonment had reached its seventh year. The Prime Minister replied:

“We are committed to pushing the Government of India on this important case. The Foreign Secretary has raised it and will continue to do so”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 302.]

I would like to know what developments have taken place since then.

In March this year, the Punjab district court found that there was no credible evidence for the terrorism and conspiracy charge brought against Mr Johal, and that he was not a member of a terrorist gang. However, he still faces eight charges, which are based on the same alleged confession and evidence on which his acquittal took place. He faces the death penalty. Jagtar has never been convicted of a crime, yet is in solitary confinement 24/7 and subject to surveillance.

Following the acquittal on the charges mentioned earlier, we now have a window of opportunity to secure Jagtar’s release and bring him home to his country and family. We must use all the diplomatic channels available to us to press for Jagtar’s release; the situation cannot be allowed to continue. As we often say, justice delayed is justice denied. Like others mentioned this afternoon, Jagtar Singh Johal has waited for far too long.

16:19
Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I put on the record my interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs.

I am going to speak in general terms about the issue of state hostage taking and arbitrary detention. Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about some of the cases and the constituents for whom they are fighting for so powerfully. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about Ryan Cornelius, who has now been in prison for 17 years and in May 2018 was sentenced to a further 20 years, meaning that he will not leave prison in the Emirates until he is 84. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), who spoke strongly about his constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal. Many of us will know of the case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah as well. The individuals in those cases, along with Jimmy Lai, have something in common: they are considered by the UN working group on arbitrary detention to be arbitrarily detained. Their rights have been trampled on and they are being incarcerated effectively unlawfully, without any due process or regard.

When we talk about victims of arbitrary detention, we need to remember the impact on their families as well as on them. Ryan Cornelius’s son was six years old when his father was imprisoned; he is now 23. Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s mother, Laila, has been on hunger strike for some time now. The impact still scars those lucky enough to have been released. I saw Matthew Hedges last week and hon. Members will have met Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband Richard, who fought so powerfully for her release.

We need to have a conversation about why the UK struggles, in some cases, to free its citizens from arbitrary detention abroad. I have the highest regard for the Minister and our excellent diplomats, but the Foreign Affairs Committee report “Stolen years”, from the previous Parliament, highlighted some clear failings in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office approach to those who are arbitrarily detained. It talked about the need for urgency and to be clear about when our citizens are facing torture, interrogation and having their rights trampled on. Indeed, the case of Ahmed al-Doush is being considered at the moment by the UN working group on arbitrary detention because the UK has not explicitly said that it believes his rights are being trampled on. Saudi Arabia has said, “Well, the United Kingdom has not raised any issue about his rights being trampled on” and uses that as an argument in the working group itself. We have to be extremely clear when we see our citizens’ rights being traduced.

James Naish Portrait James Naish
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The number of organisations involved was referenced earlier; in the case of Jimmy Lai, different countries and Congress have also lined up in support. What are my hon Friend’s reflections on the fact that even the support of all those organisations is still not making a difference?

Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sometimes seems that the full glare of publicity is needed to make any progress with a case; I am thinking particularly of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. As hon. Members have said, perhaps there is an argument for our being much more assertive in dealing with such cases—not to look solely through the lens of geopolitics, but to consider clearly and squarely the first priority of all Governments: defending their citizens. Other countries seem to have a better record on that.

Clearly, there are things that we can be doing. I am looking forward, hopefully, to a Government announcement about a special envoy of some sort whose sole role would be to focus on getting British citizens out of these horrible situations. I believe that a cultural change probably needs to happen in the FCDO as well. We need to change what Chris Patten calls “by the way” diplomacy; he mentioned it when he was with Sebastien Lai at one of our hearings. At the end of a high-level conversation between a Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister it is, “By the way, this person is arbitrarily detained by you.” That does not give the sense of urgency and importance that the case deserves.

We can do much more. I am sure that the Government will be enacting the recommendations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says because the issue is about serving British citizens and getting them out of horrible situations.

17:09
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on bringing forward this debate on behalf of not only her constituent, but everybody who cares about freedom and democracy across the world.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned about British nationals being detained abroad without due process or fair legal justification. That is not just a matter of foreign policy, but one of principle, human rights and our duty to protect British citizens wherever they may be. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He is a courageous journalist, a businessman and a tireless advocate for democracy in Hong Kong. Since 2020, he has been unjustly imprisoned by the Chinese authorities.

