Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 October 2025

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

International Rail Services: Ashford

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. When the channel tunnel first opened in 1994, it was rightly celebrated as a triumph of engineering and ambition. It showed that Britain was open for business, and our communities in Sussex and Kent continued their centuries-old role as gateways to Europe in a new modern form. When the international rail terminal was built two years later, Ashford became a hub of opportunity, with trains running directly to Paris—including to Disneyland—Brussels and beyond. One of my earliest memories when I was about five years old is boarding the Eurostar to France from Ashford International. I loved going on what I then called the “yellow-nosed train” and having a whole continent on our doorstep.

Today, however, Ashford International is a ghost station. During the pandemic, Eurostar decided that its trains would no longer stop at Ashford between London and Paris—or anywhere else for that matter—making the service much less accessible for those of us halfway along the track, like my constituents down on the south coast and the constituents of many other Members who are here with us today. The terminal at Ashford has been completely abandoned. The announcements and signs when people go through the station may still say “international”, but the two international platforms stand completely unused and empty. It was strange to be back in the terminal this summer, with the abandoned check-in desks and the seats wrapped in plastic, but what struck me was that everything is still there—ready to go. It is an absolute no-brainer to get Ashford back into use.

Earlier this year, I, along with many Members in this room from both sides of the House, met the chief executive of Eurostar to stress the importance of her company returning international services to Ashford. I reminded her that Ashford International terminal was opened with significant taxpayer investment, and that Eurostar has not only a business case to return these services, but a moral responsibility to the areas that it promises to serve. Her answers were lacking, and the truth is that Eurostar used covid as an excuse, having run down the service at Ashford International for years before the pandemic, with fewer trains stopping there.

It was clear from our conversation that Eurostar has failed to do any kind of serious business assessment of Ashford’s potential, and it instead prefers to pile passengers into an already-packed St Pancras terminal. Anyone who has taken the train from St Pancras recently can tell us how chaotic the check-in is. Why add more passengers to a terminal that is already stretched to its limits, as Eurostar says it plans to do?

For our constituents in Sussex and Kent, using the Eurostar now takes much longer than it used to, and it costs more. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages have to travel up to St Pancras from Ashford, only to come back down the same line. It is particularly depressing to pass through the deserted terminal just before entering the channel tunnel—sometimes people even see their car that they parked there earlier. A one hour 50 minute journey from Ashford to Paris now takes upwards of four hours for my constituents, and even longer if they are coming from Hastings or Rye. The cost of the journey has doubled, and for some it has tripled or quadrupled, because they have to factor in the cost of an overnight stay in London for an early morning train. It is expensive, it takes longer, and it does not make any sense.

Local residents and businesses also understand that international services from Ashford were more than just a transport link; those services meant a huge amount to our local economy, our connectivity and our identity as a region. Many local businesses in my constituency of Hastings and Rye have raised with me the lost link at Ashford International. One local hotel owner said she has seen fewer guests coming from Europe since losing the link. Another business that trades extensively with Europe finds it harder to do those deals without the clear connection from Ashford. It has a real impact on our local economy. As another local company said to me,

“when the trains stopped, so did a lot of our business.”

The now abandoned terminal was once a gateway between Britain and Europe, full of promise for investment, tourism and stronger ties with our closest European neighbours. It is now a symbol of decline and neglect, leaving tens of millions of taxpayers’ pounds sitting idle. It is communities such as the ones I represent in Hastings, Rye and the villages that have suffered the consequence of that decision. The visitor economy has been slower to recover from the pandemic than in other areas, and the indefinite cut-off from international rail has hit tourism.

We do not have to accept that decline. A recent report by leading think-tank, the Good Growth Foundation, found that reopening the station could bring in an extra half a million visitors a year to Sussex and Kent. That would bring in more than £2.5 billion to our local regional economy over the next five years. It would cut hours off a trip from Hastings to Paris or Paris to Hastings, and provide a massive boost to our region.

The Labour Government are serious about delivering for our area. We are building prosperity in towns and cities that have been starved of investment for too long. The Labour Government will not allow our communities in Sussex and Kent to fall behind any longer. Eurostar should not have a monopoly on this track, which is why I have urged the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to allow rival operators to run on the line. The Government have been clear with potential new operators that this neglect cannot continue, and their willingness to restore services at Ashford will weigh heavily on how the regulator views the decision.

Just this weekend, Italian train operator FS—Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane—publicly affirmed its commitment to reopening Ashford International station, a ringing endorsement of our area and of Britain as a place to invest. Other operators have left the door open to bringing back trains to Ashford International. I urge them to make the same firm public commitment as FS in their plans.

In response to the prospect of competition, Eurostar has argued to the Office of Rail and Road that there is no space in the depot to accommodate other operators. It is clear those objections are less about capacity and more about protecting an unfair monopoly. I urge the regulator to grasp this opportunity for growth; its decision will be a key test of whether regulators can live up to our Labour Government’s call for a pro-growth regulatory regime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate and I wish her well in her campaign. Although this issue obviously does not affect my constituents in Strangford, I am here to offer my support to ensure that she achieves her goals, and I am sure the Minister is standing by to give her the green light. Does she agree that the soaring cost of air travel is a factor precluding many from visiting other cities and towns? Does she also agree it is imperative to have strong rail services to allow people to visit our constituencies and see the historical, retail and environmental beauties they have to offer? That cannot happen without a decent service to all areas, in particular to the hon. Lady’s constituency of Hastings and Rye.

[Helena Dollimore]

I totally agree that having good, international rail travel is important, not just because it is often cheaper and easier, but because it is better for the environment. At a time when we need to consider climate change, we must have more options for people to travel to our closest European neighbours. Since Eurostar stopped the service at Ashford International, many people in our constituencies are not making the journey to St Pancras because it takes too long and costs too much. They are instead driving and taking the channel tunnel, or parking at Gatwick and taking a flight. We know it will be better for the environment to have services restored at Ashford International.

There is also an important point about resilience. The hon. Member said that the issue under discussion might not affect his constituents too much, but actually we are in a time when air travel could be disrupted—we saw the ash cloud interruption a decade ago, which caused huge disruption—and we do need back-up options for travelling internationally. We have recently seen a number of incidents in the channel tunnel in which unexploded world war two bombs have caused massive disruption, and the fact that we have only two places on the line—the Gare du Nord and St Pancras—where passengers can be decanted during major interruptions is a significant risk to the line’s resilience. Opening up Ashford and providing more resilience on the European line would also improve services and resilience for our country.

As I said, I urge the regulator to grasp the opportunity to support ending Eurostar’s monopoly when it makes its decision. That is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we know how much our area has to offer and how much we could gain from the restoration of international service. Thousands of my constituents have signed my petition calling for that vital link to be opened again, and I will keep working with the Labour Government and train operators to push for that to happen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I suggest a time limit of six minutes.

09:41

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate and the work that she has done to bring us all together in Parliament to campaign on this issue. I am of course pleased to speak in favour of the return of international rail services to Ashford International. Many of my constituents have made it clear to me just how much they would like to see the station resume international services. I pay particular tribute to the local organisation, Bexhill Rail Action Group, which has done great work over the past few years to ensure that that remains on the agenda in my constituency.

Ashford International station was a fundamental part of international rail services from the UK mainland to the European continent from 1996 to 2020. Before services were halted in 2020, Ashford International’s typical service was three trains a day to Paris, one train to Brussels, a service to Disneyland Paris four to five days a week and seasonal services to the French Alps and the south of France. Sadly, as the hon. Member outlined, Eurostar announced in 2020 the suspension of services, citing low passenger numbers; and with the additional impact from a reduction in passenger numbers due to covid-19 and the later cited covid-related debt, Eurostar has annually rejected calls for resumption of the services. Yet the present situation is improved. In 2024, Eurostar successfully refinanced its existing €963 million bank debt, and by the end of that year it had reduced its total bank debt to €650 million. Eurostar stated that the successful refinancing was thanks to “strong cash generation” as the business recovered from covid-19, and several new loans and credit lines.

There has also been talk of massive expansion in London. Recently, Eurostar and London St Pancras Highspeed signed a letter of intent to expand services from St Pancras station, with the aim of delivering an uplift of 2,700 passengers per hour in the next three to four years. The long-term aims of that expansion include plans to launch a direct service from London to Germany and Switzerland, adding 50 new trains at a cost of well over £1 billion. That is great news for the UK, but given that scale of investment, why is Ashford International not also playing a role in the network’s expansion?

For my constituents and those living in south-east England more broadly, the resumption of international services to Ashford would mean significantly less money and time spent getting to St Pancras. Bexhill Rail Action Group has provided a great overview of the cost differentials. If international services from Ashford were accessed using Bexhill train station, people would need to pay only £18 for a peak return ticket on Southern railway. In one hour, they would be at the station, exactly where they needed to be to catch the train to Paris or Europe more widely.

In contrast, the current situation means that train tickets to St Pancras can cost £60 to £100 for a return, depending on the time of day. Furthermore, the quickest route to St Pancras means that passengers have to change trains at Ashford on to the High Speed 1 service. That takes them to St Pancras, where they have to double back on themselves, passing through Ashford once again. Hon. Members will understand the frustration for those living in the south-east when the reality of using Eurostar for a day trip to Paris has become so additionally expensive and inconvenient compared with the original options.

Making Sussex and Kent more accessible to Europe would also bring other benefits. My constituency and the surrounding area are home to several important tourist destinations, including Battle abbey, which is as much a part of the history of Europe as of the UK. We have a growing wine and vineyard tourist economy, which again, if it were made more accessible, would benefit local jobs. Currently, a family arriving in the UK from the continent have no choice but to arrive in London. Once there, it is much more difficult for them to travel back out to the tourist economy of the south-east. If there were a service available from Ashford accessing everything the south-east has to offer, including our beaches, towns, vineyards, historical sites and so on, it would be much more convenient for European tourists to travel straight there and would bring great economic benefits to the region.

In 2022, international visitors to the south-east spent £2.3 billion, averaging £639 per visitor. The Good Growth Foundation has provided estimates on the additional income that would come to the south-east should international services be restored. The conservative estimate is that it would bring an additional £126 million in annual visitor spending, but it could be as high as £350 million, depending on the level of services introduced.

The Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has made it clear that the Government support the expansion of international services to more stations, including Ashford. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did a great job of pitching the challenge to the Government to make good on their pledges to increase competition, increase investment in our railways and deliver economic growth. If Eurostar is not willing to expand its network of international stations in the UK, we should encourage and support other operators on that line to do just that.

Whichever way international services are resumed at Ashford, it is clear to me that the benefits would be substantial for the south-east and therefore for the country as a whole. Greater accessibility for local residents to international services through location and costs can only increase the use of those services. Meanwhile, easier access from the continent to all that the south-east has to offer will promote local investment, encourage job creation and boost the regional economy and overall growth. My message is: let us get back on track.

09:46

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. She is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her constituents. I know this issue is important to them and she feels passionately about it. In her excellent speech, she ably demonstrated that the benefits of returning international rail to Ashford International would be shared far beyond my constituency.

Nearly £80 million of taxpayers’ money was spent transforming Ashford International to accommodate international services. As well as developing services to accommodate international travellers, the infrastructure of the station was upgraded, and that included the addition of two new platforms. When international services started calling at Ashford for the first time in January 1996, Ashford became one of the UK’s first true international stations. From there, passengers could travel directly to cities in continental Europe, including Paris, Brussels and Lille. For nearly a quarter of a century, Ashford International saw dozens of daily Eurostar services, making it a vital link for residents and businesses in Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east to get to mainland Europe. Ashford was developed as an international hub and its connectivity was a key factor in attracting businesses.

Substantial investment came to the town and the surrounding area precisely because we had international services, making it easily accessible from mainland Europe. It was also highly convenient for residents, with the regular service from Ashford meaning they could get on a train in the morning, have lunch in Paris and be back home in time for bed.

In early 2020, during the covid pandemic, Eurostar suspended services to Ashford. Since then, people making the same journey have had to travel into London, which not only adds between two and three hours each way to their journey time, but costs considerably more. That decision was taken when travel restrictions were in place and Eurostar faced financial pressures, but more than five years on, those services have not returned. Part of the responsibility for that lies with the decision by the then Conservative and Lib Dem coalition to sell the UK Government’s 40% stake and preference share in Eurostar. That decision, which was driven by austerity, was short-sighted in the extreme and has been hugely detrimental to my constituency and the wider region.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Given what the hon. Gentleman says about the decision to sell off the stake in Eurostar, does he feel that his own party—now very much in government—should reverse it and directly invest in international rail services?

[Sojan Joseph]

I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we are working on. The Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary support the return of international travel to Ashford. We will continue the work, and I hope that this debate will help the Government to support that decision.

For more than five years, the previous Government’s decision has meant that Eurostar’s monopoly on running international services has prevented any movement on restarting services from Ashford. We now have four potential bidders looking to break that monopoly, giving fresh hope that services could return to Ashford. That is why the decision that the Office of Rail and Road will soon make on whether any of those bidders will be able to access the international depot at Temple Mills in east London is so important.

When it comes to a decision, the ORR has a number of duties to consider, including acting to protect railway service users’ interests, acting to promote the use and development of the railway network, and acting to promote competition for the benefit of those who travel on the railway. I am aware that in their letter to the ORR, the Government indicated that they believe that allowing competition will benefit the users of international rail services. I therefore ask the Minister if the Government will give a clear indication that they favour operators that will offer new services on the line, including to and from Ashford International. Will the Department for Transport ensure that the ORR considers the potential for economic growth, and that one of the central criteria is how proposals would serve the economic interests of Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east?

A clear signal that Ashford International will once again welcome international travellers would give a huge economic boost to my constituency and region. It would be warmly welcomed by local businesses, which recognise the opportunity that international services would bring. International services calling once again at Ashford would be key to driving economic growth locally. More businesses would likely locate to the area because they could easily do business with France, Belgium and elsewhere in continental Europe. As they did before, international services would help to attract businesses from mainland Europe that are looking to expand into the UK.

International services stopping at Ashford is much more than a transport issue; it is essential to maximising our region’s economic potential. The absence of services at Ashford has significantly undermined our region’s capacity to attract investment, skilled professionals and tourists. The Rail Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, has been in Ashford twice in recent months to visit the station, and I welcome his support for our campaign to see international services return. The Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and local councils and businesses want those services to return. There is also overwhelming public support.

Four new operators are looking to launch services between the UK and mainland Europe. They include FS Italiane, which confirmed at the weekend that if its bid is successful, it will invest £1 billion in the UK economy—including an innovation hub in Ashford—and will have services calling at the station. We need to seize this excellent opportunity and ensure that Ashford International becomes an international station once again.

09:53

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I can see France from my constituency on a clear day, and yet my constituents cannot get there easily or affordably for work or pleasure. Last week, I was speaking with one of my friends about her plans to go to Paris for the Christmas markets. A quick overnight stay for shopping and fun with a couple of friends was the kind of thing that less than a decade ago people from across Kent and Sussex did easily and affordably. Now it is practically impossible.

That might sound like what is known as a high-quality problem. After all, across the country people are struggling with the cost of living, and holidays, even short ones, are out of reach. But what is particularly galling about the situation in east Kent is that we are close to Europe and yet more cut off than ever. Although we have infrastructure specifically designed to connect us to France, Belgium and beyond, it lies unused and empty—paid for by the taxpayer and left abandoned.

A single ticket from Margate to St Pancras International station early enough in the morning to change to the Eurostar to Paris is £60, and the journey takes almost two hours. That is too expensive and inconvenient, so it stops people being able to do what they would like to. Because Ashford International station remains closed to European services, my constituents are forced to travel into central London, with the high costs that come with that. They do not have the unfortunate experience of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who must literally pass through Ashford—back and forth. However, that drive, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned, is counterproductive for the environment and bad for the capital, as well as for my constituents.

In its expansion plans, Eurostar still refuses to consider reopening international services at Ashford, and £80 million of public infrastructure remains unused and wasted, despite its potential. That means people in Kent and Sussex will continue to miss out on fast, convenient and cheaper connections to Europe, and on the tourism boost they would bring to our coastal towns. Reopening international services at Ashford is about more than just making it easier to go on holiday; it is about driving economic and social revival in deprived parts of the south-east.

Members across Parliament, although not in this Chamber, perhaps think of the south-east as leafy, wealthy places such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. However, there are pockets of acute deprivation across the south-east and, for the most part, they are on the coast. We have so much to offer and so much potential. Margate, for example, is home to a globally recognised art gallery, the Turner Contemporary; Broadstairs has the history of being home to a world-famous author, Charles Dickens; and Ramsgate has the heritage to tell the story of our links to the rest of the world—from the arrival of the Vikings to the Romans and St Augustine, some of the most important and exciting changes to our country have started in Thanet. That has left a rich and vibrant history and a legacy of creativity and ideas that the rest of the world could benefit from, if only they could get there.

[Helena Dollimore]

My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency that the Sutton Trust has ranked one of the lowest for social mobility and opportunity. Does she agree that reopening the link would provide a massive boost to young people and opportunities for them in our area?

[Ms Billington]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite significant investment under a Labour Government in High Speed 1, which benefits my community, it often feels as though many people are still cut off from those opportunities. We need to break down barriers to opportunity, and the restoration of international services at Ashford would do precisely that.

The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, which hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to, highlighted the potential economic benefits of reopening those services. It found that doing so would lead to a £2.5 billion boost to the visitor economy over five years. Making it easier for constituents in East Thanet to visit Europe works both ways; it would also make it much easier for Europeans to visit our wonderful cultural sites, such as the Turner Contemporary gallery or our beautiful beaches.

I recently met VisitBritain, which told me that one of its target markets is France because of the potential tourism we can bring in via Eurostar. The Good Growth Foundation report found that reopening international services at Ashford would cut two hours from the trip from Paris to Thanet. That might not sound like a huge amount of time, but two hours is a big difference when it comes to making sure that people enjoy their holiday. Anything that makes it easier for tourists to visit will help to drive our local economies and revitalise our towns.

This debate is not just about exhorting Eurostar to restore those services; it has clearly made a business decision not to. Instead, it is about using the levers of Government, particularly the Office of Rail and Road, to ensure that future operators must make some commitment. Making sure that regulation drives growth, and particularly that it benefits people who have been left out of economic prosperity by previous decisions, is the role of the active state. Reopening international services is about showing people who feel ignored or let down by politics that Government can improve things—that a Labour Government can improve things—and that the Government recognise the importance of coastal towns and are committed to tackling the issues that blight us. It is time to make Ashford international again.

09:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate. I praise the ambition she has for her region, just as I have for mine. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. He is a good Yorkshire colleague, who I know will absolutely be interested in the ideas I have for our region.

There is growing interest in international rail in this country, with Eurostar exploring direct services to Geneva and Frankfurt and other operators looking to expand in the UK. I welcome recent research from the Good Growth Foundation on the potential of reopening Ashford’s international terminal for unlocking economic opportunity in the south-east, but you will not be surprised to hear, Sir Desmond, that as a proud Yorkshireman I would like my county in this conversation too.

I believe it is time to reimagine the future of rail, where we connect Yorkshire directly with the continent, and York and Leeds act as central hubs in a new European rail corridor. As part of that vision, I propose transformation of the disused High Speed 2 land near Leeds station. That site could one day become a dedicated European train terminal. York, with its rich rail heritage and scalable infrastructure, would then serve as a vital secondary node. This is not just about faster journeys; it is about unlocking economic potential—maybe even 10 years from now. I wrote to Eurostar about that, and I am very disappointed that they were not up for it. There was no foresight about the future spec of their rolling stock—more Eurostasis than Eurostar.

This week I am engaging with other rail operators and writing to them: Virgin Group, Uber-Gemini trains and Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, which I am sure Members will acknowledge is bellissimo in my Yorkshire accent. I have asked them to consider what I call the Leeds to Lille route, because if Eurostar do not do it, maybe another operator will step up to the plate. I am sick of people writing things off as unfeasible or impossible. People said the channel tunnel could never be built. They called it an engineering fantasy, yet 30 years on it is a vital link that has transformed trade and travel. Are we to embrace ambition or defeatism for our country?

Under the Tories, Britain lost its imagination—14 years of incompetence; broken promises; failed infrastructure. We saw Network North’s non-delivery and HS2’s eye-watering costs—and Reform wants to scrap the lot. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has talked of an exciting ambition to link us up with Germany, which is brilliant—that is the leadership we get with a Labour Government. However, it would be great to see rail operators considering the push to parts of the country other than London, whether that is Kent or Yorkshire.

