Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
As this is a 30-minute wonder, there will be no time for a concluding speech from Martin Rhodes. I remind other Members present that they cannot make a speech; they can only intervene, with permission from the Member who has the floor.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered financial inclusion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. We need a financial system that removes barriers to accessing affordable financial products and services. Those on lower incomes, older people, those with health issues and people with disabilities all have unique needs that an inclusive financial system should be engineered to support. The Building Societies Association reports that 14 million people have less than £100 in savings. According to Fair4All Finance, there are certainly more than 20 million people in financially vulnerable circumstances in the UK.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, nearly 30% of people who are financially vulnerable are in the “squeezed and sliding” group—people with mortgages and rent commitments but on a low income and, most importantly, with limited savings. Does he agree that more needs to be done to encourage saving for a rainy day, perhaps including an opt-out payroll savings scheme?
I agree that we need to do more to encourage savings, but we also need to encourage the incomes that are required for people to make those savings.
The driving reason for this level of financial exclusion has been attributed to an increase in low or unstable incomes, lack of savings and life events such as loss of work or bereavement.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I am a firm advocate of local credit unions that provide access to affordable loans and help with learning how to save. Does he agree that financial inclusion must be available in small villages and towns through sound help and advice? Does he also agree that banks need to come back to the villages and stop the centralisation of services, which isolates people from the guidance they need?
I agree that we need to look right across the board at the different ways in which people are excluded from financial services, including people living in smaller villages and towns. I also agree about the importance of credit unions to financial inclusion.
It has been reported that 41,500 people in Glasgow North are in financially vulnerable circumstances. That is 44% of the adult population, which is far higher than the national average of 38%. With financial exclusion increasing, the Government must take steps to mainstream inclusive policies and practices in our financial system, which is why I support the Government’s appointment of the Financial Inclusion Committee and the soon-to-be-published financial inclusion strategy.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the publication of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy is welcome, given the urgency of the circumstances that many people face? For example, 37,000 people are affected in my constituency of Watford, and we are higher than the national average in three major metrics of need for this vulnerability.
I agree that the financial inclusion strategy is a very welcome step in developing, co-ordinating and implementing interventions to support financial inclusion in the UK.
Subsequent policy decisions stemming from the strategy will have to work for a broad range of groups in society. Many face financial exclusion for different reasons, including older people, disabled people and young people.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. In Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, 30,000 adults—40% of the population—are financially vulnerable. That is higher than the national average, and it is hitting older residents and carers especially hard. There are too many forgotten families struggling to access credit, savings and insurance. The upcoming financial inclusion strategy is a vital chance to make a change. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to work with the Government to ensure that those communities have the financial safety nets they need to thrive?
I agree that we need to make sure that all communities have access to financial services, wherever they are and whoever they are. Everybody needs access to those services. I will welcome hearing from the Minister later about the financial inclusion strategy.
I hope that the hon. Member agrees that the Financial Conduct Authority’s work on access to cash is a useful step in the right direction. Does he also agree that provision should be widened to include face-to-face services, whereby people can see someone across the counter and receive advice?
I certainly agree. Later in my speech, I will come on to the issues of access to cash and face-to-face financial services.
All the groups that I have mentioned face barriers, but an area of particular concern that I wish to focus on this morning is financial inclusion for disabled people. Much of my thinking on the issue has been informed by the hard work of the Advisory Group, or TAG, a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation run by and for people with disabilities and abilities. Glasgow TAG’s banking campaign steering committee came together in response to growing frustration among TAG members about how banking is excluding them, both in terms of access and in terms of treatment. They have highlighted to me the very real financial exclusion that they face in everyday life.
A key issue that the group has raised with me is access to cash. Many members rely on cash for daily budgeting. The shift to card-only businesses and the closure of free-to-use ATMs are leaving people unable to spend their own money. Quarriers, one of Scotland’s largest social care charities, reports that 76% of people with learning disabilities rely on support with their finances, and the same proportion use bank cards to withdraw cash. In my constituency, we have seen a 22% decrease in free-to-use ATMs between 2019 and 2025. This has created cash deserts, where communities are left without access to cash machines, and those that remain often charge for withdrawals or are inside premises with closing times. I hope that the Minister will engage with the issue and acknowledge the importance of continued free access to cash for financial inclusion.
The second issue that TAG has raised is discrimination in branches. TAG members have shared experiences of being ignored in favour of support workers, denied access to their own accounts or treated with suspicion. There is a strong feeling among TAG members who have spoken to me that financial institutions are not doing enough to meet their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Will the Government consider supporting mandatory disability awareness and equality training in banking institutions, to help prevent such incidents?
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House this important topic, which is very close to my heart. I have had a lot of representations from disabled constituents in Hampstead and Highgate who are very worried about similar issues to those that he describes. They are also worried about the poverty premium in the insurance market, which I am sure my hon. Friend will touch on. Does he agree that any future inclusion strategy needs to address the poverty premium that exists in the insurance market, especially for our disabled constituents who have urged us to make a difference to their life?
Yes, I agree that we need to look right across the whole range of financial services, including insurance, as well as those that we have touched on. Exclusion from one service can often lead to exclusion from another and then another. Failing to get access to one service means that people are less likely to get access to another, and the problem becomes greater.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair that many people, including many constituents of mine, find themselves excluded from some of the best utility deals because they do not have a bank account, so they are unable to pay by direct debit? Effectively, that cuts them off from some of the best deals that are available across a range of products and services.
I agree. Financial exclusion has a cumulative effect: if someone is excluded from one financial service because they do not have access to a bank account, they may well find themselves excluded from others. As my hon. Friend says, they may be unable to pay for utilities or other services by direct debit, which would allow them to get the best deals. That cumulative impact is a very big issue.
The last issue that has been raised with me by TAG members is digital exclusion and branch closures. The transition to online banking is simply not accessible for many TAG members, and the closure of local branches has made it harder to get support in person. With the closure of high street banking, we are seeing the loss of the important face-to-face contact that can support people with learning disabilities with access to financial activities.
I support the Government’s work with industry to roll out at least 350 banking hubs that will provide communities with critical cash and banking services. I would welcome any reflections from the Minister on what the Government are doing to ensure that digitalisation does not leave people behind and to support the role of banking hubs. I acknowledge that for many people digital access increases the ability to get services, but for others it does not. That shows the need for a range of ways to access financial services, so everybody can access them.
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate and for highlighting the importance of addressing branch closures. In the market town of Halesworth in my constituency, the post office closed its doors for the final time last Saturday—I have been pressing the Post Office for a replacement facility as soon as possible—while Barclays, which is the only bank provider in the town, will cease its weekly facility at the library in the coming weeks. This reinforces his point about the importance of banking hubs as a potential solution for in-person support. Will he reiterate the importance of the Government speeding up the roll-out of banking hubs, particularly for rural communities?
I agree that there is a need for face-to-face services. Many people rely on that face-to-face support, so access to banking services through banking hubs is important. I welcome the Government’s roll-out of the hubs, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about how the scheme will be developed.
Beyond the issues that TAG raised with me, there are many other disabled groups with particular needs, such as blind and partially sighted people. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that only two in five blind and partially sighted people manage their finances independently, and over half of those who do not do so say that it is because of their sight loss. The common reasons that they cite are a lack of confidence and facilities no longer being available. Other experiences of financial exclusion that they report include information not being in an accessible format, a lack of trained bank branch staff and a lack of digital literacy for the transition to digital banking. That is just one example that shows how a truly inclusive financial system will have to be tailored and adaptable to the needs of a diverse range of people.
These are reasons why the financial inclusion strategy must be informed and shaped by the experience of people with disabilities and abilities. The Government must facilitate a proper dialogue between banks and disability groups. Disability-sensitive staff training is needed. Access to cash needs to be protected, including with more free ATMs and inclusive banking hubs. More broadly, the Government must tackle barriers to individuals’ and households’ ability to access affordable and appropriate financial products and services.
My partner, who is a financial adviser, often tells me that people come to her far too late in life, when they are in trouble. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be more inclusive with education on finances, to gear up the next generation to support themselves, set up pensions and so on?
I certainly acknowledge the need for financial education from an early age, so that people understand the system. One of the areas of exclusion is the fact that people just do not understand what financial services and products are. We need to ensure that people understand their options and can explore them.
Even if we addressed all the issues with financial inclusion that we have raised in this debate, there would remain fundamental issues of poverty and inequality in our economic system. The pervasiveness of loan sharks, the lack of access to affordable credit and the heightened cost of living crisis, which have eaten into many people’s savings, all contribute to an exclusionary financial system. I look forward to the publication of the financial inclusion strategy, but also to the publication of the child poverty strategy, alongside action to reduce poverty, promote equitable growth and increase opportunities for all. If we get all of that right, we can build an inclusive financial system for all. I know that the Minister takes these issues seriously; I look forward to her response.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate and for giving me the opportunity to discuss a topic that is integral to the ability of his constituents, my constituents and all our constituents to participate not just in our economy, but in society as a whole. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. From the number of interventions that have been made, it is clear that this is a very important issue to all of us throughout the House.
I think we can agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to appropriate and affordable financial products and services. I really do appreciate the strength of feeling on the issue. I know that some Members present will have had the opportunity at recent party conferences, as I did, to engage with the likes of Fair4All Finance, the Centre for Social Justice, Rooted Finance and other organisations.
I pay tribute to TAG, the charitable organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he mentioned, for the incredible work that it is doing to promote social inclusion for disabled people. I recognise the importance of that work and the need to go further to ensure that our financial system works for everyone; I will return to that point.
As my hon. Friend has set out, some of the statistics on financial inclusion in the UK are sobering: 900,000 people still do not have access to a bank account, 10% of adults have no savings, and another 21% of adults have less than £1,000 to draw on in the event of an emergency. When it comes to digital inclusion, which he raised, 3.3 million people—7% of current account holders—do not bank online or use a mobile banking app. However, I believe that this Government are on the cusp of making a real difference in that regard via the publication of our national financial inclusion strategy. Through that strategy, we can open up access to the right financial services, build households’ financial resilience and transform our constituents’ financial wellbeing.
However, I must stress that although the Treasury will publish the financial inclusion strategy, Government alone cannot solve some of the issues that we have been discussing today. We need a joint effort across industry, regulators and the third sector. That is exactly why I, along with my immediate predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), have developed our financial inclusion strategy, with the support of a committee made up of consumer and industry representatives.
The committee has been considering a range of barriers faced by those who are financially excluded, as well as three important, cross-cutting themes—economic abuse, mental health and accessibility. The latter theme is particularly relevant to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has raised. He will appreciate that I am slightly limited in what I can say before the publication of the strategy, but I can confirm that the fact that accessibility is a cross-cutting theme has been important to the development of the strategy. It has prompted the committee to look closely at the role that inclusive design can play in improving accessibility for underserved groups. I also want to make it very clear that we will publish the strategy before the end of the year.
A key part of financial inclusion is supporting young people to be included and ensuring that they have essential skills, including financial literacy. Has the Minister spoken with any colleagues in the Department for Education about how we can make sure that young people have the right essential skills, including financial literacy, as part of the strategy?
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we have had those discussions. I hope he will see the evidence of those discussions when the strategy is published, and I hope he will see them in a positive light.
I will now address the Government’s position on banking hub services and branch closures, in response to some of the points that have been raised today. I will then come on to some of the other points that have been raised, particularly discrimination in branches, which we must deal with, and digital exclusion.
As one would expect, the Financial Inclusion Committee and its sub-committees’ discussions reflect the fact that banking services have changed remarkably in recent years. Many people, including our vulnerable constituents, have benefited from digital innovations that have enabled them to bank more conveniently and securely at any time and from anywhere. Last year, the vast majority of current account holders—93%—used online or mobile banking services. That includes 75% of over-75s. At the same time, reliance on physical branches has declined significantly. However, the Government are clear about the importance of face-to-face banking to individuals and communities, and are committed to championing access for all. That is why we are working closely with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. More than 180 have already opened across the country, offering vital access to cash and everyday banking services.
We have also worked closely with the industry to improve the services that are available at those banking hubs. That includes ensuring that customers do not have to bring their own phone or tablet to access banking support, as well as a commitment to trial the use of printers, enhancing accessibility. We are committed to continuing to work with industry to ensure that banking services in hubs deliver the support that customers require.
I receive regular correspondence about the location of hubs. Hon. Members will know that the location of hubs is set by the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, which protect access to cash. Although the Government do not have a role in that decision-making process, my predecessor and I have met with Link very regularly. Indeed, I have a meeting with John Howells coming up, and I regularly feed in hon. Members’ views.
Turning to discrimination in branches, I will specifically address the experience of the customers shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. It was, frankly, hard to hear some of those negative and no doubt damaging experiences. I want everyone to feel valued and respected in their interactions with financial services. I know we would all wish that.
As my hon. Friend knows, all service providers, including banks and building societies, are bound by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments where necessary. In addition, under the FCA’s consumer duty, firms must identify where customers or groups are not getting good outcomes, and they must understand why. Although I set out that framework, we would always encourage people to contact their bank to explore reasonable adjustments to the services they might require. It is important that people know that if that is not happening, they have a right to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Earlier this year, the FCA published a report setting out areas for improvement in how financial services firms support customers in vulnerable circumstances, including those with learning disabilities in particular. The FCA highlighted in the report that most firms could not evidence how they had embedded the needs of customers in vulnerable circumstances into their product design, which is something we are determined to see change. As I have mentioned, in developing our strategy we have been looking at the role of inclusive design in developing financial inclusion. There has been really positive work to improve the way that financial services work for disabled people, so it is critical that we build on that.
I want to highlight briefly the work of Project Nemo, which was founded in 2024 to address digital accessibility and the under-representation of disabled people in financial services. Project Nemo’s research demonstrates that inclusive features can support those with learning disabilities to manage their money with greater independence and develop products that are more accessible for all. We are determined to build on the good work that has gone on previously to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North raises.
