House of Commons
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House that, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2025
Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025
Football Governance Act 2025
Norwich Livestock Market Act 2025.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank all those who work in our schools and wish them a well-earned break over the summer holidays? High and rising school standards are a non-negotiable for this Labour Government as we seek to build a school system that enables every child to achieve and thrive. Our independent expert-led curriculum and assessment review has found that the current system for primary assessments is broadly working well. However, we will take on board any recommendations from the review panel when it reports in the autumn.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
A recent survey by Young Minds found that over a third of year 6 pupils felt ill due to standard assessment tests, and over a quarter said they made them feel bad about themselves. Ninety-six per cent of headteachers say that SATs harm wellbeing, and 95% doubt their accuracy. Our children and teachers are telling us that SATs are broken. Will the Department consider a more holistic assessment approach that ensures the wellbeing of our children at such a young age?
Catherine McKinnell
It is our ambition that all children get the chance not just to achieve at school but to thrive. SATs are carefully developed to ensure that they are accessible. It is clear that schools should not over-prepare children for the assessments at the expense of their wellbeing.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is so well known how damaging formal assessment can be for some children; their wellbeing should be at the forefront of our minds. I know that from primary school teachers in my Bath constituency. Is it not time that we completely scrapped SATs?
Catherine McKinnell
National curriculum tests and assessments are crucial to support schools in building strong foundations for children regardless of background and prior attainment. We will continue to keep the matter under review. Of course, children should not be made to feel stressed; they should be supported to achieve and thrive in any assessment at school.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With the summer holidays just around the corner, I want to say a huge thank you to everyone working across education for all their hard work this year. Improving the quality of teaching is the best way to drive up school standards, supporting every child to achieve and thrive. Through our plan for change, we will recruit an additional 6,500 expert teachers in our schools and colleges. With an almost 10% pay award, we are making good progress, with over 2,000 more teachers in our secondary and special schools.
Bambos Charalambous
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Department for Education being more than a third of the way through recruiting those 6,500 teachers. A recent Public Accounts Committee report showed that schools with a high proportion of disadvantaged pupils experienced the worst teacher shortages. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that extra effort will be put into recruiting and retaining teachers at all those schools?
Bridget Phillipson
I give my hon. Friend that assurance and thank him for all the work he does for schools right across his constituency. Recruiting and retaining more teachers—particularly in the most disadvantaged areas—is critical to our opportunity mission, but I am also delighted that initial teacher training acceptances are up 12% in secondary. That is positive progress being made, with a 16% increase in maths and a 46% increase in physics. That is the change that the Labour Government are delivering.
Juliet Campbell
I thank the Secretary of State for her response and for the Government’s commitment to recruiting 6,500 new teachers. However, as we know, dyslexic children tend to leave school or education with disproportionately lower attainment levels. They are also over-represented in the criminal justice system and often have low self-esteem, with much of that coming from their experience in educational settings. Will the Secretary of State outline how she will ensure that the recruitment of new teachers will bring in those who can meet the education needs of dyslexic and neurodiverse children?
Bridget Phillipson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all her work to support neurodiverse students in Broxtowe and beyond. From September, thanks to this Labour Government’s reforms, all new teachers will receive three years of evidence-based training, including significantly enhanced content on supporting children with additional needs. We know there is much more we have to do so that all our students, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, are able to achieve and thrive, and I look forward to discussing that further with her very soon.
Tristan Osborne
As a former teacher, I know that new school buildings not only help student progress, but encourage teacher retention. Can the Minister confirm that new school buildings are indeed part of this Government’s programme for change, and will she commit to visiting Bradfields academy in my constituency, a specialist SEND school that is investing millions as part of the schools rebuilding programme?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know he cares deeply about outcomes for children in Chatham and Aylesford, and that he brings real experience to this House. He is right to demonstrate the important role of the specialist sector. He mentions Bradfields academy, which has already secured a place on the schools rebuilding programme; with the approval of the trust, I would be delighted to arrange for me or one of my colleagues to visit and see the brilliant work they are doing.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
This Government are hampering schools’ recruitment of new teachers. First they hiked up the cost through the increase in employer national insurance contributions; then the money promised to state schools from charging VAT on private school fees was spent on housing instead. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much the increase in employer national insurance contributions will cost schools in total over this Parliament?
Bridget Phillipson
We are investing record sums in our state schools. The Conservative party, however, wants to take money out of our state schools to give tax breaks back to private schools. That tells us everything we need to know about their priorities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The headteacher of the Thomas Hardye school in West Dorset previously worked in a London school. He told me that in London he received nearly £10,000 per pupil, but in West Dorset nearly £5,000—yet the challenges of rural education are no less complex, not least in the recruitment of teachers. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the funding inequalities facing rural schools, to ensure that all pupils receive the teaching they deserve?
Bridget Phillipson
We continue to keep all these areas under review; if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with more information, I would be happy to respond with more detail. However, I am clear that this Government are investing more in education. We are turning around the year-on-year declines in teacher numbers with better pay, more support on workload and more money for our schools, including tackling child poverty. That is the difference that a Labour Government are making for our country.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Government have tried to have it every which way on these elusive 6,500 extra teachers. If the Labour manifesto had meant that only secondary teachers counted, but they could be in any subject, presumably that is what it would have said. What it actually said was 6,500 new specialist teachers in key subjects, so will the Secretary of State enlighten us: what are those subjects?
Bridget Phillipson
I would be very happy to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman just heard, we are seeing big increases in initial teacher training acceptances in many of those key subjects such as maths and science. On the commitment we have made, we had 60,000 fewer children in primary over the course of the last year and, as a former holder of this office, he would rightly expect that we target our efforts in areas of greatest need. Sadly, we are seeing a big decline in the number of children in primary, with the numbers forecast to fall by another 165,000 over the next few years, so we are focusing our efforts where they are needed.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Secretary of State just said that the Government were turning around declines in teacher numbers. Under the last Government the number of teachers went up by 27,000; under this Government it is down by 400. That is the opposite of the truth.
One thing that drives people out of teaching is poor discipline, yet the Government have abolished behaviour hubs, despite the evidence that they were working. The Government said they would put in place new behaviour ambassadors, who were supposed to be in place on 4 July, but the contract has now lapsed and the position is vacant. Why the delay on this vital issue?
Bridget Phillipson
That was very shouty from the shadow Minister, and as per usual very negative about what we are seeing across education. We are turning around the problems that the Conservatives left behind on teacher recruitment and retention. We are increasing attendance in our schools and improving behaviour—a challenge that I completely agree schools need support to deal with—putting more money back into parents’ pockets and tackling child poverty. The Conservatives have only one policy, and that is to give a tax break to private schools.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people. That is why we are providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school by expanding mental health support teams so that every child and young person has access to early support to address problems before they escalate.
Liz Twist
I thank the Minister for his reply and for last week’s publication of the new relationships, sex and health education—RSHE—curriculum guidance. I was pleased to see that secondary schools are now being asked to talk about suicide prevention in an age-appropriate way. Andy, Mike and Tim, the 3 Dads Walking, have campaigned hard for this change over a number of years, and I am pleased that the Government have worked with them to make this happen. Will the Minister join me in thanking the three dads, and can he say how this will be implemented in schools so that we can help save young lives?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the tireless work she has done on these important issues in this place. We are grateful for the contribution of 3 Dads Walking in developing the new RSHE guidance and we pay tribute to their inspirational determination and the courage shown in their work to raise awareness. The guidance contains new content about coping strategies for dealing with issues such as anxiety, but also covers issues such as loneliness and bereavement. It says that schools should “consider carefully” how to address suicide prevention safely.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Great leadership is critical to supporting children to have a healthy mental condition. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Leon Myers, the headteacher of Swinemoor primary school, on the twice-repeated outstanding rating for that school, on his focus on the traditional values of endeavour, resilience and competitive spirit, and on his recent MBE in recognition of the transformation of opportunity he provides to children across the Swinemoor estate?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I pay tribute to the member of staff he mentioned and all those who work across the education system to deliver improvements in life chances for all young people; I thank him very much for his hard work.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
We know that timely access to mental health support is crucial. Earlier this month, the Education Committee released its report on children’s social care, which recommended that the Government establish mental health teams that are co-located between child and adolescent mental health services —CAMHS—and children’s social care, so that looked-after children can access specialist mental health support more easily. Will the Minister share any assessment that the Department has made of this recommendation?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the hard work she has undertaken on the Select Committee. She will know that we will deliver on our commitment on mental health support teams in the course of the next few months and years. By 2026, we estimate that 60% of pupils in schools and learners will have access to national health service tests—NHSTs—and I will take her suggestion back to the Department.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Good mental health at school is sometimes bolstered by out-of-school support, especially for the most vulnerable children. Last week, I met Vicky and her team at Jigsaw Occupational Therapy in Burgess Hill, and I spoke to the families they help. Roughly a quarter of their work involved supporting kinship and adopted children and helping them to regulate following profound trauma. Vicky described the impact on their children of the Government’s cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund as “heartbreaking”. Can the Minister offer any words of comfort to Vicky and the families she helps?
Stephen Morgan
We are maintaining the support available to children to ensure that there is reasonable support in place, and providing more funding to local authorities. This Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity so that every child can succeed and thrive, and that is what we are getting on and delivering.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the great gains that the Labour Government have made through our plan for change. Since entering power, we have cut red tape, tilted the system towards young people and committed unprecedented investment for our school system. We are going further and faster with our post-16 education and skills strategy.
Robin Swann
The apprenticeship levy is collected equally across the United Kingdom, but unfortunately it comes back to Northern Ireland under the Barnett consequential. Will the Minister look at an option for a system in which those employers who contribute to the apprenticeship levy can draw it back directly to support apprentices employed in their companies?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his thoughtfulness regarding the levy and its operation. As he is fully aware, skills are a devolved matter and funding in the devolved Administration remains the responsibility of that Government. We will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop the levy-funded growth and skills offer for England.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I was recently lucky enough to visit Brigg infant school in South Normanton. It is a gorgeous school full of talented pupils and dedicated staff, but it has a problem: four and five-year-olds are being taught in a prefab building that is not fit for purpose. I love to see the way that we invest in education, but these children have been let down by the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that they deserve a classroom that is fit to be taught in, and will she look at this case?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful question on the prefabs. We have a plan to build, and I will take up this matter further with the appropriate Minister.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Before the election, Labour said that it would allow employers to take 50% of their apprenticeship levy money and spend it on other things, but since the a while election, different Ministers have said different things about whether that is still happening. The Skills Minister said it would all depend on the spending review, but of course, the spending review was back. Will businesses be able to take out 50% as Labour promised or not?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for his question. We are a Government who continue to invest in education. We have flexibility available, and we have foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. We are absolutely investing in young people to get them into the right jobs.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister will answer the question as she sees fit. The hon. Member may be frustrated, but we will carry on.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Excellent further education colleges are a key building block of the Government’s opportunity and growth missions. The Government are committed to improving the condition of schools and colleges in England and will invest nearly £3 billion per year by 2034-2035, rising from £2.4 billion in 2024-25.
Catherine Atkinson
The oldest surviving locomotive roundhouse in Britain is in Derby, and what was once at the forefront of Victorian engineering is now a cutting-edge learning environment for local young people who will build the homes of the future. But the site is full to bursting—Derby college needs more space. Does the Minister agree that if it became a construction technical excellence college, it could extend its site, increase its capacity in brickwork, carpentry and joinery by 50%, and teach more students the construction skills we desperately need?
Stephen Morgan
Applications to become construction technical excellence colleges closed on 4 July. We look forward to informing successful candidates in due course. In addition, £375 million of capital investment will be invested between 2026 and 2030 to support post-16 capacity to accommodate the additional learners entering the system.
Steve Race
I know that the Minister will agree with me that in Exeter we have two of the country’s most outstanding FE institutions. Exeter college is rated outstanding by Ofsted and as “strong” in its approach to meeting the skills needs of our area—the first time a college has achieved both. Exeter maths school is also rated outstanding and gives students from across the south-west the opportunity to specialise in maths, physics and computing. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) said, that success comes with its own challenges. Both are bursting at the seams and need capital investment to allow them to expand and continue their exceptional work. Does the Minister agree that Exeter college could also be an exceptional candidate to become a construction technical excellence college for the south-west, and will he meet me to discuss the ways in which we can support those changes?
Stephen Morgan
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the success of Exeter college and Exeter maths school, which are both outstanding. As he will know, the Government have announced capital funding to improve the condition of the estate and accommodate rising student numbers as we hope to replicate the success of these settings across the country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The sixth form of the Lakes school near Windermere provides further education for young people within the central lakes. The building is beyond being fit for purpose and needs a rebuild. It also happens to be built on the site where the Windermere children who survived the death camps in 1945 were brought to be rehabilitated on the shores of Windermere where they were first settled. On the 80th anniversary of their arrival, will the Minister agree to meet me and local people to look at a rebuild of the school and, at the same time, a memorial to the Windermere children, so that we can honour their memory and support the children of the future, too?
Stephen Morgan
Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings that they need is key to our mission to break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child can succeed and thrive. As always, I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers, as always. The hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) referred to the construction sector. Is it time perhaps to think outside the circle of what we usually do, through deals and partnerships with construction companies? That would give us the opportunity to improve the education and college estate while making people available and knowledgeable for jobs in their future life, whether in construction or otherwise. It is time for partnerships—let us do something perhaps a wee bit different.
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the construction sector is fundamental to the UK economy. That is why the Government’s industrial strategy includes a construction sector deal. We have committed £625 million to supporting construction skills training, and that funding includes capital investment through the establishment of technical excellence colleges and the creation of an employer match funding pot worth £80 million.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Our landmark strategy on giving every child the best start in life sets out plans to deliver Best Start family hubs to make access to early education easier and more affordable, and to improve quality in settings and reception classes. The strategy is backed by £1.5 billion over the next three years, and Government spending on the funded hours will reach £9 billion next year and will continue to rise over the Parliament.
James Asser
I thank the Minister for joining me at Curwen primary school in Plaistow recently to see its excellent early years education work. He heard from parents about the struggles they often face as a result of serious economic and housing hardship. Will he assure my constituents that the Government will look at communities like mine, where housing and poverty create serious challenges for families, to ensure that all children, no matter their circumstances, get the best possible educational start in life?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for our excellent visit to Curwen primary school last week, where I saw excellent work on supporting children’s speech and language to deliver for some of our most vulnerable children and families. Our spending review commitments are a downpayment on the child poverty strategy to build on expanding free breakfast clubs and free school meals, boost the national minimum wage and cap universal credit deductions through the fair repayment rate.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Sure Start, which was created by the previous Labour Government, boosted attainment, improved health outcomes and increased long-term earnings. However, under the Conservatives, more than 30 children’s centres in Derbyshire were closed, and Derbyshire now does not have a single family hub. What action will the Government take to ensure that more young children in Derbyshire can once again access support during their early years?
Stephen Morgan
It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency recently, too. He is a real champion for children and young people. We will fund Best Start family hubs in every local authority, including in Derbyshire. We estimate that the expansion could reach half a million children across the country. Best Start family hubs will be open to all and based in disadvantaged communities, where they are needed most.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I join Ministers in thanking our school and college staff up and down the country for their dedication? I wish them happy and restorative summer holidays.
Children with special educational needs who started reception last year were over a year behind their peers, according to the Education Policy Institute. Staggeringly, those with an education, health and care plan were already over 20 months behind—the widest gap that the EPI has recorded since it started monitoring in 2013. Given the importance of the early years in narrowing the gap, it is crucial that we give every child the help that they need as soon as possible. Will the Minister confirm how much of the £760 million for SEND transformation announced in the spending review will go towards early identification and intervention?
Stephen Morgan
The Government are committed to ensuring excellence for everyone so that children have the support, skills and opportunities that they need, and that starts in early years. We are actively working with parents and experts on solutions, including more early intervention to prevent needs from escalating. Any changes we make will improve support for children and parents, stop parents having to fight for support, and protect current effective provision.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend that important question. Labour is providing £1 billion more for high-needs budgets, and also providing councils with £740 million of capital funding to improve support for children with SEND in specialist and mainstream schools. This investment will lay the foundation for the better system that children with SEND need. Working with experts, we will set out our plans in the schools White Paper in the autumn.
Chris Webb
The last Government left behind a SEND system that was failing children and families. Parents were made to fight for support, with education, health and care plans denied or delayed and vital services taken away. Tory cuts to early years support, rising poverty and extreme deprivation in Blackpool, as well as the pandemic hitting our children harder than most, have all combined to deepen the crisis facing our most vulnerable young people. What steps is the Education Secretary taking to ensure children in disadvantaged communities like mine, where the need is high and support often falls short, receive the targeted SEND support they urgently require?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for his constituents and for Blackpool, and he is right that far too many children are not currently getting the support they need in order to thrive. Early intervention is key—more support at the earliest possible point to identify where children might be struggling, and to make sure that they get the help they need. That is why I was very proud to announce to the House that, building on the proud Labour legacy of Sure Start, we will be rolling out Best Start family hubs to make sure that we have better family support services in every part of our country, including my hon. Friend’s community.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that out-of-county placements are very expensive and highly unsatisfactory both for pupils and for families. Will she therefore confirm that the excellent news that we had last year about a new SEND school being built at Bitham Park in Westbury will go ahead to the advantage of children and, importantly, their families, and can she assure me it is not going to be cancelled in the proposals she has alluded to?
Bridget Phillipson
I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman in relation to his constituency case. We are looking carefully at all the proposals we inherited when we came in as a new Government, but the assurance I can give him is that through the spending review we secured additional investment not just for revenue funding but also for capital funding to make sure that we are creating the specialist places that are needed in both the mainstream and also the specialist sector, which has an enormous amount of expertise. Sadly, I have heard far too many cases of the kind that he describes, where children are being forced to travel considerable distances away from their local community and their friends because of an absence of specialist places. We are determined to improve that.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the staff, pupils and governors at Henry Tyndale community school on the official opening today of their new park campus in Aldershot, a vital new facility for students aged four to 19 with complex learning difficulties? This outstanding school is named after Henry Tyndale, who gave two decades of tireless service as a volunteer, fundraiser and friend to children with the greatest difficulties, and whose legacy continues to shape the school’s inclusive spirit. What steps are the Government taking to support the creation of more schools like Henry Tyndale, so that children with SEND in my community and beyond have access to the high-quality, specialist environments they deserve?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the amazing work in the specialist sector and the tremendous expertise, knowledge and passion that so many people bring to supporting children with some of the most complex needs. That is why how we can deliver better outcomes for children with SEND is at the forefront of all of our minds as we bring forward any reform to the system. That will be our guiding principle—it must be our guiding principle. So alongside better mainstream inclusion, we will of course make sure that there is the specialist provision necessary for the children who need it.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I have heard from and met with numerous constituents who are parents of children with special educational needs, all frustrated with the way that the system currently works. I welcome the Secretary of State saying she wants outcomes for children to be at the centre of reforms, but a parent of a child with an EHCP, which helps them to be in mainstream education, recently told me of the fear and horror she felt when she heard about potential Government reforms due to the risk of her son losing the ability to stay in a school that has, in her words, been an absolute godsend for him. Can the Secretary of State assure parents that her reforms will not take away support that children currently have and will ensure that every child has the support they need to genuinely thrive?
Bridget Phillipson
I can be clear that children with SEND have a legal right to additional support, and Labour will always protect that. I would say, however, that we all have a responsibility in how we approach the issue—a responsibility not to cause undue alarm among parents who are experiencing a system that is not working and that is too adversarial. I believe that a better system will be delivered. We can make sure that children get early, timely support that is much more effective and focused on their outcomes. The plans that we will set out later this year will be shaped by all the conversations with the parents who she describes—conversations that I, too, have had—and with experts, school leaders and campaigners to make sure that we get them right.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Parents are getting in touch with MPs across the country to ask whether existing special needs support will continue under the planned reforms. The Minister for School Standards has said that the Government will not remove “effective support”, but what does that word “effective” mean? Who will judge what is effective, and on what basis? Why will the Government not just guarantee that all children will keep the support that they currently have?
Bridget Phillipson
As I said in response to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), children with SEND have a legal right to additional support. We will not just protect it, but improve it. We will deliver better outcomes and support for children with SEND.
I do not know how the shadow Minister has the brass neck to stand there and ask that question, given that the Conservatives left behind a system that their last Education Secretary described as “lose, lose, lose”. It is for that reason that we deal with so many questions on this topic every time we gather for Education questions. What we have at the moment is not working by any objective measure: children are being failed and parents are being failed. It falls to the Labour Government to deliver the better system of support that all our children with SEND desperately need.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Mobile phones have no place in schools. Government guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day. Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that 99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already have policies restricting the use of mobile phones.
Dr Hudson
Many of the young people I meet in schools across Epping Forest are clear that they agree with the local school policy of restricting mobile phones when they are at school. Sadly, however, the Government have repeatedly refused to heed Conservative calls to protect our children with a national ban on phones in schools—even voting against it. Bodies such as UNESCO and the OECD are crystal clear about the negative impacts of phones on young people’s education, so when will the Government listen to the evidence and to our school leaders, and support a ban on smartphones in schools for the sake of our young people’s education and mental health?
Stephen Morgan
I have said that phones should not be out in schools, and heads have the power to enforce that. The Opposition backed those measures. If they felt they needed to go further, they had 14 long years in which to do so.
Caroline Voaden
Last Thursday, I felt the fear in a hall full of parents of primary school children in Totnes as they listened to campaigners going through the evidence of the impact of smartphones on kids at secondary school. There is a clear safeguarding issue around kids seeing videos of hardcore pornography and violence.
I am therefore pleased that Tina Graham, the head of Kingsbridge community college, has just announced a smartphone-free policy from September to protect children, which will mean no phones in school at all except for reasonable adjustments. That is a much better policy than the “Not seen—put it in your bag” policy that most schools follow. In the light of such safeguarding concerns, where every child is only as safe as the least safe phone in school, why will the Minister not do the one thing that could transform our children’s mental and physical health, and school attainment and direct all schools to go smartphone free—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, this is not fair; I have to get others in. I call the Minister.
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Lady’s question demonstrates that mobile phones have no place in schools, and there is already guidance to reflect that. The mobile phones in schools guidance is clear and schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. We expect all schools to take steps in line with that guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupils’ learning. If pupils fail to follow those rules, schools should have the power to confiscate devices.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
In the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, a Minister in the Department for Education, said:
“There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2025; Vol. 847, c. 55.]
I fundamentally disagree. There is overwhelming and extensive evidence of the harm caused, so I want to know the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree with his ministerial colleague or with me on this issue?
Stephen Morgan
Last year, the right hon. Lady’s Government claimed that action on mobile phones was prohibiting their use in schools and that guidance meant
“a consistent approach across all schools.”
Those are their words. In backing the Tory Government’s measures, was she wrong then, or is she wrong now?
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I take this opportunity to thank all post-16 providers and staff for their tireless work over the last academic year and wish them a restful summer break. Following the autumn Budget, this Government made available more than £400 million extra planned spending on 16-to-19 education in the financial year 2025-26. Since then, an additional £190 million for 2025-26 has been made available to respond to 16-to-19 demographic growth and other pressures on the system, creating opportunities for young people to succeed.
Gareth Snell
I draw the attention of the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a governor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. I thank the Minister for her answer; the additional capital available for post-16 providers is very welcome. The City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college is seeing a huge increase in interest around science, healthcare science and computer science —subjects that are mission-critical to the delivery of the Government’s ambitious programme. When will the capital be available so that my sixth form and others around the country can build high-quality learning environments for young learners?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning his fantastic City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college. I reassure him and other Members that this Government are committed to ensuring that there is a place in education or training for every 16 to 18-year-old who wants one. Details of the £375 million of capital investment to accommodate additional learners entering the system will be announced in due course.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
A report presented to the APPG for care-experienced children and young people revealed that more than 4,000 young people in care either moved placements or left care during their A-level exam period. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that schools and colleges are properly equipped to support care-experienced students facing such instability at a crucial point in their education?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for her thought-provoking question. She really advocates for care leavers and for ensuring that they have the durability they need at school to ensure they have a seamless experience. I reassure her that care leavers who start an apprenticeship are entitled to £3,000 bursaries, and local authorities must provide a £2,000 bursary for care leavers who go on to university. Let me just say that this Government are extremely concerned with education not being broken for care leavers and ensuring that we support them in every which way we can.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
We are engaging extensively with families and experts as we seek to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We have invested £1 billion into high-needs budgets and £740 million into creating more specialist places. We are rolling out schemes, from the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—the PINS programme—to Inclusion 2028, which are laying the groundwork for long-term reform. We are building a system in which every child can achieve and thrive.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the Minister for that answer. On Friday, I had the opportunity to visit the outstanding Springfield primary school in my constituency. It has 500 pupils, 30 of whom have education, health and care plans, with six applications in currently. Can the Minister reassure the parents of those six children and the many, many parents across the country that, while this review into EHCPs is going on, local education authorities will not slow-roll existing applications or fail them as a default in order for them to go to tribunal and try to beat the clock?
Catherine McKinnell
We have yet to decide on the future of education, health and care plans, but we are extremely focused on strengthening the support system so that every child can receive timely, high-quality help. We will set out further details about our approach to special educational needs in this autumn’s White Paper. In the meantime, obviously, children should be getting the support they need, and we are putting in the groundwork so that more children can have that.
Lizzi Collinge
We know that early intervention is most effective for children with SEN, but too many children in my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale have been let down in that respect. However, Lancashire is, for the first time, receiving funding for Best Start hubs. Can the Minister tell me how that will improve early support for those children?
Catherine McKinnell
As I said, we are already investing in supporting children and their families, including through Best Start family hubs, as my hon. Friend mentioned. We want to ensure that all children have access to a family service professional who is trained to support inclusion, can identify where children have additional needs ahead of starting school, and can support parents to navigate services.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings they need is a key part of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity and give every child the best start in life. For this project, I can confirm that the Department is in the process of finalising the feasibility study, and we expect to procure the works later this year. Until that process is complete, we will be unable to advise on the length of the construction programme. However, positive progress continues to be made in collaboration with the trust.
Dr Spencer
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he clarify whether the Magna Carta school will have a full rebuild, due to the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, or is it just the science and arts block that will be rebuilt? Will he meet me to discuss this issue and the work that will take place on such a fantastic local school?
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
This Government are committed to ensuring that every child can access the tools they need in order to achieve and thrive. We inherited a challenging workforce picture from the previous Government, which is why we are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 teachers. We are backing teachers and restoring teaching to being a highly valued profession. There is no doubt that technology has a key role to play in driving high and rising standards at school. However, the most important factor for high-quality education is having an expert teacher at the front of the classroom.
Andy MacNae
In Rossendale, the academy trust that runs our “stuck” school, Valley leadership academy, recently announced plans to introduce a virtual teacher for top-set maths. This approach has understandably raised a lot of concerns, and I have been working with the trust to make sure it is designed in the pupils’ best interests. I have been assured that this will be a temporary measure, that a qualified maths teacher will be in the room to provide additional support, and that an appropriate range of adjustments will be made for SEND pupils. However, I remain concerned that, without safeguards, virtual teachers may become a default cost-saving measure to address recruitment challenges. Will the Minister share her view on how we can ensure that such an approach is always designed in pupils’ best interests—
Catherine McKinnell
Technology has the potential to enhance time efficiency for teachers, reduce workload and improve student engagement and attainment, but it cannot replace the valuable relationship between teachers and pupils. We know that high-quality teaching has the biggest impact on a child’s educational outcomes. School leaders rightly have the autonomy to make decisions about staff deployment, and they are best placed to make decisions about the needs of their pupils.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Safeguarding children in schools is a priority for this Government, and schools have a critical role to play in protecting children and keeping them safe. Departmental guidance is clear that schools and colleges should have a policy and an emergency plan in place to manage and respond to security-related incidents.
Will Stone
I thank the Minister for his response, and for our recent meeting. Given that we have had two fake bomb threats in Swindon, which have obviously had a negative impact on my schools, will he assess the current guidance so that we can learn lessons from what has happened in Swindon and improve that guidance for the future?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for our meeting last week. As I explained to him then, the Department for Education publishes the protective security and preparedness guidance, which sets out how schools should respond to bomb threats and how to embed a security culture. Action Counters Terrorism for Education e-learning, which includes information on what to do in the event of a bomb threat, is also available to all school staff.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government have made a long-term commitment to improve the condition of schools and colleges. We are investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme through to 2035, delivering rebuilding projects at over 500 schools across England, including eight schools in Scarborough and Whitby. A further 250 schools will be selected within the next two years. By 2035, we will also be investing almost £3 billion per year in capital maintenance for schools and colleges, and that figure will rise to £2.4 billion this year.
Alison Hume
Springhead sixth form in Scarborough has been rated outstanding for the education and care it provides for students with complex special educational needs and disabilities. The staff are amazing, but the sixth form is housed in an old and unsuitable building. When I visited Springhead, I saw one student being tutored in a modified corridor due to overcrowding. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that pupils with special educational needs are educated in school buildings that can match those needs?
Stephen Morgan
We have increased funding to improve the condition of schools to £2.1 billion for 2025-26, which includes more than £7 million for North Yorkshire to invest in its maintained schools, including Springhead. North Yorkshire has also been allocated £6.8 million for 2025-26 to provide suitable and accessible school places for pupils with SEND who require alternative provision.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
A number of years ago, Woodfield school in Bilton in my constituency was closed. It has been rebuilt as a specialist school for children with autism. It was meant to open in September last year, but that was delayed until September this year. Will the Minister meet me and confirm whether it will open on time this September?
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Given the “lose, lose, lose” system that the last Government left behind—in their own words—we are working hard to reform the system so that every child can achieve and thrive. Any reform will be guided by how we improve support for children with SEND. There will always be a legal right to additional support, which this Government will protect.
David Davis
Given that answer, I will quote the Secretary of State. She was saying earlier that the system is so distorted that the financial allocations do not reflect the real needs of children. That means that local authorities have huge deficits through no fault of their own; they are trying to do their job. When she comes up with her new policy in the autumn, will she commit to writing off those deficits so that those authorities can do the job in the future?
Catherine McKinnell
As part of our reforms, we will commence a phased transition process, which will include working with local authorities to manage their SEND systems, including their deficits, alongside an extension to the statutory override until the end of 2027-28. We will set out more details about the plan for how we will support local authorities with the historical and accruing deficits accumulated under the last Government and since, due to the appalling situation that we inherited.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
On Friday I had the privilege of spending a good few hours with SEND parents in my constituency, talking about what does not work under the current system and what we would like to see changed. There was a lot of frustration and a lot of tears. They were honest and open about their upset at the current system, but there were also a lot of ideas and a determination to make change happen, so that those who come after us do not have to go through the same stress and anxiety that we do as SEND parents. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the voices of parents, carers and families will be integral to forming the schools White Paper that is due out in the autumn?
Catherine McKinnell
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I know that she is incredibly passionate about improving the SEND system, and this Government share that passion. We are not only determined to restore the trust of parents by ensuring that schools and local areas can better identify and support children; we are also working with parents and families to create that system, which we know will improve outcomes for children and their families.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Labour is rebalancing opportunities towards young people, giving them the skills they need to get on. Apprenticeship starts, achievements and participation are all up under this Government. From August, we are introducing foundation apprenticeships to support young people into careers in critical sectors, such as construction and health and social care.
Peter Prinsley
I feel sure that the Minister is aware that the outstanding West Suffolk college in Bury St Edmunds, with more than 10,000 enrolled students, is part of the outstanding Eastern Education Group, under the leadership of Nikos Savvas. Does she agree that West Suffolk college is an outstanding candidate to be awarded the status of being the construction technical college of excellence for the east of England? That would boost skills in construction, which are crucial for the new West Suffolk hospital and the Sizewell C construction site, which is the largest construction site in Europe.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and, indeed, for his lobbying. Labour’s technical excellence colleges will be crucial to our plans to rewire our school system to unlock opportunity for young people and drive growth for our country. My hon. Friend is right: West Suffolk College is an outstanding provider, and I am sure that its remarkable achievements will be considered during the selection of our technical excellence colleges.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Degree apprenticeships are great for social mobility and for matching skills to the economy, and I am such a fan of them that I created one in my parliamentary office. Would the Secretary of State like to take the time for congratulate Jack Kellas, who has achieved not just a distinction in his apprenticeship but a first-class honours degree from the University of Lincoln, and will she do all that she can to ensure that more people have opportunities to take part in degree apprenticeships and achieve the same success as Jack?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for sharing Jack Kellas’s wonderful achievement. Level 6 apprenticeships are a core part of our offer, and we continue to fund them.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like first to address last week’s tragic incident in Minehead. I am sure that all Members will join me in offering support and prayers to everyone affected by the Minehead middle school bus crash last Thursday. Our deepest sympathies and condolences go to all those affected at the school and in the wider community, and particularly to the family and friends of the 10-year-old boy who tragically lost his life. Most of the injured have now been released from hospital. Support has already been put in place for those affected, and it will continue into the summer break and beyond. I extend my thanks to everyone involved in co-ordinating and delivering this vital help, and I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their incredible response in the most challenging of circumstances.
This Labour Government believe that children growing up in our country deserve the very best start in life, which is why we are investing nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to transform early years and family services. That will include £500 million to roll out Best Start family hubs in every local authority, honouring the proud legacy of Sure Start and ensuring that every family can thrive regardless of postcode or income. Labour is building back the crucial family services that were decimated by the Tories, providing high-quality support for parents, babies and children from pregnancy onwards—and we are only just getting started.
Lee Anderson
Last week I visited the Outwood academy school in Kirkby-in-Ashfield, which has gone from double special measures to “good” in just three years under the leadership of the Outwood Grange Academies Trust. Will the Secretary of State please say a big thank you to the trust, and the staff, for helping to turn the school around and giving the children in my town the education that they deserve?
Bridget Phillipson
Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the hard work of our teachers, leaders and support staff, and I am always pleased to hear about improvements in standards. This Government are ambitious for every child, and our new regional improvement in standards and excellence teams are working across schools to bring together leaders with experience in turning schools around. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that, thanks to this Labour Government, thousands of children will now benefit from free school meals, the new breakfast club that is opening in his constituency will be a big boost to his constituents, and we are delivering new funding for Best Start family hubs. That is the difference that a Labour Government are making for his constituents.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
My hon. Friend clearly knows that the decision to create any new GCSE is made by an independent awarding organisation, but I have also met the Ukrainian Education Minister, and I know how important this issue is to Ukrainian families living in the United Kingdom and to others. The Secretary of State has written to the awarding organisations to encourage them to create a Ukrainian GCSE. I am now well aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in the issue, and I am more than happy to convey it as well.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I completely support the Secretary of State’s opening words, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the devastating incident.
Government documents state that the first step in achieving their primary school readiness mission is meeting their target of recruiting 6,500 teachers. The Secretary of State claimed at the last oral questions that she has always been clear that the 6,500 teachers are in secondary schools. If that is true, can she explain how secondary school teacher recruitment contributes to improving primary school readiness for four-year-olds?
Bridget Phillipson
This Labour Government are delivering the teachers that are desperately needed right across our schools. We were left behind a terrible crisis when it came to recruitment and retention, but this Labour Government know that improving standards in our schools requires having the best possible teachers available to teach all our children. That is why we delivered a pay award, and why we are making sure that we are tackling all the issues around workload. We are getting on and delivering the plan for change. The right hon. Lady comes here with the same relentless negativity week in, week out. We are delivering new free breakfast clubs, free school meals, cheaper uniforms, high-quality childcare and more apprenticeships. That is the difference the Labour Government are making.
Laura Trott
This is farcical. Will the Secretary of State finally admit that the original pledge to hire 6,500 teachers included primary school teachers, and that the Government are now abandoning their pledge? The reality is that, according to their own website, there are 400 fewer teachers than last year.
Bridget Phillipson
There are 60,000 fewer children in primary schools this year. I know the right hon. Lady was at the Treasury, so I would expect a bit more when it comes to her maths. It would be nonsensical to recruit even more primary school teachers when we have falling rolls. We are focusing our efforts where they are needed, and I am delighted that we are seeing big increases in the number of secondary maths teachers, secondary physics teachers and secondary STEM teachers. There are big increases right across the board—that is what Labour is delivering.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Catherine McKinnell
Indeed, we are building a reformed system in which children and young people’s needs will be identified early, so that evidence-based support can be provided at the earliest opportunity. Earlier this year, I was pleased to open Benton House, a special school in my constituency that is also run by the Outcomes First Group. It was great to see such a well-resourced facility supporting children with complex needs. I would be delighted to hear more about the work in my hon. Friend’s constituency and the proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, we have to try to get in as many Members as possible. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I echo the Secretary of State’s remarks about the tragedy in Minehead. My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected.
Every parent who puts a baby into childcare wants to know that they are safe. In the light of the crucial role that CCTV played in the harrowing case at Twickenham Green nursery in my constituency, which resulted in a nursery worker being convicted of 21 counts of child cruelty last month, and in the tragic case of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle, will the Secretary of State commit to issuing fresh guidance to nurseries on the use and regular monitoring of CCTV footage?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
The hon. Member will know that I met the family of Genevieve Meehan recently. That was a tragic case. We need to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to protect children in nursery settings. That is why I am pleased that in the “best start in life” strategy, published just two weeks ago, we committed to have early years settings inspected within 18 months and, indeed, within four years. I have offered a meeting with the hon. Member, and I am very happy to discuss these issues further.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I absolute agree with my hon. Friend. This Government will indeed stop shutting good people out of good jobs. He is probably aware that the Department funds apprentices to achieve a qualification as part of their training. We do not set entry requirements; these are decisions for employers. However, we have allowed for more flexibility in English and maths requirements for adults aged 19 and over.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Janet Daby
The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides valuable therapeutic support to children and families, which is why we have committed to continuing the £50 million to this financial year. We have been holding discussions with key stakeholders, and we will soon announce the next steps for the fund.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) [R]
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in condemning those remarks. I am aware that the Reform UK leader said, in similar comments,
“I’m not being heartless, I’m being frank”.
Well, I will be frank: Reform UK would plunge the SEND system into further disarray. Only Labour will back the children with SEND who need support.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
If the hon. Gentleman would write to me, I will look into that further.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Janet Daby
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend, and I applaud him for the work he did on the Derby Promise before he entered this place and for all he has done for children in Derby South since. I am delighted that employers such as Rolls-Royce have signed up to the Derby Promise to bring industry closer to young people and to inspire their future careers.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Catherine McKinnell
The right hon. Gentleman is pre-empting decisions before they have been made. We have not made decisions about the future of EHCPs. We are listening carefully and working with the sector to make sure we have the workforce in the system and the support systems to identify needs early. We will continue to do that, and we will work with families to design a system that works, rather than the one we inherited.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
York is seeking to advance new models of support for children with SEND that are inclusive and provide opportunity, including greater curriculum flexibility to deliver a broader education in small groups and a life skills curriculum so children are equipped to navigate the world around them safely. Would the Minister support City of York council to deliver such measures?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady will know that a curriculum and assessment review is currently being undertaken by an independent panel. We are keen that the curriculum is broad and rich, but also inclusive. We will be responding when the panel reports with its recommendations in the autumn.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the Secretary of State talks of such a large reduction in the number of anticipated future primary school pupils, does she attribute any part of that to a wish by certain communities to develop a parallel education system, rather than engaging in full integration with this country?
Bridget Phillipson
I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at with that question. What I have said in response to the very sharp decline in the birth rate is that as a Government we want to make sure that people are able to make choices that are right for them, including around family size. My concern is that too many young people, because of the inaccessibility of housing and the challenges they face in the jobs market, are making decisions they do not necessarily want to make. That is why the expansion of childcare, for example, is a critical part of how we are supporting families.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Those working in our schools in South Gloucestershire do a brilliant job, but they receive the lowest funding per pupil in all of England via a funding formula inherited from the previous Government. Does the Minister have plans to review the formula as part of the impactful wider work to ensure that every child receives the education they need to thrive, no matter where they live?
Catherine McKinnell
We recognise that schools are working incredibly hard to deliver in their communities. There is a whole range of factors that impact school funding, including their rural or urban nature and pupil numbers; we have discussed declining rolls. We will continue to keep the school funding formula under review. That does take time and it has to be done very carefully to ensure certainty for schools about their funding planning.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last year, 565 EHCPs were issued in Cambridgeshire, with fewer than 10% completed within the statutory 20-week deadline. Cambridgeshire county council now ranks as the 10th worst nationally for meeting the timelines on their delivery. With 99% of SEND tribunals finding in favour of the parent, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to improve the process that sees so many applications require a tribunal, and to improve the delivery of EHCPs in Cambridgeshire, assuming they are not going to be scrapped in mainstream schools?
Bridget Phillipson
Until that final point, I thought the hon. Gentleman raised some serious concerns, which we have heard this afternoon from many colleagues across the House who need us to bring forward reform to deliver better outcomes for children with SEND. If the Conservative party wants to work with us to do this in a way that delivers a better system for children with SEND, I would be very happy to do so, but at the moment all we seem to get is opposition for opposition’s sake.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Victoria college in my constituency is one of the relatively small number of SEND specialist further education colleges in the country. It does outstanding work. For many years, such colleges have not had access to dedicated capital grant funding. Will the Minister be so good as to look into the issue and agree to meet me to discuss it further?
Stephen Morgan
Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings they need is a key part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Sadly, both universities in my constituency, De Montfort University and Leicester University, are on the verge of making hundreds of redundancies and even shutting down complete faculties. What financial commitment is the Department making to secure academic jobs, especially in subjects such as chemistry, humanities and languages, rather than making short-term cuts?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that universities are independent institutions that are able to make their own decisions around financial management. As a Government, we have sought to stabilise the higher education sector. That is why we took the difficult but necessary decision to increase tuition fees. Later this year, we will be publishing a post-16 strategy that will deal with many of his questions.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Last week, I heard from a mum who applied for an EHCP for her son in December and was told it would be ready in June. She has now been informed by Buckinghamshire council that he remains unallocated, with 789 children ahead of him. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for the work she is doing to grip and reform the SEND system, but can she talk more about her ambitions to support people caught in the horrible waiting game for EHCPs?
Bridget Phillipson
We have heard this afternoon from my hon. Friend and so many Members across the House about the urgent need to make improvements for children with SEND. We are laying the foundations with more investment in the system, through both the high needs budget and capital, so we have the places that are needed. There is, of course, much we are doing right now with councils to improve some of the unacceptable waits that parents currently face.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The superb John Hampden school in Wendover reports that it is running a £109,000 deficit supporting students with significant SEND while they await assessments. However, it is an infant-only school, and the money often does not come through until the pupils have moved up to a junior school. Will the Minister look at how the system is working for infant-only schools, to make the system fairer?
Catherine McKinnell
As we have said, we are looking at reforms to the system; we recognise that there are challenges right across the system that we inherited. We know that families face challenges in securing support and that schools face challenges, too. We will look at every detail and announce reforms in the White Paper in the autumn.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I recently hosted a series of engagements and roundtables on the SEN reforms, and it is impossible to ignore the sheer size of the problems this Government are confronting. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legal right to specialist support will remain a core principle of every child’s entitlement as Labour rebuilds this broken system and that we will go further, delivering real outcomes, genuine inclusion and an SEN system built to serve families, not fail them?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area over many years and for the way he champions this cause here on behalf of his constituents. I can confirm that children with SEND have a legal right to additional support and that Labour will protect that. He will appreciate that discussions are under way with families, campaigners and school leaders to ensure that we get this system right—a better system with strengthened support and more timely intervention and early identification of need. It is clear this afternoon that that mission is urgent, and that we need to deliver better outcomes for children with SEND. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.
Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the shadow Home Secretary to ask this urgent question, I remind the House that hon. Members must not refer to any matters that are currently before the courts. Members are free to refer to broader policy issues, but they should not get into the details of the specific cases for which criminal charges are being brought.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on criminal activity by illegal immigrants at asylum hotels.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
As the House will be aware, on Tuesday 8 July an arrest was made by Essex police following incidents that took place in Epping earlier that day, and a man was subsequently charged. His trial is due to start on 26 August, and he has been remanded in custody until that time. These are very serious allegations and it is vital that criminal justice procedures are able to run their course—Superintendent Tim Tubbs of Essex police has said that
“the last thing we want is for any public discussion to hinder an ongoing prosecution.”