Labour Together and JP Spencer have been talking about mass transit networks across the UK and Europe. Leeds is one of the few cities without one, but that is soon to change thanks to Mayor Tracy Brabin’s trams. That would be an anchor for my humble but bold idea: in 10 or 20 years to have a Leeds to Lille service taking just three and a half hours. York would offer additional capacity to support connections, meaning that villages like Poppleton in my constituency could be five hours from Paris by rail. I want my new-born son Louis—just a few months old now—to grow up in a country that dares to dream big again. A country where, in 20 years, I could take him to Leeds station, stand on a new international platform and wave him off as he sets off for Europe—maybe to study, maybe to chase a dream, but carrying with him the confidence of a nation that believes in building again.

For too long, the north has been forgotten. These plans could act as a bold bridge to continental prosperity. As the MP for York Outer, I know that by running 50 services a week from Leeds to Europe we could bring in 2 million passenger journeys annually. That would supercharge the tourism economy in the north. While Reform would cut Britain off from Europe, the ideas we are talking about today could offer our regions a connected path to renewed prosperity and a gateway to new jobs and thriving towns.

Never forget that Labour developed High Speed 1, Crossrail and Heathrow terminal 5—projects that transformed Britain. Today, it is Labour MPs who are proposing similar ideas again. It is over to the rail operators to engage with all of us, which I hope they can. Together, we can set the wheels turning on a new chapter of British connectivity and transport innovation. Let us lay new international tracks as a nation that refuses to stop moving forward.

10:04

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this important debate, and I agree with every word she said while opening it.

It is also a pleasure to speak on an issue on which there is broad political agreement, with MPs across Kent and the south-east united in saying that after five years, we need international rail services back in our county. It was wonderful to hear Members from other parts of the country also recognising the importance of international rail links. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) who, since we were both elected last year, has done so much to shine a light on the issue, which is vital for the county’s economy and for the wider south-east region.

As has been said, it was more than five years ago, in the midst of the covid pandemic, that Eurostar services halted stops at Ashford and Ebbsfleet, which is in my constituency. Anyone who regularly uses Ebbsfleet International, as I do, will recognise the eerie feeling of a station designed for many more passengers than currently use it, with its substantial car parks largely empty. Ebbsfleet International was purpose-built to serve international trains and, along with Ashford International, it offers easy access to Europe for those living throughout Kent and the Thames estuary. It will also sit at the heart of a brand-new town of 15,000 homes when Ebbsfleet Garden City is completed.

Since the covid pandemic put a stop to the services, there has been an inexplicable reluctance from Eurostar to bring them back. It is welcome that other operators are now interested in running services on the line, which is currently running at only 50% capacity, and they will offer competition to Eurostar. Much will hinge on the Office of Rail and Road as to whether the Temple Mills international depot, currently used by Eurostar, can be opened up to multiple operators. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and a number of other colleagues who are present today, I visited the offices of the ORR to deliver a letter, urging them to open up Temple Mills, bring real competition to that line and accelerate a return of international rail to Kent.

Let us be clear: the return of international rail represents a transformative opportunity for Kent and the wider region. The services running through Ebbsfleet—with perhaps the innovative inclusion of Stratford International as a new departure point, attracting additional ridership from the northern part of the Thames estuary—will significantly enhance connectivity for residents, businesses and visitors. It will also relieve pressure on central London terminals and offer a further, more sustainable alternative to short-haul air travel. Resumption of the service helps support key infrastructure developments, including Ebbsfleet Garden City, the Elizabeth line and Bluewater shopping centre, which is also in my constituency.

We need the delivery of high-quality, competitively priced and frequent services, using newly designed rolling stock. Bringing that together with the new digital platform for seamless ticketing and journey planning, which is currently under development for Dartford and Gravesham, provides a huge opportunity for interconnectivity of these services with local transport options.

The economic, environmental and social case for restoring and expanding international rail links from Kent and east London is substantial and, in my view, unanswerable. The people of Kent, the south-east and the Thames estuary want it; London St Pancras Highspeed, the track operator, supports it; businesses and local government have argued strongly for it; and all the MPs in this room and across the region are desperate to see it.

I look forward to the ORR decision on depot capacity, which I hope will come this month, and following that, to further concrete plans from the interested parties. I also hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s support for international rail returning to Kent, and the importance for the regional economy of the stops at Ebbsfleet and Ashford.

When I travel next month to Strasbourg on the Eurostar to see Crystal Palace play only their second-ever competitive away fixture in Europe, I should be getting on the train at Ebbsfleet, not St Pancras. Please, Government, ORR and train operators: make it happen for my fellow Crystal Palace fans and me in the future.

10:09

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate, which is of huge importance to Kent, Sussex and the country as a whole, and I agree with everything that she has said today.

For years, the departure gate at Ashford International has sat abandoned. Coastal communities such as mine, of Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, have been left wondering why such huge potential has been left gathering dust. As my hon. Friend said, businesses want it open. Businesses in my constituency have told me that tourists from Europe used to come, and that footfall in Folkestone and Hythe has massively reduced since then and not recovered. However, we are a coastal destination, crowned the best place to live in the south-east of England. We host an internationally renowned art festival, the Triennial, which ran for three months this summer. We have miles of beautiful coastline. We are a destination that people want to visit—if only we could create the avenues for them to do so.

The station in the 1990s saw 30 international trips a day, dropping to 12 by 2019, and now sees zero. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) said, the UK did have a 40% stake in Eurostar, which was sold in 2015. The UK thereby lost its seat on the Eurostar board and the ability to influence decisions such as where trains stop. Surprise, surprise: following that, the numbers decreased. It was 12 trips by 2019, so it was not a case of covid being the problem.

At the moment, hundreds of millions of pounds a year could be brought back into the local economy by bringing Ashford International and Ebbsfleet back into service. Journeys that once took under two hours from my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe now take at least double that. Kent’s connection to our European neighbours has been dealt a hammer blow from which we have not recovered.

Ashford International has the potential no longer to be a relic of decline. It can become a symbol of national renewal—a tangible example of new and improved relationships with Europe, driving greater productivity and connectivity for the south-east. Earlier this year, the Labour Government rightly announced their desire to pioneer a new era of European rail connectivity, with the determination to put Britain at the heart of a better-connected continent. That includes the Government’s exciting plans to establish a direct rail link between London and Berlin, and between the UK and Switzerland. Reopening Ashford is the first step towards that vision of a Britain with world-leading infrastructure and improved connections to our largest trading partner.

The report from the Good Growth Foundation clearly explains the enormous economic benefits that reopening international rail services at Ashford would bring to the wider area. The case for doing so is quite clearly, as this debate has shown, unanswerable. The issue is how we get there, which is the matter to which I will now turn.

International trains need to be maintained, and the only place they can currently be maintained is the Temple Mills depot in London. Currently, Eurostar is the only operator allowed to use that depot, but this month the Office of Rail and Road will decide whether to require Eurostar to allow other providers to use it. As others have said, just this week the Italian state-owned Ferrovie dello Stato confirmed its intent to invest £1 billion in our international rail services and to reopen Ashford International if it gets the green light to rival Eurostar. We also know that Virgin Trains is interested in running international rail services to compete with Eurostar. While the decision on Temple Mills is yet to be made, an independent report commissioned by the ORR this year found that the depot would be able to accommodate additional trains for alternative providers, so we have both the space and the providers who want to use Temple Mills.

The next challenge is who will be the provider with a fleet of trains compatible with the systems used on HS1 and the channel tunnel. Just yesterday, FS announced its intention to use its fleet of Frecciarossa 1000 trains if given the green light to operate there. Those trains are compliant with the signalling systems used on HS1 and the channel tunnel, which trainspotters here may note is called the TVM-430 system. Similarly, FS already holds the necessary accreditations for operating on the European continent. Its appetite to serve Ashford is matched by its ability to deliver.

The debate about Ashford International also raises the wider issue of how we can maximise the benefits of high-speed international rail beyond passenger travel. With the channel tunnel operating well below capacity, I am convinced that there must be an increased role for freight alongside increased passenger services. Residents of Folkestone, Hythe, Dover, Ashford and beyond will be acutely aware of the frustrations caused by Operation Brock—a traffic management scheme that too often converts the M20 motorway into a slow-moving, heavy-goods-vehicle lorry park—which increases delays and journey times.

Logistics UK has estimated that Brock costs the UK up to “£250 million a day”. A single freight train on HS1 could replace 70 of those HGVs, greatly reducing air pollution and the amount of traffic on the M20. Let us imagine the tangible effect scaling that up could have on the experiences of road users in east Kent. I will continue to press to shift international freight from road to rail, which is another no-brainer that industry and Government should grasp.

As a country, we must prove to ourselves that we are once more able to deliver large-scale infrastructure projects efficiently and effectively. Recently, rail projects in particular have come to symbolise a state that struggles to deliver bold, radical infrastructure. However, what we are calling for today is neither bold nor radical; the infrastructure already exists and the providers are willing and able to start running international rail services from Ashford.

Local public opinion is clear that Ashford International must be international, and there is strong political support from local MPs and Government. I pay tribute to Lord Hendy, the Minister for Rail, for his steadfast support for restoring international rail services to Ashford and his constant engagement with me and fellow Labour MPs in Kent and Sussex.

Finally, I urge the Office of Rail and Road to make the right decision for the people of Kent and the country, so that we can start to maximise the benefits of this incredible infrastructure, which is just waiting for the political will to bring it back to life.

10:16

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. She, along with nearly everybody in the room, rightly made clear the pride they take in Kent and East Sussex. She rightly highlighted the channel tunnel as an incredible civil engineering achievement—it has been deemed one of the great engineering wonders of the world—and she cited her childhood memories of the formerly direct trains to Disneyland.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) provided some useful detail—which, I must admit, I was not aware of—on Eurostar’s debt refinancing and the progress it has made there. That is very important context, and may be a useful argument for questioning some of Eurostar’s current decisions.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) rightly pointed out that it was previously possible to make day trips to Paris from both Kent and London; it is still possible from London, but from Kent it is much harder. It is interesting to hear that he would support direct Government intervention in international rail, which is something that I hope the Minister will elaborate on further.

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) rightly said that Kent is so close and yet so far from continental Europe. She reminded us, helpfully, that while the south east of England is prosperous on average, it has great pockets of deprivation.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made an attempt, perhaps, to rival the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of interpreting the meaning of Kent. More seriously, he was right to point out that there is enormous potential for directly connecting other parts of the United Kingdom to France and beyond.

Indeed, there were proposals to do exactly that in the 1990s and regional Eurostar trains were even built. Factors such as the rise of budget airlines and the ongoing challenge of needing to have border infrastructure at every station that such trains call at are some of the reasons why that did not happen. However, the hon. Member is right to say that the idea is still pertinent. Perhaps, had HS2 continued towards the north-west and the north-east, it might have been easier.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) rightly reminded us that Ebbsfleet has also been affected by this, with the lack of service at Ebbsfleet International. He reminded us that one of the ideas behind the channel tunnel rail link, HS1 or, as it is now called, London St Pancras Highspeed—who knows what it will be called next?—was not just to reduce journey times between London and Paris and Brussels and reduce congestion on the existing Kent network, but to provide significant economic benefits to the south-east, which are now compromised by the ongoing failure to call there.

The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) was right to highlight the unrealised potential of the channel tunnel and the fact that freight is also being neglected in terms of the original design intentions for the tunnel. The introduction of direct passenger rail services between the UK and France and Belgium, and now the Netherlands too, has brought many benefits. It has made rail dominant in those markets for modal share compared with air, reduced carbon emissions as a result, and brought the three capitals of London, Paris and Brussels closer together. It is a convenient option for many people.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the hon. Member for making the case for international rail. Does he therefore agree with me that it is a great shame that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government sold this country’s 40% stake in Eurostar in 2015, during their time in Government? As a result of that sale, we lost our seat at the table when Eurostar makes decisions about where it will stop. Looking back—I know it was a Government that he was not part of—does he also accept that his party made a mistake and will he apologise to our constituents for selling our country’s shares in Eurostar?

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That was a time of very straitened Government finances, which is something the current Government, of her own party, also have to grapple with, and make unexpected and regrettable decisions—for example, significant national insurance contribution increases for employers.

Both Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International brought benefits to Kent for many years, until 2020. The service was stopped by Eurostar for a range of reasons. Some are to do with Eurostar’s financial difficulties, as has been discussed, but there was also a lack of UK Conservative Government support for Eurostar, which was a choice, as well as Brexit. Both those things were major contributing factors.

It is a matter of regret that, five years on, Eurostar still does not serve Kent. This is unhelpful for tourism and cultural links for Kent, and is a waste of the considerable station infrastructure on the London to the channel high-speed line, which was provided for that specific purpose. More than 81,000 people have signed a petition calling for restoration of the Kent station calls, and a report by the Good Growth Foundation, which has been cited by many hon. Members today, estimates that up to £534 million of benefits per year would result from the restoration of those station calls.

This issue is not just about Ashford, as we have already discussed today. For the vast majority of people in Kent and indeed in East Sussex, it is easier to travel to Ebbsfleet or Ashford to change trains than it is to trek all the way into London, which often requires paying expensive peak fares, as some Members have already mentioned.

Indeed, disquiet about this issue is widespread in the county of Kent. For many decades, we have been familiar with the phenomenon of “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. My friend, who lives in Tunbridge Wells and who pretty much exclusively travels to Europe by train, is very much a modern-day manifestation of that phenomenon, because of this issue.

As well as applying further pressure on Eurostar, I hope that the Minister will explore other ideas to realise the potential of the London Saint Pancras high-speed route to boost Kent’s economy. Those ideas could include a regular passenger train service not just to Lille, Brussels or Paris, but serving Calais-Fréthun, which would realise the potential of more closely linking the economies of Kent and northern France.

In France, the high-speed line to Paris transformed Lille’s economy. Ashford and Kent are yet to benefit in the same way, not least because of some of the border challenges that exist and Eurostar’s decisions not to stop in Kent. However, this transformation can still happen. The Minister can help to restore an international rail service to Ashford by resolving the conundrum around depot capacity for international operators. Although we expect a ruling from the Office of Rail and Road towards the end of this month about who will be granted access to the Temple Mills depot in Stratford, modest state support or investment in a new and larger rolling stock depot somewhere else along the line, and there are plenty of brownfield sites along the line, would help to facilitate private sector investment and competition to Eurostar, which Eurostar’s decision not to service Ebbsfleet and Ashford shows is needed.

I appreciate that the Minister may be somewhat disinclined to listen to me on the case for direct state investment. Perhaps, however, he will listen to the hon. Member for Ashford, which would also reflect the Government’s wider enthusiasm for state ownership of and investment in railways.

The issue that we have been debating this morning is part of a wider story of under-utilisation of the channel tunnel and the accompanying high-speed line. The Liberal Democrats believe that more international rail services would have wider benefits, potentially including a reduction in the number of short-haul flights from Heathrow, which might even reduce the need for a third runway at Heathrow. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

10:24

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

Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition.

As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate.

It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant.

It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers.

It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency.

I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills.

Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that

“the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”

How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.

[Ms Billington]

The case the hon. Member is making may have some valid points, but is he prepared to take responsibility for the fact that the British Government do not have a say in what Eurostar does because a previous Administration—run by the Conservatives with their then allies, the Liberal Democrats—ended up without the British Government having a say in how Eurostar runs itself? That was a failed opportunity to be an enabling state.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.

[Tony Vaughan]

On competition, why did it take a Labour Government to press the Office of Rail and Road to revisit the question of access to Temple Mills, which is key to unlocking competition? Unless other operators use Temple Mills, there is no competition. Why did it take this Government to do that? The hon. Member referred to a debate some years ago after which nothing seemed to happen.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector.

We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs.

The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.

10:32

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the south-east more widely. She argued powerfully that the return of international services goes far beyond the borders of Kent. The East Sussex residents she represents will be grateful for her championing their cause.

The Rail Minister recently had the opportunity to speak at an event at Ashford International, organised by Kent county council and other local stakeholders, and heard clearly the powerful local case for making Ashford and Ebbsfleet gateways to Europe once again. I am glad that we have been able to continue the debate today in a mostly collegiate fashion.

Ashford International and Ebbsfleet International stations, along with the HS1 line, form a vital piece of infrastructure. They connect communities, support tourism and offer a low-carbon route to the continent. The potential of those two stations is clear for all to see, and the Government recognise the importance of capturing it. International rail services bring significant benefits. The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, alluded to by many hon. Members, estimates that restoring those services to Kent could unlock up to £500 million annually for the south-east’s visitor economy. That is a substantial figure, underlining why the issue deserves serious attention.

Passenger demand for international rail has rebounded strongly since the pandemic. Last year, more than 11 million people travelled via international rail, which was an all-time high. This year, once again, record numbers are travelling internationally by rail, with the summer period being the busiest on record, reflecting growing demand for sustainable connections to Europe.

Yet, although demand has continued to rise, we have seen those services contract since the pandemic. The Government are committed to supporting the international rail sector to reach its full potential. Our approach is focused on enabling competition, which the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will be pleased to hear, and on working with industry to unlock growth. Several operators have expressed interest in serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford International. That is encouraging, and my colleague the Rail Minister has invited them to engage with Kent stakeholders to explore viable solutions.

We welcome that new entrants are looking to challenge the status quo. Officials in the Department continue to engage regularly with those prospective new operators, and we believe that competition offers the best prospect for restoring services. It brings innovation, improves passenger experience and has the potential to drive down costs. The Department has made written representations to the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, as part of its access application consultation for depot capacity, to express our support for competition and the benefits it could bring.

We have recently secured agreements with European partners, including Germany and Switzerland, to work together to explore new international routes between our countries, and to address barriers for operators launching those routes. The conversations are promising, and they reflect a shared commitment to sustainable cross-border travel.

However, to deliver on that ambition, we must also address the practical barriers, and multiple hon. Members have recognised that chief among those is depot capacity. Temple Mills depot in London is currently the only facility that is used for international passenger rail maintenance. The independent report commissioned by the regulator found that there is very limited spare capacity, which is a significant constraint on competition. Officials are working closely with industry partners to explore long-term solutions. It will take time, but it is a priority for the Government.

There are also challenges on border safety, and we recognise that they are unique to operating cross-channel rail services. Juxtaposed border and security controls are essential for safety and compliance, but they introduce complexity and cost. The Government stand ready to work with operators and stakeholders to explore pragmatic solutions to re-establishing border controls at Kent stations, balancing affordability for operators while maintaining border security. Officials are also continuing to work closely on the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and Border Force, and my officials stand ready to engage with Kent representatives, potentially as part of a working group, to explore it in further detail.

I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and the villages, who raised the challenges and the opportunities. Those include the challenge of capacity at St Pancras station, but also Eurotunnel’s free capacity. Increased capacity from international stations could help to realise the benefits of that free capacity.

My hon. Friend also spoke powerfully of the exasperation faced by her constituents due to the increased travel time and the lost opportunities for business development, investment and better connections to attract international investment from northern Europe and the rest of the continent. She also spoke powerfully of the more intangible benefits of international rail services, including her personal experience of feeling a connection with the continent and our European partners due to those all-important rail links.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) spoke powerfully about not just his constituents’ ability to access Europe but Europe’s ability to access his constituency, and about the enormous cultural and historical assets it can offer people across the continent. That was a point well made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) asked me to consider how to encourage the ORR to welcome competition. I am pleased to confirm that the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has already undertaken that, and he has strongly outlined to the ORR that the DFT believes that increased competition is fundamental to accessing extra capacity for those services, to unlocking more economic opportunity for Kent, and to our connections into northern Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said that rail services into northern Europe may be a “high-quality problem”, but she ably argued the counterpoint that the existing system, as it stands, holds back access for people who deserve to have affordable access to the European continent for work opportunities, business, tourism and leisure, and to be connected culturally to an area that she can see from her constituency. Having economic equity through our rail services, so that more people can access the benefits they provide, is incredibly important to the Department.

I was pleased to hear the contribution of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke of the possibilities that greater international rail access could achieve for our entire country. It made me think of, back when I were a lad, when I got one of the first ever train services from my home city of Hull to London, and about the effect that had on my feeling of connection to the rest of the country. The possibility of giving those same opportunities, albeit enhanced, to young people from Yorkshire is very exciting.

My hon. Friend referenced Leeds to Lille. What about Harrogate to Hamburg or York to Ypres? The possibilities are endless. I am glad to see his ambition in fighting for God’s own county in these debates. Although there are significant operational challenges to realising some of his ambitions, I would encourage him to continue liaising with the Rail Minister.