I want to address digital inclusion and the points that my hon. Friend raised in that regard. We recognise that digital exclusion can be a significant barrier in how consumers are able to access and use financial services products. That is why digital inclusion is an area of focus in the financial inclusion strategy. It has been specifically considered by its own sub-committee, alongside issues around access to banking services. The strategy, which hon. Members will be able to see in due course, will examine what more industry and Government can do to help address the problems and ensure that everyone can engage with financial services and manage their money in what we all know is an increasingly digital society.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is the lead Department for digital inclusion. Earlier this year, it published a digital inclusion action plan that focuses on digital barriers beyond financial services, including digital skills and confidence—issues raised today—and widening access to devices and connectivity, providing support through local communities.
I have addressed the matter of financial education, but I also want to touch briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate about the insurance market. I can confirm to her that insurance is in the scope of the financial inclusion strategy. As she knows, there is other work going on, including via the motor insurance taskforce, which is looking at the issues she raised—specifically, the cost of motor insurance to all our constituents.
PwC analysis has shown that one in three adults in the UK struggle to access mainstream credit, largely due to poor or just thin credit files. That is causing a huge financial inclusion problem, especially for young people trying to get a mortgage. Will the Minister meet me to discuss ways we can improve that situation in collaboration with industry, for example through the reporting of rent payments to credit reference agencies?
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues. I said at the outset that the financial inclusion strategy is considering cross-cutting themes. The issue of credit rating agencies has come across my desk outside the scope of the strategy, in relation to economic abuse. As he knows, there are serious issues with people—women in particular—having their credit rating affected as one impact of economic abuse. That is something that I am extremely interested in and that we are looking at. Indeed, the committee is looking at it as part of the financial inclusion strategy.
I will close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North for his continued championing of financial inclusion. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for raising their points today. Some raise financial inclusion with me very regularly via correspondence or via conversations in the voting Lobby and elsewhere. I very much appreciate their doing that, and I encourage them to continue to do so as we seek to address these serious issues, which affect not just our constituents’ ability to engage with financial services, but their ability to participate in societal life as a whole. I want to thank again—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.
May I say what a pleasure it is to have you invigilating our proceedings, Mr Twigg? This debate is about North Korea, but it is also specifically about the 75th commemoration of the Korean war, in which we took part. I have just discovered that this morning North Korea fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East sea, just a week before President Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. I think North Korea may well also have done so because it had heard about this debate. [Laughter.] I pride myself on that, rather than APEC, being almost certainly one of the greater reasons why it did so.
It is a great privilege to open this debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The world today is yet again at a crossroads between democracy and the axis of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, as we have not been since the fall of the Berlin wall. Over 81,000 British servicemen fought in the Korean war, providing the second largest military contribution to the United Nations Command after the United States, which is something that people rarely talk about. Over 1,100 of them never came home, which is more than the total British losses in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands combined.
Among their most heroic stands was the battle of the Imjin river in 1951. There, 652 men of the 1st Battalion the Gloucestershire Regiment faced three Chinese divisions, numbering at least 42,000 men, in one of the most courageous defences in British military history. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will no doubt share in detail, those brave Gloucestershire men held the UN line for three days against the overwhelming Chinese spring offensive. When the battle ended, of the 652 men who fought there for those three days, 67 walked away. The rest were killed or captured, and the name Gloster Hill was etched forever into history, although too often schools do not remind everybody of the sacrifice that they made for those who now live free.
Today, only a few veterans of the Korean war remain with us here in the United Kingdom. One of them, Mr Scott, shared a story later recounted by his son in Stockport:
“Of all the campaigns I fought in, Korea was the one that affected me the most. One night, I was called out on a reconnaissance mission I didn’t want to do. But when I returned to my platoon, they had all been wiped out.”
His son, Mr Steven Scott, reflected:
“My father was deeply affected by the Korean War. He had served in the Army during the Second World War and was called up from the reserves for the Korean War.”
Their sacrifice, courage and service secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula, a freedom that the democratic world still cherishes today. The other half remains in darkness, suffering under the most brutal regime on earth; it is hard to imagine the brutality of that leadership. We must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered by generations to come.
Many young people around the world today enjoy K-pop, K-dramas and the vibrant culture of modern South Korea, yet without the sacrifice of those who secured its freedom, none of that would be possible. In stark contrast, totalitarian Pyongyang denies its people access to the internet, mobile phones, YouTube or social media, and those who are caught watching anything from the south or from the outside world face imprisonment or even execution.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is worse than he says in North Korea. If someone is caught committing any of these minor crimes, such as listening to a memory stick from the west, it is not only they who are imprisoned; it is their entire family. That is almost invariably a slow death sentence, because they will then be worked terrifically hard without adequate food.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures.
It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes.
Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states. In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea.
In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war. Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones.
What of the north? While half of the Korean peninsula enjoys freedom, the other half remains under totalitarian rule. It continues brutally to repress its own people. In his recent book “The Dictators”, Iain Dale observes that the Kim family’s dictatorship ranks among the 10 most brutal and evil in history, alongside those of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That reality is consistently reflected in global human rights and religious persecution indexes. Organisations such as Open Doors UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and others continue their vital advocacy, reminding the world each year that North Korea remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. It is a nation in which human rights are trampled daily and persecution remains unmatched, topping the world watch-list year after year.
Just 12 days ago, North Korea marked the 80th anniversary of its ruling Workers’ party, inviting delegations from China, Russia, Vietnam and other authoritarian states to join the celebrations. For decades, the North Korean people have endured unimaginable suffering from ongoing nuclear development and security threats, starvation, brutal repression and systematic abuses, including enslavement, torture, imprisonment, forced abortions, enforced disappearances and persecution on political and religious grounds. North Korea’s human rights record stands among the worst in the world.
To make matters even more harrowing, for three decades China has forcibly repatriated North Korean escapees. Many—especially pregnant women, who are highly vulnerable and are often trafficked after crossing the border—are sent back into North Korea, where they face imprisonment, torture, forced abortions if their child is of Chinese descent, or even execution. One escapee, Ms Kim Kyu-ri, now lives safely in London and testified at the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea. I was present, as the co-chair with Lord Alton, who I know is watching this debate. Tragically, Ms Kim’s sister was among the 600 repatriated in 2023, and her fate remains unknown. Such acts surely represent only a fraction of the brutality and loss that exist because of the existence of North Korea.
All these issues were thoroughly investigated by the 2014 UN commission of inquiry into all the awful acts North Korea has done. The commission was led by the Australian judge Michael Kirby, who said:
“The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
Its recommendations included the imposition of further sanctions on the regime’s illicit activities, on its nuclear programmes and on the forced production of goods by North Korean political prisoners, including textiles, wigs and fake eyelashes, which are often deceptively labelled as having been made in China. A report produced by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, “Made in China: How Global Supply Chain Fuels Slavery in North Korean Prison Camps”, gives evidence of these shocking practices.
I want to return to the anniversary point. British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to Korea to fight for a people far distant. At the end of it, their bravery and determination secured, at least, freedom for half of that peninsula. Without their sacrifice, we would not be using the word “North” in front of the word “Korea”. We would be talking about the abuses of a deeply fractured communist regime that is destroying life for those who would love to have the freedoms that we have. Their sacrifice, and their deaths, must always be remembered. There is a tendency to forget that in the aftermath of the second world war we were involved in yet another major conflict. We have the right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their sacrifice secured freedom for a second time, following the second world war.
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent, poignant speech. In 2013, as the then Veterans Minister, I had the great honour of going to South Korea with His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester to represent the Government at the 60th anniversary of the armistice. As my right hon. Friend knows, the South Koreans refer to this day to the countries, like ours, that sent them aid as the sending states. I was very struck by the tremendous lengths to which the South Koreans went to look after our veterans who attended the commemorations. They were treated with immense reverence. Will my right hon. Friend allow me to place on the record today my great thanks to the South Koreans for everything that they do to remember the sending states and those troops who came to defend democracy in their land?
Yes, and my right hon. Friend’s comments will be recorded and available for all to see.
I completely concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the need to pay tribute to the South Koreans and their Government for their acknowledgment of the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many of our fellow countrymen in the defence of liberty and democracy in the Republic of Korea. They paid for and helped to establish a war memorial to the British fallen; that memorial now stands outside the Ministry of Defence. That point backs up what both right hon. Members have said. Will the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reflect on what measures our country and our allies need to put in place to support South Korea in its security and to work towards a peace on the Korean peninsula?
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to ask that question. We should apply ourselves to everything that is needed to ensure the freedom of South Korea, its Government and its people. We did it once; we should be prepared to do it again. It is worth noting that Korea now sits next to one of the growing threats, on a scale of power and potency that we have not seen since the cold war; that is, of course, China. Its ambitions in the area are to dominate all these spheres from Taiwan to Korea.
I have been campaigning on the subject, as have many other Members in this Chamber. Some of us are sanctioned; others not yet. We have been sanctioned because we believe that unless the west stands up now to the growth of the totalitarian states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—we will face the loss of the freedoms that we profoundly believe necessary for democracy to flourish and for people’s rights and liberties to be upheld.
This is not just a debate about Korea, north or south; it is a debate about our ability, capability and determination to recognise threats and never give in to them, wherever they lie. If there is one thing that the British Government and the British people should be proud of, it is our unrivalled sense of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, which we have always stood up to uphold. My worry today is that we might look at China and Korea and say, “These are far and distant countries now, and therefore we have to look after only ourselves.” That would be a sad and shabby day for this country. I appreciate the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but our commitment to freedom is a global commitment.
At this year’s UN General Assembly, the DPRK regime spoke of “human dignity and prosperity” and claimed that it was committed to international peace and security, yet the same regime continues to conduct intercontinental ballistic missile tests—it has launched eight short and medium-range ballistic missiles this year alone—while carrying out large-scale cyber-attacks, including the recent theft of $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency. It engages in transnational repression of human rights activists and illicit arms smuggling, and it continues to pour vast resources into weapons of mass destruction.
Only a few weeks ago, we saw the leaders of the axis of authoritarian states gathered in Beijing, arm in arm with President Xi, claiming that they would be the new world order. If people did not freeze at that sight, understanding that it is a genuine challenge, then on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war we should remind ourselves of the sacrifice of the brave British, American and other United Nations troops who stood up in the face of tyranny and managed to secure freedom—if not all of it, at least enough to give hope to those who live outside it. We are not only commemorating the 75th anniversary; we will have to relive it and remind ourselves that there is nothing more expensive than freedom. It is not free.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate and for recognising the contribution of our Glorious Glosters.
On 1 October 1950, 890 men from the Gloucestershire Regiment left England for Korea. On 25 April 1951, only a few dozen of those men made it back to UN lines, having evaded death and capture at the battle of the Imjin river. Those men became known as our Glorious Glosters. I am honoured to speak today about their heroic contribution.
Across three days in April 1951, 620 Glosters held off thousands of advancing Chinese troops as they crossed the Imjin river. They sustained heavy artillery fire, repeated assaults and frequent combat. They were heavily outnumbered and faced overwhelming odds, but they remained resolute and their courage did not falter. Fifty-nine soldiers of the Gloucestershire Regiment paid the ultimate sacrifice and were killed in action, and over 500 were taken prisoner and endured years of brutal captivity.
The impact of those three days cannot be overstated. By courageously holding off advancing enemy forces, the Glosters prevented the capture of Seoul. Their sacrifice slowed the Chinese advance and gave US and UN troops time to regroup. The battle of the Imjin river is often referred to as the battle that saved Seoul. Without the Glosters’ heroism, there might not be democracy, liberty and freedom in South Korea today.
That is why I believe that it is our duty, and my responsibility as the MP for the great city of Gloucester, always to honour the sacrifice and the bravery of the Glorious Glosters. There are already some great memorials to them, at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire and at Hill 235 in Paju, South Korea, where the Glosters made their famous stand, which is now known as Gloster Hill. The Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum in my constituency also has a fantastic exhibit dedicated to the Glosters, and I understand that Forest of Dean district council is working hard with partners to create another memorial. As we approach the 75th anniversary of the battle of Imjin river next year, I ask the Government to work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) to ensure that it is properly commemorated.
We must never forget the bravery of those selfless heroes. Their courage protected liberty and democracy in South Korea. Generations have grown up in Paju, Seoul and across South Korea in freedom, thanks in part to the unwavering courage of the Glorious Glosters. The Glosters did not seek to be heroes, but that is how their bravery defines them today. For this, they must always be honoured.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think this will be a consensual debate, in which we come together to show our solidarity with South Korea and, above all, our respect and gratitude to British servicemen who gave their lives to defend freedom and democracy all those years ago.
We should remember what was happening in our country at that time. We were recovering from the devastation of the second world war. Families had made huge sacrifices, but we were prepared to make further sacrifices. In that context, it was an even greater achievement, as the hon. Member for Gloucester just outlined. It is important to remember that, and I urge colleagues to go and spend a moment looking at the war memorial outside the Ministry of Defence.
I have the pleasure to represent many Koreans. Half of the 40,000 Koreans in the UK live in south-west London, mainly in my constituency and Wimbledon. Indeed, New Malden in my constituency is known as Little Seoul; it has some fine Korean restaurants, should hon. Members wish to partake. I am also proud to be the chair of the APPG on the Republic of Korea. We are particularly grateful to the embassy staff for their support in engaging with our Korean friends.
South Korea is a fantastic country. The democracy that was won through that sacrifice has given back multiple times over to its own people, to south-east Asia and to the world, including our country. We should all be proud to say that our country is a friend of South Korea. We are able to enjoy their wonderful culture, with the K-wave—Korean wave—going across the world. I, for one, have BTS and Blackpink on my phone.
I could show and play them, Mr Twigg, but that might be out of order. I also have a DVD at home of the film “Parasite”, which won many awards, showing that Korean culture goes way beyond music. I am a particular fan of kimchi, and proud that the royal borough of Kingston is the first place in our country to celebrate International Kimchi Day, when we eat lots of that wonderful food.
More seriously, the relationship between our country and Korea is strategic, and it is critical: critical for our economy, for our defence and for the geopolitical response that our country has to make. I will deal first with the economy, not least because the APPG wants to take evidence on the trade agreement that is being bashed out by trade negotiators. I was proud to be a trade Minister when we pushed for the EU-Korea free trade agreement, which was extremely effective. We published all the opportunities available to British companies in Korea as a result of that free trade agreement. I hope the agreement currently under discussion can build on that, so that we and Korean firms can benefit mutually, in the way that free trade allows.