I thank Essex police both for its swift response on that case and for handling the protests in Essex yesterday evening and in previous days with diligence and professionalism.
Criminal activity of any kind is totally unacceptable, wherever it occurs and whoever it is perpetrated by. As outlined following the recent Casey report, we are improving joint protection arrangements between the police and immigration enforcement linked to the asylum system. We are clear that where crimes are committed, every effort must be made to catch, prosecute and punish those responsible.
Let there be absolutely no doubt: foreign nationals, including asylum seekers, who abuse our hospitality by breaking our laws should expect to be removed from this country. In the first year of this Government, 5,179 foreign national criminals were removed from the UK—a 14% increase on the previous year. That is important progress, but we want to go further. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are changing the law to ensure that individuals convicted of any registered sexual offence are not granted asylum, and we are legislating to allow for the tagging of any migrant considered to pose a threat to public safety or national security, as well as strengthening our crackdown on illegal working.
But we must go further to end hotel use. This Labour Government inherited an asylum system in chaos, with 400 hotels in use at the peak in 2023 at a cost of almost £9 million a day. We are changing that, clearing the asylum backlog and increasing returns to end the use of asylum hotels all together by the end of this Parliament. Alongside those actions, we are mounting a comprehensive and wide-ranging effort to tackle small boat crossings, including the intensified co-operation and pilot returns scheme with France outlined by the Home Secretary in her statement last week.
There is no quick fix for the chronic problems this Government inherited, but, for the first time in years, there is now a serious and sensible plan to restore order and proper management to the asylum and immigration system. Let me state plainly to the House that we expect rules to be respected and enforced, and we expect the law to be followed. When it is not, we expect those involved to face the full force of the law. We are taking every possible step to deliver the strong border security that the country needs, because nothing matters more than the safety of the British people.
Chris Philp
The Policing Minister was crowing about the Government’s action on small boats, but the truth is this: so far this year, the Government have allowed in 23,000 illegal immigrants across the channel—that is 52% up on last year; this year has been by far the worst ever; and numbers in asylum hotels are now higher than at the time of the election. This is a border security crisis, but it is also a public safety crisis, especially for women and girls. Many nationalities crossing—for example, Afghans—commit up to 20 times more sex offences than average; Louise Casey made that point in her report.
Now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by illegal immigrants housed in the Government’s own asylum hotels. The Sun found 339 charges in the last six months based on only half the hotels currently operated. The Mail on Sunday found 708 charges based on only a third of those hotels. Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence, theft and arson, including the case that the Minister referred to in Epping, where a 38-year-old Ethiopian man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. An illegal immigrant in Oxford has been convicted of raping a 20-year-old woman in a churchyard. A Sudanese man was convicted of strangling and attempting to rape a woman in a nightclub toilet in Wakefield. Violent protest in response to those appalling crimes is never justified. The public, though, are rightly sick of this illegal immigrant crime wave. It has to end.
Will the Minister commit now to doing the following things? First, will she record and publish the immigration status of all offenders? Secondly, will she close that asylum hotel in Epping? Thirdly, will she repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters? Finally, will she emulate Greece’s new approach, which started today, and deport all illegal immigrants on arrival from France without judicial process either back to their country of origin or to a safe third country? Will she give the House and the country those commitments?
Dame Diana Johnson
Let me repeat to the House that any allegation of crime or sexual assault—including by individuals in the asylum system—is incredibly serious and is to be treated so by the authorities and by the Government. I regret the tone that the shadow Home Secretary is taking on such a serious and important matter. I also gently remind him to look at his record and that of the Conservative party on this issue. More than 400 asylum hotels were in operation at their peak, housing over 50,000 people at a cost of almost £9 million a day. Enforced returns were down 50% on 2010. Returns of foreign national offenders had fallen by a thousand. Criminal smuggler gangs were able to exploit our weak border security—
Dame Diana Johnson
There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers. [Interruption.]
Dame Diana Johnson
There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers, and migrants could work illegally in the gig economy with few sanctions for the companies responsible.
This Government are gripping the situation and turning the system around. We have removed 5,179 foreign national offenders in our first year in office. Just to put that in perspective for the benefit of the House, that is more foreign criminals than were removed in the entire 20 months when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Immigration.
Dame Diana Johnson
Excuse, excuse, excuse.
I would say that the same pattern is true of illegal working—but actually it is even worse. In the first quarter of this year, we delivered more raids, more arrests and more fines for illegal working than the shadow Home Secretary managed in the entire time he was Immigration Minister. We did more in three months to crack down on illegal working than he managed in 20. Now—
Dame Diana Johnson
It is not nonsense; it is facts.
Now we are trying to go further in all these areas, but it is clear that the Conservatives and their friends in Reform are the ones trying to stop us. We introduced counter-terror measures at the border to smash the gangs responsible for the vile trade; they voted against the Bill that delivers that. We introduced measures to ban sex offenders from getting asylum in the UK; they voted against the Bill that delivers them. We introduced tagging for those arriving illegally who pose a risk to the public, and extended illegal working duties to cover the gig economy; once again, they voted against it. We have seen 14 years of inaction, leaving our borders exposed and our communities fractured—yet the shadow Home Secretary has the cheek to lecture us about keeping the country safe.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests. People who come to this country legally and work hard are welcome, but the Minister is right to say that those who do not are not. We know that one of the big pull factors is the ability to work illegally in the UK. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to stamp out illegal working, and in particular the role of the new fair work agency introduced by the Employment Rights Bill, which will be critical in stopping illegal working in the UK?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who I believe gave evidence to the esteemed Home Affairs Committee on which he sits, is looking at that issue. A number of companies have been reported in the press as employing or using people in particular from asylum hotels—I know the shadow Home Secretary has taken a particular interest in this—and the Minister is working very hard to ensure that those companies are held to account, and that the new provisions we are bringing in to ensure that the gig economy is treated in the same way as other employers, who have to check individuals’ immigration status, are followed through. There is much more to do, but certainly I know the Immigration Minister is working hard on this.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The scenes of violent unrest at the Bell hotel this weekend are deeply concerning. Liberal Democrats will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but what we saw went far beyond that. There is no place for that sort of violence and thuggery in our society. I thank the police and the emergency services for their brave and professional response, and my thoughts go out to anyone who is feeling frightened as a result of those unacceptable scenes.
It is completely understandable that people are concerned about criminal activity, not least after the former Conservative Government’s chaotic approach to immigration shattered public trust. That is why we need an efficient asylum system that swiftly returns those without a genuine right to stay. I would welcome details from the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to deliver that. Clear rules that are properly enforced will be key to rebuilding public trust in the system after it was broken by the Conservatives.
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady’s contribution. This is a serious issue; I fully agree with her on peaceful protest, but it is totally unacceptable when that steps over into violent disorder, as we saw last summer, for example. She will know that there is a huge effort going in to deal with the backlog we inherited from the previous Government—to speed up the process so that those people who should not be in our country are swiftly removed, and those refugees and asylum seekers whose claims are accepted can get on with the rest of their lives.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the surge in returns that we have seen and the raids on companies with illegal working practices. As we have spoken about many times in this House, those companies are incentivising the boat crossings and ultimately undermining our national security. Can the Minister set out what further enforcement there can be? Is it possible that conversations could be had with the Treasury about further measures that could be taken to bring some of these companies to heel?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am the Policing Minister, but I know that work is already under way on that issue. The Immigration Minister has had a number of conversations, particularly with employers, as I have just said, about where work should not be taking place because of individuals’ immigration status. There has been investment in the National Crime Agency—additional officers are working on this issue—and work is under way on smashing the gangs who were behind bringing people across in the small boats. There are also our international arrangements and treaties that we are signing with various countries, which the previous Government were unable to do.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.
Dame Diana Johnson
As I just said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, peaceful protest is completely acceptable. We understand that there are different opinions on immigration in this country, and people should be allowed to voice those opinions. When that turns into violent disorder, as we have seen, it is not acceptable. I know that the police behave in a very professional way. They allow protests to take place, but they clearly have to keep the King’s peace as well. The Father of the House is correct to say that we need a functioning system, where applications are dealt with swiftly, people are not waiting for years for applications to be decided, and those who should not be in this country are removed.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think many of us agree with the Minister when she says that it is important that we are able to debate immigration and refugees and how we as a country support them, and that we recognise when allegations of incredibly serious sexual offences are involved that people are rightly concerned. Peaceful protest plays its part, but she will be conscious that the police themselves have condemned the “mindless thuggery” that we have seen in Epping. Also, there are reports that seem quite serious about neo-Nazi groups and their leaflets being circulated. In order to protect peaceful protest, which many of us seek to do, we have to stop the direct targeting of individuals with violence. What assessment has been made of any co-ordination of violence by groups in these incidents?
Dame Diana Johnson
I say again that we absolutely believe that peaceful protest is part of our democratic process. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend will know, there are always people who will seek to exploit situations, and we probably saw some of that over the last few days in Epping. I say again that there were people from the local community who were expressing genuinely held views, and it is important that we note that. However, I am also aware that literature was being distributed and that other groups were perhaps going to Epping to stir up problems. The police are aware of that, and they are looking at all the information and evidence about what happened, and they will obviously keep that under review.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Two weeks ago in Epping, there were three alleged sexual assaults on school-age girls; my thoughts are with the victims, their families and their peers. These were allegedly linked to the Bell hotel, which has been stood up as an asylum hotel against all advice. Since then, we have had numerous major protests involving hundreds of people, injuries to police officers and damage to police vehicles. People quite rightly have the right to peaceful protest, but these violent scenes are not us. They are not Epping and they are not what we stand for. I want to thank Essex police for all that they are doing to keep us safe in these challenging and distressing times for our town. Following the protests, we have churches cancelling services, businesses closing early and local residents feeling like they are barricaded in their own homes. The hotel is in the wrong place: it is near a school and there is inadequate safeguarding of the hotel’s vulnerable residents. This is a crisis that is boiling over, and for the sake of community safety the Home Secretary and the Government must get a grip of the situation. They must listen and act now to close this hotel immediately. Will they now do that?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman’s comments on behalf of his constituents were measured, and he is absolutely right that our first thoughts should be with those affected by what happened in Epping—the victims and their families. It is important for the House to note that. I also want to reiterate that this Government are committed to closing all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s concern about crimes linked to the asylum system—that is a concern held across the House. Why does the Minister think the Conservatives and Reform voted against the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which allows the tagging of asylum seekers who pose a threat to public safety?
Dame Diana Johnson
I have absolutely no idea; it is for the shadow Home Secretary to explain that one. Clearly, I would expect all hon. and right hon. Members in the House to want to do everything to keep our communities safe.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I look forward to the swift deportation of anybody who takes advantage of our hospitality by breaking our laws and attacking women and young girls. In July 2024, I warned my constituents not to throw away their futures, as the far-right lynch mobs threatened to spread to Gloucestershire. Once again this thuggery has flared up, this time in Epping. What actions are the Government taking to support authorities in the prosecution of those who whip up this furore, both online and in positions of influence?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman may know that a great deal of work has been undertaken since the disorder of last summer to ensure that intelligence is gathered from the online space, as well as the offline space, and that all the authorities are prepared and ready if there is any sign of disorder again. Just to reiterate, all of us in this House would recognise that peaceful protest is an important part of a democratic society, but not when it crosses over into the disorder and mayhem we saw last year when criminal acts were perpetrated by individuals.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I agree that it is important that we are able to debate immigration and asylum. People across the country know the consequences of the asylum system failing to protect the public, communities and businesses—we have had experience of that in my own city. Does the Minister agree that public safety must come first and that it is indefensible that the Tory party and Reform opposed measures allowing the tagging of high-risk individuals? Does she agree that the breadth and depth of this crisis needs us all to work together to regain public confidence?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—she put that eloquently. Again, I expect that all Members of this House would want to do everything to protect the members of all communities in this country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister says that an asylum seeker convicted of an offence will not be granted asylum. Does she have some special method of sending them back to a country to which we cannot send anyone back if they have broken into our country illegally? Otherwise, what does her sanction amount to?
Dame Diana Johnson
To the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question, this is about not granting asylum to those who are convicted of a registered sexual offence, so it is not recognising that they have an asylum claim. That is the issue we are legislating for at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman and I understand that there are certain countries in the world to which it is difficult to return individuals—I fully appreciate that—but we are setting out in legislation a clear note that asylum will not be granted to those who are convicted of registered sexual offences.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is trying to out-populist the populists, and there are dangers involved in that. Does the Minister agree that it is common sense for individuals convicted of sexual crimes to be barred from receiving protection in the UK? If so, why does she think the Conservatives and Reform voted against that?
Dame Diana Johnson
Again, that is a matter for each individual Opposition Member to explain to their constituents. I know that this is an issue that people care about. Opposition Members will have to explain their decision to their constituents, including in Croydon.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We have a responsibility to deal in the truth and to counter plainly false narratives. The Minister talked about the fact that this protest crossed over into mindless thuggery. Every one of us should stand up here and say that to our constituents or to anyone who gets in touch. People are spreading rumours that have no basis in the truth, including in my constituency, where last year a rumour went around about asylum seekers in hotels. It had absolutely no basis in the truth, but could have caused some sort of mob, like in Epping. This is dog-whistle politics. What is the Minister doing to tell people that, just as not everybody in any community in our country is a rapist, not everybody in migrant hotels is a rapist? We should do what we can to ensure that people are protected and decisions are made as quickly as possible.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Over the past few years, the online space in particular has been used for misinformation and downright lies. It is important that we all recognise that we should look carefully at social media sites. We should use critical thinking, as we teach our children in school. We should always ask why that piece of information has been put out and whether it is from a reliable source, and look for reliable media sources if we are seeking information about what is happening—that is important. We in this House have perhaps not been as quick as we should be to recognise how social media has moved things on in society in a way that we need to deal with. There is an enormous amount of work in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office to consider what more we can do in relation to social media and the online space.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has spoken passionately about crimes in this country—including, I dare say, some by a number of individuals who entered the country on his Government’s watch when he was a Home Office Minister. As other Members have said, when Opposition parties take that position while voting against tagging asylum seekers who are perceived to be a threat, and against barring from the country those who have been convicted of sexual crimes, it damages not only confidence in our communities but the life chances of asylum seekers who have committed no crimes and have a legitimate claim to be here. Does the Minister agree?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes. My hon. Friend puts it very well. Within this, there are people fleeing persecution in other parts of the world. This country, as we all know and have heard many times in the House, recognises our role in the world to offer a safe haven to such people. I fully endorse what he says.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Over the past year, how many gangs have actually been smashed?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I understand it—obviously, I am the Policing Minister, but I will get the Minister with responsibility for immigration to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this—the National Crime Agency has over 80 ongoing investigations into networks, and 100 new NCA officers have been recruited and funded by the Border Security Command, taking the total number of officers focused solely on this issue to 500.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When violent disorder erupted on the streets of my constituency last summer, the police put themselves between two groups of people who had been wound up and were looking to see how much damage they could do to each other. Chief Constable Chris Noble, alongside Chief Inspectors David Barrow and Laura Davies, ensured that communities came together after the event to realise that neighbours can live in peace. My constituents expect everybody who has committed sexual offences or other crimes to be prosecuted, but what work is the Minister doing across Government to ensure that, once such events have taken place, communities can come together again and live in peace? Nobody wants to walk around on eggshells, fearful of their neighbours.
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. After the disorder last summer we did see communities spontaneously coming together and wanting to say that what had happened in their local area was done not by the majority but by a very small number of people. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been working with local authorities on rebuilding community cohesion—which for many years under the last Administration was not seen as important at all—because it is so important that all parts of our society feel safe and valued. Through community cohesion, we stop those who wish to divide and pit people against each other, and recognise the valuable role that all parts of society and our communities play.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Illegal migrants crossing the channel are 24 times more likely to end up in British jails than British-born citizens, yet this Government allow thousands of unvetted males to enter this country who will commit horrific crimes like rape and murder, and there are some potential terrorists among them too. Does the Minister agree that it is time to forget the silly legislation that Labour MPs are bleating on about and to detain these people and deport them? We do not want to see any of these silly tags put on their ankles; just detain and deport them straight away.
Dame Diana Johnson
I sat on the Select Committee on Home Affairs with the hon. Gentleman for a number of years and I think he attended the visit to Manston when we were both on the Committee. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he did not, but it might have helped if he had. At Manston, information and biometrics are taken from people who come across in small boats; they are checked against records. I wish he would have a look at what actually happens. I think the statistic he mentioned comes from a newspaper; I do not think it has actually been verified, although I am willing to have a look at it, but I think it was in The Sun if I recall correctly.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Members will be aware of the public streaming of violence and criminal activity towards property and police officers. This is the second year that this has happened over the summer period. Will the Minister confirm that she is engaging with other Departments on how we can review streaming activity so that it does not promote violence and criminality and replication in other locations around our country?
Dame Diana Johnson
That is a very important point and there are ongoing conversations with the Home Office and other Government Departments to ensure that it is addressed. That has been a problem particularly in the terrorist field, and action has been taken speedily to get such postings down.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I have been fobbed off with ridiculous non-answers to my written questions on this subject and an insulting letter from the Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), so I do not want to be promised yet another evasive letter that ignores the question. Will the Minister tell me what the legal reasons are that the Immigration Minister cited as justification for the Government and Serco refusing to tell MPs and local people when they move migrants into our constituencies and where?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member of this House, but I have been in the House a while and certainly that did not happen under the previous Administration. There are always opportunities to improve and local Members of Parliament, local councils and the police are all engaged when people are moved into certain areas of the country. I know that happens, although I am sure it could be better, but I am happy to raise this again with the Immigration Minister because I have not had sight of the letter that she sent to the hon. Gentleman.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The press regularly runs stories where economic migrants are quoted describing what they believe are the benefits available to them in the UK and the work opportunities that our relatively under-regulated labour markets offer. Does the Minister agree it is time that we considered Labour’s ID cards plan, scrapped by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and its ability to reduce the UK’s pull factors for new migrants?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Government have been taking action over the past 12 months to deal with the issue of illegal working. There have been 10,031 illegal working visits, leading to 7,130 arrests—a rise of 48% and 51% respectively compared with the year before. That marks the first 12-month period in which more than 10,000 visits have taken place to start to tackle illegal working in this country.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
My constituency has a proud history of being a welcoming community. We have had an asylum hotel for two years with no problems; the families are well integrated in the local community with many children in the local schools. Late last week, however, we were told that people would be asked to move from that hotel with no notice from today, despite the fact that the hotel will still be used for asylum seekers. They do not know where they will need to move to. I have raised the issue with the Home Office and had no response, so can the Minister urgently look into it today? Does she agree that every MP with an asylum hotel in their constituency should have a dedicated Home Office contact so that we can work together to promote peace and harmonious community relations, and against disinformation and violence?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to pass on that issue to the Immigration Minister.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
We have heard Conservative and Reform MPs decry legislation that they say is stopping the problem being fixed. They talk the talk, but they do not actually vote for legislation. The shadow Home Secretary, with an angry face, was going on about what is happening in hotels, but it was his Government’s policy that set up hotels as hostels for asylum seekers. This Government have said that they will end the policy. Can the Minister set out the Government’s sensible approach—not gimmicks—to end the use of hotels as hostels?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It might help the shadow Home Secretary if I say that the number of hotels has gone down under this Labour Government. [Interruption.] Despite what the shadow Home Secretary says, the number of hotels has gone down since the Government came into power.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Violent disorder is always wrong, but we need to recognise that it is a symptom of people’s outrage at the current situation, and of their fear of crime—particularly sexual crime—in their community. The Minister should focus not on the tone of questions in the House and what has happened in the past, but on what she will do to solve the problem. In that respect, I agree with what the Father of the House said about requiring a credible deterrent, so does the Minister regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme?
Dame Diana Johnson
I totally disagree with what the hon. Lady said. Violent disorder is not a symptom—it is criminal. It is thuggery; it is attacks on our brave police officers. There is no reason or excuse for what happened last summer or for any violent disorder that may happen in future. It is criminal, it should be prosecuted, and people should face the full consequences of the law.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the police for how they have dealt with the violent disorder that we have seen from a minority of people in recent days. I would much rather that the police were investigating the crimes that are allegedly behind the incidents. I also thank the Minister for showing zero tolerance to the minority of people in our asylum system who break the law—it is right that we do that. She mentions that the number of asylum hotels has come down. Has the bill also come down?
Dame Diana Johnson
The number of hotels has come down. The aim is to reduce the overall bill by £1 billion, but the number of hotels has come down since we came into power.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
One year on, it is quite clear that the Labour Government have not got a grip on illegal migration and criminality. There is no plan and no cap, and it would appear today that there is not even an answer or any knowledge as to whether any gangs have been smashed. When will the Minister put in place an effective deterrent that protects not just our borders, but our citizens?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Lady says that there is no plan. First, we are working with source and transit companies to stop dangerous journeys before they begin. Secondly, we are stepping up law enforcement, with new powers, more National Crime Agency officers and specialist units in France to disrupt smuggling gangs. Thirdly, we are strengthening border security, with more patrols, drones and legal challenges to stop overcrowded boats. Fourthly, we have secured a new returns agreement with France—something that the shadow Home Secretary could not achieve—so that people arriving illegally by small boat can be sent back, while also accepting a matching number of eligible applicants through a safe route. Finally, we are cracking down on illegal working and reforming the asylum system to close loopholes exploited by gangs and ensure fair, controlled migration. That looks like a plan to me—that is a plan.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
There have been numerous reports over the weekend about an alleged incident at the Metropole hotel, the asylum hotel in my constituency. The Minister will know that I have raised concerns about the hotel numerous times with the Home Office. Will she ensure that this incident is investigated swiftly and that I as the MP and the community get a report urgently?
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely—I am very happy to give that assurance. I know that my hon. Friend has been raising these issues for some time, so I am happy to do that.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
While migrant hotels cost the British taxpayer billions, migrants are now being moved into houses in multiple occupation, taking houses from local people and causing misery for neighbours. Can the right hon. Lady tell the House how many migrants have been moved into HMOs? What is the cost to the British taxpayer?
Dame Diana Johnson
What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we inherited a huge backlog of claims for asylum. One of the important parts of dealing with the backlog is processing those claims and determining whether people have an asylum claim that can be successful; if it is not, they should then be returned. That is the whole purpose of closing the hotels, as we will speed up the processing of the applications.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Last month, the Immigration Minister could not tell me in a written answer how many illegal asylum seekers have a criminal record. We have an asylum hotel in Cheshunt in my constituency, and my constituents are understandably concerned about criminal activity and antisocial behaviour. They do not think that the Government are listening to them. When will the Minister come to this House, meet her manifesto commitment and close the asylum hotel in my constituency?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I have said a number of times, this Government are committed to closing all hotels by the end of this Parliament. Fewer hotels are open now than when we came into power last July.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The vast majority of British citizens are law-abiding, and they are concerned about the impact of mass migration on their communities. A deterrent would go some way towards restoring trust that the British people may have in the asylum system. When will the Government implement a deterrent to send those entering the country illegally to a safe third country?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I have just set out in great detail, we have a plan. Let me say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that the plan that the previous Government had resulted in four volunteers, I think, going to Rwanda. A general election was called; the then Prime Minister decided to call a general election. Why did he not let the scheme operate if it was such a success? That is the real question. Why did they go to the country if they were just about to have an enormous success with Rwanda?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The House will be aware of the serious street disturbances in my constituency last month following the alleged rape of a young 14-year-old girl. Last week, Ballymena magistrates court was informed that the chief suspect has fled back to Romania. Does the Minister agree that extradition that works is an imperative, and that extradition that works expeditiously is an even greater imperative?
Dame Diana Johnson
Clearly that is a live matter before the courts, but I want people to be held to account for their actions. If that involves extradition, that is the right thing to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, I thank the Minister for her answers. However, all too often we seem to be hearing about criminal activity by immigrants and asylum seekers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and more needs to be done to address it. On behalf of my constituents, who ask me this question all the time—every weekend, to be precise—what steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a zero-tolerance policy for migrants awaiting an asylum decision, so that if they are detained for any kind of criminal activity during that time, they will be sent back to their country of origin as a matter of urgency?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I said at the outset, whoever perpetrates a crime will be held to account, and there will be consequences. I hope I have been clear that that includes people who are making asylum applications, as well as the wider general public. People have to be held to account.
Independent Water Commission
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I place on the record the fact that Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers were disappointed to see extensive coverage in the media this morning of Ministers’ responses to the Independent Water Commission, before the House has had the opportunity to consider the matter. It would be nice to think that the normal courtesies will be resumed.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have, of course, saved the bulk of my responses for you and the House this afternoon. With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s plans to reform the water sector.
The water industry is clearly failing. Our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted with record levels of sewage, and water pipes have been left to crumble into disrepair. I share customers’ fury at rising bills. Right now, hosepipe bans are in place across the country because not a single new reservoir has been built in over 30 years, and the lack of water infrastructure is blocking economic growth. Water companies have been allowed to profit at the expense of the British people when they should have been investing to fix our broken water pipes. They got away with this because of a broken regulatory system that has failed both customers and the environment. The public expressed their fury in last year’s general election and voted for change. That change will now come.
In just one year, we have put in place the building blocks for change. First, we restored accountability by giving the regulators more teeth and introducing a ban on unfair bonuses, severe and automatic penalties for breaking the law, and jail sentences for the most serious offences. Secondly, we are investing £104 billion of private sector funding to rebuild the water network, upgrading crumbling pipes, repairing leaks, building new sewage treatment works and digging out new reservoirs. It is the single biggest investment in the history of the water sector, and it allows me to make a new commitment to the country: this Government will cut water companies’ sewage pollution in half by the end of the decade. That is the most ambitious commitment ever made by any Government about water pollution, and it is just the start. Over a decade of national renewal, we will restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health.
The third building block for change is today’s final report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission. I express my thanks to Sir Jon, his officials, and all those who have contributed to this outstanding piece of work. I agree with Sir Jon that water regulation has been too weak, too complex, and ineffective. Having four separate regulators with overlapping and conflicting remits has failed both customers and the environment. Ofwat has failed to protect customers from water companies’ mismanagement of their hard-earned money, and it has failed to protect our waterways from record levels of pollution. Today, I can announce that this Labour Government will abolish Ofwat. We will bring water functions from four different regulators into one—a single powerful super-regulator responsible for the entire water sector, with the teeth it needs to enforce the high standards that the public rightly demand.
The new regulator will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past. For customers, it will oversee investment and upgrade work, so that hard-working British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes that we saw last year as customers were left to pay the price of failure by the previous Government. For investors, it will provide the clarity and direction required for a strong partnership between Government, the sector and investors to attract billions of pounds of new funding. For the environment, it will reduce all forms of pollution to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. We will work closely with the Welsh Government to devolve the economic regulation of water to Wales.
I will publish a White Paper this autumn giving the Government’s full response to the Independent Water Commission’s final report and launching a consultation on it. Following that, I will bring forward a new water reform Bill early in the lifetime of this Parliament. Ofwat will remain in place during the transition to the new regulator, and I will ensure that it provides the right leadership to oversee the current price review and investment plan during that time. To provide clarity during this period, I will issue an interim strategic policy statement to Ofwat and give ministerial directions to the Environment Agency setting out our expectations and requirements. We will publish a transition plan as part of our full Government response in the autumn.
Today, we are immediately taking forward a number of Sir Jon’s recommendations. First, we will establish a new statutory water ombudsman—a single, free service to help customers resolve complaints such as incorrect bills, leaking pipes or water supply failures. The new ombudsman will have the legal powers to protect customers and will bring the water dispute resolution process in line with other utilities, such as energy. It is part of the Government’s ambition to put customers at the heart of water regulation.
Secondly, we will end the era of water companies marking their own homework. We will end operator self-monitoring and transition to open monitoring to increase transparency and help restore public trust. Water companies are already required to publish data on some sewage spills within one hour. We will roll out real-time monitoring across the wastewater system, and all this data will be made publicly available online. That will ensure that the regulator and, importantly, the public have the power to hold water companies fully accountable.
Thirdly, we commit to including a regional element within the new regulator to ensure greater local involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water system planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering waterways, so that they can be cleaned up more effectively and more quickly. This will ensure—for the first time—that water infrastructure investment plans align with spatial planning to support faster regional economic growth. The lack of water infrastructure that held back development around Cambridge and Oxford for so long will not happen again.
The new regulatory framework will recognise the risks investors take and, if they meet their obligations, they will see a fair, stable return on their investment. Just last week, I signed the Government’s new water skills pledge to make sure that the sector has the skills and workforce it needs to deliver this vast investment.
This Labour Government were elected to clean up water pollution and ensure that unacceptable bill hikes can never happen again. We now have all the building blocks in place to make that happen. We are establishing a new partnership based on effective regulation, where water companies, investors, communities and the Government will work together to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I shall be responding on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State while she meets farmers at the Royal Welsh Show.
Let me begin by recognising the scale and seriousness of the work undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team. The review contains 460 pages and 88 recommendations, and represents one of the most detailed examinations of the water sector since privatisation. Indeed, there is much in it that we cautiously welcome, including the merger of the regulators. As we examine the recommendations in more detail, we stand ready to support serious reform if it is done properly. However, I am afraid that what we have seen and heard from the Secretary of State over the past year has not matched the seriousness of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s work, nor has it gone anywhere near the root-and-branch radical reform that he sold to voters before the election. I therefore seek clarity from him on the following points.
First, over the weekend the Secretary of State announced that Labour would cut sewage spills by 50% by 2030, but what he did not mention was the fact that plans submitted under the last Conservative Government were already set to cut sewage spills by even more than that amount. The Times reported yesterday that the Secretary of State’s new pledge would actually see an additional 20,000 discharges of sewage in our rivers, compared with existing plans. Can the Secretary of State explain why, after 88 recommendations and a year-long review of the sector, he has watered down sewage reduction targets rather than massively ramping them up?
Secondly, the Secretary of State took to the airwaves at the weekend telling the public that we needed to go back to the “purity” of our waters that we all remember, but the uncomfortable truth for which Labour still refuses to take responsibility is that when it left office in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. Let me repeat that: under Blair and Brown, 93% of sewage discharges were happening with no oversight and no accountability whatsoever. The only reason we can talk tough today is the fact that the last Government pushed monitoring to 100% in 2023. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State to clarify his statement?
Thirdly, the Secretary of State told the public that he had secured £104 billion of investment from the water sector to fund these reductions, but what he did not mention was that £93 billion of that investment plan had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023, nine months before he was even in office. I would know that because I was the Minister at the time, and I have here the letter showing that he had nothing to do with it. Will he comment on that?
Fourthly, the Secretary of State champions the 81 criminal investigations of water companies that have taken place since the election and his ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, but what he does not explain is that these criminal investigations are a direct result of the Conservatives’ policy of quadrupling the number of water company inspections, and that it was our party that launched the ban on bosses’ bonuses. This is all available for the public to see and to fact-check for themselves, as it is a matter of public record.
What all this shows is that, for all their bluster and promises of radical change, the Government have made almost no new progress on the issue over the past year. They have sat on their hands for more than a year waiting for the review. It is no wonder that the campaigners whom the Secretary of State so shamelessly used for votes in the run-up to the last general election are now, today, calling for his resignation. We on this side of the House stand ready to work with the Government on serious reform. We will support any action that genuinely holds water companies to account, delivers cleaner waters and protects the public from paying the price of corporate failure. However, we will not stand by while the Secretary of State rewrites history, waters down ambition, and backtracks on the promises that he made to the public.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think—for his comments, but it is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State did not consider a matter of this urgency to be important enough for her to show up in the Chamber this afternoon. I am afraid that that really does reflect the importance that their party ascribed to this issue during the 14 years in which it was in power.
I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he sounded a little delusional this afternoon. If he really thinks that the Conservatives did so well on sewage, I wonder why he thinks sewage pollution in our waterways increased every single year during their 14 years in charge. The fact is that the Conservatives made the situation far worse, because they instructed the regulator to apply a light touch when they should have told it to get a grip. They stripped out resources from the regulator, reducing its resources by 50% at one point, so it was less able to enforce against sewage pollution. They allowed millions of pounds, if not billions, to be diverted away from investment and to be used instead for unjustified bonuses and dividends for water companies.
It is this Government who have secured £104 billion of investment to upgrade our water system. It is this Government who have banned the unfair bonuses that water bosses were taking. It is this Government who are introducing monitoring of all sewage outlets. And it is this Government who are going to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, where the previous Government failed abysmally.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituents will be very pleased with what the Government have announced today, following 14 years of seeing increases in the dumping of sewage on the beaches, and in the rivers, in my constituency. I could not help but notice that yesterday the leader of Reform, in his answer to every question, said either “I don’t know” or “I’ve no idea.” Of course, he is not here either, but he did say that his answer to this problem is to increase payments to the shareholders and to do absolutely nothing to deal with the problems in our water industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, during his time as Secretary of State, he will make it his priority to ensure that we reduce the sewage being dumped in our rivers, on our beaches and in our lakes?
Steve Reed
I was, of course, on the television show in question with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I think he told us six times that he had no idea—well, that much we knew. It is this Government who have a plan to clean up our waterways. We have put in place the building blocks for change, and that allows me to stand before this House and commit that by 2030 we will reduce sewage pollution from water companies by 50% as we move towards a decade of national renewal in order to clean up our waterways for good.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and Sir Jon Cunliffe for his report and for his work in producing it. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for the abolition of Ofwat, and for the creation of a new, consolidated and powerful regulator. In fact, we put it to the Public Bill Committee and it was supported by neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party, but today’s proposal seems to include doing just that, so we strongly welcome the statement. It is a reminder to the wonderful volunteers and water campaigners across the country that their work is absolutely worth while and has made a huge difference. My message to them is: thank you so much and keep going, because we still do not know the details and the nature of the new regulator, and we still see no sign in the report of any plan to tackle the toxic nature of the water industry’s ownership structure.
Why is there no plan to change the structure of the industry itself? Even the best regulator in the world will fail if water companies are still owned by those who care nothing for the quality of the lakes, rivers and seas, and who care only about making as much profit as possible in return for very little investment. Is it really acceptable to ask bill payers for a 30% rise when there is no guarantee that the water company will not be siphoning off huge chunks of that money in dividends, pay rises or bonuses? Why is there nothing in the statement that will truly empower the volunteers, citizen scientists and water campaigners I just mentioned? Why are we not giving places on water company boards to the likes of the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Lakes Rivers Trust, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Surfers Against Sewage and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, known as WASP? Why is there no mention of monitoring the volume of sewage spills as well as the number of incidences, and no mention of including legally binding pollution reduction targets?
Although the statement is welcome and we rightly celebrate the Liberal Democrat campaign wins that it is full of, our job as a constructive and effective Opposition is to scrutinise the detail and to carry on campaigning to clean up our waterways and our water industry too. That is exactly what we shall do.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I echo and endorse his comments about the volunteers and citizen scientists who carried out fantastic work to ensure that this issue remained where it needed to be, which was right at the top of the political agenda. I hope that they will join us in welcoming Sir Jon’s report.
There will be a White Paper and a consultation alongside it. We will launch the White Paper in the autumn, giving detailed Government responses to the 450-page report. With 88 recommendations, there is a lot to go through, but the report includes proposals about ownership, which will be consulted on as well. Volunteers and citizen scientists will be able to engage for the first time through the proposed regional structures. We accept that proposal in principle, and the detail of it will be worked through during the consultation. For the first time, there will be engagement on the catchment of entire river systems, and citizens, local authorities and businesses will all have a voice in that, as will members of the farming community operating within those catchments.
I believe that by reducing the number of spills we will also reduce the volume of spills. The hon. Gentleman will be able to monitor that, and he will be able to hold me to account, as will the House and the public, as we work towards the target that I have outlined for reducing sewage spills from water companies by 50% by 2030. He of course is lucky enough to represent one of the most beautiful parts of the country, including Windermere, and we are working with United Utilities to remove all sources of pollution from that beautiful, iconic lake, so that what became a story of decline can become a visible symbol of renewal with this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. It is apparent that a very considerable number of Back-Bench Members wish to participate in this statement. There are two further statements to follow before we come to the main business of the day, which is also very important, so I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to ask brief questions and not make statements.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Residents in Peterborough and across Anglian Water’s catchment area will welcome the statement and the bold action taken. They know all too well that the water system is broken. One of the issues we on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have looked at is the need for water infrastructure. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the drive and determination he has shown today to fix the water system will also drive forward the Fens reservoir and the infrastructure we need in the east of England? After a generation of delay on reservoirs, we now have the opportunity to succeed. Can he tell us that this will stay on track, and we will get the jobs and the water resources we need in the east?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are currently going through a dry spell and seeing hosepipe bans in many parts of the country, yet in the winter it rained very heavily. The reason we have hosepipe bans is that we do not have the reservoirs to catch the rain when it falls and then use it in drier periods, which is because we have not built a new reservoir for 30 years. That changes now: these plans include the intention to build nine new reservoirs. To speed up the planning process, I as the Secretary of State am taking control of consents for reservoirs, so that they can be approved much faster and go ahead to provide the country with the clean drinking water we need.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Environment Agency estimates that there are 4 million regular and occasional anglers throughout the United Kingdom, with 1.2 million getting fishing licences last year. Angling across the country is worth about £3 billion to the economy and it is the favourite pastime in this country, as the Secretary of State will know. Will he give an undertaking to all the anglers throughout this country that they will be fully engaged by the new regulator?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Anglers are quite rightly furious about the level of pollution, which is destroying fish and other life in our rivers, but also about the impact of abstractions, particularly from chalk streams, so the new regulator will be engaging with them. Sir Jon has proposed new mechanisms for volunteers and campaigners to engage with the system that were not available previously. We will consult on those in the autumn, and move ahead with legislation following that.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the water commission. The EFRA Committee has had each of the water bosses in, one by one, and each struggled to explain why their industry prioritises bonuses over fixing broken pipes. I therefore really welcome the action that the Government have taken to ban bonuses, starting with the bonus for the Southern Water boss, Lawrence Gosden. We were, however, disgusted to hear last week that he plans to take a doubling in his salary, an additional £690,000, after overseeing major water outages, flooding in Hastings town centre and massive sewage dumping. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a slap in the face to my constituents, and that Lawrence Gosden should think very seriously about whether he takes that salary increase?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend, who is such a strong campaigner on the water sector, makes a very important point, which she puts very well. I consider that pay rise to be outrageous, as does she. It turns out that he is receiving that pay increase under a scheme that was permitted by the regulator under the regime that the Conservatives had in place, and the payment he is getting this year relates to the last year of the Conservative Government. We have changed the law so that no similar payment can be made in future.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
South East Water’s Broad Oak reservoir in Canterbury, which will also serve your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not due to open until 2033. Will my beleaguered residents and businesses in Canterbury and parts of Whitstable have to put up with the droughts and the leaks—in a heatwave, which has been unbearable—for another eight years?
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady is quite right to point to the problems that we are experiencing because of the lack of reservoirs. As I said earlier, we are speeding up the consenting and the building of new reservoirs, so we have the means to catch the rain when it is falling and can use it during drier periods. She refers to leaks. The investment that we have secured will reduce leaks from water pipes, so we can help to conserve water for the purpose for which it is intended.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement. I am incredibly excited, not least because we have the beautiful River Trent, which separates my constituency from Staffordshire. It is home to the Staffordshire Swooshers, who have members from Derbyshire. They frequently have to avoid a “Trent tan”, but they extol the virtues of open water swimming. Does the Secretary of State agree that by having cleaner waters, we can encourage more great exercise to make the country healthier and improve wellbeing?
Steve Reed
A Trent tan is a very alarming and graphic image, but it captures what has gone wrong with our water sector for so long. The changes that we are announcing today will clean up our waterways across the country so that wild swimmers, as well as many other people who like to enjoy our precious rivers, lakes and seas, can get on and enjoy them without the kind of concern she alludes to.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
In my constituency last year there were 2,036 sewage spills, lasting for a total of 28,360 hours. However, contrary to the Secretary of State’s earlier assertion, we do not know the volume of that dumping because it is not monitored. What steps are the Government taking to impose targets to reduce both the duration and the volume of individual spills?
Steve Reed
We are increasing monitoring to 100% of all outlets. I note that representatives from the Conservative party will often try to take the credit for increasing monitoring. That is a good thing to have done, but what is not so good is to use it just to wave hello to the sewage as it floats on by and do nothing about reducing it.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I am afraid that the report feels like a missed opportunity for the Government to show the public whose side they are on. It entrenches a privatised model that has already failed economically, environmentally and democratically. With 20% to 50% of bills going on servicing debt, why is public ownership—if it is good enough for rail, GB Energy and renewables—not good enough for water?
Steve Reed
We have to take a rational, not ideological, approach to tackling this problem. Nationalising the water companies would cost £100 billion. Those are not figures, as I have seen my hon. Friend claim, from the water companies; they are provided by officials in my Department under the influence of nobody externally. To pay that money—£100 billion—we would have to take it away from public services, such as the national health service and education, to hand it to the owners of the companies that have been polluting our waterways. That makes no sense to me and it makes no sense to the public. Frankly, I am surprised that it makes any sense to him.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that he is going to merge all four water regulators into one. However, I offer a slight note of caution: it is no good moving the deckchairs around the deck unless the situation has been improved. When will he produce the White Paper and what teeth will he give this single new super-regulator?
Steve Reed
I welcome the hon. Member’s support in principle for Sir Jon Cunliffe’s proposal, which I have accepted, to merge the four regulators’ water functions into one single super-regulator. I will publish the White Paper containing the Government’s full response during the autumn. If the hon. Member would like to peruse the 450-page document that Sir Jon has provided, he will find 88 separate recommendations in it, many of which will significantly strengthen regulation so that the new regulator can enforce much more harshly against the kinds of abuses that water companies got away with in the past.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard unbelievable statements from 10 major water companies. We also took a long, hard look at Ofwat, as Sir Jon Cunliffe did, and found a regulator that is too cosy in dealing with water companies and too bureaucratic in dealing with customers. A weak regulator and fragmented powers have let the public down for far too long. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the Conservatives have failed and Reform and the Greens make unachievable, unfunded promises, it is this Labour Government who will call time on failure and protect bill payers?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I believe that one of the reasons why the relationship between Ofwat and the water companies became far too cosy is the instruction that Ofwat received from Ministers in the previous Government to apply only light-touch regulation, when what was needed was a firm grip on what was going on. It is astonishing that the Conservatives thought it was a good idea to strip out resources and tell the regulator to go soft on the companies given the abuses that were taking place. That has ended now, and we are moving to a model of effective regulation that will protect bill payers and clean up our rivers.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In expressing his opposition to the nationalisation of water just yesterday, the Secretary of State did not mention the fact that, under Scottish Water, bills in Scotland are £113 cheaper, or the fact that 97% of Scotland’s bathing waters meet the quality standards expected. No—what he said of Scottish Water was that
“pollution in rivers in Scotland is worse than in England.”
I have consulted the House of Commons Library and just 14% of rivers in England meet the quality standards expected, whereas 58.2% of Scotland’s do. Trust in politics matters, so he will correct the record today, won’t he?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Member correctly points out, Scotland has a nationalised water company—under the control of the SNP Government, of course—and water pollution is worse than in England as a result. I am more than happy to write to him to give him the facts so that he can come back and correct the record in due course.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Yesterday I had a lovely swim in the North sea off Bamburgh castle, and I would like to thank the Safer Seas and Rivers Service for telling me which beaches to avoid due to sewage spills by Northumbrian Water. Not all my constituents swim, but they all tell me that the current situation is disgraceful. They will not be reading a 500-page report, so could the Secretary of State explain to them whether it is: a) their fault for not accepting higher bills, as Tory former Ministers and Water UK say; b) the water companies’ fault for extracting so much more value—in the shape of dividend and bonus payments and loading the companies with debt—than they put into them; or c) because water is a natural monopoly and incredibly difficult to regulate effectively in the private sector? Or is it both b) and c)?