[Sojan Joseph]

Does this debate show that it is not just an Ashford or Ebbsfleet issue? That was the presumption in the past, but it is much wider. The whole region benefits from international services returning to Ashford, at the same time as the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address this important matter and grab the opportunity as soon as possible?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.

I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—

[Jerome Mayhew]

Kentish.

[Keir Mather]

Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.

[Jerome Mayhew]

A good Conservative approach.

[Keir Mather]

Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.

[Keir Mather]

Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.

[Ms Billington]

On competition and the former Conservative Government, I remind Members that they were the ones who brought Southeastern, which serves my constituency, into public ownership, because of the failures of the commercial process.

[Keir Mather]

I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom.

The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.

10:46

[Helena Dollimore]

Today we have heard huge support from across the House for restoring international rail services to Ashford. I thank the Minister for the Labour Government’s firm commitment to restoring international trains to Ashford International, which is music to the ears of the constituents we represent. I also congratulate him on speaking from the Dispatch Box in a Westminster Hall debate for the first time, and on doing it so ably.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), with whom I have worked closely on this campaign, about the huge impact that the loss of international trains has had on his constituents and local businesses, as well as the huge impact of bringing those trains back. His area has felt it perhaps most acutely, and we know its importance to his constituents.

We also heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about how, when we discuss the issue and look at Eurostar’s decision, we must not forget that Eurostar ran down the service at Ashford International before the pandemic. He cited some helpful data on the number of trains stopping at Ashford International before the pandemic, and how it had gone down year on year.

If, like me, Members are fans of the TV series “Race Across the World”, they will know that in the first season one of the teams goes to Ashford—I think in 2019—and find, having got there at 5 pm, that the last service has already left. Again, that re-emphasises the point that while Eurostar cites covid as an excuse, if we look at the evidence and data, it does not stack up. It is just an excuse to continue a monopoly.

We heard some helpful remarks from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who pointed out that Eurostar is recovering financially and has massive expansion plans in London. Why does it want to put all its eggs in the London basket, particularly when St Pancras is unsustainably overcrowded at the moment? Again, Eurostar’s excuses simply do not add up; they are all about defending a monopoly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) made a powerful case about the role of the regulator. Together, a group of us went to the regulator to physically hand in the letter from our constituents urging them to pull their finger out and end this monopoly. I join my hon. Friend in calling for that. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is really ambitious for the potential of international rail. Why stop at Ashford; why not go further? That was welcome to hear, as was his emphasis on how this could open up opportunities for his child and for young people in his constituency.

The point about opening up opportunities for young people and broadening horizons, increasing the relationship with our closest European neighbours, is absolutely key. It is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) also made. As we hear our Labour Government talking ambitiously—rightly so —about a youth mobility scheme with the EU, what better time is there to restore this international rail link? My hon. Friend also talked strongly about our arts and creative industries on the south coast. Her constituency, like mine, has a thriving creative industry, which is one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy. Improving those links with Europe would really open that up, as well as the opportunities for tourism.

My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle also mentioned the huge tourism opportunity. He and I share the home of 1066, and we have a massive opportunity coming up next year to increase tourism with the return of the Bayeux tapestry to our region. With all the attention that that will grab, why not use it as an opportunity to encourage more tourists from Europe and France to come and visit the home of the Bayeux tapestry and the home of 1066, and hear about that history and that heritage? There is a massive tourism opportunity here more broadly.

I thank the Government for their firm commitment to restoring international trains to Ashford International. It is a great shame that the Conservative and Lib Dem Government sold our 40% stake in Eurostar, losing our constituents a seat at the table in making decisions. With the work we are doing, I hope that we can continue to keep the pressure up. It is great that we have had cross-party support today for restoring services to Ashford. We have even had support from across the country, as far as Northern Ireland and York. It is really welcome to see that, although I am disappointed that we have seen no Members from Reform or the Green party taking part in today’s debate on a cross-party basis and adding their voices to this call. We know that the issue has huge support from our constituents.

Thousands of my constituents have backed my own campaign; my constituency neighbours have run similar campaigns as well. People really miss that close link with our European neighbours, and we need to see it back. We know it will boost jobs, tourism and opportunities for young people. International rail travel is greener, cheaper and faster. Restoring the service is a complete no-brainer. All the infrastructure is sitting there ready to go at Ashford International. Let us not let it gather more dust; let us bring back international trains. I urge the train operators and the rail regulator to make it happen and bring back international trains to Ashford.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford.

10:51

Sitting suspended.

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for people with postural tachycardia syndrome.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for this opportunity to look at a health issue that is often overlooked, misunderstood and under-resourced within our national health service: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or PoTS for short. It is not a rare disease, yet for too long people living with PoTS have fallen through the cracks of a system that was never designed to recognise or support them. My notes are based on the heartbreaking reality faced by my constituents and the tens of thousands of people across the UK who have PoTS. I must declare, Sir Desmond, that I have had a diagnosis of PoTS since 2012, so some of what I will say is taken from my own experience as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and she said that whenever I ask for an intervention, she will take it, so I thought I would get it done early. I commend her for her dedication and commitment, which I always admire, and I wish her well in this campaign. Does she agree that the nature of PoTS means that it can be difficult to diagnose, which leaves the sufferer feeling unheard and not believed? Does she believe that enhanced research into diagnostic tools would ensure that people get the support they need to live with PoTS, rather than surviving life with it?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I recognise that a lot of hon. Members are here for this debate, more than I have ever seen for a 30-minute debate before. Hopefully, next time I make an application, I might be granted a bit more time. I am happy to take early interventions from colleagues, if anyone wants to make them.

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

My constituent has contacted me about his daughter, who lives with PoTS and faces exhausting weekly travel for costly private IV treatment due to the lack of local NHS provision. They have now found support in York, but it is still far from home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence of national clinical guidelines and clear care pathways leaves too many families in that position, and that the Government should do more to ensure consistent and accessible care for people with PoTS, wherever they live?

[Cat Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will address that point later in my speech.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Health is obviously devolved to Scotland, but this is a UK-wide issue. My constituents Ewan, Robert and Louise are among a group living with PoTS and they too advise of unacceptably lengthy waiting times for a diagnosis—causing many years of untold suffering. Does my hon. Friend agree that greater support for this syndrome is needed right across the UK?

[Cat Smith]

The lack of services across the UK is part of my speech; I look forward to discussing it.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

You are looking as suave as ever, Sir Desmond. On behalf of many of my Gloucestershire residents, I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. She will know that PoTS UK reports that it takes an average of seven years to get a diagnosis, and that half of those people are initially misdiagnosed with a mental health condition. Considering this additional strain on sufferers and families, will she agree that the Government should focus on improving diagnoses as a priority?

[Cat Smith]

I will address that issue in my speech too.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Like others in this room, I have had many constituents ask me to represent them today. One such constituent, Sophie Evans-Carey, has spent the last six months in hospital and just wants to get her life back. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to increase support and services available for PoTS sufferers? The average time for diagnosis is seven years. We need faster diagnoses and proper funding for treatment to enable people such as Sophie to go back to work, and help the economy in the process.

[Cat Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I will take another.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. On the theme of this being a nationwide problem, in Northern Ireland not only does it take seven years for diagnosis, but we do not, it appears, have a single PoTS specialist, which is aggravating the situation. If the Government are to address this issue, they need to address it on a nationwide basis and they need to give it the urgency and funding that it obviously deserves and that to date has been neglected.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. and learned Gentleman has picked up on a theme later in my speech, which I hope he will enjoy.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

A decade ago my constituent Laura Cordell, who has lived with PoTS for 10 years, was rushed to A&E with a dangerously high heart rate. She was later told by a doctor that she had PoTS symptoms, but she was just told to go away and take more salt, with no follow-up or referral. Over the next 10 years she sought help on a number of occasions but was not diagnosed; in the end she had to go private for a diagnosis, which is obviously not an option available to most people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a lot more research and greater awareness of PoTS, particularly among frontline medical professionals such as GPs, who are often the first port of call for our constituents?

[Cat Smith]

I very much agree.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising awareness of this very important condition. It is, as always, an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am here because, like everyone else, I have had several of my constituents raise the problem of diagnosis taking far too long, the crippling impact that this condition can have on their lives and the difficulty that they face in accessing healthcare. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sport and physical activity, I particularly want to raise the impact that PoTS has on people’s ability to continue to play the sport that they love. It may be that, because they are not being diagnosed, they think it is something that will impact their ability to continue their ordinary, everyday life. It is not right that diagnosis takes on average seven years. We must put more effort into and more emphasis on diagnosis and treatment.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be shorter.

[Cat Smith]

That intervention was an important one; sport was not included in my speech, but as someone who has PoTS and has run three London marathons, I can say that people can have PoTS and be sporty—it is just a lot harder.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

I am really grateful for this debate. Dr Gupta is a leading specialist in PoTS but, although he knows the physiological changes that take place and he knows how to treat it, he has been stopped in his practice because we do not have the clinical guidelines in place. The Government must now ensure that that happens, so that he can continue his practice, which he knows has an impact on patients—indeed, they recover well.

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely. Those clinical guidelines need to change, and I will address that later in my speech.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

I share my constituents’ concerns about the average time for diagnosis of PoTS; seven years is simply too long, and it is unacceptable—and that is in Scotland too. Given the limited awareness of postural tachycardia syndrome among healthcare professionals, does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of one dedicated care pathway across all health boards, including the devolved nations, would help to improve early recognition, streamline referrals and ensure that patients receive timely and appropriate care?

[Cat Smith]

I very much agree.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. One of my Aylesbury constituents has become a full-time carer for her 25-year-old son, who is affected by PoTS; he developed it at university, had to drop out and now is unable to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that we know that PoTS is most likely to develop in young adulthood, we need a particular focus on that age group as we think about increasing recognition, diagnosis and treatment of PoTS?

[Cat Smith]

I very much agree.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her knee exercises this morning in giving way to us all. May I give voice to my constituent Eva from Newcastle-under-Lyme? She has been in touch with me after I met her at a coffee morning recently. Her concerns are on early diagnosis, access to services and the fact that she is stuck on a waiting list down here in London and has been for a very long time indeed. The situation simply is not good enough, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what action we will see—and sooner rather than later.

[Cat Smith]

There is a particular crisis in London, which I will address later in my speech and which my hon. Friend might be very interested in.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time in giving way. As we can see from today’s debate, this is not a rare condition. Maybe some people think that it is rare, but it affects many people, including Helen, who lives in Roberttown in my constituency. She was repeatedly misdiagnosed and has faced years of delays and fragmented care. I echo the calls from colleagues for clear NHS pathways, joined-up care and access to specialist support in every region, and that we should not underestimate the impact that PoTS can have on people’s mental health.

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely; that is a very good point. When someone is not believed by medical professionals for so long, it can affect their mental health—I recognise that.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Some reports suggest that 50% of PoTS cases have been misdiagnosed as mental health conditions, adding pressure on the individuals themselves and on mental health services. Does she agree that there needs to be more support for people with PoTS?

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I very much agree with him.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. My constituent Julie told me about her adult daughter, who has myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, and believes she also has PoTS. After struggling to find a specialist, Julie’s daughter finally got a GP referral to a consultant in Bristol, who said that PoTS was “a TikTok fashion” and refused her any testing. She had spent ages travelling and had a long wait, it was quite an effort to get around the building, and she was bed-bound for weeks as a result of the experience. That terribly dismissive approach left her unable to believe that she could try to get any other help, and I understand that that is not uncommon. What steps might be taken to ensure that people with complex, debilitating conditions can access informed and supportive specialist assessments?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I will address those points in my speech if there are no further interventions. One of the most difficult things for someone with PoTS is to have to sit and stand up repeatedly, so hopefully I will get to the end of my speech.

Colleagues have been really helpful in highlighting that the average time taken for diagnosis is seven years. Indeed, the fight for a diagnosis is one of the first and the longest fights that a sufferer of PoTS will have to go through in order to begin to consider accessing services, although that is a different matter altogether.

During that devastating period, where sufferers have huge uncertainty about whether or not everything is all in their head or they really are fainting and feeling dizzy, they struggle to access any support and are often disbelieved. That leads to many sufferers of PoTS having to drop out of education, losing employment and withdrawing from social settings, which also has an impact on mental health, as hon. Friends have mentioned.

I do not believe that that is because doctors do not care; I think it is because awareness of PoTS remains astonishingly low within the medical profession. Most GPs will never have encountered the term in their training, and even among cardiologists and neurologists expertise in autonomic disorders is scarce. As a result, patients often find themselves being referred to different specialists, bouncing from cardiology through neurology to endocrinology and psychiatry, without there being any one clinician to join up the dots and provide the diagnosis.

The crisis in accessing specialist services has been brutally highlighted this week: we have learned that in London a major teaching hospital clinic has closed its doors to new PoTS patients and a second has reduced its capacity, so that it will see only local patients. All the rejected referrals are now being forwarded to a third London clinic, which is already totally overwhelmed and has a two-year waiting list. Those referrals will put extra pressure on that clinic and leave patients in the south-east without any access whatsoever to healthcare pathways.

This is blatantly a postcode lottery, whereby someone’s access to diagnosis and care depends entirely on where they live. This situation is summed up in an email that I received from a woman last week:

“I would like to note that I got involved with this as I am still unable to get a formal diagnosis of PoTS while suffering the symptoms, as the only specialist we had in Plymouth retired and my GP said they were currently unaware of where to send me for help. Please. I am begging. Please help.”

That is the desperation that many people experience: they can recognise their symptoms, they can use the internet and are quite confident that their symptoms match those of PoTS, but they have no way to get a diagnosis and then to access support.

The crisis has been made even more urgent by a recent surge in PoTS cases associated with long covid. Clinics that were already stretched thin are now being overwhelmed by more referrals, which is adding further pressure to a system that was already struggling to cope pre-covid.

Ultimately, these challenges point to a systemic gap, which is a lack of clinical understanding of the autonomic system. That system sits awkwardly between medical disciplines and is often overlooked in medical education. Until that changes, thousands of people with PoTS will continue to fall through the cracks—dismissed, misdiagnosed and left without the support they need to live well with a complex and chronic condition. The challenges I have described are not simply matters of medical complexity; they are also matters of policy and system design. People with PoTS are not falling through the cracks by accident. They are falling through because the system was never built to recognise or support them.

PoTS predominantly affects women, which contributes significantly to the fact that it takes seven years to be diagnosed. The delay in diagnosis of PoTS is a stark example of a concerning gender health gap in the UK, where many women receive poorer healthcare than men. I welcome the Government’s 10-year plan, but have serious questions for the Minister about its ability to help the PoTS community. It focuses heavily on prevention rather than diagnosis, yet that is not a coherent strategy for chronic multi-system conditions, such as PoTS, which often have genetic or variable causes. The NHS cannot focus just on prevention; there also needs to be adequate access to diagnosis and ongoing aftercare for chronically ill patients, such as those with PoTS, when there is currently no cure. We need an explicit commitment on the Government’s plan to overhaul education and training curricula to create 1,000 new speciality training posts. Although those changes are welcome, will they include dedicated education and training on PoTS for frontline clinicians, and will the new posts include specialists in autonomic disorders?

Finally, with the plan’s commitment to health data research service investment and making wearables standard in chronic care, I ask the Minister whether that investment will include dedicated research into PoTS. Will PoTS patients be explicitly included in the initiative to provide wearables, which are vital for monitoring a heart-rate driven condition? It is clear we need change and a clear co-ordinated strategy that brings together awareness, research, clinical care and social care.

My ask of the Government is clear, but it is fivefold. First, we need national guidelines, ideally from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, to provide the evidence-based framework that clinicians, including our overstretched GPs, need to diagnose and treat the condition. Secondly, the Government must require and ensure that commissioning bodies and integrated care boards execute their statutory duties to understand the prevalence of PoTS in their communities and provide for the needs of those patients. Thirdly, we need to ensure that every ICB has a clinical pathway and that all patients requiring secondary care have access to a high-quality service regionally and not just in central London—ultimately, the postcode lottery must end.

Fourthly, we must fully support existing specialist services, which are currently overwhelmed and under threat from closure by hospital management. That includes immediately intervening in the London crisis and protecting every single specialist across the country. Health is devolved in some countries of the United Kingdom, so that is more challenging, but this is a UK-wide issue—although I recognise that the Minister is responsible only for England. Finally, I ask the Government to make PoTS and related disorders a health and social care priority to ensure that affected people have equitable access to the NHS healthcare and social support that they deserve.

We have an opportunity to fix a long-standing wrong. We must not allow the thousands suffering with PoTS to remain invisible any longer. I thank hon. Members for coming out in numbers that I did not expect to support this 30-minute Westminster Hall debate; I hope that demonstrates to the Minister the strength of feeling across the country. All our constituencies have many people suffering from PoTS who are struggling to get diagnoses or to access services, and ICBs are letting down people with PoTS right across these islands. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to take decisive action and set out how the Government are going to take people with PoTS seriously and ensure that they are no longer invisible.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for bringing forward this important issue.

This place is vastly enriched by our experiences, and it is nothing short of inspiring how my hon. Friend’s diagnosis has led her to become a passionate advocate for the PoTS community, raising awareness and holding the Government to account. I thank her for sharing her story and Elise’s case with me. I assure my hon. Friend and Elise that tackling health inequalities is my No. 1 priority as the Minister for Public Health and Prevention.

I also thank many hon. Members for their interventions and for sharing their constituents’ stories. Given this short debate, there is not time to respond to each intervention—I will not even attempt to do so—but I assure hon. Members that their points have been noted and that their presence today is testament to the importance of the issue for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I recognise that people with PoTS wake up and confront every day through sheer willpower, and that showering, cooking and walking to the corner shop each become small expeditions that need endless rest and planning. We are determined to help improve their lives.

Postural tachycardia syndrome, more commonly known as PoTS, is not a rare condition. It affects around 120,000 people in the UK. It is a debilitating, multi-system disorder that can significantly impact someone’s quality of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre points out, the path to a PoTS diagnosis is often a long and arduous one, filled with frustration and misdiagnosis as patients fight to be heard. Even after a diagnosis is made, patients may struggle to access the services that they need due to a lack of specialist care and limited understanding among health professionals. That results in long delays in treatment, often leaving those affected unable to work or live their lives.

I turn to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, starting with guidance. For too long, patients have faced systemic barriers to care and an unacceptable postcode lottery for support. It cannot be right that in modern Britain, where someone happens to be born determines the care that they receive. She rightly points out that that inequality is rooted in the lack of clear national guidance for healthcare professionals. Without guidance from bodies such as NICE, clinicians often lack the confidence and know-how to identify and manage this complex condition effectively.

There are some reasons for the difficulty in providing such guidance, including the amount of available evidence, the fact that PoTS is often managed with lifestyle changes, and the overlap with other conditions such as long covid and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, which can bring similar debilitating symptoms. All those issues can make the development of clearcut guidelines challenging. However, in its clinical knowledge summary on blackouts and syncope, NICE sets out in black and white a clear definition of PoTS with the right tests to diagnose it, and symptom-based management. NICE has also published guidance that mentions PoTS in relation to other conditions, such as its guideline on ME/CFS, which acknowledges the overlap between these syndromes. Several other organisations, including PoTS UK and the international Heart Rhythm Society, provide information too.

Services for long-term conditions such as PoTS are commissioned locally through integrated care boards. That approach gives local clinicians the flexibility that they need to tailor services to the specific needs of their communities. Providing a PoTS specialist service is a fundamental part of the ICBs’ statutory role in planning and delivering health to the people they serve, and when an ICB fails to meet its statutory functions, NHS England has a range of proportionate enforcement powers. Let me be clear: we expect NHS England to hold ICBs to account by demanding that they provide clear assurance on how they are meeting their responsibilities, and where they are failing people with PoTS—let me say this very clearly, publicly, now—we expect them to rectify it.

[Cat Smith]

On the point about ICBs, many have zero options in terms of pathways. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that they are forced to do that by NHS England? I thank her for her comments.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As we know, guidelines are only as strong as the evidence and research that they are based on. We need systematic, robust data to determine which treatments and interventions are most effective.

While we are backing our life sciences sector to come up with tomorrow’s treatments for long-term conditions, we are also directly funding research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The NIHR is currently backing a study, known as the LOCOMOTION study, with more than £3 million to examine the connection between long covid and autonomic nervous system disorders, especially PoTS. The NIHR funds research proposals through open competition, based on their scientific quality, value for money and impact on patients. The NIHR welcomes research proposals, and I appeal to any researchers to apply with proposals for PoTS-related research that this Government could fund. We want to see proposals and fund those that can be brought forward. Those researchers’ work could be life-changing for thousands of people across our country.