I flag up in particular the relationship we can have on technology, with AI and beyond. In my constituency, we are developing relationships with Korean schools and universities, so that their knowledge of AI can be shared with our schools and university. It is important that we work with trusted allies such as our Korean friends to push out the boat on those new technologies. Beyond the economy, the energy relationship is important in all spheres, whether renewables or nuclear. The Republic of Korea is very much signed up to efforts to reduce its carbon emissions, and it is a trusted partner in the battle for climate action.
On our defence and security relationship with South Korea, under the Government of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), a very important deal was done, and signed at No. 10, to strengthen defence co-operation in a way that we have not seen before. For all the reasons mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, strengthening that relationship could not be more important. Yes, there is the threat from North Korea, but above all there is the geopolitical threat that China represents not just to South Korea, but more broadly. President Lee Jae Myung, who took power after the recent elections, needs huge support. It is a difficult time in the politics of Korea, but he is showing real leadership, and we need to get behind his Government and their attempts to keep the peace on the peninsula through strength and diplomacy.
As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war and the colossal loss of life—2.5 million lives were sadly lost—we must appreciate the huge strides that South Korea has made as a democracy and a close and trusted ally, which the right hon. Gentleman has remarked on. Does he agree that while we commemorate the contribution of our brave British service personnel who served during that time, we must ensure as a nation that we are a beacon of security and stability internationally and strengthen our alliance with our South Korean partners?
I could not agree more. I think that is a cross-party view, and all the stronger for it. It is important on the occasions that we agree on foreign policy to send out that message, because it is heard in other parts of the world. They know that together, as a country, we support our friends in South Korea.
Returning to the commemoration, I will concentrate my final remarks on the threat from North Korea, because it is a real one. We have seen how North Korean troops are supporting Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine. No doubt it is sending its technology. I am not on top of all the details of the things it is sending, but I know that it will be sending ammunition and missiles. That shows us that we need to be on our marks against North Korea today; it is a threat to the world order today.
Although I am no great fan of President Trump, I hope that he can succeed in any talks that he has with the North Koreans. It is essential that they are brought to their senses. That is a very difficult task, as he found the last time he attempted it, which did not go terribly well. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green says from a sedentary position, President Trump christened the President of North Korea “Rocket man”.
“Little rocket man”—as always, a double-edged sword.
Let us hope that President Trump is more successful this time. There are many ways he and our Government can take that forward. I have spoken with US politicians, and in particular Congressman Brad Sherman, who has put forward the idea of trying to move on from the armistice—let us remember that the war has not actually finished—to a formal peace treaty. I think that is an interesting concept. Arguing for a formal peace treaty, difficult though it may be with the current Government in North Korea, who are shocking and appalling in all the ways that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned, could show that we want to engage. It would be a difficult and tricky route, but trying to establish a peace treaty is one way that we could commemorate the 75th anniversary of the start of the war and, more importantly, commemorate and strengthen the peace that there has been so that people on the whole peninsula can live in peace.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate to mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, and on his excellent opening speech.
It is a great privilege to represent my consistency of North Cotswolds. It is an area that I have had the honour of representing, in some guise, since 1992, and it includes the largest geographical chunk of Gloucestershire, where undoubtedly members of the Gloucestershire Regiment’s families still live. As we commemorate this important anniversary, let me start as others have by paying tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the Gloucestershire Regiment during the battle of the Imjin river in April 1951. Like my right hon. Friend, I acknowledge that, of course, not only the Gloucestershire Regiment but all our other airmen, naval men and soldiers were part of that operation.
In the face of a powerful force of 42,000 Chinese soldiers, the 1st battalion—the Glorious Glosters—held their position alone for three days. In the end there were 662 casualties. Fifty-six were killed, and 522 were taken prisoner—and many of them had already endured German and Japanese prisoner of war camps in world war two, as has been said.
It was because of my connection with the Glosters that I chaired the APPG on North Korea for many years. I was very pleased that it was taken over from me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. On behalf of all the families, and the relatives who live elsewhere, I would like to pay tribute to the Glosters.
According to General James Van Fleet, commander of the United Nations forces in Korea, the Glosters’ stand at Imjin was
“the most outstanding example of unit bravery in modern warfare.”
Their heroic defence plugged a large gap in the allied line and, ultimately, as my right hon. Friend said, it prevented the North Korean forces from capturing Seoul—where I have visited on several occasions—and helped to pave the way for the establishment of a free, prosperous South Korea. The courage and sacrifice of the Glosters secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula—even as the other half continues to suffer badly today under the repressive yoke of one of the most brutal regimes with the worst human rights record in the world.
For their actions during the battle, the Glosters were awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation, a rare honour for non-American armed forces. Two of the men from the regiment were also posthumously rewarded the Victoria Cross, the British empire’s highest military decoration for valour. They included Lieutenant Philip Curtis for leading a counter-attack on the Chinese position at Castle Hill, buying time for his comrades. There were also two awards of the Distinguished Service Order, six Military Crosses, two Distinguished Conduct Medals and 10 Military Medals. The actions of the Glosters at Imjin remains one of the British Army’s finest hours.
My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the Glorious Glosters were awarded a US Presidential Unit Citation, which is extremely rare for a non-American unit. Another link is that the Korean war memorial in Washington has a very brief inscription that reads simply, “Freedom is not free.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence of Gloster Hill by the Glorious Glosters, and the casualties they suffered, are a living embodiment of that great motto?
My right hon. Friend is entirely right: freedom is not free, and nor is it enduring. We cannot assume that we will always be free; we have to continuously fight for and believe in it. That is why we want to support Ukraine and other countries that are being unjustly penalised in an illegal war, to make sure that they can remain free, just as we in this country have freedoms that we often take for granted. We must never take those freedoms for granted.
I come now to a slightly sad bit in my speech. The bodies of many of the Glorious Glosters who were killed in North Korea still remain there. As many of my colleagues will be aware, I have previously been involved in efforts to try to return their remains to Britain. While noting the current geopolitical climate, I would like to ask whether the Minister will work with me to ensure that the remaining Glosters are brought home, so that their families can finally give them a dignified burial. There is precedent for this: the last time there was a little bit of rapprochement, around the time of President Trump’s meetings with the President of North Korea, some of the American bodies were brought home. If there is an opportunity in the next rapprochement, and if the Minister supports me in pushing for this, I could arrange for the bodies to be categorised and returned to the families in a dignified way, so that they can lay them to rest.
As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, let us turn our attention to the situation in the peninsula today. Anyone who looks at a satellite photo will see that half, the south, is lit up with bright lights—the lights of a free, prosperous, democratic society. The other half, the north, remains in darkness—a darkness of cruelty, repression and poverty. As has been mentioned, those who are brave enough to try to escape from North Korea very often end up in China. China uses facial and other recognition technology to make sure those people are returned, certainly to torture and most likely to their death.
We are very honoured—I have his permission to mention this—to have Timothy Cho in the Gallery today. He is one of those who tried to escape from North Korea. He failed on the first occasion, and he has huge scars all over his body from the torture that he went through when he was recaptured. But he was even braver, and wanted to escape for a second time, when mercifully he succeeded. We are very proud to have him here in Britain.
In 2013, the United Nations established a commission of inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, to investigate the human rights situation in North Korea. A distinguished Australian judge, Justice Michael Kirby, was appointed to chair it. Together with the experienced Serbian human rights campaigner Sonja Biserko and the UN special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea at the time, the former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, he conducted a comprehensive set of hearings, gathering witness testimony and first-hand evidence. As has been quoted today, their conclusion was:
“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations”
—this is the important bit—
“reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
Having been chairman of the North Korea group, I can tell the House that some of the stories that I have heard are just unbelievable. It is a harrowing catalogue of crimes against humanity, including extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape and forced abortions, among the other atrocities that people there have to endure, as well as severe religious persecution, enforced disappearance and starvation. The inquiry recommended that this should lead to a referral to the International Criminal Court. More than a decade later, I ask the Minister: what is the status of the UN commission of inquiry? What plans do the Government have to revisit the human rights and humanitarian crisis in North Korea at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council?
Seventy-five years on from the war on the Korean peninsula, North Korea, together with China, is a major facilitator of President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, providing Russia with weapons, munitions and men. While we remember that 75 years ago our brave soldiers were on the Korean peninsula defending freedom, North Korean troops today are on the continent of Europe, on our doorstep, reminding us that independence and liberty cannot be taken for granted. What steps are the Government taking to hold North Korea to account for this act of aggression?
We live in an increasingly turbulent and uncertain world. That should remind us how imperative it is for democracies to stand together to defend freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism. Nowhere is there a clearer example that shows why that is needed than on the Korean peninsula. Imagine what Korea would be like today if the Glosters had not taken such a heroic stance. All of us in this House should pay tribute to their courage and selfless actions.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. I always come along to support him because his heart is always in the subject matter. Today he illustrated that incredibly well.
Seventy-five years ago, British and Commonwealth servicemen and women joined a United Nations coalition to defend the Korean peninsula from aggression. It was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century; it is estimated to have claimed about 3 million lives, most of them civilians. The scars of that division remain visible to this day. More than 1,000 British servicemen were killed, and several thousand more were wounded or taken prisoner. They fought with extraordinary bravery in the harshest of conditions, from the battle of the Imjin river to the defence of Seoul. Their courage stands as a lasting testament to our nation’s commitment to freedom and peace in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am ever mindful of my constituent Colonel Robin Charley. He was born in 1924 and died in 2019 aged 95. He was a magnificent soldier who showed incredible courage and bravery. I remember his medal, because it always intrigued me—the Queen’s Korea medal—and he wore it with pride. I was not quite sure what it was; I asked him one day and he told me some of the stories of Korea and what had happened. He has passed away now, but his daughter, Catherine Champion, is a vice lord lieutenant of County Down. He passed on to his children that commitment to duty and doing one’s best; he did that wonderfully well.
I am also reminded of another gentleman who has passed away: Mr Milligan from Loughries outside Newtownards, who also lived to a ripe old age. He fought in that war and carried the scars of Korea each and every day.
The war ended not with peace, but with an armistice—a fragile ceasefire that still divides one people into two nations. The south rebuilt and flourished as a democracy; the north closed itself off inwardly under totalitarian rule. What did the Korean war leave us with for Christians and people of faith? Seventy-five years on, we honour the legacy best by standing for those who are still denied the freedoms for which our soldiers fought all those years ago.
I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea—we have representatives here today—for its continued commitment
“to promote and support human rights, including religious freedom, humanitarian needs, democracy and…international security”.
This debate is very much about the international security that people fought for 75 years ago and fight for today. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, that fight has not finished.
I am also grateful to the North Korean exile community for the immense courage that it takes to share their stories. Ten years ago, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry described the “gravity, scale and nature” of the Kim regime’s crimes as having no
“parallel in the contemporary world.”
A decade later, little has changed. There is no parallel in the contemporary world. North Korea is top of the tree when it comes to persecution, denying human rights and murdering its own people.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I care deeply about promoting freedom in North Korea and around the globe. Religious freedom is effectively non-existent in North Korea. According to non-governmental organisation and United Nations estimates, between 50,000 and 70,000 Christians are believed to be detained in political camps solely because of their faith—some for owning a Bible, others for praying in secret. Some of us pray every day and carry our Bible. In North Korea, people cannot do that, because the punishment is death.
Broader estimates suggest there might be 400,000 underground Christians across the country, worshipping quietly and at constant risk of discovery. These are not just statistics; these are people. Defectors have testified that people have been beaten, starved and executed simply for believing in God. One mother was reportedly forced to watch her sons shot for possessing Christian literature. Such cruelty is part of a deliberate campaign to eradicate faith and enforce absolute devotion to the ruling family.
Those who try to flee face grave danger. There are credible reports of a shoot-to-kill policy at the border. Those who reach China are often forcibly repatriated, as others have said, in violation of international law and the principle of non-refoulement. Human Rights Watch and other organisations report that hundreds of North Koreans have been returned from China in recent years to face imprisonment and torture, especially if they are suspected of contact with Christians or missionaries. How wrong it seems to be, to North Korea’s regime, to be a Christian, to have a faith, and to have independent thought.
One voice that brings that horror into focus is that of Jinhye Jo, a North Korean defector who has spoken with remarkable courage. Fleeing to China with her mother and sister, she found God in a small countryside church—a glimmer of grace amid fear. For that faith, she was forcibly repatriated four times, and was each time beaten and interrogated by the Bowibu, the secret police, who demanded to know whether she had attended church or had social engagements with Christians. That courageous lady said this:
“All these methods of severe and cruel punishment were to try to find out…whether we had attended church or come into contact with Christians”.
She went on to say:
“God saved me so that I would be able to tell the world the plight of the North Korean people’s unfair suffering and the worst modern-day evil that is going on right now.”
Jinhye Jo’s testimony is not only a cry of pain, but a call to conscience. Today, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters facing persecution in North Korea. As Jeremiah 22:3 reminds us, we must do what is just and right always, and rescue the oppressed from the power of the oppressor. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must continue to press for justice and accountability for crimes against humanity, urge China to end forced repatriations and support those documenting evidence for future prosecutions. A day of reckoning will come, and we want to ensure that that day is in this world, although of course they will get their day of reckoning in the next.
Seventy-five years after our forebears fought for the freedom of Korea, let their courage inspire us to defend freedom again, until the day comes when every person in North Korea can live in peace, dignity and hope.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I am reminded that it was only last month that we heard him pay tribute to the courage of his father in the battle of Britain. It is in the same spirit that we reflect on the Korean war, 75 years ago.
Seventy-five years on from the outbreak of the Korean war, we commemorate a conflict that is sometimes called the forgotten war. It is probably called that because it is in the shadow of world war two, which of course was so far-reaching that it affects everybody’s memory—it is very much in our memory today and will be next month, as we go into the period of remembrance. However, the Korean war is never forgotten by families who lost loves ones or by communities like those I represent, who sent their family members to serve.
Today’s debate marks the anniversary of the service of British forces who fought under the UN flag from 1950 to 1953. We remember it in particular because it was one of the first occasions when the newly constituted United Nations deployed a force under chapter 7 of the UN charter, which states that the UN can respond to
“any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”.