Steve Reed
I was slightly confused by that question, if I am honest. My hon. Friend is very brave to go swimming in the North sea, but I know that many people enjoy that. The changes that we are making will bring about effective regulation and appropriate levels of investment and protect customers from the shocking bill hikes that we saw last year, which were the direct result of 14 years of failure by the Conservative Government. I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents will welcome that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Environment Agency data showed a 60% increase in serious pollution incidents last year, so the target of halving spills over five years would still mean nearly a quarter of a million sewage spills happening annually by 2030. When we drink a glass of water, we measure it by how much we drink, not the time it takes to drink. To make a real difference to places like Chichester harbour and the River Lavant in my constituency, will the Government look at the volume rather than the hours of spills happening?
Steve Reed
The target for reduction uses as its baseline the 2024 figure, not the 2021 figure used by the previous Government, recognising the extent to which sewage pollution increased between ’21 and ’24. I want to recognise the scale of the problem and then work to solve it from that point. We have announced the most ambitious target for sewage pollution reduction of any Government ever, and that is not the end of our ambition; there will be further to go until we restore all our waterways, including the beautiful Chichester harbour, back to purity.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the tough action he has announced. Residents in my community have suffered appalling problems with sewage pollution in the Thames, the Kennet and many other waterways, as well as hours-long interruptions to supply. To make matters worse, residents have also suffered subsidence from a water leak. How will the new ombudsman help me and my residents to tackle these very serious problems?
Steve Reed
The new ombudsman will have statutory powers to provide independent and free support to customers experiencing the kinds of failures that my hon. Friend describes; there are many others, of course. Previously, water was one of the only utilities that did not have that resource available, but it will do from now on. We have also taken steps and introduced measures to increase compensation for people who have experienced failure by their water company, with compensation at least doubling and in some cases increasing tenfold.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The quality of a river is about not just the water that goes into it, but the maintenance of the river itself. My constituents have been failed over and over again by the Environment Agency in the maintenance of our waterways. Given the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for breaking apart quangos, will he consider bringing powers away from the EA so that we can manage our rivers properly and effectively?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I gently remind him that it was his Government who cut resources to the Environment Agency by 50%, which may well have had something to do with the fact that people were no longer there to enforce against the kinds of failings he talked about.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. My constituents will be relieved as, after 14 years of Tory failure and inaction, water pollution from toxic sewage discharge is a persistent problem in Battersea, and all the while their bills are being hiked. I welcome the Government’s taking the necessary steps and introducing reforms of the water sector and protecting my constituents. Will he say a little more about when he intends to bring forward legislation? I am sure he agrees that he is taking long overdue action.
Steve Reed
I know Battersea very well—it is a beautiful area—and I am aware of the problems with pollution. Of course, she knows all too well the concerns of her residents about escalating bills as a result of the failure of the previous Government to get a grip on the water sector. We will be publishing the White Paper and launching the consultation this autumn, which will be followed by legislation in the first half of this Parliament.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituents have faced an increase in their water bills without any improvement in the dumping of sewage in their rivers and brooks or upgrade in their infrastructure. What assurances can the Government provide that those increases will not end up in the pockets of water company bosses?
Steve Reed
I hope that the hon. Member will be reassured by the fact that I have ringfenced customers’ money so that it can no longer be diverted for payment of bonuses and dividends, as was commonplace under the previous Government. It will be spent only on what it was intended for, which is investing in better water infrastructure. If that does not happen, it will be refunded to customers.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
More than 60 year 4 pupils from Walter Evans primary school in Derby wrote to me and the Secretary of State worried about sewage dumping and plastic pollution in our rivers. I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment that the Government will halve pollution in our rivers by 2030. Does he agree that had the Conservatives taken action of that kind when they came to power 14 years ago, my nine-year-old constituents would have known cleaner rivers all their lives?
Steve Reed
I pay tribute to the young people of my hon. Friend’s constituency. Young people famously care about the environment, and they are devastated to see the scale of pollution in our waterways that she described. We have taken all these steps and put in place the building blocks for change within a year of winning the general election. The previous Government had 14 years. They could have done exactly the same thing in any one of those 14 years, but, as is shown by the absence of the shadow Secretary of State, they just did not care enough.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This Government-commissioned review looked at how to tinker with the Conservatives’ failed privatised monopoly system, but the truth is that it is a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders and billions in debt being loaded up, and in crucial infrastructure being neglected, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. Does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of that failure must be part of the calculation of the cost of bringing water into public hands, where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who do not think the water industry should pay for its greed and terrible mismanagement of our water system?
Steve Reed
I am afraid that the Green party’s proposals would mean paying £100 billion of taxpayers’ money to the owners of the water companies. That money would have to be taken away from the national health service. It would take years to unpick the current ownership models, during which time pollution in our rivers would get much worse, not better. We know it does not work, and we have only to look north of the border to see it; under the nationalised model in Scotland, pollution is worse, not better. The hon. Member is talking about cutting the national health service, giving £100 billion to the owners of the current water companies and making pollution far worse. That does not sound very green to me.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Action to tackle the water companies’ failure on long-standing systemic problems is much needed in my constituency, where I have been working with residents in Brownsover who have faced repeated burst pipes, with some families forced to move out multiple times and not receiving the proper value of damaged property. Severn Trent has now given a timetable for action on the infrastructure. I welcome the introduction of a new statutory water ombudsman to put the public, as the Secretary of State said, at the heart of water regulation. Does he agree that where the Conservatives failed the British consumer, this Labour Government will protect them and put people before profit?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a vocal champion for his constituents. He is quite right to demand more compensation when outages happen, and an ombudsman. That is what the Government will provide, so that we can give better support to customers who are let down by the water companies. We are on the side of bill payers and the environment; the previous Government were on the side of neither.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Between 2018 and 2022, untreated sewage was released just over 58,000 times from Scottish sewer overflows, and more than half of wild swimming spots in Scotland contain unsafe levels of sewage, so whatever model the Government decide to adopt for the regulation of the water industry in England, will the Secretary of State assure me that they will not follow the Scottish Government’s failed model?
Steve Reed
I completely agree with the hon. Member, who accurately pointed to the failures of both the SNP Government in Scotland and the nationalised model, which does not fix the problems.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is correct to analyse the failure of the regulators and to seek to replace them, but I rather think the Secretary of State, or one of his successors, will be coming back to discuss ownership structures. After all, under Yorkshire Water—the first to pioneer hosepipe bans this year—the pipes are leaking like a Tetley teabag, with more than 95 billion litres of water leaked in the last year alone. What does he envisage, if the new regulatory system fails and the ownership structures continue to produce the kinds of problem we have seen up and down the country? Will he have reserve powers to take action against the owners of the companies themselves, probably to remove them?
Steve Reed
There is a system in place for when licences are breached; it is called special administration. The reason we are strengthening regulation and changing the regulator is so that we can prevent such failures. The £104 billion that we secured at the end of last year will help to upgrade pipes, so that we can reduce the amount of water leaking out of the system, and pay to build and dig out the new reservoirs to catch the rain, so that there is a supply of water in the drier periods.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I understand the points the Secretary of State makes about the levels of pollution and damage to our natural world and environment by the water industry over the past 30 years, and I understand the need for regulation, but does he not understand that he has not dealt with the fundamental problem? In the future, private enterprise is still going to be making money out of a public water supply. Would it not be better to bring it into public ownership and set a share price based on the costs of pollution and on the exorbitant executive pay and bonuses, so that the public as a whole can control their water supply and no longer be left to the vagaries of the private sector, with all the devastation and damage it has caused over the past 30 years?
Steve Reed
This Government are going to do what works, rather than what is ideologically correct. We are not going to strip £100 billion out of public services like the national health service to give it to the owners of the water companies who have polluted our waterways; we are not going to wait years to get investment in while pollution in our waterways gets even worse; and we are not going to let the pipes deteriorate to such an extent that bill payers are hit with even higher bills in the future. I am going to act to deliver us lower bills and clean water in the fastest way possible.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
What has happened to our waterways is a national disgrace. The state in which the Conservatives left our rivers, our lakes and the seas around Britain epitomises what they did to public services in general. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has been lacking over the past 35 years of privatisation is a proper consumer representative to protect customers, and will he give a guarantee that that will be at front and centre of the new regulator?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In Sir Jon Cunliffe’s final report today, he makes recommendations for how customers can be put at the heart of the new model. There are several recommendations; I will not go through all of them, but one is to set up new regional entities, where customers will have direct representation in taking decisions about how water infrastructure investment will be spent to tackle the priorities in their own areas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
My constituent campaigners at SafeAvon and Tewkesbury Friends of the Earth will be delighted to see that, at length, the Government have implemented a core Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge: the abolition of Ofwat. Will the Secretary of State now go further and implement a second pledge to put those campaigners on the board of Severn Trent so that they can hold the water company to account, and continue to show my constituents that Liberal Democrat pressure pays off?
Steve Reed
I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ conversion; when they were in government, and when the Water Minister was indeed a Liberal Democrat, they commissioned a report that found there was no need to change the model of regulation.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Many people will find it incredible that Cunliffe was not even allowed to look at public ownership. I also say mildly to the Secretary of State that the £100 billion he cites has largely been refuted by independent bodies and economists. Way back in 2014, I raised the example of Northumbrian Water and its use of various complicated devices for tax avoidance. That became endemic within the industry. Can we have a report on the water companies’ role in tax avoidance on a massive scale, so that we can then look at what further action could be taken against them?
Steve Reed
I agree with the right hon. Member on one point—that we should be cracking down on tax avoidance; it is always worth looking into that. On his earlier point, I am much more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology. The figure of £100 billion as the cost of buying out the water companies if any Government wanted to nationalise them was provided by officials in my Department with no external influence on them. This country cannot afford it, and we also cannot afford the worsening of sewage in our waterways during the years it would take to unpick the current model of ownership.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister said he wanted nine more reservoirs, but can he say how many of that number are already under construction or in the planning process, when we can expect to see them and who will pay? Also, is it his view that Sir Jon Cunliffe’s predicted uplift of more than 30% in real terms for water bill payers will be covering the cost?
Steve Reed
I would be more than happy to write to the right hon. Member with the details he is asking for, but as I have said earlier, we are also speeding up the planning process and treating reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure, meaning that I, as the Secretary of State, will take the consenting decision so that we can do this in months rather than the years or even decades it has been taking up till now.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The village of Upper Tean frequently suffers flooding and sewage outflows, and one reason is that the antiquated mains water infrastructure cannot adequately cope with the increased amount of new housing developments, even when the developer meets all the required mitigations. Recommendation 3 in the report states:
“A comprehensive systems planning framework should be introduced”.
The report also states:
“Plans should consider the region or nation’s spatial development priorities, particularly those which are likely to have a significant impact on the water system, such as housing development”.
Does the Minister agree that, given the Government’s plan to build 1.5 million homes, it is vital that privatised water companies ensure that they can adequately meet systems demand without sewage dumping, and that they prioritise doing so over profiteering?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because of course water infrastructure is critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth in every single region of the country. Today I have accepted in principle one of Sir Jon’s recommendations that will allow us for the first time to align water infrastructure investment and spatial planning, so that those homes and factories can be built faster for the benefit of local people.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I very much welcome the proposals. Today’s announcement is a step forward in tackling the sewage crisis, but of course the details will be in the delivery. That is important, especially as the River Ver, a precious chalk stream in my constituency, has received nearly 5,000 hours of sewage in the last year—some of that was 3,000 hours non-stop. We do not know the volume, but we know it is terrible. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see how the proposals can help to prioritise the desperately needed upgrade of the Markyate sewage works?
Steve Reed
I know the River Ver very well because I used to walk over a bridge across it every day on my way to school while I was growing up. I would be very happy to make sure that the hon. Member has an appropriate meeting with a Minister to discuss her concerns.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I was pleased to see today’s report. I believe it has a picture of the Bingley five rise locks in my constituency on the front cover, so I thank the Minister for that. The creaking and leaking water infrastructure, the current drought restrictions and the dumping of sewage in our rivers, including the Aire and the Wharfe, are evidence of a failing industry and of the failures of previous Tory Water Ministers, one of whom is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
I welcome today’s report and also give credit to campaign groups like the Ilkley Clean River Group and the people’s water commission. It is right that the Secretary of State has said that he will abolish Ofwat and strengthen oversight and regulation, but Yorkshire Water has a labyrinth of holding companies that have built up debt, taken out dividends and interest payments, put up customer bills and failed to invest in upgrades. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for radical action, not only to merge the regulators but to restructure failing companies like Yorkshire Water?
Steve Reed
I cannot take credit for the picture—that was Sir Jon—but I can join my hon. Friend in crediting the campaign groups who have done such a fantastic job at keeping this issue at the top of the political agenda. Sir Jon makes proposals in his report about those labyrinthine structures that she is talking about. We need clarity and transparency, and that is what we will now work towards.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Between 2001 and 2023, there were over 4,600 incidents of sewage overflows in Dewsbury and Batley, amounting to over 28,000 hours. Bills for my constituents and Yorkshire Water customers have gone up by 40% in the last five years and by nearly 30% in the last 12 months. Some £84 billion has been taken in dividends by all the water companies in the UK, with £74 billion of that saddled on to the companies themselves. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reduce the bills of my constituents and residents of the whole United Kingdom, and what steps will he take to claw back that £84 billion so it can be invested to fix the pipes?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that important point. His constituents, just like people right across the country, were last year forced to pay the price of 14 years of Conservative failure, because the Conservatives allowed the companies to pay out millions in dividends and bonuses when that money should have been invested in upgrading infrastructure. I have ringfenced customers’ money so that it will now only be spent on the purposes for which it was intended; otherwise, it will be returned to customers.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
On Crooked Bridge Road in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, it has taken the county council far too long to accept responsibility for faulty pipes. The buck has been passed between the council and Severn Trent, and the investigative work will not even start till 1 August. Will the commission consider intervening in cases where the buck is repeatedly passed back and forth in order to ensure that urgent works can get under way?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point: buck-passing should not be allowed to continue. We are moving to new regional structures that will bring together the regulators, customers, advocacy groups, businesses and local authorities—to a place where those kind of issues can be resolved.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s commitment to cutting water bills by 50% in the next three years. However, given the stark increases that consumers have paid because of failed water company finances, this commitment will not touch the sides, especially for the most vulnerable customers. Will the Secretary of State do what Conservative Ministers failed to do: commit to implementing a single social tariff for water bills to help eliminate water poverty?
Steve Reed
Of course, social tariffs already exist within the individual water companies—Sir Jon has made recommendations about that. We will consult on that later in the year and then take decisions as we bring forward legislation in the new year.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a shame that no one is here from the Reform party to explain its proposals for the water companies; its Members might have managed to be more eloquent than their leader was on TV yesterday. Reform’s unfunded spending commitment would send mortgages through the roof and take money away from the NHS, schools, police and our armed forces. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much he thinks Reform’s proposals would cost, and comment on whether he thinks Reform has a clue about this policy area as its Members cannot even be bothered to be in the Chamber?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend; it is a shame that no Reform Members have turned up, although perhaps it is not surprising because they did not bother mentioning this issue in their manifesto either. We did hear at the weekend that their leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), wants to hand £50 billion of taxpayers’ money to the owners of water companies. If we add that to its existing £80 billion of unfunded commitments, it comes to £130 billion. By my reckoning, that is almost double the amount that Liz Truss bet and lost on the economy when she crashed it and sent mortgages, prices and rents skyrocketing. Reform wants to double down on the bad bet.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am genuinely all ears for any practical steps that can be taken to build on the Environment Act 2021 to clean up our waterways, but may I pick up the Secretary of State’s comments on the role, as he put it, of citizen scientists and local communities? In my constituency, water heroes like Doug Kennedy, who I joined in Nether Winchendon testing the River Thame a few weeks ago, have decades of real local knowledge on our waterways, as do the volunteers of the River Thame Conservation Trust. That powerhouse of local knowledge will be replicated up and down the country. Rather than just involving them as consultees, will the Secretary of State reflect on how they can get properly locked into local solutions to clean up our waterways?
Steve Reed
I support what the hon. Gentleman says about the Environment Act, which is a worthwhile piece of legislation passed by the previous Government. I also support what he says about ensuring that people have more involvement at community level. I will certainly take that on board as we work through the consultation.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents want to know that their drinking water is safe and that waterways such as the River Trent are clean and looked after. I welcome all the Secretary of State’s commitments on the new regulatory body, but he will know that the power of a regulator is not just in its powers, but in its ability to enforce them. Will the regulator have the resources to enforce the new rules that he proposes? It needs to be more than the sum of the parts of its predecessors, which failed, as so many of my constituents have seen.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for important question. We have already introduced the “polluter pays” principle, so where there are successful prosecutions and enforcement action against water companies, they pay the price for that enforcement. That funds the additional resources to allow further investigations—and, if necessary, prosecutions—to go ahead. What a contrast with the previous Government, who slashed those resources in half.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
From Saturday night to Monday morning, a mains burst on Richmond Hill in my constituency went unattended, resulting in residents being left without gas supply as water leaked into the gas pipeline. Burst-pipe sewage-dumping following storm overflows has now become customary. Last year alone, 119 hours’ worth of sewage was discharged into rivers and waterways in my constituency. Thames Water has been allowed to get away with such negligent and environmentally hazardous practices for far too long while Ofwat has stood by and watched. Earlier this year, a freedom of information request uncovered that Ofwat had not recouped a single penny from the financial sanctions it has placed on Thames Water. Now that the Government have finally realised that Ofwat must be replaced, will the Minister set out a timeline for the implementation of the review’s recommendation of a new regulator?
Steve Reed
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says. Her constituents are experiencing what constituents across the country are experiencing. It is not acceptable and it will not continue. We will publish the White Paper in the autumn, with a consultation alongside it, and we intend to move to legislation during the first half of this Parliament.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas could not be more important. Having served on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee, I was glad that our Government have moved so quickly to begin that vital work. I welcome the further measures announced today. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will bring in the next changes as quickly as possible?
Steve Reed
I agree: it is important that these changes are brought in as quickly as possible. The state of our water sector, given the levels of pollution in our waterways and the unacceptable bill hikes that customers experienced last year, is a national scandal. We cannot allow things to continue. We will move at the greatest possible speed, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will hold our feet to the fire.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
As the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Flooding will know, sewage is a major issue in my constituency. As we have heard, the Government plan to build 1.5 million new homes, tens of thousands of which will be in my area. Lots of people are understandably concerned that South West Water will not keep pace with development, so what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that South West Water will put in the required infrastructure?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The recommendation that I have accepted will create new regional structures under which water infrastructure investment will align with spatial planning, so that we can guarantee that in the future. However, that legislation is not yet in place, so I have set up a water infrastructure board in the Department. It will ensure that water companies are putting in infrastructure where opportunities for housing development and other forms of economic growth can take place.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement. Residents in Dartford will be impressed by the Government’s ambitious commitment to halve sewage pollution in our lakes, rivers and seas within five years. They have had to put up with the poor performance of Thames Water for too long. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike the Conservative party, which had 14 years to fix this, and unlike Reform, which appears to have no idea how to fix it, when the Labour Government say that we will clean up our water and protect the British bill payer, we mean it?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend rightly points to sewage getting worse and bills rising every year for 14 years under the previous Government. We are turning the tide on Tory sewage today, and over the next five years residents in Dartford and elsewhere will see reductions in sewage until we meet our target.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Yesterday on the Laura Kuenssberg show he showed positivity in relation to the new strategy, and the steps to be taken certainly make sense. However, water in Northern Ireland is still publicly owned, yet we still have the same difficulties that the Government are seeking to combat here. So my question to the Secretary of State is a simple one: will he do me a favour and speak to the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly, Andrew Muir, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland have the same result as what is going to happen here with the required changes to infrastructure, giving more responsibility and outputting the changes that are made? With the positivity the Secretary of State has shown, that would take care of some of our difficulties in Northern Ireland.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I speak regularly with my counterparts in Northern Ireland and am more than happy to convey his message to them the next time I speak to them.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As someone who enjoys swimming in Cumbria’s lakes, rivers and tarns, I welcome the Secretary of State’s ambitious commitment to halving sewage pollution in them. Can he say more about how—unlike the Conservatives who did nothing for 14 years, and unlike Reform’s moon-on-a-stick approach to reform—when he says he has a plan to protect water consumers and protect water users, he actually means it?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Voters want to see action, not just words. That is why I am so proud that that £104 billion of investment that we have secured started to be spent in April. It is already being invested; people will see the change as a result of this. That will help to restore their confidence and their trust in politics, so shattered after 14 years of the Conservatives.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State publish the data that quantifies the amount lost in leaks, so that the public can understand exactly how much water and how much of their hard-earned money is lost? It will also help the water companies to focus on fixing their pipes; it is no good just building another reservoir, as they might do in my area, if the water just continues to be lost en route to where it is needed.
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady is right: transparency is always very important. I believe that data is available and am happy to write to direct her to it so she can share the information with her constituents.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
For far too long families in Scarborough and Whitby have been paying the price of failure. Yorkshire Water was recently forced to pay out £40 million due to serious failings yet a few days later customers’ bills rose by almost a third. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more to reassure my constituents that a national social tariff is now on the cards for those on low incomes?
Steve Reed
We always want to support those on lower incomes and those who may be experiencing water poverty; nobody should be worried about their water bill because their income is too low. Social tariffs already exist in every region. We will be consulting on the proposal for a national social tariff, which the Independent Water Commission has proposed in its final report.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Citizens and families in my city of Birmingham are currently paying an average of £400 a year for their water bills—increasing to £800 by the end of this Parliament term. We know that the cost of living is spiralling out of control, and while families struggle with the cost of living, big bonuses are being taken by chief executives and shareholders. Will the Secretary of State consider bringing water back into public ownership, given that more than 60% of the British public are asking for that?
Steve Reed
Nationalising the water companies would, as I have already said, cost £100 billion—money that we would have to strip out of the national health service and education in order to hand to the people who own the water companies that have been polluting our waterways. It is not an idea that commends itself to me, I am afraid.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Calder Valley has seen near-floods and a hosepipe ban. Meanwhile, in 2024, Yorkshire has seen 68,186 sewage spills lasting over 430,000 hours. Does this mean an end to a useless regulator that is presiding over a failing industry?
Steve Reed
Well, the answer to that question is very quick: yes, it does.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register as I am an office holder on the all-party parliamentary water group. Last year, at the first Prime Minister’s questions of the Session, I drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that Thames Water had pumped sewage into the River Evenlode for 2,600 hours in the previous year. I called then for the scrapping of Ofwat, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State has listened to my party and so many campaigners by doing so today. Thames Water has pumped a further 1,000 hours-worth of sewage into the same river in the intervening period, however, which is why the Evenlode Catchment Partnership has taken to citizen science to try to measure those figures. The Secretary of State set out that he wishes to halve the number of spills, but why is he not seeking to halve their volume and quantity, for that is what is killing our rivers?
Steve Reed
Our target for sewage reduction is the most ambitious target put forward by any Government in our country’s history, and I am very proud of that. It is an important stepping-stone to restoring our rivers, lakes and seas to the good health and purity that many of us will remember from when we were younger.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is detailed, practical and focused on outcomes. That is in stark contrast to the ludicrous, back-of-a-fag-packet policy of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who claimed yesterday that he would simultaneously nationalise half the water industry, without knowing how much it would cost, and bring in more business people to run it—the people who have been free to run up debts, force up bills, dump sewage, and leave pipes broken, reservoirs dry and our lakes, seas and rivers filthy. Such people include, of course, the chief executive of Southern Water, Lawrence Gosden, who has a £1.4 million pay package that he should hand back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) pointed out. However, how will the Government answer the people who say that these proposals do not go far enough and will still leave our precious water, lakes and seas in the hands of shysters and spivs?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), by his own admission, has “no idea” and no clue about this issue. My hon. Friend is also right that the proposals are detailed. Sir Jon provided a 450-page report with 88 separate recommendations that we will consult on. When we implement a final version, it will be the biggest overhaul to our water sector in more than a generation. We will reset it from top to bottom, so we have a water sector that works on the side of customers, the environment and investors, rather than the serial failure that we witnessed under the previous Government.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Derwent runs through the heart of Derby, but thanks to the polluting water companies and the Tories, its health is in serious doubt. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that this Labour Government are committed to taking the robust action that is desperately needed to restore the river and preserve it for our communities to enjoy safely?
Steve Reed
The state of the River Derwent is, alas, similar to many other rivers, lakes and seas up and down the country. That is why we are launching a water revolution today to completely reset the water sector from top to bottom so that the failings of the past can never happen again.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Norfolk is home to many beautiful beaches and rivers but, as in many areas, people are concerned about the state of their waters. The Cow Tower Dippers in Norwich are applying for designated swim status, which would mean that Anglian Water is obliged to monitor the water. That is one specific example, but can the Secretary of State expand on how the reforms will help local groups to hold water companies to account and speed up such processes?
Steve Reed
By monitoring every single outlet and making that visible to people across the country—campaigners and residents—we will open up the system with far greater transparency than has previously been the case.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Last week, it was revealed that the chief executive of Southern Water was awarded an egregious, enormous pay rise worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, despite the company continuing to oversee sewage spills and infrastructure failures that affect my constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that water bosses should not profit from overseeing catastrophic failure?
Steve Reed
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and share his sentiment that the payment is outrageous. It was possible as part of a scheme that was permitted under the regulatory regime allowed by the previous Government. We have changed the law; it will not happen again.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State on the action in his statement to hold water companies to account, not least with the new regulator and ombudsman. Scotland’s widespread water pollution challenges are far greater than England’s, particularly the sewage-related pollution in our rivers and on our beaches. Scottish Water is publicly owned, but Scottish Ministers are failing to take the problem seriously, with inadequate monitoring. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland needs to take similar urgent action, which only a new direction under Scottish Labour can deliver?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend. We had an example earlier of the complacency with which the SNP treats these kinds of issues. There is only one chance now in Scotland for a reset: the election of a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood to work to clean up pollution from our rivers, lakes and seas, as we are doing.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
My constituents have been hit by a massive rise in bills, which is a real kick in the teeth given that thousands of them were without water after a major burst earlier this year. I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to devolving the economic regulation of water to Wales, which will allow the Welsh Government to move forward with the commission’s recommendation on having an independent economic regulator in Wales. Does he agree that that demonstrates the value of two Labour Governments working together for bill payers in Wales?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the Welsh Deputy First Minister has laid a statement before the Senedd today giving his comments on Sir Jon’s report.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing to transform water companies across our country. My residents in Gillingham and Rainham have suffered astronomical hikes in their bills and have been exposed to pollution and sewage dumps in our water, yet the chief executive of Southern Water thinks that he deserves a bonus of approximately £700,000 on top of his salary. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is an absolute disgrace? Will he ensure that any loophole used to bring forward those bonuses is shut down under his reforms?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is disgraceful. I am afraid that these problems arose because the previous Government instructed the regulators to apply only a light-touch approach to regulation, when they really needed to get an absolute grip on this failing sector. The previous Government failed to do that, but this Government will ensure that that happens.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Many of my constituents share my utter disgust at the way in which water companies have been able to profit from degrading our rivers and chalk streams. It is fantastic to see bonuses already banned at polluting Anglian Water and to see that we are following up by taking action and sacking regulators that were asleep at the wheel. As we start on really ambitious reforms to halve sewage spills over the coming years, how can we ensure that we are tightening up some of those monitoring procedures so that my constituents can see clearly and transparently whether we are feeling the benefits locally?
Steve Reed
Monitoring will now be compulsory on every single outlet, not just some of them. That data will be published in near real time so that consumers know exactly what is going into the waterways in the area where they live or where they are on holiday.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement and the work of the Government. Portsmouth, as an island city, is well aware of the damage done; we see it, we smell it and we feel it in our pockets every day. More than 100 of my constituents have raised their fury and disappointment at the way that the Tories allowed firms to extract billions and pump raw sewage. Abolishing Ofwat and having an independent water commissioner is another brilliant step that will have real teeth and serve customers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will ensure action—that we do not just monitor, we take action; that there is no light touch and we take action; that our actions ensure that fair water companies serve the public interest first? Will he meet me and my resident David Taylor, a brilliant campaigner and inventor, to explore how we not only stop sewage pumping, but reduce leaks?
Steve Reed
I assume that is not my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), but another David Taylor. I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) gets that meeting. Let me take this opportunity to thank her for being such a champion for her residents and her constituency. I have had the honour of visiting a couple of times, and I have seen how strongly she fights for clean water in her community.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on protecting water customers, because my constituents and I have seen our Thames Water bills go up dramatically. We want to know that those bill increases are going towards improving the infrastructure and customer service, as opposed to payouts to bosses that happened so much under the regulator’s watch. I have a meeting with Thames Water bosses in their Reading headquarters next week. Following that meeting, will the Secretary of State meet me and fellow Labour MPs working on the issue to discuss how we can better hold Thames Water to account on behalf of all our constituents?
Steve Reed
I am more than happy to make sure my hon. Friend gets a meeting with an appropriate Minister. I am sure she will be pleased to know that this Government have ringfenced customers’ money so that it can only be spent on the purposes it was intended for, including upgrading broken and leaking pipes, and will no longer be diverted to pay for bonuses and dividends, as used to happen under the previous Government.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
What a pleasure it was to welcome the Secretary of State to the water meadows in Bury St Edmunds. The Lark and the Linnet in Bury St Edmunds and the Gipping in Stowmarket are disgracefully neglected, and my own laboratory tests reveal dangerously high ammonia levels, for I too have become a citizen scientist. I welcome the decision to scrap Ofwat, but does the Secretary of State agree that our precious Suffolk chalk streams must be protected?
Steve Reed
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and it was indeed a pleasure to visit Bury St Edmunds—he is very lucky to represent such a beautiful part of the country. In becoming a citizen scientist, he has joined a very proud movement, and I am sure that he will make an important contribution to its work.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and these ambitious reforms. Around 10% of the UK’s chalk streams run through Hertfordshire, and we are lucky that Hertford and Stortford is home to many of them, including the River Stort and the River Lee. As the Secretary of State announces further action to clean up our water and the water sector, will he reassure residents of my community that this Labour Government will protect our precious local chalk streams?
Steve Reed
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The changes we are bringing about through this water revolution will reduce levels of pollution in chalk streams, and they will also reduce the need for abstractions from those chalk streams, which has been one of the most damaging features causing such distress to residents of his constituency, across Hertfordshire, and of other parts of the country.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, which means that Thames Water will no longer be able to treat my constituents with contempt—as it did under the previous Conservative Government—by diverting many millions from the bills paid by local residents to shell out dividends to its shareholders and pay itself bonuses, all the while pumping loads of sewage into our river. The Secretary of State has talked about ringfencing; can he clarify what will happen if Thames Water does not now invest enough of its income in stopping the spills and clearing up our river? Is it fair to say that Thames Water and its directors are still drinking in the last chance saloon?
Steve Reed
The new regulatory regime will allow for much closer supervision of the water companies, and will be able to intervene much earlier if there is any sign of those companies failing to invest in the priorities that they have committed to invest in.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Just this morning, I was absolutely disgusted to see reports of a sewage leak in the River Hipper in my constituency, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s ambition to tackle this issue. That leak is particularly galling, because it comes after massive hikes to the bills of those who, like myself, live in North East Derbyshire. Can the Secretary of State explain how the new water ombudsman will help us when we seek to challenge unfair bills?
Steve Reed
People will have the right to go to the ombudsman to take up complaints such as that one, or any other complaint. Previously, there was no statutory ombudsman that water customers could have recourse to when they faced problems. We will bring one in, and it will operate alongside the much-increased levels of compensation that we have already introduced through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which my hon. Friend supported.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the scale of ambition he has shown today. Although there are many issues in the water sector in Scotland—not least the combined sewer overflow discharges into the Water of Leith at Colinton Dell—one thing we understand is that to reduce CSO spills, we have to reduce the amount of rainfall going into our combined pipes, which is done through planning in Scotland. The Cunliffe report makes clear that it is time to enact schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would do the same in England. Will the Secretary of State take that recommendation forward?
Steve Reed
In my view—and Sir Jon Cunliffe also makes this point—it is very important that we align water infrastructure investment with spatial planning, so that we can tackle the kinds of problems that my hon. Friend has referred to. We intend to go ahead with that in England; I have already accepted that recommendation in principle, even ahead of any consultation. Of course, the situation will be different in Scotland, because it has a SNP Government who have not really taken these issues seriously.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Residents of my constituency often ask me how we got to a situation in which water company CEOs can oversee record levels of sewage spillage, let our infrastructure crumble and charge hard-pressed customers even more, yet enjoy extortionate bonuses. Does the Secretary of State agree that if this is to be the moment when we turn the page on 14 years of failure, we must never again abandon bill-paying water customers like the previous Government did?
Steve Reed
Not only should we never abandon bill payers, but we never will abandon them. We are revolutionising the entire water sector so that customers’ interests are right at the heart of it in a way they have never been before.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on their steadfast commitment to cleaning up our waterways, and on today’s welcome announcements. My constituents care greatly about cleaning up the scourge of sewage being pumped into our waters—our beautiful estuary—after years of neglect by the Conservative party. I also note the Government’s commitment to banning wet wipes that contain plastic, which we discussed at our recent water summit in Southend. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the concerns that were raised about the actual flush-ability of some wipes that are marked as being flushable?
Steve Reed
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, as does the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy). We would be happy to make sure he gets his meeting.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the independent water commission’s report—it is a serious piece of work. The water companies were privatised with no debt, yet following years of dividends, excessive debt and opaque financial structures, the financial stability of the water sector is a cause of very serious concern. Recommendations 56 to 59 engage substantially with that topic, as do other recommendations. Will the Secretary of State commit to carefully reviewing whether the implementation of many of the recommendations dealing with financial stability can be accelerated ahead of legislation, to protect both resilience and bill payers?
Steve Reed
Yes, we are looking at what recommendations we can bring forward early; others will be part of the consultation.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Thames Water has spent thousands of hours dumping sewage into the River Blackwater in Sandhurst and the Cut in Bracknell. Under this Government, it has been hit by the largest fine ever and its bonuses have been blocked, but now it seems to think that it should be allowed to get away with giving its bosses bonuses—that it has a special right not to have to pay those fines. Will the Secretary of State tell Thames Water to jog on?
Steve Reed
I think my hon. Friend has already done the job for me.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
That concludes the statement. I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their presence throughout a lengthy session.
Middle East
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the middle east. I will begin with Syria. We have been horrified by the recent violence in the south, including civilian deaths. Clashes between Druze and Bedouin militias have quickly escalated into intense fighting, with involvement from Government forces and further Israeli strikes on the Syrian military. As I have said directly to Foreign Minister al-Shaibani, we want to see the fighting ended, civilians protected, and the rights of all Syrians upheld. The violence in Suwayda must be investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable. We want humanitarian access to be restored and for aid to be delivered, and Syria’s sovereignty must be respected.
The UK can be proud of our support to the Syrian people over many years. A stable Syria matters to the UK’s national interest, in terms of terrorism, irregular migration and regional stability. We must work to prevent extremism, sectarianism or lawlessness taking hold now that Assad is gone. That is why we are backing a sustainable ceasefire. It is why we support an inclusive transition, and it is why I visited Damascus recently to support the new Government and to press them to meet their commitments.
I will now turn to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is two and a half months since Prime Minister Netanyahu restarted offensive operations. The Israel Defence Forces have driven Palestinians out of 86% of Gaza, leaving around 2 million people trapped in an area scarcely over 20 square miles. Whatever this Israeli Government might claim, repeated displacement of so many civilians is not keeping them safe. In fact, it is quite the reverse.
The new Israeli aid system is inhumane and dangerous, and it deprives Gazans of human dignity. It contradicts long-established humanitarian principles. It creates disorder that Hamas are now exploiting, with distribution points reduced from 400 to just four. It forces desperate civilians, children among them, to scramble unsafely for the essentials of life. It is a grotesque spectacle, wreaking a terrible human cost.
Almost 1,000 civilians have been killed since May seeking aid, including 100 this weekend alone. There are near-daily reports of Israeli troops opening fire on people trying to access food. Israeli jets have hit women and children waiting for a health clinic to open. An Israeli drone has struck down children filling water containers, which Israeli officials blamed on a technical error. Hamas are of course contributing to the chaos and taking advantage of it, but I utterly condemn the killing of civilians seeking to meet their basic needs. The Israeli Government must answer: what possible military justification can there be for strikes that have killed desperate, starving children? What immediate actions are they taking to stop this litany of horrors? What will they do to hold those responsible to account?
I am a steadfast supporter of Israel’s security and right to exist. I treasure the many connections between our peoples, and the horrors of 7 October must never be forgotten, but I firmly believe that the Israeli Government’s actions are doing untold damage to Israel’s standing in the world and undermining Israel’s long-term security. Netanyahu should listen to the Israeli people, some 82% of whom desperately want a ceasefire, and to the hostages’ families, because they know a ceasefire offers the best chance to bring their loved ones home. Those hostages may be hidden in cramped tunnels under the ruins of Gaza, but we will not forget them, or Hamas’s despicable actions, and we will continue to demand their unconditional release. This offensive puts them in grave danger, but still Netanyahu persists.
Indeed, Minister Katz has gone further, proposing to drive Gaza’s entire population into Rafah, imprisoning Palestinians, unless they are persuaded to emigrate. This is a cruel vision that must never come to pass, and I condemn it unequivocally. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law. Many Israelis themselves are appalled. As the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said,
“it marches us into the abyss”.
He is right.
Today I join a statement with 31 Foreign Ministers as signatories. It had a simple, urgent message: the war in Gaza must end now. There is no military solution. Negotiations will secure the hostages. Further bloodshed serves no purpose. Hamas and Israel must both commit to a ceasefire now, and the next ceasefire must be the last ceasefire. I thank the United States, Qatar and Egypt for their tireless efforts. I am sure that all Members share my intense frustration that the ceasefire has not happened. Until there is a breakthrough, we must keep doing all we can to relieve the suffering.
UK aid has saved lives, reaching hundreds of thousands with food, water, hygiene and sanitation, and essential healthcare. Under the most appalling circumstances, our aid is saving lives today. That includes the almost £9 million the UK has provided to UK-Med since we entered office, reaching half a million patients inside Gaza and 24,000 in the past fortnight alone, including three-year old Razan—UK-funded medics removed a bullet from her neck after nearly three hours of surgery. These doctors and nurses working in the most extreme conditions are true heroes. They deserve the thanks and admiration of the entire House.
We are also working multilaterally. The 149 trucks from the World Food Programme and UNICEF entering Gaza in recent days included food supplies funded by the UK. Thousands more trucks laden with aid paid for by British taxpayers can enter the moment that the Israeli Government let them in. Today I am announcing an extra £40 million for humanitarian assistance in Gaza this year, including £7.5 million for UK-Med to sustain its vital operations in Gaza and save more lives.
Accompanying the horrors in Gaza is an accelerating campaign to prevent a future Palestinian state in the west bank. It is embraced by Netanyahu, encouraged by his Ministers and driven by an extremist ideology that wants to suffocate the two-state solution, which is the only route to a lasting peace and security. We see it in the unprecedented pace of settlement expansion and in the shocking levels of settler violence—and even settler terrorism, for that is what the most egregious ideological attacks are. The deliberate attempts to squeeze the Palestinian Authority, unjustly denying them access to their own funds, harms Israel’s long-term interests in the process. Now the Israeli Government are reintroducing plans to construct new units in the E1 area of occupied East Jerusalem. If built, that settlement would separate the west bank’s north from its south, and Palestinians in the west bank from East Jerusalem. These plans are wholly unacceptable, they are illegal, and they must not happen.
We are striving to keep open the prospects of a two-state solution. UK assistance has been preserving the Palestinian Authority, contributing to essential Palestinian workers’ salaries and supporting them to progress critical reforms. Today I can confirm that we are enhancing our support, providing £7 million to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian governance, implementing the agreement signed by me and Prime Minister Mustafa earlier this year, and delivering the reform plans that President Abbas has set out. I can also confirm that we are providing £20 million to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s many services for Palestinian refugees.
Alongside that support, we are leading diplomatic efforts to show that there must be a viable peaceful pathway to a Palestinian state involving the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, in the security and governance of the area. Hamas can have no role in the governance of Gaza, and nor must it be allowed to use it as a launchpad for terrorism. Israeli Ministers should support the Palestinian Authority, not actively undermine their economy, as Ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich are doing. The UK is co-leading with Egypt the humanitarian and reconstruction track for the forthcoming two-state solution conference, and we are pushing to agree plans for a credible next phase in Gaza, with a responsible, reformed PA at their core, so that we can turn any temporary ceasefire into a lasting peace.
In our year in office, this Labour Government have acted to address this horrendous conflict. We restored funding to UNRWA after the Tories froze it. We suspended arms export licences, when the Tories had declined to act. We have provided nearly a quarter of a billion in humanitarian assistance this year and next, getting medical treatment and food to hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza. We have stood with the hostage families at every stage. We have worked with Jordan to fly medicines into Gaza, with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians, and with Kuwait and UNICEF to help children in Gaza.
We have delivered three sanctions packages on violent settlers, suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government, and sanctioned far-right Israeli Ministers for incitement. We have defended the independence of the international courts. We have signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority and hosted the Palestinian Prime Minister in London, pushing for the reform they need. We called for, worked for and voted for an immediate ceasefire and the release of the hostages at every possible opportunity, and we will keep doing so until this war is over, Hamas release the hostages and we finally have a pathway to a two-state solution. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
The violence, loss of life and conflicts that continue in the middle east shock us all. Events in the middle east have a direct impact on our national interests and on people living on our own country, from concerns about family members in the region to demonstrations on our streets, and from the threats from Iran to the rise of antisemitism. We on the Opposition side of the House are clear that we want to see an end to the conflict in Gaza. We want to see the return of the hostages. The humanitarian support, which is so desperately needed, must get in. There must be an end to the terror inflicted by Hamas and Iran. However, the reality of peace and a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza seems to be drifting further away.
What is Britain’s role when it comes to workable outcomes and practical solutions to advance an end to this conflict, and what diplomatic action is being taken with regional allies and the United States? Where is Britain’s voice and action when it comes to putting new pressure on Hamas to agree to the most recent US proposals to secure a ceasefire, and release the hostages who have been in cruel captivity for more than 650 days? As for the statement that the Foreign Secretary signed earlier today, can he explain what an “unconditional and permanent” ceasefire means for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?
Last week, I met Keith and Aviva Siegel, and heard about their harrowing experience of being held in brutal captivity by Hamas. I pay tribute to them for their incredible bravery and resilience, and for their dedication to securing the freedom of the remaining hostages, from Gali and Ziv Berman to Matan Angrest and Omri Miran, and all those being held in barbaric captivity. They must be returned to their loved ones. The hostages are being denied humanitarian access by Hamas. What are the Government doing about that, and when was the Foreign Secretary’s last intervention on the issue?
The situation relating to aid for Gaza has deteriorated beyond all rational comprehension. The daily reports of casualties seeking aid are appalling, and we utterly condemn these attacks. But our words and political statements of condemnation are not saving lives, so what practical solutions, proposals and options have the Foreign Secretary and the British Government discussed with Israel in respect of aid supplies into Gaza? What dialogue is there to find agreement on the opening of access for that aid that goes beyond the current dangerous approach? I remind the House that the last Conservative Government, through Lord Cameron, secured new aid routes and better aid access to save lives. Surely the desperate urgency of the situation, which we all see, calls for such options to be considered once again.
I reiterate our long-standing position that settlements are not helpful to achieving long-term peace. Israel should not take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and must use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We want a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that it should come only at a time that is conducive to peace and cannot be the start of a peace process—certainly not while Israeli hostages are still in captivity in Gaza. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan and international measures to see the exit of Hamas from Gaza?
As for Syria, the barbaric violence that we have witnessed in recent days cannot continue. All groups and minorities in Syria must be protected. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his recent discussions with the transitional Syrian leadership. Did he convey to those in charge that they have a responsibility to end the armed conflict in their country and guarantee the protection of all minority groups in Syria, before the international community removes sanctions and normalises diplomatic relationships? What assurances has he received from the transitional Government, and have those commitments been met in any way with measurable action? Will he update the House on whether any of the £64.5 million dedicated to Syria that was announced by the Government earlier this month will be used to deal with the aftermath of these latest clashes, and on how it will be spent? Does he deem sufficient action to have been taken by the interim Government on the destruction of chemical weapons? Does he believe that the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham Government are capable of securing Syria’s borders, and does he intend to change the proscribed status of HTS? What is his assessment of the effect of the sanctions that have already been lifted? Have they had any unintended side effects? Syria’s future still hangs in the balance, and we need to be wholly evidence-led in our approach.
The Foreign Secretary did not mention Iran, but we understand from reports that Iran, Britain, France and Germany are due to hold nuclear talks in Istanbul on Friday. What is the purpose of those talks, is he co-ordinating actions with the United States, and what is the content of the deal that he wants to see?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks, and I am grateful for the cross-party consensus in the House that this war must come to an end. I note the huge concern that we all feel, not just in the House but in the international community, about the humanitarian suffering that we continue to see.
The right hon. Lady asked what more could be done and prayed in aid the work of the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron. She will recognise that Lord Cameron and, before him, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) raised the humanitarian situation with the Israelis. It has become steadily worse. The number of aid points is now down to four, and, while the new foundation is offering aid, people are dying as they scramble for that aid. I note that the right hon. Lady did not say we should return to the 400 aid points that we had in the past, and she will note that her Government did not refund funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but we believe that the UN and its system are best placed to deliver aid to Gaza, and that is the position that we continue to maintain.
Against that backdrop, the right hon. Lady asked what we were doing on a multilateral basis and what we were doing in working with others to bring this to an end. I ask her to read the statement that has landed, which 31 countries have now signed up to. Of course we are pressing and working with colleagues. I spoke to Minister Sa’ar once again today, urging him to do the right thing—to secure a ceasefire, but also to look at the aid system that is not working.
As for governance, the right hon. Lady will know that in a couple of weeks’ time we will participate in the two-state conference that has been organised by France, and she will also know that that conference is now dedicated to looking closely at the governance arrangements that must be put in place. When Hamas leave—and they must go; they cannot govern Gaza—how do we ensure that it is not a 60-day pause, but that we bring an end to this and move to the two-state solution? The right hon. Lady knows our commitment to recognition, as set out in our manifesto, and the conversation about recognition that is going on internationally.
The right hon. Lady rightly pressed the case on Syria. When I met al-Sharaa, I made it absolutely clear that his Government had to be inclusive. I pressed him on his background as a terrorist, and on our concerns—the concerns that exist in this Chamber—but we must work with him to ensure that the Government are inclusive, and to ensure that security is fundamental. As the right hon. Lady will understand, there is much that we need to do to support them on counter-terrorism at this time, and, in a country where 90% of people are living in poverty, to ensure that people receive the aid and support that they need—and, indeed, that that aid and support go to the areas affected by the murders we have seen over the last few days.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Earlier today, 31 countries put out a powerful message: the war must end now, aid must go into Gaza unrestricted, the hostages must be released, and all parties must uphold international law. That powerful message was sent to Israel, and by return it was rejected. It was denounced by Israel as being “disconnected from reality”. So what now? In that statement, the 31 nations said:
“We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.”
What are we going to do, may I ask, and does that include the final recognition of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is right to call into question so quickly the Israeli Government’s rejection of the advice of their friends and 31 countries, which have come together to express their horror at people losing their lives when simply reaching out to get aid and humanitarian care. She referred to the debate about recognition. We will be working with our French colleagues, who are focusing the upcoming conference on how we get to two states; as she would expect, the UK will play its part. On the broader issues, I hope and pray that we get a ceasefire, and of course that will lead to further activity as we head towards the UN General Assembly.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I welcome his commitment to a diplomatic resolution in Syria, and to holding the Governments of Syria and Israel accountable for protecting all civilians, especially minorities.
The Foreign Secretary is right to say that the situation in Gaza is inhumane and grotesque and that a ceasefire is desperately needed. I welcome the aid allocations that he has announced, but the problem is that the situation is not new and that repeated expressions of regret by this Government have not prevented further carnage from being wrought by the Netanyahu Government.
The whole House saw the passion with which the right hon. Gentleman announced the British, French and Canadian joint position on 20 May, and with which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), sanctioned Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir on 10 June. In those statements, Ministers said that “we cannot stand by” and that they would respond
“not just with words but with action.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 913.]
I think they meant it, and yet two months later, the Secretary of State has only words, not action. Once again, his joint statement with other countries says only that
“We are prepared to take further action”,
and yet children queuing for food or water are still being killed every single day as the Israeli Cabinet maintains its grotesque blockade of humanitarian aid. It now proposes an open-air prison for all Gazans, which, according to Ehud Olmert, would amount to “ethnic cleansing”.
Today, I spoke to the Oxfordshire doctors Nick Maynard and Nada Al-Hadithy from Nasser hospital in Gaza. They described the desperation of civilians facing the latest Israeli attack, on Deir al-Balah, and the deaths of patients for want of basic dressings, and said that IDF snipers fired directly into the hospital compound. Yet settlers in the west bank continue illegally to occupy Palestinian homes and land, and the remaining hostages, who have been held in Gaza for over 650 days at the hands of Hamas terrorists, are no closer to release.
I have written to the Foreign Secretary frequently to set out the many more steps that Liberal Democrats believe he should take, so I will simply ask him this. Does he truly believe that his Government are doing all they can to put an end to the terrible violence and starvation being visited on Gaza in clear contravention of international law? Can he explain why there have been so few consequences since he and the Under-Secretary of State spoke so powerfully in the last two months? And can he dispel the widespread view that he is not setting the policy he would choose, but that he is instead being reined in by No. 10’s desire not to upset President Trump by acting more boldly?
Mr Lammy
I associate myself with much that the hon. Gentleman said. It is a source of great regret to me that we have not brought this most horrendous of wars and conflicts to an end. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to the Israeli Government’s response to the statement signed by 31 countries, which I had not heard because I have been sat in this Chamber. That ignoring of the international community is tarnishing greatly the reputation of Israel.
I listed in my statement the action that this Government have taken in the last year, since coming into office. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government have led much of the multilateral effort, and that sits behind both the leaders’ statement a few weeks ago and the Foreign Secretaries’ statement today. We will continue to press. We continue, of course, to look at what further we may need to do, as he would expect. I wish I could say that if we were to recognise tomorrow, it would bring this war to an end, but I am afraid I am not sure that is the case. What is required now is painstaking diplomacy to get to a ceasefire, and my assessment is that we will not see that ceasefire until the Knesset rises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Once again, a very large number of hon. Members wish to take part in this discussion. The intention is to try to accommodate everybody, but that will mean Members exercising a degree of self-restraint that was not entirely evident during the previous statement. I leave it to you, but if you want everybody to be called, then please, we need questions, not statements. If I may say so, Foreign Secretary, we also need relatively brief answers.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The statement we have from the 25 or 31 partners takes us no further forward. It says:
“We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire”.
People want action, not more repetition of, “We call for”, “We demand” and “We urge”. We want action, and this is not action. We have had this so many times before. We have this terrible humanitarian crisis, the forcible transfer of civilians, and starvation by Israel. How can it be that we have a situation in which the IDF are firing at children and systematically going for the head, stomach and testicles for their sport, and in which Rafah has been razed to the ground and this euphemistic “humanitarian city” is being constructed, which the former Prime Minister of Israel has called a “concentration camp”? When are we going to take the appropriate action to bring about a comprehensive trade and arms embargo and concentrate the mind of Israel? Nothing else is working. They are not listening, and they are getting away with murder every single day.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to a word that I said, but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary did.
Mr Lammy
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration, and he has been consistent for a very long time. As I have said, I regret that we are not in a place where we currently have a ceasefire, despite the international community calling for one and the pressure that exists. He is right: what we are seeing at the moment is an abomination, and I join him in those remarks.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course we all condemn the evil Hamas, but is not Prime Minister Netanyahu the biggest recruiting sergeant for Hamas? For every fighter he kills, he is radicalising the whole world against the state of Israel because of this appalling humanitarian solution. I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary says, but are words enough? I wonder whether he will oblige the House and allow a free vote, which I bet would pass by an enormous majority, on a motion for further action against the extreme right-wing actions of Prime Minister Netanyahu, sanctions, and recognition of the state of Palestine.
Mr Lammy
I hope that the Israeli Government are watching and note what senior parliamentarians on both sides of this House are saying. The right hon. Gentleman will know that 83% of the population now want a ceasefire, and he will have seen the remarks of former Prime Ministers and of all the Opposition in Israel, who condemned the most recent proposals suggested by Minister Katz.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this month I hosted in Parliament Dr Waseem Saeed, a British surgeon who had returned from working in the Nasser hospital in Gaza, where he treated children for severe burns, amputations and shrapnel wounds that were crawling with maggots. He showed us videos that would shock everybody in this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel should face a reckoning in the courts for such injuries and deaths, and that the UK should force such a reckoning? More importantly, does he agree that recognising a state of Palestine is really about recognising the humanity of the Palestinian people, and that their children deserve to have equal worth to every child on this planet?
Mr Lammy
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Palestinian cause is a just cause, and I would ask the Israeli Government to reflect again on international humanitarian law. I have in front of me “A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook”, and I am hugely concerned, as I read through it, that it feels that there are breaches.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The deaths of those trying to access aid in Gaza are truly shocking. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the number of civilians killed is being disputed by Israel and there are suggestions of disinformation. Does he agree that one way in which we could establish what is actually happening is if international media organisations, like the BBC and Reuters, were allowed full access to Gaza?
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Each time Members come together for a statement on the middle east, there is a new horror to comment on, a new inhumanity unfolding and a new form of strong words from the Dispatch Box. Last week, IDF shells hit a church sheltering 600 civilians. Several people were killed. The Pope called it “barbarity”. Yesterday, a World Food Programme convoy came under fire from Israeli forces, despite numerous assurances that humanitarian operational conditions would improve. Innocent Palestinians who were queuing for desperately needed food were killed. According to Médecins Sans Frontières, we are witnessing in real time the creation of conditions for the eradication of Palestinian lives in Gaza. So I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is this Government’s red line? At what point does our basic humanity require us to take stronger action? Many of us in this House think the red line was passed a long time ago.
Mr Lammy
I remind my hon. Friend of the action that this Government have taken and how we have tried to lead in the international community on this issue. I also join her in condemning what we have seen in relation to civilians. Page 28 of “Conflict, Hunger and International Humanitarian Law: A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook” makes it clear that:
“Parties to armed conflict must take constant care in the conduct of military operations to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”
Clearly, that is not happening.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Like others in this House, I am frankly astonished at the statement of the Foreign Secretary. At a time when we have got daily lynchings and expulsions on the west bank, and dozens being murdered as they beg for aid, I am just beyond words at his inaction—and, frankly, complicity by inaction. He said himself that there is a massive prison camp being constructed in the south of Gaza and he knows that leading genocide scholars from across the world are ringing the alarm bells, yet he has the temerity to show up in this House and wave his cheque book as if that is going to salve his conscience. Can he not see that his inaction and, frankly, cowardice are making this country irrelevant? Can he also not see the personal risk to him, given our international obligations—that he may end up at The Hague because of his inaction? Finally, frankly, I make an appeal to Labour Back Benchers: we cannot get your leadership to change their minds; only you can, if you organise and insist on change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I bring in the Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that we have other business to proceed with tonight, so please keep questions and answers short.
Mr Lammy
I understand the fury that the right hon. Gentleman feels, but I have to tell him—
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
We have seen again images of children dying of starvation and malnutrition, and this comes after months of warnings from the UN system about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of more aid, but we know that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation will not allow in more UK aid. He said to me 10 days ago at the Foreign Affairs Committee that if there was not a ceasefire, he would consider further action against Israel. As we have seen, the Israelis responded to the calls for a ceasefire by launching a new offensive in Deir al-Balah. What further actions will we take to try to end this catastrophic situation?
Mr Lammy
We have actually been able to get in some further aid with the World Food Programme, and of course that is important. It is also right to say that, with our funding of UK-Med, we have been able to save lives. Of course, we must endeavour every single day to make the humanitarian situation better.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 8 July, when he was asked what would happen if we did not see a ceasefire in Gaza in the coming weeks. He was also asked whether the British Government would take further measures against Israel. The Foreign Secretary was pensive, and said “Yes”—that the British Government would be taking further measures if the abomination in Gaza continued. Could he tell the House what those further measures are, or at the very least when we might see them?
Mr Lammy
We are doing everything we can in supporting our Qatari, Egyptian and US friends to get a ceasefire. The hon. Member will understand that, in looking closely at these issues, even if we are contemplating further measures, they work more effectively if we can co-ordinate allies.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The ground invasion of Deir al-Balah is the latest to add to the daily attacks on Gazans, and it is further evidence that the conflict has gone too far. Israeli Foreign Ministers have already rejected the joint statement signed by 31 countries, including ours. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what additional specific steps he will take with others to bring about a ceasefire and secure aid for starving Gazans?
Mr Lammy
I set out in my statement the action that this Government have taken, and I stand by it. I regret that we have not brought about a ceasefire. I have also set out that we are attempting to get in more aid and how we are supporting the Palestinian people, including the Palestinian Authority, and I stand by that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On the Foreign Secretary’s watch and in his statement today, he has refused to call it a genocide, he has refused to end all arms sales to Israel and, of course, he continues to refuse to recognise a state of Palestine, so here is something he could do. On his watch, just two wee kids who have been bombed or shot by the Israeli forces have been evacuated to the UK for medical treatment. The First Minister of Scotland wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we stand ready to provide hospital treatment to such children. Shamefully, the Prime Minister has not even bothered to respond. Will the Foreign Secretary do what his boss will not, and commit the UK to making sure that children who have been bombed by Israel are treated—
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have suspended sales of arms that could be used in Gaza. He should look closely at our export licensing regime, because much of it is not about arms. It is about, for example, equipment that we send to support non-governmental organisations and others in the area. Of course, I am happy to look, with the Home Secretary, at what more we can do for children who are suffering.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Ministers say it is for the courts to decide whether genocide has occurred in Gaza, but the genocide convention is aimed primarily at prevention, and the International Court of Justice has already found that there is a plausible risk of genocide and advised that all states must act collectively to prevent it. While the occupying Israeli forces are accelerating the building of illegal settlements in the west bank, the scenes in Gaza are horrific, with almost 1,000 people killed by the IDF while just seeking aid. We are seeing starvation being used as a weapon, the forced displacement of Gazans and mass civilian death, and senior Israeli officials are using dehumanising language while proposing to concentrate Gazans into a mass detention camp. So I ask the Foreign Secretary: when will the Government take decisive action, with international partners, to prevent genocide?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend prays in aid the law in terms of plausibility in breach of international humanitarian law. If he looks at my statement back in September, he will see that I assessed that there was a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law. It is for that reason that I suspended arms sales.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am aiming to finish this statement at around a quarter to 8. Given the length of questions, Members will be able to see that not everybody will get in.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Everybody condemns the deaths as people queue for aid, but this aid system that was enforced is only possible because of the support of the United States in its delivery—so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to persuade the United States that this is not the way to deliver aid into Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made representations to Secretary of State Rubio about my concerns with the aid system. I have done that alongside many European Foreign Ministers and members of the G7.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I recently met the mother of Oz Daniel, a 19-year-old who was murdered by Hamas on 7 October. His dead body was dragged into Gaza. Oz loved to play music; he loved Guns N’ Roses and was a brilliant guitar player. This is about a mum who just wants her dead son’s body brought home. A senior US official has said that Israel is bending over backwards to agree a ceasefire and that it is Hamas who are blocking it. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what pressure the Government are applying to Hamas, via Qatar and Egypt, to agree a ceasefire and to bring the hostages home?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to the extent that the challenge faced on the ceasefire has been principally that Hamas do not want a pause and the Israeli Government have said that they do want a pause. There has also been discussion within Israel of what withdrawal we would see of the IDF and, of course, changing the humanitarian aid system. That is why a ceasefire has remained stuck, but it is my hope that once the Knesset rises on the 22nd, we will move to a ceasefire.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As the Foreign Secretary follows the diplomatic path, will he ensure that in the discussions of the two-state solution, it is borne in mind that not only does the state of Palestine exist, but that Israel’s neighbours do need to recognise Israel’s right to exist?
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Najwa Ahmed Fathi Radwan and Mohammed Hassan Yousef Daoud are just two of the tens of thousands of Palestinian children who have been killed in Gaza. Many of their names were read out over the course of 12 hours at a really powerful vigil, which I joined in Aylesbury town centre this weekend. Yet today, that list of dead children has likely just got longer, with Israel’s assault on Deir al-Balah. Will the Foreign Secretary say to his Israeli counterparts: enough is enough?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that I said that this morning to my Israeli counterpart.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, let me say that I heard some unacceptable comments directed at a Member in this Chamber, and I will not be having that. We are investigating it. Until I find out from the Clerks who said those words, please do be assured that I will investigate it.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary, at the beginning of his remarks, mentioned the savagery unfolding in southern Syria, and said that he had spoken to his Syrian interlocuter, Minister al-Shaibani, about it. Has he spoken to Tel Aviv about it, since the only country that has visibly come to the assistance of the Druze, for all the criticism that has been rightly aimed at it, is Israel? If he has, can he say what his assessment is of the wisdom or otherwise of the action that Israel has taken?
Mr Lammy
The UK is clear that we expect Israel to adhere to its commitment that its presence in the area of separation in the south is both limited and temporary. I did press the Israeli Foreign Minister on Israel’s activity, which I worry destabilises the situation further.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s labours to get as many international allies on board and the importance of that, but clearly we must do more—this is not enough. Israel’s flaunting of international law and the devastating consequences of that—I understand that Israeli soldiers are reporting being told to kill children, to point and shoot—are completely unacceptable. As a starting point, perhaps we could ensure that we refuse the Israeli air force chief entry to the Royal International Air Tattoo. Also, as others have said, how will we get over here children who need care?
Mr Lammy
I said that I will look at what more we can do should children require medical aid in our own country. If what my hon. Friend says is correct, it would constitute a war crime, very clearly. We cannot have soldiers turning their guns on children. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any decision that might come to me.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last week, I hosted Keith and Aviva Siegel, both of whom were hostages and were released. The previous week, I met families of hostages who all pleaded with all of us to get the hostages released. The hostages have now been in captivity for 654 days, without any access by the International Red Cross. Will the Foreign Secretary call out Hamas to enable the International Red Cross to go to see those hostages and make sure they are being treated humanely?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right. I said in my statement that Hamas are making hay with the chaos that exists on the ground, and it is quite wrong to restrict the support of organisations such as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Prime Minister responded to my questions on Gaza in the Liaison Committee this afternoon by saying:
“we need a ceasefire and we need it straightaway”
and
“the situation on the ground is intolerable”.
How will we get that ceasefire when the Israeli Government have already rejected the statement by the Foreign Secretary and his allied Ministers as “disconnected from reality”? The will of the House is clear on this matter: it wants action, not words. Why is my right hon. Friend not hearing that?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing campaigning on these issues. Of course I am hearing the strength of feeling in the House—how could I not?—and of course the Israeli Government can see the strength of feeling in the House. He knows the list of actions that the UK has taken. He knows the work we are doing with close allies. He knows, too, that we have not brought this war to an end, and he will be familiar with the work we are doing with countries such as Qatar, Egypt and the United States to bring about a ceasefire.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Yesterday, it was reported, as hon. Members will be aware, that at least 93 Palestinians were shot and killed while queuing for GHF-distributed food because they and their families are being starved to death. The fact that GHF stands for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation smacks of an Orwellian doublespeak which I find profoundly disturbing. The Foreign Secretary must surely agree that the current system of aid distribution headed by the GHF is both unsafe and grossly inadequate. Is the Secretary of State content that Britain is doing all it can to ensure it is not complicit in the grotesque use of starvation as a tool of war?
Mr Lammy
I associate myself with what the hon. Lady has said, and I assure her, not just on my behalf but on behalf of everyone in this Chamber, that there will be no complicity among any of us in acts where there could be a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Last week I heard from Keith and Aviva Siegel, who had been held hostage by Hamas. It was a powerful reminder that until all hostages are released, no hostage is released. That is true for Avinatan Or and his family and Gali and Ziv Berman and their family—in fact, it is the families of hostages who are some of the loudest voices calling for an end to this war. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the next ceasefire is permanent and will see hostages get out of Gaza and aid get in?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; he is right to mention the hostages. I meet regularly with hostage families and did a few weeks ago in my office. He is absolutely right that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli people—83%—want a ceasefire so that the hostages can get out, and they want it to be a sustained and enduring ceasefire, which is not currently the position of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has said that Palestinian mothers are repeatedly watching their children slowly starve to death, be maimed, be killed and be buried alive, and that it is a deliberate part of Israel’s strategy physically and psychologically to destroy women and the continuity of the Palestinian people. She called this a femi-genocide. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the situation is intolerable, yet by failing to pull every single lever that this Government could pull, they are tolerating it. When will he stand on the right side of history and implement a full arms embargo, widespread sanctions and a ban on the import of settlement goods, and when will they fund evidence collection for prosecutions?
Mr Lammy
I stand by all the decisions we have made as a Government, which are numerous; I listed them in my statement. On the full arms embargo, I am content that we are not sending arms that could be used in Gaza. I ask the hon. Lady to look closely at the export licensing regime, because there are many things that are sent to Israel, and they are for use by NGOs in Israel sometimes so that they themselves are not injured in theatres of conflict.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Doctors have told us that they walk into the emergency room and see, if not starved and emaciated children, tiny bodies strewn across the floor with burns, blasts and bullets, and their job is to choose which child to save and which ones they will have to let go. That is decision making. The Foreign Secretary has an option right before him to make a decision that could make a difference to those children—to protect all health facilities, with the means to do that at the UN. I trust that he will do that. Secondly, if he does not recognise the state of Palestine, there will be no state left to recognise.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the vision that she paints, and I associate myself with the remarks she makes in relation to children, particularly about starvation and the situation that they face. Of course we are working closely with the UN system. I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the beginning of last week to get the latest on the aid situation, and we will continue to work with him.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary states that he believes in a two-state solution—as I have done since at least the 1973 Yom Kippur war—but that Hamas must not be a part of it. Does he agree that the best chance there ever was for the two-state solution was when Israel withdrew in 2005 from the Gaza strip? Hamas was elected in January 2006 and has been in power there ever since and is still managing to hang on. Does he accept that if ever the Government did recognise a Palestinian state, it would have to be the west bank without the Gaza strip, given the internecine slaughter between Hamas on the one hand and the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the other that followed the last withdrawal?
Mr Lammy
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Hamas cannot continue to govern in Gaza, and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber agrees with that. I do believe that there are prospects beyond that. Indeed, the IRA laid down its arms, and that is a template for how to demilitarise and how leaders in this circumstance can perhaps exit Gaza. However, the continued undermining of the Palestinian Authority by the Israeli Government, including the starvation of funds, is an attempt not to get to a two-state solution which all of us in this House want to see.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
We watch as families survey the ruins of their homes and are mocked by illegal settlers in the west bank, and we watch as a little boy looks at his dead relative, waiting for him to take another breath. I watched a mother whose baby had its leg amputated before it even got to take its first step. Where is our humanity? To have a two-state solution, we need two states. Let us recognise Palestine. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what words I need to say to him to get our Government to take real meaningful action? Tell me what to say and I will say it.
Mr Lammy
I would say to my hon. Friend that we do need humanity, and everything that this Government have done has been to ensure that there is humanity and to ensure the dignity of the Palestinian people and the hostages that are still underground. We will continue with everything we have to get that ceasefire, and we will throw everything at it—that is what we are doing. I sense her frustration and that of many Members in the Chamber. I am as frustrated as she is, but frustration alone will not deliver what we want to see.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Israeli Government should bear heavy consequences should they decide to proceed with the approval of the illegal E1 settlement plan in occupied East Jerusalem, which will threaten the two-state solution?
Mr Lammy
The last Government suggested back in 2014 that there would be consequences if the Israeli Government move forward with E1, so it is absolutely the case that there would be consequences if they made such a move, not just from the UK but from all international partners.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Children are being starved and shot in front of our constituents’ eyes. They are watching illegal settlers systematically and strategically undermine the Palestinian state. It is not that there is a risk of international humanitarian law being broken. International humanitarian law is being broken in front of our eyes, on an hourly and daily basis. Our constituents are asking what this Government are doing to stop it, and they are asking that because it is unbearable and they can see that the current approach is not working. We were promised more action weeks ago, but today we are still not seeing more action, so what are the Government are doing to secure accountability under international law, and when will they recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for her strength of feeling and for campaigning on and championing this issue in her constituency, but I remind her that we are supporting many groups that are on the ground in the west bank documenting expansion and violence. That work assists the United Nations and the global community.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
There is a narrative around aid—we all want to see it reach the innocent in Gaza—which is that Israel is blocking it getting into Gaza. However, over recent months Israel has facilitated nearly 2 million tonnes of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. As of this morning, 700 trucks of aid have passed from Israel and are sitting in Gaza, undelivered. Will the Foreign Secretary agree that aid is getting through, and that what needs to get better is the delivery?
Mr Lammy
I am afraid I cannot agree with that statement. I do not recognise those numbers.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
As I understand it, Hamas want Egypt, Qatar and the United States empowered as legal guarantors not only for a 60-day truce, but up to the signatory date of any final agreement with Israel. Can America not be prevailed upon to act as a guarantor beyond the final settlement? Hamas could be forced to reconsider their objectives under pressure from a population desperately looking for long-term security.
Mr Lammy
We are working particularly with Arab partners on this issue. Hamas have to exit—they have to step away from the governance of Gaza. My hon. Friend is right: we cannot have a pause for 60 days; we need an enduring, permanent ceasefire.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza are being deliberately starved to death; aid convoys are coming under fire; children are being shot by soldiers; and schools and hospitals are being bombed. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what further war crimes would need to take place before the UK Government sanctioned the Israeli Government and Prime Minister Netanyahu himself?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman would struggle to point to any Government of a major G7 or European state that have done as much as we have in office. We led the sanctioning of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir specifically because of their language and behaviours in relation to the west bank. We have said that we keep sanctions under review, as he would expect.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement with other Foreign Ministers, urging Israel to agree to a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. I say to my right hon. Friend, who I know is entirely sincere, that Members—and, indeed, the British people—have heard urgings, demands and outrage in this Chamber, yet the situation only gets worse, with more and more Palestinians dying, each life of incalculable value. In my Adjournment debate in April, I asked what more we could do to help the Palestinian people. When the Minister responded last week, he made some useful clarifications, including that Israeli settlement goods should be labelled so that British people can decide what they are spending their money on. When it comes to the actions of the UK Government, however, I have to ask my right hon. Friend: is this it?
Mr Lammy
In some senses, that is in the hands of those who continue to prosecute this conflict. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when she says that each life is of incalculable value. I think I have made more statements on this subject than any other Minister has made statements in this House over the past year—of course, the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has also made his fair share of statements. The strength of feeling is well known, and it is reflected not just here, but across the globe. The current course of the Government of Israel is bringing that country into ill repute. That is what is happening.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Last week, in Bogotá, the Hague Group met, led by South Africa. Those nations pledged to support the ICC and the ICJ, to refuse all arms sales to Israel, to refuse the facilitation of arms to Israel, and to refuse anything that enhances the occupation of Gaza and the west bank—in short, global opinion supporting the Palestinian people. Will the British Government also sign the Hague declaration and support that group of nations, which are determined to bring the world’s attention to this, to end the genocide that is going on and the continuing occupation?
Mr Lammy
I will speak to my South African counterpart about that issue. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we in the UK support the ICC—indeed, it receives funding from British taxpayers—and the ICJ, and we also stand against what we are seeing in the west bank and in Gaza, so I would say that much of what he has said is consistent with UK policy.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On Friday, the UN reported that 800 people had been killed near aid sites in Gaza over the past six weeks. Over the weekend, yet again, 100 people died just seeking food and water. I want to ask the Foreign Secretary a question he has been asked twice before. This month he told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he would take further measures against Israel if there was no ceasefire and if the intolerable situation in Gaza continued. What exactly did he mean by that—specifically on trade, recognition and more? Our constituents want to know.
Mr Lammy
All action is under review at this time. We are pressing for a ceasefire, and our assessment is that we could see one shortly after the Knesset rises. My hon. Friend will understand that a ceasefire is our priority, as it is the single act that would stop the suffering that we are seeing in Gaza. She lists some of the actions she would expect to be under consideration with international partners. Of course, we must act internationally alongside our partners if we are to have any effect.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The disturbing images from Gaza lead us all to the conclusion that this war must end. However, we must remember that it was started because terrorists raped, burned and murdered people, took captives and still abuse those captives today. The war could finish tomorrow if the terrorists released those captives and agree to a ceasefire. Much has been said today about Israel trying to starve the people of Palestine, but the fact is that since the new arrangements were put in place to stop Hamas stealing aid, 82 million meals have been supplied in Gaza. Instead of talking about a two-state solution and recognising a state that does not exist—and that, if it did exist, would be controlled by terrorists—our Government should be standing by the Israeli Government, who are seeking justice for their own citizens.
Mr Lammy
I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, save for his remarks that the hostages must be released.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to gently point out to the Foreign Secretary that the reason so many of us are here is that we have been waiting a long time for this statement. With the situation unfolding, as many colleagues have said, our constituents continue to write to us. Last week, Save the Children held a photo exhibition in Parliament in partnership with Choose Love and the photographer Misan Harriman—I should declare that he is the chair of the Southbank Centre, which is in my constituency. I want to read a clip from that exhibition. A question next to one of the pictures asked:
“If you had one superpower, what would it be and why?”
The answer of the young girl in the photo was:
“the ability to change events in order to help my country to become free and help my children live in a safe environment like the rest of the children in the world”.
We are seeing children being killed while trying to access vital food and aid. We must ask ourselves: what more can we be doing? We are seeing children malnourished and starving. I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is the real action from this Government to stop that, so that more children can live?
Mr Lammy
I hear the strength of my hon. Friend’s conviction and views when she asks for more action. We are taking action—we have taken action every single day in office. British taxpayers are funding the alleviation of suffering. Is it enough? Have we brought this war to an end? We have not brought it to an end. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the UK will be unable to do that unilaterally, which is why we are working with partners internationally. I have I have done that every single day in office. Me raising my voice will not bring this war to an end. I lament that and I regret that. But am I sure that the UK Government are doing everything in our power? Yes, I am.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Twenty-nine arms export licences were suspended in September due to the possible breaking of international law, yet between September and December we saw a further 34 licences. Will the Foreign Secretary explain that decision? How many licences have been granted this year? What is the UK Government’s red line for a total arms trade embargo?
Mr Lammy
Most licences are not for military use. Most do not go to Israeli authorities. Many are for civilian use, such as product testing or body armour for journalists and NGOs. I am quite sure that the hon. Member would not want us not to support those organisations. Some are for components going to Israeli companies that are then re-exported to third countries, including NATO allies.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is right; we have been waiting weeks for this statement. The truth is that our constituents do not understand—and neither do we—how we can track our stolen mobile phones to China or Algeria but we cannot track F-35 components in the multimillion-pound arms trade. They do not understand why we have not reported Israel directly to the International Criminal Court for what has been happening to aid workers, and they do not understand why, given that this House voted in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine, that has not been enacted. I hear the Foreign Secretary’s frustration, and I do not doubt his frustration with his partners, but tonight we could say, “We do not need a conference—we will recognise the state of Palestine.” Will he join us—yes or no?
Mr Lammy
Again, I understand my hon. Friend’s strength of feeling. She knows that there will be a two-state conference on 28 July, and of course we will participate. But she will have also detected that at that conference our French and Saudi Arabian colleagues are talking not about recognition but about how we get to two states and get an enduring ceasefire. It may be that as we head to September and the United Nations General Assembly the issue of recognition is raised once more.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Since 2023, the Israel Defence Forces have killed a record number of journalists and killed a record number of humanitarian workers. They continually murder starving children as they queue for aid. An Israeli soldier outed his commanders for their illegal orders to arbitrarily kill civilians. That is not a sequence of coincidences, but war crime after war crime and a clear message to the world: do not intervene and do not observe what we are doing to the Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary has said that he wants a two-state solution. He can take a giant leap in that direction right now with a one-word answer. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member has heard what I have said about my commitment to two states. He knows that we have not yet got a ceasefire, and he knows that we are working with international partners to ensure that we get an enduring ceasefire. He knows the debate around recognition, because I have talked about it not just in Select Committees but at this Dispatch Box on many occasions.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Seventeen thousand, nine hundred and twenty-one children have been killed in this horrific war in Gaza. The Israeli army willingly opened fire on children collecting food and trying to access water. Children are literally being starved to death, and those children not killed are left with disabling injuries. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the war in Gaza must end, but we have seen the response from the Israeli Foreign Minister—the Israeli Government are ignoring what this Government are saying. What will the Foreign Secretary do now? Is it not time for an end to all arms sales, not just some of them, and a complete ban on all settlement goods? He said that he will be part of the conference on 28 July, but he does not need a conference to recognise the state of Palestine.
Mr Lammy
I say politely to my hon. Friend that when last year some countries took a step to recognition, it did not change things on the ground. She asks with passion, what is going on? My focus is what is going on and trying to alleviate the suffering. While I recognise the debate on recognition, and we must move to recognition at the appropriate point, I say to her politely that, in terms of this conflict, I do not believe in all honesty that recognition would change the situation on the ground.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Every day we see more and more reports of children being killed in cold blood while they queue for food. The horror cannot get any worse. Prime Minister Netanyahu has already rejected the statement signed by 31 countries—it did not take him long—and it is clear that he is not interested in stopping this horrific offensive. The time for words is over. The House wants to see action, with widespread sanctions, an end to all arms sales and recognition of Palestine as a state. Netanyahu deserves nothing less, and he might actually take notice if we take action. Will the Foreign Secretary consider taking more action to bring this horrific offensive to an end?
Mr Lammy
Yes to that last bit. I want to see a ceasefire in the coming days, but of course we continue to consider what further steps we can take with allies to bring the war to an end, as the hon. Member would expect.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Israel’s plans to transfer control of the Ibrahimi mosque from the Palestinian municipality of Hebron is highly inflammatory and a violation of international law? Will the Government condemn any transfer of authority away from Palestinians and consider sanctions against the Kiryat Arba settlement municipality if it assumes such a role?
Mr Lammy
We are concerned about the statements made and the language used. We do believe that they are inflammatory and that, were that to take place, that would breach Israel’s obligations. We are looking closely at Israel’s behaviour.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Words do matter, but actions speak louder. What Members across the House and citizens of the country—our constituents—cannot understand is why the Foreign Secretary will not take the actions available to him to end UK complicity in this horror. A full arms embargo and an end to all military co-operation, a full ban on all settlement goods, sanctions on all those responsible for genocide, recognition of the state of Palestine—why will he not take those concrete actions now?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the hon. Lady that the UK Government are not complicit in any actions that would breach international humanitarian law. I took that step back in September alongside restoring funding to UNRWA. She asked for a full embargo. She will note that there was a judicial review of that decision, and the Government’s position was upheld. She does not want to see us or our allies weakened in other conflicts that have a direct bearing on the safety and security of the people of Britain.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary reiterating this Labour Government’s total opposition to Israel’s military operation, something my constituents raise with me regularly, and our shared abhorrence at the sight of children being shot at as they seek food. The Israeli Defence Minister announced his plan to forcibly transfer all Palestinian civilians in Gaza to a camp in the ruined city of Rafah, which the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has deemed a concentration camp in all but name. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is a completely unacceptable violation of international law that cannot go ignored, and will the Government guarantee further action against Israel if it proceeds with the plan?
Mr Lammy
Yes, yes, yes. My hon. Friend talks about the statements of Ehud Olmert. It is also right to say that others—Yair Golan, Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz and Ehud Barak, the former IDF chief—have all condemned what Minister Katz has suggested, and I too condemn it wholeheartedly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Last week, as a Minister met Yair Golan, shaking hands, smiling and taking photographs, a Palestinian mother faced a dilemma: should she stay where she is and see the starvation of her children, or should she venture out and see the children being blown to pieces, adding to the 17,000 others who have died and the 10 a day whose limbs are blown off? These children do not need these empty words. Words will not stop their bleeding, they will not stop their killing, they will not nourish their bodies and they will not stop the tears of their mothers. I agree with the Secretary of State that even recognising the state of Palestine today would not make any difference to the children on the ground, so will he take a tangible step and propose a British-led, internationally supported hospital in Gaza, in partnership with a coalition of the willing, to provide some remnants of humanity in this darkest of hours?
Mr Lammy
Notwithstanding the huge humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place in Gaza, I am proud of the work of UK-Med, the funding we have been able to give it and the extra money that I have announced today, and that medical aid is getting through to relieve some suffering. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will continue to do more, and I reassure him that I am working with my Jordanian counterparts, in particular, to see what more we can do to alleviate that suffering.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Aid should be a lifeline in humanitarian crises, yet it has become a death trap for Gazans. People are starving, yet one of the only ways they can get food is to risk their lives by going to an aid distribution point run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are seeing the militarisation of aid, and we cannot let that set a precedent? May I press him further on his conversations with the Israeli Government and the US Government on bringing the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to an end?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of aid workers. The widespread loss of life among aid workers is a travesty. It is unprecedented. I remind colleagues of chapter 2 of “The Conduct of Hostilities”, the handbook for legal practitioners in international humanitarian law, which says that distinctions lie at the heart of international humanitarian law and requires parties to armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians—including, of course, aid workers —and combatants. It is a travesty what we have seen take place over the last two and a half years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his thoughtful use of words on a very contentious issue. The latest reports of attacks on the Druze people indicate that hundreds of Druze civilians, including women and children, have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, executed and mutilated, with Christians suffering at their side. Despite the fact that they are fighting back, there is a real and valid fear of genocide of those people, who have a strong faith and, as such, are worthy of our protection. What can the Government and the Foreign Secretary do to secure peace and hope for those people, who are currently being targeted and need aid urgently?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for naming the Druze, who have seen awful atrocities visited on them in the last few days, and the positions of minorities in Syria. I saw that the Pope commented—unusually, in the strongest terms—on what he has seen. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I raised these issues with the Syrian leader myself, urged him to act and said that there must be accountability as he grips the entirety of his country. Of course, these incidents were also taking place under the Assad regime, and in some ways have been going on for a long time, but the suffering that is being wrought on minorities in Syria at this time is totally unacceptable.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The situation facing Gazans is truly catastrophic. We must secure a ceasefire as soon as possible, with all hostages freed and unhindered access to aid. Our experience in Northern Ireland shows that to build a long-term, sustainable peace we need to invest in civil society and peacebuilders, to create a consensus and to change opinions for the better. Will my right hon. Friend therefore tell us what the UK Government are doing to support the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that British taxpayers are funding NGOs that work across communities. We are supporting that work on the west bank and in Gaza. We are supporting accountability, because that is No. 1 when we look at some of the injustice being wrought. We will continue to do that work, including with the international humanitarian fund.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
There are no red lines. Every single allegation made by the Israeli Government about the crimes committed by Hamas has been re-enacted and executed—for example, killing of innocent people, beheading of babies, burning of babies alive, rape, and hostage-taking, including of many hundreds of doctors. Now we are actually seeing children being shot in the genitals. There are games being played by the IDF. There are no red lines. Will the Foreign Secretary please tell us from the Dispatch Box: what are the red lines? What will cause this Government to take proactive steps?
Mr Lammy
What the hon. Gentleman mentions falls into the category of the assessment that I made back in September last year that there was a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law. It was on that legal advice, and the quasi-legal position that I took, that I made sure that nothing we did in this country could be complicit in such action. I want to give him that reassurance. He paints a vivid picture. It is unimaginable that the suffering has gone on for as long as it has.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached horrific levels. Israel’s aid delivery model has failed to meet humanitarian needs. As a mother, I cannot bear to watch children being murdered. My constituents cannot bear to watch. I welcome the statement, but what are the Government doing to deliver the three actions that my constituents want to see them deliver: a UN-led ceasefire, the release of hostages and a credible pathway to a two-state solution?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning all three of those things. We are working for a ceasefire, although it is my assessment that we probably will not get one now before the Knesset rises. We are absolutely working to get the hostages out. I have called to mind opinion in Israel that wants to see a ceasefire to get those hostages out; I reminded the Israeli Government of that, and I did so again when I spoke to the Minister. The aid situation is abominable. That there are trucks waiting at the border is totally reprehensible. As I say, I am guided by the practitioners’ handbook on breaches of international humanitarian law, war crimes, the duty of care, proportionality and distinction, particularly in theatres of conflict, and I am deeply troubled that these seem to be being breached.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of additional aid to help the people of Gaza, but it is aid that will join the millions of dollars and thousands of trucks that are stood outside the border not being allowed into Gaza. There are 1 million children in Gaza starving to death. Palestinian children are our children. We must do everything in our power to get food to them. Some 85% of the population are facing a level 5 starvation assessment, so—please—what steps will the UK Government and the Foreign Secretary take to feed our children in Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his remarks. He knows that in the occupied territories, Israel controls who gets in and who gets out. He knows that the last time we saw a ceasefire, we saw a rapid escalation of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. That is far from the situation today. We were able, working with the UN system, to get some WFP trucks in—an increase over the last few weeks—and our EU colleagues have been doing a considerable amount with the Israeli Government to increase the amount of trucks. Is it sufficient? No, it is not, and we therefore remain deeply worried about malnourished children, notwithstanding the statements that have been made in this Chamber about children whose life has been taken away from them as they have waited for aid because of the system that has been put in place.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) touched on, the situation in Gaza is all the more infuriating when we hear that the UN has three months-worth of food waiting in warehouses on the border, while it is reported that 19 people died of starvation just in the last 24 hours. I am grateful for all that the Foreign Secretary has done so far on this issue, and I know that he agrees with me that the war must end now, but what are the next actions that we need to take to make that a reality?
Mr Lammy
We have to bring about that ceasefire, and we have to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. That is what I set out in my statement today, but I remain as frustrated as my hon. Friend is that this war is not over.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has been kind enough to meet me a number of times over this year, so he knows well my constituents’ feelings about this conflict. They are concerned and disgusted by the sight of the mass killings and starvation of the Gazan people, but they are also frustrated by the lack of medical care and humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary knows that I have many surgical colleagues working in Gaza and who have worked in Gaza, including Dr Mohammed Mustafa, who—alongside the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Australian Government—is desperately seeking to get a maternity hospital caring for women and children into Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary lend his support and the support of his office to this endeavour?
Mr Lammy
Yes, absolutely. I am grateful for all the work that my hon. Friend has done, and his background in medicine helps to bring these issues to public attention.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
According to the UN, nearly 800 Palestinians have been killed near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid points. The UK sending £129 million in aid is nearly pointless given the denial of the UN’s aid system, and Israel’s cruel blockade is choking off supplies to the people who need it and looks very much like starvation as a weapon of war. The RAF broke a previous blockade with airdrops months ago, and although we welcome the additional £40 million of medical aid that has been promised today, and today’s international statement, Israel has rejected such appeals. So I ask again, please, what are the additional steps that the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee we would take to break this cruel blockade and get aid to those desperately in need?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will have heard the statement that I made today on the extra steps that we are taking in terms of humanitarian aid. He will have seen the statement, made by 31 international partners, on the fact that this war must come to an end and that aid must get in. He is right to condemn the aid system. We warned Israel about reducing the aid points to four, and now we are seeing the horrors in front of our eyes. I remind Israel again about its obligations to international humanitarian law and my worry that they are being breached.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We rightly re-funded UNRWA, but since then aid has become a daily death trap and starvation is widespread. Our calls for a ceasefire only saw the last one get broken. Now, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the chilling order to forcibly displace an entire population of 2 million people has been condemned by ex-Israeli PM Ehud Barak. What more concrete actions are we taking to stop the man-made destruction of Gaza—35 hospitals, as well as hostages, soldiers and civilians—before our very eyes? History will not judge this well, and words are not working.
Mr Lammy
We stand with the international community in all our efforts. In terms of what comes next, we support the Arab plan. We are working with Arab partners to improve that plan and to get to the day after, which we can get to if we get that ceasefire.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Gaza is facing catastrophic, famine-like conditions and people are dying in appalling circumstances. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is fundamentally failing to properly distribute adequate humanitarian aid and is turning distribution into another frontline in Gaza. What actions is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that UN NGOs can get into Gaza and deliver the humanitarian aid that Gazans desperately need?
Mr Lammy
I can reassure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the UN about this last week. We are working with the UN, and I was pleased that the World Food Programme was able to get some extra trucks in. We will continue to work closely with the UN, because we believe that it must be a fundamental part of the system that distributes aid to the people of Gaza.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I note the agreement reached with the 30 other nations. However, as we know, Israel has already rejected it. It seems to me that Israel is becoming more and more emboldened by the lack of concrete action by the international community. While people starve or are killed while queuing for food, and while those sheltering in the Caritas Jerusalem shelter were bombed at the weekend, it really does begin to look as though there is genocide unfolding before our eyes. I realise that the Foreign Secretary will want to take a legalistic view of that, but to those of us looking at it from a moral and logical point of view, there can be no other words for it. Although I understand and I agree with the Foreign Secretary that recognising the state of Palestine will not bring this to an end, it would at least give the people of Palestine something to cling on to and some hope, so can we please not discount the opportunities to raise that issue, but advocate for it and declare that we regard Palestine as a state?
Mr Lammy
In my experience, my hon. Friend chooses her words carefully, and the whole House will have heard what she has said this afternoon. I reassure her that, in my discussions with the Jordanians, the Saudi Arabians, the Qataris, the Emiratis and the Egyptians, and indeed with Prime Minister Mustafa, we of course discuss the recognition issue, as we have been doing with our French colleagues.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s unrelenting denial of aid to civilians is turning an entire population of Palestinians to skin and bones, starving them to death. As kids die, the Israeli Government are pushing ahead in defiance with their humanitarian plan for Gaza—a plan that has been described as a “concentration camp” by the former Israeli Prime Minister. Can I press the Foreign Secretary to enforce further sanctions, and can he lay out what tangible pressure this Government are putting on Israel to stop using hunger as a weapon of war?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that, as he would expect, I raise these issues with Israel on a regular basis, and I raised that issue with Israel this morning.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Inhumanity is a red line drawn by international law and underwritten by universal human rights. In Gaza, that red line has not just been broken; it has been ignored, betrayed and erased. The Foreign Secretary tells us that Netanyahu is not listening—in fact, he is putting his middle finger up to the UK Government. Will the Foreign Secretary send military personnel to protect Palestinians from the genocide being committed by the IDF?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend conveys to the Chamber. I listed all the things we are doing. I think the most important thing that the UK Government can do is press to get that ceasefire, press to get an alleviation of the suffering, and, of course, to do everything we can to see the hostages returned.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I just want to be clear on the Government’s legal position. On 11 June last year, the Government reported that they saw “no serious risk of genocide” in Gaza. All this time on, and after the statements that the Foreign Secretary has made, can I be clear: is he saying tonight that the Government accept that there is a plausible risk of genocide? If he is not, will he instruct his officials to undertake an immediate review and report to Members as rapidly as possible? If there is a plausible risk of genocide, that would place legal duties on the Government—and all of us, I believe—to act accordingly. As we have seen in the past when we have had rogue states, like South Africa, the best form of bringing them to heel is financial sanctions. If the Foreign Secretary met the finance houses and banks in this country and they denied credit lines to Israeli banks, that would be probably the most effective thing we could do to bring the Israeli Government to their senses.
Mr Lammy
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made back in September and the addendum to that statement, which set out the basis on which I have judged that there was a clear risk to international humanitarian law. He knows that the long-established position is that it is for the international courts to make any determination of genocide. Our assessment is there is a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Cat Eccles
The people of Gaza are being starved to death despite UNRWA having enough supplies to feed the population for three months. It is not a matter of logistics; it is sheer cruelty. GHF ration centres are purposely located in the south in militarised zones with sporadic opening hours and sudden closures, leaving people with no option but to make that long journey on foot and wait many hours on the off-chance that supplies may become available—or they may be killed while trying. This is not just a genocide; it is now ethnic cleansing. When Israel’s Government are ignoring calls from 31 countries, what further action can we take?
Mr Lammy
As my hon. Friend has heard, what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving Gazans of human dignity. As she would expect, the Government, working with our partners, keep everything under further consideration.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
We see the brutality and bloodshed in Gaza every single night on our screens. It is disproportionate and horrific, and it has gone on for far too long—bombs, bullets and now the blockades. There can never be any justification for shooting people while they wait and queue for aid. I know that the Secretary of State shares my desire for peace, a two-state solution, an immediate ceasefire and the flowing of aid into Gaza. Will he share what he is doing to help achieve that?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: there can be no justification for shooting people as they are queuing for food—none whatsoever. I reassure him that we continue to work with the UN system and with close partners like Jordan to do all we can to alleviate the suffering.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published on 9 July, and today I would like to provide the House with an initial response. I am grateful to Sir Brian Langstaff for seeking justice for victims and for the inquiry’s constructive additional report. His ambition was to ensure that fair compensation is provided without delay to every person who is eligible, and that resonates across the country.
Before considering the detail of the report, I want to share the latest delivery figures from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. As of 15 July, IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin their claim, and 1,934 have started the claim process; 808 offers have been made, to a total value of over £602 million; and 587 people have accepted their offer, and over £411 million has been paid in compensation. That means approximately 60% of infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim.
I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community for faster payment. That is why the Government wrote to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last month outlining the steps we are taking to remove administrative barriers to IBCA speeding up payments. I am also pleased to announce further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who were registered to an infected blood support scheme and who have sadly passed away. That is in addition to the more than 500 interim payments that have already been paid, on which I will provide further information as soon as I am able to do so.
The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal and in the autumn Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to do that. The inquiry has recognised the Government’s commitment, saying:
“There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent.”
However, I agree with Sir Brian’s statement that
“there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent.”
Sir Brian has made a number of recommendations on ways the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works for everyone. We will publish an update on gov.uk today setting out the Government’s approach to the inquiry’s further recommendations. I will deposit a copy of that update in the Libraries of both Houses. We will also provide a comprehensive response to all the recommendations in due course.
The report includes several recommendations for IBCA on speed and transparency. I reiterate that the Government still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim, and to open the service for affected people, by the end of this year. The announcements I am about to make do not change that position.
On Friday, Sir Robert Francis and David Foley confirmed that they will accept the recommendations that the inquiry made to IBCA. They have committed to working with the community to develop plans for designing and implementing those recommendations. IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. It will also update its sequencing in line with the inquiry’s recommendation, noting that that will inform the order in which it opens up to cohorts this year. IBCA will introduce a process for prioritisation, recognising that community involvement is needed in tackling any uncertainty that may be introduced.
Alongside that, I have asked for a review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme to ensure that it progresses as quickly as possible. That will be supported by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority and led by an independent reviewer. I expect the review to begin in August.
The inquiry has made recommendations across nine key areas to ensure that infected and affected people feel that they have overall been compensated fairly by a scheme that is designed and delivered with their input. Separate to the delivery of compensation by IBCA, the inquiry has made recommendations relating to the design and structure of the scheme. The Government will accept, and implement as soon as we can, seven of those sub-recommendations, so that IBCA can get on with paying compensation. Others will require engagement with the community before changes are made, in line with the spirit of the inquiry’s report.
When I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I would take a constructive approach and look at the issues that had been put to me. The inquiry has made eight sub-recommendations in those areas, and I am pleased to confirm to the House that I will either accept them or agree with the inquiry that the community should be consulted on next steps. I can confirm that we will remove the 1982 start date for HIV infection to ensure that anyone infected because of infected blood or infected blood products with HIV is eligible for the scheme regardless of the infection date.
We accept the inquiry’s recommendation on affected estates; in fact, I will go further than the recommendation. The inquiry recommended that if an eligible affected person has sadly died or dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 December 2029, their claim does not die with them but becomes part of the estate. I will extend that by a further two years until 31 December 2031.
The special category mechanism has been a concern for members of the community and for this House. Again, I promised the House that I would consider it, and I am pleased to say that we accept that change is needed to acknowledge the special category mechanism as part of the supplementary route severe health condition award. We will engage with the community on how best to realise those changes.
Another area that I committed to considering was the reinstatement of support payments to partners bereaved after 31 March 2025 until they have received compensation. Again, I accept that recommendation. I will ensure that those impacted will also be able to continue receiving those payments as part of their compensation package.
Unethical research is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. I can also confirm to the House that we will consult on revising the approach for the additional autonomy award on unethical research, including the scope and value of the award. A number of hon. Members have raised that with me.
The final area that I said I would consider was whether further supplementary routes for affected people could be introduced. The inquiry recommended that we consult to understand the feasibility of their implementation, alongside changes in the exceptional financial loss award. I agree with the inquiry that consideration should be given to those issues, and consideration rightly involves those impacted.
In addition, we are accepting further inquiry recommendations to remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C, which we hope may allow claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis to be processed more quickly. By accepting those recommendations, we can start to implement the necessary changes as soon as possible.
There are several recommendations on areas in which changes to the scheme are needed. We intend to engage with the community on how best to achieve them. The inquiry is clear: people impacted by decisions need to be involved in them, and that is what we will seek to do before implementing the changes in the scheme. That includes acting on recommendations regarding compensation for the impacts of Interferon. We will introduce a new core route infection severity band for those who received Interferon treatment, and consult on the evidence requirements and threshold for a supplementary route award for severe psychological harm. Additionally, we will work with IBCA to introduce a mechanism that individuals can use to raise concerns to aid continuous improvement of the scheme.
As I am sure hon. Members understand, to do that the Government will need to make further regulations. Our top priority is to move quickly, so to make some of the simpler changes, we will bring forward a set of regulations as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those regulations will not implement all the policy changes recommended by the inquiry. In evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I was open to changes that do not lead to further delays. I believe that making these changes recommended by the inquiry will not delay the speed at which offers are currently being made.
A further set of regulations will be needed to implement the more substantial changes, particularly those for which we are taking time to engage the community on how those updates can be realised. I therefore expect this second, more substantial set of regulations to be brought before Parliament in 2026, but—and I really emphasise this to hon. Members—we do not expect this engagement to cause delays to the roll-out of the compensation scheme as it currently stands, which is absolutely crucial, as I said to the inquiry. We are responding swiftly and constructively to Sir Brian, and putting the voices and needs of the community first.
I will also provide a further update on the Government’s response to the 2024 report. I have continued to engage with the charities named by the inquiry in recommendation 10. I recognise their concerns about the allocated funding, and can confirm that the Department for Health and Social Care is re-examining funding for this year and will look at options for the future.
With regard to recommendation 2 on memorialisation, I am pleased to announce that, following engagement with the community, Clive Smith has been appointed as chair of the memorial committee. I am delighted to be able to appoint a chair with his wealth of experience, and I am confident he will be able to bring the community together to make great progress on this work.
The Government have made progress in implementing the recommendations, but progress is never a foregone conclusion. Sir Brian is clear about the importance of scrutinising progress in delivering what the Government have committed to, and I agree. I am pleased to confirm that I have asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to take on the role of scrutinising implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations in the May 2024 and July 2025 reports. It is for the Committee to outline how it will approach that work, but I trust that it will see fit to follow the example of the inquiry through scrutiny of the design and delivery of compensation.
In addition, today I am publishing a record of inquiry recommendations and the Government response on gov.uk, as promised in our response to the recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Those records will be periodically updated to show implementation progress, and will include all recommendations of future inquiries.
To conclude, I quote directly from Sir Brian’s report, which he ends by stating:
“Truly involving people infected and affected in how the state recognises their losses would start to turn the page on the past.”
He is absolutely right. Our focus as we move forward must be on working together with the community, with IBCA, and indeed with each other in this House, not only to deliver justice to all those impacted, but, essentially, to restore trust in the state among people who have been let down too many times. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it.
On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue.
I have previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so.
I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families. It was disappointing to see that, as Sir Brian laid out in his additional report, sufficient progress has not yet been made on that. I welcome the Government’s response on that matter, but I urge them to ensure that that engagement work is carried out rapidly and urgently. Victims and their families deserve real action and, as the additional report makes clear, they have had far too many assurances but not yet enough substantial engagement.
I am pleased that the Government are now taking action on some of the issues relating to atypical personal or health impacts and supplementary routes, which I raised when we discussed the infected blood compensation scheme regulations in March. I know that will bring great comfort to many of those who have been infected with the diseases mentioned.
I appreciate that the Government are taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation on a grievances mechanism, and I am certain that across this House we all hope that implementation of this recommendation and the others from the report will meet the terms of reference of Sir Brian’s inquiry and will complete the compensation and resolution process. However, the Government must ensure that this mechanism is an active one, not simply a recording device. While it is incredibly important that lessons are continuously learned from this tragedy, it is also really important that those cases that contain difficulties with regard to compensation eligibility—which we know make up a significant proportion—are addressed as a matter of urgency, and that all such cases, many of which will probably come through this new mechanism, are considered carefully, and that all information on the claim status and decisions made on it are communicated clearly and frequently to the complainant.
Above all, learning those lessons must not come at the cost of delaying payments to those who simply cannot afford to wait any longer. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarity on the number of personnel whom he expects to be tasked with the grievances mechanism and the oversight structure that will be put in place over it. Will that be the advisory board being established and, if so, what specific oversight powers will the advisory board have?
We support the Government in taking these measures forward, and we will do what we can as the official Opposition to help these actions be implemented, but it is incredibly important that the Government are clear to this House what measures they are putting in place to ensure that the steps announced here today are carried through and enacted efficiently and effectively. No amount of money can undo the harm that was tragically inflicted on so many, but a comprehensive and effective compensation scheme can offer a lifeline to victims and their families who have suffered far too much for far too long.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and, in particular, for its tone. The cross-party way in which this has been approached has been crucial—I took that approach in opposition. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the work he did in driving this forward. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this additional report is a very significant piece of work, and I echo his thanks to IBCA’s staff.
On the speed of payments, the hon. Gentleman referred to the number of payments and of course IBCA has used the “test and learn” approach, but I want to tell the House that I have announced today a substantial number of changes to this scheme, but it has to be on the basis that that will not affect the current speed of roll-out of payments. That is why I still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim before the end of the year, and indeed to open the service to affected people by the end of the year.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for an active consultation mechanism, and I entirely agree about clarity of communication. I very much hope that we can continue this cross-party spirit into the delivery phase as that is so important.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Victims, survivors and campaigners have been fighting for decades for truth and justice due to cover-ups by public servants. Last year, the Prime Minister called for a duty of candour law to prevent future cover-ups, such as the infected blood and Post Office scandals, and I could not agree more. But if we are to restore trust in the state, does the Minister agree that it is high time for a Hillsborough law to be implemented in full, as promised by the Prime Minister last September?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree on the need for a Hillsborough law, and I say to my hon. Friend that this Government are absolutely determined to get it right and to lead that culture of change that we need across public service so that people are not putting their own reputations or the reputation of institutions above public service. We are determined to lead that change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We, too, pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their ongoing work as they continue to investigate this appalling scandal.
Liberal Democrats know that the victims of the infected blood scandal deserve compensation. They and their families have been mistreated and have been waiting for decades to see justice. We welcomed the establishment of this scheme in August 2024 and the commitment shown by Governments from both sides of the House to justice for these victims.
However, Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report has been excoriating about the glacial pace of payments and the abject failure to listen to victims. One of the report’s most scathing findings stated that victims of the scandal had “not been listened to”. As Sir Brian has reported, the experts who were responsible for the design of the compensation scheme were forbidden to talk with victims and their families. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delays, excluding victims and their families was wholly unacceptable.
This report has been welcomed by many victims, including many of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) has been a powerful advocate for these victims, and I thank her for her work advocating for constituents such as Gary, who welcomed the findings of this report. That is why we are urging the Government to set out clearly and in detail the timelines for delivering compensation. We are calling on the Government to engage properly with victims and their families. Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that victims were not involved in the original design of the scheme and that they had been consistently ignored? When can victims of the scandal expect the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation to introduce a formal advisory body of victims for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In relation to transparency on the expert group established under my predecessor, I entirely acknowledge Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms and points on that. The Government are now going to have to create new sets of regulations, and clearly I will have to reconstitute an expert group, but I give the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of that group, including publication of its work and its minutes, because that is essential to regain trust.
The hon. Lady is also absolutely right about how essential it is to put the voice of victims at the heart of what we are doing, but I would also say to the House, in relation to today, that at the autumn Budget last year the Chancellor set aside £11.8 billion of funding to the end of the Parliament to pay compensation for victims, and the policy decisions that I am announcing today are currently estimated to cost around £1 billion in further compensation payments. The total cost depends on what is agreed following consultation with the community, but the Government have said—and we will stand by this—that we will pay what it takes to fund the scheme, and we will update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget of 2025. But victims should be in no doubt of the Government’s determination to seek justice.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Following the inquiry’s report, will the Government now speed up the current timelines of 2027 and 2029 for the payment of compensation to victims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The 2027 and 2029 dates were backstops. My determination was for payments to be made as soon as possible. I hope that what I have said to the House about offers of payment, and indeed payments starting, to affected people this year is an indication of that speeding up.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome what the Paymaster General has said about removing administrative burdens to payment and accepting the recommendations, and his commitment to working with the community and doing so in a timely way. I know that he will continue to devote his considerable energies to those things. Could he also say a word more about memorials? I am thinking particularly of the young victims from Treloar. I welcome what he said about the appointment of a chair to that committee, but is there a timeline for that; obviously there are sensitive matters to deal with, but given the passage of time does he have a timeframe in mind for its completion?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Treloar’s, which is in his constituency. He speaks very powerfully. I have also spoken in recent weeks to a former Treloar’s student. Hearing about the experiences there never fails to move people. I am pleased to have appointed Clive Smith—that has already been done—and I am asking him to progress that memorialisation work, first, quickly, because the right hon. Gentleman is right about the passage of time, and secondly, in a way that brings the whole community together. Clive has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community. I welcome that effort to bring the community together in what will be a very emotional memorialisation.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The infected blood scandal is the worst treatment disaster in NHS history, but as the inquiry’s chair said:
“This disaster was not an accident”.
Institutional reputation was put above truth and ordinary people paid the price. It is far from alone—there is Horizon, nuclear test veterans, Grenfell and Hillsborough. A Hillsborough law would end the culture of cover-up, which is why victims and families, including those from the infected blood scandal, fully support it. The Prime Minister promised that one of his first acts would be to introduce that legislation, but one year on we are still waiting. Does the Minister recognise the importance of fulfilling that pledge before Labour returns to Liverpool for the party conference in September?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely understand the importance of introducing the duty of candour to which my hon. Friend refers, as I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Sir Brian Langstaff talked about the “pervasive” culture—the concept of people putting their own or institutional reputation above the public interest. The Government are determined to change that and to get the duty of candour right by working with the families, which I think is absolutely crucial.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I very much welcome the removal of the 1982 start date. Coincidentally, today is Zero HIV Stigma Day, so it is important to recognise the stigma that many people suffered as a result of contracting HIV through infected blood. I hope that one of the supplementary routes to compensation might be to those who suffered extreme stigma and discrimination, or severe psychiatric consequences from the contraction of HIV.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the removal of the 1982 date. I promised in my evidence to the inquiry to look at that, so I am pleased to remove it. He is absolutely right about stigma; I visited the Terrence Higgins Trust in recent weeks, and listening to the terrible stigma that people suffered is extraordinarily moving. He is right to remind us of that, and as we move forward with trying to deliver justice, we should all keep that at the forefront of our minds.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
On behalf of the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is a major step forward. As he knows, the issue of engagement with the affected and infected community has been a major bone of contention since the expert group set the tariff. For over 40 years, that community have been ignored and lied to by the state, which should have been on their side. When Sir Brian Langstaff published his recent report, he said:
“For decades people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again decisions have been made behind closed doors leading to obvious injustices.”
My right hon. Friend said that he will accept most of the recommendations, but if he is going to consult, he must consult with the community. Will he guarantee that he will set up a proper mechanism that will be approved by the community, and that he will provide financial support to those organisations that are giving advice to victims who are making claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, on consultation, my hon. Friend is right. I am determined that we are going to get this right. Secondly, as I indicated in my statement with regard to the organisations and recommendation 10 of Sir Brian Langstaff’s May 2024 report, DHSC is looking not only at this year again, but to the future. My work in recent weeks speaking to charities has made it clear that they want to look beyond this financial year, and I agree.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the fact that IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that the current approach to compensation perpetuates harm by creating different treatment for registered and unregistered victims. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes interim payments for unregistered victims, which was another recommendation in Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In relation to registration, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, IBCA has accepted all of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, including that one. With regard to the estates of those who have sadly passed away, I have just, from the Dispatch Box, extended interim payments, and I hope to be able to announce the timetable for that very soon.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The very fact that Sir Brian Langstaff reopened the scheme for the additional report bears testimony to the fact that there is something sadly wrong with the initial scheme. I am wondering whether the infected blood victims will be warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, or whether they will be a bit apprehensive, frustrated or disappointed because the Government have said that they will accept, at this point, only seven of the nine recommendations. Only 460 victims have settled to date, but many others have sadly passed on. Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will happen to those waiting to start their claim? They are the Tuesday night lottery club—they have been waiting for months for a phone call to tell them that they will get an invitation to apply for compensation. Will new invites be put on hold while IBCA revisits the settled claims? Is it still a priority to start all living infected claims by the end of the year?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The answer is yes, absolutely. I would not have made such a substantial number of changes without assurance that it would not delay the ongoing payments. IBCA has said that there will be offers to all the living registered infected by the end of the year. That is unchanged by the changes I have made to the scheme today. The promise that we made to start the affected by the end of the year also stands. As I said a moment ago, IBCA has accepted the recommendation about registration. It has also accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about cohort prioritisation and is looking at that. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, will see that having said at the inquiry that I would look constructively at these issues, that is precisely what I have done. On the recommendations where we are consulting, that is precisely because I want the voice of the community to be heard.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It was in 2015 that I first raised the case of my constituent, Lesley Hughes, who was infected with contaminated blood in 1970 and discovered the reason for four decades of ill health in only about 2010, so it is great that this progress has been made. Very large sums of money will be paid in compensation, so can the Minister outline what provision there will be for the recipients to receive financial advice to make sure that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous people—for example, people trying to tell them how to make a claim that they can make directly?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that risk. I have been very conscious of that, which is why the Government have signed off financial support for both legal advice and financial advice. For the reason that he said, that is crucial.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister has heard me talk about my constituent Brendan West, a veteran who lived unknowingly with hepatitis C for decades after being infected through a military blood transfusion. Brendan talks about how he feels lucky to be alive, but his view is that successive Governments continued to delay justice for him by design. Brendan has just received an invitation to start the process for compensation, which I welcome, but how long can he expect that process to take? He has served our country and suffered a horrific injustice in the process, and he deserves to be able to not waste a single further day in living out the next chapter of his life.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I say to my hon. Friend, who has raised her constituent’s case before, that IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to give any support that is required to speed up claims, which I think is crucial. There is absolutely no deliberate delay from the Government in terms of the money being paid. Some £11.8 billion was allocated in the autumn Budget, and I have just announced a series of measures worth around £1 billion. That is the commitment of this Government to securing justice, and I will continue to do all I can to speed up payments.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As far as I can see, some of the Paymaster General’s announcements and his acceptance of some of the recommendations and sub-recommendations will cause devolved administrative bodies to have to stay open for a longer period. I believe they were initially scheduled to close on 1 February 2026, but they will now have to stay open for longer than that. I seek his reassurance that he will ensure that all the costs will be met by the Treasury and that there will be no divergence between the support given to those infected or affected anywhere across the United Kingdom, as there was previously due to the work started by the inquiry.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I spoke on Thursday to the Health Ministers of all three of the devolved Administrations, including Minister Nesbitt in the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Gentleman is right that the schemes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will stay open for a further year. That has been done to make sure that we can keep up the pace of payments at IBCA, but I give him the reassurance, which I gave to the Health Ministers, that that will be funded by the UK Government. We are not asking the devolved Administrations to bear the cost of that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Minister knows that I have raised the case of my affected constituent Ronan, whose mother Jane died from hepatitis C after a blood transfusion she was recommended following an ectopic pregnancy. I welcome the announcement on the affected estates, but when will the affected, particularly parents and partners, be invited to start their claims? Many have been waiting decades for justice and are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the first instance, as I have said, payments to the affected will start by the end of the year; that remains the case. There has been concern about the affected estates, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have seen that I not only accepted the recommendation, but extended it by a further two years to try to give that reassurance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister—and the Government, because ultimately he is doing this on their behalf—very much for his statement; no one can doubt his commitment, and we thank him very much for that. It is always good to hear that movement has been made on compensation, to make it as fast as possible. Will the Minister reconsider the rejection of the recommendation by Sir Robert Francis of an enhanced award for people with extrahepatic disorders resulting in long-term severe disability, including people currently included in the special category mechanism and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Also, he referred to substantial regulations being made in 2026; can they come forward in 2025?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the first point, as I have just said, we have acknowledged Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms on the special category mechanism. That is why I am taking action on that and announcing that today. In relation to the very specific condition that the hon. Gentleman talked about—I think he is referring back to Sir Robert Francis’s previous report—I am certainly happy to write to him on that particular detail. The first set of regulations that I have spoken about will be brought forward before the end of the year.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. One of my constituents, who is now in her 80s, cared for her husband, who was a victim of unethical research in Edinburgh. Her son now fears that she will die before receiving recognition or redress for what she endured. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a real fear that carers of infected people will die waiting for their compensation? If so, what steps will the Government take to ensure that carers reaching the end of their lives can be prioritised for compensation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I have changed the scheme in respect of affected estates. Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation was for those who sadly pass away between May 2024 and 2029, and I have extended that by two years to 2031 for precisely the reason that she raises.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which is the right response to a very thorough report that yet again details the significant size of the scandal we are trying to undo. He mentioned the level of increased payments that these measures will lead to, and I think he mentioned a figure of £1 billion. Will additional resources be given to deliver the recommendations, in addition to extra payments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I just give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the Government have said that they will pay what it takes to fund the scheme. We will then update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget this year.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I think the hearts of all of us across the House go out to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. As somebody who saw a family member die of AIDS, I know how incredibly difficult that must have been for many of them. Does the Minister agree that the common thread in the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal, Hillsborough and the pelvic mesh scandal—the one that comes across my desk the most—is that victims were not listened to? He mentioned the need to consult on the recommendations. How will he go about that consultation? Can he assure me that it will be thorough?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully about his own personal experience. He is entirely right about a consistent failure on behalf of the state over many decades on many scandals that have been debated in this House and on which we have listened to victims. Getting the consultation right and ensuring that we hear the voices of victims and the community is crucial to the Government.
Point of Order
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 8 July, I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding the implementation of the proscription order against Palestine Action. I wrote to her asking whether any guidance is being issued to the police on the implementation of that proscription, and in particular whether or not the expression of opposition to the proscription falls foul of the proscription order itself. That includes both reporters reporting those who are opposed to the proscription or indeed any Member of Parliament expressing opposition to it. I asked whether that would be construed as support for Palestine Action, and would therefore be actionable. I have received no response, so through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe through those on the Treasury Bench, it would be helpful to urge the Home Secretary to reply or to issue a statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is important that Members receive timely answers to their correspondence. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the right hon. Member’s remarks, and will no doubt respond forthwith.
Bill Presented
Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andrew Rosindell, supported by Gareth Bacon, Dr Neil Hudson, Alex Burghart, Lewis Cocking, Joy Morrissey, Mr Gagan Mohindra, David Simmonds, Peter Fortune, Chris Philp, Bob Blackman and Julia Lopez, presented a Bill to require Transport for London to enable any local authority in England which is served by a Transport for London route, or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies, to opt into concessionary fare schemes, including the Freedom Pass; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 291).
Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues will note that this is a very time-limited debate, so I call for brevity from both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, please.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan.
It is an honour to open today’s debate as we come together as a House and as a country to mark 80 years since victory over Japan, which brought an end to fighting in the far east. The anniversary will be commemorated on 15 August. On 15 August 1945, King George VI delivered a speech to the nation and the Commonwealth, saying,
“now we shall have to work hard to restore what has been lost, and to establish peace on the unshakable foundations”.
Eighty years on, we remember the British, Northern Irish and Commonwealth veterans—the second world war generation who gave so much, and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to secure our freedom and peace. To them, we say thank you.
VE Day 1945 marked the end of the second world war in Europe, but thousands of British, Northern Irish and Commonwealth troops continued to battle against Japanese forces in Asia and the Pacific. Three months later, victory over Japan was declared on 15 August, following Japan’s agreement to surrender unconditionally to the allies. The Prime Minister of the day, Clement Attlee, gave a radio broadcast to announce the end of hostilities, declaring:
“Japan has today surrendered. The last of our enemies is laid low.”
Eighty years on, this Government recognise the huge importance of commemorating this anniversary. VJ Day is a moment to reflect on the remarkable perseverance and bravery shown by those who fought, or endured, the war in the far east.
The human cost of the second world war was overwhelming. It led to death and destruction for millions of people. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities—one on Hiroshima on 6 August and the other three days later on Nagasaki—resulted in enormous devastation, bringing the six-year global conflict to a rapid end and introducing the atomic age. The end of the war brought sadness, relief, and renewed hope that families and soldiers who had long been separated would soon be reunited. However, it would take months and much effort to bring British service personnel back home.
Shortly after VE Day, we saw the liberation of Jersey and Guernsey on 9 May, and Alderney on 16 May. It was a huge honour to visit Jersey and Sark this year for the celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Liberation Day. The story of the islands is one of perseverance, which I was grateful to hear more about when I attended a number of commemoration events there, but the period of time from May 1945 through to VJ Day on 15 August was a period of suffering. Tens of thousands of service personnel from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth fought and gave their lives, including thousands of allied troops who were taken as prisoners of war and forced into hard labour. Many allied prisoners of war in Japanese captivity died before liberation in August 1945. Those individuals experienced unimaginable suffering, including starvation and disease, and their memory and sacrifice must not be forgotten.
Alongside the British armed forces, hundreds of thousands served in the far east from countries including pre-partition India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Nepal, and from east and west Africa. The British Pacific fleet worked in parallel with our US allies, making the second world war an international effort.
This year’s commemorations to mark VJ Day have been, and will continue to be, led by those with first-hand experience of the war. We acknowledge the importance of this, as this year is likely to be the last significant anniversary at which veterans who served in the second world war are present. The Government are honoured to be working closely with the Royal British Legion to put veterans front and centre of the VJ Day commemorations. I take this opportunity to thank the partners who have worked with us throughout this commemorative year, including the Royal British Legion, Imperial War Museums, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the National Theatre, Arts Council England, Historic Royal Palaces, the Together Coalition, the Big Lunch, Atlantic Productions, the BBC and the National Lottery Community Fund.
I also thank officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and from the Ministry of Defence. Of course, we have been working across Government, and in particular with the Ministry of Defence. I am joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I have worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Coaker, who is with us this evening.
As living history fades into the past, it is more important than ever that we listen to the stories of the remaining veterans who fought for their country in that conflict. The diverse armies that fought together for our freedom reflect the very fabric of modern Britain. The national commemorations will commence with a Government reception to celebrate and commemorate VJ Day with veterans. On Friday 15 August, the Royal British Legion will lead the nation in honouring and remembering those who fought and died during the war in the far east, with a service marking the 80th anniversary of VJ Day. That will take place at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire and will be broadcast live on BBC One from midday. It will pay tribute to British, Northern Irish, Commonwealth and allied veterans who served in the far east theatres of war, the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories.
With veterans in attendance, the VJ service will be a tribute to them, involving 400 members of the armed forces, and the Red Arrows. The event will feature a guard of honour of the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force. Music will be provided by military bands, and the battle of Britain memorial flight will lead a breathtaking flypast. The national two-minute silence will be held on Friday 15 August at midday to remember and thank those who fought for our freedom. The silence will be marked by all UK Government Departments, which will also fly the Union flag at full mast.
The Government continue to support and promote a range of initiatives to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the ending of the second world war throughout the year, to Remembrance Sunday and beyond. To mark VJ Day specifically, the Imperial War Museum will screen a short film, “I Saw the World End”, produced by Es Devlin, to commemorate the dropping of the atomic bombs. There is a new augmented reality experience offering a deeper exploration of the second world war in Asia and the Pacific. Children and families will be welcomed to the museum’s sites in London and the north to participate in making paper cranes as a symbol of peace.
We continue to promote a range of educational and cultural activities to help schools and communities to engage with the 80th commemorations designed to mark both VE and VJ Day, including: “Our Shared Story”, a collection of educational resources; “Letters to Loved Ones”, a project encouraging people to share family letters from the war to illustrate what everyday life was like—it was lovely to discover some of my grandparents’ letters from when my grandad, Bobby, who I am very proud of, was serving in the RAF during the war; and “The Next Morning”, a new production written by James Graham that focuses on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people after the second world war.
The Government have provided funding to support arts centres, libraries and museums across the country to work with their local communities to develop activities that commemorate and reflect the VE and VJ Day anniversaries. I look forward to visiting one such project in my area, taking place at the Barnsley Civic, to hear more about its work exploring community solidarity in Barnsley from the 1940s to the present day.
My Department has been working with the Common-wealth War Graves Commission on the “For Evermore Tour”, which is travelling across the UK and global sites including cemeteries in Kenya, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. The tour will honour and shine a light on stories from those across the world who fought in the second world war, and I was grateful for the opportunity to see the tour at first hand in May. UK landmarks, high commissions in Commonwealth countries and prominent memorials will be lit up in white on 15 August as beacons of strength and national unity, as they were 80 years ago.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We have just been through the centenary of the great war. Does the Minister agree that the difference between 80 years and 100 is that we still have veterans among us? Sadly, when we come to the centenary of the events we are commemorating this year, that will not be the case. Will she therefore make absolutely sure that it is the veterans who are centre stage during this commemoration?
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I hope I have outlined this in my contribution, but I reiterate that we want veterans to be front and centre of these commemorations.
Importantly, commemorative activity is taking place across the UK, with each of the devolved Governments marking VJ Day 80. The Scottish Government will be leading a concert at Edinburgh castle, where I recently visited the national war memorial. In Northern Ireland, a charity concert will take place in Lurgan, and I was pleased to visit the area a few months ago when I was invited by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I recently visited Cathays cemetery in Cardiff to see the work it carries out to honour the Commonwealth war graves. National wreath-laying at the Wales national war memorial will lead a programme in Wales centred on peace and reconciliation.
Those are just some of the events taking place across our devolved nations, and together they reflect a shared commitment to remembrance and recognition across the UK. More than 144 commemorations are taking place across the nation throughout August to mark VJ Day, from those that I have already mentioned to services in Lichfield and Norwich cathedrals, which the public are encouraged to join. We commemorate the end of the second world war throughout the year, and not only on VE Day on 8 May or VJ day on 15 August; troops returned home gradually throughout the year until Alderney’s Homecoming Day on 15 December.
The strength and courage of those who fought are truly unmatched, and the horror that they suffered as prisoners of war in the far east is unimaginable. Strength is what we remember about VJ veterans: their unshakable resilience, determination, service and sacrifice in unimaginable circumstances, and the way in which they came together to support one another long after the war had ended. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in expressing our deep gratitude to our great second world war generation. We come together in the House in a moment of unity today to mark 80 years since victory over Japan, in awe of those who gave more than many of us will ever have to give.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There are far too many Members wishing to speak for me to squeeze in before the debate concludes. There will be a sharp speaking limit of four minutes for Back Benchers to begin with, but please note that many colleagues will be disappointed. I call the shadow Minister.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her speech, and for all the events that she announced: we will, of course, support the Government’s agenda in celebrating VJ Day. It is a privilege to respond to the Minister on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
The 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war is undoubtedly a cause for huge celebration. In May, the whole nation came together to celebrate the end of the war in Europe on VE Day. It was a special day with celebrations across the country, including many in my constituency. When we watched the national celebrations on television as a family, my two young boys took a particular liking to the Red Arrows flying over Buckingham Palace. I hope that in time they will begin to understand properly why we celebrate that important day and what it means, for it symbolises the victory of good over evil after nearly six years of unimaginable suffering, when a whole nation—young and old, male and female, rich and poor—came together to fight Nazi Germany, defeat fascism and liberate Europe, 80 years ago.
As the nation, 80 years ago, danced into the night celebrating the end of fighting close to home, thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers were locked in a struggle against imperial Japan. It took until 15 August, after the United States had dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the fighting to end in the far east. The campaign that began in 1941, starting with a surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, was vast: fighting took place from Hawaii to the north-east borders of India, and from Papua New Guinea in the south to Manchuria in northern China on the border of the Soviet Union. By 1945, across Asia and the Pacific, 365,000 British and 1.5 million Commonwealth troops were deployed, including the largest volunteer army in history, the pre-partition Indian Army of 2.5 million soldiers.
Despite the scope of that campaign, those brave soldiers, who frequently fought in horrific conditions against a formidable enemy, are often known as the forgotten Army to acknowledge the lack of reporting of the campaign in the mainstream media at the time; yet stories of heroic actions remain. Just last night, as I discussed the campaign in the far east with my parents, my mum told me about one of her uncles who had been a prisoner of war in that conflict in the far east. Then there are my two Westminster staff members who told me proudly about their great-grandfather and their great-uncle, both of whom earned the Burma Star.
Field Marshal Slim’s 14th Army was thought to be the most diverse in the world. More than 40 languages were spoken by troops, who were united in one ambition—to stand up and defend civilisation from barbarism and tyranny. Many people associate the fall of France in 1940 as Britain’s low point in the war, but the crushing surrender of Malaya and Singapore were at least as devastating: 9,000 British, pre-partition Indian and Commonwealth troops were lost, and about 130,000 were taken as prisoners of war. The famous films “The Bridge on the River Kwai” and the more recent “The Railway Man” show the brutal conditions faced by those taken prisoner, and serve as a stark reminder of the reason we had to stand up and defeat imperial Japan.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I say how important it is that both Front Benchers have emphasised the atrocities that were committed against prisoners of war? Just as we remember the Nuremberg trials, we remember the Tokyo trials, at which many war criminals were convicted and subsequently executed. Is it not a measure of the importance of unconditional surrender that that at least removed the aura of divinity from the Emperor so that the fanaticism of religion was excised from Japanese society?
Saqib Bhatti
My right hon. Friend said that so eloquently, and he is clearly a very learned individual. I could not agree with him more.
Although we are all regularly reminded of the heroic invasion of Normandy, a 2013 poll of the British public by the National Army Museum in Chelsea ranks the battles of Kohima and Imphal as Britain’s greatest ever battles. As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, I hope we will reflect on some of the lessons of the second world war. I am proud to remind the House that soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa and many other countries—fought alongside British troops.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he is putting forward. He is right to say that some 40 languages were spoken among the 14th Army, which gives us an idea of its diversity. He mentioned the battles of Kohima and Imphal, which were the greatest defeats the Japanese army ever suffered. Does he agree that what we saw on VJ Day, which we are commemorating today, was one of the greatest armies in the world engaging in one of the greatest battles and defeating the Japanese? Even though atomic bombs were a part of that, the armies and soldiers on the ground made the difference.
Saqib Bhatti
It is always a great privilege to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I could not agree with him more. I thank him for his intervention.
In the far east in particular, there were troops from all different faiths: Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and many others all fought as one to defeat Japan. I have learned that my wife’s grandfather received the Indian Distinguished Service Medal as part of the 7th Battalion of the 16th Punjab Regiment. While moving through the Burmese coastline, he was suddenly surrounded by Japanese soldiers.
My wife’s grandfather was Lance Corporal Samundar Khan. His platoon was ordered to attack uphill so that the lead platoon could retreat. Carrying a Bren gun, Lance Corporal Khan led his men up the steep slope as heavy Japanese grenades rained down on them. With the gun at his hip, and despite being seriously wounded in the chest, he led the charge and drove the Japanese from the top. Khan, who was 18 and who lied about his age so that he could enlist to fight and to defend our nation, was wounded three times in two months. Khan’s story of bravery and heroism, though special, was not unique. To all those who fought against tyranny and defended democracy so that we can stand here today in the mother of all Parliaments, I say thank you.
As we look at the increased instability in the world, we should remember those brave soldiers who fought for our liberty and our freedom, and for the principles and freedoms that were underpinned in the Atlantic charter: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. They all matter today, as they did then. Those principles set a new world order. Although there are those who seek to divide us and who try to prey on our differences, we must draw inspiration from the heroes who sacrificed everything and who gave their lives for a better world. They rejected populism, they rejected tyranny, and they rejected the politics of hate.
Those who fought and died in the second world war truly were our greatest generation. I urge the Minister, on top of everything else the Government are doing, to encourage her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that the stories and lessons from the war, including the struggle against Japan, are never forgotten. I also ask that the Government build on the deep-rooted relationships with our allies who stood with us, so that we can stand up to those who would divide us today.
As we reflect on the war’s conclusion, I look forward to colleagues’ contributions. We must remind ourselves that our right to be here and to represent our constituents is possible only because of the brave men and women from across the world who laid down their lives for this country. Once again, I say thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee. There is now a four-minute time limit.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Eighty years ago, the guns finally fell silent across the Asia-Pacific, imperial Japan surrendered, and the most devastating conflict in human history came to an end. Today we remember not just the victory, but the immense courage and sacrifice that made it possible.
Just two months ago, I stood in this House to mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Across my Slough constituency, communities of different backgrounds came together to reflect on that milestone. However, while Europe celebrated peace in May 1945, the war raged on in the east. Hundreds of thousands of British troops remained in combat across Asia and the Pacific, alongside millions of Commonwealth soldiers—the largest volunteer Army in history—who bore the burden of war with extraordinary resolve. Their service reminds us that victory was never the triumph of one nation alone.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
May I ask the Chair of the Select Committee to mention some of the many diverse groups from across Berkshire, whom I know he is thinking of at this very difficult time, including our local Nepalese and Gurkha communities?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend and Berkshire colleague for that intervention, and he is so right in what he says. We must remember them.
As we mark this solemn anniversary, we must shine a light on those whose sacrifices have too often been overlooked. Their names may not appear in our history books, but their courage shaped the world we live in. At the time of my VE Day contributions to the House in May, it was my understanding that only two British-based veterans who served in the pre-partition Indian Army were still with us. It is with deep regret that I inform the House today that both veterans have, sadly, since passed away.
I would like to pay tribute to Havildar Major Rajinder Singh Dhatt MBE and Daffadar Muhammad Hussain, who was a local Slough resident. These two formidable Commonwealth ex-servicemen, whom I had the honour and privilege of meeting on several occasions, served with distinction and dedicated their lives to preserving the legacy of those who served. I am sure the House will join me in sending condolences to their family and friends. Their stories are a powerful reminder of the global nature of this conflict and the enduring bonds of service.
As a proud Sikh, I carry this legacy personally. My great-grandfather lost a leg fighting in the first world war and my grandmother’s brother and other family members served in the second world war. As I discussed with my staff members Isabella Elie and Lewis Rantell, their stories are echoed in families across Britain and the Commonwealth. One such story is that of Patrick McAnulty, one of the thousands of British and allied prisoners of war who endured unimaginable suffering in captivity. Subjected to forced labour, starvation and brutal treatment, many POWs did not survive. Those who did carried the physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives. Their resilience in the face of such cruelty is testament to the human spirit, and their sacrifice must never be forgotten.
As we reflect on the past, we must also celebrate how far we have come. The United Kingdom and Japan, once wartime enemies, are now very close allies. Today, we stand together in defence of peace and democracy. As the Defence Committee noted in its report on the global combat air programme, that partnership is a cutting-edge collaboration between the UK, Japan and Italy to develop the next generation of fighter jets. It is a powerful symbol of reconciliation and shared purpose.
As veterans share their stories during this 80th anniversary, we are reminded that remembrance must be more than ceremonial: it must inspire action. The lessons of history are clear, yet conflict persists from Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan, the Congo and more. These are not distant tragedies; they are urgent reminders of the fragility of peace. In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I am regularly reminded of the vital role that our current brave servicemen and women play in keeping our country safe, and I would like to recognise their contributions, too. However, recognition must be more than symbolic; it must be matched by action and support. So, in conclusion, let us remember, let us reflect, but above all, let us ensure that the sacrifices of the past are never in vain and that the peace they secured is never taken for granted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, after whom Back Benchers will be on a three-minute speaking limit.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is an absolute privilege to speak today as we mark the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan, an occasion for national reflection, remembrance and gratitude.
We in the Liberal Democrats are proud that so many of our colleagues have served in the armed forces. They, together with veterans and serving personnel across the UK, carry the torch of service passed down from that greatest generation—those who fought to preserve freedom and democracy in the face of fascism and tyranny. This anniversary is not just a historical milestone; it is a vital opportunity to honour those who served, fought and, in so many cases, made the ultimate sacrifice. Their courage shaped the world we live in. It secured peace, it secured democracy and it left a legacy of international co-operation that we must never take for granted.
In the far east, where the war continued long after peace had been declared in Europe, tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth troops, including the legendary Fourteenth Army, fought under unimaginable conditions in the jungles of Burma, in the heat of the Pacific islands, and in the face of fierce resistance. Fighting took place over a vast region, from Hawaii to India, and Allied forces faced disease, the constant risk of capture and the heartbreak of separation. Victory over Japan only came on 15 August, after devastating losses on all sides, including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This anniversary carries a personal resonance for me. My grandfather served in Burma as a captain in what we believe was the Yorkshire Regiment, part of the British 2nd Infantry Division. He fought in the battle of Kohima, a brutal turning point in the war where the terrain, climate and conditions pushed soldiers to the absolute limits of human endurance. Like many people who fought in those conditions, he never spoke about his experience, but it was clear that the impact of the war stayed with him for his whole life. I remember him today with pride, and honour the sacrifice of all those who served alongside him.
We have no surviving veterans who served in the far east in my constituency, but the memory of their service lives on powerfully in our community. On Victory over Japan Day, local residents flooded the streets in a spontaneous torchlit procession from Epsom town centre to the Downs. A 30-foot bonfire, built from the ruins of bomb sites, was lit by the mayor and effigies of Axis leaders were cast into flames. Across Ewell, Hook Road, Horton Estate and Rosebery Park, families gathered to celebrate, give thanks and remember. We remember still brave men from our borough, such as Sergeant Jack Canham, killed at Imphal; Lance Bombardier Alfred Cates, who died as a prisoner of war on the Burma railway; Corporal William Murphy, who fought and fell at Kohima; and Corporal Noel Seymour, a young RAF wireless operator, who died aged just 21. All are commemorated on our local war memorials and in the book of remembrance at the town hall. Their stories are part of Epsom and Ewell’s history, and they deserve to be part of our nation’s collective memory, too.
The war in the Pacific was brutal. Captured soldiers faced inhumane treatment, while many of those who served in that theatre felt forgotten in the decades that followed, earning the title “the forgotten Army”. Today, we remember them. We remember the soldiers from India, the Caribbean, Africa and all those from the Commonwealth who fought under the British flag. Theirs was one of the most diverse fighting forces in history: men and women from across the empire, speaking dozens of languages, united by duty. Their contribution should be recognised not as an afterthought, but as a central part of our national narrative.
I want to recognise and commend the efforts of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its global “For Evermore” tour, which has worked to preserve the memories of those who served, from Singapore to Kenya, from Hong Kong to Thailand. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s torch for peace is a vital symbol of remembrance, passed from one generation to the next.
As we commemorate, we must also recommit to supporting those who serve today and those who have served. It is not acceptable that, in 2025, veterans continue to fall through the cracks, struggling with mental health, homelessness or poor housing. The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair deal for our veterans. A fair deal means action on homelessness, by building 150,000 more social homes every year to allow every member of society access to their own home; a fair deal means proper mental health support, by providing mental health support and easy access to professional help; and a fair deal means making sure veterans count, by ensuring there is better recording of the physical and mental health outcomes of veterans, including waiting times for treatment.
Those who now carry the torch—current service personnel—must have a fair deal. I am proud that last week my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place defeated the Government to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence accommodation. I hope that that remains in the Renters’ Rights Bill when it returns to the Commons. It is a basic principle: if someone is willing to put their life on the line for our democracy, they should at the very least have a warm, safe home.
The injustices faced by many Commonwealth and other overseas armed forces personnel and their families must also be rectified. Some are still being asked to pay thousands of pounds in visa fees just to live in the country they served. Those fees should be scrapped. No veteran’s family should be priced out of their place in our society.
Finally, we must ensure that this 80th anniversary is a living act of remembrance, and we must teach our children the full story of the blitz and the Burma railway. In doing so, we preserve the memory of those who fought and those who never came home, and we pass on their stories with honesty, pride and gratitude. Remembrance is about not only the past, but the present and the future; and as threats to freedom rise again in our world, we must remember why they fought and ensure that we honour their legacy in our teachings, in our words and in our deeds.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is my privilege to join colleagues across the House in marking the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan. It is a moment to honour the bravery, sacrifice and enduring legacy of those from our country and allies around the world who contributed in the Pacific theatre of the second world war. I have a direct personal connection to the Pacific theatre: my uncle, Jack Minns, served as a crewman aboard the plane of the Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia, Lord Mountbatten. However, it is of Carlisle’s own Border Regiment that I wish to speak.
The regiment served its country with distinction during the second world war and played a vital role in the allied victory over Japan. The 2nd, 4th and 9th Battalions of the Border Regiment formed part of the elite Chindit columns operating behind Japanese lines in Burma. The columns were hyper-mobile, self-sufficient units engaged in daring long-range jungle warfare.
In Imphal in east India, troops from the 2nd and 9th Battalions of the Border Regiment joined forces with Indian and East African divisions to resist the Japanese advance. This defeat of the Japanese forces prevented a wider Japanese invasion of the Indian mainland and is widely seen as a turning point in the campaign. The 9th Battalion of the Border Regiment went on to spearhead the capture of Meiktila in March 1945. This decisive blow led to the fall of Mandalay and the liberation of Rangoon, and by May the Japanese had all but abandoned Burma. Amidst this are remarkable stories of bravery from individual members of the Border Regiment, including Private Joseph Arnold, a stretcher bearer who single-handedly carried back two wounded soldiers when others were unable to help.
In May it was my privilege to attend the “Turning of the leaves” ceremony at the regimental chapel of the Border Regiment in Carlisle cathedral, and to have the opportunity to pay my tribute to the courage, sacrifice and enduring legacy of our former local regiment. Last week I held a Westminster Hall debate on the incredible contributions of those who served in the RAF unarmed photographic reconnaissance unit. Of the four local men who served in this unit, one was Sergeant Charles Ross. While we know that he served in the far east, we do not know whether he lived beyond VJ Day—he remains missing in action.
I wish to place on the record my thanks to those men from Carlisle and north Cumbria who fought through floods, jungles and monsoons in Burma and India. Their tenacity helped stall and eventually defeat Japanese forces, and their perseverance and sacrifice will always be remembered.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Last weekend I met my constituent Margaret Barbour, of Rosefield farm near Annan, to hear about the experience of her father, Sergeant Major Jock Wylie, and to look through the letters, paperwork and photographs that she has kept. A riding instructor in the Lanarkshire Yeomanry Territorials, Jock was deployed in 1940 to the far east. By 1942, after the fall of Singapore, he was taken prisoner by the Japanese. Thus began three years and eight months of unimaginable suffering. Jock was not a “guest” of the Imperial Nippon Army, as their propaganda called it, but their slave. Jock spent time in Changi prison in Singapore before being sent to the notorious Kinkaseki jungle camp on Formosa—now known as Taiwan. Hundreds of Jock’s fellow prisoners died on that journey.
There, along with hundreds of others, he was forced to work in copper mines in horrific conditions, often up to 18 hours a day. Starved, beaten and stripped of dignity, men were tied to stakes under a burning sun, given salted rice or left in bamboo sweat boxes without water. Every day they were forced to take a walk past prisoners who had been beheaded for alleged misdemeanours and had their heads placed on poles, with their full military headgear still worn as the flesh around it decayed. Jock and his colleagues were reduced to skin and bone. He was over 12 stone when captured, and barely 6 stone when released. The first person to see him at the local railway station on his return burst into tears at the sight of him.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is telling a vivid story—one that would be very familiar to a former constituent of mine, George Money, whose daughter, Pam Gillespie, leads the VJ Day commemorations every year in my constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is so important to tell these stories so that our generation and the next generation recognise the sacrifice of these men, as well as the experiences of their families when they returned to them in that way?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree, which is why this debate is so important. Many of those men did not feel able to speak about their experience, or found when they returned to the UK that the public wanted to move on, now that the war was over. It is incumbent on us to relay these experiences, which is why I want to tell Jock’s story tonight.
Red Cross parcels rarely arrived in the camp, and dysentery, beriberi and malaria ravaged the prisoners. Somehow, Jock managed to stay alive, and he became a beacon of hope for other prisoners as, in the dark nights, he sang a song called the “Dumfriesshire Foxhounds”, a tune that lifted spirits and became so well known that even the Gurkhas and Australians joined in.
Jock never gave in to bitterness, but the scars he carried—both physical and emotional—never truly healed. When he returned to Lockerbie, he embraced his family and the life he had left behind, becoming a major part of the annual Lockerbie gala. He shared his stories not to gain sympathy, but to honour truth and bear witness. He spoke of the Gurkhas—the “bravest little men”, who moved like ghosts in the jungle. He never forgot the cruel warnings prisoners were given, after being forced to dig potentially their own burial pit, that if the Americans came, the prisoners would all be burned alive, as he had seen happen to Gurkhas in Singapore.
Let us take this opportunity to remember not just what Jock and his fellow prisoners of war endured, but what they stood for: duty, dignity and decency. We owe Jock—a man who, despite everything, found the strength to go on—and the men and women like him, more than monuments. Let us not allow the fading of photographs or the yellowing of old newspaper clippings to erase stories like his. Let us speak them aloud, share them and learn from them. When the last witnesses are gone, all that remains is what we choose to remember.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a huge honour to represent the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme in this House, and all those who served our country—the veterans and their families—to whom we owe so much. We are a patriotic community, which is why I was honoured to attend the recent reopening of the Tri Service and Veterans support centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme just two weeks ago. The centre does wonderful work supporting and standing up for our veterans and all those who call Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme home.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the support, funding and events that will allow our United Kingdom to remember, reflect and understand the sacrifice of those to whom we owe so much. My grandfather boarded a boat from Jamaica in 1941 to serve king and country, to help us to defeat the Nazis and to fight for the freedom and democracy that we enjoy today. They were and remain the greatest generation, and we owe them so much.
Every anniversary commemorating the allies’ victories on VJ Day is significant, but this year is even more significant, as we mark 80 years since the end of the second world war, and because this may be the last significant anniversary that we share with the surviving veterans of that greatest generation. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude. Those brave soldiers came from every corner of what was then the British empire. They fought and sacrificed so that we may speak openly and freely today. The efforts of those soldiers from across what is now the Commonwealth should serve as a unifying influence on us all today.
It was in Newcastle-under-Lyme that Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire, was born. When the war arrived on the doorstep of a different Newcastle from the one I call home—the one in New South Wales, Australia—which suffered a direct shelling attack from the Japanese in June 1942, it was three squadrons of Reginald Mitchell’s Spitfire planes that would be sent to help to defend the shores of Australia from October 1942. From one Newcastle to another.
As many Members gathered in the Chamber tonight will know, I am a proud son of the Commonwealth, so VJ Day is particularly important to me due to the extraordinary contribution of Commonwealth countries to the war effort in the eastern theatre. How lucky are we that they served and stood up to be counted? As I said in my speech to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, there is no greater tribute to the greatest generation than continuing to push for a more tolerant, more respectful and more peaceful world. How proud am I, as a Staffordshire MP, that the arboretum in Lichfield will be leading our national commemorations as we give thanks to those who gave their lives for us?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I rise quite simply to honour all those who served in the Pacific campaign and in Asia during world war two. That included my own father—a very young Captain Amos at the time—who served at the end of the second world war after being redeployed from Europe. We also remember those who died on all sides, including thousands of civilians, and how strongly those events at the end of the second world war send the message that war is what happens when politics and diplomacy fail. Let us never forget that, along with the terrible consequences for those living with war right now.
Others who served in the Pacific campaign include many unsung heroes of the RAF’s photographic reconnaissance unit—I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing a recent Westminster Hall debate on that—whose courage and skill gathered intelligence, shortened conflicts and saved lives. That intelligence was as vital in the eastern theatre as it was in the western European theatre.
I will take a moment to acknowledge those from my constituency who served in the PRU, whose bravery was as extraordinary as their sacrifice. Flying Officer Eric Durston from Wellington flew solo reconnaissance missions, capturing images critical to allied planning. He was lost over the Netherlands in 1942. His gravestone at Bergen bears the inscription:
“He died and never knew;
England, he died for you.”
It is signed simply, “Mother”—a mother whose heartache at the loss of her son at only 22 I can only imagine.
On Christmas eve 1944, Flying Officer Priddle from Taunton died when his Spitfire was shot down over Utrecht. More happily, Eric Hill—also of Taunton—flew Mosquitos across the Arctic, on the eastern front and over Germany on dangerous missions. One such mission—to photograph Tirpitz—was over 3,000 miles long and lasted more than 10 hours. It is thought to be the longest reconnaissance operation of the entire war. He survived and went on to fulfil the dream of playing, and later commentating on, cricket for Somerset. He is commemorated in the press box at the county ground a few hundred yards from my own home.
Those stories remind us that everyday folk get caught up in war and do extraordinarily courageous things. We owe it to those who serve to stand with veterans, to remember them and their sacrifice. It was therefore a privilege last week to take part in the debate on our Northern Ireland veterans. No veteran should ever be subjected to double jeopardy and pursued for doing no more than their duty.
I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention a veteran who desperately needs help—[Interruption.] I will write to the Minister about that veteran, who has only weeks to live.
Adam Jogee
I would be really interested in the hon. Member explaining a bit more about the veteran to whom he just referred.
Gideon Amos
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member. Dr X served 25 years in the Royal Army Medical Corps and transferred to the NHS less than two years ago. He has been given the prognosis that he has only weeks to live, and because he has been in his transferred position with the NHS for less than two years he will lose his death benefits. I have written to the Secretary of State for Defence today and sent the letter to his office. I hope that Ministers will be able to look urgently at his case.
Those who served in world war two, including the pilots of the PRU who flew in silence, were part of the greatest generation. Their voices may increasingly be silent, but their legacy speaks volumes.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
In February 1942, Singapore fell to the forces of the Japanese empire. Nearly 85,000 British, Indian, Australian and Malay soldiers were captured. One of those many thousands was Major Paul Robinson, a Sherwood Forester from Ilkeston. He was taken to join the hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war and civilians forced to build the Burma-Thailand railway. All the while, Major Robinson’s wife Hope waited at home without a single word about her husband.
In September 1944, 49 British prisoners of war were rescued by the Americans. Paul was sadly not among them, but two Foresters who knew him were and, on their return to England, his wife Hope interviewed them. The men believed that one day the war would be over, that they would be free and that fascism would be defeated. She reported what she had learned to the Ilkeston Miners’ Welfare and wrote a letter to the Daily Express.
What followed was extraordinary: in response, Hope received more than 5,000 letters from the families of soldiers far away, fellow distraught wives of prisoners of war, and those who just wished to express their sympathy and admiration. More than 2,000 of these letters are now preserved at Erewash Museum, in a permanent exhibition entitled “Letters of Hope”. Paul returned to Ilkeston in September 1945 and died there in 1997, aged 87. His wife passed away in 2008, but thanks to her daughter Penny, who donated the letters in 2015, they and their incredible stories are remembered.
I want to remember another Ilkeston man, Donald Rose, who died on 11 July this year. At 110, he was not only my most senior constituent; for just over six months, he was our nation’s most senior citizen. Donald was a veteran of the second world war. He fought fascists in the deserts of north Africa and in the invasion of Sicily. He landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-day and helped to liberate France from Nazi tyranny. He saw with his own eyes the gravest evil of all, when he entered the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and was met by 60,000 sick and starving prisoners and the bodies of 13,000, murdered and unburied. Donald Rose was a hero, and I know I speak for every one of my constituents when I say that we will all miss him and we will remember him.
Eighty years on, we must remember all those stories: the grandest deeds of courage and brilliance, the darkest acts of destruction and depravity, and the smallest expressions of love and hope. It has been an honour on this anniversary to share those stories with the House, and I hope that we will all continue to do so for many years to come.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
On 8 May 1945 at 3 pm, Prime Minister Winston Churchill made a radio announcement that Germany had surrendered and the war in Europe had come to an end. In towns and cities across the nation, people gathered in their communities to remember those they had lost and, for so many, to rejoice that the war in Europe was over.
At the same time, half a world away, thousands of British, Commonwealth and allied forces were still involved in bitter fighting in Japan and the Pacific. Although part of the same war, the conflict in Asia presented different and in many cases uniquely harrowing challenges. Troops fought in jungles drenched by monsoons, on snow-covered hills and in the scorching tropical heat of remote islands. Prisoners of war faced the harshest conditions of brutality, disease and malnutrition.
Sadly, while 8 May is taught and commemorated across the country, too many remain unaware of the sacrifice and conflict in Asia, or even when VJ Day is. The Fourteenth Army, which fought in the campaign in the Pacific, is called the forgotten Army. In the face of regional and growing conflict today, as we once again face threats from powers increasingly hostile to our values and way of life, it is more important than ever that we remember them.
In the Spencer family, the Army in Burma is hardly forgotten. My grandfather was a Chindit and fought in Burma. While he resisted talking much about his experiences, it is clear from what he did say what incredible sacrifices he and his fellow Chindits made for our country. The experiences of the war lived on with him not just in memory, but in his health. He was medically evacuated back to the UK, suffering from tropical sprue and malaria and, like many others, malnourished and incredibly underweight. Back in the UK he was treated with cigarettes, which we now know is not helpful, and with tonic, which—although it was helpful—he consumed so much of that he damaged his hearing. He continued to have relapses of malaria throughout his life. He died before I was elected MP, but I am proud to stand in this House to pay tribute to him and to all who fought in Asia for our freedoms.
It is clear that, while the forgotten Army may have been forgotten, it is certainly not forgotten in this place this evening. I am grateful each and every day for the freedoms we enjoy in this country—freedoms secured because of the bravery and sacrifices made by those young men who fought and died in defence of our country and our way of life, and those who played the vital roles at home to make the war effort possible. Their sacrifice—their legacy—is our ability to have this debate this evening. We will remember them.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am truly thankful to be called to speak today. In three weeks, we will remember as a nation the end of the second world war and the deliverance of peace from that bloodiest conflict. In this House, too, we remember the terrible scale and depths of human suffering, the more than 50 million civilians killed, the service personnel who risked their lives at home and abroad, those who gave their lives and those who came home forever changed by what they endured.
When the instrument of surrender was signed aboard the USS Missouri on 2 September 1945, a young seaman of the Royal Navy was present. In the space of just a year, that teenager had already faced down the terror of kamikaze pilots and rescued sailors from submerged explosives. He later said:
“You were in that situation, and you did what you had to do, whatever the circumstances. I went in a boy and came out a man.”
My constituent, Ken Tinkler, a witness to the momentous events that shape our world today, is still telling his story at the age of 98. I pay tribute to a remarkable life, well lived.
As the guns fell silent, the world learned the true extent of the cruelty that the imperial Japanese state had inflicted upon its prisoners of war. In Birmingham, work continues to this day to preserve the memory of those British and Commonwealth servicemen and women who were captured. After the war, many far east prisoner of war associations were created, and Birmingham’s is one of the few that is still in operation today. The Birmingham Association of Far East Prisoners of War has produced a VJ80 badge, expertly manufactured by Thomas Fattorini Ltd in the jewellery quarter in Birmingham. It depicts a Commonwealth torch, the everlasting flame, and I am proud to wear it in this House tonight. In preparation for this debate, I asked the secretary of the association, a constituent whose father was a POW in the far east, what words it would be appropriate to read into the record to commemorate him, his comrades and all others represented. She replied with this:
“To remember them is to honour them.”
As the war fades from direct memory, it is important to say here, as we will shortly across the nation, that we remember the war and its end. We remember those who served, and we remember those who now are gone. We will endeavour to preserve and pass on those memories to our children and grandchildren, and onwards to the uncounted generations that are yet to come. They will not be forgotten. We honour them by remembering them. I am truly grateful to those who have made this debate possible, and for the funding that has been put in place so that we can mark the VJ80 anniversary appropriately.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
For the avoidance of doubt, this speech comes from a place of deep appreciation for post-war Japan and for the enrichment it has given so many of us through its automotive and technological innovations and through global cultural phenomena such as “Godzilla”. It is starkly different from the Japan fought by our greatest generation. Less than a decade after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “Godzilla” was created as a metaphor for nuclear weapons and their destructive power, but 2023’s “Godzilla Minus One”—greater and more destructive still—was also a metaphor for national guilt.
For everything we love about Japan today, it has never undertaken the societal reckoning with its past that Germany did following the fall of the Nazis. Across Germany stand the horrifying relics of the Holocaust. In Hiroshima, the A-bomb dome is a memorial to the victims of the atomic bomb. In the land of the rising sun, it is far more difficult to find such an open recognition of its wartime torture of prisoners of war or its atrocities against civilians, such as by Unit 731.
In 1936, under the direction of senior army surgeon Ishii Shiro, Japan focused on making disease a silent ally through human experiments and the study of biological and chemical weapons. Prisoners were kidnapped men, women—including pregnant women—children and even babies born of rape by staff within the compounds. They included political prisoners and anybody who had expressed to any degree anti-Japanese sentiment. Victims were predominantly Chinese, but included a significant minority of Russians. Experiments included withdrawal of half a litre of blood every two or three days until death. Some prisoners were frozen to death in experiments into frostbite or had limbs frozen and then shattered. Vivisection was regularly carried out to harvest organs from live victims, including pregnant women, who had been exposed to diseases and bacteria, sometimes under the guise of vaccination. Tens of thousands more were killed through engineered epidemics, with pathogens dropped over Chinese cities by Japanese aircraft. That is the context, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On this coming anniversary of Victory over Japan Day, let us consider the path that led to war and review the actions that led to its conclusion. Let us lament the terrible loss of life through the strategic bombing, firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan. But we owe it to our finest generation to do so in the full context. Perhaps someday our Japanese friends can finally lay Godzilla to rest.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is an honour to rise to mark the 80th anniversary of VJ Day—the day when the guns finally fell silent and the second world war came to its end.
Portsmouth has been the beating heart of Britain’s naval power for over 500 years, and it played a crucial role in the Pacific campaign that led to VJ Day. Victory in the Pacific was hard won, and Royal Navy ships sailed thousands of miles from Portsmouth docks to join the fight. Within months of Pearl Harbour in December 1941, the Navy was deploying significant forces to the Indian and Pacific oceans. By 1945, the British Pacific fleet was the largest and most powerful fleet Britain had ever assembled, comprising four battleships, six fleet carriers, 15 small carriers and over 750 aircraft—all supplied and maintained, and many built, in Portsmouth and other British shipyards.
The fleet comprised thousands of personnel—sailors, aircrew, marines and support staff—who fought in the sweltering heat of the Indian ocean and weathered the typhoon of the Pacific, but many never returned. Portsmouth naval base worked around the clock preparing ships for service. The barracks housed thousands of men bound for the far east, and local shipyards built the landing craft, destroyers and frigates that would prove essential. The entire city, from dockyard workers to families who billeted sailors, was a valuable part of the war effort.
The human cost of victory was profound. Beyond those who died in battle, thousands suffered disease, wounds and psychological trauma—yet their sacrifice was not in vain. When Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, it marked the end of one of the most devastating conflicts in human history. The Royal Navy had played its part in bringing about a victory that would reshape the world, establish the principles of international law, and create the foundations of decades of peace and prosperity.
The lessons of VJ Day remain so very relevant today. The victory was achieved not through the efforts of any single nation but through alliances and co-operation. As we face new challenges in an uncertain world, the examples of those who served in the Pacific remain inspirational. I would like to mention the Royal Navy ships that have served since: HMS Daring, HMS Argyll, HMS Albion, HMS Sutherland, HMS Tamar, HMS Spey and, of course, HMS Prince of Wales, which is en route there as a special deployment in Operation Highmast. To all veterans and serving personnel, I say: thank you.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to two individuals—Lance Sergeant Harold Kennard from Stamshaw in Portsmouth, and Private George Ogle from North End, both of whom were captured and died as prisoners of war, making the ultimate sacrifice—and reflect on my city’s role in VJ Day. History is not made of distant figures, but by serving personnel from my city and by communities like mine that came together for a common cause.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The home front was an unrelenting struggle and the European theatre was the most mechanised slaughter ever witnessed on the continent, but the brutal fighting of the Japanese was incomparable. Young men would have heard the tales of ferocious fighting on the ground, kamikaze attacks from the air, barbaric treatment of allied prisoners of war upon victory in battle, and mass suicides forced on Japanese civilians upon defeat in battle.
Those harrowing tales did not faze the good old men of east London or Essex, or, for that matter, the millions of brave British, Indian and Commonwealth soldiers who volunteered. Over the course of British involvement, loyal subjects of the Crown left their families, friends and native soil to sail to the far east to defend their empire. Many of those brave men were from England, including many from Essex. I remember especially the South West Essex Burma Star Association, which met at the Romford United Services club. I was honoured to be given honorary membership of the club by those old and bold veterans, who I was proud to meet and invite to Parliament in my early years as an MP. Their memory, and that of those who served in the far east, will never be forgotten.
For over 90,000 servicemen, it was only ever destined to be a one-way journey. Hand in hand with our American allies from across the pond, those gallant men fought to ensure the end of one of the most brutal and oppressive imperial powers, which could rain terror upon its neighbours no longer, and to ensure that freedom and democracy prevailed. Determined to fight to the bitter end, the imperial Japanese army fully intended to force an allied invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have led to untold casualty on both sides. That was averted.
Often referred to as the forgotten Army, the soldiers of the Pacific theatre were the very greatest of the greatest generation. Their loyal service and valiant fighting brought victory home and secured us a peace that has lasted decades.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Their inspirational commander, General Bill Slim, was one of the greatest generals of world war two. His book, “Defeat into Victory”, which is about how he did it, is one of the greatest books ever written about that war. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Andrew Rosindell
I certainly do. General Slim is one of the greatest British heroes, and we salute his honour today as well.
The loyal service and valiant fighting of those servicemen brought victory home and secured us a peace that has lasted decades. Victory in the second world war enabled a thriving Commonwealth of Nations, global economic growth, the spread of democracy and the guarantees of the freedoms that we so treasure in Britain today. Those achievements are what our servicemen fought for, and we owe it to their memory to celebrate, preserve and advance them at every opportunity, as they did for King, country and Commonwealth.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak today as we approach this incredibly important anniversary. Today is the day to celebrate the victory of democracy and freedom over fascism, as well as to remember all those who lost their lives, were taken prisoner or suffered during that fight. I believe that the most important thing we can do to honour their memory is to ensure that we never again return to the politics of fascism. Although VJ Day marks the end of the war, fascist politics are on the rise all over the world. We must never allow ourselves to be complacent or to think that our modern world is immune.
My community has its own story to tell about VJ Day. Names are remembered and listed on the roll of honour at St John’s church in Blackpool. One of my constituents wrote to me about the story of her grandad, Harold Rhodes, who was captured on 15 February 1942, alongside many other men, and taken to the notorious Changi prison camp. Harold was made to walk from Singapore to Burma via Thailand to work for the Japanese on the notorious death railway. He walked the last 100 miles of that 400-mile forced march on bare feet. It is said that one man died for every sleeper laid. Harold was released from Changi prison on 2 September 1945 and put on a ship for Rangoon, Burma. The purpose of the trip was rehabilitation for Harold and many other ex-prisoners, who were all extremely thin and needed to gain weight urgently. On arriving home after a three-month journey, he weighed 6 stone 5 lbs—heaven only knows what he weighed when he was released from Changi. Harold’s granddaughter—my constituent—says that he was the gentlest of men.
Harold’s story is that of so many men across the country. While Harold survived, many more died. Many starved to death and many died from cholera, malaria or dysentery. They are the men whose suffering we must remember. Their brutal treatment at the hands of the imperial Japanese army must serve as a reminder to us all of the horrors of war and strengthen our resolve to build a peaceful world. Their suffering did not end when the war ended. They spent their lives suffering from PTSD, limbs lost and long-term complications.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I feel very moved to intervene on my hon. Friend because she is making such a powerful speech. As someone who previously represented part of her constituency, I know how much this will mean to her constituents. My grandfather had a Burma Star and he had scars all over his body. He never spoke of it but the long-lasting trauma these veterans faced lived with them throughout their lives and we do not recognise that enough. I would like to put that on the record.
Lorraine Beavers
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her intervention and totally agree with her analysis.
My school friend’s dad, George Brooks, suffered for the rest of his life from the ordeals he endured in the camps. As we approach the 80th anniversary of VJ Day and the celebrations that will come with it, these stories must be constantly told. We remember the Blackpool Regiment, and everyone who has sacrificed their lives for our country since.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is through our veterans that our collective memory of the second world war is best preserved, but as their bright flame is flickering it is important that a new generation—my generation—commits to re-telling their stories.
As a schoolboy, one of the pieces of work that has stuck with me the most was the “man behind the name” project, because it is impossible to think of the 5 million British young men—25% of adult men—who fought in the first world war; that is 55 full Wembley stadiums. The “man behind the name” project was so powerful, with the general point being, “Go and pick a name on your local cenotaph.” For me, that was the one I passed on the way to Mrs Wood’s history lesson at West Hill school. We were told, “Choose a name and research that man, because when you learn about that young man—where he was born, his sweetheart, his job, his kids, not too dissimilar in age to yourself—you realise that it is not an abstract number, but 5 million young men with their own lives. It hits home.”
The man behind the name for me was Benjamin Ford, my great-great-grandfather. He died in Mesopotamia fighting the Ottomans. What struck me particularly was that I heard a lot about the western front but little to nothing about this other front where men like Benjamin died for King and country. It rather strikes me that the Pacific front in the second world war is often similarly overlooked. Today’s debate is important for highlighting those men who fought and died in the far east, particularly those fighting after VE Day had passed.
Just this weekend I was speaking to Theresa Haggart, a former local headmistress and stalwart of Windsor civic society, about her father, the late Charles Snelling; I want to take this opportunity to highlight the man behind that name. He passed in August 2016, aged 92. He came from a family with a proud tradition of national service. In the first world war, he was a regimental sergeant-major as part of the Canadian imperial forces, and in the second world war he was a radar engineer and operator. He spent time hopping from ship to ship, making repairs to essential equipment, and, like 365,000 other British troops, found himself thousands of miles away in the Pacific. Unable to share his precise location with his family, he sketched drawings of the local culture and the people he met on blank postcards, which he sent to his parents, letting them know he was okay.
Charles did not discuss his service, although he did feel that while VE Day commemorations continued to draw national attention, VJ Day came and went almost as an afterthought. I gently say to Ministers that this sometimes feels to be the case on the 80th anniversary—and that is regrettable. Victory over Japan marked the true end of the conflict, and no less was the sacrifice of those who gave their lives there, so let us all in this House play our part so that these stories, as they come down from generation to generation—
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
When we mark VJ Day—victory over Japan—we remember the true end of the second world war. The far east campaign saw some of the harshest conditions of the entire war: jungle warfare, searing heat and a determined enemy. It also saw acts of extraordinary courage and enduring suffering, particularly among those taken prisoner and subjected to forced labour. I pay tribute to my great uncle, Frank Mole, who was one of those men. The men and women who served there often came home to little recognition, but they deserve our greatest respect.
As the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, I was proud to pay tribute in the VE Day debate to the greatest generation of my constituency. Farnborough and Aldershot are towns that have served as home of the British Army and the Royal Aircraft Establishment. Today, I want to mention—proudly, as chair of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group—a group whose contribution in the far east deserves particular tribute: the Gurkhas. Over 112,000 Gurkhas served in the second world war, and more than a quarter of them fought in the far east campaign. In Burma, they became legendary—skilled in jungle warfare, trusted by British commanders and feared by the enemy.
One of the finest examples of the Gurkhas’ courage is Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung VC. In May 1945, during the battle for Taungdaw in Burma, three enemy grenades were thrown into his trench. He hurled back two. The third exploded in his hand, blowing off his fingers and blinding one eye. But for four hours—alone, one-handed—he held the line, firing his rifle and calling out, “Come and fight a Gurkha!” When relief came, 31 enemy soldiers lay dead around his post. His platoon had survived. That story is more than legend; it is living history for my constituency.
Today, Aldershot is home to the largest Nepali community in the UK, some of whom are descendants of those who served. Their presence is not just a legacy of war, but a living part of our society and our future. VJ Day matters to them; it matters to us all. Today, as we mark the anniversary of Victory over Japan Day, we say once more: to the soldiers who trained on Aldershot’s parade grounds and fought through jungle and monsoon—
Cameron Thomas
As a Member of Parliament who benefits from the contribution of 300 or 400 Gurkhas and Nepalese people, can I just say that I am very much enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech and I cannot wait to hear the rest?
Alex Baker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We say also to the engineers in Farnborough whose innovations helped bring victory within reach, to the Gurkhas whose courage lit up the darkness of war, and to the prisoners who endured, the families who waited, and the loved ones who never came home: we remember, we honour, we give thanks, and we will never forget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Unfortunately we have run out of time and I need to call the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a great privilege to respond to today’s debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. As many have said, the Pacific campaign of world war two is often referred to as the forgotten war, but that is far from the case today. We in Parliament remember that epic and brutal theatre of operations, honour all those who served, and reflect on the terrible loss of human life—both military and civilian. It will certainly not be the forgotten war this summer as our nation joins in the commemorations.
As was frequently remarked when we debated the anniversary of VE Day on 6 May, such events to mark VJ Day will be even more poignant and important because the living link to that time is passing. That living link has been sustained through so many family connections, as we have heard today.
Jim Shannon
I want to put on record the contribution of those from Northern Ireland who served in the far east. I think of Johnny McQuade, who was an MP in this House for our party from 1979 to 1983. He was an inspiration to me as a young boy back in the ’70s. I think also of Richie, a sergeant-major in the Royal Artillery Belfast Battalion, who went to camp in 1939 for two weeks but came back in 1945 having served in the far east. Those are two examples of Northern Ireland’s contribution to the far east war.
James Cartlidge
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I always make the effort to recognise the contribution of the whole of our Union to our armed forces on all fronts in the second world war and throughout the history of our military.
As I have said, many colleagues have spoken about their family connections. I was very moved by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who spoke about her grandfather’s service at Kohima. That was a key battle in the Burma campaign, and it is from where we get the Kohima epitaph, which we all know:
“When you go home, tell them of us and say, for your tomorrow, we gave our today.”
Those are immortal words.
I understand that we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for bringing forward this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. He spoke so vividly of the horror of the enslavement of POWs and, in his words, the “scars that never healed”.
Having said that, we also heard from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who reminded us that today we have a strong relationship with Japan through GCAP—I was proud to be part of the global combat air programme as a Minister in the MOD—and also with Italy, which was part of the Axis powers in Europe. We enjoy brighter relations now, even though, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) pointed out, perhaps some in Japanese society have not fully come to terms with what happened in the second world war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke very movingly about the Burma Star Association. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) importantly stressed the role that our veterans groups will have in these festivities in the coming weeks as we remember VJ Day. I note that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke specifically about veterans and the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, which remains very important. We hope his speech indicates that, if legislation comes forward, he will vote in the appropriate way to stand by our veterans.
The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), in an excellent speech, spoke very movingly of Donald Rose, who was 110 years old when he died and at one point the oldest person in the country. That was an extraordinarily brave tale, and I am grateful to him for sharing it with us. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). No debate on the far east would be possible without mention of the Chindits, which I understand were formally known as the long-range penetration groups. He reminded us of the ravages of disease, which is the scourge of our forces in many ways. In that case it was malaria, but there was also dysentery, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), and many other horrors were out there in the jungle during fighting.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) spoke about the Birmingham association for the Far East Prisoners of War, reminding us of the role of civic society in helping POWs to come to terms with the horrors that they experienced in the far east. We heard a number of colleagues speak about specific elements of our armed forces and their service. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke movingly about the Border Regiment and described it fighting through monsoons. That was an extraordinary record.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) very proudly spoke about the Royal Navy. She is very proud to have a naval constituency, and she is absolutely right to stress the extremely important role of the British Pacific fleet. In fact, I believe it played a crucial role in those final months as US forces were heading towards the Japanese home island, using our own fleet to enable that military progress, which was incredibly important.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood spoke of the horror of the Burma railway, which many of us have heard of. I had a great uncle who was involved in it, but he would never speak of it, so shocking was the reality, despite being such a gentle man. The hon. Lady spoke particularly about how emaciated the survivors were and how many died of starvation.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for many of the veterans who came back, the point at which they remembered and relived their experiences was later on in life, as they succumbed to dementia? They had to go through and relive the horrors of their war experiences at that time.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We know that war leaves lasting trauma, PTSD and so on, but perhaps it was particularly intense in those cases. As I said, certainly in the case of my family member, he found it so harrowing that he was never to talk about it for the rest of his life. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.
We heard many in the VE Day debate talk about the role of other countries in supporting our forces, which is particularly true in the far east. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough, as well as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and particularly the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), spoke about the Gurkhas, reminding us that we had a multinational force. It was an extraordinary force, including 365,000 British troops, 1.5 million Commonwealth troops and, as has been said, the pre-partition Indian army of 2.5 million soldiers. It was extraordinarily diverse.
To conclude, VJ Day was not just the end of the war in the Pacific; in effect, it was the end of world war two itself, which was formally confirmed on 2 September 1945. It was a war of unbelievable savagery and suffering, in which it is estimated that between 70 million and 80 million people died, the majority of whom were civilians. As our direct, living link with those who served 80 years ago fades, it is right that we in this House play our part in commemorating this historic anniversary and publicly honouring the memory of all who served. Quite simply, we say thank you. We will always remember them.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is a particular privilege to close this debate, which has seen such a strong and united House say thank you to those who served in the Pacific theatre in the second world war. A number of Members have spoken about their family members, but we thank all those who stood up to serve, defend our values and ensure the freedom that we have today.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), who is responsible for ceremonials, for opening this debate and clearly setting out how the nation will mark VJ Day on 15 August. It is an opportunity for all our communities in every part of the United Kingdom to tell the stories that Members have been sharing with the House today. They are stories of sacrifice, of courage and of ordinary folk doing extraordinary things, and it is so important that we keep those stories going today.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the father of my constituent Sally Hedges Greenwood, Lance Sergeant Frank Jeremy Hedges, who served in the 135th Field Regiment. He was captured at the fall of Singapore and served on the infamous Burma railway. While the nation celebrated VE Day and continues to do so every year, Sally’s family and many others like them feel forgotten. Does the Minister agree that these VJ Day celebrations will give those men and women and their families the honour they deserve?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for remembering Frank Jeremy Hedges in her remarks. It is so important that we remember all those who served in every part of the second world war. Just as we remember all those who served in the European theatres and who lost their lives, or who went to war and came back forever changed, we must remember all those who served in the far east, across the Pacific and the Indian ocean, and further afield as well. We must tell their stories with pride, so that their sacrifices live on.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
While we celebrate VJ Day on 15 August, as we should, does the Minister agree that we should also encourage schools to mark that anniversary when term resumes, so that young people remember the sacrifices that so many made and the stories of so many valiant veterans and armed forces personnel?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which gives me an opportunity to inform the House that there are resources available for our schools. “Our Shared Story” is one of those resources, which will enable people to find out more and tell the story in a way that is age-appropriate for all our young people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter in the Chamber today.
Eighty years may have passed since VJ Day, but that can never diminish the triumphs of that extraordinary world war two generation—the greatest generation—or the unimaginable sacrifices they made to secure a legacy of peace and freedom. When we commemorate the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, we will particularly remember the British and Commonwealth heroes who fought across the Indo-Pacific. We will remember those who fell on the battlefield; those who endured some of the most hostile combat environments in the history of warfare; those who were sunk on ships in oceans far from home; those who suffered terribly in prison camps, or on forced labour construction projects; those who continued fighting in the far east for another three months after VE Day; and those few surviving veterans of the campaign who are still with us today. We are eternally grateful to every one of them. Let the united message from this House go out: “Thank you for your service.”
Remembrance is not passive, and our duty does not end with words—it requires action. As we have heard in this debate, there will be events across the nation inviting people to take a moment out of their day to remember those who served. Just as we did for VE Day, we must do for VJ Day.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although of course there was victory over Japan, the second world war was victory over fascism and over those who trample on human rights, democracy and freedom? Japan, once an enemy, is now an ally, defending the values of civilisation alongside our forces. Does he further agree that when my constituents light a beacon in Hillmorton on 15 August, it will be a beacon of hope in our troubled world, and that we owe a debt of gratitude to those whose sacrifices made that victory possible?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that. A theme picked up by a number of colleagues, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was that old adversaries can become good friends. When there are rising tensions and conflicts in the world, it is worth remembering, 80 years on from VE and VJ Day, that those nations that were at war with us all those decades ago now stand alongside us, with shared values and a shared outlook on the world. That is an important message to send.
In the moments left to me, I will mention a few of the speeches that we have heard today. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). As the MP for the other shipyard, as she described Devonport in the debate, let me say how pleased I was that she mentioned the sacrifice of the Royal Navy and all those who served in our Pacific fleet. I think in particular of those brave sailors who served on HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Electra and HMS Exeter, which went down in the east Java sea. Those shipwrecks are war graves. Although we cannot see them in the same way we can see the rows of headstones in the cemeteries and the D-Day beaches, it is none the less important that we preserve them, protect them and tell the story of those who served.
I am grateful to all those who spoke about the importance of the Commonwealth forces, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who spoke about his grandfather who served. Indeed, a number of Members talked about their family members who served, including the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), whose remark about everyday folk who get caught up in war and do extraordinary things I found exactly right in the stories that we must tell.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) spoke powerfully about Donald Rose, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) spoke about his family member who fought in Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) put Ken Tinkler on the record, and he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke about the stories of evil that were prosecuted in war, and he was right to put that on the record. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about the important contribution of people from his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) spoke about Harold Rhodes and the death railway, and that powerful story will be told often as we approach VJ Day itself.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who spoke about her grandfather, who was awarded the Burma Star. The hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who mentioned Charles Snelling, powerfully invited not just Members of the House but all those watching to choose a name on a war memorial and find out the stories behind those names, why they matter, and why their stories continue to be told. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) spoke passionately not only about the Gurkhas, who I know she is proud to represent, but about Frank Mole, a prisoner of war.
It is so important in this debate that we remember all those who served in our forces, as well as the civilians who died in the conflicts, many of whom will not have names on war memorials. Equally, we must remember all those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atomic bombs were dropped that brought the war to a close. In the moments left to me, I join the shadow Defence Secretary, who spoke so well about the debate, and echo the words of John Maxwell Edmonds in the Kohima epitaph:
“When you go home, tell them of us and say,
For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan.
Petitions
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, specifically those who are members of the University and College Union, Unite and Unison, whose representatives I met recently. In that context, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My constituents are concerned about potential job losses at Lancaster University, and the petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure universities are supported to ensure security of employment for staff and a high-quality learning experience for students.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Lancaster and Wyre,
Declares that Lancaster University is currently considering a series of staff redundancies, initially voluntary, which could see the University lose around 450 jobs, with compulsory redundancies not ruled out. Staff trade unions, UCU, Unite and Unison, are consulting with their members and are concerned about the job losses as well as the impact on the wider area with the Lancaster District benefiting from having a successful university in its footprint.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure universities are supported to ensure security of employment for staff and a high-quality learning experience for students.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003100]
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Castle Bromwich ward in my constituency. It calls for Solihull metropolitan borough council to take action on the increasing number of parking violations in the area of Castle Bromwich infant and nursery school, where over the last 12 months parking practices have deteriorated. This is extremely inconsiderate: it is blocking residents’ drives and destroying the grass verges, and it is incredibly unfair on those who live locally. To make matters worse, when parking wardens visited they told the school staff that they were limited in the enforcement action that they could take because one of the “No parking” signs on Hurst Lane had fallen down. Most crucially, however, dangerous parking poses a serious safety risk to the children who have to cross the road with very poor visibility because of the selfish parking.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Solihull Borough Council to increase the frequency of parking enforcement around the school at drop-off and pick-up times, and to reinstall”
the road safety signs
“on Hurst Lane North to deter cars from parking illegally.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents in the Castle Bromwich Ward of the Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Constituency,
Declares that the scale of parking violations around Castle Bromwich Infant School has worsened significantly in the last 12 months, with cars parked illegally over drives, pavements, and double yellow lines.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Solihull Borough Council to increase the frequency of parking enforcement around the school at drop-off and pick-up times, and to reinstall a road sign on Hurst Lane North to deter cars from parking illegally.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003101]
Government Support for Ukrainians
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I am happy to have secured this debate on Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine permission extension scheme.
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia started on 24 February 2022, eight years after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Now in its fourth year, this awful war has seen some 7 million members of the Ukrainian population of 45 million—more than 15% of the population—seek sanctuary outside the war zone. Just under 270,000 visas under the Homes for Ukraine scheme have been issued to Ukrainian guests here in the UK, of whom 2,399 are in Devon. Initially offering a three-year duration, the scheme was extended by 18 months under the Ukraine permission extension scheme in February 2025, nearly six months ago. That means that, with missiles and drones falling in record numbers on the cities of Ukraine, our guests who have integrated into society, taken jobs, rented flats and paid taxes are starting to face the fact that fewer than 12 months are left on their visas, which makes it hard, if not impossible, to rent a new flat or get a new job.
Let me give the House some basic facts about where we are today. New arrivals now only get 18 months to stay. The visa gives a special status to Ukrainian guests. They do not have refugee status; they do have the right to work, and they are supported by funding—for example, the monthly host payments, or help with rent. The three years plus the 18 months do not count towards any settled status here in the UK. The 18-month extension can be applied for only in the final 28 days of the original granted visa.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and for his excellent remarks. I am aware of two cases in my constituency in which, as he says, constituents have only been allowed to apply 28 days before the deadline for extension, yet UK Visas and Immigration gives itself a standard service time of eight weeks to respond to extension requests. In both cases, it has left my constituents unable to commit to much-wanted travel with their families in the window after the 28 days has elapsed but before they have received the extension. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look at that?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree, and people in that situation are very worried—I have several in my own constituency. I have spoken to groups of guests in Newton Abbot, and they are mostly working, getting on with integrating into the local community and strongly supporting each other.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. The reason so many of us are here is that it impacts each and every one of us, and I have a very strong Ukrainian contingent in my constituency. Many refugees have made their homes in our constituencies—in Newton Abbot, Strangford and elsewhere. Ukrainian children are being educated in our schools and making lives for themselves, with their parents working, paying tax and spending in the local community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that must continue with as little stress and hassle as possible? The fact is that Ukrainians have become an integral part of all our communities.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I absolutely agree.
Ukrainians are scared of what happens next, and we have no answer for them. They see reports of their countrymen being refused asylum in the UK because it is said to be safe to return to Ukraine, even while Putin’s drones explode in Ukraine’s cities in record numbers.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making an important point. I have heard from a number of Ukrainians—particularly those from the east of the country—who cannot return home, as their home towns have been destroyed. They are looking for a more permanent solution than the temporary solution that we have. They have integrated well into British society. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look at a permanent solution for people in that situation?
Martin Wrigley
Yes, I believe that we should be looking for a permanent solution and a permanent answer for the Ukrainians, and that is why I asked the Prime Minister about it last week. His answer was more positive than before, and he even appeared to say that another 18 months would be added. I ask the Minister to clarify that statement.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I have a Ukrainian guest who says they feel safe and settled in Berkhamsted and cannot return, and is asking for a long-term solution. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at examples of solutions, such as that in Poland, through which we can provide certainty for the Ukrainians here?
Martin Wrigley
Yes, we need to do exactly that.
If the UK is to support the defence of Ukraine, we must continue to support the vulnerable Ukrainian guests in our country and to give them some certainty about their future. In my discussions with groups around the Newton Abbot constituency, I have heard many of their concerns. We have one family with a 17-year-old son with them. Ukrainian child passports have a duration of just four years, and they have to renew his passport. He has been told to do that, but he will need to return to Kyiv. His parents are now worried that he will either not be allowed to get back here, or not be allowed to stay here with an expired passport.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this debate possible. Can he explain to the House the attitude of the Ukrainian Government? Is it the case that most of the people here are dependants—women and children? Given that it was originally thought that Ukraine would be quickly overrun and the circumstances are very different, is it also the case that the Ukrainian Government now want to see more of their citizens coming back to defend the homeland?
Martin Wrigley
The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been reading my speech. I shall get on to that shortly.
I have spoken to a Ukrainian lady and her elderly mother in Newton Abbot. This lady has lost her husband, her son and her father. Her home in Ukraine is in the Russian-occupied zone and, like much of her village, has been razed to the ground. Even when peace does break out, what does she have to go back to, other than landmines and unexploded bombs?
Ukraine is the home of the fabled Cossacks, and it is no wonder that the war was not over in the three weeks or so that Putin expected. However, that means that we have to think longer term about the Homes for Ukraine scheme visas. I mentioned that there are now some 7 million Ukrainians, out of the original population of 45 million, safely outside the country—that is 15%, or about one sixth in old money. It will not be practical for all of them to return to a country with a shattered infrastructure for a number of years. Clearing landmines, dealing with unexploded bombs, demolition and rebuilding must be done before most of the guests we have here could think about returning. My basic ask of the Minister and the Government is to look at a longer-term extension of the Homes for Ukraine scheme to give our guests certainty, in some part of their lives at least.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Could we ask the Minister for clarity about the women who have dependent children or elderly relatives, who are often unable to meet the income thresholds required under settlement routes such as the skilled worker visa or the global talent visa? Could we also ask for clarity for their children, who have learned English so that they are so fluent and who have had their education here, as they cannot look forward to going to college or university because they do not have a visa that will see them through that course?
Martin Wrigley
Very much so. In my meetings, people have been asking about these different visas and routes, not many of which work.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
First, I am proud to say that the residents of my constituency have opened their homes and their hearts to many Ukrainian families fleeing this horrific conflict. They are now our neighbours and friends, they work or study, and they are part of our community. Does my hon. Friend agree that we a need bespoke route to permanent residency for Ukrainians who want to stay in the UK?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree, and this is now urgent as guests start to have less than 12 months on their visas.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Has the hon. Member seen the research produced by the University of Birmingham on the experience of Ukrainian refugees in circumstances such as those he describes, particularly loss of employment and loss of tenancies? Does he agree that landlords and employers should not be acting in this way, that to do so may be discrimination on the grounds of nationality, and that some form of remediation needs to be found in these cases?
Martin Wrigley
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning a report from my old university, which I will go away and look up. However, I think this is more about getting the visas extended, rather than pursuing the people who are refusing them.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing tonight’s debate. Last month, I had the great honour and privilege of meeting the Ukrainian families who have made their home in my constituency. It now is their home, and they are so very welcome. I had a personal private conversation with each and every one of them individually, and everyone said to me that they so desperately need stability and security, which the current bespoke Ukraine permission extension scheme does not provide, because 18 months is too short, particularly for young students progressing from secondary school in Scotland to university. Does he agree with me that the Government must urgently review the short-term nature of their stay?
Martin Wrigley
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and will be moving on to that shortly.
I have been impressed by the way that the Ukrainians do not sit back, but get up and get working. In many cases, they have taken jobs way below their qualifications while they learn the language, settle in and find their way. Their children have integrated into schools and set out on paths to GCSE, A-level and degree courses. Despite the fact that they do not have the confidence that they will have a visa that covers the duration of those courses, they are still working hard at them.
I have one guest who is a fully qualified Ukrainian dentist—and we need dentists, especially in Devon. He has done the first part of verifying his qualification for the UK, but it has taken many months and cost £600. However, to become a fully qualified dentist, he needs to spend £4,300 and more time, and the waiting time alone may make that futile, given the short time left on his visa. Another bright young student has started a dentistry qualification at Plymouth University, but she asked me if she would be allowed to stay to finish it. Another family wanted to get a mortgage to buy a house, but they cannot given the time left on their visas. They are brave, inventive and industrious people, and we need to help them by extending their visa scheme.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree with me that the Homes for Ukraine scheme matters? It is not just an immigration policy; it is about real families who have made a home in our communities. I am particularly thinking of a wonderful couple who came along to my surgery. The woman, who came from Ukraine, is working with a charity and brought her son, and is getting married to one of my constituents on 25 July.
Martin Wrigley
Absolutely.
I would like to give a couple of stories from Ukrainians here. I am keeping an eye on the time. This is from Anya Glebova in north Devon, who is hosted by Julie. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for using the word “you”. These are her words:
“How do you live during the war? And can a person who has not experienced it understand us? I think not, because I myself did not believe that such a thing is possible in our time. But it turns out it is possible. That morning will remain in my memory for a long time, when I woke up to collect the children for school and a man who was in Odessa called and said that the war had begun, they were shelling us. To say that it was horror would be an understatement, but a completely different life began for us.
Since no one expected this, panic began: empty shelves in stores, lights going out and terrible alarm signals. My children and I went to bed dressed, so that at night during the alarm we could quickly run to the basement where we decided to hide. A suitcase with documents was constantly packed in the basement; there were warm things and blankets. When you hear a rocket, your thoughts are about the children and how to save them. Missile alarms become our daily routine: children playing hear the alarm and run to the basement or to the house where we made a small shelter. My husband was invited to the military registration and enlistment office, and taken to war. We were left alone at home without support and with constant worry.
Why did we decide to move? Because as a mother, I want a peaceful life for my children. I want them to sleep peacefully and study, so that they can see life. When I arrived here, not only the children but also I was afraid when a helicopter flew overhead. We saw a plane overhead when with my son in the garden, and it flew very low. I froze and when I turned around I saw my son, who was sitting by a tree, screaming at me. The horror of war cannot be put into words. It is when you go to sleep and don’t know whether you will wake up. It is when life can end in a minute. This is universal, since every day brought its own experiences, pain and despair. It cannot be described.
My husband made the decision for us to leave Ukraine, probably because he sees much more. For me, it was a difficult step, firstly, to leave my husband without support. He sometimes came home for two days, and it was always a holiday for our family. Secondly, to leave the home where the children grew up, where there were dreams, where every corner has its own story. But the safety of the children came first, so we decided to leave. Not knowing the language and taking a backpack with us, we set off for the UK, where our host Julie met us. A new stage in our lives began.
Thanks to Julie, we gradually got to know, and continued to get to know, the local system. My daughter immediately went to school where she was happily accepted, and she began to meet new classmates. Recently, she saw a plane high in the sky, took a picture and sent it to her father, saying that it was a piece of peaceful sky. My son is preparing to enter college, is studying English and going to the gym. I was almost immediately offered a job, where I work without knowing English. A foreign country, unfamiliar customs, lack of knowledge of the language—all this is covered by the sensitivity and care of people around us. The Ukrainian diaspora supports everyone, learning the language, helping to solve problems and always being in touch. Thank you for giving a peaceful sky to our children!”
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about children. There are children in my constituency who came here as very small children and have only ever been in the English education system. Their parents are deeply concerned about what will happen to them going forward, so it would be appropriate for us to look to put in place permanent measures as soon as humanly possible. I am sure he would also want to join me in thanking the host families in my constituency, who I am so proud of and grateful to, and Refugees Welcome, which continues to work to help Ukrainian families integrate in our community.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I absolutely agree.
I want briefly to mention another story. This is of Mariia and Ksenia in north Devon, written by their host Helen. I apologise for my Ukrainian pronunciation. They said:
“On 21 June Oleh Yurash age 28 was killed in Sumy in a missile strike. He was the husband of Liudmyla Yurash also 28 and father to Roman, four years old. Liudmyla is the sister of Mariia and Ksenia Yurash, my adult guests. He was almost unrecognisable. Mariia and Ksenia travelled back to Ukraine to attend his funeral. Liudmyla was also carer for their mother, who recently had a stroke.
The girls’ father wants them to stay in the UK, where Mariia and her daughter are safe from the war, especially as Mariia is a single mother and the Russians have been kidnapping children. Mila is settled in the only school she has known, starting year 3 in September.
Ksenia is studying in order to be able to go to university. There is little education in Ukraine at the moment. They have already lost a brother and their father is fighting for his country. The thing that keeps him going is that his two younger daughters are safe. I hope that you can get the Government to see that we need to carry on supporting our Ukrainian family.”
I asked the Prime Minister last week about extending the scheme, and the Home Secretary was asked about it in a Select Committee on 3 June. However, the situation is changing. Ukraine’s Government publicly changed their position in late May, asking all Governments where Ukrainians have sought safety and sanctuary since spring 2022 to provide them with a choice: to remain where their lives are being rebuilt or to return to Ukraine when it is safe to do so.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. Only last month I had a resident in my constituency office desperate to renew urgently the visa of the Ukrainian she was hosting. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in saying that while the heroes of Ukraine fight Putin, for us as much as for them, we should stand guard over their families.
Martin Wrigley
The war seems further from ending—perhaps more protracted than ever. The EU clarified its position, extending temporary protection for all guests to March 2027 and requiring all member states to find ways for guests to have pathways to residency or settlement within those two years. The Home Secretary commented in a Select Committee that continuing the stability of education for children, university students and adults in training or apprenticeships is key and that enabling that continuity through housing and jobs is an important part of the Government’s support for Ukraine.
We need the Government to review the short-term nature of the Ukraine permission extension scheme urgently. Without urgent changes, we are at serious risk of putting thousands of Ukrainians—children as well as parents—into homelessness or worse, as the terms of their visas will be too short for them to carry on. We owe them much better treatment than we are currently giving them.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to share his sympathies for Julia in my constituency, who no longer has her flat or any accommodation back in Ukraine. She has secured a job with a legal firm that wishes to train her up and get her qualified, but she now finds that she may no longer be secure and safe in this country.
Martin Wrigley
That is a dreadful situation. I really hope that the Minister can give us some positive news, or at least a glimmer of hope of where we can go.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on what is an important topic for us all. I know that he is a committed advocate for Ukrainians who have sought sanctuary in the UK, particularly in his constituency. I am also grateful to Members from across the House for their contributions.
The people of Devon have helped with the integration of more than 2,300 Ukrainians under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, and Devon is one of the few counties supporting over 2,000 Ukrainians. I thank him and everyone in Devon for making such a welcome contribution to what is, as we are all aware, very much a national effort. On that note, I want to recognise the contributions and stories that have been shared in this thought-provoking and important debate. We should honour the efforts and sacrifices made by families who have found themselves split up and living in different countries during this unprovoked war, with the constant and daily anguish that it will bring. I pay tribute to the many local authorities across the country and to the British public for the incredible generosity that has been shown to our Ukrainian guests.
Seema Malhotra
I am conscious of time; I will try to make some progress before taking an intervention shortly.
Since their launch, the Ukrainian schemes have offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families. This is an outstanding response, and one that underlines the deep sympathy and compassion that people across the UK feel towards those who need sanctuary here.
Seema Malhotra
I will give way first to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns).
Ellie Chowns
The Minister referred to the anguish felt by the Ukrainian families who have been displaced. Does she recognise that uncertainty over visa conditions adds to the anguish faced by those families here in the UK, and indeed to that of their very generous hosts? Will she therefore commit to reviewing the situation and giving them hope for the future?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will comment on that matter directly in this debate. I want to take this opportunity to emphasise that the Government’s support for Ukraine remains utterly steadfast.
Members will also be aware of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, which was signed by the Prime Minister earlier this year. The landmark commitment not only builds on the close relationship we already have with Ukraine, but seeks to formalise closer co-operation in a number of key areas such as trade, security, energy, science and technology, and educational benefits, including a youth compact. It is important that we see that work ongoing, with the partnership bringing economic, cultural and educational benefits to both our countries not just now, but in future.
Adam Jogee
Will the Minister join me in doing two things? The first is congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his excellent tie action this evening, which is massively on point. Secondly, and more importantly, will she join me in paying tribute to all those in Newcastle-under-Lyme who have provided sanctuary, safety and security to the Ukrainians who have made their life in our corner of Staffordshire, not least because they stand with the people of Ukraine against Putin and his tyranny?
Seema Malhotra
I am indeed very grateful to my hon. Friend’s constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme for the work they have done and the welcome they have provided. On that subject, I have seen the work that has gone on in my own constituency at Cranford community college, along with One World Strong, led by Alan Fraser and Kevin Prunty, an initiative that builds relationships and partnerships between schools, allowing young people in the UK and Ukraine to share their lives, their challenges and their outlooks.
I will turn to the Home Office’s role within what is clearly a cross-Government effort. The Department works closely with key partners including the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has a close relationship with local authorities, devolved Governments and the European Union.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
This weekend I met with Karine Osipyan and Artur Manucharyan, who have been told by the Home Office that they were granted permission under the Ukraine family scheme in error, and that their application under the Ukraine permission extension scheme might not be granted. I wrote to the Home Office at the beginning of June on their case but we have yet to hear back. Will the Minister look into this case specifically and meet me to discuss it further?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases on the Floor of the House, but I assure him that my officials have his constituents’ details and will certainly review their case, and I will update him in the coming days.
Members have asked about any further extensions to the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which we introduced in February to provide an additional 18 months of permission to stay in the UK, with continued access to work, benefits, healthcare and education, as the Prime Minister referred to in Prime Minister’s questions last week. However, I confirm to the House that we will be extending the leave beyond 18 months. We are still working on the detail of that and will update the House as soon as possible. That is important. I understand the comments, questions and challenges and the need to provide certainty, particularly in relation to education, which was also very much on the Home Secretary’s mind.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the Minister very much for that announcement; I really appreciate it.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, it has been very much on the Government’s mind for a number of months as we have been working through the detail. It should be recognised that we are working with the Ukrainian embassy and other stakeholders across the country, including the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, as well as the European Commission and other international partners. It is important to come to a position that balances our responsibilities to those on the schemes and citizens of Ukraine more broadly, along with working alongside the Ukrainian Government in relation to their wishes.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Only recently I was speaking to a Ukrainian friend who expressed some concern, so they will be extremely grateful for the Minister’s comments. I would like to put on the record that the Ukrainian community in my constituency do wonderful work for the Ukrainians here in our community.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend, who has put that on the record extremely effectively.
I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot once again for securing the debate. The United Kingdom has rightly offered support and sanctuary to our Ukrainian friends in their hour of need, including through the schemes that we have discussed. We should all reflect on that with pride. The Government will continue to do right by the Ukrainian people.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting)
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. By ensuring that tenants can feel safe in their homes and giving social landlords clarity as to their responsibilities, the draft regulations are a vital part of that effort.
I will take the draft regulations in turn, starting with the hazards in social housing regulations, or Awaab’s law. As the Committee will know, Awaab Ishak was just two years old when he died in December 2020, as a result of a severe respiratory condition that was due to prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. In the wake of his untimely death, Awaab’s parents have tenaciously and courageously fought to secure justice not only for their son, but for all those who live in social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are deeply grateful to them for their passion and persistence.
Awaab’s death was wholly avoidable. His parents raised concerns about their living conditions time and again, but their landlord failed to take any action to treat the dangerous mould present in their home. Awaab’s law is vital legislation that will empower social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law, if they fail to investigate and fix hazards in their homes within set timeframes. Tenants will also be able to secure access to the Housing Ombudsman Service if their landlord does not adhere to the strict timelines for action in the regulations.
Although progress also depends on a more fundamental change in the culture and values of social housing providers, Awaab’s law will play an integral role in ensuring that all social landlords take complaints about hazards seriously, respond to them in a timely and professional manner, and treat tenants with empathy, dignity and respect. It is also the Government’s sincere hope that over time it will build trust between tenants and landlords.
The regulations apply to the social rented sector, but we are committed to extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, and have included measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill to achieve that. We are carefully considering how best to apply Awaab’s law to the PRS in a way that is fair, proportionate and effective for both tenants and landlords. We will consult on that matter separately.
The Awaab’s law regulations will require social landlords to investigate and fix all emergency hazards, as well as damp and mould hazards that pose a significant risk to residents’ health and safety, within set timeframes. Potential significant hazards will have to be investigated by social landlords within 10 working days. Once the landlord has carried out an investigation, they will have to send written summaries to tenants within three working days and take action to ensure that the home is safe within five working days. Emergency hazards will have to be investigated and made safe within a maximum of 24 hours. If the social landlord cannot make the home safe within relevant timescales, they will be required to secure suitable alternative accommodation for the household until their home is safe to return to.
Finally, any additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, and no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and will have to be completed within a reasonable period. Social landlords will also need to investigate potential emergency hazards and take action to make all emergency hazards safe, excluding cladding remediation work, as soon as possible and within 24 hours.
Awaab’s law implies terms into social housing tenancy agreements, so that once the regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law. If they do not, tenants will be able to hold their social landlords to account by taking legal action through the courts for breach of contract. Awaab’s law will also include a provision for a defence if registered providers can prove that they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements of the regulations. That means that landlords will not be liable for a breach of the regulations if, for reasons genuinely beyond their control, they have not been able to comply with them.
We intend to act as quickly as possible to bring all relevant hazards within the scope of the new legal requirements, but, to ensure its effective implementation, we have been clear that we intend to implement Awaab’s law through a phased approach. The regulations represent the first phase, covering emergency hazards and damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants. They will provide for an initial period of testing and learning to ensure the reform is being delivered in way that benefits social tenants and secures the lasting legacy that Awaab Ishak’s family have fought so hard for.
In 2026, we will expand the requirements to apply to a wider range of hazards beyond damp and mould. The hazards we expect to extend Awaab’s law to in the second stage of implementation include excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical and explosions, and hygiene hazards. In 2027, we will expand the requirements further to apply to the remaining hazards as defined by the housing health and safety rating system, excluding overcrowding. As we progressively extend the application of Awaab’s law, we will continue to test and learn to ensure that the new requirements are operating effectively, and we will clarify and adapt our approach if it proves necessary to do so.
It is important to stress that the phased approach to introducing Awaab’s law in no way means that social landlords have any leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to address dangers to health and safety present in their homes before Awaab’s law is fully implemented. Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act, and if social landlords fail to meet those timeframes they could be challenged by tenants through complaints processes, the Housing Ombudsman Service, and ultimately the courts.
However, social landlords already have a duty to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards, as well as to remedy disrepair. The Government expect those duties to be met. Social landlords must ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standards, and it is critical that they take action as quickly as possible to resolve any issues of concern in the homes they let, and to guarantee the safety and comfort of their occupants.
I will turn now to the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025. All rented homes must be free from dangerously hazardous conditions, including dangerous electrics. In addition, private landlords are required to check the electrical installations in their properties every five years. This Government are determined to ensure that tenants in social housing have the same protections. The regulations will come into force for new tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies in May next year.
All landlords, social and private, will have to have the electrical installations in their properties inspected and tested by a person who is qualified and competent at least every five years. Landlords will need to ensure that electrical safety standards are met, and that investigations or repairs are carried out if required. The electrical safety standards, as set out in the British standard BS 7671, are the national standard developed by the Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for giving way; I know it is not the convention in a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I wanted to raise issues in my constituency for both social and private tenants. The Minister touched on the issue of ensuring that electrics are checked every five years. Does he recognise the importance of that for residents in my constituency of Harlow, who are concerned about the electrics in their rented properties? That has caused them anguish. Does the Minister see the regulations as the first part of tackling that, making residents in Harlow feel secure and safe in their homes?
Matthew Pennycook
It would not be a debate of any kind with my hon. Friend present were he not to take the opportunity to get Harlow on the record. He is a doughty champion for his constituency and I recognise the concern that he raises. The importance of these regulations is that requirements that already apply to the private rented sector will apply equally to those in the social rented sector. We want parity with how the requirements apply across tenancies, so that social housing tenants benefit from the same protections.
The regulations also introduce mandatory appliance inspections on electrical appliances that social landlords provide. All landlords will have to provide a copy of the electrical safety report to their tenants and local authority if requested. That means that tenants will be informed about what work has been carried out in their home, and will have a record of the testing. Local authorities will also have the power to require landlords to carry out vital remedial works, or to arrange the works themselves and recover the costs from the landlord if relevant action is not taken by them.
Additionally, the regulations will raise the maximum financial penalty to £40,000 for those landlords, private or social, who do not comply. Many landlords are already taking a proactive approach to keeping homes safe from electrical faults, so these regulations will not add additional burdens to them. However, we must ensure that all landlords are taking appropriate action and that all tenants can feel safe by making electrical safety checks a mandatory requirement for social landlords as well as those in the private rented sector.
To conclude, the Government are clear that homes must, above all, be safe. Establishing clear standards and requirements of social landlords, and clear timelines to meet those requirements, will eliminate uncertainty for tenants and for landlords, helping to ensure that that is the case. Since their inception in primary legislation, both sets of draft regulations have received broad support, including from across the House—I recognise that Awaab’s law has its genesis in primary legislation under the previous Government and I commend the previous Secretary of State for his work in the area.
I am confident that in bringing the draft regulations into force, we will have robust regulations and robust protections for tenants of all tenures. They have been strengthened by consultation with the sector. Subject to the approval of Parliament, Awaab’s law is due to come into force from October this year. Electrical safety requirements, as I have said, will come into force for new social tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies six months later. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I say at the outset that the Opposition have no intention of dividing the Committee on the draft instruments.
As the Minister set out, the origin of Awaab’s law in legislation is from 2023, under the previous Government. Again, it enjoyed cross-party support in the Chamber, bringing into effect regulations to ensure that the hazards that were highlighted in that case—many of us will be familiar with them from our own constituents—were addressed effectively. For that reason, we are supportive of the measures we are considering today. In respect of electrical safety, likewise, the intention set out is one that any Government would wish to achieve.
I have two points to highlight, although I am sure that the Minister has given them some thought. All members of the Committee will have read with great interest paragraph 7.13 of the explanatory memorandum that goes with the draft hazards regulations, which highlights the Government’s assessment of the cost of implementing the proposals and the feedback from the sector. Those of us who have had the joy of being involved in housing committees and so on in local authorities are particularly conscious of the theory that the monitoring and enforcement system is financially self-sustaining by cost recovery through the fines levied under the enforcement process. I want to highlight some concerns about that. The issues we are addressing are incredibly important, but we want to ensure that, in the real world, the legislation has teeth. In particular, with issues of damp and mould—we will all know from constituency experience that they can be technically complex to resolve—we want the draft regulations to result in a material change for people, especially those whose health is vulnerable to such issues.
My final point is about electrical safety. Many of us know that accessing the necessary skilled workers to undertake such work, given the scaling up of regular monitoring and testing envisaged under the draft legislation, is a significant challenge in that sector of the market. It will be helpful to understand from the Minister what consideration has been given to how those skills will be created and developed, whether through apprenticeships, or engagement with colleges or industry. There were questions in the House today about the education sector and the Government’s actions on apprenticeships, but it would be helpful to be certain that any actions taken will not have a negative impact on the availability of the necessary skills to ensure that safer homes, in electrical terms, is an achievable and realistic objective.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his broad support for the regulations and their intention, and for his questions. Again, before I address his specific points, I express my gratitude to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point—and, it should be said, to all the organisations and campaigners that have supported them along the way.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, we have absolutely given serious consideration to the ability of registered providers of social housing to implement these requirements. One of the reasons why we are taking a phased approach, as I explained when setting out the purpose of the instrument dealing with emergencies and damp and mould hazards in the first instance, is to ensure that the sector as a whole is able and ready to implement these requirements, and that we can take a “test and learn” approach before extending the hazards in phases two and three.
We also absolutely recognise that placing additional requirements on social landlords brings challenges in terms of costs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the measures that the Government have undertaken, including recently through the spending review, to rebuild the financial capacity of social landlords, so that they can play their full part not only in maximising the delivery of new social homes, but in bringing their existing stock up to standard. He will know that we announced £39 billion at the spending review for a 10-year social and affordable homes programme, but we also took other action, including a 10-year rent settlement and holding a consultation, which is currently out, on a rent convergence mechanism, which will rebuild that capacity and allow social housing providers to make these changes, as well as others that we are bringing forward on quality and decency. He will know that, for example, a modernised decent homes standard is out for consultation, and we have consulted on minimum energy efficiency standards.
On enforcement generally, as I said, Awaab’s law implies terms in all social tenancy agreements. Social landlords will have to meet those requirements when they come into force, and if they do not, tenants can hold their landlords to account. If social landlords fail to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law, tenants will be able to challenge them through the courts for breach of contract. If the court finds that the social landlord is in breach, it will be able to order the landlord to rectify the problem and/or pay compensation. Seeking redress through the courts is not the only way that tenants can challenge their landlords for breaches of Awaab’s law. Tenants may wish to complain directly to their landlord in the first instance. That can then be escalated to the housing ombudsman, which has the power to order landlords to undertake repairs and pay compensation to the tenant—as the Committee will know, the housing ombudsman is a free service for tenants.
Lastly, to answer the shadow Minister’s question about electrical safety—essentially, it was, “Will there be enough electricians to carry out these works?”— I draw his attention to the efforts we are making in various other respects and across Departments to expand and upskill the construction workforce, and to expand the supply of all the construction workforce we need for the built environment more generally, to ensure that we can meet our ambitious targets and all the other quality and safety measures that we are introducing. In relation to these regulations, we work closely with the electrical safety industry—the very people who will be doing the inspections—and with landlords to develop the policy.
To support implementation, we are introducing the regulations through a phased approach, as I have said, with new tenancies coming into scope first and existing tenancies six months later. We will absolutely continue to engage with landlords and encourage them to carry out inspections sooner rather than later, rather than waiting until the date on which the new requirements come into force. I am more than happy to extensively describe the other measures that the Government are taking—albeit perhaps on a different occasion, Mr Vickers—such as the £625 million that the Chancellor has just allocated to bring forward construction workers, or the various industry-led initiatives out there that we are supporting.
To conclude, it is not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained—we all know that from our postbags—or that they often struggle to secure adequate redress. We are taking action today to address this indefensible situation by ensuring that damp and mould hazards and all emergency repairs, whether they relate to damp or mould or any other hazards, are addressed within fixed timescales, and requiring landlords to meet standards of electrical safety. We will drive up the safety and quality of all social homes.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting)
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms McVey. As the Committee knows, when this Government came to power we inherited a prison system in crisis. From January 2023 to September 2024, the adult male prison estate routinely operated at over 99% capacity. Had we exceeded maximum capacity, the consequences would have been unthinkable: with nowhere to put new prisoners, the police would have stopped making arrests and courts would have suspended trials. It could have led to the total breakdown of law and order, with criminals running amok in our streets.
The Government carried out a series of emergency prisoner releases to prevent that disaster. At the same time, we launched the independent sentencing review with one clear goal: to make sure we never again run out of prison places. David Gauke and his expert panel published their recommendations on 22 May and the Government responded the very same day, accepting the majority of them in principle.
One specific area we asked the review to look at was how we tackle the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. They currently account for about 12% of our prison population and cost British taxpayers millions of pounds every year. The Government have made it very clear that foreign nationals should be in no doubt whatever that the law will be enforced, and where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. I am pleased to say that in our first year, we have removed more foreign national offenders than in the previous 12 months or in any other July to July period, but we must go further.
The draft order implements the sentencing review’s recommendations to reduce the minimum period that foreign national offenders have to spend in prison to 30% of the custodial term, and to increase the window in which they can be removed from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation. As the Committee will be aware, the Secretary of State has the power to remove eligible foreign national offenders—those serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be removed from the UK—from prison for the sole purpose of immediate deportation. That is referred to as the early removal scheme. Foreign national offenders serving indeterminate sentences—life sentences and sentences of imprisonment for public protection—are outside the scope of the scheme, and rightly so. Prisoners serving any type of sentence for a terrorism-related offence are also excluded. The power to remove a foreign national offender under the scheme is discretionary, and prison governors can refuse to remove individuals in certain circumstances, for example where there is clear evidence that the prisoner is planning further crime or dealing class A drugs in custody, or there are serious public safety concerns regarding early removal.
Under the current rules, eligible offenders can be removed up to 18 months before the earliest release point of the sentence, provided they have served one half of the requisite custodial period. This statutory instrument amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to four years before the earliest release point of their sentence, subject to having served one third of the requisite custodial period. That means that eligible offenders can be removed from prison earlier.
At current removal rates, we expect that the change will free up approximately 500 prison spaces a year. Not only will that help to safeguard prisons from collapse, with all the risks that poses to the public; it will also prevent taxpayers’ money from being spent to keep foreign nationals in this country any longer than absolutely necessary.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Let me begin by confirming that the Opposition will not be voting against the statutory instrument. We support further reforms to the removal of foreign national offenders from our prisons. It is right that those who have committed crimes here and have no right to remain should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity, both to protect the public and to reduce the pressure on our system.
This measure builds on steps that we took in January of last year to advance the point at which early release can take place, from 12 months from the end of a sentence to 18 months. The order expands the early removal scheme to allow foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences to be removed from prison and deported as early as the later of two points: once they have served one third of their custodial sentence, or when they are four years from their earliest release point. The Government’s own explanatory memorandum for the order confirms that the impact of this change on the prison estate is modest—just 350 to 500 spaces freed up—and those gains will be quickly offset by the forecast growth in the prison population.
Perhaps more telling than what the order does is what it fails to do. First, there is no serious new mechanism for enacting it. Far too many countries simply refuse to take their own nationals back. We in the Opposition have been clear: if a country refuses to accept the return of its own nationals, we should apply visa sanctions, because there must be consequences for countries that are unwilling to co-operate. The Government’s refusal to act on that proves that they are not truly committed to tackling the issue.
Secondly, nothing in the order stops foreign national offenders abusing the Human Rights Act 1998 to block their removal. We all know how that plays out: legal claims made by those abusing the Human Rights Act, appeals, reappeals and endless delays, while taxpayers foot the bill and the dangerous individuals remain in the UK. The Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act from all immigration-related cases, ending the cycle of endless appeals and legal loopholes. We would ensure that if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin or a third country—no excuses, no exceptions and no delays.
Earlier this year, we tabled to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill an amendment calling for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of any offence or charged with immigration offences. Labour had the chance to back firm action, but it chose to reject that. Right now, removal is triggered only if the offender receives a prison sentence of at least one year. Our amendment would have replaced that broken model with a clear principle: if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin. We are not opposed to this order, but let us not pretend that it is a bold step forward. It is a half measure from a Government who refuse to face up to the scale of the challenge.
I will finish by saying that I have enjoyed speaking opposite the Minister over this session and I wish him and his colleagues an enjoyable recess. With all the rumours of a reshuffle, who knows whether we will end up facing each other again?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank the Opposition spokesman for those closing comments. I wish him and his colleagues, you, Ms McVey, and, indeed, all members of the Committee well for the forthcoming recess. I am sure that he was referring to potential reshuffles among the Opposition rather than anywhere else. I am grateful to him for recognising that this Government are going much further than the Government whom he supported did over their 14 years in office. Much as I like him, I do feel that often his contributions to debates such as this are rather like the arsonist turning up at the fire, blaming the fire brigade for the fire and adding more things to the fire while he is there.
The proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 will enable the Government to remove foreign national offenders for the purpose of immediate deportation earlier in their sentence. We are agreed across this House that that is the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the support of all members of the Committee on that. It will help to ease the prison capacity crisis inherited from the last Government, keep the British public safer and ensure that less of their tax money is spent on those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing crime. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Disability Support Cuts
British Steel
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
Government officials continue to work on site in Scunthorpe, supporting British Steel’s management team. Our priorities remain: continuing production, ensuring that critical health and safety issues are being remedied, stabilising operations, and improving the steady state of the business by building additional reserves of the necessary raw materials.
Since my last written ministerial statement on British Steel on 20 June, I have written to several Members in response to further questions. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch has also written to the Constitution Committee, responding to its report on fast-track legislation and the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. Work continues to develop an impact assessment and to bring forward regulations under section 7 of the Act to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a compensation scheme for steel undertakings that have received a notice under the Act.
We recognise the ongoing interest from Members regarding the funding that will be required for the Scunthorpe site. The position remains that all funding will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out by the Government at spring statement 2025.
To date, we have provided approximately £130 million for working capital. This covers items such as raw materials, salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. As previously confirmed, the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26 will reflect the financial support that the Department has given to British Steel.
Work is progressing at pace to develop the optimal policy and strategy approach to the long-term future of British Steel, and we are continuing discussions with Jingye to inform that process.
More broadly, we continue to develop our close partnership with industry and trade unions to revitalise UK steelmaking and secure economic growth. On 14 July, I visited 7 Steel UK in Cardiff, where I chaired a positive and constructive meeting of the Steel Council, alongside the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould) in her role as Minister responsible for public procurement. I travelled on to Port Talbot, where I attended an event at Tata Steel to celebrate the start of the electric arc furnace construction following the Government’s £500 million grant towards Tata’s £1.25 billion transformation project.
Further to our unique and unprecedented legislative intervention in British Steel and our confirmation at spending review of the grant funding for Tata Steel and investment in Sheffield Forgemasters, our recently published industrial strategy has identified steel as a foundational industry. We are creating a better environment for the sector by addressing crucial areas in the run-up to the launch of the steel strategy later this year.
Recent successes for steel following Government backing include:
Energy
We are cutting electricity costs for steel producers by reducing network charges via the supercharger by 90%, up from 60%, as announced in our modern industrial strategy. On Friday 18 July, the Government launched a four-week consultation on their plans to increase the discount—a key step towards implementing the extension as soon as possible. Further detail is provided in the written ministerial statement I made earlier today on the network charging compensation scheme uplift [HCWS869].
We are streamlining grid access for major investment projects, including prioritising those that create high-quality jobs and deliver significant economic benefits, through a new connections accelerator service. New powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently before Parliament, could also allow the Government to reserve grid capacity for strategically important projects, cutting waiting times and unlocking growth in key sectors.
The industrial strategy’s support for sectors such as advanced manufacturing will also increase demand for steel as a foundational product, as demand for lightweight and precision-engineered steel products increases.
Trade
We have strengthened current steel safeguard measures by slowing future increases in spikes of foreign imports, capping certain import levels and tightening country-specific limits, ensuring that UK steel producers will not be undercut while still making sure that the UK has a steady and reliable supply.
We have also announced our intent to launch new laws to expand our powers to respond to unfair trade practices and to guard against global turbulence in critical sectors such as steel, as announced in the trade strategy.
In addition, we have invited steel producers, consumers and stakeholders across the supply chain to shape our future approach to trade measures for steel in a new call for evidence, as we continue to support the UK steel industry against unfair trading practices and to strengthen the UK’s critical supply chains after the expiry of the steel safeguard in June 2026.
Procurement
We have changed Government procurement rules, via the publication of a new steel public procurement notice, to ensure that UK-made steel is considered for all public projects. From 1 September, all in-scope organisations undertaking new relevant steel procurements will be required to consult UK Steel’s digital catalogue prior to making design and procurement decisions. In addition, contracting authorities must consider whether exemptions in buying rules that can support UK steelmakers are applicable. These reforms send a strong message about our commitment to UK Steel—ensuring that it plays a central role in public sector projects, secures jobs and remains at the heart of our national infrastructure ambitions.
Transforming the UK steel sector
The actions I have outlined will have tangible outcomes for the steel industry and for the proud industrial towns and communities who depend on it.
We know that steel is important for delivering on our plan for change—important for delivering on our ambition to put more money into people’s pockets and to realise a new decade of national renewal. The UK steel industry helped to build the modern world, and this Government are taking the decisive steps required to secure its future in Scunthorpe and steelmaking communities across the country.
[HCWS871]
Insolvency Service Annual Plan 2025-26
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The Insolvency Service is the Government agency that delivers public services to those affected by financial distress or failure by providing frameworks to deal with insolvency and the financial misconduct that sometimes accompanies or leads to it.
The Insolvency Service aims to deliver economic confidence through a fair corporate and personal insolvency regime that gives investors and lenders confidence to take the commercial risks necessary to support economic growth. It has a crucial role to play in supporting businesses and individuals in financial difficulty or facing redundancy owing to their employer’s insolvency.
This year, the Insolvency Service has reinforced its commitment to supporting businesses and citizens. It is delivering the Government’s plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth; putting more money in people’s pockets and helping to rebuild Britain; and giving business and investors the certainty, simplicity and stability they need. This will ensure that the UK is a key destination for investment, with a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose and achieves value for money for the taxpayer. In particular, I have asked it to focus on:
Extending its commitment to tackling money laundering, working closely with partners to increase our ability to identify and disrupt illegal activity.
Working towards implementing the insolvency regulatory reforms outlined in the response to the “Future of Insolvency Regulation” consultation.
Launching the new case management system INSSight, enabling it to deliver better services more effectively and efficiently.
Delivering cost reductions to improve the organisation’s efficiency and help deliver value for money.
The Insolvency Service’s annual plan for 2025-26 is published in full on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS862]
Network Charging Compensation Scheme Uplift
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I can today announce to the House that the Government are taking the next step in delivering one of the commitments made in our modern industrial strategy, by beginning a consultation which will seek industry views on increasing the level of relief offered through the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90%. It will also explore doubling the window which businesses have to apply for support through the scheme from one month to two.
In recent years, British energy-intensive industries have faced the steepest industrial electricity prices in Europe, even with existing Government support schemes applied, primarily due to a long-term disparity in network and policy costs. In the modern industrial strategy, the Government identified that high electricity prices remain a significant barrier for growth and investment for critical energy-intensive industries across the UK.
If enacted, the uplift in the NCC scheme will provide over £100 million in additional electricity price relief to key industrial sectors. Around 500 of the UK’s most energy-intensive businesses across sectors such as steel, chemicals, glass and ceramics will see their cost of electricity reduce by an estimated £7 to £10/MWh from 2026, helping to bring them more in line with European competitors.
This measure will reinforce the fact that the UK is a great place to do business. It will help secure jobs and attract new investment into the UK as part of the plan for change. It will protect our foundational manufacturing sectors from the risk of carbon leakage, while helping to unlock investment in dynamic new sectors such as gigafactories, which will be critical to the UK’s future transition to net zero.
[HCWS869]
Republic of Korea: Fifth Round of Free Trade Negotiations
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The fifth round of negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea took place in Seoul between 7 and 11 July 2025.
Total trade between the UK and RoK was worth £15.4 billion in 2024. An upgraded FTA is intended to support further growth in this trade and strengthen our broader relationship with RoK.
An upgraded UK-RoK FTA will help secure and future-proof current goods market access. It will update the agreement in key areas where trade policy has progressed in recent years, including digital and services trade. It will also support co-operation in broader parts of the UK-RoK strategic relationship, with commitments in areas such as supply chains and the environment.
During this round, negotiators made good progress in several areas, including but not limited to:
Rules of origin
Constructive discussions were held covering both the main chapter text and product specific rules for a range of sectors including automotives, textiles and apparel, and food and drink.
Digital trade
A new ambitious digital trade chapter is a key part of these negotiations. Sides held further positive discussions during the round on a range of areas including trade digitalisation and business safeguards.
Services
The two sides continue to hold constructive discussions on further support for trade in services. This includes financial services, professional and business services, and rules relating to the development of domestic regulation.
Other Areas
Positive discussions were held across a range of other areas of the FTA, including sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and trade and sustainable development.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, including protections for the national health service.
The UK and RoK expect to hold further discussions in the autumn. The Government will continue to work towards delivering outcomes in the FTA that secure economic growth for the UK and will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with RoK as they continue to develop.
[HCWS860]
Government of Service
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Ethics and integrity are at the heart of the Government’s approach to public service.
The seven principles of public life are fundamental to everything we do as we return Britain to the service of working people.
The Government have already acted to drive up standards in government. The Prime Minister has published a new, stronger ministerial code. Updated terms of reference ensure the independent adviser on ministerial standards no longer requires the Prime Minister’s consent to initiate an investigation. A new register of Ministers’ gifts and hospitality is now published monthly, aligning more closely with the parliamentary system and providing greater transparency.
Since coming to office, the Government have been giving careful consideration to ensuring the right structures and arrangements are in place for upholding integrity in public life. Today, the Government are announcing a series of further reforms to our ethics and integrity bodies to strengthen standards across the public sector—standards the public rightly expect, and deserve.
Ethics and integrity commission
The Government will be establishing an ethics and integrity commission to strengthen probity in public life, delivering on a key manifesto commitment. Our new commission will sit at the heart of our standards system. It will promote the seven principles of public life; support public bodies developing codes of conduct; enable the sharing of best practice across the public sector, and report to Government on specific areas in need of improvement.
The commission will be established by strengthening and reforming the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The commission will be granted a stronger mandate and an expanded role to promote, oversee and report on the seven principles of public life. This expanded role will include a new obligation to report annually to the Prime Minister on the overall health of our standards system, and a new function of regular engagement with public sector bodies to assist them in the development of clear codes of conduct with effective oversight arrangements. The commission will also play a leadership role in convening the ethics and standards bodies in central Government and Parliament to drive forward the agenda and to identify and address areas of common concern. These new functions will build on the existing role of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to advise the Prime Minister on ethical standards through broad inquiries into topical subjects. The commission will continue to conduct such inquiries, and the Government are also providing a new commitment to respond to all ethics and integrity commission reports in a reasonable timeframe.
This authoritative body and its new mandate will drive up ethical standards across the public sector and take a leading role in helping to put ethics and integrity at the heart of every public sector organisation. The Cabinet Office will work closely with CSPL to finalise its transition into the ethics and integrity commission and publish new terms of reference.
Ministerial severance payments
As part of our mission to restore trust in politics, the Government are also announcing changes to the arrangements by which Ministers receive severance payments. Ministers are currently automatically entitled to a severance payment equivalent to three months’ salary when they leave office for any reason, after any period of time in office. Following a review of ministerial severance pay announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July 2024, the Prime Minister is introducing reforms to ensure severance payments are proportionate and fair.
Under the changes, a new minimum service requirement will be introduced, with Ministers expected to forgo their severance payment if they serve in office for less than six months. If Ministers leave office and are subsequently reappointed to another paid ministerial office within three months, they will be expected to forgo their salary until three months has passed since they left office, in order to avoid Ministers being paid a salary while still in receipt of severance pay.
The ministerial code sets out the high standards expected of all who serve in Government—a Government of service, not entitlement. In the future, if Ministers leave office following a serious breach of the ministerial code, they will be expected to forgo their severance payment. Similarly, if a former Minister is found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules in the period following their departure from office, they will be expected to repay their severance payment.
The business appointment rules
The Government have also been giving careful consideration to the current arrangements by which the business appointment rules are administered. The business appointments system plays an important role in protecting the integrity of Government, ensuring that those who serve in a privileged position within Government do not go on to improperly profit personally from that experience and that their future employers do not gain an unfair advantage through privileged access to Government. As part of this, the provision of authoritative, independent advice to former Ministers and officials remains a particularly important safeguard, but the Government recognise the need to build confidence in this system.
Alongside this work, the Government have been carrying out a comprehensive review of all arm’s length bodies, established with the premise that such bodies will be closed, merged or have their functions brought back into Departments unless their separate existence can be strongly justified.
As a result of these considerations, the Government have decided to close the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and to transfer its function to provide independent advice on the application of the business appointment rules in respect of the most senior civil servants and special advisers to the Civil Service Commission. The commission’s current responsibility for providing independent regulation of fair and open recruitment into the civil service means that it is well suited also to overseeing the arrangements by which departures and post-Government roles for the most senior civil servants are managed under the BARs. Just as the proper application of the civil service recruitment principles helps to protect the integrity of, and trust in, the civil service, so too must the proper application of the business appointment rules at the end of civil servants’ careers in Government. This end-to-end oversight by the commission will also enable talented individuals thinking of a career in the civil service to be clear on the restrictions that may apply at the end of their role. I have asked the First Civil Service Commissioner to report to me, having taken on this function, on any further strengthening of the business appointment rules the commission may recommend to ensure proper standards are applied as people leave the civil service.
ACOBA’s function to provide independent advice in respect of former Ministers will be transferred to the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, who already provides independent advice to the Prime Minister on adherence to the ministerial code and to individual Ministers on the appropriate management of their private interests while in office.
The structural change will be accompanied by wider reforms to strengthen and streamline the system and enhance compliance. As set out above, in the event of a serious breach of the business appointment rules, Ministers will in future be asked to repay any severance payment they have received. To improve the consistency of the application of the rules in Departments, the Civil Service Commission, which already audits Departments for compliance with the civil service recruitment principles, will in the future undertake regular audits of departmental decisions on business appointment applications for grades below the level currently administered by ACOBA. This enhanced sanction and oversight will be underpinned by a more efficient and responsive system, focused on ensuring applicants understand their obligations under the rules.
Together, these changes will give us tougher rules, fewer bodies and clearer lines of accountability. Further information on the ethics and integrity commission and the new business appointment rules process will be published when they become operational on 13 October 2025.
[HCWS870]
Draft Finance Bill 2025-26: Tax Documents
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government are committed to engaging with interested groups when developing and legislating for tax policy, and we are today publishing draft legislation ahead of potential inclusion in the next Finance Bill.
This will allow for technical consultation on the application of tax policy in legislation and provides taxpayers with greater predictability over future tax policy changes. Alongside this, the Government are making announcements in a small number of technical areas of tax policy to ensure the effective maintenance of the tax system.
The final contents of Finance Bill 2025-26 will be decided by the Chancellor at the next Budget. The Government are also publishing a consultation and a number of tax-related summaries of responses to consultations which have already been conducted.
Publication of draft legislation
Closing the tax gap
The Government are determined to close the tax gap and make sure everyone pays the tax they owe. This is fair, essential for a well-functioning economy, and will help to keep taxes on working people as low as possible.
At autumn Budget 2024 and spring statement 2025, the Government announced the biggest ever package of measures to close the tax gap, including those set out below.
Tackling tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market: the Government are publishing draft income tax legislation to make recruitment agencies accountable for pay-as-you-earn on payments to workers supplied via umbrella companies. Where there is no agency, this responsibility falls to the end client. Regulations giving effect to this measure for national insurance contributions purposes will be laid separately. The legislation creates a joint and several liability, allowing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to pursue the agency or end client for payroll taxes that an umbrella company fails to pay on their behalf. This measure will reduce tax non-compliance, raising around £500 million in 2029-30, create a level playing field for compliant businesses, and protect workers from unexpected tax bills.
Enhancing HMRC’s powers, tackling tax advisers facilitating non-compliance: the Government are publishing draft legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of powers that allow HMRC to tackle tax advisers facilitating non-compliance by their clients. This will strengthen HMRC’s powers to collect information from tax advisers, issue penalties where there is evidence of wrongdoing, and publish information about tax advisers where they are subject to sanctions. These measures will help close the tax gap by deterring tax advisers from facilitating non-compliance, and making non-compliant tax advisers responsible for their impact on the tax system.
Modernising and mandating tax adviser registration: the Government are publishing draft legislation which will mandate tax advisers to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards, before being able to interact with HMRC on behalf of clients. The changes will take effect from April 2026.
Closing in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance: the Government are publishing draft legislation for a package of measures to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, whose contrived schemes leave their clients with unexpected tax bills. The package includes new powers for HMRC to focus on those who own or control promoter organisations and strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime.
Charity compliance measures: the Government are publishing draft legislation to change the rules for when donations to charity become tainted and what types of investments are acceptable for charitable tax relief, and changing the rules covering how tax relieved income must be spent for charitable purposes. These measures will support the Government aim of closing the tax gap through strengthening compliance powers to challenge abusive arrangements and poor compliance. They simplify the current tax rules by equalising treatment across all investment types and deal with receipts and expenditure in the hands of the charity. The changes will take effect from April 2026.
The Government will make greater use of data and technology to help individual taxpayers and businesses pay the right tax first time, while making tax digital will help people pay their tax quickly and easily.
Better use of new and improved third-party data to make it easier to pay tax right first time: the Government are publishing draft primary legislation alongside a summary of responses document. This follows the publication at the spring statement of a consultation to make better use of new and improved third-party data to make it easier to get tax right first time.
Making tax digital: the Government are publishing legislation to come into force from April 2026 covering:
Streamlining end of year process for MTD for income tax: draft primary and secondary legislation to streamline the MTD for income tax end of year filing journey. It will require taxpayers using MTD to deliver end of year returns through MTD-compatible software. This delivers a better filing experience for users.
Finalising design of MTD and exempting and deferring certain groups from digital requirements: draft primary and secondary legislation to exempt or defer small groups of taxpayers from MTD for income tax who may face disproportionate barriers to operating MTD or for whom operating MTD for income tax is impracticable. It also makes various minor, technical or policy changes to ensure MTD and penalty reform work as intended.
Lowering the income threshold to £20,000: draft secondary legislation extending MTD for income tax to sole traders and landlords with income over £20,000 from April 2028. This will help ensure more businesses are able to adopt new digital ways of working, supporting their productivity and growth.
Putting the tax system on a fairer and more sustainable footing
At autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced measures to deliver key manifesto commitments, alongside other measures to fix the public finances through a fairer, more sustainable tax system.
The tax treatment of carried interest: the Government are publishing draft legislation to introduce a revised tax regime for carried interest, a form of performance-related reward received by fund managers. This revised tax regime will sit wholly within the income tax framework, with carried interest treated as trading profits and subject to income tax and class 4 national insurance contributions. The changes will take effect from April 2026.
Technical amendments to residence-based tax regime: the Government will bring forward technical fixes to legislation contained in the Finance Act 2025 that replaced the special tax rules relating to domicile. These changes are to ensure that the legislation works as intended. As examples, these technical changes to legislation will include:
Inheritance tax spousal election for non-long term resident spouses: ensuring the election correctly lapses after 10 consecutive years of non-residence have passed;
Section 690: ensuring that the present inclusion of treaty non-residents on a concessionary basis is placed within legislation; and
Temporary repatriation facility: ensuring that the legislation works as intended for offshore income gains and migrating trusts (trusts which were previously settled overseas but are now UK resident).
The Government will set out further details on these amendments in due course.
Inheritance tax, unused pension funds and death benefits: the Government are publishing draft legislation to bring most unused pension funds and death benefits within the value of a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from 6 April 2027. Following technical consultation, and in line with the current treatment of pensions already in the scope of IHT, personal representatives, rather than pension scheme administrators, will be liable to report and pay IHT. All death in service benefits payable from a registered pension scheme, including those in scope of IHT under existing rules, will be excluded from the value of an individual’s estate for IHT purposes. This supports the Government objective to build a fairer tax system by removing distortions which have led to pension schemes being increasingly used and marketed as a tax planning vehicle to transfer wealth, rather than for funding retirement. It also removes inconsistencies in the IHT treatment of different types of pensions.
Inheritance tax, agricultural property relief and business property relief: as announced at autumn Budget 2024, the Government are publishing draft legislation to reform these inheritance tax reliefs from 6 April 2026 to make them fairer and more sustainable. In addition to existing nil-rate bands and exemptions, the current 100% rates of relief will continue for the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property to help protect family businesses and farms. The rate of relief will be 50% thereafter, and in all circumstances for quoted shares designated as “not listed” on the markets of recognised stock exchanges, such as AIM. The changes will take effect from April 2026.
Changes to employee car ownership schemes: the Government are publishing draft legislation which is intended to bring employee car ownership schemes into scope of the benefit in kind rules as company cars. This legislation ensures employees receiving vehicles through these arrangements pay company car tax, ensuring fairness with other taxpayers. The changes will take effect from October 2026.
Maintaining the tax system
The Government are continuing to ensure the tax system operates effectively and delivers on our commitments.
Benefit in kind tax for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: the Government are announcing that if a new emissions standard for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles is introduced in Great Britain, it will help to mitigate the significant increase in benefit in kind tax that would result from higher carbon dioxide emissions figures.
The Department for Transport will, in due course, consult on introducing the Euro 6e emissions standard for cars and vans in Great Britain from April 2026. The standard already applies in Northern Ireland from January 2025. Where the standard applies, this change will significantly increase the BiK tax due on PHEV company cars, which is linked to CO2 emissions.
The Government recognise that while it is right that higher emitting vehicles pay more tax, company cars continue to play an important role supporting our transition towards zero emission vehicles and the decarbonisation of transport. Subject to the consultation outcome, the Government intend to legislate for an easement that will apply UK-wide between April 2026 and April 2028 to help mitigate the benefit in kind tax impact. In Northern Ireland, the easement will also apply retrospectively to January 2025 in order to ensure consistency across the UK.
Private intermittent securities and capital exchange system: following the announcement on 15 May 2025, the Government are publishing draft legislation to allow employers, with their employees’ permission, to amend existing enterprise management incentive and company share option plan contracts to include a PISCES trading event as an exercisable event, without losing the tax advantages the schemes offer.
Trader provided free legislation, inland border facilities: the Government are publishing draft legislative amendments to existing trader provided free legislation. This will mean that all border locations will be responsible for providing and funding their own customs infrastructure. This measure will affect border locations where this infrastructure is currently provided and funded by the Government at inland border facilities.
Land remediation relief: land remediation relief is a 150% corporation tax relief aimed at incentivising the regeneration of brownfield land and reducing the pressure to develop greenfield sites; the Government are today publishing a consultation that seeks views on the design and impact of land remediation relief as part of the Government support for brownfield development.
Technical fixes
We are also publishing legislation to ensure the effective functioning of tax legislation.
Technical updates to pillar 2 rules: the Government are publishing draft legislation to make technical updates to the UK’s pillar 2 rules in response to stakeholder feedback and to maintain consistency with the latest internationally agreed commentary to the OECD model rules.
Application of overseas restriction for research and development expenditure credit: the Government will legislate to ensure that the overseas restriction operates in Northern Ireland as intended. This legislation will apply to claims made on or after 30 October 2024. The changes will take effect from April 2026.
[HCWS875]
HMRC Transformation Roadmap
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At spring statement 2025, the Government committed to publishing a transformation roadmap setting out the future direction of the tax and customs system. Today, the Government deliver on that commitment.
The HMRC transformation roadmap outlines the Government’s vision for a more efficient, modernised, and automated tax and customs system. This will enable HMRC to collect more of the tax that is due, while enabling taxpayers and businesses to focus more on what matters to them—contributing to the Government’s mission in their plan for change to boost economic growth.
The plans laid out in the roadmap will enable everyday tasks, processes and compliance to happen with less effort. This will happen through simplified policies and procedures, the application of new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and the introduction of more digital self-serve options for taxpayers that give them greater control and offer quicker solutions to their queries.
This transformation will also enable HMRC staff to spend more time helping taxpayers who are in vulnerable circumstances, digitally excluded, or have complex tax affairs. It will free up more of their time to support businesses who are seeking greater certainty over their plans for investment and growth.
I have set the Department three clear priorities to drive these changes forward: improving day-today performance and the customer experience; closing the tax gap; and reforming and modernising the tax and customs system. As part of all three priorities, the Government will continue to simplify tax administration to make it easier for taxpayers and their representatives, all while reaffirming HMRC’s charter standards.
HMRC’s transformation roadmap details the actions that HMRC will take to achieve these ministerial priorities and some of the changes that taxpayers and businesses can expect to see. It is informed by insight and feedback from external stakeholders, who will continue to play a key role in supporting and challenging HMRC as it delivers this ambitious package.
Improving day-to-day performance
HMRC’s day-to-day performance depends on the quality of services provided to taxpayers and their agents. These days, most taxpayers want to interact with HMRC digitally, especially for simple tasks. This means HMRC must improve digital services to give taxpayers greater control over their tax affairs and minimise the need for taxpayers to call or write to them.
As such, the roadmap outlines HMRC’s plan for a minimum of 90% of customer interactions to be digital by 2030. HMRC will become digital first, while continuing to support those who need extra help. Taxpayers who are in vulnerable circumstances, digitally excluded, or have complex tax affairs will continue to be able to access support through existing channels, including phonelines.
Closing the tax gap
The Government have funded a significant increase in HMRC’s compliance and debt workforce, including investment for 5,500 new compliance officers and 2,400 debt management officers. Its workforce will have access to improved tools and receive training to identify those at risk of non-compliance and to recover more of the money owed.
For the most stubborn compliance risks, closing the tax gap necessitates changes to process and policy, including digitalisation, use of automation and integration of AI. HMRC will also tackle tax evasion and other offences, increasing the number of annual charging decisions to 600 a year by 2030, with a focus on tackling frauds that are most harmful to taxpayers and the tax and customs system.
Intermediaries such as tax advisers and software providers play a crucial role in administering the tax and customs system, enabling compliance and trust. Taxpayers should have confidence that any intermediary they choose will help them get their tax right, and HMRC will take steps to raise standards in the intermediary market to stop the minority who cause disproportionate harm to the tax system.
Reform and modernisation
Reform and modernisation of HMRC are fundamental to improving day-to-day performance and closing the tax gap. They will ensure HMRC is an agile department, able to adapt to the changing nature of the wider tax and customs system.
To achieve this, HMRC will modernise its IT infra-structure, making use of innovative technology and AI, robust data capabilities—including new legislation to support cross-Government data sharing—and a highly skilled workforce.
HMRC will also modernise the way it delivers change, empowering people throughout the organisation to explore innovative solutions, embedding “test and learn” approaches, and adopting best practice from the private sector.
HMRC is committed to reporting progress against the deliverables in the roadmap, including through its standard reporting. The roadmap includes a list of metrics to demonstrate progress against each of the three priorities. The roadmap will be regularly reviewed and updated as HMRC, in collaboration with external stakeholders, delivers the future of tax and customs administration.
The HMRC transformation roadmap can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-transformation-roadmap
[HCWS868]
War Widows Recognition Payment Scheme: Closure
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I wish to inform the House of the Government’s decision to close the war widows recognition payment scheme on 15 October 2025, in line with the original plan for the scheme to operate for a fixed period of two years.
The war widows recognition payment scheme was introduced on 16 October 2023 to recognise widow(er)s —including civil partners and unmarried cohabiting partners—of service personnel who forfeited their pensions due to a service-attributable death occurring before 2015. From the outset, the scheme was designed as a time-limited initiative to address this specific issue and to acknowledge the sacrifices made by the spouses and partners of those who gave their lives in service to our nation.
Since its launch, the scheme has successfully fulfilled its intended purpose, having awarded almost £21 million since it launched, providing meaningful recognition to those who were eligible. Following an internal review and the drop-off in application numbers, the Government are now proceeding with the planned closure of the scheme, as originally outlined at its inception.
The scheme will remain open for applications until 15 October 2025, after which no new applications will be accepted. All applications received before this date will be processed in accordance with the scheme’s existing guidelines. I strongly encourage those eligible to apply as soon as possible.
Resources will continue to be directed towards other programmes and initiatives that provide comprehensive assistance to veterans, service personnel, their families, and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, the bereaved.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have served in the armed forces and their families for their sacrifices and contributions to our country.
Further details regarding the closure of the scheme and the support available to affected individuals will be published on the Defence Business Services website and communicated directly to stakeholders.
[HCWS866]
STEP Programme Contingent Liability
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute setting out the particulars of a new contingent liability associated with fusion activities relating to the STEP fusion energy programme.
STEP—Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production —is the UK’s flagship fusion programme, which aims to deliver a prototype fusion power plant by the 2040s. STEP will be delivered by UK Industrial Fusion Solutions Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, an executive non-departmental public body. The STEP delivery model requires input from industrial partners—private engineering and construction—to leverage their expertise and capacity. A procurement is currently being undertaken to select these partners.
The provision of a new Government contingent liability would be for liabilities resulting from incidents involving nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion activities relating to the STEP programme. Given the nascency of the fusion sector, there is no existing market provision for such liabilities. Therefore, a Government contingent liability will provide UKAEA, UKIFS and their industrial partners the assurance necessary to undertake work on the programme.
The contingent liability is intended to address the gap in the insurance market and therefore would be constrained in line with insurance that could be expected to be obtained in the private sector to cover liabilities unrelated to nuclear matter or emission of ionising radiation incidents. The contingent liability will be reviewed if there is a material change in Government policy on fusion that significantly alters the nature of the contingent liability. This contingent liability will be remote and uncapped.
The Treasury has approved the proposal, and I have been able to provide the usual notice of 14 parliamentary sitting days before the contingent liability begins to be incurred.
[HCWS876]
Independent Water Commission
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
On 23 October, we asked the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliffe, to undertake the biggest review of the water sector since privatisation. The Independent Water Commission was tasked with producing recommendations to fundamentally transform how our water system works.
We are delighted that today the Independent Water Commission has published its final recommendations. We are grateful to Sir Jon, his officials and all those involved for the outstanding work they have done to review the regulation of our water industry.
The report has clearly set out the ways in which the current system is broken, and is failing the environment, customers and investors.
The Government will now act quickly, turning the page on a broken system with root-and-branch reform to revolutionise the water industry and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
The commission has highlighted the complexity and failure of current water regulation. The current fragmented approach of four separate regulators splits up economic, environmental and regulation of drinking water. This complex web of regulators has led to contradictory and competing priorities.
These regulatory arrangements have failed to deliver for customers, while allowing companies to pay out huge dividends and bonuses.
Subject to consultation this autumn, Ofwat is to be replaced by one single water regulator responsible for the entire water system. The Government will abolish Ofwat and merge its functions with water functions across the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Drinking Water Inspectorate to form a new regulator.
This single powerful regulator will be responsible for the entire water system. It will provide the clarity and direction required for a strong partnership between Government, the sector and investors to attract billions of pounds of new investment. It will have the power to balance different priorities in the national interest, overseeing investment and maintenance and protecting customers from massive bill hikes. It will be responsible for the entire water sector, restoring public faith and investor confidence in our water industry. And it will ensure all forms of pollution are reduced to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
We will work with the existing regulators and the unions to ensure a smooth transition to the single new regulator. Ofwat will remain in place during the transition to the new regulator and we will ensure they provide the right leadership to oversee the current price review and investment plan during that time.
We will work with our colleagues in the Welsh Government to ensure these reforms protect water customers across both England and Wales.
The Government’s full response to the Commission’s recommendations will be outlined later this year through a White Paper, on which we will invite views via a consultation. The proposed reforms will then form the basis of a new water reform Bill which we will introduce early in this Parliament.
We are establishing a new partnership where water companies, investors, communities and the Government will work together to deliver the change we all want to see.
[HCWS865]
ODA 0.7% GNI Target 2024
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and Caribbean, my right hon. Friend Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:
This statement will be made at a later date.
[HCWS874]
Regulation of NHS Managers: Consultation Response
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Ensuring strong and accountable NHS leadership will be critical to delivering our plan for change and building an NHS fit for the future.
We know the important role that high-quality leadership plays in fostering a compassionate and transparent culture within the NHS and we want a healthcare system where staff feel confident to speak up, with a positive and open workplace culture.
The vast majority of NHS managers do an excellent job. They are also responsible for hugely significant decisions that affect patient care, and the Government believe that they should be held to the same high standards of accountability as the healthcare professionals who work in the NHS.
Too often, tragic cases and high-profile reviews have shown repeated instances where leaders have failed to act appropriately and have not been held to account for their actions. The Government are committed to ensuring NHS leadership is transparent and accountable. Today, the Department of Health and Social Care has published its response to the 12-week consultation on options for the regulation of NHS managers. This important development forms part of a programme of work to meet the Government manifesto commitment to introduce professional standards for, and regulation of, NHS managers.
Regulating managers will strengthen their professional accountability by providing a consistent and fair means of addressing concerns about conduct or performance, protecting the public by removing those from the profession whose conduct is unacceptable.
The consultation had a high level of engagement, with 4,924 responses, over 100 of which were from organisations. I would like to put on record my sincere gratitude to everyone who took the time to share their views on this pivotal piece of work.
Having considered these views, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to provide the health and care professions council with the powers to run a statutory barring system for NHS board level leaders and their direct reports so that those who commit serious misconduct or silence whistleblowers will not be able to practise in senior roles in the NHS. We will explore what further steps can be taken so that those barred from working in the NHS are not employed in equivalent roles in social care.
It is equally essential that managers and leaders are supported with the skills they need to deliver transformation in the NHS and that they can access development opportunities that enable them to meet the high standards that will be expected of them. This is why today’s consultation response builds on our wider programme of leadership and management development that will ensure patient, public and professional confidence in NHS leadership and equip the NHS with the leaders needed to deliver our 10-year health plan. This programme of leadership reform, designed to strengthen the capability, confidence and accountability of NHS managers includes the establishment of the college of executive and clinical leadership. As part of our work to develop the college, we will work with stakeholders to consider whether there are forms of accreditation that could be implemented to recognise the professionalism of NHS managers and leaders. This will be complemented by wider work to strengthen NHS leadership, including NHS England’s leadership and management framework, the NHS very senior manager pay framework, and the implementation of General Sir Gordon Messenger’s recommendations to establish a national and regional strategic approach to talent management in the NHS.
The consultation also asked about the introduction of a professional duty of candour for NHS leaders, if leaders should be under a duty to ensure that the existing statutory (organisational) duty is correctly followed in their organisation and about the responsibility of leaders to respond to patient safety concerns.
These issues have been highlighted in previous reviews and inquiries including the 2019 Kark review, the 2024 infected blood inquiry and the Thirlwall inquiry into events at the Countess of Chester hospital. This consultation response reinforces the responsibility of leaders and managers in relation to candour and patient safety. As we implement regulation of managers, take forward recommendations from the IBI and consider the implications of the Cabinet Office’s proposed Hillsborough law, we will consider what further sanctions may be required in relation to failing to uphold the principle of candour.
Next steps
Department officials will prepare draft legislation to provide the HCPC with the powers to implement a statutory disbarring regime for NHS managers. When parliamentary time allows, we intend to bring forward this legislation, which will be subject to a further public consultation. We will continue to engage with stakeholders throughout and we will work closely with NHS England to ensure alignment with the wider work under way to develop and professionalise NHS managers and leaders.
[HCWS873]
Forensic Science Regulator: Appointment
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am today announcing the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator. Following an open competition conducted in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, I have decided to appoint Dr Marc Bailey. He is a highly experienced scientist who brings a wealth of scientific and administrative experience to the role. He has held multiple roles within the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency including as Chief Science, Research and Innovation Officer and Head of Analytical and Biological Sciences. His three-year term of appointment commences on 26 July.
I should like to record the Government’s appreciation of the former Regulator, Gary Pugh OBE, for his contribution towards the regulation of Forensic Science in England and Wales as the first ever statutory Regulator.
[HCWS864]
Events at Orgreave
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
The violent scenes that took place at Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984 were a pivotal moment in the nationwide miners’ strike of 1984-85. In total, 95 picketers were arrested and charged with riot and violent disorder, but all charges were later dropped after evidence was discredited. The events of that day have had a lasting impact on those present and on their families and communities, as well as on the relationship between policing and coalfield communities at that time.
While there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, and to the way that public order is now policed, questions about the specific events of Orgreave have remained unanswered for too long. More than 40 years on, it is time that every individual affected by the events of that day received the answers they deserve.
This Government made a commitment in its manifesto to ensure, through an investigation or inquiry, that the truth about events at Orgreave comes to light. Today, consistent with that promise, I am announcing the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry into the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984.
The right Rev. Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, has agreed to chair the inquiry. He will be supported by a small panel of independent experts who will be appointed in due course.
The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid public understanding of how the violent clashes and injuries caused at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, and the events immediately after, came to pass. It will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, with the appropriate powers to compel the provision of information where necessary.
It will be key for the inquiry to have access to all information which it deems relevant. For that reason, I have recently written to all police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing, and all Government Departments, to ask that all material they hold relating to the events of Orgreave be retained, in order that it can be provided in a timely manner to the inquiry if requested.
Recognising the need for an inquiry to deliver swiftly while avoiding any undue impact on individuals’ wellbeing, I hope the inquiry will look to previous examples of good practice—such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel—to inform its method of delivery.
I am currently in the process of consulting the right Rev. Dr Pete Wilcox on proposed terms of reference, and I have asked him to engage with key stakeholders as part of that process. I will place a final copy of the terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity thereafter.
In line with the Inquiries Act 2005, the direction of the inquiry’s investigations will be a matter for the Chair.
[HCWS855]
Director of Labour Market Enforcement Annual Strategy 2025-26
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Alongside my hon Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets (Justin Madders), I am publishing today the labour market enforcement annual strategy for 2025-26, submitted by the DLME Margaret Beels OBE. The strategy will be available on www.gov.uk.
The Director’s role was created by the Immigration Act 2016 to bring better focus and strategic co-ordination to the enforcement of labour market legislation by the three enforcement bodies which are responsible for state enforcement of specific employment rights:
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS);
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs National Minimum and Living Wage enforcement team (HMRC NMW/NLW team); and
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA).
Under Section 2 of The Act, the Director is required to prepare an annual labour market enforcement strategy, which assesses the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market and sets priorities for future enforcement by the three enforcement bodies and the allocation of resources needed to deliver those priorities. The annual strategy, once approved, is laid before Parliament.
The Director is a statutory office-holder independent from Government, but accountable to the Department for Business and Trade’s Secretary of State and the Home Secretary.
In line with the obligations under the Act, Margaret Beels submitted this strategy for 2025-26 on 31 March 2025.
This strategy continues from the 2024-25 strategy by reinforcing the same four themes to provide an assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance: improving the radar picture; improving focus and effectiveness; engage and support; and better joined-up thinking. The strategy also notes sectors where the risk level has changed and assesses that agriculture, hand car washes, construction and adult social care are the highest risk sectors for non-compliance.
The strategy also includes an additional theme on the Fair Work Agency (FWA) and the opportunities arising from implementing the FWA.
The creation of the FWA is central to this Government’s mission to grow living standards in every part of the UK by the end of this Parliament. It will bring together, in one place, the labour market state enforcement functions and the strategic oversight role currently undertaken by the DLME. This will address current fragmentation and improve accountability and effectiveness. In doing so it will level the playing field for the vast majority of employers who do right by their workers and ensure that those who don’t no longer have the leeway to exploit their workers.
The Government will carefully examine the recommendations emerging both from the strategy and the accompanying engagement with stakeholders, and will take these into account in the formulation of detailed plans for the FWA, as well as ongoing policy development on tackling illegal working and labour market exploitation.
I thank the DLME for her strategy and in particular her commitment to supporting the creation of this important new body.
[HCWS863]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 March 2025 - 31 May 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force—as of 31 May 2025 2 Number of new TPIM notices served—during this period 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens—as of 31 May 2025 2 TPIM notices extended—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices revoked—during the reporting period 1 TPIM notices expired—during reporting period 0 TPIM notices revived—during the reporting period 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices—during the reporting period 1 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused—during the reporting period 0 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation—during the reporting period 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 19, 20 and 22 May 2025.
[HCWS856]
Combating Hatred against Muslims Fund
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
The Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, my noble Friend Lord Khan, has today made the following statement:
In April the Government announced a new fund to provide a comprehensive service to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. The establishment of the fund will contribute to the Government’s commitment to creating safer streets as part of the plan for change, with addressing the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate playing a crucial part in building safer, stronger and more cohesive communities for all.
The grant competition opened on 7 April and closed on 18 May. We received a number of strong applications from organisations that share the Government’s enthusiasm and impatience for tackling anti-Muslim hatred.
We have now concluded the competition process, and I am pleased to announce that we have appointed the British Muslim Trust as our new Government-funded partner.
The British Muslim Trust will establish a multi-channel helpline for reporting anti-Muslim hate crimes and incidents, undertake deep outreach into grassroots and Muslim communities, conduct research to better understand Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, and deliver training and public awareness campaigns to shift perceptions of British Muslims. The British Muslim Trust plans to mobilise and launch its service by the autumn.
The Government will continue to work with communities to confront all kinds of racial and religious hatred, to create a more tolerant and understanding society for everyone.
[HCWS872]
Digital Infrastructure Deployment: Growth
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
The Government are committed to unlocking the barriers to telecoms deployment across the United Kingdom, as outlined in the recently published 10-year infrastructure strategy by HM Treasury. This strategy underscores the vital role that modern infrastructure plays in fostering economic growth, enhancing connectivity, and driving innovation in all regions of the country.
Digital infrastructure underpins growth right across the economy, and is also a powerful contributor to the economy in its own right, with the sector worth an estimated £50 billion to the UK. It supports the adoption of new and emerging technologies including artificial intelligence and enables citizens to participate in modern life. In an increasingly online world, growth in data consumption and increased demands on the UK’s digital infrastructure mean there is an urgent need to support the sector in delivering greater connectivity for local communities and businesses.
We are committed to the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband and 5G networks, with the ultimate goal of enabling businesses, residents, and institutions to access seamless and reliable connectivity. These efforts are essential to building a more competitive, equitable, and digitally connected nation.
To overcome barriers to deployment of gigabit-capable infrastructure in blocks of flats, we will consult on measures by the autumn to create a new right for leaseholders to request a gigabit broadband connection and a duty for freeholders not to unreasonably refuse the request. Working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we would seek to legislate for any resulting measures when parliamentary time allows.
Work is under way to ensure that delays arising from the higher-risk building safety regime are addressed as soon as possible. We are working closely with the telecoms sector to understand the scale of the impact on telecoms deployment specifically, alongside developing appropriate remedies which will support the continued investment and roll-out of 5G and gigabit broadband while upholding the Government’s commitment to building safety.
We will accelerate the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband by tackling barriers to the deployment of underground broadband infrastructure. We have trialled the use of flexi-permits for street works and will see the results of the evaluation in October. Should that demonstrate positive results, we will promptly consult on the necessary legislative changes.
We will consider areas where planning laws and guidance might be changed to facilitate the deployment of mobile masts. To that end, we will publish a call for evidence on permitted development rights as soon as possible. Subject to feedback received, any resulting measures designed to enable faster deployment of telecommunications infrastructure will be implemented as quickly as possible.
We will implement the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 to make it easier and cheaper for digital infrastructure to be deployed. Subject to considering the consultation responses, we intend to finalise sections 61 to 64 of the Act, relating to renewal agreements, by the end of the year.
The 10-year infrastructure strategy represents a bold and ambitious step toward a more connected and thriving United Kingdom. By removing obstacles to telecoms deployment, we are creating the foundations for a brighter future, where digital connectivity transforms lives, drives economic progress, and strengthens communities across the country. We will continue to work closely with the telecoms sector to drive forward infrastructure build.
[HCWS867]
UK Compute Roadmap
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I wish to inform the House of the publication of the “UK Compute Roadmap”, which has been laid before Parliament. The road map follows on from the AI opportunities action plan that was published earlier this year which set out this Government’s vision to harness AI to deliver our plan for change—reshaping every sector of our economy and society, from accelerating NHS diagnoses to strengthening our defence and security.
AI—and the computing power that underpins it—will play a crucial role in driving innovation, productivity and growth. The road map puts forward our long-term approach to delivering the compute infrastructure that will underpin future scientific breakthroughs, industrial competitiveness, and public service delivery. It builds on the UK’s long-standing strengths in research and innovation, our world-class talent and our position as the third largest AI market in the world. We will take bold action in four areas to deliver on this plan:
We will build a modern public compute ecosystem—by investing up to £2 billion to expand the AI Research Resource, delivering a new national supercomputer in Edinburgh and establishing national supercomputing centres, of which Edinburgh will be the first.
We will put compute to use—by introducing a new allocation model that is guided by our national priorities and supporting the most impactful and transformative AI projects, including dedicated access for the new Sovereign AI Unit and the AI Security Institute.
We will facilitate the build-out of cutting-edge AI infra-structure—by delivering AI growth zones across the UK that deliver both national and local benefits.
We will create sovereign, secure and sustainable capabilities—by leveraging AIRR and AIGZs to support domestic suppliers across the AI hardware stack and committing to make compute an opportunity area within sovereign AI.
The road map will ensure that the next great breakthroughs in AI, science and technology come from the UK. Our plan is both ambitious and agile and as the pace of innovation accelerates, we will remain responsive and adapt to seize emerging opportunities. The compute road map positions the UK to shape global markets, attract significant investment, and to deliver transformational outcomes for citizens across the entire country.
Work to deliver this plan is already under way, with the UK’s most powerful AI supercomputer launching last week in Bristol. We will now take this road map forward at pace, building on the momentum already in place and working with people, researchers and businesses across all parts of the UK to unlock the full potential of AI.
[HCWS857]
Automated Passenger Services Permitting Scheme
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I wish to provide the House with an update on steps the Government are taking to progress the implementation of automated passenger services regulations to kick-start economic growth, a top priority in the Government’s plan for change.
The APS permitting regime was created to address complexities of applying current taxi, private hire vehicle and public service vehicle legislation to passenger services that would operate without a driver. This scheme will help facilitate commercial pilots of services with paying passengers and no safety driver to be deployed from spring 2026.
In June, I announced the Government’s intention to accelerate the introduction of APS regulations, subject to the outcome of a consultation launching in summer. Today—21 July 2025—I can announce that the consultation on the draft regulations and wider considerations in respect of the management and use of the permitting scheme has been published. The consultation will run until 28 September 2025.
Through the APS permitting scheme, we intend to provide businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in testing and deploying these innovative services on our streets, reinforcing Great Britain’s position among the world leaders in tech deployment.
Safety, including the safeguarding of passengers, is at the heart of the proposed permitting scheme. Where automated vehicle technology needs approval by Government before it can be used, Government will use comprehensive safety standards that take into account the developing United Nations regulation for automated driving systems.
Government intend that the accessibility of services will be a factor in consideration of whether to grant a permit, alongside a reporting requirement placed on permit holders. Pilot deployments will continue building Government’s understanding of new ways in which accessibility can be achieved through these services. Government will continue to explore the role for research in further understanding how self-driving passenger services can best enable older and disabled people to travel, alongside others with limited or restricted mobility.
Consultation Proposals
The consultation is divided into seven chapters covering a range of matters relevant to the implementation of APS permitting.
These chapters consider the outline of the legislative scheme, necessary guidance regarding the consent process for local licensing authorities and bus franchising authorities, the application process, the variation, suspension and withdrawal of a permit, accessibility, the review process and disclosure of information.
A copy of this publication and associated annexes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS858]
Pensions Commission and State Pension Age Review
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are delivering change for all generations: lifting children out of poverty, providing opportunity through work, and offering security in retirement—with the revival today of the Pensions Commission to look at the long-term future of our pensions system and how it can support the retirement people expect and deserve, and is both fair and sustainable.
The last Labour Government halved pensioner poverty from its mid-1990s peak, with measures like pension credit boosting the incomes of the poorest pensioners. We also achieved major changes for future pensioners with the first Pensions Commission—2002-2006, that set the course for one of the great, public policy successes—ensuring over 10 million more people are benefiting from a workplace pension through automatic enrolment, alongside a fairer, simpler state pension, more generous to those who had done badly in the past, like many women. Twenty years have passed since the first Pensions Commission delivered its final report. It is time to finish the job. That means facing up to the challenges of tomorrow’s pensioners. Almost half the working-age population are not saving anything for their retirement and many who do are not saving enough. The situation is worse for certain groups. Women approaching retirement have half the private pension wealth of men. Only one in five of the self-employed are saving, with participation rates having dropped from 50% in the late 1990s. Automatic enrolment has been a gamechanger for young people between 22 and 29, with 86% of those eligible now pension savers, compared to 35% in 2012. For 18 to 21-year-olds, who just miss out on being eligible, the numbers saving plummet to just 21%.
There has also been a fundamental shift in where risk lies—from employers to individuals—with the move from defined benefit to defined contribution pensions, as well as greater pension freedoms. Rather than having a pension income for life, people now retire with a savings pot and face complex decisions about how to make the most of their pot and ensure it will last through retirement, often without much help.
On top of all these changes, we are an ageing society. By the 2070s, the number of pensioners is expected to have increased by over 50%, whereas the working-age population will have only grown by over 10%—making it even more imperative to help future pensioners put into a savings pot they can rely on in the future.
The Commission we are announcing today builds on the findings of the Pensions Investment Review, which published its final report in May 2025, and the reforms set out in our Pensions Schemes Bill to boost returns on savers’ pension pots and promote productive investment.
I am delighted that the Pensions Commission will be led by Baroness Drake, Sir Ian Cheshire and Professor Nick Pearce who together bring a wealth of public policy experience to such an important area.
Alongside reviving the Pensions Commission, I am also announcing the launch of the next statutory Government review of state pension age. In line with the legislation in section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014, I have asked the Government Actuary to report on adult life in retirement relating to state pension age. I have also appointed Dr Suzy Morrissey to prepare an independent report that will evaluate the factors Government should consider in determining state pension age.
The terms of reference for both the Pensions Commission and Dr Morrissey’s report will be made available today on the www.gov.uk website.
Being retired should be a great joy—when after all your hard work, you finally have the time to do all the things that you love. The fact that we are living longer is something we should celebrate. By reviving the Pensions Commission, and completing the job of building a pensions system fit for the 21st century, I want to ensure everyone can look forward to retirement with hope, not fear.
Attachments can be viewed online: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-07-21/HCWS859/
[HCWS859]
Third British Sign Language Report: 2024-25
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
This Government are committed to ensuring that our communications are accessible and inclusive, and to reducing the barriers deaf people face in their everyday lives. The British Sign Language Act 2022 supports this by creating a greater recognition and understanding of BSL, and requires the Government to report on what Departments listed in the Act have done to promote or facilitate the use of BSL in their communications with the public.
The first report, published in July 2023 under the previous Administration, set out a baseline of activity delivered by Government Departments, highlighting the areas of Government communication that required further improvement. The second report, delayed due to the UK general election, was published in December 2024 and showed that there had been an increase in the use of BSL compared with the first report.
Although the BSL Act requires a report to be published every three years, this Government are committed to increased reporting frequency to ensure we drive progress. The third BSL report, covering the period from 1 May 2024 to 30 April 2025, has now been published. A copy of the third report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
This third report demonstrates an increase in the usage of BSL by Government Departments in public-facing communications since reporting started in 2023. The overall number of new BSL communications produced by Government Departments has not increased since the last reporting period—it was 176 in the second reporting period, falling to 140 in this reporting period—due to a pause in Government activity through the pre-election period in 2024. This still represents an overall increase since the first reporting period, when the overall number was 76. In addition, although they are not counted in the data for the third reporting period, it is important to note that some of the content and publications produced in earlier reporting periods remain valid and are continuing to provide up-to-date information to BSL users. It is also encouraging to see that some Departments have published BSL activity for the first time. However, it is clear that there is still more that can be done.
This year, each ministerial Department has been asked to produce a five-year BSL plan, setting out how it plans to improve the use of BSL within its Department. For many, this includes increasing awareness of BSL across the Department. These plans are published by each Department alongside the third report.
This Government want to ensure that disabled people’s views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Government communications being accessible to deaf and disabled people is essential in supporting us to achieve this goal.
This Government are committed to going further. We will be working with the BSL Advisory Board, with deaf people and their representative organisations, and with Ministers across Government, including our lead Ministers for disability, to continue to make tangible improvements for the deaf community.
We will continue to publish a report on an annual basis up to 2027, going further than the frequency required by the Act. The next report will be published in July 2026.
[HCWS861]