Locally developed care pathways are clearly important for supporting people with PoTS, because they help to address the condition’s unique challenges.

[Rachael Maskell]

There are very few PoTS specialists across the country. Will the Minister meet those specialists to hear why they are facing barriers, and work with them to ensure that they can practise the medicine they know works?

[Ashley Dalton]

The hon. Member pre-empts the end of my speech, where I was going to say that I would be more than happy to meet specialists in this area to discuss how we can move forward. It is important that today’s debate is the beginning of our conversation, not the end of it.

The Government are focused on standardising and co-ordinating care across different settings so that local pathways can address systemic challenges, especially the inconsistent referrals that many people with PoTS face, as has been raised today.

[Cameron Thomas]

Between young people unable to finish education and adults unable to cope with the strains of the workplace, the economic impact of PoTS is undeniable. The Minister speaks clearly about the pressure her Department will put on NHS England, but will she also put pressure on the Treasury with regards to its economic obligations?

[Ashley Dalton]

As the hon. Member is probably aware, the Government are working hard to develop policies to support people, particularly people with health conditions, into work. These issues are being raised through the “Get Britain Working” plan, which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions are bringing forward. Working to support people with any long-term health condition, including PoTS, is a crucial part of the Government’s effort to improve the economy and get Britain working. The hon. Member’s comments are noted.

We are determined to improve patient outcomes and ensure more tailored and efficient care that acknowledges the complexity of PoTS, beyond just a single specialty. The Government’s 10-year plan for health not only deals with prevention, but offers potential for people with PoTS through the increased focus on community-based rather than hospital care, through the better integration of services, and through our analogue to digital shift and improvement of digital tools. Given that PoTS is frequently co-morbid with ME/CFS, the final delivery plan for ME/CFS, which the Government published this summer, will have a positive impact for many PoTS patients too.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for securing the debate. As I said, I hope that this is the beginning of our conversation, and that we can continue to discuss how we can ensure we are delivering for people with PoTS as we work towards building an NHS that is fit for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences. The criminal courts of England and Wales are under very significant strain. That is translating to very long delays from early hearings in criminal cases to the hearing of trials. I was at my local Crown court a couple of weeks ago and the delay there was at least 18 months. It is as bad or worse elsewhere.

That delay is not just an administrative problem; it has real, human consequences. It means a longer wait before a victim of crime or a witness in criminal proceedings can see the case resolved and move on with their lives. Of course, the longer it takes to get to trial, the harder it is to remember detail and to give the best evidence possible. For a defendant—and it is worth recalling that not every defendant is found guilty—the case continues to hang over their head along with, in some cases, the threat of potentially losing their liberty. A defendant in custody awaiting trial adds to the pressure on the prison population for longer than they should if the eventual outcome of their trial is acquittal or a non-custodial sentence. We can see that in the statistics: remand prisoners made up 11% of the prison population in 2018 but that figure was up to 20% in 2024.

There are other consequences of long periods on remand. Remand prisoners are not convicted so no work is done on their rehabilitation in prison. Time spent on remand counts towards an eventual prison sentence but spending longer on remand means a greater proportion of the eventual sentence—in some cases, the majority of the sentence that is ultimately handed down—is served without any rehabilitative work being done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Substantial periods on remand also mean that there are more cases where a custodial sentence is imposed at the end of it but the whole sentence has already been served on remand, so the offender is released immediately after the trial. That can be hard to understand and accept for victims and the public, who have to watch that offender walk free from court despite their conviction.

Long delays in the criminal courts should worry us all. They certainly worry the Government, who have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, a very senior and experienced judge, to review the operation of the criminal courts and recommend improvements. Part 1 of his review was published on 18 June and deals with the policy changes that he believes may improve the situation. I have no doubt that Ministers will have been considering those recommendations carefully and will take up some or all of them, but we in Parliament should consider them carefully too. That is why I sought this debate.

I have worked with Sir Brian in a variety of roles and have huge respect for his insight and judgment. The report that he published is 378 pages long; I cannot do justice to all of it in this debate—you will be grateful to hear, Mr Efford—but I do want to say something about his analysis of the problem and some of his solutions.

First, I will discuss the problem and the reasons for it. Those interested only in political attack lines will always be able to find them, but this issue deserves deeper analysis. Of course more resources will be important, and Sir Brian makes that clear, but previous reductions in funding can be at least partly explained by periods of reduced demand. The number of cases received by the Crown courts fell, for example, during the nine years I was in government from 150,000 in 2010 to 102,000 in 2019. The open caseload, which is the number of cases begun in the Crown court but not yet completed, fell from 55,000 in 2014 to 33,000 in 2018, but it has increased significantly since, standing at a historical high of 75,000 in 2024. As Sir Brian set out in his review, there are many reasons for that.

It is true that the system has not yet entirely recovered from the covid pandemic, but the other reasons are more structural. Central among them is that the type of cases being heard matters as much as the overall number of cases. The criminal courts are now hearing a greater proportion of cases involving sexual offences or fraud, which are more complex and take longer to resolve, so the length of the average Crown court trial has doubled between 2001 and 2024. The complexity of trials has also been increased by the greater volume of digital evidence, including from mobile phones.

All of that leads Sir Brian to conclude that we cannot go on as we are, and I think he is right. We all know how difficult it will be for the Government to find significant extra resource for the criminal court system. Even if they could, it would not be enough to address the very different workload and ways of working that the system now deals with so, as Sir Brian urges us, we should look at structural change. As I said at the outset, his review makes many recommendations that I do not have time to discuss, but I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, will look carefully at his proposals to end release under investigation instead of bail, which I think is sensible, and the increased standardisation of out-of-court disposals.

I want to focus on Sir Brian’s recommendations in three areas. The first is how we can encourage guilty pleas, where they are appropriate, to be entered earlier. If a guilty plea is how a criminal case should and will be resolved, the earlier it is given the more quickly victims and witnesses can be reassured that they will not need to relive their experiences by giving evidence, and the more quickly valuable and scarce court time can be allocated to other cases, so that is a change worth pursuing.

Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know that there is only so much we can do to persuade a guilty defendant to plead guilty—some will always hold out until the day of the trial in the hope that the witnesses against them fail to turn up; I am afraid that delays in hearing the trial make that more likely—but Sir Brian makes three recommendations in particular that might help. Those recommendations are that the discount on sentence for an early guilty plea should be increased from one third to 40%; judges should give defendants more information on what their sentence may be if a guilty plea is forthcoming; and the plea hearing should be delayed to allow defendants to receive fuller advice before entering a plea. I suspect that the first two will receive the most attention, but I believe the third may have the most effect.

Making sure that defendants know how much shorter their sentence may be if they plead guilty rather than are found guilty, and increasing that difference with bigger discounts for early guilty pleas, may well change some minds, but must not and is not intended to constitute inappropriate pressure to plead guilty when not guilty. Defence advocates, of course, have a clear professional duty to advise their clients not to plead guilty if they do not accept their guilt, but discussions between defendants and their advocates about the evidence and the law are very often constrained because they happen only at court on the morning of the trial. It is often that that truly restricts the prospects of realistic pleas at an earlier stage, so allowing more time for that advice to be given is vital.

Such advice has to be accompanied, though, by changes that will make it more likely for that extra time to be productively used. If, as I hope they will be, the Government are attracted to the idea of delaying plea hearings for that purpose, it will also be important to ensure that advocates are properly incentivised, including through fee structures, to conduct conferences with their clients in advance of the plea hearing. Where the client is in custody, allowing access to the client—preferably in person, but via video link if not—must also be made easier than it is now, or appropriate advice will not be delivered early so that appropriate pleas can be delivered early.

It is also worth saying again—these points have been made many times by many people, as the Minister knows—that early advice on the prosecution case and the available defences cannot be given if the prosecution evidence has not been served on the defence in time to allow it to be properly considered. Late disclosure by the prosecution remains a fundamental problem, as does the timely production of defendants in custody at court.

The second area of Sir Brian’s review I want to focus on is the proposed rebalancing of work between the Crown court and the magistrates court. It is important to recognise that, as Sir Brian points out, the bulk of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates already—around 90%, in fact, with only 1% of criminal cases being resolved by jury trial. Nevertheless, because a magistrates court trial is both quicker and cheaper than a jury trial in the Crown court, it makes sense in resource terms to shift the balance further in the direction of magistrates where there would be no injustice in doing so.

Sir Brian suggests that that can be done in a number of ways. Some are fairly straightforward: for example, we could increase the financial threshold for trials of criminal damage cases in the magistrates court from £5,000 to £10,000. Of perhaps more significance from a policy perspective is the suggestion of removing the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court and replacing it with a permission to appeal process, and that of removing the right to choose a jury trial altogether for offences with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. In the circumstances, I have no substantive objection to any of those proposals, but in relation to the last of them, I invite Ministers to consider the discrepancy it would create between, on the one hand, trials of offences for which sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment could be imposed taking place in magistrates courts and, on the other, sentencing powers for magistrates remaining limited to 12 months’ imprisonment, which Sir Brian does not seek to change.

I am sure that Ministers will also want to factor in the capacity of magistrates courts to do the extra work, as there is a backlog there too, and consider whether a neater way of rebalancing the caseload towards magistrates courts would be the reclassification of some offences as summary only. They will also want to factor in, of course, the need to ensure that lay magistrates have access to good-quality legal advice when hearing cases.

On changing access to jury trial, the important point is an obvious one, but one that is worth making for context. As things stand, not every criminal charge entitles a defendant to a jury trial. We already restrict the right to jury trial, so this debate is about moving the threshold for eligibility for jury trial, not about abandoning a principle of jury trials for all.

I should say that I have great faith in the jury system. I have sought to persuade juries for the prosecution and for the defence in Crown court trials, and I have heard many jury verdicts, and I have retained throughout my confidence that, in general terms, this is a good system for determining guilt or innocence. However, that does not mean that we should refuse to contemplate any change or to recognise the pressure on jury trials for some of the offences that occupy large amounts of court time.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I just wondered whether I might pose the fact that the backlog has been created and exacerbated by problems in the criminal justice system, and that it is certainly nothing to do with the time a jury trial takes to be completed. Jury trial has been statistically proven to be fairer to ethnic minorities and people who are more vulnerable. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not therefore agree that jury trial is definitely the way we should go in some cases? I accept his point that not every case has the right to go to jury trial.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort.

The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.

[Tessa Munt]

The point I would make, of course, is that a jury is free, and paid judges are not. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any observation to make about that? The cost is a problem, is it not?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much difference, in terms of what the judge is paid, whether they are hearing the case on their own or with a jury. The only difference may be that we will make better use of that judge, because the trial will complete more quickly, and they will be able to get on to other business more quickly. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Sir Brian’s proposals to change access to jury trials represent a distinct restriction of freedom for citizens facing trial, yet he does not offer convincing evidence that that will save an enormous amount of time or speed up the trial process, and that that lack of evidence causes concern to many practitioners?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we have to balance the advantages that Sir Brian sets out with the disadvantages that would undoubtedly arise from his proposals. It is hard to do that in an informed way if we do not know exactly what the resource benefits will be of implementing these proposals.

Let me come on to the third area of recommendations that I want to discuss, regarding the removal of a right to jury trial, particularly in complex fraud cases, where trials can take months and where, apart from anything else, the impact on the lives and jobs of jurors can be immense. As I have suggested, this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not yet certain that it would be right to conduct all such trials without a jury.

Many who practise in this area, and some judges, continue to believe that juries can consider these cases thoroughly and fairly and reach appropriate verdicts, even when the evidence is complex; indeed, I have seen that for myself. The argument is made that these cases are really about dishonesty, and that it is the job of counsel and of the judge to make the issues and the evidence clear to a jury. All of those are reasonable arguments, and those of us who believe in the jury system instinctively baulk at the idea of restricting it. However, I go back to the central premise of this report: the system is under intolerable pressure, and something must be done about it.

If it can be established—this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox)—that complex fraud trials are indeed the cause of much of that pressure and, crucially, that judge-only trials would help substantially to relieve it, then given the relatively even balance of arguments for and against this change, which have been made for decades, it is perhaps a least worst option worth considering.

Sir Brian’s proposal to allow most defendants to opt for a judge-only trial if they wish is of course much less controversial and well worth pursuing, as it does not inhibit the right to a jury trial if a defendant still wishes to have one. The only caveat is that we must avoid the complexity of allowing different defendants in the same case to have different types of trial. If all defendants in one trial cannot agree on a judge-only trial, I am afraid that all must be tried by a jury. Any other approach would lead to multiple trials, which could and should have been avoided because of their impact on witnesses, who would have to give evidence repeatedly, and because they would reduce or eliminate the benefit of judge-only trials in using up less court time.

As I said, there is too much in this review of the criminal courts for me to be able to talk about everything, and there are some important recommendations that I have not been able to mention—perhaps others will. I want to finish where I started, with the reason this review was commissioned and the inescapable context of it: our criminal courts are under incredible pressure, and there must be a policy response to relieve it. Otherwise, we may see the expectation of fair and swift justice, which underpins our society, erode or even fail. That is not something that we—Government or Parliament—can allow to happen. If Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals are not to be adopted, others must be. On that crucial question, I look forward to hearing what colleagues and the Minister have to say.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter.

14:52

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As he says, the changes being proposed to the way in which the criminal courts operate are very significant, and it is right that we have the opportunity to debate them here. My contribution was to move the time of the Justice Committee to allow its members to take part today, and we therefore see a well-attended debate.

The latest figures show that the current open caseload for criminal cases in the Crown courts now stands at 78,329—more than double the 38,070 cases recorded in December 2019. If no action is taken, that number is projected to increase to between 99,000 and 114,000 by the end of March 2029. In response, the previous Lord Chancellor, on 12 December 2024, announced that she had asked Sir Brian Leveson to review the criminal courts to consider how to accelerate the hearing of cases. The “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I”, the subject of this debate, was published on 9 July 2025. The second part of the review will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and is due to be published later this year. The first part of the review proposes 45 recommendations. Sir Brian stresses that the package needs to be looked at as a whole and

“should not be approached as providing a ‘pick-n-mix’ series of options.”

In the interests of time, I will mention only the most radical and controversial of those proposals.

First, the review recommends an expansion in the use of out-of-court resolutions, noting that their use has fallen by 35% since 2015, from 328,000 to 212,000. Secondly, the review recommends removing the right to elect a Crown court trial for offences with a maximum sentence length of two years. It states that those offences form an obvious grouping, as they have been categorised by Parliament as the least serious of the either-way offences. The review identifies a pool of additional offences for removal of the right to elect, based on the average custodial sentence length they typically involve. It also recommends reclassifying some offences as summary only—in effect, removing the defendant’s right to elect and ensuring that such offences could be tried only in the magistrates court. The review proposes to select offences for reclassification based on whether the average custodial sentence length falls well within the magistrates’ sentencing power limit of 12 months. That requires—this picks up a point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—reducing the maximum sentence for these offences to 12 months to align with the new maximum sentencing power for the magistrates court.

Thirdly, the review proposes the introduction of a dedicated Crown court bench division, comprising a Crown court judge and two magistrates, ensuring the retention of community participation, in the absence of a jury. Magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on evidence and sentencing, with matters of law reserved to the judge. The Crown court bench division would encompass the same sentencing powers as the Crown court, negating the need to commit cases for sentence. For either-way offences, allocation to the CCBD would be determined at the plea and trial preparation hearing, with cases likely to attract sentences of three years or less anticipated to be heard in this division. Responding to the review, Mark Beattie, chair of the Magistrates’ Association, noted that an extra 6,000 magistrates would be required to ensure that the CCBD runs successfully alongside maintaining capacity in the magistrates court.

Fourthly, the review provides recommendations to incentivise early resolutions in the Crown court: increasing the maximum reduction for early guilty pleas from 33% to 40%; making it mandatory for judges to offer advance sentence indications, allowing defendants greater clarity and confidence in entering a plea early; and establishing a pilot scheme to test whether delaying the pre-trial hearing allows better-informed plea decisions. Appearing before the Justice Committee in December 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that 70% of cases going through the Crown court eventually end up with guilty pleas, but in only 36% of cases are guilty pleas entered at the first substantive hearing. Fifthly and finally of the points that I want to address, the review recommends that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by a judge alone, with eligible cases defined by hidden dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public.

The combined effect of the reforms would be to curtail a defendant’s right to trial by jury, and that has generated adverse comments from the legal profession and some commentators. These are very significant changes to the way the criminal courts operate. As to whether the review’s proposals would achieve their aim of speeding the trial process, it models three recommendations: the introduction of the Crown court bench division, the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect. Other recommendations made by the review in part 1 were not modelled, and any impact of those would be in addition to those savings. In combination, and with savings measured in Crown court sitting days, the modelled proposals suggest savings of 9,000 Crown court sitting days per annum through the diversion of cases to the magistrates court or the Crown court bench division.

Given that the Leveson review is the Ministry of Justice’s main play to reduce the Crown court backlog, it seems inevitable that it will go forward, and go forward as a package, as Sir Brian requests. Whether it will achieve its targets, and whether it will have the adverse effects on the administration of criminal justice predicted by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association in their briefings for this debate, we will find out. What is certain is that, by expressing the need to apply to the criminal justice system many of the innovations that have been proposed and rejected over the past several decades, it draws into sharp focus the parlous state of our criminal courts in 2025. Many of the proposals in Sir Brian’s report are not new; they have been debated and, on the whole, rejected over several decades. The question really—for the Government, but also for all of us—is whether, given the lamentable failure of the Crown courts at present to deal with cases in a timely manner and to see justice delivered, those are sacrifices worth making now.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

If we are going to get everyone in, we will have to stick to about four minutes each. I am not going to put a hard time limit on at this stage, but please bear that in mind.

15:00

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

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This independent review comes at a time when our criminal justice system is at breaking point. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As a member of the criminal Bar, I know the importance that many barristers out there place on this debate.

We now know that Crown court trials could have a potential backlog of more than 100,000 cases by 2029. The review’s recognition of the need for significant reform is welcome, but restoring the criminal justice system cannot come at the expense of fairness, due process or the right to be tried by jury.

I understand, as it is currently set out, that the proposal to create a new Crown court bench division would allow select cases that carry a sentence of up to three years in prison to be heard without a jury. Under the proposals, it would be the judges, not the defendant, who decide where a case is handled, and who therefore hold the power to potentially change the entire trajectory of a criminal case. Unless there is forthcoming evidence to show that this change creates additional capacity without distorting judicial outcomes, we surely cannot consider such an idea.

The right to jury trial is, and should remain, a cornerstone of our justice system. For centuries it has served as a guarantee of public confidence and accountability. Any attempts to restrict or infringe upon that right should be approached with the utmost caution.

Before we consider surrendering our core principles of jurisprudence, we should first seek out efficiency reforms in part 2 of Leveson’s review and postpone any changes to jury trial until such changes have been fully implemented. At the very least, we need the Government to make reassurances that such changes would be reversed as soon as the backlogs are cleared, and to confirm their belief that trial by jury remains the best way of administering justice in this country.

In my view, removing trial by jury, even in complex or lengthy cases, risks undermining public trust, particularly among communities that already feel marginalised by the justice system. Non-jury trials should remain a measure of last resort rather than some administrative convenience.

I clearly believe that this is not the right path to follow. I fear that we are being made to consider watering down our justice system because the Government fail to understand that, even with reform, we will not be able to change the reality on the ground without proper investment. Creating a new court division will not in itself solve the backlog; it will merely shift the pressure from one part of the system to another.

Rather than sacrificing jury trials, we should be looking to solve things like the criminal legal aid system, which has been withering away thanks to years of chronic underfunding. Even with the Government’s recent £92 million commitment, more is required, especially if investment in one area comes at the expense of another.

Another key priority must be to reduce demand on the courts themselves—for example, introducing a rebuttable presumption that certain groups of offenders, such as first-time offenders or those suffering from mental ill health or substance misuse, should in appropriate cases be diverted from the criminal justice system at the outset. In those instances, out-of-court disposals could deliver justice more swiftly, more proportionately and without mounting pressures on an already overstretched system.

Finally, we cannot ignore the physical state of our buildings. Years of neglect have left our courts crumbling and have contributed directly to lost sitting days up and down the country.

The House will always support positive reforms that make key improvements to our justice, but reform must be principled, evidence-based and properly funded. That is the only way to clear our backlogs, and the only way to restore the criminal justice system to the essential and reliable public service that it ought to be.