It was the absence of the Soviet Union at the UN Security Council that made it possible to deploy a force under the UN flag, consistent with the intention of the authors of the UN charter. What a pity it is that we now have a representative of Russia on the UN Security Council vetoing the rational motions that the UK seeks to pass.
For east Devon, the history of this conflict is personal. In Sidmouth, there is a plaque at St Giles and St Nicholas church that remembers Private David Hamson, who fell in Korea aged just 20. His name anchors that distant war in Sidmouth’s own story, given that the plaque stands alongside those of fallen soldiers from the first and second world wars. David Hamson was born in Sidmouth in 1932. He was called up for national service and joined the Devonshire Regiment, which was first deployed in Malaya to combat the communist insurgency that was taking place there in the 1950s.
Soon afterwards, volunteers were sought to reinforce the British operation in Korea, and David stepped forward. He was transferred to the Gloucestershire Regiment. In April 1951, his battalion took up positions in the hills outside Seoul, in the battle that has been reflected on several times this afternoon. He was facing China’s 63rd army, about 27,000 strong, as it sought to capture the South Korean capital. The Glosters, numbering just 652 men, held their ground for four days and nights, buying crucial time for the defence of Seoul. One can only imagine what that experience must have been like.
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of British and international forces in the Korean war, as other right hon. and hon. Members have. Will he join me in also paying tribute to the extraordinary journalists who bravely sought to bring news of Korea to international and, indeed, Korean audiences? They include René Cutforth, for the BBC overseas services, who was one of the last journalists to leave Seoul in 1950, and Marguerite Higgins, an American journalist who won a Pulitzer prize—the first woman ever to do so—for the courage of her journalism in the Korean war. Will he also join me in paying tribute to the continuing work of the BBC World Service, which continues to broadcast in Korean to North Korean audiences today?
We absolutely must pay tribute to journalists who continue to report in some of the most dangerous circumstances. Even this year, hundreds of journalists have lost their lives in conflict.
Private Hamson was among those who did not return from the famous battle of Imjin river. His courage and sacrifice embody the spirit of the Devonshire Regiment and the Glorious Glosters, to which he was transferred. His name is inscribed at the UN memorial cemetery at Busan, in South Korea.
In July 2023, a short service was held at St Giles and St Nicholas church to remember the Korean war. The Royal British Legion president, Ralph Hickman, and the Sidmouth Royal Naval Old Comrades association chair, Peter O’Brien, made speeches about the sacrifices made in a war that today has slipped from collective memory for some, perhaps, but not for us, and not for Sidmouth.
Ray Collins from Woolbrook, near Sidmouth, was present at that service two summers ago. A year after the 1953 armistice, he found himself in Korea with the Dorset Regiment. For nearly a year, his battalion was based along the 38th parallel—the tense frontier established at the truce. He says that there were occasional shoot-outs and a constant round of provocations from the north, but he said that it was the freezing conditions that proved the real enemy. When his national service ended, Ray became a leader of the Sidmouth army cadets, and served as its respected warrant officer for more than 30 years. His dedication and leadership earned him the British empire medal—a lifetime of service rooted in what he learned serving in Korea.
In total, 1,108 British servicemen lost their lives in Korea. Commemoration should sharpen our sense of the world that we face today. The Korean war was the first hot war of the cold war—a brutal struggle that asked whether free nations would stand firm against oppression and aggression, driven by a Soviet system prepared to gamble with lives while seeking to challenge democracy and liberty. Today, the Russian Federation is waging the largest land war in Europe since 1945. Its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace on our continent. We cannot ignore the rhyme of history, with an authoritarian power once again testing the resolve of free nations. In remembering the Korean war, we honour those who fell, but we also reaffirm a simple truth: democratic nations must stand together against tyranny.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the tens of thousands of British veterans who served in the Korean war, and who ensured the survival of a free and democratic South Korea.
Many veterans of Korea are now in their 90s, and so, just as the second world war is passing from living memory, we should remember that the Korean war is about to do the same. With just under 1,100 British casualties, many war memorials across the country include a small number of names from Korea, which adds to the idea of what is often unfairly called the forgotten war. In my constituency, the war memorial in the small coastal village of Mortehoe bears only a single name from Korea—that of Mr W. J. Yeo—added to one side of the stone, almost like an afterthought. Forgetting Mr Yeo, however, and many like him, would be a disservice to the remarkable achievement of all those veterans who served, many of whom were doing national service at the time.
Earlier this year, the South Korean ambassador to the UK again praised the bravery of British troops, who not only risked their lives but defended a distant land and the freedom of a people they had never met. Today, South Korea is not only a democratic society, but a resolute British ally in the far east, and a global economic success story. In July 1950, that future hung in the balance. Communist forces controlled nearly all the Korean peninsula, and only a determined counter-offensive by the US, Britain and our allies secured a future for South Korea as an independent nation.
The lesson is so clear, because north of the demilitarised zone, we can now see an alternative version of history that might have played out. North Korea remains a deeply repressive dictatorship and an economically backward rogue state. Amnesty International describes its militaristic regime as
“violating every conceivable human right.”
It allows torture and starvation. It does not allow
“any organised political opposition, independent media, free trade unions, civil society organisations, or religious freedom.”
The north continues to align with Russia and Iran, violating international sanctions and heightening nuclear tensions. It threatens democratic neighbours such as South Korea and Japan, and even provides military aid to Russia’s war against Ukraine. As we reach this anniversary, that stark contrast between north and south should strengthen the UK’s resolve.
Many Members will have seen those astonishing satellite photographs of the Korean peninsula, which show the bright lights of South Korea and near-total darkness across the north. It is in no small part thanks to courageous British efforts that the lights did not go out entirely, and 75 years on, we must never forget.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to his new position. This is the first time we have—I will not say sparred, because it is not the sort of debate for that—worked together since we served as Whips a number of years ago.
Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important marking the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. He brings, as ever, such knowledge and sincerity to the House, and at times—in the right way and at the right time—a little humour, as he did at the very start of the debate. Not only that, but he enables us to demonstrate that the role of this place often goes way beyond debating legislation. It can rightly provide an opportunity for us to come together as a House and a space to commemorate and reflect.
Sitting here, I was reminded of the day when, as a Foreign Minister, I had the honour of being invited to lay a wreath at the Korean war memorial on Victoria Embankment in 2020 to mark the 67th anniversary of the Korean war armistice agreement. I thank my right hon. Friend for providing the space for us today, because it provides a moment for reflection and gratitude. The Korean war, as we have heard, is often called the forgotten war, but it must never be forgotten. It was a defining struggle of the early cold war—one that tested the unity of the free world and reaffirmed the principles of collective security that remain vital today.
On 25 June 1950, North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, triggering three years of brutal conflict. More than 2.5 million people lost their lives, but Britain answered the call of the United Nations, sending more than 81,000 service personnel—the second largest contribution after that of the United States. As we have heard, 1,129 British servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice. Over 1,000 were taken prisoner, and around 300 remain missing. We remember them and their families, who bore the quiet burden of that service.
Among those who fought were young men from my own region—the west midlands, including the Black Country—many of whom served with proud regiments such as the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and the Black Watch, both of which saw fierce action in Korea. Across the Commonwealth, too, the bonds of sacrifice run deep. More than 26,000 Canadians, 18,000 Australians, 4,700 New Zealanders and thousands more from India, South Africa and elsewhere stood beside us. Their shared service is part of the living fabric of the Commonwealth family and the global defence of democracy.
Commemoration is not just about looking back. It is also about understanding why the legacy of the Korean war still matters today. The Republic of Korea—South Korea—has emerged from the devastation of war as a vibrant democracy, a major economy and a valued strategic partner of the UK. Our modern partnership rests on the same values our forebears fought for: freedom, prosperity and the rule of law. That partnership was reaffirmed under the last Government, in November 2023, through the Downing Street accord, a global strategic partnership between our two nations. Under that accord, we are working together on defence, cyber-security, clean energy, semiconductors and resilient supply chains. We established a new ministerial dialogue to align foreign and defence policy, and expanded co-operation on naval training, defence exports and regional stability. This partnership matters to both nations: it strengthens our ability to deter aggression, uphold freedom of navigation, and shape the future of technology and trade on fair and open terms.
We cannot commemorate this anniversary without acknowledging the continuing threats in the region. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—North Korea—remains a source of instability and danger, not only to its neighbours but to global security. Its relentless pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, its disregard for UN Security Council resolutions, and its growing ties to other authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China, all demand our vigilance and resolve. The regime’s leader continues to endanger his own people and the peace of the region. Therefore, we must remain firm in condemning these provocations, united in enforcing sanctions and clear that such behaviour will not be rewarded with legitimacy.
The Korean war taught us that alliances matter and that when free nations stand together, they can resist aggression and preserve peace. Those lessons are as vital today as they were in 1950, but this anniversary is also an opportunity to celebrate the enduring success of our friendship with the Republic of Korea and to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to upholding peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and around the world.
In that spirit, may I ask the Minister three brief questions? First, what further steps are the Government taking to support the work of the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre in investigating historical cases of missing British personnel from the Korean war? Secondly, how is the UK implementing the Downing Street accord, particularly in strengthening our defence, security and cyber partnerships with the Republic of Korea? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the evolving security threat posed by North Korea, and how is the UK working with allies to respond effectively, including through a review of the effectiveness of existing UN sanctions, to ensure that they are having the maximum possible impact on Kim Jong Un’s regime?
In Busan, the British memorial bears this inscription:
“Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met”.
Those words speak of duty, courage and the enduring belief that freedom anywhere is worth defending everywhere. Seventy-five years on, we remember them with gratitude and renewed purpose.
Mr Twigg, it is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, although I have never done so as a Minister, so it is nice to be in this slightly different role.
I pay sincere tribute to the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I know from having been in the House for almost a decade that when he speaks, many Members across the House listen. He always does so with great dignity. If I may say so, with genuine affection, he gives us a huge history lesson on the conflicts around the globe, which come with real authority. I mean that most sincerely, and I know that many Members across the House respect the work that he has done over the decades he has served in it. I also pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, and to the work of Lord Alton. I am sorry to hear that Lord Alton is currently in hospital; I do hope that there are ways in which our wonderful NHS can provide support to him as he recovers from his broken back.
The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is responsible for the Indo-Pacific, would have been delighted to take the debate today, but she is travelling on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I am not sure we have ever sparred on any subject, including in our years of me shadowing her when I was in the Whips Office in opposition. I hope we can continue that friendly relationship as we start this new relationship as Minister and shadow Minister.
I am grateful for the many poignant contributions by Members from across the House, and I will try my best to respond to all the points raised. I make a commitment at this point that if I miss something, I will be more than happy to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members receive written responses, because I appreciate that this debate has cross-party consensus in the House, and it is our job as Members of Parliament to show that it is at its best when we are trying to find resolutions to some of the most difficult events, including those that took place 75 years ago.
Seventy-five years ago, the United Kingdom stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea and the United Nations, defending freedom and democracy in what became the Korean war. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), had the privilege of visiting the national memorial to this conflict in Washington, where the words “Freedom is not free” are etched in granite. As has been said, it is a powerful reminder of the price that so many paid.
From this war-scarred island 75 years ago, more than 80,000 British troops crossed the seas to fight in the Korean war, standing with a community of nations committed to freedom for the Korean people. More than 1,000 never returned. Their lives were given in the cause of liberty. Many more were wounded or taken prisoner.
A short distance from here, a beautiful bronze statue, crafted by Philip Jackson, stands—on a base of Welsh slate, I should tell Members—in Victoria Embankment Gardens. That memorial, a gift from the Republic of Korea, is a lasting tribute to those who served. When it was unveiled, veterans spoke of their sacrifice finally being recognised. Today, this House stands united in honouring that sacrifice, which must never be forgotten.
I also pay tribute to those who continue to serve and support the UN Command in supporting peace on the Korean peninsula. Twenty-two nations joined together in the Korean war, and it was our collective effort that secured an armistice, enabling South Korea to flourish. Today, the Republic of Korea is an important and valued partner, and our relationship spans defence, security, trade, climate action and far more. Sadly, the same cannot be said for North Korea.
Today, global risks are evolving and tensions are rising, but our commitment remains firm to peace and prosperity across the Korean peninsula, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and supporting a peaceful, secure and prosperous future for the people of the Indo-Pacific.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for their deeply moving contributions on the Gloucestershire Regiment. We could never do the brave men who served our country justice, but we stand united in thanking them and indeed, as the shadow Minister referenced, their families, who still talk, I am sure, about the sacrifice of their relatives.
The hon. Member for North Cotswolds asked about the repatriation of bodies, and I appreciate that this is a huge piece of work for him. The Ministry of Defence, along with partners, continues to identify the remains of those who fell during the war. If the opportunity arises, it will look to support efforts to repatriate the remains of those soldiers, so I encourage him to keep doing that work and to work with MOD Ministers to ensure that we do all we can to bring those remaining men home.
I am grateful for the Minister’s words, but what I was really trying to ask in my speech was whether the British Government would work with the Americans. It is only through the Americans that we will get the political buy-in from the North Koreans to allow these things to take place.
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we do huge amounts of work bilaterally with the Americans. I will ensure that Ministry of Defence colleagues come back to him in a substantive way and that he gets an answer.
The UK Government’s long-standing position remains the same: we believe that diplomacy and negotiation are the best way to secure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. That is not straightforward and progress is slow, but to honour the values our armed forces fought for, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the region and across the globe towards peace and a better life for the people of North Korea.
However, the UK is clear about the threat the regime continues to pose to international security. We continue to condemn the DPRK’s illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in the strongest terms, alongside our allies. Over the past year, North Korea has continued testing, launching one intermediate-range and six short-range ballistic missiles. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referenced —as has been said, in good humour, although I am not sure that this was timed to coincide with the debate—the short-range missiles launched this morning are a brazen violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
The launches show that the DPRK continues to advance its illegal ballistic weapons programmes, posing a clear threat to regional stability. It continues to destabilise the peace and security of the peninsula. We call again on the DPRK to refrain from illegal launches and return to dialogue with the international community. As the G7 made clear in our joint statement at Charlevoix in March, these launches are a clear breach of UN Security Council resolutions. Today’s launches are no different. We will continue to call them out and work with partners across the region and beyond to uphold international law and protect global security.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has already been mentioned and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the DPRK’s active support for Russia’s illegal war. The partnership between the DPRK and Russia poses grave risks to global security. Over the past year, Pyongyang has grown bolder, deploying 11,000 troops to Kursk. Our assessment is that there have been 4,000 North Korean casualties, including 1,000 fatalities. That is why in February the UK imposed sanctions on the DPRK, including sanctions against DPRK officials directly involved in supporting Russian military action against Ukraine. Alongside our partners, we will continue to impose costs on Russia and DPRK for this dangerous expansion of the war.