Jimmy Lai is also a father, and his son has continued his good work with the same courage. I had the privilege of meeting Jimmy’s son Sebastien and hearing at first hand the story of his father’s resistance to being silenced. Sebastien spoke movingly about the family’s ordeal following his father’s imprisonment, and of his father’s unwavering commitment to the values of freedom and democracy. It was a powerful reminder that behind every political prisoner is a resilient family enduring unimaginable emotional pain.

For nearly two years, Mr Lai has endured solitary confinement, but his crime is nothing more than speaking up for the freedom and democracy we all believe in. This man has risked everything for the values we hold dear, yet the UK Government have failed to secure his release for the last five years. Can the Minister update the House on the detail and nature of the conversations he has had with his Chinese counterparts? On the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), we are worried that they may have part of “by the way” diplomacy and that the issue has not been raised in enough serious detail. The read-outs from the high-profile visits have not really told us anything, so I would appreciate it if the Minister told us more.

I also question the merits of high-profile visits when so little progress has been made on key diplomatic issues such as this one and on the transnational repression happening on our shores. Can the Minister tell us when the long-promised China audit be published, and will he intervene on the plans for a Chinese super-embassy in our capital?

Jimmy Lai deserves to be at the top of our diplomatic engagement with China, but he is not alone. We are also deeply concerned about the continued detention of Jagtar Singh Johal in India. Arrested in 2017, Mr Johal has reportedly been tortured and held without due process. A UN working group has declared his detention arbitrary and called for his immediate release, yet the UK Government have still refused to take a clear position. That must change.

In Egypt, British citizen Alaa Abd el-Fattah remains in prison for the simple act of sharing a Facebook post. He has endured hunger strikes, inhumane conditions and the heartbreak of a family fighting for justice. His mother Laila has been hospitalised in protest, and we must do more.

These are not isolated incidents, but part of a disturbing pattern in which British nationals are detained abroad without fair trial, without consular access and with the Government’s diplomatic efforts falling on deaf ears. I believe that says something about Britain’s new standing in the world. After pulling back on multiple fronts, the Government must act now to restore our global role.

The Foreign Office claims to support 20,000 to 25,000 British nationals abroad each year, including thousands who are detained, but too often that support is discretionary, inconsistent and opaque. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a legal right to consular assistance for all British nationals, including dual nationals, who are politically detained or face human rights violations abroad. We also support the appointment of a dedicated envoy for hostages and detainees, although that must not come at the expense of ministerial accountability.

Britain should never abandon its own people for the sake of tiny diplomatic gains. Nations such as China and others are not weighing up whether we have been polite about them when drawing conclusions on large economic trade deals; they are calculating the cold hard facts. It is our duty not to be silent in the face of injustice, and I believe that doing so also signals our strength. We should not rest until Jimmy Lai and all others unjustly detained are free.

17:10
Andrew Rosindell Portrait Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing the debate and for defending so courageously Jimmy Lai. He is not merely her constituent; he is one of us. He is a British citizen, and as such he deserves the full protection, advocacy and diplomatic support that the United Kingdom extends to all its nationals under threat abroad.

I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken up today for Jimmy and other political prisoners who are unlawfully detained. His Majesty’s Opposition will always support the Government in all their efforts to free British citizens who are locked up unlawfully in parts of the world where regimes carry out such atrocities.

Mr Lai, of course, is currently imprisoned in Hong Kong under Beijing’s draconian and unaccountable national security law, which has criminalised dissent and dismantled every safeguard that once distinguished Hong Kong from the Chinese mainland. Jimmy Lai is being persecuted for the crime of believing in democracy, for founding Apple Daily, one of Hong Kong’s most popular pro-democracy newspapers, and for calling out the encroachment of the Chinese Communist party into the life of the city that once, under the British Crown, enjoyed liberty, autonomy and the rule of law. He has done all that at the age of 77, despite his serious health conditions.

Beijing has trampled on the promises made in the Sino-British joint declaration, a treaty lodged at the United Nations and signed in good faith. That agreement guaranteed Hong Kong’s freedom, rule of law and way of life, but today those guarantees lie in tatters and people such as Jimmy are paying the price.

Despite the cruelty inflicted upon him, Jimmy Lai’s spirit remains unbroken. His quiet defiance calls to mind the courage of dissidents during the final years of the cold war—acts of resistance that were welcomed and celebrated by leaders across the democratic world, not least by our own former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The same unwavering belief in liberty should, I believe, stir the conscience of every free nation today, just as it did then, and shame us into action.

The British Government have said that Jimmy Lai’s case is a “priority”. I welcome that, but I must ask the Minister what the Government mean by that in practice. What do they consider success in Jimmy Lai’s case—his release, or simply raising the issue diplomatically? Surely, rather being seen as simply a complex consular case, it needs to be seen as one with serious geopolitical ramifications. From where I stand, the message coming from Downing Street is worryingly vague. It appears—I say this with regret—that the defence of human rights is being quietly traded for economic expediency.

What is worse is that what is happening to Jimmy Lai is not an isolated injustice; it is part of a wider campaign by Beijing to silence criticism, intimidate the diaspora and exert extraterritorial pressure on sovereign nations, including our own. Will the Minister call on the Prime Minister to meet the Lai family, listen to their story and understand what is at stake? We are concerned that Jimmy’s health is deteriorating and, as every day passes, we lose time.

If the Government are not prepared to stand by Jimmy Lai—I hope that the Minister will confirm today that they are—then the United Kingdom simply looks weak. We must be prepared to defend our British citizens, our values and our international obligations—or we look away and, by our silence, give permission to authoritarian regimes to target our people, suppress the truth and redefine the rules of the international order. The world is watching, and so is Jimmy Lai in his cell in Hong Kong—imprisoned not because he committed a crime, but because he dared to be free.

17:18
Hamish Falconer Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will try to keep my remarks brief in order to be able to hand back to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). I will make some progress through the cases that have been raised, as well as the general policy, and then I will be happy to take interventions.

The Government remain gravely concerned by the politically motivated prosecution of Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen, as so many Members have pointed out. His case remains a top priority. We continue to call on Beijing to repeal Hong Kong’s national security law, and we call on the Hong Kong authorities to end the prosecution of all individuals charged under it and immediately release Mr Lai.

As many Members know well from their constituencies —just as I know from Lincoln—the UK has deep and long-standing ties with Hong Kong, but the continued erosion of rights and freedoms threatens Hong Kong’s way of life. China’s imposition of the national security law has seen opposition voices stifled and dissent criminalised. Mr Lai is just one of those voices; prominent and outspoken, he has been silenced through a politically motivated prosecution.

The Foreign Secretary has committed to raising Mr Lai’s case with China at every opportunity. We have stood firm on that promise, and it is of the utmost importance to this Government. Ministers have regularly and repeatedly made clear the damage that Mr Lai’s ongoing imprisonment has done to Hong Kong’s reputation and the challenge that it presents to UK-China relationships more broadly.

Hon. Members asked me a number of questions about which Ministers have raised Mr Lai’s case and how. The Prime Minister has done so with President Xi, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) highlighted, and the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Foreign Office Ministers—in particular, the Minister with responsibility for China, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West)—Trade Ministers and Science Ministers have all raised Jimmy Lai’s detention with their Chinese counterparts. We will continue to do so.

Our diplomats have attended Mr Lai’s trial throughout, alongside our partners, to make it known that the world is watching. I was asked about the role of other countries. We welcome the support from many of our partners in raising Mr Lai’s case. Just yesterday, the Foreign Secretary again met Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, who has indeed campaigned tirelessly for his father’s release. The Foreign Secretary updated him on his recent engagements with China and offered his full support, including on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is closely following Mr Lai’s trial.

The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest, precisely so that we can have direct and often difficult conversations in the interests of the British people, including Jimmy Lai. I say in response to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), that the China audit should be published soon.

I turn now to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on consular prisoner policy. As a former official as well as a Minister, I know well the terrible impact that being incarcerated has on not just the individual in question but their family. I know from my own personal experience how different every case is and how difficult it can be to secure progress. I know the importance of commitment, of determination and of finding every possible route to secure release. I can assure hon. Members that the health and welfare of detainees is at the heart of our consular work. We will support families wherever we can.

I recognise the complexity of Mr Lai’s case and some of the others that have been referenced. In such cases, we use a taskforce approach, drawing in expertise from specialist teams, geographic experts and our embassies around the world to determine our strategy. Teams examine the circumstances of each case individually and develop tailored approaches based on careful judgments of what is likely to be most effective. We are examining options to strengthen our approach, with the appointment of a special envoy to work with families on the most complex detention cases, and we will announce further details in due course. We are also committed to introducing a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations, and consultations are ongoing.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made an important point about the accountability of Ministers. I am the Minister with responsibility for consular affairs. The appointment of an envoy will complement our efforts; it will in no way displace my responsibility to hon. Members and to this House, or, indeed, the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary and others to account for their actions on all these cases.

I will turn to some of the other cases that have been raised, including tirelessly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). We continue to express concerns about Mr Johal’s prolonged detention to the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, emphasising the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of his case in India’s independent legal system. We continue to provide consular support to Mr Johal and his family. The Foreign Secretary met Mr Johal’s brother on 8 May and raised Mr Johal’s case with his Indian counterpart on several occasions, including most recently on 7 June. The Prime Minister raised Mr Johal’s case with Prime Minister Modi on 18 November and with the Indian Minister of External Affairs on 4 March.

As several hon. Members mentioned, many Members are focused on Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt and on his mother, Laila. The Government are committed to securing Alaa’s urgent release and we continue to engage at the highest levels of the Egyptian Government. The Prime Minister raised the case with President Sisi on 22 May and the Foreign Secretary with Foreign Minister Abdelatty on 1 June. I am, of course, concerned by the hospitalisation of Laila, Alaa’s mother. I have met her and the family on a number of occasions, and I met her with Prime Minister on 14 February. I share her desire for an urgent resolution. I have impressed the urgency of the situation on the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian ambassador on repeated occasions. I assure the House that the case remains a top priority for me personally.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster of the priority that the Government place on the fate of her constituent, Mr Lai.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With the utmost respect to the Minister, I made the case for Jimmy Lai being denied his right to religious worship. He is a practising Roman Catholic, but cannot have his mass or worship his God in the way he wants to. With that in mind, and as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I ask the Minister what has been done to ensure that Jimmy Lai has the freedom of religious belief that he should expect.

Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Falconer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I welcome and commend the hon. Member’s efforts on freedom of religious belief, not just in Hong Kong but across the world. We have raised the circumstances of Mr Lai’s detention and will continue to do so. The UK will not stop pressing for consular access in that case, and indeed in all other cases where consular access is denied, and we will not stop calling for Mr Lai’s immediate release.

James Naish Portrait James Naish
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for that. I referred to Canada and the gestures that it has made. What more can we do, in gestures or actions, specifically in the case of Jimmy Lai? What more could be done practically? I appreciate all the warm words and the efforts that have been put in, but are there not more physical things that we can be doing?

Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Falconer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In each case, different things are likely to make progress. I am very conscious of my own experience—I negotiated the release of British nationals with the Taliban over a long period. I am sure that in that case publicity would have made the release more complex. It will vary case by case, and I am sure the Minister responsible for China will be happy to discuss these matters further.

I will end my remarks there in order to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster the chance to respond.

17:28
Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank all the participants in the debate: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising the case that he did; the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) for highlighting the injustice; my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for raising the case of Jagtar Singh Johal; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about religious freedom; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for talking about his great work on the APPG; my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for talking about the diaspora; my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for highlighting, too, the cause of Jagtar Singh Johal; my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for setting out the impact of detention on families; the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for talking about detained people and Alaa Abd el-Fattah; and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for setting out the Opposition’s determination on the release of Jimmy Lai.

Jimmy Lai, Jagtar Singh Johal and others have all suffered grievous injustice against their human rights. That matters because it could be any one of us; it could be our mums, our dads, our sons or our daughters. It matters for democracy and for freedom of the press. I am really heartened by the Minister’s remarks. I am also heartened that, when I raised Jimmy Lai’s case with the Foreign Secretary, he referred to a “massive” international coalition to tackle it, and that the Chancellor raised it when she visited China. I will continue to fight for the freedom of my constituent, Jimmy Lai, in order to honour his family’s campaigning work and his own human rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the detention of Jimmy Lai and other political prisoners internationally.

17:29
Sitting adjourned.