15:04

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Sir Brian Leveson’s report—I have it as being 388 pages—begins with historical quotes, all of which roughly translate to the same thing: justice delayed is justice denied, as we have already heard in this debate. I want to speak specifically to a case in my constituency because I found it quite traumatic, and it speaks to the human impact of this issue.

A mother in my constituency wrote to me about her daughter’s case. Her daughter was a child sexual abuse survivor aged 11. She waited five years while her case was put back and back, five times, until it coincided with her GCSE exams. It was a cloud over her life for such a long time, not allowing her to move on, not letting her get on with her life. She was just waiting, and it impacted her during one of the most pivotal moments in a young person’s life. The perpetrator was found guilty, was given 10 months in prison and will serve nine months, but only after five years of that case hanging over that young woman’s head. It is indefensible, and I am so angry that our justice system could fail a young person—a young woman, a child—so completely. Her case is not isolated; it is one of many that can be replicated nationally.

The review makes it clear that the system is under intolerable strain. The number of publicly funded criminal barristers—those who handle serious cases like the one I described—fell by 11% between 2017 and 2021. Four out of five such barristers work over 50 hours a week, and one in three are actively seeking to leave the Bar. The problem could get worse. It is clear that serious mistakes were made by the previous Government. The victims of those mistakes have been members of the public and those who are most innocent in our communities. It is nowhere near good enough.

The report states that one cause of the crisis is the long-term funding constraints over many years. In positive news, I welcome our Government’s recent announcement that there will be more sitting days, with funding for an extra 1,000 legal days this year. That means we will get closer to clearing some of the backlog and getting victims justice. I am also pleased that the Government have stated that there is much more to do, recognising the generational shift that is needed and cannot wait. I look forward to the Government’s response to the review because I know that our Justice Secretary is passionately focused on getting that response right. In this debate, I wanted to stand up and say that my constituent’s daughter deserved better. Although we cannot change what has happened for the last number of years, we can fix the system that is failing people right now.

15:07

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Increasing delays in Crown court trials are a very real problem. They pose a problem for victims, witnesses and those defendants who are eventually acquitted. We have heard that remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—a population that is at capacity and needs reducing. If we could speed up the rate at which Crown courts, and indeed magistrates courts, deal with cases, that would lead to a partial solution for our crowded prisons. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his report; he makes interesting and important recommendations, but in the time available I will focus on one of Sir Brian’s proposals with which I disagree: curtailing access to jury trials.

I support the proposal to allow defendants to elect for trial by judge alone. I do not see any diminution in the rights of a citizen in that proposal. I am concerned at Sir Brian’s other proposals, which would reduce the defendant’s right to trial by jury. I regard that right as a fundamental freedom of our country. As parliamentarians, we should be very slow to limit it.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the jury trial system has evolved over time—it has been with us for centuries—and has changed intermittently over time: it looks very different now than it did in the 13th century. In the 19th century, civil adjudications were taken out of the jury trial system and our civil justice system is still extremely robust.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but before curtailing that restriction further I would want to be persuaded that there are very real benefits. I am afraid that I see none, or at least I see no evidence of any. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, each of the trials under the new court that Sir Brian proposes would require a sitting judge and a sitting day. There is little evidence that removing the jury from that process will make a great deal of difference to the time it takes. In my view, therefore, the focus of the Ministry of Justice should be increasing the productivity and efficiency of our Courts Service.

The House of Commons Library produced a useful document, on page 17 of which we can see the Crown court caseload in England and Wales. The receipts and the disposals have risen only marginally since the pandemic, and yet the outstanding caseload continues to rise. I put it to the Minister that the reason for those delays is not the jury system—that is simply a misunderstanding. The problem is that the Courts Service is not working as efficiently as it should be. That might be partly due to failing buildings or computer systems, but I fear that in Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, we have a solution in search of a problem. There have always been certain judges and barristers who have never liked jury trials, and I am reluctant to accept this proposal by Sir Brian.

15:11

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate. As he said, we have serious and fundamental challenges in our criminal court system, and it is clear that only bold, radical action will overcome them.

There are lots of areas of the public realm on which the last 14 years of austerity had devastating impacts—the NHS, the police, our schools, and our asylum system—but I saw the impact of austerity on our court system most tangibly. As a barrister for 18 years before being elected last July, I saw the bruises inflicted by the wholesale neglect of our court system: leaking roofs, crumbling buildings and demoralised staff. I know many criminal barristers and solicitors who have walked away from criminal law because the failing and poorly resourced system was making them feel they could no longer deliver justice, which was what they went into the profession to do.

The Government inherited a record Crown court backlog. As of June 2025, the outstanding caseload stood at 78,329, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has said. That is 78,329 individual injustices caused by the failure of the state to ensure that justice is done. I know that the Government are taking real practical steps to deal with that, and I strongly welcome the improved resourcing of criminal legal aid, with £92 million more per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and the funding of a record-high allocation of 111,250 Crown court judicial sitting days this financial year.

It is obvious, however, that the demand in our criminal courts is still so high that the steps already taken by the Government will not be enough to address the outstanding backlog. That is why it is important that the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose reforms to ensure that our court system can be fair, timely and efficient. This Government should not tolerate a situation—nor should any of us—where justice is delayed and denied to thousands of people every year.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal to restrict jury trials for certain either-way offences. Some have worried that removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury appears to diminish fundamental constitutional protections. I have sympathy for the point, raised by a colleague, that there is a need to maintain public trust in the judicial system, which could be undermined in the eyes of certain marginalised groups if this is not done correctly. But at present we have thousands of people who are being denied justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) just told us in tragic detail, there are people who are being completely failed by our system, and we cannot stand by and let that happen.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, this is about changing the threshold for jury trial, not removing it. I agree with his analysis that the availability of jury trial, given the situation we find ourselves in, must be balanced against the challenges that the system is facing as a whole. The proposed Crown court bench division represents reform that appears to preserve the fundamental standards of justice that we expect, while addressing the crisis threatening to collapse our entire court system.

Cases will still be tried by the same professional judges who currently oversee jury trials, sitting with two experienced magistrates. That maintains judicial independence and legal expertise, while the magistrates add lay participation. Importantly, the new division remains within the Crown court structure, ensuring that defendants retain access to the same qualified advocates, fee structures and procedural protections they would receive in a jury trial.

It is important that we maintain the standards of fairness that our judicial system has long guaranteed. I can see the time, and will end there.

15:15

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Intervention to fix the Crown court backlog is needed now. Without radical reform, things will only get worse; but in my submission this situation presents an opportunity to present the positive case for modernising our system.

The changing nature of crime is recognised by all agencies in the criminal justice system. This is an opportunity to change the criminal justice system so that it is fit for the modern day. The system has been modernised many times over many years. That is why we have the Crown court system in operation and no longer the courts of assize or quarter sessions, which made way in 1972. Later, we got rid of old-style committals for trial, so that witnesses did not have to give evidence twice. Those are the sorts of modernisation efforts that can improve the criminal justice system for the modern world. At this time, we have a key opportunity to both deal with this crisis and modernise the system.

I am conscious of time, so I will make a few brief observations from Sir Brian Leveson’s very thorough report. First, I ask the Minister to be cautious about what sorts of cases can be expanded into the domain of out-of-court resolutions and, in particular, the deferred prosecution scheme. It would not, for example, be suitable for domestic abuse cases, particularly as there is no requirement for the defendant to have an admission of guilt. We have to think about faith in the criminal justice system and the manipulative nature of domestic abusers, who often promise time and again to change before going back to their old ways. Furthermore, the use of bad character evidence often underpins a prosecution for domestic violence, and we would need to consider how a deferred prosecution might impact that.

We have heard about the removal of the right to elect for offences with a maximum sentence of two years. It would be imperative that the magistrates retained their power of committal for sentencing if they felt, having heard all of the evidence, that a sentence in excess of 12 months would be required.

The reclassification of offences is less attractive and more troublesome, because dropping some offences to summary-only would mean a maximum sentence of 12 months. The Sentencing Council is careful to ensure public and statutory consultations, so that the wider public and criminal justice professionals are consulted when it looks at sentencing guidelines, but this would effectively reduce maximum sentences for a number of offences. Careful consideration must be given to that.

Again, it would not be suitable for domestic violence or abuse cases to fall within that reclassification. Breaching a non-molestation order, which is one of the offences listed as potentially forming part of the reclassification, has a maximum sentence of five years. We would be reducing that down to 12 months, which would lead to a lot of concern from practitioners.

I will leave it there, but there is a lot more to be said and I look forward to future debates.

15:19

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate.

It is right that this House examines Sir Brian Leveson’s review with care before any legislation is brought forward. I spent many years at the Bar, as a prosecutor as well as a criminal defence lawyer, before becoming an MP. While an MP, I have served on the Justice Committee and for a number of years was shadow Minister for justice, prisons, probation and courts. During that time, I challenged Ministers at the Dispatch Box many times about the record delays to cases in the Crown court.

When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently asked the public which rights should be protected in a Bill of Rights, two things topped the list: the right to NHS care and the right to trial by jury—a constitutional safeguard rooted in public trust. Sir Brian’s report exposes the scale of the crisis: record delays, cases listed years into the future and justice slipping beyond reach. Yet in Bolton South and Walkden, as a result of the current Government’s expansion of court sitting days, we have been able to reduce some of the backlog.

Capacity is not just about buildings, however—it is about people. Not only juniors, but senior barristers are leaving criminal practice because the fee structure cannot sustain a career. Judicial shortages mean that we lack the judges, recorders and district judges we need to run additional courts. That has not happened by accident. It is the result of 14 years of Conservative Government political decisions on court closures, cuts to sitting days and erosion of legal aid.

Before contemplating such constitutional changes as limiting jury trials, we should act on the most basic recommendations in the review—for example, increasing sitting days now and using courts to their full capacity. If we want earlier guilty pleas, the defendant must have access to timely legal advice, which also means that the fee structure for payment must be re-examined.

There are many sensible proposals in the review, including support for criminal pupillages and improved case preparation, but they honestly cannot justify removing the right to a jury trial or curtailing the right to appeal, particularly when more than 40% of appeals from magistrates courts to the Crown court currently succeed. We cannot resolve delay by reducing scrutiny or by getting rid of jury trial, one of the foundations of our civilised society. I know that some changes have already been made, but jury trial is fundamental to our system. We need reform, but it must be to strengthen trust, not to weaken it. When justice fails, not only do individuals suffer, but confidence in our entire system is lost.

15:23

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for this debate. He will be aware that there have been a number of debates on this salient issue here and in the other place. Nationally, the court backlog across England and Wales now exceeds 78,000. It is a problem that has been inherited, but we need to acknowledge it and face up to the challenge.

In my local area, Maidstone Crown court has 2,500 cases outstanding, while Canterbury has 1,000. I have met victims as well as those working on the frontline of the criminal justice system, and I acknowledge some operational challenges that I intend to raise today. Every single case we have heard from colleagues represents real people—real victims and defendants who are not getting their time in court. Defendants are suffering the concurrent mental health conditions of waiting for a sentence and victims are not getting redress.

As my colleague from the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), rightly said, if we do not tackle this issue, it is predicted to get worse, with 100,000 cases by 2030 if no changes are made. I welcome the Government’s announcements of an extra £92 million for legal aid so far this year and an additional 4,000 court sitting days, taking us to 111,000. That is a necessary step, but it is also right that we have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts, and it is in an independent spirit that he has come forward with these guidelines.

There are 45 recommendations. I think it is eminently sensible that we look at out-of-court resolutions to a number of cases where the sentencing is below a certain threshold. The two-year threshold is sensible; it could be higher, but the Government will need to take a balanced approach on that when they respond to part 1 of the report.

I also think that the reclassification to summary-only offences, so that magistrates get more responsibility, is eminently sensible, because at the moment the number of referrals going into Crown courts is simply too high. The creation of a dedicated Crown court bench commission is a sensible next step; I look forward to seeing how that will work in practice, given that we have logistical and staff constraints within this sector at present. I understand that the recruitment of 6,000 extra staff might be required, which will be a challenge. The incentivising of early resolution through sentence reductions is also sensible—it is a practice we are already employing, but it can be expanded. Of course, all these suggestions will only reduce cases by 9,000 court sittings per annum on average, so it is right that we are speaking to the public about these issues and I look forward to the Government response.

I have one minute left. I have spoken to the Minister in previous Westminster Hall debates about my local courts in Kent. There are some operational issues as well, and I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by colleagues, including the increasing use of digital technologies in courts and the improvement in capital finance to improve court premises, some of which are falling apart, and to fix leaking roofs. I have also raised independently the movement of cases across artificial geographical boundaries, so that we can spread caseloads across other parts of the county and other regions. There must also be greater support, including greater human resources support, for justice offices and casework officers working in our court systems, so that we can get the cases through.

I will continue partnership work with the Government, but I welcome part 1 of Leveson’s report and I encourage Members to support it.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

The Front Benchers have 10 minutes each and I intend to call the mover of the motion with a couple of minutes to sum up the debate.

15:27

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this vital debate, on his knowledge and expertise of this subject, and on taking the time to read 378 pages of what was a gripping read.

Justice is a key pillar of our society, yet it rarely cuts through the noise or gets splashed on the front pages of the papers in the same way that our NHS does. Nevertheless, it is so important to have a functioning justice system when we need it, either as a victim or a defendant. I am also delighted to respond to this debate as the new spokesperson for justice for the Liberal Democrats and I look forward to working closely with the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition on something that affects us all.

Sir Brian Leveson’s report into the criminal courts has proven insightful and a concerning necessity. Some 45 recommendations were made, with a goal of clearing the court backlog and enabling cases to be dealt with more quickly, which is a desire felt across the House.

As outlined by many hon. Members in the debate, our criminal courts are at a physical and operational breaking point. They are overburdened by an ever-expanding backlog of cases to hear and undermined by the deteriorating condition of our court estate. We also risk our criminal justice system becoming just a criminal system, because justice is being denied to victims up and down the country.

The average wait for a verdict in a Crown court now stands at 22 months, while the number of cases facing a delay of more than two years increased tenfold over the course of the last Parliament. We are hearing of cases being booked as far in advance as 2029. As of June this year, there was a backlog of over 78,000 cases awaiting hearing in the Crown courts. Given that the Ministry of Justice’s own public target is to reduce that figure to 53,000 by March next year, the current position is nothing short of abysmal.

Particularly concerning in this situation is the impact that delays are having on the delivery of justice. As my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has noted in the other place,

“evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1427.]

Delays reduce the willingness of witnesses to give evidence, or their ability to accurately recall the events that led to the trial, or even to relive harrowing events when they are keen just to move on with their lives.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) reminded us of the human toll by sharing the story of a constituent’s waiting five years for their day in court. That is totally unacceptable for that young woman and for the family supporting her. It can also be a huge strain on the mental health of all involved, and ultimately delays erode confidence in the justice system. It has been rightly said that justice delayed is justice denied. Both victims and defendants have a fundamental right to have their cases heard in a timely and fair manner—a right that, under the present circumstances, is simply not being upheld.

At the same time, the physical infrastructure of our court system continues to falter. A recent Law Society report revealed that two thirds of solicitors have experienced delayed court hearings due to the poor state of court buildings, as was highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The problems range from crumbling structures to outdated technology. Both contribute to the already unsustainable backlog of cases. Those cases of professionals walking away from the judicial system tell a really sorry tale, when we need them more than ever.

[Tessa Munt]

To accentuate that point in particular, as I understand it we are waiting still for the independent body to make recommendations on barristers’ fees. That was a key commitment to ending the strike which has yet to be implemented. Would my hon. Friend agree that needs to be sorted out as well as the fees for expert witnesses, who will not work to legal aid rates? Both of those contribute to delays and to the fraying of the legal structure when people walk away, as she says.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is really important to put that on record as something that also needs to be addressed, and all of those elements that contribute to exacerbating backlogs and professionals walking away from their service.

Types of and methods for presenting evidence have developed massively with new technology, but our courts have somehow served as time capsules and not kept up with innovation. The growing backlog in our criminal courts is also directly exacerbating the crisis of prison overcrowding. Remand populations continue to rise, now accounting for over one fifth of the entire prison population. That is not sustainable and nor is it just. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam made a very valid point that while people on remand are in prison awaiting trial, they are not having the rehabilitative programmes that could prevent them from reoffending.

We need to be clear where the fault for this lies. Years of poor governance have led to chronic under-investment in and neglect of our nation’s courts and justice infrastructure. The fact that one of the Labour Government’s first actions last year was to implement an emergency early release scheme to create space in our prisons is something that those on the Conservative Benches should apologise for. They ignored the crisis for far too long and left it for the incoming Government to clear up. It was under them that the backlog ballooned, that busy Crown courts such as the one in my constituency of Chichester were closed, and that staff shortages persisted.

The hole that our justice system is in is a deep and worrying one. It is therefore right that an independent, innovative and external review into the system by the well-respected Brian Leveson was commissioned. The first half of the report has provided some interesting ideas to address many of the issues outlined, and it will certainly create debate on what can be done. Responding to the headline suggestions—I am not going to cover all 45—about the Crown court bench division and reductions in trial by jury, the Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by any impingement on the right of individuals to face trial by jury in a Crown court. That right is a cornerstone of the judicial process which, as has been set out in a number of reports, has been proven to be non-discriminatory and multiracial. That diversity cannot be guaranteed if trials are increasingly presided over by judges alone.

The Government’s efforts to implement the necessary reforms to the courts system to address the untenable backlog should be centred on the principle of ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and without discrimination. The removal of the right of individuals to trial by jury would undermine that aim, reducing the likelihood of both victims and defendants receiving a fair hearing, and therefore should be firmly opposed. As many Members acknowledged, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), there is no robust argument that the removal of trial by jury would make a significant difference to the backlog. I wait to be convinced, if the Government decide to take that recommendation on board. That is not to say that the issues surrounding the processes of trial by jury should not be addressed.

As outlined in the Leveson report, the increasing length and complexity of trials is having a serious financial and mental impact on jurors. However, that must not be utilised as an argument to undermine the right to a fair trial. Instead, jurors must receive financial support and appropriate wellbeing services throughout proceedings. I have been contacted by many constituents who were keen to play their part in the justice system and do their jury service, but the financial burden, especially for those who were self-employed, had a huge impact on their livelihoods.

Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed Crown court bench division on the workload of magistrates who would be drawn in to operate those courts. Attempts to mitigate the severe backlog in the Crown courts that exacerbate the backlog in the magistrates courts are clearly an undesirable outcome. The Magistrates Association states that implementing the recommendations would require an increase in the number of magistrates required. The creation of an intermediate court would therefore jeopardise magistrates’ current ability to deliver swift justice. That is particularly concerning for survivors of domestic abuse who already face distressing delays.

[Tony Vaughan]

As the hon. Lady seems to oppose a lot of the meat of the reforms, is there one that she can support to reduce the pressures on the system? That is a fundamental task that we all agree needs to be addressed.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I have picked out the main recommendations in the report that I cannot agree with. There are 45 recommendations in the Leveson report and some of them could go some way, but removing the key pillar of our justice system by removing the right to trial by jury is something that I cannot support.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Sentencing Council was headed by the late Lord Justice William Davis, who was a recorder at my local court in Birmingham. He made reference to the sentencing guidelines and the disparity in sentences highlighted in the probation report. We know that sentences were passed by judges. Given that judges have passed sentences that were disproportionate for certain communities, does the hon. Member agree that that is one of the reasons we must ensure jury trials remain?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will bring my remarks to a close. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to ask the Minister my questions, but I will get back to her on a suitable occasion.

15:37

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I begin by warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this important debate. He set out with characteristic thoughtfulness the context for today’s discussion: the pressures facing our criminal courts and the enormous impact on victims, as a number of Members pointed out, and the far-reaching recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that the House should have a meaningful opportunity to examine the principles at stake and the implications of the reforms.

Turning to the Leveson review, I acknowledge the serious intent with which Sir Brian approached the task. His report contains thoughtful proposals: consistency in the use of out-of-court disposals; updating legal aid to better recognise work done at plea and trial preparation hearings, as has been pointed out; and changes to permission to appeal, giving more options for defendants to elect to have a judge-led trial. But several recommendations raised profound constitutional and practical concerns. Sir Brian proposes removing the right to elect to have a jury trial for some 220 offences and allowing more judge-only trials in the Crown court. He also recommends raising the sentence discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 40%. At the heart of this debate is a simple but serious problem. The approach to the problem is being tackled the wrong way round.