This year, we have stepped up our focus on cyber-space, working closely with partners. Today, I can inform the House that the UK, alongside key allies in the multilateral sanctions monitoring team, is publishing a report that exposes the DPRK’s malicious cyber-activity and use of overseas IT workers. Its cyber-activity includes theft of cyber-currency, fraudulent IT contracts and cyber-espionage. North Korea is using these tactics to bypass UN sanctions and fund its illegal weapons programmes. The report is available today on gov.uk; I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.
While we continue to address the threat that North Korea poses to international peace and security, we have not lost sight of the fact that ordinary North Koreans are suffering. The DPRK’s regime prioritises weapons and illicit activity over the wellbeing of its people, whom we seek to support. We want a stable and prosperous DPRK. That is why we continue to highlight ongoing, widespread and systematic human rights abuses, and call them out. Last year marked 10 years since the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and in June our permanent representatives at the UN Security Council said that the perpetrators of human rights abuses remain unaccountable and the people continue to suffer. Last month, the UN high commissioner’s report confirmed that, if anything, the situation has worsened since 2014.
We continue to call on the DPRK to address its appalling record. In April, the UK co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution renewing the special rapporteur’s mandate and calling for stronger accountability. The isolation of the DPRK regime is a major barrier to progress; we urge the DPRK to engage with the international community and to take steps to improve its human rights record. We also continue to press for the reopening of our embassy in Pyongyang and for the return of humanitarian agencies.
In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a passionate advocate for freedom of religion or belief, I cannot stress enough that we consider it unacceptable that the people of DPRK face surveillance, imprisonment or even death because of their religion or belief. The House should be utterly united in the belief that people should have the ability to practise their religion, whether that is reading the Bible or anything else. We raise the issue of the lack of freedom of religion within the DPRK directly with the authorities there, and at the UN, including at the Human Rights Council. Freedom of religion remains an absolute priority for the British Government.
To continue this theme, we are also deeply concerned by reports from Human Rights Watch that, as many Members have already mentioned, China has forcibly returned over 400 North Koreans since last year, despite UN warnings of torture, imprisonment, sexual violence, forced labour and, tragically, execution. In May, the UK raised the issue at the UN General Assembly, calling on all states to respect the principle of non-refoulement and to ensure that refugees from North Korea are not sent back there.
We must also remember that the Korean war has never officially ended. The 1953 armistice still holds, yet the DPRK continues to claim that the US, South Korea and their partners are hostile. We are not aligned with the DPRK, but we do not seek its destabilisation or to harm its people. Our aim is clear: to limit the DPRK’s weapons programmes, to prevent proliferation and to urge the regime to prioritise its people over its nuclear ambitions. Our approach is one of critical engagement—we hold the DPRK to account, but we also seek dialogue. We want to reduce strategic risk and encourage a return to international co-operation. We hope that our embassy in North Korea can reopen, so that we can once again understand the lives of the North Korean people from the ground up.
I have almost reached my conclusion, Mr Twigg. In response to a question from the hon. Member for North Cotswolds, I should say that I touched on the work that we were still doing from the 2014 report until last year. I reassure him that we are continuing that work; we will continue to try always to have constructive dialogue with North Korea, while also making sure that it is held to account for human rights abuses.
Finally, I come to the shadow Minister’s questions and those from Members across the House. Building on the Downing Street accord, we are developing an enhanced shared agenda through the UK-Korea joint growth mission, aligning UK priorities on economic growth, clean energy leadership and security with President Lee’s priorities, including growth, defence industry exports, AI and climate action.
Later this year, we plan to convene the first UK-Korea high-level forum, bringing together industry leaders, politicians, academics and civil society to deepen collaboration in defence, AI and soft power. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), we are looking forward to concluding negotiations on our enhanced UK-Republic of Korea free trade agreement by the end of this year, as agreed by the Prime Minister and the President over the summer. Both sides will hold a series of talks in October and November to finalise the remaining areas of the negotiation.
Let me end by reiterating that the Government remain firmly committed to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. We continue to believe that diplomacy and dialogue are the best path forward. We urge the DPRK to show restraint, engage meaningfully and choose peace. Over 75 years, we have seen what collective action and shared purpose can achieve. We have also seen the cost of isolation. It is our hope that the DPRK will reconsider its duty to its people and reconnect with the world, and that all Korean people will one day know freedom.
This has been a remarkable debate, Mr Twigg. We have demonstrated the best of politics in Westminster, as we can when we choose to. We have come together to commemorate and celebrate the actions of our forebears and the results in the present. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, because they all brought something unique and special. Some spoke for those honoured in their constituencies who never came home. Others, such as myself, honour the memory of the sacrifice that our forebears made, its purposes and reasons.
We recognise and commemorate today the fact that 75 years ago British troops fought for Korean freedom, in a country and for a people far, far away, about which many if not all those troops knew next to nothing. Ordinary men—some who had fought in world war two, others who were young and inexperienced—fought for a concept of freedom, esoteric in some senses perhaps. As Gladstone once said, during the dispute over Moldavia and Wallachia in the late 19th century, there is no greater bulwark against tyranny than the breasts of free men and women. He was right, for that concept has made South Korea prosperous and democratic, giving its people the right to live in freedom—a right that their families and colleagues in the north do not have. It is surely for us to recognise and pick up that torch of freedom, and stand today with those around the world who yearn for freedom, not least those in North Korea.
I finish with this thought. While we watch the despotism of North Korea carry on unabated, what do we say to those British troops and others of the United Nations force—the Glosters and the other brave men who died? What do we say to those who did not come home? Was it all in vain? The answer is no. For them and their spirit, all I will say is “Southward, look, the land is free.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered trade union access to workplaces.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions.
It is important to open with some stark context. The 14 years of austerity between 2010 and 2024 forced down real wages in the UK, a setback from which many working families are still recovering. That came atop a 40-year structural decline in the share of national wealth going to labour, coinciding with the erosion of trade union rights and with declining membership and falling union density. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of the Labour Government is clear: raising living standards. Trade unions are central to that mission. They are the vehicle through which better pay, safer working conditions and fairer workplaces can be achieved. Equipping them effectively is fundamental to restoring balance.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I want to tell a short story very quickly, for the record. When as a 20-year-old I went to work for Henry Denny in Belfast, the guy says to me, “You have to be a member of the union.” I said, “I’m not so sure whether I want to be or not.” He said, “It’s compulsory.” What I learned then was that trade unions protect the workers. They ensure workers get their wages, and if workers have any problems with management, they are always there. Being a member of a trade union? I would recommend it.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It may have been compulsory, but it is certainly one of the better decisions that he has ever made.
The problem of trade union access to workplaces is long-standing. Employers have often restricted union representatives from entering their sites, particularly in high-profile industrial settings. The GMB’s attempt to access Amazon’s Coventry warehouse during its 2024 recognition ballot was met with resistance, highlighting the barriers that unions face even when legally seeking to organise.
I hugely thank my hon. Friend for the work, effort and determination that he put into seeing the Employment Rights Bill through the Commons—absolutely outstanding work. On access to the workplace, does he agree that any individual who wants to speak to a trade union or union representative in the workplace, or perhaps even digitally, should have the opportunity to do so, and that it is only bad employers who have something to fear?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I thank him for his kind comments. I will return to the issue of digital access shortly.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. I am glad that he mentioned GMB’s frustrations with Amazon. Another sector in which that union and other unions have been frustrated is social care, which has been fragmented for three decades now. Does he agree that having a strong general statutory right of access must be complemented with an enhanced right of access under the forthcoming fair pay agreement in social care?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fair pay agreement architecture gives us a real opportunity to enhance the provisions.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. I commend the University and College Union, which was incredibly supportive to me and my colleagues in my former life as an academic. It was only because our employer was decent that it was able to have access to our campus site. I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning those organisations who refuse access for the vital work of unions.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s timely intervention. We know that in schools, the National Education Union and the NASUWT union face obstacles from multi-academy trusts such as the Harris Federation, where access is often limited to outside working hours, when staff are rushing home to pick up children, curtailing union engagement.
Under the responsibility of the Cabinet Office, the MyCSP civil service pension provider refuses to recognise the Public and Commercial Services union or allow it into workplaces to meet members. That dispute is now in its 15th week. The lack of recognition is a situation that must end under a new wave of insourcing and public interest-led procurement. On Teesworks, union access has been blocked by local employers, with tragic health and safety incidents underscoring the consequences of absent oversight.
Until now, UK law has offered no guaranteed legal right of access, relying instead on voluntary agreements or ad hoc arrangements. Even if a Central Arbitration Committee decision is issued, compliance by employers is not guaranteed. Historical parallels include the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which quickly became ineffective because of weak penalties and no means of compelling employer compliance. The lack of a legally binding enforcement mechanism creates a scenario in which unions may abandon attempts to secure access, undermining workers’ rights and collective representation.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that in sectors such as social care, which are facing recruitment and retention crises, better trade union access would improve working conditions and staff retention, which ultimately is only for the better for good employers?
My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. We hear constantly about the crises of recruitment and retention in our core public services, among others. Only by strengthening workers’ access to trade union representation will we ever conquer the rolling crisis across our economy. It is an important point.
I very much welcome the Employment Rights Bill for establishing statutory procedures for union access. It was an important part of our discussions when we formulated the new deal for working people, ably aided and abetted by the Minister, for which I am eternally grateful. Clause 63 will allow unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, permitting union representatives to enter workplaces for recruitment, organisation, the support of members and potentially collective bargaining. The Bill will require employers to respond within a defined negotiation period, with the CAC empowered to determine access terms where agreement cannot be reached.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate; I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. Does he agree that trade union access will increase collective bargaining, which drives up pay and conditions for our constituents?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decline in trade union penetration of the economy is consistent with the stagnation in wages. If we are to turn the issue around, these recognitions and collective bargaining processes have to be given their full voice.
The Bill also acknowledges the need for facility time for union representatives, providing paid time for duties. The Business and Trade Committee welcomed the statutory right of access, but urged that it explicitly include digital channels. It also endorsed the GMB’s call for template agreements to speed up negotiations.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his incredible work to advance employment rights, but for securing today’s debate; I refer to my entry in the register of interests, having spent many an hour on street corners trying to get information to workers about trade unions. Does my hon. Friend agree that digital access needs to be directly with the worker—not via the employer, who could oversee it—and that any reciprocal communication with the union needs to be free from the scrutiny of employers?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that she has in mind the Amazon debacle in Coventry, where that issue was at play. I thank her and all my hon. Friends for their consistent application to this agenda over many years. It is now bearing fruit.
Concerns remain about the enforceability of access, as some employers may refuse to comply with CAC decisions, creating incentives to disrupt legitimate access. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has called for the CAC to be adequately resourced. Labour pledged to act to ensure that union members and workers are able to access a union at work. In a written ministerial statement in March 2025, the Government said that they would implement
“a fast-track route for achieving an ‘off-the-shelf’ access agreement where certain conditions are met, alongside a mechanism to ensure there are robust penalties in place for non-compliance.”
Access rights will mostly be detailed in secondary legislation.
Future regulations must genuinely deliver the Government’s promise of a meaningful right of access. That includes ensuring that the right is enforceable, as union-busting employers and their lawyers will exploit any gaps. Unions want to ensure that provisions are as strong as possible. Face-to-face communication remains the most effective way for unions to recruit and organise. Robust penalties are needed so that employers cannot price refusal in. Far too often, we have seen employers pricing in the breach of provisions as simply the cost of doing business. We cannot permit that.
Debates in Committee and wider parliamentary discussions have reiterated those points. Witnesses stressed the importance of digital access, reasonable notice, clarity over dwellings and enforceable CAC determinations. Amendments clarified that only independent trade unions certified by the certification officer could exercise statutory access rights, preventing employers from using non-independent sweetheart unions. The CAC is empowered to adjudicate disputes, but unions still bear the cost of pursuing penalties through the employment appeal tribunals, and fines are payable to the Government, rather than the union. That creates a risk that enforcement will remain weak.
Trade union experiences illustrate the stakes. The GMB’s efforts to engage with Amazon, Harris Federation schools and Teesworks highlight the fact that lack of access can hinder collective bargaining, prevent timely health and safety oversight, and reduce wages and protections. Access to care homes will be critical as fair pay agreements are rolled out to ensure that low-paid workers gain union representation and negotiate fair terms.
I tabled a new clause to amend the Bill on Report to address enforcement and clarify gaps. It would have established a clear statutory right of access for independent trade unions. It would have broadened the Bill’s purpose to include recruitment, representation and bargaining. It would also have set reasonable notice requirements, with provision for urgent cases, and defined access conditions guided by Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes.
The new clause would have clarified access to dwellings by allowing suitable alternative arrangements. It would have introduced a genuine enforcement mechanism by allowing CAC orders to be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and it would have established transparent penalty-setting criteria based on the gravity and duration of non-compliance. Finally, it would have integrated the new rights with existing law and ACAS guidance. Had it been adopted, it would have significantly strengthened the Bill and created a practically enforceable framework. I urge the Government to adopt similar measures to ensure that statutory access rights are truly effective across sectors.
It is very welcome that Matthew Taylor has been appointed to chair the Fair Work Agency. His knowledge of workplace relations informed the new deal for working people. We must ensure that the agency is adequately resourced and empowered to monitor, oversee and enforce union access effectively. Without sufficient funding and staffing, statutory provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than operational.
Historical international context underlines the stakes. In 2006 and 2008, the International Labour Organisation’s committee of experts noted that the UK did not consistently uphold convention 87, the global standard that protects workers’ freedom to form and join trade unions of their choosing, and that ensures unions can run their affairs freely. A constant theme of this debate is just how far removed the United Kingdom has been from its ILO obligations. I trust that this Government will not overlook them in the way that previous Governments have.
Union officials cannot always access workplaces to support members in disciplinary or grievance hearings, and recognition ballots offer only limited access. The Employment Rights Bill attempts to remedy that by granting broader statutory rights but, as the Bill is drafted, an employer can still veto entry, leaving unions and workers without recourse. ILO recommendation 143 makes it clear that union representatives who do not work for a particular company should still be allowed to enter the workplace to meet and represent union members. Those messages have to be communicated to employers who seem to want to resist that on occasion.
The only effective way to honour the commitment in the new deal for working people would be a free-standing right of entry, underpinned by injunctive relief to secure entry in cases of unreasonable refusal. Where that is not possible, CAC orders should at least be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and penalties should accrue to the union—I cannot stress enough the importance of that happening. Such measures would align the UK with international labour standards and strengthen the practical impact of statutory access.
The Employment Rights Bill is an important milestone, but it must be part of a wider strategy to raise living standards and restore labour’s share of wealth. Trade unions are central to that mission, providing the infrastructure through which workers can secure better pay, safer workplaces and a stronger voice. The Bill’s success depends on ensuring that access rights are clear, enforceable and adaptable to modern workplaces. By empowering unions with enforceable rights, reasonable conditions and clear penalties, the Government can equip the trade union movement to deliver real improvements. This is not simply procedural; it is a question of economic justice and social equity.
As we look forward, the Labour Government’s task is to reverse decades of declining real wages, expand union influence and ensure workers share in the benefits of productivity and growth. Statutory access is not an end in itself; it is a tool for delivering broader goals. With proper enforcement, digital provisions and resourcing, unions can represent members effectively, negotiate fair pay and improve conditions across all sectors. By doing so, we will ensure the recovery from austerity and the reversal of the erosion of labour’s share of wealth in a way that is meaningful and sustained.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing today’s important debate—I know we say it a lot that debates are important, but this one truly is. It is close to my heart, as I know it is to my hon. Friend’s.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions to debates during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, including on this specific issue. It was always a pleasure to work with him on this topic in my previous life working for a trade union for many years—in fact, I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. The amendments that my hon. Friend tabled on Report, which he alluded to in his speech, demonstrate his interest in this area, and I welcome his continued commitment to a productive discussion on the topic today. I thank all other members here for their contributions and interest in this topic—not just hon. Members, but proud trade unionists and friends.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government’s plan to make work pay and our Employment Rights Bill represent the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Taken together, they support our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth.
The Employment Rights Bill creates a modern, fairer labour market where workers are better protected, more empowered and supported through every stage of working life. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objective of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country. As part of that, the Government are strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition—I want to take a moment to say how proud I am to be saying that from the Front Bench. After many years of the previous Government, who sought to weaken workers’ voices and trade union rights, we are rebuilding a culture of respect and co-operation with trade unions.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that trade unions are essential to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. The Employment Rights Bill will modernise trade union legislation, giving trade unions greater freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their members. Strong trade unions are key partners in building a stronger, fairer economy.
A key part of our reforms in this area is the introduction of a new trade union right of access. Under existing legislation, trade unions do not have a general right of access to workplaces and can exercise their functions only through individual trade union members in the workplace or through access that has been agreed on a voluntary basis with the employer. In situations in which membership is limited and no voluntary agreement is in place, there is limited scope for trade unions to exercise their core functions within the workplace. Although the Government want employers and unions to continue to agree and use those voluntary access arrangements where possible, the Bill introduces a new right for trade unions to access the workplace in a responsible and regulated manner. That will provide certainty and clarity to all parties involved.
It is worth explaining briefly how the new right of access will work in practice, which will hopefully answer lots of my hon. Friend’s questions. Under the new right of access, an independent union can provide an employer with a request for access. That could be a request for physical access to a building or virtual access to a group of workers—such as via a Teams call—or both. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the importance of digital access as part of our consideration of the legislation.
If both parties agree on the terms of access between themselves, they will notify the Central Arbitration Committee to record the terms of the access agreement and proceed with the access as agreed. If no agreement can be reached within a set timeframe, the union or employer can refer the case to the CAC for a determination on whether access should be granted under the terms requested.
The CAC will make its determination on whether access should be granted in line with factors set out in secondary legislation. If the access application meets certain conditions, it will qualify for a potentially expedited route through the CAC process. The CAC will also enforce access agreements once they are in place, hearing complaints about breaches of those agreements by any party, with the power to issue fines for non-compliance.
This debate is timely, because the Government will shortly be launching a public consultation on the details of the new trade union right of access policy, including the matters that the CAC must have regard to when deciding whether access should take place and the level of fines for non-compliance with access agreements. We want to see a fair and workable access framework, so the Government strongly encourage unions and employers of all types and sizes to share their views. As I say, the Government are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition, and we see the new right of access as a key part of that.
In that light, when the CAC takes decisions on access, it will be guided by the access principles provided for in the Employment Rights Bill. Those principles set out that trade unions should be provided access to workplaces
“in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”
and that the employer
“should take reasonable steps to facilitate”
that access. They also set out that
“access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.”
The principles provide a default in favour of access, but the Government are aware that some employers may find it more difficult than others to facilitate access arrangements, and that there may be circumstances where it would not be appropriate for access to take place. That is why we will consult on the factors that the CAC should take into account when deciding on access, and consult on what the value of fines should be for non-compliance.
Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that lawbreakers and bad employers are not allowed to price in any breaking of the law to the detriment of people in the workplace?
I agree with my hon. Friend, and enforcement will be really key to that. I encourage him to get involved in the consultation and to share his views on exactly that point.
The Government will review responses to those two consultation questions with interest, as we will the responses to the consultation as a whole. The consultation matters, because it is important that the implementation of the right of access works in practice, not just on paper. That is why the Government have committed to support businesses throughout the implementation of the Bill, and why we will produce a new code of practice for the policy. That will contain practical guidance on how access should take place in practice to help support employers and businesses to manage the process smoothly and effectively. The Government will consult on that code next year before the new right comes into force in October 2026.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East also mentioned enforcement, and I welcome his support for the Fair Work Agency and its newly appointed chair, Matthew Taylor. Strengthening our labour market, compliance and enforcement is absolutely key to this issue, and to our wider Employment Rights Bill.
Does the Minister agree that there are many good employers across our economy who actively engage and encourage trade union access and recognition? They could be of great service in the process that she describes for supporting other businesses as the regulations are implemented.
I could not agree more. There is brilliant practice across the country and across workplaces, with good employers and unions working together in the better interests of the workforce. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, which the Government are proud to be implementing, is such a positive step forward for workers, employers and our wider economy.
The new right of access will deliver for everybody, recognising the needs of unions and employers. Building on the good work that already exists across this country, it will deliver on our make work pay commitment to ensure access is responsible and regulated. It will also provide the opportunity for many workers to understand their rights and access trade unions, which are such a vital part of our economy.
I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East and with all other hon. Members present, on both sides of the House, to deliver this positive change for the British economy. I thank my hon. Friend again for securing the debate, and I thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to it. I look forward to working with them as part of this agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I beg to move,
That this House has considered coal tip safety and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences.
Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Just as coal ran in rich veins beneath the Welsh valleys and mountains, it also runs deep through the history of the people of Wales. Around this industry, thriving and vibrant communities developed all across the south Wales valleys. Miners’ institutes, public libraries, trade unions and public healthcare all bloomed in the Welsh coalfields. Those institutions were founded and funded by miners, laying the foundation for the modern welfare state. Despite this dynamism, we should not forget that those communities were exploited, with vast amounts of wealth from coal profiting Westminster, not Wales. Mining was also dangerous work and took a terrible toll on the health of far too many men and young boys.
When Margaret Thatcher began closing the mines in the 1980s without replacing those jobs, she destroyed livelihoods and left communities that once powered the world bearing economic and social scars that would pass on through generations. Thatcher’s decision to kick-start deindustrialisation in Wales—and the acceptance of this decline by both Labour and Conservative Governments—means that west Wales and the valleys are now among the poorest parts of Europe.
The economic legacy is compounded by a physical one, too. The valleys are now littered with coal tips—black monuments from the past that cast long shadows over the present. Also known as spoil tips or slag heaps, these are the waste materials removed from the mines and left abandoned above ground. Today, over 50% of all coal tips in the UK are in Wales, despite our nation making up just 8.5% of the UK’s total land mass.
Of the 2,590 coal tips, many are considered dangerous to the public. There is a risk that a significant number may collapse due to increasingly extreme weather, and that is not hypothetical, as history has shown us. Today’s debate is taking place just a day after the 59th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which involved the collapse of a colliery spoil tip in 1966, killing 28 adults and 116 children.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster; it is the same day as the anniversary of the flooding of Capel Celyn. Both were terrible reminders to communities in Wales of how little say they had over the fate of their communities, and of how little effect Westminster had, naturally, on amelioration and making people’s lives better. Those terrible incidents—the terrible deaths in Aberfan, as well as the flooding of Capel Celyn—reminded people where they stood, sadly.
That is true. It is ironic that the two incidents happened on exactly the same date—a few years apart, but on 21 October. We must never forget either.
I am old enough to remember the Aberfan disaster, unfortunately—all the things that happened and the lives that were lost. Northern Ireland has some coal tips, primarily from historical operations at Ballycastle and Coalisland. They have not been active for some years, but does the hon. Lady agree that, although the mining legacy in Northern Ireland is not as prevalent as it is in Wales, there must still be regulatory oversight where sources are less advanced, to ensure that our people have the same protection as those in Wales?
Absolutely. This is an issue for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The disaster brought about the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, which came into force to improve coal tips’ stability and safety. However, it did not go far enough. Aberfan should have been a moment to address the dangerous legacy of all coal tips once and for all, but the job remains unfinished. Now, because of increasingly violent storms caused by climate change, we have experienced further coal tip slips. There was a major landslide above Tylorstown in Rhondda Fach in 2020, and then in November 2024, in Cwmtillery, a slip was caused by heavy rainfall from Storm Bert. That led to a slurry and debris slide that forced the evacuation of homes.
Plaid Cymru has long warned that the safety of our coal tips is not a matter for tomorrow; it must be addressed urgently. No family should go to bed fearing a landslide on the hillside above them. No community should be left to foot the bill for the negligence of past Governments. The Senedd recently passed the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025, which will establish the Disused Tips Authority for Wales, the powers of which will include requiring landowners to ensure that coal tips located on their land are stable. We must, however, not forget that the issue of coal tips predates the dawn of devolution. It is an historic injustice that the cost of making these tips safe has not been fully funded by Westminster, and that the people of Wales are now expected to foot a large part of this bill.
I welcome this debate, but I would like the hon. Member to acknowledge the fact that the UK Government have given £140 million towards making these coal tips safe, which is absolutely vital. I know that bigger figures have been bandied about, but would she agree that there is a limit to how much we can do in any one or two years, and that that was the amount asked for by the Welsh Government? It does not preclude opportunities in the future to ask for more, when more plans are ready.
Absolutely, but we need £600 million to make these tips safe. The Government responded to my written question in June that the Labour Welsh Government had not asked for the full amount of the estimated £600 million needed to make all tips in Wales safe. Plaid Cymru believes it is a grave injustice to the people of the valleys that the full cost is not covered by Westminster. I reiterate our call on the Government to fully fund remediation work to make coal tips safe in Wales.
Without full funding from Westminster, it leaves the door open to a new generation of mining companies waiting to mine these coal tips under the guise of remediation. That is because the new Welsh Disused Tips Authority will require landowners to make the coal tips safe, and they will likely seek to avoid that extra cost. There is a real risk that mining companies will offer to carry out remediation work on behalf of landowners for free, in return for the commercial rights of any coal that they extract. These companies have proven to us that they cannot be trusted with the stewardship of our environment.
The local authority area of Carmarthenshire has 170 coal tips. My constituency borders some of the largest tips in Wales, one of which is the waste from the East Pit open-cast coalmine, a prime example of where a company has betrayed the trust of the community. In that instance, the company, Celtic Energy, continued to mine coal from the site beyond the expiry of its planning permission. It then failed to restore the coalmine and remediate the local coal tip, abandoning the site and the community with the task incomplete. We cannot allow this to become a pattern by letting the coalmining industry of Wales’s past return to carve open our countryside once again. Making coal tips safe for our communities should be the priority, whether that is through flattening, removing or reprofiling them.
The UK Government have pledged to ban new coalmining licences, but they have confirmed their belief that re-mining coal from the tips does not require a licence, meaning that such activity falls outside the scope of the proposed ban. Although the Welsh Government believe that their own planning policies will prevent re-mining, a loophole allowing coal extraction in “wholly exceptional circumstances” has raised concern among campaigners such as the Coal Action Network. I thank Anthony, who is here today, for his help in preparing for this debate. I also congratulate him on his wedding anniversary—when he should be home, he has come to support us here.
The loophole can be resolved by amending the Coal Industry Act 1994 to require licensing for the re-mining of coal tips, and ensuring that that is included in a UK-wide ban. We must prevent a new industry of commercial coal tip mining from taking root and perpetuating fossil fuel pollution. I urge the Government to extend their coal licence ban to cover the re-mining of coal tips.
Tomorrow is the Senedd by-election in Caerphilly—a local authority area with 207 coal tips, 56 of which are deemed a clear threat to public safety. As we know, voters will get to choose between two different visions for the future of Caerphilly. The vision of Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is one of reopening the coalmines in Wales. He wants to send our people back down underground to slave away in the dark for hours, developing pneumoconiosis from inhaling toxic dust—all to exploit the people of Wales yet again.
My hon. Friend is being kind with her time in giving way. She draws attention to the policies of another party. It is striking that Reform Members are conspicuous by their absence. They once again took part in Prime Minister’s questions only from the Gallery, and when they could be talking about coal and the future of communities blighted by the remains of the coal industry, they are not here to stand up for the communities of Wales. I am sure that a number of hon. Members will join us in our dismay at their lack of presence.
We all know that the hon. Member for Clacton supports coalmining companies that have left our communities vulnerable, in the same way that he supports privatising our precious national health service.