Sir Brian Leveson’s part 1 report focuses on radical reform proposals, as I have discussed, to do with jury trials, discounts for guilty pleas and creating a new Crown court bench division. Yet the efficiency review, part 2 of Sir Brian’s work, which will look at technology, workforce capacity, case progression and the better use of the court estate, has not even been published. We are being asked to consider endorsing fundamental structural change, including the curtailing of a centuries-old constitutional right, without seeing the full picture. The Government will struggle to build support for changes that should only be considered as a last resort, when they have not even set out the full range of options before us, and we cannot consider such a Bill in isolation. The proposals for early discounts for guilty pleas would sit alongside plans to let offenders serve only one third of their custodial sentences. What a mockery of justice that would make. In fact, the vast majority of what Sir Brian himself identifies as necessary to address the backlog can be achieved without altering the constitutional foundations of our courts. He is clear that we should focus on maximising sitting days, using the existing judiciary and estate to their full potential, and improving case management.

Those who have experience of Government—such as the sponsoring Member of this debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam—will recognise that there is a real risk that, in setting out to create a whole new Crown court bench division, as proposed in part 1, we would divert both ministerial and judicial energy away from the urgent task of improving and expanding the capacity that we already have. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has highlighted that it will require some 6,000 more magistrates, a point also echoed by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne).

Establishing new structures consumes time, money and management focus that should instead be directed towards using every courtroom and sitting day available to reduce the backlog that is paralysing the system. The backlog in the Crown court is now up 10% from when this Government took office just over a year ago. It has increased by 2% since March alone, when it first passed 75,000. Since Labour entered office in July 2024, the backlog has grown by more than 7,400 cases.

The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), claimed that she had taken every possible measure to tackle the backlog, but the facts tell a very different story. In August 2024, the judiciary confirmed that they could sit for up to 113,000 days in 2024-25, yet the then Justice Secretary chose not to fund that capacity. Instead, she initially supported only an additional 500 sitting days in September and then a further 2,000 in December—a drip by drip increase in capacity.

The Government deliberately decided not to fund the courts to sit at full capacity, leaving 4,500 potential sitting days on the table. The Lady Chief Justice took the extraordinary step of telling the Justice Committee that the initial decision to limit Crown court sitting days had,

“frankly had a drastic effect across the board”

causing the “most distressing time” for victims and staff alike.

Even after facing this public criticism, the former Justice Secretary’s response was inadequate. In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that the total would rise to 110,000 sitting days, still below the full 113,000 available. So much for every possible measure.

Sir Brian’s report is clear: the most important step is to add 20,000 extra sitting days per year, reaching 130,000. That would mean tens of thousands more victims finally receiving justice in a timely manner. It requires commitment across the system, but above all, leadership from Government. Instead of focusing on efficiency and capacity, Ministers risk being sidetracked by structural reform.

Part 2 of the review will show how to achieve efficiencies through technology, leadership and better use of the estate. Yet the Government seem intent on pressing ahead with reforms that water down key rights before those recommendations are even known. Whatever the Government might say, the Conservatives in office had to tackle the single biggest barrier to the delivery of justice when the pandemic hit. Labour Members would be taking the public for fools if they think they can convince them—given their record in government so far—that it would all have been different under them. Prior to the pandemic, we actually got the backlog down lower than the level it had been during Labour’s previous period in office.

We inherited a backlog of 47,000 cases and got that down to 39,000 before the pandemic hit. During the pandemic we kept jury trials running, a decision that the Labour Opposition supported at the time. We opened and extended 20 Nightingale courts, appointed 1,000 additional judges and raised the judicial retirement age. We also allocated £220 million for the modernisation and repair of court buildings and, crucially, removed the cap on Crown court sitting days—something Labour has still not done in its period in office.

In just 15 months under Labour, we have seen drift and indecision. Despite inheriting a recovery plan, Ministers have allowed the backlog to worsen, as I have outlined. Even Sir Brian acknowledges that curtailing jury trials would only at best have a limited effect on the backlog, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and other Members, and in fact represents just 0.2% of the Department’s budget. That is a negligible return for an erosion of centuries of civic participation in justice.

The better course is clear: make full use of existing court capacity, build greater capacity, employ modern case management tools and strengthen the legal profession’s ability to progress cases swiftly, not rewrite our constitutional settlement. We will continue to make that case as any legislation is brought before this House.

15:44

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing a debate on this crucial subject, and for the typical expertise and measured, analytical tone that he brings to it. I thought, until the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), that something of a consensus had broken out among us. To quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, “something must be done about it”—I think we can all agree on that.

In the opening words of part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, he tells us that

“Criminal justice is in crisis.”

Indeed, it is. This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of June 2025, the open Crown court caseload stood at over 79,000 cases and it is rising. Other hon. Members have spoken to the human impact of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for raising her constituent’s case. It is a graphic illustration of the impact of the Crown court backlog bequeathed to us by the previous Government, and particularly the impact of the appalling delays on victims.

The backlog not only places a psychological strain on victims, disrupting their ability to function, work and maintain relationships; it corrodes justice, because many of those victims—and indeed witnesses—pull out of the process, meaning that trials become ineffective. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it also has an impact on defendants—those who are accused of a crime—as well as on our prisons, and on all those who serve within the system. It creates increasingly perverse incentives to exploit the delays and ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in justice. As many hon. Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied.

I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that this Government have sat idly by. Far from it. We inherited a crisis, in both our prisons and our courts, and we have gripped that crisis. It is a fact that, as of today, the Government have added record, historic numbers of sitting days for our courts: 5,000 sitting days more than the number allocated by the previous Government. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we have invested in the workforce crucial to running our criminal courts, and in our solicitors, with an additional £92 million in legal aid on top of a £24 million investment in our duty solicitors. We also, of course, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our greatest jurists, to undertake his review. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had bothered to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of the 388-page report—

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will conclude my point, then give way.

Sir Brian tells us that “greater financial investment”—which by the way, the Government have already begun to make—

“on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

That is a premise that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam set out in his remarks, and it is absolutely right. We cannot sit our way out of this crisis. Of course, additional sitting days are part of the solution but, as Sir Brian Leveson and his team have told us, greater financial investment—namely sitting days on their own, without systemic reform—cannot solve the crisis. The Government will heed that lesson.

[Dr Mullan]

Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.

Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will give way in a moment; allow me to finish this point.

The second strand is modernisation. While we await part 2 of Brian Leveson’s report, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is undertaking modernisation and efficiency measures. The adoption of technology and the increased use of video hearings, which I witnessed on a visit to Kingston Crown court last week, are enabling us to realise some of those productivity benefits, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to seeing what Sir Brian recommends in the second part of his review. We need investment and modernisation, but also, as I said, fundamental, once-in-a-generation structural reform to ensure that we progress cases quickly and more proportionately.

A number of hon. Members have outlined the variety of ways in Sir Brian’s holistic package in which we may reduce delays in the Crown court, retaining more cases in lower courts—where 90% of criminal cases are now heard without a jury—and also looking at how we might divert demand away from the system in the first place through making greater use of out-of-court disposals. There is also a proposal for a new bench division in the Crown court jurisdiction.

I understand and take heed of the contributions of a number of hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). All of them rightly expressed an admiration for jury trials and a concern that they remain a cornerstone of our legal culture and British justice. I can reassure hon. Members that the jury trial will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes.

The essay question, as it were, that we have set ourselves and Sir Brian is: how do we deal with more cases more quickly and proportionately, so that we can squarely look the victim my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to in the eye and say, “We did everything within our gift to reduce the delays”? Timeliness is an essential ingredient of justice. We can all agree that the state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial. It is not a right to a jury trial; it is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient in that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.

[Sarah Sackman]

I certainly will, Mr Efford.

Sir Brian Leveson proposed the Crown court bench division idea based on consultation with experts, members of the profession and the judiciary. He makes the point that the deliberation of 12 members of a jury is less efficient than the deliberation of an individual judge who has heard the evidence, because it involves dealing with one person. As I understand it, the modelling analysis undertaken to support Sir Brian’s report suggests a time saving in the region of 20% to 30%. Before such a proposal could be adopted, we would need to test that and understand whether that finding is robust, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it stands to reason. In comparative criminal jurisdictions that have either one judge or a bench of three, cases are processed and progressed faster than under the current, jury trial system.

Ultimately, what we are looking to achieve is to ensure a fair trial for every person who comes into the criminal process. That is what we must guarantee, and we support Sir Brian’s overarching principles for reform. Plainly, we have to carefully consider each and every one of those proposals and all 388 pages before we provide our response in due course.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.

We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.

The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am content to give way, but I am conscious of time, so this may have to be the last intervention.

[Tessa Munt]

I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that.

In short, this Government believe that once-in-a-generation reform is necessary to address the crisis in our courts. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, and we will do what it takes, but we also know that we need to get it right. That is why we are taking the time to carefully consider Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and why I welcome today’s debate. I welcome the views and insights of hon. Members across the House, as we consider necessary reforms to save our justice system.

15:58

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the damage I do to her career prospects by saying that I am glad she is in a position to do it, and I know that she will approach it with the requisite seriousness that the process demands.

The Minister is right to say that there is a degree of consensus—we all agree there is a problem. As she knows, the curse of this place is that we tend to identify a problem and ask an expert to help us find a solution, but when they do so, we do not always have the courage to implement the solutions that are put to us.

I hope that we find that courage, because it may be that some of these solutions are controversial and have significant downsides, but the burning platform that Sir Brian has described is undoubtedly there. Therefore, we must act and must find a way of doing so with as much consensus as possible, and I know that is the approach that the Government will seek to take over the coming weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

Child Risk Disclosure Scheme

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

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

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a child risk disclosure scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The focus of this debate, a child risk disclosure scheme, might sound a bit complicated and dry. In some ways, it is. It is about how our laws, policies and institutions come together to protect some of the most vulnerable children in this country, and about how we close gaps in a complex web involving our police, the NHS, local authorities, our education system and families. Ultimately, however, it is about the children at the heart of those cases and the lives that have been altered forever by the most horrifying abuse. Some we may never know the names of, but their lives were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting.

My constituent Gemma Chappell and her sister Rachael know that pain all too well. Their great-niece, Maya Chappell, was cruelly murdered by her mother’s new partner in September 2022, aged just two and a half. The case shocked the community of Consett in my constituency, as well as communities in Shotton Colliery, County Durham and across the north-east.

Before I talk more about the case, I want to talk about Maya. If one thing was clear from my conversations with Gemma and her family, it is that Maya was a treasured little girl. She had family, friends and an entire community who loved her and who looked after her. Despite her tender age, she touched the hearts of everyone she met with her huge smile, infectious laugh and friendly nature. She was full of life, mischief and personality. She loved cake, playtime and “Peppa Pig”. Although it is a privilege to remember Maya here in Parliament, it is with a deep sadness that we are here today because this much-loved little girl was failed so terribly by those who were supposed to protect her.

Maya was born on 7 March 2020, just before the start of the pandemic. Being born at that time meant that she was not seen by others. Although her mother was not known to statutory services, Maya’s family say there were early red flags, including missed health visits, concerns about drugs being in and around the house, and her parents being involved in controlling or concerning relationships.

In summer 2022, Maya’s mother began a relationship with Michael Daymond, and they quickly moved in together. A judge would later conclude that from that moment, Daymond began hurting Maya regularly. She soon began to sustain bruises that were noticed by other people. Relatives flagged these injuries to Maya’s mother, but she did not act. Instead, Maya was kept away from her father, James, and from the staff at her nursery so that they could not see the impact of Daymond’s abuse. In fact, following Maya’s move to Peterlee, members of her family did not even know where she lived.

On 28 September, Michael Daymond was being chased for drug debts and was told that his universal credit had been cut off. On that day, he subjected Maya to the most appalling physical violence, leaving her with injuries that were not survivable. She died in hospital two days later, on 30 September 2022.

It has now been more than three years since that tragic day, but Maya’s family and the community of Consett have ensured that her name has not been forgotten. I doubt that there is a single person in Consett and active on social media who has not seen Maya’s beaming smile, which is exactly how her family want her to be remembered. They have held local events, reached out to everyone they can think of and grabbed the attention of local and national media. It is thanks to their tenacity that I am here today and it is a tribute to the entire community, who have got behind the campaign in memory of Maya’s life.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making such a powerful and moving speech. I also want to pay a personal tribute to Gemma Chappell and her family for launching the Maya’s law campaign. We have already accepted that the right to know can prevent abuse and murder in domestic and sexual violence cases—that is, for adults. Surely it is now time for Parliament to extend the same protection and safeguards to children who cannot speak for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key aims of the Maya’s law campaign—a child risk disclosure scheme, mandatory multi-agency safeguarding protocols, and new powers for professionals to raise alerts and trigger family court interventions—would represent a vital step towards a genuinely progressive safeguarding approach?

[Liz Twist]

I know that people in my hon. Friend’s community were also affected by the case. I certainly agree that the law would make a real difference to people and children in future. That is what we want to do—protect other children.

I have been particularly moved by Gemma and Rachael’s determination to work with other families who have had their lives changed irrevocably by child abuse, including the families of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell, who is thankfully still alive. This campaign is not only about remembering Maya; it is about preventing other children from enduring the unimaginable pain that Maya did on that day and in the weeks preceding her death.

Although the family were not known to statutory services, the child safeguarding practice review highlighted instances in which professionals could have stepped in—for example, when Maya’s mother contacted a health visitor asking for support or when Maya’s father, James, approached Durham’s First Contact service with concerns about Michael Daymond. James was told to contact the police, where the matter was progressed under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but when an officer followed that up, Maya’s mother told them that she was no longer with Daymond and the matter was closed. Clearly, there was a need for more professional curiosity on the part of the First Contact service and the police, but the incident highlighted the fact that neither of those laws is designed to protect children from known risks of non-sexual abuse.

Sarah’s law and Clare’s law operate on a right to ask and right to know basis. Relevant third parties can request information and the police can make disclosures of their own accord if they become aware that a person may be at risk. Clare’s law, which focuses on intimate partner violence, covers children only when they are linked to a primary adult who is at risk of domestic abuse. Although children are the focus of Sarah’s law, its primary concern is sexual offending. Sarah’s law does permit the disclosure of wider safeguarding concerns, but that is discretionary, and there is a presumption to disclose information about an individual only where they have convictions for child sex offences. However, children are killed and harmed in households where non-sexual abuse is taking place and where family members have raised concerns but had no legal standing to insist on intervention.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. Like all people around Durham, I have been deeply touched by Maya’s case. When I first heard about it, I have to admit that I asked myself whether the guidelines had been incorrectly followed or whether we needed a new law. My hon. Friend is making that point excellently, and I put on record my support for what she is doing and for the family. This place is about being a voice for people like Maya.

[Liz Twist]

I am glad to have my hon. Friend’s support in this campaign. As a police officer in Durham constabulary, Maya’s auntie Gemma is well acquainted with these laws and their pitfalls. That is why she and the family are campaigning for Maya’s law, a child risk disclosure scheme modelled on the existing frameworks of Sarah’s law and Clare’s law, and designed to bridge the gaps between them. The scheme should enable proactive information sharing where a child is deemed at risk owing to a parent or caregiver’s known history, even where current laws do not trigger disclosure.

It has long been recognised that information sharing is a serious issue when it comes to child safeguarding. Over 50% of serious case reviews cite communication failure as a primary cause. The independent review of children’s social care in 2022 put it plainly:

“Poor multi-agency working...is a perennial issue that has been raised in every recent review that has considered child protection”.

Existing legislation has attempted to solve this problem. The Children Act 2004 outlines the statutory safeguarding duties of local authorities and how they must work with the NHS and police in multi-agency safeguarding hubs to protect children in their areas. In practice, however, we know that multi-agency working has been more fractured than it should be. Furthermore, the thresholds for intervention are perceived as extremely high, and with a rising number of section 47 inquiries, existing services have been stretched. The result is that, 25 years on from the Victoria Climbié inquiry, we are still seeing children being harmed where opportunities to intervene have been missed.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon, Lady on bringing forward this important debate and on speaking powerfully on behalf of her constituents. My heart goes out to Gemma, Rachael and the entire family.

My constituent, 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, was just 41 days old when his birth parents abused him so badly that he had both of his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of that abuse for the rest of his life. His birth parents have served eight years of a 10-year sentence and have now been released. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentence, but after that there will be absolutely nothing—no supervision, monitoring, managing, or reporting of changes in circumstances. The case details will be archived. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is another terrible gap in the system, and that we urgently need a child cruelty register, so that those who remain a risk to children—vulnerable little innocent children and babies—will continue to be monitored and managed?

[Liz Twist]

I know that Gemma, Rachael and the family have been working together with other families who have been affected, including Tony’s family. What happened to him is absolutely tragic. We need to take a number of steps along the way, and today we are arguing for this disclosure arrangement. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Member further about Tony’s case and how it can be improved.

The Government have taken vital steps forward with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by placing a duty on certain agencies to disclose information to other agencies where they consider it to be relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children. That is a recognition of the regulatory barriers perceived by practitioners when sharing information, and of the culture change that is required. I am in no doubt that those measures, including the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams and the introduction of a single unique identifier for children, will help to save lives.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Maya’s tragic story has touched many people across the north-east. I am pleased to support the family’s campaign. As my hon. Friend mentioned, one key ask from the family is the disclosure of information about wider caregivers. The recurring theme of serious case reviews into child deaths is that agencies have not worked together as they should. Does she agree that, for this law to be effective, there needs to be a laser focus on ensuring that statutory agencies genuinely work together?

[Liz Twist]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is really important that we keep the focus on protecting our children and taking the steps we have outlined today.

Although it is vital that we improve safeguarding mechanisms among professionals, there is still more to do to ensure that families like the Chappell family are empowered to escalate their concerns, and that their concerns are taken seriously. We need greater awareness among the public and professionals of safeguarding risks that fall outside a narrow view of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, we need to support safeguarding agencies to fulfil their obligations and hold them to account when those obligations are not fulfilled, and we need to close gaps to protect vulnerable children from slipping through the cracks of a fragmented system.

What steps is the Minister taking, alongside colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that our legislation is watertight? Will he commit to working across Departments to ensure that safeguarding partners work alongside each other to uphold their responsibilities? Will the Department for Education, working alongside the Home Office and others, consider the role of the police in protecting children from a broad range of potential risks? Finally, will the Minister meet me and Maya’s family, who are here today, to hear about their concerns and the changes we believe are necessary to prevent future tragedies?

Every loss of this nature causes unbearable pain for loved ones and carers. Maya’s family have worked so hard to get the campaign to this point. Sadly, her death is not the first high-profile case in which more could have been done. Had this debate been longer, I am sure we would have heard testimonies about many more children whose deaths could have been prevented. To put it simply, in each of these cases, reports are produced, and they almost invariably cite lessons learned, as was the case with Maya. The family and I are calling for those lessons to be put into action. As Gemma Chappell says:

“Let’s make that phrase mean what it should. Not the end of a case, but the beginning of change.”

We should not be here today. Today Maya should be five and a half years old. She should be enjoying her time at school, making friends and going to birthday parties. Her family will not have the opportunity to watch her grow up and see where life would have taken her, but they want to take every opportunity they can to ensure that no family has to endure the pain that they have. I pay tribute to them and hope the Minister can work with me and Maya’s family on that mission.

16:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing a debate on this important subject, and for her powerful and heartfelt speech.

We are here today because of Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl whose life was cruelly taken far too soon. Maya’s death was a tragedy. No child should suffer at the hands of someone entrusted to love them, and no family should endure such a loss. I begin by paying tribute to Maya’s great-aunts Gemma and Rachael, who I believe are here today. Their tireless campaigning has brought us together for this debate. Their petition, now signed by more than 6,000 people, calls for Maya’s law. It is a call born out of unimaginable pain but also a deep commitment to protect other children from harm. In Gemma’s words,

“it is a call for prevention, accountability and a united commitment to child safety”.

This is my first parliamentary duty as a Minister, so it is fitting that I am here to talk about keeping children safe, which is a top priority for this Government and, unquestionably, the top priority for me in my role as the new children and families Minister. Every child should feel safe and loved. Sadly, Maya’s family are not alone in calling for change; the stories of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell have also been mentioned, and their families echo that call.

When I led the independent review of children’s social care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett referred to, I heard from families, professionals, frontline practitioners and many others who shared exactly those concerns. The child safeguarding practice review panel’s most recent annual report found that 81% of serious incidents involved poor co-ordination or handover between services. That theme has been repeated over many decades; to date, we have failed to grasp it.

That tells us one thing clearly: we need fundamental change. I believe that we are now delivering that through the most significant overhaul of children’s social care in a generation, backed by legislative change, which I will speak more about in a moment, and over £2 billion of investment in this spending review period. Through those reforms, we are laying the foundation for much better information sharing, introducing a responsive family help system, and significantly sharpening up our child protection arrangements. I think that is a comprehensive response to the lessons we have learned from Maya’s murder.

My hon. Friend set out that a principle of the child risk disclosure scheme is to enable proactive information sharing where a child is deemed at risk. With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are ending misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. The new information-sharing duty places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That replaces a duty only to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children, which is a significant shift.

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

The duty responds directly to feedback from my independent review, and it will blow away the fog of confusion between agencies about when it is and is not appropriate to share information. Crucially, and linked specifically to Maya’s story, the duty also states that information about other individuals, if relevant, must be shared. That will allow practitioners to act. In the coming months, we will be consulting on and publishing statutory guidance to support practitioners in implementing the duty, and I welcome contributions from Maya’s family—from Rachael and Gemma—to the process.

I agree with those campaigning for Maya’s law that we need to change the law, and that is what we are doing right now. Given the progress of the current reforms—particularly the information-sharing duty, and the passage of the Bill through Parliament, which is at an advanced stage—I do not believe that now is the time to introduce a child risk disclosure scheme specifically. However, many of the proposals are reflected in what we are taking forward as a Government with the wider children’s social care reforms, and there are other aspects, which I will also mention.

Alongside the introduction of a duty to share information, we are exploring how to support frictionless sharing of information between agencies through technological improvements. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces a single unique identifier for children—in my first week in this role, I went to Wigan to see the pilot for that being successfully rolled out—to meet our manifesto commitment to stop children falling through the cracks of services. We are working closely with NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care and local authorities to pilot the implementation of that programme, using the NHS number as the identifier.

A single unique identifier will not solve the whole problem on its own, but we believe that it will allow much freer sharing of information between agencies to enable them to spot links and make sure that children do not fall through the gaps. Once needs are identified—this leads to the second major plank of change that we have under way—our reforms will ensure that children and families receive support when they need it, through much more extensive family help services.

That will be delivered through the families first partnership programme, a new model for supporting families earlier to prevent problems from escalating. It has been tested in a number of areas across the country, but we are committed to rolling it out nationally. We want local areas, children’s social care, police, health, education and other partners to deliver the programme as highly skilled, multidisciplinary teams that get around families early in order to provide support when it is needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett urged me to commit to cross-departmental collaboration to ensure that safeguarding partners work together effectively to uphold their responsibilities. We published the “Families First Partnership Programme Guide” in March—we are updating it for next March—and we are working closely with the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to deliver this work. I will chair a new keeping children safe board, which will involve Ministers across Government, to ensure that we deliver these changes effectively.

It is not enough just to share information and provide intensive support to families; we also need a much more responsive and decisive child protection system where there is significant harm. Building on more proactive and intensive family help, we will be making major changes to child protection in England—some of the most dramatic in years. We are introducing new multi-agency child protection teams, which will bring together safeguarding partners so that, where there are concerns about significant harm, we are not waiting for agencies to refer to one another or come together for a meeting. Instead, they will be nested together permanently in a shared multi-agency arrangement.

My hon. Friend rightly outlined the need for the police to protect children from a wide range of harms, not just those traditionally associated with criminal activity. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces a duty on each of those multi-agency child protection teams to include police representatives nominated by the chief officer for the area. There will be, in statute, a requirement on the police to be part of those teams. These reforms will ensure that strong multi-agency protocols are in place locally to better protect children from significant harm.

[Liz Twist]

Clearly, there is a whole lot of activity going on to improve child protection, but we think there are some significant gaps. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and the family so that we can explain where we think the gaps are and how we could improve the legislation?

[Josh MacAlister]

Of course I will.

All of us in this room agree that keeping children safe is a top priority. To quote my hon. Friend, the lives of the children we have been talking about were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting. To do that effectively, we need to share data, provide intensive help to families when they need it and sharpen up our children’s social care system.

My hon. Friend made a number of asks of me. We are firmly committed to working across Departments to improve how safeguarding partners work together and ensure that police are fulfilling their obligations for children, and yes, I will meet her and Maya’s family to hear their concerns and the changes they wish to see. I would also welcome their views and experiences being heard as these changes are progressed through the roll-out—

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

COP30: Food System Transformation

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I appreciate the chance to have this debate, which is of critical importance, both globally and in our country, where the hottest summer since records began is pushing our farmers to the brink. The harvest of 2025 was the second worst harvest on record, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That comes on the back of over £1 billion of lost income for our farmers, following the extremely wet winter last year. All of that threatens our food security and pushes up food prices.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She is absolutely right that we must support our farmers on food security and farm sustainability, but poor returns are threatening their viability right now. The dairy industry has contracted by 6% in the past year, and prices have dropped significantly; it was announced that they would go down by almost 20% in November. Some farms are going to be closing their gates for the very last time. Does my hon. Friend agree that to secure a fair deal for our farmers, the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and the Groceries Code Adjudicator must be combined and given real teeth to enforce properly?

[Pippa Heylings]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I applaud her constant advocacy in Parliament on behalf of farmers.

The second part of the debate is about the conference of the parties and how we can bring about legally binding obligations that translate into exactly the kind of measures my hon. Friend talked about. In just a few weeks, world leaders will come together at the global climate summit, COP30, which will be held in Belém, Brazil, in close proximity to the Amazon rainforest. It is being held there deliberately to symbolise the Amazon rainforest’s critical role in global climate stability.

In the lead-up to COP30, I hope this debate today will allow us to consider why this summit is expected to finally be billed as the nature, food and climate COP, putting food systems at the heart of the climate agenda for the first time, and rightly so, because the way we grow, produce and consume food is one of the biggest drivers of the climate and nature crises and one of the most powerful levers we have to solve them. At the same time, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food production and national security.

Why does COP matter? We have come a long way since the Kyoto negotiations in 1997. That was the first time that countries around the world agreed global governance arrangements to address the shared challenge of global warming. At the time, we were hurtling towards a catastrophic 4°C or even 5°C world, so what a feat it was, unknown in any other sector or on any other issue, to create a framework agreement between 198 parties—197 countries or states and the European Union—to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that could help to prevent dangerous human-induced disruption of the climate system. Through dialogue, negotiation and finance, the COP process has brought about legally binding agreements—the Kyoto protocol and then the Paris agreement in 2015—where we all agreed that we have a common and interdependent future, and that we need to do everything possible to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The Amazon rainforest has been called the lungs of the planet for its ability to capture and store carbon. Yet, right now, the rainforest is gasping for breath as we perilously approach the tipping point where the Brazilian rainforest switches from being a huge sponge, store and carbon sink to being a source of carbon emissions, due to massive deforestation and degradation through land use change. That is why, now more than ever, we need to ratchet up our collective ambition.

I know that rainforest well, and I know what it means to the many indigenous and local communities that depend on it, having worked professionally on climate and nature negotiations for more than a decade in South America, in the countries that share the Amazon: Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil. I was part of the UK’s largest international climate policy programme in the region, and latterly I worked as the global team lead for the UK’s international £100 million climate and nature programme, the biodiverse landscapes fund. Since 2010, I have seen at first hand the internal workings, impacts, successes and failures of three relevant UN COP processes—the climate COP, the nature COP and the avoiding desertification COP—working alongside Governments and non-state actors such as businesses, scientists, local communities and local governments.

I know how long people have argued for food systems to be a central pillar of the climate framework. Our own independent Climate Change Committee, in its seventh carbon budget, highlighted the importance of agriculture and land use change in meeting our climate targets. I therefore want to make three points today. First, the transformation of food systems is essential for climate action, food security and nature restoration. Secondly, this transition must be just, supporting our farmers and animal welfare as we change how food is produced. Thirdly, the UK must show renewed leadership at COP30 by leading from the front, with the Prime Minister, and by committing to sign a new global declaration on food systems.

Why does food system transformation matter? The EAT-Lancet Commission announced that even if fossil fuels are phased out, the world will breach 1.5 °C because of emissions from food systems alone. Unsustainable food systems are driving deforestation, soil degradation, water pollution and marine biodiversity loss. Globally, agriculture and land use are responsible for almost 60% of biodiversity loss.

Exeter University research revealed this week that we have now reached the first catastrophic tipping point, with warm water coral reefs facing irreversible decline, threatening nature, food security and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people—a moment many of us hoped we would not reach. Closer to home, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit recently found that wheat lost to storms and drought over the past five years could have produced more than 4 billion loaves of bread—the equivalent of an entire year’s supply for the UK.

There has been a strong build-up to COP30 in Belém, which is expected to produce a declaration on food systems, building on discussions at the Bonn climate conference and the COP28 declaration on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems and climate action, which the UK signed.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

COP30, as with past COPs, requires us to be more sustainable, and that includes food production, as the hon. Member said. In Caerfyrddin, we have a public farm producing vegetables for schools and residential homes, so public land is being used for public benefit. Why can all local authorities not follow suit, supported as we were by shared prosperity fund funding, and use public funds and public land for the public plate?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be short, not a speech.

[Ann Davies]

No, it is not a speech. Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate your guidance. Does the hon. Member agree with that sustainable and seasonal way of reducing food miles by using public land?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will perhaps come back to that a little later, but I agree completely about the importance of the SPF, as well as the sustainable farming incentive. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we have public land—council land—working on regenerative agriculture with farmers, to provide the food we need. We need the stability and certainty of the SFI for our farmers.

The priorities it is anticipated will be negotiated at COP30 include deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming, support for family farms and sustainable fisheries. This transformation has to be just, and that is as important here at home as it is globally. Farmers have always been on the frontline of climate change, as stewards of our countryside and producers of our food, and because they are struggling with the unavoidable impacts we now face. They must be at the heart of our solution.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the transition to sustainable farming cannot be done to farmers; it must be done with them. However, progress has been slow, and the uncertainty surrounding the sustainable farming incentive risks undermining the confidence and stability that farmers need if they are to continue to invest in regenerative agriculture, local food networks and diversified protein crops, as proposed by the National Farmers Union. Improving soil health, supporting pollinators and keeping farm businesses viable makes business sense too. As Martin Lines—the chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who farms in Cambridgeshire—says, nature-friendly farming plays a “vital role” in building resilience to weather extremes. He says:

“Practices like improving soil health, using cover crops, and integrating habitats into fields are helping farmers stay productive while cutting back on inputs.”

We also call for a just transition in food and farming, as does World Animal Protection. At home, we must match words with action. The Liberal Democrats would accelerate the delivery of the long-promised land use framework, aligning food, farming and biodiversity policy. We would protect and strengthen the sustainable farming incentive and deliver it now. We would support a just transition for farmers and animals, reduce food waste across the supply chain and champion local, sustainable food production to boost rural economies and resilience.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Those points are all very welcome. Does my hon. Friend accept that global food systems already produce more than enough food to feed the world, but the problem is distribution and fair trade? As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said earlier, the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be beefed up. We need to make sure that the supermarkets and the large retailers do not bully our primary producers to such an extent that they are wasteful in trade systems.

[Pippa Heylings]

Absolutely, and that is where the just transition must come in. We must make sure that this works at home. In fact, when we look at the amount of food being produced, we need to talk about nutritional security rather than food security.

Finally, the UK must lead at COP30. Belém will be a turning point. Negotiations are already under way for a new COP declaration on food systems.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I praise the hon. Lady for getting this really important debate going today. She is absolutely right, and I am confident that Britain will be among the most ambitious nations at COP30. However, will she, as I do, take a second to reflect on the fact that, thank God, we have a Government going there who believe in climate change and recognise that we need to get the rest of the world to be more ambitious, rather than a Conservative Government who would be going there to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008, or Reform turning up to say that climate change is entirely bogus?

[Pippa Heylings]

I could not agree more. I have worked internationally for 20 years, and I have seen that when Britain leads, other countries follow. Our Climate Change Act was the first in the world, and 60 countries immediately followed it. Other countries followed the independent Climate Change Committee. I have seen emerging economies work with their Governments, looking at how they do economic development and leapfrogging by learning from us. When Britain leads, others follow, and that is why I ask the Minister to make sure we confirm that the Prime Minister will be at COP30, to show that we continue to lead from the front.

I also ask the Minister to ensure that we sign up to the COP30 declaration on food systems and support all the work that has been done up until now to make sure that food systems are central to the climate change negotiations at Belém. I cannot emphasise more the impact, both here and across the world, of the U-turn—the turning of their back—of the Conservative Government, and Reform right now, on climate issues. I have worked alongside countries and communities ravaged by climate impacts that are waiting to see us take that leadership once again.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that this is an hour-long debate. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has already been very generous in allowing interventions, which has limited the time that Back Benchers have left to speak. We will start the Front-Bench speeches at 5.08 pm, so Back-Bench speeches are now limited to two and a half minutes. The Opposition party Front Benchers will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. Anyone who takes interventions is likely to upset colleagues.

16:45

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech, which calls on us to be ambitious at COP30 and to ensure that Britain reaffirms its commitment to leading multilateral climate processes. It is also a moment to renew domestic efforts to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to the changing climate. We know that the green transition will lower energy bills, as well as ensuring that our food processes are nature-based and take on board the challenges that the hon. Member set out. As has rightly been highlighted, more action is needed to ensure that food systems are fit for purpose in future, both globally and in the UK.

Agriculture is the second highest-emitting sector—the highest after energy. Intensive agriculture is also one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss, alongside a warming climate. Pollution from agriculture impacts 40% of the UK’s inland water bodies. In Brazil, agriculture has driven large-scale and devastating deforestation of tropical rainforests, which are one of the biggest levers for mitigating climate change, so the hosting of COP30 in Belém could not be more important.

Food systems have vast potential to make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions, adapting our landscapes to a changing climate, providing healthy and nutritious food for people, restoring our natural environment and supporting thriving rural communities and economies. Here in the UK, we have a farming and food sector to be proud of. I absolutely echo the hon. Member’s call to do all we can to rebuild the relationship with the farming community. In its advice to the Government on the seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee has identified some of the policies and measures needed to support the transition to sustainable agriculture and reduce land-based emissions by 64% by 2050. As we head towards this important conference, I join the hon. Member, as I know colleagues do across the House, in calling on the Government to be as ambitious as they possibly can and carry on in that leadership role.

16:48

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her excellent speech leading the debate.

When we talk about transforming global food systems, what we are really talking about is resilience: the resilience of people, of ecosystems and of economies. Right now, that resilience is dangerously thin. Our food systems are failing on every front. Globally, agriculture and land use drive 30% of emissions and 60% of biodiversity loss. Every 1°C of warming means 120 fewer calories per person per day. This is not abstract. It is hunger, instability and conflict.

The scientific consensus is clear: industrial farming is nearing its physical and environmental limits. Climate change, soil degradation and water scarcity threaten supply, while global demand for food is set to rise by up to 56% by 2050. Without urgent change, we risk cascading food shocks that will drive inflation and deepen inequality.

We know that degraded soil releases carbon, but healthy soil becomes an effective carbon sink. Farmers everywhere, including in my South Cotswolds constituency, want to be part of that change, but they need support and certainty. They need the Government to lead with them, not leave them guessing.

Resilience is about not just production, but education. Last night, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament that brought together campaign leaders, education experts, teachers and parliamentary champions to shape a future-facing curriculum to make sure that our young people are food and agriculture-literate. National action must also connect to global leadership. Later this week, the House will consider the global ocean treaty. Oceans are potentially great allies in the fight against climate change. If COP28 was the promise, COP30 must be the proof that the UK can move from words to integration, from fragmentation to resilience and from short-term fixes to long-term stewardship of the planet that feeds us all.

16:50

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Ahead of COP30, I want to make a brief contribution to the discussion, my first since leaving the Government.

In my 14 months as Minister for Food Security, I became increasingly convinced that transforming the food system is one of the biggest challenges, and indeed opportunities, that we face. I note that the third of the six thematic axes set out for COP30 by the Brazilian Government is transforming agriculture and food systems. I had the privilege of representing the UK at the G20, which was hosted by Brazil in Cuiabá just over a year ago. I was very impressed by the seriousness with which the Brazilian Government take the interaction between their food system and global environmental challenges, particularly their emphasis on land restoration, so I have no doubt that they will seek to make substantial progress at COP30. We should support them in that endeavour.

There is growing understanding that food system transformation is vital to tackling both climate and nature challenges, as we saw with initiatives at COP28 and COP29. What I noted at every international event I attended, and in key bilaterals, was the interest in what we are doing here in the UK.

In July, I set out the Government’s food strategy with the ambition to establish the good food cycle, including an annual assessment of our food security. It also builds on the substantial changes to agricultural support systems as we move from the old common agricultural policy-style payments to purchasing environmental benefits, providing a key income stream for farmers but also ensuring environmental and nature benefits. That has not been without controversy, of course; I noticed yet another poorly informed and inaccurate piece in The Sunday Times only this weekend. Sadly, Opposition Members voted against speeding up the process, although to be generous, perhaps they did not fully appreciate that they were voting against the very things that many of them claim to champion—not a unique occurrence in this place, sadly.

The wider world watches with interest the course that we have chosen, which was embarked upon by the previous Government, as I have always acknowledged, and was accelerated by this one. I urge the Minister and his colleagues at COP30 to speak proudly about what we are doing. We have a brilliant food system in this country, from farmers and fishers to the primary producers and through to manufacture and sale, but we need to make it work better for our health and our environment. It will be a key discussion at COP30. I wish the ministerial team well.

16:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank and commend the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for setting out the debate so very well. This year’s COP30 will highlight the role of sustainable food systems in addressing environmental prosperity and climate change. That is something to which each nation can contribute, especially within the United Kingdom, so it is very important that all our nations pave the way.

I understand the importance of this year’s conference of the parties being held in Brazil, but there is a role for us to play on our own farms and in the rural countryside that we represent. I will refer to family farms in Northern Ireland, because they are crucial to Northern Ireland’s agriculture sector, managing approximately all of our region’s land area. I am aware of the work of the farmers in my constituency, whose efforts are second to none. In Northern Ireland, we have the soil nutrient health scheme, a comprehensive soil-testing initiative launched by the Department of Agriculture with a £37 million investment. It aims to enhance the sustainability and efficiency of farming practices across Northern Ireland.

Food waste cannot be ignored. There is a role not just for farmers, but for every one of us. Some 9.5 million tonnes of food is wasted in the UK: on average, 50% is wasted in each household. Everyone here discards about 22% of their weekly food purchases. Food expiration dates and best-before dates have led to confusion around food; evidence suggests that applying labels consistently could reduce food waste. There are roles that we can play here to help those in Brazil and elsewhere across the world.

I look forward to hearing the outcomes of COP30. I hope that the Minister will come to the House to update us. Collectively, across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can play an important role and be real role models to others, especially in our food production and our food security.

16:55

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Systems rely on diversity. Imagine a piano with 88 keys all tuned to middle C: Mozart would not have got very far. Yet what is happening to our global food system is a destruction of the very diversity on which our survival depends. Since 1900, the world’s crops have lost 75% of their genetic diversity. Four companies—Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus—control 90% of the global grain trade. Just four plants—wheat, rice, maize and soy beans—account for almost 60% of the calories grown by farmers. Just three countries grow 86% of the world’s soy beans, which in turn supply three quarters of the world’s feed for farm animals. The convergence to a global standard diet, dependent on and controlled by a small number of companies and countries, threatens the resilience of the global food system and the food security of every nation.

COP30 is the COP at which the ratcheted-up nationally determined contributions must take account of every sector of the economy. Countries have been struggling to do so: by the fall of the third extended deadline last month, only 60 of the 190 countries had submitted their revised NDCs. It is vital that food systems be integrated into NDCs submitted to COP30, focusing on sustainable agricultural practices and climate-resilient farming. We need to support countries in prioritising food security, sustainable livelihoods and environmental resilience.

It is not just about the food we eat that comes from Brazil, or the Brazilian soy beans that UK imports. It is also about the financial flows facilitated through the City of London. HSBC has provided credit lines amounting to £1.9 billion to forest risk commodities such as JBS, the world’s largest meat company, which has a record of corruption and forest destruction in Brazil: JBS even admitted to paying Brazilian officials $180 million in bribes. That flies in the face of HSBC’s 2017 commitment not to provide services to customers either directly or indirectly involved in deforestation. That is why we need to implement schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021, which still has not been implemented, in order to ensure that we are not financing deforestation.

16:57

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

That was a brilliant speech. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

I agree that the Prime Minister should go to COP. It was such an important moment last year in Baku when he announced an ambitious 81% NDC and demonstrated to the world that the UK was back in the business of global climate leadership. I know from the past year just how much that has resonated, not least with climate-vulnerable countries. That leadership is needed now more than ever.

It was 16 years ago that I secured a debate in this Chamber on the livestock industry and climate change, inspired by the seminal United Nations report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”. I spoke about the impact of intensive industrialised animal agriculture on our planet. It has to be said that what I said back then was treated with a degree of derision in some quarters, especially when I got on to the subject of what I will delicately refer to as emissions from cows. That argument, I believe, has now been won—I could cite many more expert reports on it if I held a similar debate now—but what remains to be seen is whether Governments have the political will to act.

I know that the Brazilians are keen to make super-pollutants, including methane, a major theme at COP. The UK is due to publish its own methane action plan by the end of this month, along with the carbon budget growth delivery plan. I hope that we put down a marker in it about what global leadership on methane looks like, especially on agriculture and food systems.

Food systems account for roughly 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and drive about 90% of tropical deforestation. I was proud to co-chair the forest and climate leaders’ partnership with Guyana. I know that the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), was passionate about this, not least because of his Guyanese heritage. I hope that the new Foreign Secretary will step into his shoes at COP with similar commitment and passion.

We cannot show global leadership on forests unless we lead by domestic example by stamping out deforestation in our supply chains. The EU is acting on forest risk commodities by focusing on sustainability; under the previous Government, the UK focused on legislation based on illegality. There are arguments for and against both approaches, but what it is not acceptable is not to act at all. I hope that by the time we get to Belém in the heart of the Amazon, the UK will have made its own intentions clear.

17:00

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

With COP30 just one month away, the UK could consider utilising article 6 of the Paris agreement to support global food system transformation. Article 6 was agreed at COP29 last year, and now is an opportunity to move. Article 6 of the Paris agreement enables international co-operation to tackle climate change and to unlock financial support for at-risk countries. Article 6.2 enables host countries to sell units to a buyer country, in exchange for investments, support for capacity building and access to technologies not available through domestic resources. The buyer country purchases these units to address any gaps in meeting its own climate goals.

The UK needs to do more to support countries to establish domestic systems and address technical implementation issues. The UK is well placed to support countries to build infrastructure including carbon accounting, safeguarding and governance to implement article 6.2. No trades have yet occurred, but investment is there for countries that desperately need it. Such opportunities can be used to address many issues in countries on the frontline of the climate crisis, including soil degradation, deforestation, drought and ocean acidification. Addressing those issues is essential for retaining food systems and for the food system transition.

I wish to turn my attention to Ukraine, which is the breadbasket not only of Europe but of the world, with the richest soil on the planet. The UK should begin to consider an article 6.2 co-operation agreement with Ukraine. War has damaged its industrial systems. Keeping the lights on and costs down is a daily priority, not a distant goal. Every month without investment locks in higher costs and lost output. Through article 6 we have the opportunity to support not just Ukraine’s agricultural system, but its whole system. The pipeline is practical and measurable: solar and storage on rooftops and other sites, grid loss reduction, industrial efficiency, afforestation and methane cuts to support all the systems in Ukraine, not just the food system. Those actions would be verified simply, reported publicly and financed at scale. Ukraine is ready. Article 6.2 is an opportunity not only for the evolution of carbon markets, but for us to support countries in which the food system is failing and there are opportunities to re-nature and restore, utilising global finance.

17:02

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. We live in a world where climate change is leading to rising prices and to more hunger. World food prices are up by 30%. The number of undernourished people is rising across the world. Here in the UK, food prices have increased by almost 40%, and one in eight people are skipping meals. That is because a warming planet is leading to drought and to failed harvests.

We can stop that by sorting out and investing in our global food system. That is about investing in sustainable agriculture, irrigation, digging wells, ecosystem management and stopping emissions so that we have a planet where all of us can cohere and work together. We must also ensure that there is emergency food and income support when our food systems fail and people go hungry, as is happening here and across the globe.

When I speak about hunger and drought, I do not speak merely about what I have read; I speak about things that I have seen and experienced. For two years, between 2016 and 2018, I worked in the Somaliland Ministry of Finance. I was, I think, the only economist there, and I did its budgets, its economic policy and its national development plan. I was there during Somaliland’s worst drought in living memory, and a widespread hunger that led to almost a famine. I can tell hon. Members across the Chamber that one does not forget what hunger looks like when it is etched into a child’s face. It was incredibly difficult. Climate change had led to droughts, which had led to failed harvests, to insufficient produce for herds and to dying animals. In the immediate moment, there was not a huge amount we could do, but we could sort out the budget system to enable us to invest in greater food production, wells and irrigation, with a bit of money left on the side to ensure emergency food and income support. I was pleased to see that those measures are still in place.

Unfortunately, as I speak here today, Somaliland is going through another drought and even more hunger, because of rising temperatures, a burning planet and failed harvests once again. It is for all of us in this place, and for nations across the globe, to stop emitting carbon so that every single person across our planet can afford to eat.

17:05

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate. I prepared a much longer speech, but I will keep it brief. We know the destabilising forces that scarcity of food can unleash, and what that can mean to communities around the globe, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher).

We are living in the Anthropocene, which means that humans are the dominant force in shaping the Earth’s environment. That could make us all terrified, thinking that there is nothing we can do, but actually it tells the opposite story. It shows us that we can influence the environment, whether that is by signing up to the declaration on food systems at the next COP, or through the great work of local groups that improve access to waste food, such as Food Works Sheffield or Regather, which produces food locally in Sheffield. There are great examples of people taking control of sustainable food issues, and that should be celebrated in this place.

However, if we cannot get away from the elephant in the room—the fact that we do not do enough at COP, not just on food and sustainability, but around nature and climate change, and especially around oil, gas and coal—we are going to be in trouble. I make a heartfelt plea that the Government continue to stand firm with our manifesto commitments not to renew or grant any more licences. We must make it clear that no new oil and gas licences will take a single penny off bills or make us more energy secure; they will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.

I therefore call on the Government to reject the Rosebank proposals, because we cannot have a planet, food or community without adequate resources in our communities for people to survive and thrive. We will see massive global upheaval if people cannot access their basic needs. Food is fundamental to that, which is why I have also supported colleagues’ calls for a right to food. That is something we should talk about globally, not just in the UK.

17:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This is an important and timely debate, coming on the back of one of the worst harvests on record in this country. We must discuss how the Government prioritise the transformation of food systems in this country and globally, as well as how they seek to address climate change, enhance food security and protect and safeguard animal welfare. Animal welfare and the climate crisis are intertwined.

Food systems account for 33% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with animal agriculture contributing up to 20%. Each and every year, more than 83 billion animals are slaughtered for food across the world. The majority are kept in intensive farming conditions that confine them to overcrowded spaces. Not only does industrial animal agriculture drive greenhouse gas emissions through the use of fossil fuels, but the growth of crops to feed industrially farmed animals drives widespread disruption of forests, grasslands and other wild animal habitats.

We have a proud farming heritage in my South West Norfolk constituency, and it is important that we recognise in this debate the need for a just transition for farmers. In my experience, farmers are often the best conservationists. They have a deep connection to the land they farm, and they care greatly for their animals. We must do more to support such farmers, with a greater focus on fairness and rewarding those who play by the rules, upholding high environmental and animal welfare standards.

The inhumane treatment of animals is playing roulette with public health. Only this year, the first ever globally agreed World Health Organisation-led pandemic treaty was signed by the UK alongside the other 193 member states. The treaty recognised that people’s health is interconnected with animal health and the environment. Fundamentally, protecting animal welfare must be a core part of our food system and our transformation, alongside reducing emissions and restoring ecosystems.

17:09

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for bringing this critical debate to the House. Next month, the eyes of the world will turn to the Amazon and Brazil for the COP30 climate conference. The choices made there will define the world that our children and grandchildren inhabit. That is why it is imperative that the conference delivers real, sustainable progress.

Achieving that, however, requires much more ambition from the UK. It requires proper climate financing, a faster roll-out of clean energy and greater leadership on the world stage. So I ask the Minister: will the Prime Minister attend COP in Brazil? Just a few years ago, the Prime Minister rightly accused his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), of a failure of leadership for not attending the COP summit—so will the Prime Minister attend?

As Liberal Democrats, we have long championed international climate diplomacy. We have championed the Paris agreement, a landmark and historic agreement that remains the central framework for global climate co-operation. It is deeply disappointing that the United States is once again withdrawing from it under President Trump, joining the likes of Iran, Libya and Yemen. Climate change is not some distant, far-off risk. We already feel its effects here, with the hottest summer and the second-worst harvest on record, higher food prices, soaring insurance premiums and increasing water bills.

The effects are being acutely felt throughout the world. Zero hunger is the second of the sustainable development goals—the world’s blueprint for a better world. However, the SDGs have been casualties of the Trump Administration. According to the latest UN development reports, we are nowhere near that target. Over the last five years, climate change has contributed to driving 150 million more people into malnutrition, a reminder that this crisis strikes hardest at the world’s poorest. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion reform of the international finance system, easing the debt burden and unlocking green investment in low-income countries. We would back the UN loss and damage fund to ensure a just transition for those who are suffering the consequences of a crisis they did not cause.

Climate change is not just an environmental challenge; it is a threat multiplier, fuelling displacement, conflict, hunger and disease from the Sahel to the Pacific. As an example, following the 2022 floods in Pakistan, the country’s malaria burden quadrupled. This Government have cut international development spending to 0.3% of GNI, the lowest level this century. But they have none the less claimed that international climate finance will remain a priority. Can the Minister confirm not only that the target of spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance between 2021 and 2025 will be met, but that the Government will make a bold new commitment to lead on climate finance and use development finance institutions to accelerate decarbonisation in low-income countries?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady will recollect that, of that £11.6 billion, £3 billion was ringfenced for conservation. Does she agree that it is important that we do not lose that element of ICF?

[Monica Harding]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I ask the Minister to guarantee that that is ringfenced. What we do in Britain sends signals to the world about whether we are serious or simply posturing. Renewables are the greatest economic growth opportunity of our time, bringing jobs, investment and lower bills to the nation. However, in a crass, short-sighted attempt to imitate President Trump, the Conservatives and Reform have turned against renewables. Their attacks on green energy will scare off investors, destroy jobs and relegate Britain to the sidelines of the industries that will define our future. Both parties have abandoned our net zero target, a reckless move that will shatter our credibility on the world stage.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is no trade-off between climate sustainability and food security. They can both be achieved if the right framework is put in place. The UK food security report warns that climate change, water insecurity and nature loss threaten global food supplies. Liberal Democrats would champion investment in sustainable agriculture, helping farmers in low-income countries build resilience to droughts, floods and changing weather. We would work through international institutions to build a fair and resilient global food system.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire laid out, will the Minister commit to signing the COP30 declaration on food systems, when it comes, and to adopting the priorities of deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming and support for family farms?

17:14

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) on securing this important debate.

For any of us with a farming constituency, there is no doubt what a difficult year this has been. Drought has led to lower yields, especially in arable farming—I have a mix of arable and animal farming in my constituency. When we talk about lower yields, we are not just talking about grain or the size of potatoes; we are talking about things like straw. The stalks have been much shorter this year, which will have a knock-on effect. And that is on the back of a very wet year last year, which created its own problems. There is no doubt that the farming industry is under enormous pressure. Sustainable farming is an important process that has been supported by many Governments across many countries in many different ways.

I will discuss climate change and what we need to do on renewables, but we must also recognise that, although there are appropriate places to put solar farms, it is not appropriate to put them on good-quality farming land. I am constantly fighting solar farms on farming land in the Vale of York in my constituency that is very productive but is now being sold off for solar farms. There has to be a balance between what we are trying to achieve in moving to renewable energy and what we have to achieve in sustainable farming.

The Liberal Democrats are quick to attack the Conservatives, but I remind them that it was Nick Clegg who stood at the Dispatch Box and cancelled a nuclear power station project, saying: “I am not willing to spend money on things that will not happen until 2022.”

[Pippa Heylings]

But Ed Davey was the only person who—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I think the hon. Lady might be rather upset if—[Interruption.]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Would you not speak from a sedentary position? I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. It is interesting that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) mentions the leader of her party, who was of course an Energy Minister at that time, but the process took place under the party’s then leader.

Saying that net zero is hard to achieve is very different from saying that we are chucking out all ideas about climate change. It is a false target, but it needs to be worked towards. I participated in every aspect of the Energy Bill, so I am not just saying all this off the back of my hand. One thing I mentioned throughout that process is that it is important to take people with us, because this has to be a joint effort if we are to achieve the objectives that we want to achieve.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I will not give way, because time is very limited.

I remind the Chamber that we removed coal from electricity generation; we increased renewables to 47.3% of energy production; we secured £300 billion of investment in energy projects since 2010; we oversaw the world’s first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest offshore wind farms; and we increased the number of energy-efficient properties by 133%. I am not embarrassed about standing on that record, and nor should I be.

The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) sensibly talked about the effect that the war in Ukraine has had. Indeed, it has had a huge knock-on effect, including on the supply of fertilisers we need, which has caused inflationary pressures. Ukraine is also one of the breadbaskets of Europe—indeed, one of the breadbaskets of the world—with some of the highest-quality agricultural land in the world, as the hon. Gentleman said. We must therefore recognise that the war in Ukraine is having a devastating effect.

In the time I have left, I will ask the Minister a few questions. First, the Deputy Prime Minister made no reference to food systems or food security when he was at the UN Security Council on 29 September, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government have a specific agenda on this point at COP30? If so, are we partnering with other countries in that endeavour?

Returning to the situation in Ukraine, has the Minister raised concerns with Brazil, the host of COP30, about the fact that it is still buying significant quantities of Russian oil? Has the UK officially asked Brazil to wean itself off Russian oil? Has it offered alternative solutions? If not, will he do so ahead of COP30? Finally, Brazil is purchasing millions of tonnes of fertilisers from Russia. Will the Minister equally be raising those points?

17:19

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her work on climate and food systems, not just in this place but throughout her career, and I acknowledge her huge experience of these issues.

In response to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), this is absolutely a priority for the Government at COP30, and more broadly, because how we grow, trade and consume food will shape whether the future is secure, sustainable and fair for farmers, communities and the planet.

When I speak of farmers and communities, I am speaking of farmers and communities here in the UK and abroad. We are engaged in a global endeavour. In my past career in the international development and humanitarian sector, I saw the impact of climate change and food insecurity on communities. I remember being in Malawi during the middle of a very serious food crisis and period of insecurity, where I saw the steps farmers were taking to make agriculture more resilient and the devastating impacts on people there.

In recent weeks I have met some of our leading climate scientists who are about to travel down to Antarctica with the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough. They will look at the sustainability of fishing and marine resources in the Southern ocean and the changing impacts of climate change in that part of the world, and the impact that has on global supply chains and weather patterns.

I again thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for her contribution, and I agree with much of what she had to say. She spoke on two issues about which I am passionate. I have met young people in our overseas territories—part of our British family—who talked about the bleaching of corals.

The hon. Lady also mentioned wheat, and through our investment, alongside others, in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, climate-resilient wheat varieties can now be found on about 50% of global wheat-growing areas, particularly in developing countries, and the work we have been doing on this over a number of years has been crucial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, made some very important points. I know how passionate he is about these issues. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the extraordinary retrograde position that the Conservative party has taken in recent weeks. It is shocking. I do not even want to get into Reform.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will respond to some points, but I will take interventions if we have time.

The position that the shadow Minister set out would lead not only to economic disaster but to a complete betrayal of future generations. I will not even get on to Reform, which shares similarly outdated and unrealistic views. I note that one other party is absent that people would expect to be here, which is somewhat surprising.

Our investment in renewable energy, sustainable farming and global sustainability is generating jobs. It is generating opportunities for people in this country, but it is also addressing a global concern. That is why the former Prime Minister, Baroness May, was absolutely right to describe the Conservative position as a “catastrophic mistake.”

I agree with what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said about the importance of resilience and the role of our oceans, and it is why we are investing in the blue belt programme and other global schemes. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on these issues over many years. I welcome that his experience and passion will not be missing from these debates in future.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes important points, particularly about the importance of Northern Ireland agriculture and farming. It was a delight to enjoy produce from Northern Ireland at the Hillsborough summit on the western Balkans last week. He made important points about food waste.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who always speaks passionately on these issues, rightly spoke about diversity and its importance to our global ecosystems. I also thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her work over many years. It is a pleasure to work with her as a Minister and in many other capacities. She made incredibly powerful points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) is also a long-term campaigner and advocate on these issues. I am glad that he raised Ukraine, and I thank him for his work engaging across all these issues as our trade envoy. I had not been aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) had worked in Somaliland, where I have also previously engaged with communities that have experienced food insecurity and drought. That has been a particular challenge across the whole horn of Africa, and my hon. Friend made some very important points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who is also a passionate advocate on these issues, rightly asked about the Government’s commitments on the wider agenda. I have given her our assurance that it will be a crucial part of our agenda for what we will set out at COP.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about food systems and their impact on global emissions, and he is absolutely right. Food systems already drive one third of global emissions and they will become the biggest source by 2050. I totally agree with his view that farmers as the crucial custodians not only of sustainability but of animal welfare, which is a crucial issue.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), asked about attendance at COP. I will not get ahead of announcements about ministerial travel or otherwise, but I can confirm that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be attending, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure we will announce other ministerial attendance in due course.

The hon. Lady asked about finance, and obviously we are committed to delivering on our pledge of £11.6 billion of international climate finance by the end of 2025-26. We are already looking at the results of what that investment has done so far. Since 2011, an estimated 137 million people have been better supported to adapt, and an estimated 145 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced or avoided.

The hon. Lady asked about private finance, which is also a crucial part of this picture, and we are working through a range of mechanisms as part of our modernised approach to development. For example, I point to British International Investment, which had a $652 million food and agriculture portfolio in 2022. It supports sustainable and other forms of agriculture, which obviously contribute to growth, development and opportunities in those sectors. I also point to the work we are doing through the FASA fund in financing agricultural small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa.

A number of specific points were made about the sustainable farming incentive, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and animal welfare. If Members do not mind, I will come back to those in due course, but I want to cover a few key points in the limited time remaining.

It is absolutely clear that, by 2050, the world will need 50% more food, but land and natural resources are already under strain, and agriculture that produces food is already one of the sectors most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. When that is coupled with nature loss, conflict and global instability, the impacts on production are pushing up prices and exposing weak spots in our supply chains that affect people here in Britain and our partners. The pressure always falls the hardest on vulnerable people, whether in our own constituencies or in places ranging from the Sahel to the horn of Africa and Afghanistan. Of course, our own food security relies on resilient supply chains and stable global markets.

Food must be part of the solution. We need to produce it more sustainably—on less land, with less deforestation, less waste, fewer emissions and less pollution. Sustainable systems can, of course, improve nutrition, strengthen food security, support livelihoods, restore ecosystems and build resilience. I mentioned our partnership with the CGIAR. We also work with the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the UK-Brazil-Africa research partnership, which scales solutions. We are committed to science-led transformation in our role as a trusted partner. Whether it is our work with the World Bank to support Indonesia and the Philippines to reform inefficient and harmful fertiliser subsidies, or our work on livestock vaccines for foot and mouth in east Africa and on climate-resilient seeds, our work and investment is having tangible results. For example, we are working on drought-resistant maize through our CGIAR funding, and I have already mentioned our work on wheat.

We need to do more in this area. Our research shows that food systems receive just 7% of total climate finance, and less than 1% of that reaches smallholder farmers. We need to do much more on that, and it will be a crucial part of the COP30 agenda we will be advancing.

We welcome the work that Brazil has already been doing as host, including its resilient agriculture investment for net zero land degradation initiative and its efforts to draw attention to climate, hunger and poverty, and the links between them. We have shown leadership in past conferences by supporting landmark declarations such as the Emirates declaration and the Glasgow leaders’ declaration.

I do not want to get ahead of the conversations we will have at COP30, but I hope I have demonstrated our absolute commitment in this area, which is of course reflected in what we are doing here at home. We are backing British farming with more than £2.7 billion a year for sustainable agriculture and nature recovery; and through our environmental land management schemes, we are rewarding farmers for environmental benefits, improving productivity and maintaining food production.

We are committed to clear action at COP. This Government are committed to showing leadership, and we are conscious that we face this challenge both here at home and abroad. I thank all Members for their comments. The prize is clear: a future in which food systems are resilient, fair and sustainable, in which farmers are supported, in which ecosystems are protected and in which everyone has access to healthy and affordable food.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.