We will continue to campaign to make all coal tips safe and ensure that Westminster rights the wrongs of the past by paying in full to do so. The failure to replace coalmining with an economic alternative has left communities in decline. Many people are now without hope and are angry at Governments in both London and Cardiff for not listening or caring. Other parties want to blame these problems on others in society, rather than on the politicians and private companies that have caused them.
This debate is about justice and dignity. It is about ensuring that the people of Wales are not left to carry the cost, financial or emotional, of decisions made generations ago. Let us act now, not when the next storm hits or when the next landslide slips. Let us act because it is right and just, and because our communities deserve nothing less. This Government must revisit their approach to coal tip safety in Wales to fully support the communities who, after decades since the last coal was hewn from our valleys, still bear the burden of its legacy. Diolch, Gadeirydd.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing the debate.
As the hon. Lady outlined, the debate comes the day after the 59th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in my constituency—an event that illustrates, more than any other, the need to ensure the safety of coal tips. As I joined community members and civic leaders in Aberfan yesterday, it was heartbreaking and humbling to see at first hand, yet again, the true price of coal in our communities.
For many years, coal extraction built wealth right across the UK. It powered the Welsh and UK economies for decades. However, the previous UK Government failed to support any costs associated with the remediation of coal tips, owing to the fact that it is a devolved area. This Labour Government recognise that the legacy of coal and coal tip safety is very much a shared responsibility, and I welcome the £25 million that the Government provided in the first Labour Budget in 14 years last October. They then built upon that with a further £118 million in the spending review to support the vital work to keep our coal tips safe.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin mentioned calls for further investment, at a full cost of £600 million. Perhaps, in her reflections, she could be clear on how much less money would be available for public services in Wales if her party ever pushed its Welsh independence fantasy, which could cost every adult in Wales something like £11,000 per year.
It has now been shown that the £11,000 is based on the present state of the economy, and not the potential if Wales were to be independent. It is very important that we use statistics and figures with some care and show their sources.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady and her party could be clear on what the true cost would be. We know that those costs are significant. It is something that Plaid Cymru has never really wanted to talk about, so perhaps going forward they could be clear on what the costs of their pipe dream would mean for communities and individuals right across Wales.
But back to the point: the safety of our communities is our first responsibility. The funding represents all that Welsh Government requested to fund the safety works for the rest of this Parliament. With a significant number of category D tips across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf, this investment is hugely important for my constituents.
This is a Government determined to act where Tory inaction left communities unsafe. The funding announcement, along with significant investment from the Welsh Government, shows the impact of two Labour Governments working together for Wales after years of Tory failure.
I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government’s Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025 received Royal Assent last month, which paves the way for the establishment of the disused tips authority for Wales, a dedicated public body responsible for assessing, registering, monitoring and managing disused tips. That authority would be the first of its kind in the UK and would be world-leading in developing a robust system for the safety of disused tip.
The new authority is due to be operational from April 2027, and will take over the work that is currently done by the Mining Remediation Authority. As we have heard, there are more than 2,500 disused coal tips in Wales, predominantly in the south Wales valleys. We have almost 100 category C and 44 category D across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf. The changing climate, our industrial past and the landscape mean that we must act to keep our communities safe.
The House will also be aware that my constituency is home to Ffos-y-Fran, the last major open-cast mine in the UK, which shut down in November 2023. The scheme has certainly had its difficulties and caused much concern over the years. When it first opened, the company running the mine, Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, pledged to fully restore the site after it finished operations. I call on it to honour that pledge.
Local residents have put up with a lot in terms of nuisance and inconvenience since the open-cast began. I sincerely hope that this is recognised and that the developer ensures that local residents are at the forefront when completing the restoration. Current restoration costs are estimated at between £50 million and £120 million, and there has been much uncertainty in the community.
Merthyr Tydfil residents are understandably concerned, given how long this has gone on and the need for remediation work to provide a lasting solution to ensure that the area is, above all, safe and returned to natural countryside. It is essential that progress be made soon and that remedial work be completed, so that local residents can once more enjoy their local surroundings.
Would my hon. Friend strongly advise constituents in areas like mine to look very carefully at any applications? Luckily, we have no category C or D tips, although we do have A and B tips, and we had an application for Pentremawr, near Pont Henri—luckily, we managed to send it packing. Would he therefore advise our constituents to be ultra-vigilant and not to let things slip through without the full detail?
I agree that communities need to be vigilant, and also fully involved in these projects going forward—hopefully, we have seen the last of them.
I am aware that Merthyr Tydfil county borough council is working hard on finding a resolution to the restoration, and I am pleased that the Welsh Government are working with the local authority and other regulators as part of a technical working group, to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved for local people.
The people in my constituency and across Wales have paid an historic price for coal, which has helped to fuel our country and our economy. It is now time they were allowed to enjoy their green and pleasant valleys once again.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. Our constituencies meet around a former coalmine, so it is fitting that we are working on this issue together.
The legacy of the coal industry is still all around us in Wales. Coal built our modern nation, but it also left deep marks on our land and our communities. Yesterday marked 59 years since the Aberfan disaster, when 144 lives were lost, including those of 116 children. Aberfan reminds us of what happens when safety is overlooked. We owe it to Aberfan and to every mining community to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated.
Yet almost 60 years on, the dangerous legacy of coal still hangs over Wales. There are more than 2,000 disused coal tips across Wales, and several of the highest-risk sites are in my constituency. They stand as a stark reminder that the danger has not disappeared; it has simply been neglected. What that means for local residents is that each spell of heavy rain brings renewed fear. Recent landslips in Cwmtillery show that this risk is real, and it is growing as wetter weather destabilises former pits.
No community should have to live in fear every time it rains. That is why the UK Government must commit the £600 million needed to make our former coal tips safe. This is a problem that predates devolution, and the cost should not fall on the Welsh Government alone. These communities in Wales powered Britain’s wealth, and the responsibility for their safety must be shared by Britain as a whole.
The legacy of coal is written across the open scars on our hills. Across south Wales, open-cast sites have been left in limbo after operators walked away, leaving vast holes in the landscape and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. In my constituency, the East Pit mine between Tairgwaith and Cwmllynfell is a clear example. It was never restored because no proper restoration bond was put in place, and it is now a deep chasm filled with millions of tonnes of water—a monument to failure and neglect. That must change. We need stronger legislation so that open-cast mines are properly regulated and fully restored, with enforceable bonds to ensure that no company can ever again abandon a community.
Despite such injustices, what matters now is investment and delivery. We must look forward. Communities across south Wales deserve real progress and not more broken promises. The proposals from Reform UK to issue new coal licences are not a credible plan for our future in south Wales; they are a retreat into the past. To suggest that the answer for the valleys lies in reopening mines is not only wrong; it is deeply patronising. I come from a Welsh mining family and I am very proud of my roots in Maesteg, but I certainly do not want to undertake the same work that my great-grandfathers had to do, because I remember how they ended up.
Our young people do not want to be sent back down the pits. They want secure, well-paid jobs in clean energy and modern industries. The communities of the valleys are resilient, proud and determined, but that resilience should not be taken for granted. Promises of investment, which too often have been made and too often broken, must finally be delivered for south Wales. The people of the south Wales valleys have given more than enough, and we are still waiting for our new south Wales to emerge. We deserve safety, fairness and a future built on renewal, not nostalgia. Let us honour our past by investing in the future.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate to ensure that the Government’s proposed ban on new coal licences stays true to its legislative aim, while putting the safety of our constituents over profit-making opportunities for private sector companies.
At present, the Government’s planned coal licence ban does not definitively include coal tips, which means that there is a real possibility that private companies could apply to mine for commercial gain even after the ban is in place. Wales is home to more than half all the coal tips in the United Kingdom—2,590 out of 5,000. Therefore, any legal ambiguity would raise concerns for my constituents, especially those living near the Bersham colliery in Rhostyllen, in my constituency—the final coalmine to close in north Wales, in 1986—and no doubt among those of many colleagues here today.
Contained in these tips are tens of millions of tonnes of coal. They are increasingly a real and present public safety risk. Landslides, leaching and pollution are all growing threats, made worse by extreme weather and heavy rainfall, which climate change is making more frequent. Extracting that coal would only make the situation worse, hence the need for coal tip safety measures that exclude coal extraction for commercial purposes.
In Wales, we know all too well the danger that coal tips can pose. We carry the memory of Aberfan—the tragic disaster of 1966, in which 116 children, mostly between the ages of seven and 10, along with 28 adults, lost their lives when a coal tip collapsed on their school. It happened on the last day before half-term. Yesterday was 59 years since it happened. The devastation of the grief still hangs heavy in our national memory. We must honour that memory by ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again.
In 2020 in Tylorstown, following Storm Dennis, we saw 60,000 tonnes of spoil collapse from a former tip; and just last year in Cwmtillery, 40 homes had to be evacuated after a similar event. Those are stark warnings.
Mining companies offering to remove coal tips in return for commercial access to coal is an easy answer to a difficult question, which we cannot allow, so I ask the Minister this. If the Government truly believe that the Welsh Government’s coal policy and England’s and Scotland’s planning policies are robust enough to prevent coal extraction, why do investors think otherwise? ERI Reclamation is actively seeking to extract 468,000 tonnes of coal from tips in Bedwas, Caerphilly. It clearly believes that the law allows that, and it is putting serious capital behind the belief. If this is approved—it is an “if”—it could set a dangerous precedent, whereby private profits determine which coal tips are removed and others, with less content, are left. It would be a precedent categorising coal tips by their value rather than their potential impact on public safety. Could we see landowners, burdened by maintenance costs, encouraged to sell access to these sites?
We cannot and must not rely on the private sector to make coal tips safe. That duty falls on us. The Government’s coal licensing ban must be strengthened to include coal tip mining. The short-term and long-term safety and welfare of our communities must come first. Diolch yn fawr, Mr Twigg.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this important debate, which brings together two deeply interconnected issues: the safety of coal tips and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences. Both go to the heart of how we reckon with our industrial past, protect our communities in the present and deliver on our climate responsibilities for the future.
In September last year, we hailed the historic moment that the UK closed its last coal-fired power station and we became the first country in the G7 to phase out coal power generation, fulfilling the pledge that we made alongside other countries at COP26. That was a key milestone in our climate targets and our efforts to reduce polluting emissions. At the same time, we paid tribute to the men and women who had worked in terrible conditions in our coalmines and coal-fired power stations for many years while they kept our lights on and powered our industries and economy.
That now leaves, across the United Kingdom, about 5,000 disused coal tips, more than half of which are in Wales. Many of them sit close to the communities that once powered our country: the valleys, towns and villages built around the coal industry. As we have heard, as climate change accelerates, and rainfall and extreme weather events become more frequent, the danger the tips pose is growing. This is not a risk for some point in the future; it is happening now.
This week we remember the tragedy in Aberfan in 1966, when 144 people, including 116 children, died. Just last year, 40 homes in Cwmtillery were evacuated when a tip collapse sent tonnes of slurry and debris through the village. These incidents are a reminder that this is not simply a historical concern, but a very real and present danger for communities today. Such tragedies should not be allowed to happen again.
The Government’s commitment of £118 million over three years for coal tip safety, together with the Welsh Government’s £100 million investment, is of course welcome, but the Welsh Affairs Committee heard clearly that the funding only scratches the surface. The cost of long-term remediation and monitoring is so much higher, and the risks are increasing as the climate changes. Though the funding is welcome, it is reactive and not strategic.
What we need is a strategic long-term plan—a proper partnership between the UK and Welsh Governments—with sustainable funding for the disused tips authority, which is due to be established in 2027. That body will succeed only if it has the skills, resources and the authority it needs from day one. As the Liberal Democrats have consistently said, we have to view this not just as a safety issue but as a climate resilience issue. Climate change is causing ground instability, which means that, as we have heard, living at the foot of a coal tip is becoming even more dangerous, year by year and day by day. The response must be integrated with the UK’s broader climate adaptation strategy.
At the same time, we need to ensure we have truly confronted the unfinished business of coal itself. Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement last November that they would prohibit new coal extraction licences, but that has to be a watertight ban. As it stands, there is a loophole that allows coal to be commercially extracted from disused tips, as we have just heard so powerfully.
In practice, extracting coal from a tip is no different from open-cast mining. The method is the same, the disruption is the same, the risks are the same and the emissions are the same. The contradiction can be easily resolved. Leading environmental lawyers, working with the Coal Action Network, have proposed an amendment to the Coal Industry Act 1994 to clarify that the mining of coal from coal tips also requires a licence. That small change would ensure that the Government’s coal ban is comprehensive and future-proof.
Future-proofing is vital, as changes in our political landscape could put all this at risk. There are political parties that would seek a very different route. Rather than invest in the new green jobs of the future, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform UK, has demanded—I repeat, demanded—the reopening of coalmines in Wales. He argued that Welsh people would happily return to work down the pits—and, I assume, also have slurry tipped over the beautiful Welsh countryside. There is no vision for jobs of the future, only a return to the jobs of the past, and no concern for the planet that our children and future generations will inherit.
Reform UK opposes green renewable energy. Instead, it wants to reopen coalmines and frack stupid frack, ripping apart our beautiful countryside by digging deep, with the threat of earth tremors, polluted water and devastation to our precious nature and wildlife.
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge the leadership of the Welsh Government, who have used their planning powers to become the first part of the UK to completely ban fracking?
I definitely welcome that, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that we have the same powers in planning and all other legislation to follow that here in England.
Reform UK, in true Trump style, would destroy our green and pleasant land—and for whom? It would make oil and gas giants richer while keeping our households and businesses stuck on volatile, skyrocketing energy bills and sending our young people back down the pits. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that there must be no new onshore fossil fuel extraction anywhere in the UK. This is the decisive moment to leave coal behind once and for all.
We must have a just transition, with new investment, new skills and new opportunities rooted in the very same communities. That is why we are calling for an independent just transition commission to hold Government and industry to account, ensure that jobs in clean energy and green manufacturing reach the regions that need them most, and give workers the certainty that they deserve as industries evolve. I ask the Minister to agree with us that we should close the loophole and there should be no more new onshore fossil fuel extraction in the country.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing the debate.
The themes of the debate are at the centre of Britain’s industrial sanity. The Government’s approach to our own resources, making us more dependent on dirtier foreign imports of materials rather than producing them at home, is not climate policy; it is economic vandalism dressed up as the same old virtue-signalling that we have come to expect from the incumbent Secretary of State.
It is fair to say that this country’s methods of energy production have changed dramatically since the industry peaked in the 20th century, particularly after the second world war. But what we are witnessing from this shambolic Labour Government is an accelerating obsession with shutting down productive, strategic British industries in the name of ideology. The Government seem determined to pursue a hollow version of net zero, not as a plan for environmental stewardship, but for the purpose of political point scoring and making this country economically neutered and directionless.
As the Leader of the Opposition has rightly stated, the Conservatives remain committed to maximising the responsible extraction of our own natural resources, particularly at a time when ordinary working people are grappling with astronomical energy bills, which are now among the highest in the developed world, and our steel industry is on its knees. Yet rather than backing British industry and jobs, the Government continue their relentless campaign to strangle domestic industry in the name of tackling climate change, when they could be looking towards places such as the North sea to bring in tens of billions of pounds in tax revenue, skilled, well-paid jobs, and inward investment.
When the Secretary of State decided not to challenge the court’s blocking of the proposed Cumbrian coking coalmine, he sabotaged an opportunity for investment and skilled employment. British Steel executives made it clear that UK-mined coal could power their blast furnaces efficiently and cleanly, cutting import costs and emissions alike. We all know where that ended. It makes no sense to make ourselves more reliant on other countries for things that we could produce ourselves here in the United Kingdom just because they do not count towards our climate targets.
It was the leader of the Conservative party who made the pledge at COP26 to phase out coal extraction. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservatives would do a complete U-turn and restart coal extraction?
The ending of coal-fired power stations was incredibly welcome, but the reality of the transition is that just turning things off overnight does not work. In the example of the steel industry, had we opened the coalmine in Cumbria and delivered cheaper, less carbon-emitting coal from our own shores into the blast furnaces operated by British Steel, the Government may not have had to nationalise it. We now see an industry that will only have electric blast furnaces that cannot produce virgin steel, leaving us incredibly vulnerable, particularly on domestic security and defence infrastructure.
Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is time for the UK to follow in the footsteps of nations such as Norway that are looking at alternative technologies, such as hydrogen, for the blast production of steel, and that we should be directing our energy there rather than resorting to fossil fuel, which is only temporary.
I do not think that the right hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart on this. I am suggesting that those great technological innovations that are coming on board but are not ready right here, right now in 2025 need time to develop and become commercially viable, and that in the transition we will still need coal for certain functions. Simply turning it all off overnight is not the responsible thing to do.
Coal tip safety is an incredibly serious issue and deserves resource, engineering expertise and local accountability. Communities across Wales and England in particular live with the physical remnants of our industrial past. Those sites must be monitored and maintained responsibly. When tips are abandoned and left unmanaged, they become dangerous, as we have seen in past tragedies.
Cutting off the licensing regime entirely risks creating more orphan sites with no responsible operators to maintain them. We should be modernising the licensing system, not abolishing it. A well-regulated extraction framework would provide both the revenue and the oversight needed to ensure tip safety for generations to come. By banning new coal extraction licences, the Government have not reduced demand for coal; they have simply exported that demand abroad. That is exactly what we have seen with the approach to the North sea and to British industry more generally.
The Times recently reported comments from the industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who warned that the UK faces a “chemical breakdown” if Ministers continue ignoring the realities of domestic energy and feedstock production. His message was blunt: if we keep shutting down energy-intensive industries here, we will just import the same materials from countries with far higher emissions, fewer safeguards and lower labour standards.
The Government are just lost. To give an example, even the GMB’s general secretary, Gary Smith—no relation—rightly called this strategy “catastrophic” for not just jobs, but the environment. He warned that importing coal, gas and manufactured products from overseas is far more carbon intensive than producing them domestically. He went further, saying that the Government’s net zero drive is “bonkers”—his word—because it undermines the workers who will be essential to any genuine green transition. When even the trade unions are pleading for common sense, it is a clear sign that Labour has lost touch with not just the science, but the people they apparently represent.
Does the shadow Minister accept that his party’s ban on onshore wind in England, plus no experimental hydrogen stations, has contributed to the slowness of the transition? The way he is talking now is a bit rich.
I understand that the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make, but I will never apologise for trying to protect the British countryside.
The Labour Government are closing industries at home, patting themselves on the back for imaginary environmental victories and then importing the same resources from halfway across the world, racking up shipping emissions, losing domestic expertise and devastating industrial communities. That is not a green policy; it is economic negligence. It is bad for the economy, disastrous for security and utterly self-defeating for the climate. Let us be honest: Britain cannot reach meaningful environmental goals by eroding its industrial base. Real sustainability comes from innovation, not prohibition.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter, because it allows me to acknowledge what responsible governance should be about: balancing progress with protection. The Government’s policies will harm our communities, hollow out industry and do nothing measurable for the global climate. Let us have the courage to revisit them and stand up for common sense, working people and British industry. If we continue down the path of ideological self-harm, we will soon find that the only thing we have truly exported is our prosperity, and the only thing we have imported is decline.
Will the Minister please leave a minute or two for the hon. Member who secured the debate to wind up?
I thank most hon. Members for the tone of the debate. I will return to the shadow Minister’s remarks later.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing the debate, and for recognising the context that it sits in. Several hon. Members have done the same. I wish to reflect first, as she did, on the fact that 59 years ago, 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives in Aberfan. I, too, am an MP for a constituency with a legacy of coalmining. In Lanarkshire in Scotland, we know that the hon. Member’s point about coal running through the legacy of people and communities is important. Even generations on from the coalmines in my constituency, I still see the impacts and the outcomes for people right across my community. I entirely understand the point, which is well made.
I thank hon. Members for grounding their remarks in that legacy and for recognising, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) did, how far we have come as a country in phasing out coal, and the importance of the consensus that got us to that point, while paying tribute to those workers, as I pay tribute to the workers in the oil and gas industry who powered the country for 60 years. Recognising the incredibly important role that they played in powering our country is important, but it is equally important to recognise that we have made progress since those days. We should recognise with pride the role that they played, and recognise with pride how good it is that we have moved away from having to put people down coalmines to power our country. I thank hon. Members for that recognition.
The debate had two key themes that I will try to focus on: first, disused coal tips and the funding for them, on which I will reflect, and secondly, the future extraction of coal. The disused coal tips right across Wales are the enduring legacy that people see and experience. Coal tip disasters have left deep scars on many Welsh communities. As many hon. Members have said in this debate, the risks—particularly of climate change and worsening weather conditions leading to incidents in future—are significant. That is partly why we should redouble our efforts to tackle climate change, and there is broad consensus on that, although not from everywhere. It is also why we should do everything that we possibly can to maintain the safety of those coal tips.
We take the situation very seriously. That is why just a few months ago, the Chancellor and the First Minister of Wales visited a coal tip site on the banks of the River Afan near Port Talbot in the historic industrial heart of Wales to see the work that is being done to stabilise a former coal tip. The UK Government and the Welsh Government are working together in partnership to secure coal tip sites, including by providing the funding to which hon. Members have referred.
In the spending review, we announced £118 million of funding to protect Welsh communities, in addition to the £25 million from last year’s autumn Budget. Combined with funding from the Welsh Government, that figure of £143 million increases to £220 million. Some points were made about whether more funding is necessary. We will obviously keep those questions under review, but the suggestion does not always follow that a figure is the way to deliver the necessary work. Yes, we want to be ambitious about we can achieve with this programme. The funding that we have put in place—the £220 million—is what can actually deliver work on the ground at the moment. If there is future ambition in that programme, of course we will look at that. But giving a bigger figure that the Welsh Government, who are on the ground dealing with this, have not asked for, because they do not have capacity to move any quicker on some of these projects, is not an answer to the question. The £220 million has been given to deal with the issue at hand and to move forward with a programme in the fastest way possible, in partnership with others. We will, of course, continue to look at these questions in future.
Given the challenges of having that specific figure in mind, if a future Welsh Government were to ask for the entire cost to be financed by the UK Government, given their historical and moral duty to do so, would the UK Government accept that request?
First, I should say that I am not the Chancellor. Such questions are rightly for the Chancellor at Budgets and spending reviews. However, I will say, as the Minister responsible for the Coal Authority, that we will look at this. The £600 million figure that was given was a provisional estimate, not a programmed budget. It was based on the very limited information that was available in 2020. A considerable amount of work, particularly on the mapping of these sites, has been done subsequently, and £180 million was given as the realistic amount of funding that could be used to protect communities now.
This needs to be based on evidence. Bandying around bigger figures does not necessarily improve the quality of the programme. The figure at the moment gives a signal of how seriously we take it, but also of the practical funding on the ground, to deliver what we think, based on more detailed information, the actual programme that is necessary. But of course we will always look at requests.
I want to reflect on some other things that have been established. The Disused Tips Authority for Wales will prevent unstable disused tips from threatening welfare. That is an important step forward, and will bring together some key people to deal with the matter. The Mining Remediation Authority, formerly known as the Coal Authority, is one of my Department’s partner bodies and is also playing an active role—in working partnership with the Welsh Government, in an advisory role—to ensure that a risk-based inspection and monitoring programme is in place, which has not been the case in the past.
The Minister mentions the Mining Remediation Authority. I commend it for the work that it has commenced to address another hazard of our mining legacy: that of metal mines and lead pollution in particular. Does the Minister think that the work we are doing on coal might serve as a template for dealing with the historic legacy and problem of lead mines? Sadly, many of them are located in my constituency.
That is a very interesting point. I am sure that the Mining Remediation Authority, which I think I am meeting next week, will be delighted to hear the hon. Member’s praise, although perhaps it is also listening to this debate and wondering slightly how it is going to deliver another piece of work. The hon. Member’s point is useful, and I will take it back to colleagues. To date, the MRA has carried out 3,500 inspections, with the higher-rated category D and C tips continuing to be inspected on a six-monthly or annual basis.
Let me turn to the question of licensing. The Mining Remediation Authority currently serves as the licensor for most coal extraction in Great Britain. It is the owner of the UK’s unworked coal reserves. Our manifesto was very clear that we would not grant new coal licences, so we will amend the MRA’s licensing duties. The MRA takes the view that removing coal from tips that are made up of coalmining waste does not fall under the licensable activities defined in its legislation.
Extracting coal from tips does, however, require planning consent, which has to address all the environmental impacts individually. Most coal tips are owned by local authorities or private individuals, who under current legislation are responsible for maintaining their safety and stability. Local authorities have the primary responsibility for tip washing and reclamation schemes, through their planning and enforcement powers. We acknowledge the suggestion to make this type of coal extraction a licensable activity under the MRA, which would allow for a licensing prohibition, but our view is that the current planning policies around the regulations set by devolved Governments already provide robust frameworks.
We are a Government who believe in devolution. We created devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because we believe in devolving power to those authorities, so they are closer to people and to individual circumstances. It is right that we take their lead on these questions. Their firm view is that they can bring into effect the aim of the Welsh Government and the UK Government to make sure that extraction of coal is a thing of the past. Their view is that their existing powers do that.
I will not question that process today, but I suspect that the hon. Lady will.
Not at all; I would just like some clarification. The Government announced their intention in November 2024—nearly a year ago now—to introduce a Bill to ban new coalmining licences. Can the Minister tell us exactly when the Government will bring that legislation forward in Parliament?
I cannot give an exact date, I am afraid, partly because bringing forward legislation is not in the gift of any one Minister, but I can say that it is entirely still our aim to bring forward that ban. To pick up a point made by a couple of other hon. Members, it is also our aim to bring forward a ban on fracking across the country; we will do so as soon as we are able to introduce legislation. We had a Bill in the King’s Speech, and we still intend to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible, but that is dependent on parliamentary time.
I will conclude by addressing the wider context. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made the point about phasing out coal; the shadow Minister reflected on the same point. To me, one of the great sadnesses of the past year is that we have moved away from a consensus that was so incredibly important for this country. We were a leader on tackling climate change under different Governments, and that was reflected across the world in some of the strongest possible ways, by driving other countries towards ambitious targets of their own.
In September last year, I was at the closure of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the last coal-fired power station in Britain. I had the privilege of being in the control room with the workforce who had been there for decades, as they were switching off coal for the last time. It was a huge achievement, under Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and, briefly, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Government. That consensus allowed us to move forward as a country, recognising that the future of our planet is important. It saddens me greatly that that consensus does not now exist. We now have a script that is, frankly, one of climate denialism. It also misses the point about the economic opportunity that our country faces.
A few weeks ago, for the first time ever, we powered this country without any fossil fuels at all. That is a huge milestone for us. It is an example of how we can be climate leaders, but also build legacies and communities right across Wales and the UK with good, sustainable jobs—the jobs of the future, not a harking back to a bygone era. It is about securing jobs; as the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) said, it is about renewal, not nostalgia. That is an incredibly important point about building the economic system of the future.
I must come to an end, so that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has some time to wind up.
We will deliver on our manifesto commitment not to grant new coal licences. We will continue to build the energy system of the future. We will create good, well-paid jobs across the country. We will be forward-looking—not just delivering for people now and dealing with the legacy of what we built in past decades, but ensuring that we can pass our country and our world to future generations. We need to be safe for the future, with an economic and energy system that is built for the future as well.
All those things come together in our clean power mission and in what we are trying to do. Those who oppose that should recognise that they are against the economic opportunity of the century and against the climate action that is necessary now, not in the future. Together, we can rebuild this consensus. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House on how we deal with this specific issue, but also on how we rebuild the wider consensus on the future of our planet.
I thank everybody for contributing today. I am delighted to see my fellow Welsh MPs here, across the parties. I am delighted that, for the vast majority of the debate, we have had consensus that we do not want to send our men, women and young people back down to the pits and the life they had 50 or 60 years ago. The way is forward.
I am terribly disappointed with the shadow Minister—[Interruption.] No, I really am, because this is not the way forward. Sending people back down to extract coal is not the way forward for us in Wales. The subject of this debate was coal tips and extraction licences, and I am sorry to say that we heard very little from the hon. Gentleman on that matter. But I thank the Minister for his response, and I look forward to moving forward together. Diolch.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered coal tip safety and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences.