Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18 November 2025

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

UNESCO: 80th Anniversary

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. It is a great joy to see so many colleagues from across the House here with us today.

I want to begin by touching on UNESCO’s founding vision and the achievements that followed, which show why it is uniquely placed to help drive the national renewal the Labour Government rightly seek and to restore Britain’s leadership role on the world stage. Sunday marked 80 years since UNESCO was founded here in London. Considering the age of some UNESCO sites and the artefacts it seeks to be a custodian of, those 80 years are a mere speck in time, yet, emerging as it did out of the ashes of the darkest and most destructive chapter of human history—world war two—it is nothing short of remarkable that UNESCO’s mission has endured for those 80 years.

Rab Butler and Ellen Wilkinson, for whom I know the Minister has a great deal of admiration, were Tory and Labour Ministers respectively, and they played a crucial role in UNESCO’s establishment. They worked alongside Governments in exile from across the globe. All had witnessed the bombing of medieval cathedrals, such as in Coventry, the burning of national libraries, such as in Serbia, and the destruction of ancient temples in Asia, and much worse atrocities still in the domain of fascist policies dressed up as education and science—education that was mobilised to teach hatred, and science corrupted in the service of the most depraved and evil ends.

If culture, science and education had been abused in the service of hatred and conflict, they now had to be mobilised in the cause of peace. That is part of UNESCO’s founding principle—to build peace through international co-operation in science, education, communication and culture. In the words of Clement Attlee,

“since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”.

Britain and its territories have been a proud supporter of UNESCO, although there was a 12-year separation between 1985 and 1997, when the UK left the organisation. Perhaps sometimes it takes a little bit of time apart to appreciate what you have.

My energy for UNESCO comes through the Derwent Valley Mills UNESCO world heritage site, which runs through my Mid Derbyshire constituency. It is a great joy to see here some of the other MPs who have part of the site in their constituencies—my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby).

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Neighbouring Derbyshire, in Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent has a proud heritage of craftmanship thanks to our famous ceramics industry, including Duchess China and Wedgwood. We are recognised globally for pottery, shipping products all over the world. I would be delighted if Stoke-on-Trent were recognised as a UNESCO creative city. Would my hon. Friend join me in recognising the historical contribution of Stoke-on-Trent and the boost in tourism that our bid to make Stoke-on-Trent a UNESCO creative city would bring?

[Jonathan Davies]

I know the intangible heritage there is in Stoke-on-Trent and I encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites, of which I am the chair, because that might be a vehicle to progress the bid. She is very welcome to speak to me about that.

The Derwent valley in my constituency is the home of the industrial revolution, where planners such as Jedediah Strutt and Richard Arkwright harnessed the power of the River Derwent and built the mills that set Britain on a path to economic growth and prosperity. Their groundbreaking approach was copied throughout the world.

At the heart of the Derwent valley are the Belper mills, which have tragically been allowed to fall into a poor state of repair. I am working to change that, but, for the time being, they remain a painful and unsightly reminder that the Government’s commitment to national renewal is sorely needed.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It was a delight to welcome my hon. Friend to Saltaire recently as part of the World Heritage UK conference, where he saw the regeneration of Salts Mill at the heart of our world heritage site and the amazing regeneration that it has brought to the whole village. Is that an example that he thinks his own world heritage site could learn from?

[Jonathan Davies]

Salts Mill is the gold standard of conservation and heritage restoration and the David Hockney paintings that can be seen there are truly remarkable—I encourage all colleagues to go to Saltaire and visit Salts Mill. My hon. Friend does a great job promoting what that wonderful community has to offer. There is a high bar to reach with the repair of the Belper mills; I hope we can achieve a similar calibre to that of Salts Mill.

I was motivated to re-establish the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites this summer by a desire to raise the profile of these vital places. My aspiration is to use the group to build the components of a national strategy that can share best practice across the UK and raise the profile of places such as the Belper mills and the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I have the slate landscape of north-west Wales world heritage site in my constituency, and I am glad to be a member of the APPG. With these large industrial sites, we need to discuss how to maintain the designation safely while also finding a working use for them. I think of a large hydroelectric scheme in my constituency, which would be an immense benefit to local people, but we need to balance that with what we want to maintain and make safe for future generations.

[Jonathan Davies]

The right hon. Lady makes a good point. There are challenges associated with cultural landscapes and living sites, but there are many examples of where we can make that work. Having a national strategy would provide a shared view across Government Departments to best support the sites. I will say something later about the specific site she mentioned.

I was pleased to re-establish the APPG, which we can use to help build the components for a national strategy, share good practice for sites across the UK, and track and influence Government legislation, so that we can harness all the benefits those sites offer. Having a national strategy would also foster a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by the range of sites across the UK, allowing a joined-up approach to dealing with them. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the merits of a national strategy for the UNESCO world heritage sites in the UK, and whether the Government might consider following the Republic of Ireland, which has adopted one with a degree of success.

I was pleased to see in the recently published curriculum review an aspiration for all young people to engage with local history as part of their education. UNESCO’s world heritage sites in the UK are a great asset to help deliver that. UNESCO is so much more than world heritage sites; it deals with the foundations of our knowledge of the world and each other. UNESCO’s designations, which include biosphere reserves, global geoparks, creative cities, learning cities and intangible cultural heritage, reflect that breadth. Every UNESCO designation is part of a global network spanning more than 190 countries. That network connects communities, scientists, cultural organisations and educators with their counterparts across the world. Despite that extraordinary breadth, UNESCO remains united by a single purpose: an ambitious, internationalist commitment to freedom, peace and equality, with education at its heart.

When war tore across Ukraine, UNESCO trained 50,000 Ukrainian teachers in online methods, ensuring that a generation of children did not lose their education, despite Russia’s brutal invasion. UNESCO’s Global Education Coalition has championed girls’ education, literacy for women and the principle that talent, not geography or sex, should determine a child’s future. UNESCO’s scientific achievements are truly inspiring. In 1951, it brought together Governments in Paris to develop the first resolution that led directly to the creation of CERN, helping to transform the same scientific disciplines once used for destruction into one of the world’s greatest symbols of international collaboration. More recently, through its Nippon Foundation partnership, nearly 30% of the ocean floor has now been mapped, revealing insights into our climate and marine life.

In the realm of culture, UNESCO’s mission has surpassed preservation and now involves conservation and even reconstruction. The Revive the Spirit of Mosul initiative secured more than $117 million to restore mosques and heritage lost to war, rebuilding not just structures but the collective memory and sense of belonging that they embody. This is UNESCO at its strongest—not lofty ideals, but tangible actions that promote peace. It represents the very best of our collective endeavours as one human race.

Britain’s UNESCO sites also bring money into our communities at a time when it is hard to come by, through tourism and footfall, new business opportunities and local economic growth, and direct funding, both public and private. One of the most significant sources of funding is the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has been supporting British heritage since 1994. Today I am delighted to report that, for the first time, National Lottery heritage funding into British UNESCO sites has surpassed £1 billion. I know the Minister will want to join me in celebrating that amazing milestone. I want to cite just a few examples of where that money has contributed in every nation of the United Kingdom.

Over £22 million has come into the Derwent valley, including £9.5 million for Derby’s Museum of Making, which was opened in 2020 and co-designed with local people. It reconnects communities across Derbyshire and further afield with our industrial heritage—something we have only come to appreciate more in recent years.

The National Lottery Heritage Fund has provided £12 million to the National Slate Museum in Llanberis. The slate landscape of north Wales, where quarries, mines and communities evolved together, remains a stronghold of the Welsh language and identity. That funding has created a learning centre, play area, shop, café and improved accessibility, ensuring everyone can share in that wonderful heritage.

In the Wester Ross Biosphere in the north-west highlands, £750,000 of funding supported the Inverbroom estate’s transformation from a traditional highland estate into a beacon of nature and recovery. That created jobs and opened a path to a sustainable future where Scotland’s natural heritage thrives alongside its communities. And in Northern Ireland, £3 million helped the Giant’s Causeway community build a world-class visitor centre.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would turn to the Giant’s Causeway UNESCO world heritage site. Does he agree that that is one of the nation’s tremendous tourism facilities, but we have to be very careful with it, because there have been attempts by developers in recent years to put offshore wind farms in immediate proximity to it? We must be extremely cautious about proceeding with developments of that nature in such close proximity to a national heritage site.

[Jonathan Davies]

That is a challenge. A few sites, including the one in my constituency, have a buffer zone in which development must be tightly controlled. We need to get more energy from renewables, but there is a balance to be struck at valuable sites such as the Giant’s Causeway, which welcomes hundreds of thousands of people each year and shows how funding heritage can protect natural wonders while opening them up for all to enjoy.

Across every nation and region, in so many different ways, UNESCO sites are a locus for communities to celebrate their culture, understand their history and prepare for the future. Aside from the numerous benefits they provide, our UNESCO sites have the potential to help us tackle two key challenges.

First, too many people feel disconnected and alienated. That is expressed through frustration, but also a turn to extremes. UNESCO sites do not provide quick fixes and nor are they the sole solution, but by investing in what is unique, sustainable and culturally valuable in our towns, cities and landscapes we restore a sense of connection, allow a palpable sense of local identity to return, and give communities a real stake in their future. That must be recognised as part of the national renewal that the Government rightly seek. It goes beyond our pride in place programme and engages with what our places mean to us, as well as how they look.

The second challenge is our role on the world stage. I am delighted that we have a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister responding to the debate. Although trade deals have boosted UK business and our defence investment is helping build a more secure world, cuts to international aid have raised concerns about our global standing. UNESCO offers a powerful vehicle for leading on the international stage, fostering progress and promoting peace. Its work can prevent conflict from erupting, help adversaries to see one another’s humanity, and encourage reconciliation after war. That is not to mention the work needed to tackle climate change, which is an ever growing cause of conflict across the world. We are leading on climate change through robust action in the UK, but our collective efforts can succeed only if they are fully international. Domestic alienation and international conflict are two sides of the same coin; UNESCO’s mission helps us to address both.

The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected minds in science, culture and education. Their expertise enriches UNESCO through research, conservation, diplomacy and teaching. The UK is home to 29 UNESCO chairs—world-leading experts advancing research on climate change, cultural heritage, artificial intelligence ethics, ocean science and education. Their work directly shapes global policy and drives innovation. Greater engagement with UNESCO, nationally and internationally, is a low-cost, high-impact way to tackle two defining challenges of our age. Done well, it can restore pride in place at home and pride in the UK’s role abroad.

I very much look forward to hearing from colleagues about the fantastic contributions that UNESCO sites make across the country. We have the resources to contribute through UNESCO to peace, equality and a better future for humankind. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister not only a celebration of this important organisation, but a recommitment to our place within it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. If colleagues can keep their speeches to five minutes, I will not need to impose a formal time limit at this stage.

09:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject in which we should all be interested. It is wonderful to be here to celebrate UNESCO’s 80th anniversary—I am just 10 years behind it. It is the specialised agency dedicated to strengthening our shared humanity through the promotion of education, science, culture and communication. I and others believe that we must continue to protect UNESCO and advance education, so it is great to be here for that purpose.

I love history; indeed, it is probably the only subject I excelled at in school, or did well at in school—that may be a better way of putting it. I also love the idea of UNESCO’s 80th anniversary, and—without being morbid—I love going round graveyards, looking at the old headstones and getting a bit of the history of the area. I love going round churches as well, where we have the same experience, and going round UNESCO sites. Their designation can go back 80 years, but churches may go back 300 years or more, and graveyards go back to whenever people were first buried, which is the beginning of time.

For Northern Ireland, there are a few important UNESCO-related milestones to note, so I am pleased to be here to give the local perspective. The first relates to the Giant’s Causeway. It is said that that is where the giants walked and lived—I am sure it is quite true. It is one of Northern Ireland’s UNESCO heritage sites and was designated as such in 1986, meaning that its 40th anniversary will be celebrated next year. Hundreds of thousands of people visit each year; it is a much-loved attraction.

In July 2024, only very recently, Gracehill in County Antrim was added to the UNESCO world heritage list as part of the Moravian Church Settlements. Northern Ireland is famed for its religious settlements—for its religious beliefs—and it is only right that we should have something like that. If we look abroad through UNESCO’s website, there are 1,248 properties on the world heritage list, so that gives people an idea; it is quite selective. They are properties that the world heritage list considers as having outstanding universal value.

UNESCO has revealed that climate change is one of the biggest threats to world heritage properties. The issues range from coral bleaching to severe forest fires and droughts. We are increasingly seeing the devastating impacts that climate change has on all aspects of our world and especially on world heritage sites, which we must endeavour to protect.

The UK National Commission for UNESCO launched a report to coincide with the opening of COP30 in Brazil, alongside 2025 being the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation. The findings were shocking, to say the least. Since 2000, glaciers have lost some 6,500 billion tonnes of ice, which threatens the water supply of more than 1 billion people. I hope that someday, perhaps, my constituency of Strangford will become a UNESCO site, because it goes back to when time began. When the Vikings came to Strangford, it was called the strong fjord. That is where the name Strangford came from. We have a history that I believe someday we may even realise to our advantage.

Those things all matter and it is crucial that we look to the future, and at how our current actions are impacting the future of our globe and our listed properties. As we celebrate the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, we are reminded of the power of education, science, culture and communication, and that much more must be done to preserve it.

09:50

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing the debate.

We will hear a lot today about UNESCO world heritage sites across the UK, from the Giant’s Causeway to Saltaire and the Palace of Westminster itself. Magnificent as those examples are, I stand here today with the honour of representing the only part of the country with double UNESCO world heritage status for both cultural heritage and the surrounding natural environment. St Kilda, or Hiort, the remote archipelago, some 40 miles west of my own archipelago into the Atlantic, are the most westernmost islands of the UK apart from Rockall—perhaps its most taciturn Atlantic outcrop. It is not easy to get there—it takes a stern four-hour crossing on a high-powered boat into an Atlantic swell—but the reward is magnificent.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

And that is in summer.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Even in the summer.

The sea cliffs of St Kilda are among the highest in the UK. When you crane your neck up from the deck of what feels like a very small boat below those cliffs, it feels as if someone has dragged New York’s skyscrapers midway across the Atlantic. The sea stacks teem with bird life, giving an otherworldly atmosphere, and the power of that ocean, in summer and winter, below your feet—that relentless swell—makes you feel as if these islands are on the edge of the world. It is the surrounding ocean environment that gives it its UNESCO natural heritage status, but it is the human footprint—the two millennia of human inhabitation of the main island of Hirta, along with Boreray, Soay and Dùn, where people grazed sheep and hunted seabirds—that exert such a pull and give it its heritage status.

People lived there for two millennia, eking out a very tough life harvesting seabirds and breeding sheep, but modernity, contact with the outside world, depopulation, emigration and illness brought that chapter of human habitation to a close. The final 36 St Kildans requested assistance from the British Government and were evacuated on 29 August 1930, bringing that chapter of inhabitation to a sudden and sad end. Although the community dispersed and the voices faded, you still get an echo of the human habitation and the people when you go there. I last visited with the late Norman John Gillies, the last of the male St Kildans. He left when he was five years old, but he still had an umbilical link to the island. To stand with him outside his family home in Village Bay, and to hear him switch from his English Norwich accent into what that place evoked in him—his native Gaelic voice—was to walk across the bridge of time. It was quite a privilege.

The remarkable story of St Kilda has been told and retold, from Tom Steel’s “Life and Death” to Roger Hutchinson’s “A People’s History”. There are about 700 books on St Kilda. We know more about the St Kildans than we know about the kings of Scotland. That is why we go back time and again: because when we walk in their footsteps, we feel for ourselves what it was like to live in a pre-industrial, communal, remote and co-dependent community as our ancestors must all have done.

While St Kilda remains attractive, tourist traffic is increasing vastly. Cruise ships now go there and the light-touch tourism that is essential for UNESCO world heritage sites is hard to achieve. Ionad Hiort, the St Kilda Centre project, aspires to construct a world-class visitor centre in Ùig, on the west coast of Lewis. It would offer visitors an opportunity to encounter St Kilda from afar. UNESCO has adopted the project as an exemplar of remote access to world heritage sites, many of which are already physically inaccessible or fragile.

Funding is formidable, and a £7 million package has been put in place, but prices are increasing as time is flowing, and there is a considerable funding gap. I appeal to the Minister and the UK Government to deploy the muscle of Government to fulfil their obligations not just as a custodian of this double world heritage site, but by using projects such as Ionad Hiort to show the potential of remote viewing, contain untrammelled tourism and breathe new economic life into remote communities like mine. I urge the Department, the Minister and colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to take the proposal seriously, to show how the UK can inform and lead the rest of the world—from the edge of the world—when it comes to world heritage sites.

09:55

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My speech, borrowing the term from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), is more about lofty ideals than the more detailed presentations that have been given by other hon. Members. As UNESCO’s founding fathers said:

“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”.

That was a noble ambition at a time when the world, following world war two, was in a state of devastation. Although we are commemorating 80 years since UNESCO made its declaration, it is disheartening to note that since then we have never seen a single day without conflict somewhere in the world. We can have no “Sliding Doors” moment because we cannot say for sure what the world would have looked like without ambitious endeavours like UNESCO and its call for common humanity.

The pursuit of peace is incumbent upon us now more than ever, with the devastating capacity of modern warfare to cause such death and destruction at the touch of a button. With our collective threshold for witnessing devastation and evil so elevated—partly due to social media, where we can see entire villages, hospitals, aid workers, men, women and children eviscerated in front of our eyes on our phone screens and continue to do what we were doing before—I suggest that we redouble our efforts, resources and ambitions for global peace by spotlighting, amplifying and celebrating the common cause of shared humanity.

The sheer scope of projects undertaken by UNESCO is vast and varied, and it has been really interesting to hear hon. Members speak about them. I am from Leicester, where we do not have a world heritage site, but I think Charnwood forest would make a good bid for it. Today, I will speak about three projects that protect world culture and natural heritage, starting with Mount Mulanje. This mountain stands in Malawi, the country of my birth. Mount Mulanje is the latest UNESCO heritage site there. The mountain is not only a resource for nearly a million people, providing clean water, firewood, edible products and protection from the elements, including storms; it is also a place of great spiritual significance for the local population.

What does recognition by UNESCO mean? It means that when mining companies come to drill extracts such as bauxite and other minerals, the listing preserves not only the beauty but the natural resources for its people, as well as the unique spiritual ties between the people and their land.

Secondly, we are now living in a post-truth world, and the issue is about to enter another dimension with the advent of artificial intelligence. UNESCO has pre-empted some of the challenges the globe will face, including the dangers of embedded biases, threats to human rights and climate degradation, through its recommendation on the ethics of AI, which was adopted by the acclamation of 193 member states. In this journey to the unknown, humanity will need all the assistance it can get to navigate the complexities, challenges and dilemmas mankind will face. That resource could become a standard of reference, as it provides information on the gold standard of practice for legislators, educators and commercial entities, among others.

Finally, we have witnessed carnage in the war in Gaza. We are hopefully now coming out on the other side, but a source of constant tension—often the flashpoint—is Jerusalem, the epicentre of the three Abrahamic faiths and a UNESCO world heritage site. The Dome of the Rock is sacred for Muslims as the site where the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven to meet his Lord. The Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall, is a remnant of the Second Temple, signifying a place of not only spirituality but identity for the Jewish people. Additionally, we have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which houses the tomb of Jesus Christ. This small area of 0.9 km is potentially the area where we need to implement the spirit of the first UNESCO contribution more than anywhere else, embodying the spirit of peace through mutual respect.

Yes, UNESCO, like other organisations, must evolve in its efficiency and proficiency in these challenging times, but organisations like it are too important and vital to abandon. If we pursue a similar policy to that of our international aid and start cutting funding, as we did when we removed ourselves in 1985 for 12 years, it will leave a vacuum that will be filled by others who will shape the world in their image. The cost of that is potentially incalculable, and the result unimaginable.

10:00

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate, and colleagues on the excellent contributions we have enjoyed so far.

We are very fortunate in Shropshire to be home to the Ironbridge Gorge, with 10 heritage sites forming the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. Forty years ago, in 1986—when I was just starting secondary school—it became one of the first locations in the UK to be designated a UNESCO world heritage site. That recognised its unique and unrivalled contribution to the birth of the industrial revolution in the 18th century.

However, flooding is a persistent threat to Ironbridge and all along the River Severn, as we were unfortunately reminded this weekend. We recently had severe flood events, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, with storms such as Dudley, Eunice and Franklin. In each flood, at least two of the museums were breached, and water was waist high, leading to land slips and road closures, which of course deter visitors to the sites, and causing lasting damage to historic structures and the Wharfage area.

To combat flooding, Government funding has supported local authorities to implement stabilisation and flood defence measures, including piling, improved drainage and river bank protection, to mitigate the risk of more landslides and damage from heavy rain, high groundwater levels and recurring river floods. As chair of the River Severn Partnership caucus and lead on the Environmental Audit Committee flood resilience report, I have worked consistently with stakeholders to approach this issue holistically. That means shifting the mindset, and Government resources, away from reaction and more into prevention, preparedness and co-ordination. I hope the Minister will work collaboratively with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that heritage sites, and particularly UNESCO sites such as Ironbridge Gorge, are prioritised in the consideration of flooding resilience. I will ensure she receives her own copy of the flood resilience report to help in that endeavour.

10:02

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for so ably introducing the debate. The old and new towns of Edinburgh are designated a UNESCO world heritage site. My constituency includes just a small corner of the UNESCO designated area, but the beauty of the city centre’s historical legacy is appreciated by all in my constituency.

UNESCO’s 80 years of work to preserve the world’s heritage involves global art, monuments and even our oceans. I want to take this opportunity to talk about its work on literature preservation—something my English teacher might be surprised to hear. UNESCO’s founding aim was to preserve

“the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”

As we have heard, its founders recognised that ignorance of the positive differences between us can lead to conflict. Engaging with literature can help us celebrate those differences.

In 2004, Edinburgh became the world’s first UNESCO city of literature. Since then, 52 other cities have followed and earned the same title, but I am proud that Edinburgh led the way. Our city has a rich literary history of great fiction writers, including Arthur Conan Doyle, Muriel Spark, whose statute will be the first of a woman in Princes Street Gardens—there are more statues of animals in Edinburgh than there are of women, which is quite a bizarre situation—and Kenneth Grahame. All those people called my city their home.

In my constituency, the legacy of Robert Louis Stevenson, the writer of “Treasure Island”, also lives on. One of his poems is preserved on the walls of Colinton tunnel in a fantastic mural. He travelled through that tunnel each summer to visit his grandfather, who was a minister at Colinton parish church. Every year, thousands come to the city to take part in the Edinburgh international book festival and to enjoy the city’s rich literary history.

We also have the Pentlands book festival, which runs each year in my constituency. One of the books recently featured is by author Nicholas Kinloch. It is a non-fiction book and tells the story of how his grandfather travelled from Poland to the UK in the second world war and eventually fought in Arnhem. The book is called “From the Soviet Gulag to Arnhem”, and it is a fantastic story; it reminds us that some immigrants came to our country to save it. I know that Nicholas’s parents, Isobel and Henry Kinloch, are very proud of him.

With the knowledge of this fantastic literary legacy—both Nicholas’s and others—we must continue to push forward with literacy across the country. I recently met the Edinburgh City of Literature Trust, which works across Edinburgh to engage people with our literary history and has reached an audience of at least 235,000 people since 2004. It emphasised the importance of literature in our civic life as not just a luxury but an essential public good. For the trust, UNESCO status is not an award but an obligation to further the aims of UNESCO.

Central to the public good in my city are libraries. In my constituency, I have Oxgangs, Wester Hailes, Fountainbridge, Balerno, Colinton, Currie, Sighthill and even the mobile library system. The reason we have such great libraries in Edinburgh is partly down to the work of my good friend Val Walker, both before she became a councillor and after she was elected. Sadly, she died a few months ago, but the libraries in our city are a fantastic legacy to her.

I am proud that the Government have committed to delivering a library in every primary school in England, giving children the best start to life and enriching their learning. I hope to see a similar commitment in Scotland, where around a quarter of schools have no designated library space. That is absolutely shameful. Giving children access to a variety of books and stories from a young age helps to create a cohesive and integrated community. From a library in Edinburgh, a child can read stories about any country around the world, by authors from any country around the world. Nurturing children’s understanding of their global role as citizens is central to UNESCO’s aims. Literature fosters a child’s pride in their home, and understanding and compassion for those who come from elsewhere.

Finally, I want to talk about another UNESCO site, which is right at the edge of Edinburgh—the Forth bridge, or the Forth railway bridge to some. It stands in such splendour today only because of the work of Tam Dalyell in this place and of my former colleague Professor Roland Paxton, who both fought to make sure it was preserved in excellent condition. Sadly, Roland passed away just a few days ago, but the condition of that bridge today is a fantastic legacy to him.

10:08

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this debate on such an important topic. He is an excellent chair of the APPG, to which he brings passion and knowledge, and I am a proud member of it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for mentioning Ironbridge Gorge in my constituency, ensuring that that special place has a double hit in this debate.

The founding of UNESCO out of the ruins of the second world war brought together the nations of the world to develop a shared understanding of our collective history and culture. Through the designation of world heritage sites, many areas of cultural and natural heritage have been conserved and protected. As the Member of Parliament for Telford, I am proud to represent one of the first six UK sites to be inscribed as a world heritage site: the Ironbridge Gorge, which is the birthplace of the industrial revolution. It is a fantastic example of the importance of world heritage site status, with hundreds of thousands of visitors every year learning about the ingenuity and hard work of ordinary men, women and, in some cases, children who went before us.

Ironbridge Gorge is key to Telford’s identity and is a major contributor to the local economy. The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust alone attracts 400,000 visitors, employs more than 200 staff and brings in £6 million every year to our local economy. That is even before we get into the other amazing businesses throughout the Ironbridge Gorge, such as the world-famous Eley’s pork pie shop, Merrythought teddy bear shop and some very fine cafés and restaurants, not to mention a few pubs I may have frequented over the years. The local council, Telford and Wrekin council, works with a range of partners to manage the world heritage site and preserve the many monuments of the industrial revolution, including Europe’s first coke-fired blast furnace and the world’s first single-span iron bridge—part of a landscape that has inspired artists from Turner to John Nash.

There is much to celebrate about UNESCO’s 80th year. Next year will be 40 years since Ironbridge Gorge’s designation—a significant birthday it shares with me. However, I also want to look to the future and at how we can make our world heritage sites more sustainable. The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust recently set out plans to merge with the National Trust, thanks in part to a £9 million grant from the Government. I can say with certainty that the world heritage site was incredibly valuable in securing that support from the Government. As well as the legal protections the world heritage site provides, there is the more informal protection afforded to world heritage sites by the sheer value of that status.

The UNESCO world heritage site has played a big role in making the Ironbridge visitor economy sustainable for years, and it will continue to do so. However, many of the world’s natural and cultural treasures face significant challenges, and the Ironbridge Gorge is no exception. It suffers from ground instability, and more frequent and severe flooding linked to climate change. The council and the Government have made significant investments in stabilisation works over many years, and are working together against the risks of flooding. That includes a recent £700,000 grant from the Government to support the walls of the river, and a £1.2 million grant to protect individual properties.

To conclude, it is ever more important, in a turbulent global environment, to ensure that these crucial sites are protected for years to come, so that those who come after us never forget the stories of the ordinary men and women who contributed to our great country. I put on record my formal thanks to the Ironbridge Gorge world heritage site steering group, chaired by Professor Ken Sloan, to Ironbridge councillor Carolyn Healy, and to both Telford and Wrekin council and the Gorge parish council for their work. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the businesses, residents and organisations who make this such a special, wonderful place to live, work, visit and enjoy.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Alas, I am going to have to drop the time limit for speeches to four minutes.

10:13

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd—there is always a sense of history when you are in it.

I want to speak about the contribution of Hexham and the broader north-east to UNESCO. We have a proud industrial heritage in the north-east, and I am proud to have the birthplace of George Stephenson in my constituency. At a recent panel event in Wylam, I was asked whether George Stephenson was to blame for the climate catastrophe, which was a challenging question to be asked at a community event, and slightly deeper than I had planned on going.

We also have one of the most iconic UNESCO heritages sites, Hadrian’s wall, which symbolises the fantastic history of our nation and islands. Whether walking through Sycamore gap—which was a tragic loss—or more far-flung areas of Hadrian’s wall, we can get a sense of the scale of an incredible engineering achievement that left such a mark on the landscape.

With my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), I recently attended a parish council meeting in Gilsland, a village we both represent. I bumped into my year 3 teacher and we discussed the urgent need for investment in transport infrastructure in rural Northumberland. That includes the long-term goal of getting rail services into the village to open a key element of Hadrian’s wall back up to the public, allowing them to experience the world heritage site.

I have a few points for the Minister to take away and share with colleagues, particularly the funding for national parks. Northumberland national park covers one of the largest geographic areas of any such park, but it is slightly disadvantaged by the current funding formula, which favours larger parks in the south and allows them to invest more, even though Northumberland national park does incredible work at facilities such as the Sill. However, Hadrian’s wall does not bring just a tourism offer; it gives a deep sense of pride and, crucially, jobs and employment opportunities. Those opportunities are also not just in Haltwhistle and not just in the tourism sector, so it underpins whole sections of the regional economy and our transport infrastructure.

One point needs to be borne in mind: we are not simply a region defined by Hadrian’s wall or opportunities of the past. We have a rich cultural offer. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my support for the ongoing petition for the redevelopment of Hexham’s old fire station by Sir Antony Gormley. I also ask the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), to pass on my distaste for how the Conservative cabinet of Northumberland county council has rammed through the rejection of that proposal. The Conservatives have a duty to enhance the lives of everyone in Northumberland, not merely those in their favoured areas. Unfortunately, the council cabinet in Northumberland is a specialist in failure when it comes to my constituency.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I share not only Gilsland but Hadrian’s wall. Members may not be aware that it is only in the last eight years that Hadrian’s wall has yielded its long-kept secret that the largest structure is to be found at Carlisle cricket club, thanks to a fantastic dig that is going on there. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we mark 80 years of UNESCO, we definitely need a further 80 years to understand what we can learn from our shared heritage?

[Joe Morris]

We need significantly more than 80 years to unearth all the secrets that Hadrian’s wall yet has. I have been deeply concerned to read about some of the damage that climate change is doing to potential unfound objects at Vindolanda, where certain changes in the soil acidity may be wreaking havoc on things that we do not yet understand. Although its largest structure might be in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I think that mine contains the largest contiguous body of Hadrian’s wall—just to do a little bit of neighbourly point scoring.

As we celebrate the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, I note that Hadrian’s wall is not just an incredibly large structure that binds together the west coast and east coast of England; it is a really powerful message about the importance of our shared history and culture. Borders really can define large elements of where we see ourselves—there are large parts of my constituency that are built with stones from Hadrian’s wall. As history evolves, we must look at how we can preserve and celebrate it for the future. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for securing this debate, and for the manner in which he spoke about the achievements of UNESCO and the importance of marking and remembering our shared history.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that I did exhort them to stick to four minutes.

10:18

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate; he takes a keen interest in arts and culture, as the chair of the APPG on UNESCO world heritage sites, and I understand that the group aims to grow support and recognition of British world heritage sites and the grassroots organisations that support them.

Given the limited time that I have, I want to acknowledge that UNESCO’s stated mission 80 years ago was to strengthen

“shared humanity through the promotion of education, science, culture, and communication.”

There is no doubt that it has made immeasurable contributions and achievements in that regard. However, in the modern age, some UNESCO world heritage sites could be put at risk by the impact of the climate emergency and its consequences, which can literally include the erosion of some sites. These are issues that we must consider. As chair of the APPG on Bangladesh, I am aware of the ongoing challenges in preserving sites, such as the Sundarbans, which is home to the richest mangrove forest in the world, and is the single largest home of the Bengal tiger.

In the global context, it is regrettable that the US has once again pulled funding for UNESCO. I hope that will never be the case in the UK, and I will use my contribution to explain why. Three years ago, I was honoured to lead a debate in this House to commemorate UNESCO International Mother Language Day. It was one of the friendliest debates I have had the immense pleasure of leading in this House, with many hon. Members contributing phrases and sentences in their mother language. The idea to celebrate International Mother Language Day was the initiative of Bangladesh, the country of my parents’ birth, and it emerged from a history of jostling powers and political struggles. It was approved at the 1999 UNESCO general conference and has been observed throughout the world since 21 February 2000. This year marks the 25th anniversary of that important commemoration.

International Mother Language Day serves as an opportunity to see the rich tapestry of our linguistic diversity as something to be cherished; a joyful kaleidoscope of possibilities and potential to be revelled in. UNESCO believes in the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity for sustainable societies. That is important because multilingual and multicultural societies exist through their languages, which transmit and preserve traditional knowledge and cultures in a sustainable way, and because linguistic diversity is increasingly threatened as more languages disappear. Globally, we know that 40% of the population do not have access to an education in a language they can speak or understand. None the less, progress is being made in multilingual education, with growing understanding of its importance, particularly in early schooling, and with more commitment to its development in public life.

Within its mandate for peace, UNESCO works to preserve the differences in cultures and languages that foster tolerance and respect for others. As the daughter of migrants, representing a constituency in a borough where over 90 different languages have been identified as spoken, I believe there is a need, more than ever, for the histories, cultures and languages of diverse communities to feature more across the educational curriculum, local services and the cultural sector. The rise of anti-migrant rhetoric and racism in the UK, and around the world, highlights the importance of the inclusion of diverse cultural storytelling, with the demand to ensure that school curriculums include educating young people about racism and imperialism. There is a need to rebalance historical and social narratives that currently exclude certain experiences and perspectives, because we all have a duty to ensure that the next generation has a better understanding of the historical injustices contributing to the institutional racism that persists in the UK and elsewhere today.

My constituency in east London is home to the historic UNESCO world heritage site, the Tower of London—the iconic castle that we find decorating souvenirs all over London and the globe. It is a magnet for tourism, as many hon. Members will be aware. Shortly after my election six years ago, I became aware that a small community serving the Tower actually live on the site. However, I am aware that it is left vulnerable to the encroaching City of London to the west. The City of London looks to stimulate economic growth by creating more office space and, as such, more tall buildings. I understand that conversations between the Tower and the City about the City of London’s 2040 plan continue, but it seems more likely than ever that over time it will become more difficult to preserve the Tower’s setting. I understand that the International Council on Monuments and Sites has asked the Government for an update on the state of conservation report, and I hope that those discussions will continue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I exhort Members to stick to time. Some Members have left before the end of the debate, having spoken. With the greatest respect, I am afraid that gets reported to the Speaker’s Office. Will Members please respect the protocols and the time limit? Otherwise, it impacts colleagues right across the piece.

10:23

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing the debate. The power of culture to maintain peace and promote diversity over the last 80 years demonstrates the opportunity to use soft power to transform the world. In the midst of a debate about borders and identity, UNESCO is the antithesis, showing the opportunity for education, science and culture to reach beyond, to stir interest and to provide us with a framework that enables us to be proud of our heritage and embrace our own culture and that of others.

It may come as a surprise that York is yet to be granted world heritage site status. We are on the tentative list—a significant achievement in itself—but our ambition is recognition. I have worked with the York world heritage steering group since I was elected in 2015, and at this point I pay tribute to Janet Hopton and John Oxley for their fantastic and committed work. Their big question is how we ensure we get proper financial backing for UNESCO world heritage sites, beyond local sources.

To submit a bid can cost up to half a million pounds, with staffing and associated project costs. The nomination dossier itself could cost £180,000, with drafting, formatting and Government liaison needed. Once a site receives its status, there are, of course, ongoing conservation, management and monitoring obligations to be met, and a member of staff to oversee that. The big question is: will the Government work with the National Heritage Lottery Fund to introduce a dedicated funding strand that will support UK world heritage sites developing their bids and assist in the ongoing work? That could be a game changer and address the inequity that exists.

The proposed world heritage site in York has 993 listed historical buildings, six scheduled monuments, one of the UK’s earliest designated conservation areas and one of only five areas of archaeological importance in England. York’s bid is an outstanding example of urbanisation through the ages. In the next few years I want to see York on that permanent list, but we need financial support.

I briefly draw attention to York itself as a UNESCO city of media arts. It has the festival of early music, the BAFTA-accredited Aesthetica short film festival, the Jorvik Viking festival and the festival of ideas. We have embedded the Guild of Media Arts in our city over the last decade, which is now an important centre of leading media arts in our country. As a result, we are seeing global film productions in the city, the gaming industry, phone and TV apps, new technology bringing cutting-edge immersive experiences into the digital creative space and artists finding their form. It is therefore fitting to mark the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and I trust we will also celebrate the power of all its listed locations and cultures in maintaining peace and security.

10:26

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate.

UNESCO was founded from the ashes of the second world war out of a recognition that we must protect our unique cultural heritage for generations to come. The Derbyshire dales are filled with unique landscapes, heritage and history, and at the heart of this is Cromford Mills, which was built in 1771 and was the world’s first water-powered cotton spinning mill. Alongside other sites in Derbyshire, it ushered in the birth of the factory system and the industrial revolution, helping pioneer changes that would leave our nation and the world irrevocably changed.

To visit Arkwright’s mill in Cromford is to visit the very birthplace of mass production. It would be remiss of me not to mention Masson Mills just half a mile away, another of Arkwright’s mills, built in 1783. A commercial spinning mill until 1991, it is now home to a textile museum and, incidentally, powered by hydro-electric energy generated on site. However, Arkwright’s mill at Cromford was his first, unique in having survived as a cohesive group of buildings, and therefore is a key destination within the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site, which is a designated UNESCO world heritage site and the only UNESCO site in the east midlands.

The designation of the site helps to ensure that future generations can continue to visit and learn from this historic location, with more than 200,000 visitors each year. It is hard to believe that before the Arkwright Society purchased the site in 1979, the site appeared to be heading for demolition. By that time, many of the buildings had fallen into disrepair, much of it had been contaminated with lead chromate and many of the historic features had been obscured by modern buildings. However, the hard work and vision of the Arkwright Society saved this site of international significance and turned it into the tourist attraction that it is today. The designation of Cromford Mills as a UNESCO world heritage site also aided that process, as it helped secure funding, boost visitor numbers and gave it legal protection.

Unfortunately, the hard work of preserving and restoring the site is not yet complete. It costs over £4,000 each day to maintain the site. Although the Arkwright Society generates income through catering, retail, heritage tours and tenancies, and receives additional income from donations and grants, this income remains less than it costs to maintain Cromford Mills.

Fortunately, the Arkwright Society has managed to secure £1.3 million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to transform the four-storey mill building located at the heart of the site. None the less, although this funding is welcome, Cromford Mills needs further support to ensure that the site can remain financially viable for future generations. In particular, the Arkwright Society needs £150,000 a year to stabilise core operations and around £1.2 million in match funding to enable the full delivery of the renewal project.

I urge the Government and donors to do whatever they can to ensure that the Arkwright Society can access the funding it needs. I also encourage the Minister to instruct officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to speak with the Arkwright Society and Cromford Mills to see what support they might be able to provide through these challenging times.

Cromford Mills demonstrates that our industrial legacy is not just a story about our past. Instead, with the right investment, such sites can continue to educate, teach and inspire for generations to come. UNESCO’s founders believed that we could create peace and prosperity by preserving our cultural history and heritage, so I urge the Government to keep investing in our history. After all, a country that preserves its past is better placed to shape its future.

10:31

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Dowd, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate.

In an increasingly divided world, it is essential that we use UNESCO’s 80th anniversary to promote its mission of contributing to peace and security by fostering collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. In a fractured and fracturing world, education, science and culture can be important tools for building knowledge, understanding and peace.

Glasgow continues to promote UNESCO’s mission through its designation, back in 2008, as the UK’s first UNESCO city of music. Glasgow is recognised as Scotland’s music capital, with over half a million people a year enjoying gigs in world-renowned venues such as King Tut’s, the OVO Hydro, the Berkeley Suite and Sub Club. The city hosts around 130 events a week, making it Scotland’s most popular location for gigs. Outside of the Edinburgh Festival and Fringe, many of Scotland’s largest cultural festivals take place in Glasgow, such as Celtic Connections and Transmit. My constituency of Glasgow North is home to institutions that contribute to Glasgow’s city of music title, such as Scottish Opera, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland.

Glasgow’s UNESCO title not only recognises the musical talent of the city, but helps to support it. Research by the UK National Commission for UNESCO shows that such a designation helps to attract extra funding, tourism and partnerships, as well as generating local pride. Such a sector helps the local economy to grow, boosts employment and complements other parts of the economy, such as local businesses and Glasgow’s flourishing food and drink sector. I hope that the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council will do more to support Glasgow’s city of music status.

The UK Government’s Brand Scotland initiative aims to complement such titles by promoting Scotland and its cities to the world. Glasgow’s UNESCO city of music status is certainly one such selling point for the city. More recently, in December 2024, Glasgow was awarded the title of UNESCO learning city in recognition of its outstanding achievements in lifelong learning. This is a testament to the many initiatives, organisations and educational institutions in Glasgow that work to widen access to education and to create opportunities for individuals and communities.

However, titles such as city of music are not the only reason that UNESCO is important to Glasgow. On the edge of my constituency of Glasgow North, there is a UNESCO world heritage site, the Antonine wall. Although it is sometimes overshadowed by its more famous contemporary, Hadrian’s wall, the Antonine wall was one of the sites furthest from Rome on which the Roman empire ever built, and it is a testament to Scotland’s rich history. The universal value of the Antonine wall—built nearly 2,000 years ago and stretching 37 miles, with approximately 36 forts—was recognised by UNESCO because it is an impressive example of Roman military architecture and because of its symbolism as the maximum extension of the Roman empire’s power in northern Europe.

The site of the Antonine wall now hosts a range of different visitor attractions to teach people about its history, as well as routes for walkers and cyclists to follow the route of the wall across the central belt of Scotland. It is a testament to UNESCO’s work in helping to preserve and promote important historical sites for future generations to enjoy.

I am proud that Glasgow continues to contribute to UNESCO’s global mission 80 years after the organisation’s creation. I hope that this debate helps to highlight the importance of funding the preservation and promotion of culture, education and historic sites that generations in the present and the future can benefit from. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government can continue to develop their support for UNESCO.

10:35

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, and to be here celebrating the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the fantastic work it does.

We Liberal Democrats are proud internationalists; we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking, and building strong international partnerships with organisations such as UNESCO is a big part of that. We are proud of the UK’s central role in founding UNESCO, and remain steadfast in supporting its mission to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) reminded us of that history.

The Liberal Democrats believe that education is the best investment we can make in our children’s potential and our planet’s future. Education opens the mind, fosters understanding and tolerance, and empowers our children and our communities to be the best they can be. In that vein, the Liberal Democrats also want to restore the UK’s reputation as an international development superpower by returning official development assistance spending to 0.7% of national income and re-establishing an independent Department for international development. We understand the need to step up defence spending, but feel that cutting ODA is short-sighted. We believe in the role of education as a force for good, and if we were in charge, we would commit to spending 15% of ODA on education in the world’s most vulnerable areas, especially focusing on girls and young women.

I have been lucky enough to see for myself the impact of such spending, both as a former trustee of a small charity focusing on education in Latin America and as the former chief executive of a charity set up in the areas where my firm at the time was actively investing. I remember fondly a visit to Senanga in Zambia with CAMFED—the Campaign for Female Education—to see a project we were supporting that was providing life skills and business skills to girls and young women. I remember clearly a session in which girls and young women told me of the transformative impact that their education was having.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure. In this country at least, it is through UNESCO’s world heritage sites list that the organisation is best known, although the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire rightly talked of biosphere reserves and global geoparks. Although there are many outstanding examples across our nation—to date, there are 35 UNESCO sites in the UK and overseas territories, from neolithic Orkney to the wonderful city of Bath, via Durham’s castle and cathedral, which I spent three years getting to know during my time there at university—I will shamelessly take this opportunity to plug a cause close to my heart by talking about a site in my Hazel Grove constituency that I believe should be added to the list.

I strongly believe that our canals and waterways are a large part of our fantastic cultural and industrial heritage. That is why I launched the campaign for Marple locks, at the junction of the Peak forest and Macclesfield canals, to be designated as a world heritage site. Marple’s canal heritage makes it one of a kind, unique in England, and one of the best examples of industrial waterways in the UK. It is our own local slice of Great British history, and I believe we should be doing everything we can to protect it and preserve it for future generations.

I am a proud and long-standing trustee of the Stockport Canal Boat Trust for disabled people and their carers; I refer all colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For me, and for the residents of my Hazel Grove constituency, the canals and waterways are assets to be cherished, not liabilities to be maintained. I believe that granting Marple locks world heritage status will go a long way in showing our appreciation and support for this beautiful site.

Beyond their cultural and historical significance, the waterways are also crucial for nature, wellbeing and combatting climate change. They provide a vital habitat for wildlife and serve as a natural green corridor, connecting diverse ecosystems that are bursting with biodiversity. Canals also play a hugely important role in water management, reducing flood risk and increasing climate resilience. Problems with reservoirs are problems for all of us.

It is the job of us all, across Government Departments and more widely, to protect our heritage and cultural landscapes. It cannot be right that we celebrate the Lake district on the one hand—it is described as a place of “exceptional beauty” on its page on the UNESCO website—and on the other hand allow water companies to pump sewage into those lakes. We should very much learn the right lessons from Liverpool’s experience, where the council allowed development that was described by UNESCO as

“detrimental to the site’s authenticity and integrity”,

leading to the

“irreversible loss of attributes conveying the outstanding universal value”,

and therefore the loss of its world heritage site status. We need to take the protection and celebration of our heritage seriously. I will close with a quote from the UNESCO world heritage convention:

“Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration.”

I am sure we can all agree with that.

10:40

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate.

I am pleased to salute the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, an organisation born from a world in ruins after the second world war, yet built on the very best intentions of peace, co-operation and shared progress. The founding of UNESCO was a cross-party British achievement in London in 1945, led by Conservative Minister Rab Butler. The second world war had left its impact. As well as the horrific human sacrifices and loss of life, there had been the destruction of books, cultural heritage and education systems. This led to endeavours to foster a hopeful and forward-looking spirit of international co-operation. Eighty years later, that founding spirit still runs through UNESCO’s mission. It owes its durability to its ambition—196 nations united around a common purpose.

As a country, the UK is rooted in cultural and artistic traditions. For centuries, we have led the world in creativity, scholarship and heritage protection. Today, the UK’s 60 UNESCO designations form a national network that covers more than 15% of our landmass, spans over 170 parliamentary constituencies and is home to roughly 9 million people. They are invaluable cultural, economic and diplomatic assets. Across that network, we have 35 world heritage sites, from Stonehenge to the Tower of London, 10 global geoparks, seven biospheres, from the Isle of Wight to the Isle of Man, 14 creative cities, and 10 learning cities. These designations are not ornaments; they are engines of local pride, international co-operation and economic activity. They showcase British leadership, soft power and the value of working together. It is important, therefore, that the Government play an active role in supporting state parties and encouraging international collaboration to safeguard our shared heritage.

Economically, heritage has an enormous value. The annual visitor attraction survey showed that in 2023, seven of the 10 most visited paid attractions in England were heritage sites. A study by the UK National Commission for UNESCO found that UNESCO designations generate more than £151 million in additional revenue each year across 76 sites. They attract investment, boost tourism, support apprenticeships, strengthen volunteering and foster global partnerships. Yet the tourism sector remains fragile. Rural and independent operators in particular are already managing tight margins and cannot simply absorb additional costs.

I am proud that the previous Government secured the UK’s ratification of the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. On the Isle of Wight, we have pottery craft traditions, and across the UK we have stonemasonry, blacksmithing and thatching—skills that are cultural treasures, but that are also essential for repairing historic buildings. The Government must do more to support them and to leverage philanthropy effectively for cultural institutions.

On the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, we are home to one of the oldest carnivals, the Ryde carnival, and to a UNESCO biosphere reserve that extends across the Solent into Hampshire. Our biosphere is a model of how to address ecological decline, productivity stagnation and demographic inversions. Two opportunities sit within our biosphere: strong creative and cultural production through the Arts Council, and expertise in environmental science and emerging strengths in green finance. This combination offers opportunities for new economic activity, regeneration on our island and deeper collaboration with other biospheres across the world.

However, there is currently a lack of meaningful Government engagement with UNESCO policy. Despite a UNESCO presence in more than 170 constituencies, these sites are not integrated into levelling-up missions or used as anchors for regional development. They are not part of any cross-departmental co-ordination and the Government have no strategy for utilising UNESCO designations as innovation infrastructure. These assets remain underused. Will the Government commit to taking a cross-departmental approach to UNESCO sites and recognise these designations as core national assets for innovation, regeneration and economic growth?

The UK is also a signatory to UNESCO conventions on behalf of our overseas territories, yet it is unclear how the Government are supporting those territories in applying for intangible cultural heritage recognition, or navigating the process of achieving world heritage status. Several territories have no designations at all. In the spirit of co-operation, how are the Government sharing their expertise to assist countries and territories with no UNESCO sites? We have five UK assets on the tentative list for future UNESCO designation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure those applications remain active and properly supported?

On the topic of UK expertise, three of Iraq’s four UNESCO world heritage sites are currently on the list of world heritage in danger. I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the Government are supporting the stewardship of endangered world heritage sites worldwide and how British expertise is being deployed, again in the spirit of co-operation. On a broader point, I would appreciate clarification on whether reductions in the development budget will affect UNESCO programmes. With public finances under pressure, how are Government ensuring that UK contributions to UNESCO deliver maximum value for taxpayers?

Of course, UNESCO is not entirely without controversy. The UK and the United States have both withdrawn from it in the past and concerns have been raised about political manoeuvring within the organisation, including disproportionate attention on certain countries while overlooking others with significant human rights or cultural heritage issues. Between 2009 and 2017, UNESCO adopted 60 resolutions concerning Israel, but none concerning several states with far more severe cultural violations. In this respect, UNESCO occasionally mirrors the trajectory of the European Court of Human Rights, another institution in the creation of which a Conservative Government played a central role, but the remit of which has sometimes stretched beyond what its founders intended.

As UNESCO enters its ninth decade, we must monitor its focus, ensure UK funding is used effectively and guard against the organisation unduly creeping into politics. If we do so, the UK can continue to lead by example, honouring our heritage, strengthening global co-operation and investing in the next generation’s cultural, ecological and educational future.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I think we will have time for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate, but first to the Minister.

10:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to have the opportunity to respond to this interesting debate.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing the debate and opening it with such a rich introduction to the topic. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites. In his opening remarks he made a powerful case, as did the other speakers, for education and culture as a force for peace and progress.

I welcome the £1 billion that has been spent by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. My hon. Friend explained some examples of that and the impact that funding has had. I also acknowledge the work of my the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who would ordinarily have taken this debate but is unable to be here today.

Eighty years ago, the world gathered in London to found UNESCO, committing to peace through education, science, culture and communication. I was really privileged to visit one of the sites mentioned several times in this debate, Giant’s Causeway, earlier this summer. It is an incredible site that highlights the importance of recognising the connection with place in our history and heritage and our role in protecting that.

The mission set out at the founding of UNESCO 80 years ago remains as vital as ever. The UK maintains a permanent delegation to UNESCO and funds the UK National Commission for UNESCO, ensuring the UK is an active and influential member state. Membership allows the UK to project its strengths in education, science and cultural heritage globally and reinforced its reputation as a thought leader and trusted partner, which is important for this work across the world in multilateral forums.

I pay tribute to one of Britain’s outstanding parliamentarians and a founding force of UNESCO, Ellen Wilkinson, who has been mentioned. She was a Fabian, a co-operator and Education Secretary, who championed the idea that education and culture could be powerful agents of peace and reconciliation in the period just after the war. Contributions today paint a picture of the choices that the Labour Government made in the immediate aftermath of the war, which set the foundations for long-term institutions that still form part of the way in which we build connection and peace across the world.

I congratulate Professor El-Enany on becoming UNESCO’s director general this week and wish him well in the role. Today, the spirit of peace and co-operation that was the hallmark of the founding of UNESCO is carried forward by communities across all our four nations, our Crown dependencies, our overseas territories and many examples illustrated in the debate today. I am proud of the 35 UNESCO world heritage sites that preserve our shared history. That includes the seven biosphere reserves, 10 global geoparks, and the United Kingdom’s 13 creative cities, with 10 cities of lifelong learning and schools that embed UNESCO’s values of peace, respect and understanding.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time, so I will not give way. My constituency includes schools that embed UNESCO’s values. These UNESCO designations, as we have heard, cover 170 of our constituencies and are a testament to the UK’s rich heritage and global outlook.

I could not be more delighted that Aberystwyth has joined the UNESCO creative cities network as a city of literature, becoming the first ever Welsh creative city. This celebrates its centuries-old literary tradition and vibrant bilingual cultural scene, so we congratulate the people of Aberystwyth. I also congratulate the Isle of Arran on its recent designation as a UNESCO global geopark. Often referred to as Scotland in miniature, this recognition celebrates Arran’s outstanding geological heritage. Alongside these UNESCO designations, our scientists, experts, institutions and universities are working with UNESCO to build the UK’s trust, attractiveness and reputation on the world stage.

A national strategy for UNESCO was discussed today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire on his work on the APPG and his continuing work as he listens further to Members about the need for sites in their areas. Heritage is a devolved policy area, and a number of strategy documents cover world heritage. At the UK level, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport takes a strategic approach to a range of world heritage policies, including the development of sites and engagement with UNESCO. The UK sites range considerably in size and type, and the challenges they face are often unique. The DCMS works closely with the world heritage site co-ordinators and agencies across the UK to monitor the condition of sites and update UNESCO as and when required, to ensure that a site’s outstanding value and world heritage status are maintained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) suggested that Stoke-on-Trent might become a creative city. I encourage her to speak to the UK national commission, which manages the process. Applications open every two years with the next one at the end of 2026.

On soft power, I agree that UNESCO membership allows the UK to project its strengths in education, science and culture across the world. That is an extremely important part of reinforcing our reputation as a trusted thought leader. I am pleased we participate in programmes and committees, including the intergovernmental oceanographic commission and the international hydro- logical programme, as well as networks such as UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN.

Climate threats were mentioned a couple of times. DCMS and the UK national commission for UNESCO recently finished a pilot project to look at data and decision making in relation to climate change at UNESCO heritage sites. The learnings, the tools and the templates will be made available free of charge later this year.

Finally, I will make a small point about education. It is important to share local history. This is already a compulsory part of the national curriculum. In reforming the curriculum, we are clear that all pupils should have a robust understanding of our nation’s history. We will continue to include it and strengthen it in the national curriculum and the subject content of qualifications.

As UNESCO marks 80 years since its founding in London, its mission to build peace through education, science, culture and communication is as vital as ever. The UK remains committed to that mission and will work with partners to ensure that UNESCO reforms and delivers for today’s world.

10:57

[Jonathan Davies]

It is the greatest pleasure of my professional life to be the MP for Mid Derbyshire. That is particularly true today, when we have been taken on a magical mystery tour of the best places across the UK and further afield. I thank colleagues for bringing their insight, knowledge, experience and passion for their communities to the debate. It is through those sites and the values of UNESCO that we understand what it means to be a human being. That has sat very much front and centre of the debate today.

I am sure the Minister has heard that passion and I hope she has seen that the opportunities that these sites offer and UNESCO’s values cut across the Government’s five missions. By joining up our understanding of what these sites offer across Government Departments gives an opportunity to maximise their role in driving the national renewal that our country desperately needs.

I thank World Heritage UK, which represents all the sites in the UK, for its services, and particularly its president Chris Blandford OBE, who is in the Public Gallery today. My final comment is that we have a very active all-party parliamentary group for UNESCO world heritage sites in the UK, and I hope to see colleagues at one of its meetings in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and then the Minister to respond.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am probably not the only Member who has noticed that this Chamber seems as cold as a butcher’s fridge. It was the same yesterday. Have you had any indication when the heating might be turned on?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much for that point. I am sure we will be able to take it up with the House authorities.

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

11:01

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of infrastructure on development in Cramlington and Killingworth constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My constituency was newly formed at the last general election and is made up of parts of south-east Northumberland, north and north-west North Tyneside and villages to the north of Newcastle. The area has seen significant housing growth in the last 10 to 15 years, providing much-needed homes and opportunities for the area, with further development in current local plans. While that housing growth brings opportunities for growth and jobs, it also brings challenges. One such challenge is the sustainability of existing infrastructure and the urgent need for investment in it.

I will set out how one piece of infrastructure at the heart of my constituency is holding back my area and the entire region. It is stifling growth and development and directly impacting the ability of a number of local councils to deliver on two key Government priorities: delivering growth and delivering the homes that we need.

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

I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend recognises that the situation on the Moor Farm roundabout has an impact on North Tyneside and south-east Northumberland, and right up to the Scottish Borders. We are all very much concerned about what is happening in that area because it is of the utmost importance for economic regeneration.

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend has been working closely with me on seeking the upgrades that I will be talking about, so I appreciate his intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady and understand exactly her frustration in relation to having infrastructure in place. In my constituency we have been pursuing the Ballynahinch bypass for over 35 years—15 of which I have been pursuing it as an MP. We now finally have a date, but such situations hold back development and housing potential, and affect businesses in the short term. Does the hon. Lady agree that such things need to move much more quickly, otherwise they will be the death knell for the towns that we all represent?

[Emma Foody]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The infrastructure in my constituency that I am talking about—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) highlighted—is the Moor Farm roundabout; hon. Members will be aware that barely a day goes by when I do not talk about it. I have also met Transport Ministers and I continue to lobby for the much-needed upgrades to be progressed through the road investment strategy.

As has been mentioned already, however, this issue goes far beyond the road network and beyond my area; it affects the entire north-east region. That is why I have called for this debate with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as the answering Department, because it is about housing, local plans and devolution. It is also critical to several councils in the north-east.

I will set out the context of the existing infrastructure at Moor Farm. This roundabout is a major strategic six-armed roundabout. It links the A19, A1 and A189. Sitting at the south of Northumberland on the border with North Tyneside, it is heavily congested and well used. It is a key gateway for the region and the link between Newcastle International airport and the ports of Blyth and Tyne. It is the key growth corridor for south-east Northumberland.

There is significant congestion at Moor Farm roundabout, which causes misery to local residents. We frequently see substantial delays, especially as a result of accidents on or near it. In recent weeks, we have seen delays of hours due to incidents that are far too frequent. The Department for Transport’s own statistics show that between 2021 and 2024, there was an 85% increase in delays through the northbound A19 section of Moor Farm and 36% increase in delays southwards. The north-east local transport plan states that Moor Farm generates congestion, worsens air quality and results in unreliable journey times. However, this is not a debate on the transport elements of Moor Farm—hon. Members can go back to my previous Westminster Hall debate for that.

In this debate, I want to talk about how the situation at Moor Farm is impacting growth and development across the region in the short and long term. Moor Farm is a blocker to growth and a blocker to opportunity. It is preventing business expansion, causing investment to be delayed or withdrawn, costing jobs and hampering growth. It is putting at risk not only existing development sites for employment and housing in Northumberland and North Tyneside, but the ability for those councils to update their local plans and meet the housing need.

Since being elected, I have met National Highways on several occasions. In the last few weeks, I have written again to the chief executive. Last week, I met regional representatives in Parliament, and I have met the North East Mayor and the roads Minister. The aim of this debate is to discuss the impact that National Highways and the situation at Moor Farm are now having on the ability to determine planning applications—whether for businesses to grow or for housing—across my constituency and beyond.

The Minister will know that as a statutory consultee, National Highways can issue holding recommendations on planning applications, in effect preventing them from moving forward. In response to my written question, it has been confirmed that there are at least four holding objections on applications for housing and business development as a direct result of the Moor Farm roundabout. Not only that, but applicants are delaying or redirecting their investment because they have been told that National Highways would apply a holding objection, so there is a far greater lost opportunity cost. I know from speaking to developers, businesses and the community that investment has not been brought forward because of concerns that planning will be refused or held back as a result of holding objections or unrealistic mitigations.

I will give some examples. The Port of Blyth sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington. He and I recently met representatives of the port who informed us that their key near-port site for inward investment is at West Hartford in my constituency, the largest remaining strategic employment site in the whole of Northumberland. It is 10 minutes from the Port of Blyth’s main terminals and there is a firm interest in developing the site.

This is a key regional stakeholder seeking to invest nearly 2,000 jobs and £400 million in my community, but National Highways has indicated that it would object because of Moor Farm, despite traffic impact assessment modelling indicating that the proposal would add one queuing vehicle during the morning peak rush hour and three in the afternoon. National Highways’ objection is simply not reasonable or proportionate, but should it apply a holding objection, there is little that could be done locally due to its role. The Port of Blyth has rightly called for a more pragmatic cost-benefit approach.

That is just one example. The North East combined authority estimates that within a 5-mile radius of Moor Farm there is commercial development with the potential to support more than 11,000 jobs at risk of being held back due the constraints of the roundabout. Another local developer has spoken of sites—one of £500 million in gross development value and one of £1 billion in gross development value—that are in current adopted local plans but are being held up because of the roundabout. I have been told that this has meant 18 months to two and a half years of additional modelling and surveys, but still they have not been able to proceed. One developer described this as a

“near endless loop of present information, National Highways’ consultants review, then respond, rinse and repeat”.

That has real-world impacts. A separate developer on an existing site warned that they may have to remove apprentice roles and other jobs if the issue is not resolved, depriving the community of local opportunities and impacting the local supply chain. That development is already baked into the housing delivery numbers but cannot move forward. Another developer explained that they might not suggest future viable sites as a direct result of expected objections from National Highways, reducing their work and footprint in the area.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution regarding our area. One of the main issues for Blyth and Ashington is the £10 billion investment in a new data centre that will be just along the road from Moor Farm roundabout. The idea is to create tens of thousands of jobs in a cluster in and around that data centre. If we cannot resolve this problem at Moor Farm roundabout, areas such as mine in Blyth and Ashington are going to suffer greatly economically, regardless of whether the Government say, “Okay, you can have the finances in 2030 or 2031.” How much could we lose between now and then if we cannot overcome this ridiculous impasse?

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on the risk to opportunity and the future of our region if we cannot resolve this matter. Another developer warned that

“We are very reluctant to commit to the significant expenditure to bring schemes forward until we have more certainty regarding Moor Farm and whether it will hold up delivery”.

This risks a nightmare situation where no business or housing development can move forward, potentially for years to come. Those missed opportunities are jobs and homes for local people that may be invested in elsewhere, or indeed not at all. Local people across my constituency will pay the price in missed opportunities for jobs and homes.

The Minister does not need to take my word for it; Northumberland county council informed me:

“A number of major planning applications across South East Northumberland cannot be determined due to National Highways’ concerns on the impact at Moor Farm”.

North Tyneside council stated:

“Without investment in this critical infrastructure, there is a risk that no land can be brought forward for housing or employment purposes without having a significant and unacceptable detrimental impact”.

The council added:

“Future growth will most likely be stymied”.

The elected Mayor of North Tyneside, Karen Clark, stated:

“There is a very real risk that we see only limited growth and will not…be able to meet our future housing requirements or secure inward investment.”

The North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, said:

“If we don’t see the upgrade, economic growth in the North East, at a time when there is great momentum in the region, could be held back”.

The North East combined authority has warned:

“Lack of investment at this junction is holding back growth and our ambitions for the North East, as well as making it more difficult to meet the challenging housing targets set by the government”.

This is a crucial issue for local authorities when they are updating their local plans. If we see sites that are allocated in current local plans being held up or withdrawn due to the situation at Moor Farm—large sections of the region that cannot be developed in any way—how can councils meet the Government’s requirements to update their local plans? I know that the Minister will see the significance of this issue for delivering on two of the Government’s pillars of the plan for change: sustained growth and homes, both of which are at risk as a result of the situation at Moor Farm roundabout.

It is not just local authorities and public bodies that have raised their concerns. The North East chamber of commerce informed me:

“Moor Farm roundabout is not just an inconvenience—it is a brake on sustainable growth, investment and opportunity. For our region to fulfil its potential, we must act now to deliver the infrastructure enabling—not hindering—opportunity.”

Newcastle International airport, a key regional stakeholder, added:

“The upgrades are vital to ensure the free flow of freight vehicles along a key artery for the region which connects the major ports”.

I am also concerned that the extent of the issue is expanding down the A19 into North Tyneside, with National Highways again issuing holding directions further down the network. Those are being applied against sites in North Tyneside council’s existing local plan: approved sites are being held up.

Frankly, the situation in Moor Farm should have been addressed many years ago, long before it got to this point. We now see the result of that lack of investment, and we cannot simply allow the situation to continue. It is as much an issue for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as it is for the Department for Transport. We need a cross-Government approach to unblock this blocker to growth, development and investment.

I have spoken about the challenges due to existing infrastructure, but I hope that the Minister might indulge me. Last year I held a debate, to which he kindly responded, on the adoption of new estates and the importance of infrastructure in those developments. As I have mentioned, I have a significant number of new and unadopted estates across my constituency, and the Minister will be aware that I have surveyed people who live on those estates about their experiences. I have shared with him previously their frustrations about the lack of delivery and accountability for infrastructure on unadopted estates. Residents should not be left for year after year paying estate management fees on unfinished estates, without any certainty from developers and councils about the adoption of those estates. I know that the Minister continues to work on that. If he is unable to speak about it today, perhaps he could write to me with an update on action on the issue.

I will return to the main thrust of my speech. The Government have ambitious missions to deliver growth and build the houses that our country needs. Right now, the situation at Moor Farm is a blocker, causing misery and holding back investment. I recognise, of course, that the decision on the upgrade to the roundabout will be taken by the Department for Transport. I assure the Minister—as will the DFT—that I am very much on the case with that. The issue not only impacts the road network; while the congestion causes misery for people across my constituency, the infrastructure is critical to a number of councils in the north-east, and to the ability to meet the Government’s ambitions for growth and housing.

How can the Minister’s Department work with National Highways, in its role as a statutory consultee, to facilitate and support investment, rather than using holding directions, especially when they put at risk the Department’s priorities? If National Highways continues to apply holding objections, and two local plans are potentially unsustainable, how can local authorities deliver on housing targets? Where critical pieces of infrastructure are on the strategic road network and therefore not under local authority control, how is the Ministry engaging to resolve issues?

The Government are rightly focused on devolution. The north-east growth plan and devolution deal both reference Moor Farm and upgrades, and the local transport plan sets out how crucial it is to the region. In supporting devolution, how can the Minister’s Department empower this agenda in my region? Will the Minister meet me, the Department for Transport and National Highways to see how we can work together on this vital issue?

I know that the Minister is committed to delivering the housing that our country needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington and I are here today to help secure growth, jobs and investment, not only in my constituency but across the north-east. As we have heard, Moor Farm roundabout is a key blocker to growth and development. Addressing it requires a joined-up approach across Government to remove the barrier and unleash the potential in my community and across the region. If we are to deliver the change that we were elected to deliver, turbocharge growth in the north-east and empower the region, delivering the upgrade and removing that barrier is essential. I hope that the Minister can join me in the mission to deliver this crucial change.

11:18

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I remind hon. Members, as I always do at the outset of my remarks, that due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I am unable to comment on individual local plans, planning applications or, for that matter, how individual local planning authorities—including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth—may interpret national planning policy.

As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, it is also the case that a number of the specific issues she raised are the sole responsibility of the Department for Transport. I understand from DFT officials that proposals in respect of Moor Farm roundabout are being considered by National Highways as part of the road investment strategy pipeline. While my Department and the DFT obviously work closely together on all aspects of legislation, policy and guidance concerning shared priorities, my hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate that it is not for me to comment in any way on those specific proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, my ministerial colleagues in the DFT are aware of her strongly held views on the matter, not least as a result of the June Westminster Hall debate that she secured on it, but I will ensure that the points that she has made today are drawn to their attention. I will seek to respond as best I can in the time available to the various matters and questions that she raised, in so far as they fall within my responsibilities.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of local development plans. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. Importantly, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure and identify what infrastructure is required and how it might be funded and brought forward. This aspect of a plan, including its relationship with housing, is publicly examined by an independent inspector to determine whether a local plan is sound and can be adopted. Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. It is precisely because up-to-date local plans are integral to the functioning of our planning system that we are determined to drive local plans to adoption, and progress towards our ambition of achieving universal plan coverage, as quickly as possible.

Although I appreciate that all that does not offer any immediate solution to the transport infrastructure challenges highlighted by my hon. Friend, increased local plan coverage will support better land use and transport planning. I understand that North Tyneside council is progressing a plan in the existing plan-making system and intends to submit by December 2026, and that Northumberland county council intends to prepare a new plan once the new plan-making system commences. I know that my hon. Friend will do whatever she can to support both authorities with progressing their plan-making efforts, and officials from my Department would be happy to meet officers at Northumberland and North Tyneside councils to discuss any specific issues of concern they have in respect of their plan-making activities.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the role of statutory consultees in the planning system. She drew particular attention to the use of holding directions. The Government recognise that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided are not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. In turn, local planning authorities and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. That said, the role of statutory consultees in the planning system is important. When they engage and are engaged effectively in the planning application process, they support good decision making and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, safety, heritage and transport issues.

The Government are determined to improve the functioning of the statutory consultee system, to facilitate confident and timely decision making. To that end, we have this very day published a consultation document on reforms to the system. The objective of the proposals outlined in that document is to ensure that statutory consultees are focused on providing practical, pragmatic and timely advice and expertise in respect of what is necessary to make development acceptable, and that local planning authorities are not engaging with statutory consultees where it is not necessary to do so. If taken forward, the reforms would mean that bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England would need to consider up to 40% fewer applications. That would mean the saving of time and effort for both house builders and councils. This is an important step towards a faster, more efficient planning system that supports housing delivery.

My hon. Friend asked what my Department is doing to boost growth and advance devolution in the north-east. She will know that local leadership and local growth plans, such as the north-east growth plan, are the cornerstone of this Government’s place-based approach to unlocking economic growth. The interventions and investments identified through those plans are focused on addressing key barriers to growth and building on existing strengths and local assets, such as those she mentioned.

Our shared transport priority recognises the need to improve transport connectivity and unlock housing development and commercial activity by ensuring that new development is supported by the public transport network and that pinch points on the road network are addressed.

[Ian Lavery]

The reality here is quite simple. It is about transport infrastructure versus economic growth. If we cannot get the transport infrastructure right, there is an impact on the potential for economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs in North Tyneside and Northumberland; we will not see any growth in our local economies. Frankly, we cannot afford to allow that to happen. We ask you, Minister—I beg you—to have a look at the impasse. Why is it happening at Moor Farm roundabout when those such as Testo’s roundabout and the Silverlink roundabout, and the roundabouts down the A19 and the Spine Road, have all been given the right investment? We are waiting on something to allow us to develop our areas for our people.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not for me, as the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, to make determinations on individual transport projects that are being considered through the road investment strategy pipeline. My Department has additional capital funds of its own to deploy for land and infrastructure in respect of the new national housing delivery fund. That will be part of the integrated settlement for the Mayor of the North East to consider but, in this instance, consideration is being taken forward by the DFT as part of the road investment strategy pipeline, as I said. I am giving my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington and for Cramlington and Killingworth my perspective as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as to how the planning system in the round considers such matters.

The frameworks I was referring to will help to attract public and private investment, unlocking opportunities for people and business across the region. As the North East takes its plan forward, it should feel empowered to use the plan and our shared priorities as the basis for engaging with the Government, the DFT in particular, and other key partners in the region. The plans are backed by £1.79 billion for the North East combined authority from the transport for city regions funding for 2027-28 through to 2031-32, on top of the wider funding from the city region sustainable transport settlements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth reiterated her long-standing concerns about the various problems associated with freehold estates. She and I have discussed the matter numerous times. We have had debates on the subject and the House considered the issue in some detail recently, on 30 October, so I do not intend to restate the Government’s position in its entirety. Suffice it to say that we remain fully committed to protecting residential freeholders on such estates from unfair charges and to ending the injustice of fleecehold entirely by reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. As we have promised, we will consult on these matters before the end of the year, and my hon. Friend and her constituents can feed into our proposals at that point. We remain on track to bring those consultations forward.

I commend my hon. Friend again for securing the debate. I thank her, as ever, for the clarity with which she made her arguments and in particular demonstrated the link, which we absolutely acknowledge, between strategic infrastructure and housing delivery, and for the passion with which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington spoke in favour of the specific project that they want to see come forward. I emphasise once again that the Government are seeking to drive improvements across the whole system to prevent similar issues in future and to unlock development.

I note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on the specific infrastructure projects that she referenced. As I made clear at the start, I have already had a conversation with the relevant Ministers in the DFT, but I will draw their attention to the remarks made today and our Department will continue to engage with the DFT on these and other projects where housing considerations are pertinent.

I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend to ensure that the changes that the Government have made already, along with those still to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents—as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington—and I thank her for bringing these matters to the House’s attention today.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[DR Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

14:30

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the chance to raise this issue, which goes to the heart of our national interest. When I submitted my bid for the debate, little did I know that it would take place on a day on which there were members of the farming community out on Parliament Square with their tractors, with what we called a muck spreader where I was brought up, on a farm, but others might call a slurry tanker, and even with livestock. That is testament to the determination of the farming community to make sure their voice continues to be heard in this place.

In simple terms, this debate is about what we choose to do with the land beneath our feet. If we keep tarmacking and concreting over our fields, we should not be surprised if one day we find ourselves asking a basic question: “Where is our food going to come from?” We must not become a country that produces some of the finest produce in the world, to the highest standard, and yet becomes dependent on imports of lower grade, substandard produce. Domestic food security is national security, and it must be protected.

It is one of the principal duties of any Government to ensure that their people have access to sufficient safe, affordable and nutritious food. As Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, has said, food security is national security. If we cannot feed ourselves, we are vulnerable—economically, strategically and in the choices available to us as a country.

I sought this debate because of what is happening in my constituency, which I believe is a small version of what is happening right across the country. We face proposals for major development on open green spaces and on our farms—land that local people quite reasonably understand to be green belt, farmland and open countryside. These are not blank spaces on a map; they are working fields, grazing land and green buffers between communities. They prevent urban sprawl and prevent areas such as mine from simply being swallowed up into a suburb of a greater Birmingham. I want to look at three things: the effect on domestic food production; the environmental consequences, especially flooding; and the Government’s policy direction, which is pushing us down the wrong path, through the treatment of the green belt, the invention of so-called grey belt, and tax proposals that will make it harder for family farms to survive.

In recent years, households across Britain have seen food prices spiral. We see it every time we go into the supermarket; we seem to put less in the trolley but pay more at the checkout. Of course, that is driven by global shocks, the war in Ukraine and supply chain pressures. At its peak, food inflation reached 20%, and people saw it in the basic cost of goods. Global instability, import prices, exchange rates, skyrocketing input costs and continued pressure from the war in Ukraine meant that between January 2021 and April 2025, UK food prices increased by 36%, over three times more than in the previous decade.

At the same time, the UK’s capacity to produce its own food has steadily declined. We now produce roughly 60% of the food we consume by calories; in the 1980s, we were close to 78%. That is a huge shift in one working lifetime, and it is a worrying downward trend. The picture by sector is even starker. We grow just over half the vegetables that we eat and only around 15% of the tomatoes that we consume, and fresh fruit production stands at just around 16%. Those numbers should start to ring alarm bells if they are not doing so already.

While that has been happening, we have lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland to development and long-term environmental land use change. These are not temporary changes. Once productive farmland is built on or turned over to schemes that cannot be reversed, it rarely comes back; when it’s gone, it’s gone. We all accept that homes are needed, but it should worry us that so many have been placed on productive land when large brownfield areas remain underused. There is enough previously developed land in England to take well over 1 million homes, yet the easier, cheaper option of edge-of-town, green-belt development continues to be both developers’ and the Government’s preference. This is where food security starts being undermined not by global events, but by our own planning choices.

Against that backdrop, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for farming families to stay on their land, yet that is exactly what this Government’s changes to agricultural inheritance—now widely referred to as the family farm tax—would do. Most farms in this country are family businesses. They are part of the local economy, of the landscape and of the food supply chain. The Government’s proposals would pull most of them into new inheritance tax rules. That is not a small technical tweak; it creates a financial hit at the very moment a family is trying to pass the farm on. If a family has to sell land, or even the whole farm, simply to cover a tax bill under the new rules, there is no safeguard that the land will remain agricultural. More often than not, it is snapped up by developers, meaning that previously productive farms become speculative housing sites.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. The issue about the number of farms above the £1.5 million mark is that 30% of British farms made no money last year. West Dorset farmers are responsible for maintaining 70% of the land. That number will only decrease as they are forced to carve up their assets to pay these bills.

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. Many farming families—often the hill farmers, in particular, but the arable farmers too—struggle. The last couple of years have been really difficult for many farmers. If they have one bad year, it is very hard for them to recover the next year. They are working against so many factors over which they have no control, weather being one of them. It is really important that, in all our deliberations, we recognise that.

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

The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. The value of a farm depends on where it is are based, but farmers do not see that money, because they are—I know this phrase is often used—asset rich and cash poor, so families are put in the awful situation of potentially having to sell off parts of their family farm to pay these taxes. However, they need economies of scale to make farming work, so quite often they are looking after their farm and also renting areas from other farms to make sure that the books balance.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point, setting out yet again the challenges that farmers face. I am a farmer’s daughter; my dad was a farm worker for many years. We lived on a farm; we grew up in a tied cottage. That sort of farm is often very different from the massive farms in parts of the country where there is more arable land rather than land for hill farmers. Every farm is unique—every farm is different—but many of the challenges that farms face are very similar.

All of this comes at a time when family farm businesses are under unprecedented pressure. We have talked about the costs, but input costs have risen by more than 40% since 2015. Fertiliser is up by nearly 40%, feed by over a quarter and energy by more than a third. National Farmers’ Union surveys show confidence among farmers at its lowest recorded level. Two thirds expect profits to fall, and nearly half plan to reduce investment.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that that depleted confidence comes against the backdrop of all the pressures that she has discussed, including the pressures from the Government to increase house building, and the opportunity that farmers see to replace arable or pastoral farming with a new cash crop in the form of solar, and that ultimately, depletion of morale is probably the worst affliction on the farming community, because, regardless of other considerations, there is a risk that there comes a point when most farmers say, “We just can’t do this any more”?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Sadly, suicide is very high among the farming community, which is another indicator of the many pressures that our farms are facing. I return to the point that I do not think that we appreciate our farms, farmers or farming communities enough in this place. That is the backdrop that some of us are fighting against. To introduce a new tax burden at this moment risks accelerating the loss of domestic production. If we are serious about food security, it is exactly the wrong time to treat a farm as if it were simply an asset to be broken up.

I will return to what is happening locally. At Stonnall Road in Aldridge, there is an outline planning application for around 355 houses on a site that we have always understood to be green belt—a vital green buffer for the village. Hundreds of residents have already backed my petition against the development. They are not opposed to housing, but they struggle to see why that productive land—well-used green space—has suddenly become the soft target, when brownfield sites exist in Walsall and, indeed, Birmingham city centre. Surely that is where we should be doing much more regeneration work.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is making an important speech, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. She will understand, as we all do, that the current planning system does not resolve these issues very effectively. She will also know that the previous Government had plans to develop a land use framework, and that was announced three or four years ago. Why does she think that the previous Government did not bring that framework forward?

[Wendy Morton]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there are some things that we agree on and others that we do not. However, I have long campaigned against building on the green belt—on our green fields. Even during our time in government, there were certain aspects of planning that I spoke out about—those who were here at the time of the last Government will probably remember that—and, believe me, I will continue to do so, because I feel so passionately about it.

Over on Chester Road in Streetly, another eight or nine hectares in my constituency—again, green belt and on the edge of the built-up area—are now being described as grey belt and suggested for the local plan. It raises the same concerns: what happens to our fields? What happens to local food production? What happens to roads, GP access and school places? What does it mean when this pattern is repeated across the country? Chipping away at the edges of green space means altering the balance between built land and productive land, and once that balance tips, it is very difficult to recover.

The green belt is not perfect, but it has achieved two essential things: it constrains sprawl around major urban areas, and it provides a degree of protection for farmland and green spaces. To many communities, the introduction of grey belt feels like an attempt to weaken those protections by stealth, because once land is marked as “grey” rather than “green”, the presumption shifts, and with it, the likelihood of development.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In relation to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the fundamental problem is that although successive Governments have said, “We favour brownfield,” there is not sufficient push behind it. In my constituency, we are legally driven to accept every application on its own merits. Applications are made almost exclusively for greenfield sites, rather than brownfield ones. We have to approve them, because we have no legal means by which to turn them down. That is the essential problem, and I do not think that it has been addressed in the new legislation. There is not enough push for local authorities to promote brownfield sites over greenfield ones.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We talk about a brownfield-first approach, and it can work. We saw examples of it in the west midlands under the leadership of the former mayor, Andy Street. Developments such as those on the Caparo and Harvestime sites show that it can be done, but it needs funding to help level the playing field, so that brownfield is as attractive to developers as greenfield sites. It can be done, but it requires the Government to put money into brownfield remediation and to properly focus it.

Local authorities feel huge pressure at the moment, but brownfield sites, some of them derelict for decades, remain untouched. It is crazy. No one is arguing that the green belt can never change, but there must be a high bar, genuine scrutiny and clear honesty about what is being sacrificed. Above all, we should start with a genuine, not rhetorical, commitment to brownfield first. Farmers also tell me that they face conflicting pressures from all sides. Tree-planting targets, rewetting proposals, biodiversity applications—none of those aims is wrong, but when piled on top of housing allocations and complicated tax changes, they steadily squeeze the land available for food production.

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

The right hon. Lady has talked a lot about housing and development infringement upon the green belt. An issue in my area, around the village of Scotton, is the proposal for a huge solar farm. While I completely agree and want to see that the targets and net zero are reached, does the right hon. Lady agree that rather than using prime agricultural land, we should be looking at the roofs of distribution warehousing and other alternatives first?

[Wendy Morton]

I do. The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. There are so many areas where we should be putting solar panels. I despair when I drive down the M40 around the west midlands and see field after field full of solar panels. I can understand why a farmer may want to go down the diversification route—because it helps to balance the books—but there are surely better sites such as rooftops and garage tops. Why are we not being a little more creative in what we are doing?

[Edward Morello]

I will happily answer the question, drawing on my experience in solar: it is because the amount of money for the export does not make rooftop solar viable on a commercial scale. To provide the simplest numbers: it costs 50p per unit to put it on ground mount, about £1 per unit to put it on rooftop and £1.50 to put it on carports. Unless we increase the export value to 12p to 15p per unit, it will never stack up. That is why.

[Wendy Morton]

I appreciate a bit of knowledge in Westminster Hall, but the point remains that we still need to be more creative in where we put our solar panels. Maybe they could be put on larger rooftop spaces, and we often talk about brownfield and urban sites; to go straight for productive green fields is just total madness. There are real concerns about proposals that would give Natural England sweeping compulsory purchase powers that could see productive farmland acquired for environmental offsetting. If that goes ahead, the loss of farmland could become permanent and unchallengeable. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at those proposals.

Flooding is another consequence that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot and must not ignore. Fields at Stonnall Road in my constituency and elsewhere do not only grow crops or support livestock; they also absorb water. They drain slowly and hold back surface run-off. If we replace them with bricks, concrete, tarmac and driveways there will be nowhere for the water to go. We saw this recently with the heavy rain this weekend causing flooding more quickly because the natural buffers have been reduced. Every time it happens, local people ask the same question: why were those fields built on?

Natural flood management relies on soil, hedgerows, woodlands and wetlands, yet that is rarely at the forefront of planning decisions. If we are serious about preventing flooding, we must consider the cumulative impact of losing those natural soakaways. How is DEFRA working with the Environment Agency and local planning authorities to ensure that the flood risk from losing open land is properly accounted for before permissions are given?

I do not wish to challenge your timings, Dr Murrison, so I will start to draw this all together. First, food production must be treated as a strategic priority. Departments should not be signing off major land use decisions without asking the basic question: what does this mean for our ability to grow food and feed our nation? The NFU is absolutely right to call for food security impact assessments on all relevant policies. We have impact tests for almost everything else, and it is extraordinary that food security is not one of them.

Secondly, we need a firm and practical brownfield first approach. That may require investment to remediate sites, improve infrastructure or bring land back into productive use, but the alternative is the steady, irreversible erosion of farmland. Thirdly, the Government should revisit the family farm tax that introduces a new burden and risks forcing families to break up their farms and sell them to developers, which is surely directly at odds with any credible food security strategy.

Fourthly, Ministers must halt the weakening of green-belt protections, including through the grey belt. Our communities need confidence that national policy is not quietly tilting the scales against them. In view of today’s ministerial written statement, my communities want to feel they and our councils still have a voice in planning decisions.

Finally, we need a coherent national land use framework that recognises how housing, farming, environment, energy and flood management overlap. We cannot allow one Department to encourage woodland creation on productive fields, while another encourages development on the next field. Joined-up thinking is not a slogan; it is a necessity.

To return to where I began, land use is about choices. In Aldridge-Brownhills, those choices can be seen from our front doors. We know that when farmland disappears, it does not return. We know that if we keep building over productive land, we will become more reliant on food imports and more exposed to global shocks. Food security is not an abstract concept; it is about whether this country can feed itself at a price that people can afford. If we care about that—and we should—we must take seriously the land that makes that possible.

I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling in my constituency and many others. Protecting farmland, resisting unnecessary encroachment on the green belt and supporting farming families are not about nostalgia—far from it; they are practical steps towards a secure and resilient food system. If we get those choices and decisions right, we can deliver the homes we need and safeguard our ability to produce food. If we get them wrong, the consequences will be felt for generations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

14:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate.

My constituency consists of many acres of high-quality farmland. I am proud to be a Labour MP representing such a vibrant rural community with farming at its core. I hope the Minister is aware of some of the specific challenges in my county. It is no surprise that it easy to get solar panels into the ground in Norfolk, which is very flat and sandy; we are likely to be near good grid connections as well. We are seeing more than our fair share of solar farm applications. Solar farms are eyeing up our prime farmland. For example, the High Grove application in my constituency, if approved, would see a third of that site on best and most versatile land and 20% on grade 2 and above. At 4,000 acres, it would be one of the largest solar farms in the UK. Anyone can do the maths about the amount of grade 2 agricultural land that would be lost.

[John Milne]

In my constituency of Horsham, the peaceful rural village of Cowfold has experienced a bewildering surge of applications for green energy projects. Locals could be forgiven for thinking that the industrial revolution has arrived a couple of hundred years late. Why is that happening? I think the point the hon. Member is making is that it is all about the scarcity of connections to the national grid. Does he agree that we need a coherent national strategy for land use that, crucially, carries weight in planning applications? Right now, we are victims in a wild west of market-driven developments.

[Terry Jermy]

I agree. That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made earlier. That is a long overdue measure on a long list forgotten under the previous Government, but it is essential.

I am sure we will be reminded that, overall, only a very small proportion of solar is to take up agricultural land. I understand that and I fully accept it. What I am particularly concerned about is the use of grade 2 and above agricultural land. The official statistics will inevitably include the lowest quality agricultural land—we have plenty of that in Norfolk as well—but grade 2 and above is precious, and we need to do far more to protect it. We simply cannot improve energy security but accept worsening food security. There cannot be a trade-off: we need both.

There is three times more grade 5 agricultural land in the UK than grade 1 land, yet solar installations occupy a staggering 22 times more grade 1 than grade 5. That is of huge concern. We are already seeing longer and hotter summers, particularly in Norfolk, and there are challenges for farmers; irrigation is needed more frequently, adding to costs, and more land is becoming unviable for food production as a result of climate change.

Let me be clear: I am not against the use of solar panels, and I back the Government’s ambitious goals to achieve net zero by 2050. Absolutely nobody would thank the Government for not doing everything they can to ensure the power is there to keep the lights on. The complete lack of action by the last Conservative Government on energy security has left us dangerously exposed—but food security is also important. The UK already imports a staggering 46% of its food. We grow only 15% of our own fruit and 53% of our own vegetables, making us one of the world’s largest food importers. A recent Government Food Security report found that we are 63% self-sufficient, down from 95% just 50 years ago. I appreciate that there are certain types of food we cannot grow and we need to look abroad for them, but why are we importing 2 million metric tonnes of potatoes annually?

A recent report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, found that DEFRA has no effective system of oversight for border checks, with inadequate and sometimes even banned products passing into the UK. The president of the NFU also believes the UK is not prepared to feed itself in a crisis, with specific reference to the consequences of the current climate crisis.

I am always in danger, when talking about food security, of channelling my predecessor and saying, “That is a disgrace!” but we are importing so much food, I dare say she might have had a point. I hope the Minister appreciates the concerns in places such as Norfolk about too much high-quality farmland being used, and agrees that we cannot trade energy security for worsening food security.

14:57

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate.

British farmers are the best in the world. They are the bastions of the countryside and our rural way of life, and the backbone of our food system. If we lose our farms, we lose our food security, and if we lose our food security, we lose our national security and become vulnerable to volatile global markets and reliant on more foreign inputs.

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, mainly productive small family farms, and I want to keep it that way, but many farmers I have spoken to feel under assault, as they face increasing and competing demands for their land. Some are likely to give up farming altogether. It is therefore not surprising, but nevertheless worrying, that DEFRA’s land use framework consultation stated that 14% of England’s agricultural land could be reduced or totally lost to food production by 2050. As UK food security falls and global instability increases, the land use framework must ensure future food resilience.

Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy called for a focus on food production and nature recovery. Those demands can work side by side. Many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton already champion ecology and nature-friendly methods. To give a few examples, the Lang Partnership in Curry Rivel has done that for more than 30 years, Upton Bridge farm near Long Sutton farms regeneratively, and Higher farm near Castle Cary has planted more than 3,000 trees, sequestering 400 tonnes of carbon and increasing biodiversity by 25% since 2023. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must financially support farmers to use sustainable, environmentally friendly methods and encourage others to do so. That is why we will properly fund the farming budget, with an additional £1 billion a year.

Meanwhile, half of UK farmers do not understand DEFRA’s vision for farming, and it is easy to see why. With the new sustainable farming incentive not yet available and higher-tier schemes open to only a handful, many farmers have been left in limbo. Over 5,800 countryside stewardship agreements were due to end in December, and although they have been given a short 12-month reprieve, that is far too late for many farmers who were forced to make the decision to destroy years of environmental investment because they did not know what was going to happen.

Those projects have delivered biodiversity, flood resilience and nature restoration for decades. If they are not available, farmers will be denied the opportunity to fulfil their crucial role of achieving a more sustainable and resilient food system. The spring spending review cut DEFRA’s budget by 2.3% annually in real terms, including a £100 million cut to the farming budget. The Liberal Democrats believe that such cuts risk doing serious harm to the environment, rural economies, farming communities and food security.

We have already seen a long-term contraction in the UK dairy industry. The number of UK dairy farms has fallen by more than 30% since 2015, while the national herd has dropped by nearly 90,000 dairy cows. The recent drop in farm-gate milk prices is yet another example of the mounting pressure threatening dairy farmers’ ability to make a living at all.

In response, I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill to urge the Government to back and protect our dairy farmers. Dairy farmers deserve fairness in the supply chain, so the Government must regulate it properly. In the Bill, I have called for the Secretary of State to ensure that detrimental trade deals do not cause harm to our farmers, and to enforce point-of-origin labelling on dairy products. The public must know the provenance of their food so that they can make the right choice and are not duped into buying products purporting to be British. I have also called for the Secretary of State to give the Groceries Code Adjudicator teeth and to combine it with a dairy supply chain adjudicator so there are proper enforcement powers.

Our agricultural sector needs fairness, not financial whiplash, and a Government who back it. Instead, it is now facing the impact of the family farm tax and the risks that poses to national food security. The Government have claimed that the policy will impact “only” 27% of farms, but NFU research has shown that 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million threshold. Analysis shows that an inheritance tax bill based on a £1 million threshold, even spread over 10 years, would far exceed the average return of a medium-sized farm and absorb most earnings from larger farms.

An example of that is Paul and Ruth Kimber, who farm near Charlton Musgrove. They told me that their family have farmed there for 350 years, but they could be the ones who close their farm gates for the very last time. If the policy does not change, many farms will be forced to sell land and other assets to pay the tax. A recent Liberal Democrat freedom of information request uncovered the fact that the Government looked at changing course on this earlier this year. On behalf of farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country, I strongly urge the Government to look at it once more. Otherwise, they will put our food security at risk.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, so hon. Members need to be aware of time. I am sure that Chris Hinchliff will be an exemplar.

15:04

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my employment by CPRE before my election to Parliament. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.

There are fair questions to answer about the effectiveness of planning policies that are supposed to protect our best farmland. They are currently failing far too often, but this is not a new problem, and the Tory record of preserving agricultural land for our food security is, I am afraid, rather shaky. In the 12 years from 2010, we lost more than 14,000 hectares of prime agricultural land to development.

Having listened to Conservative Members speak on this issue many times, I suspect that the debate today is really something of a proxy war. They use the issue of food security as a smokescreen for the fact that they oppose the aesthetic impacts of turning large swathes of our countryside into industrialised landscapes under steel and glass, surrounded by wire fencing and surveillance cameras. I would encourage them to be brave and defend beauty on its own terms.

[Wendy Morton]

I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman about the rationale for this debate. I spoke about food security in the last Parliament, and I gently say that his interpretation of this debate does not resonate with mine.

[Chris Hinchliff]

That is a very fair intervention—I take the point. Indeed, the right hon. Member made some powerful arguments about the beauty of our countryside, and we should be up front about the fact that those aesthetic values are worth fighting for—perhaps I should have put it like that. I do not think my hon. Friends on the Government Benches should scorn that argument either, as protecting the beauty of Britain’s countryside for all our citizens is a proud part of Labour’s heritage. From creating national parks that steward our best landscapes for future generations to launching national trails that are enjoyed by millions and, yes, even establishing the green belt, the Labour movement has always yearned for bread and roses too.

Returning to food security, it has been far too long since we have taken the issue seriously. We have grown complacent in the surety that, as a rich nation, we can import all we want and need. With the worsening climate emergency, however, it would now be entirely unwise to assume that we can continue to rely on those supply chains—when Valencia next floods, we will remember that to our cost—or to step back from trying to achieve net zero. The threat of flooding from climate change to so much of our best agricultural land is too great for that to make any sense, with 95% of grade 1 land in the east of England already at risk of flooding.

We must urgently update our agricultural land classification. The system we use to determine potential farmland productivity is desperately out of date. It uses rainfall data from 1941 to 1970 and temperature measurements from 1961 to 1980. The impacts of climate change are already being severely felt on our farmland and intensive farming is degrading soils, with 5.3 million tonnes of organic carbon lost from our soils every year, so the likelihood is that the current agricultural land classification system substantially overestimates land productivity. We must update it.

Food security is about not just the amount of land under agricultural use, but what we are producing. Food security must mean nutritional security. To take this seriously, the Government must set a clear and measurable target for a higher proportion of our nation’s nutritional needs, according to a recognised diet such as the NHS “Eatwell Guide”, to be met reliably by domestic production to high environmental standards. Achieving that will require national policy to guide substantial changes in the amount and types of food that we produce domestically. The essential element of genuine food security is establishing a national policy framework that provides certainty and incentives for farmers to invest in practices that prioritise nutritional needs and environmental outcomes, but that will likely see their yields fluctuate in the short term.

When we consider energy security, Government contracts for difference ensure a minimum price that gives suppliers the confidence to invest in the production needed to secure national policy objectives. Food security is no less essential than energy security, and farming practices that restore nature are as important as the transition to renewable energy. A Government serious about making genuine food security profitable to produce should establish new contracts for food security based on the contracts for difference mechanism in the energy sector, providing certainty through price floors for the key produce necessary to meet the nation’s nutritional needs. That is how we can achieve genuine food security.

15:09

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. The number of competing demands on Britain’s land is growing rapidly. To put that into context, Britain has about the same population as France, but the area of England, Scotland and Wales combined is only about one third of the area of France, and most of us live squished into the bottom half of it. Of course, land is the one resource that we cannot create more of—as Mark Twain allegedly said, “Buy land, they’re not making it any more.”

I am keenly aware of that situation in my South Cotswolds constituency where a housing development in one place means a risk of flooding in another, and a solar farm or gravel extraction means less grazing land for Wiltshire’s cows—a subject that I am sure is dear to your heart, Dr Murrison. I was therefore delighted earlier this year when the Government launched their national consultation on land use, highlighting the potential to restore nature, support food production, strengthen climate resilience and deliver new housing and infrastructure. I absolutely applaud those ambitions, which matter deeply in an age of current and potential global shocks.

As already mentioned, at the moment the UK imports about 40% of its food, and for fruit and vegetables that proportion is even higher. In 2023, after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, food price inflation reached its highest point in 45 years, adding to the pain of families already struggling to afford the basics. Food and energy sovereignty are not abstract concepts—they are the foundations of a healthy population and a resilient nation—yet sadly, some of the actions taken by the Government since launching the land use framework conversation suggest that they see land as a zero-sum game. House building is pitted against biodiversity, and renewable energy projects come at the expense of food production. That is not going to work.

I will make a couple of points. First, we must recognise the need to move beyond departmental silos and work across Departments in a truly systemic, holistic approach. At the moment, it all feels rather piecemeal, which leaves farmers, councils and communities grappling with apparently contradictory demands. We need a genuinely multi-functional, multi-layered land use framework—one that recognises each piece of land’s ability to meet multiple needs at once. The amazing pilot programmes conducted by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission show what is possible. These pilots in Devon and Cambridgeshire show that co-ordinated planning can support housing, energy, transport, net zero, biodiversity, food production and nature recovery all at the same time.

Planning decisions must reflect the local geography, economies, needs and opportunities, and they must incorporate the detailed local knowledge of residents. If not, their implementation will likely fail and they will not be welcomed by our communities. In my constituency, housing targets have doubled under the Government’s house building plans. The proposed 2,000 acre Lime Down solar farm would remove a huge area of farmland from production, which is causing huge local concern and pushback. Of course it is true that we need to decarbonise and protect our natural environment, but that does not need to come at the expense of local communities and food production capability.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does the hon. Lady regret that the Liberal Democrat manifesto said that the Liberal Democrats want to build even more houses than the Labour party?

[Dr Savage]

We are calling for more affordable houses and social housing. I stand by that commitment. What we are seeing at the moment is a free-for-all for developers. Unfortunately, now that we no longer have the five-year housing land supply, we cannot be sure that we are going to build the right kinds of houses in the right places at the right price.

I call on the Government to publish the land use strategy as soon as possible. It must extend far beyond DEFRA. Multi-functional land use is about transport, housing, energy, local government and more, so we need a genuinely joined-up approach.

My second and last point is that our farmers need clarity and support. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy describes the vicious cycle where agriculture both contributes to climate change and is threatened by it. Instead of breaking the cycle, the Government are creating an economic environment that pushes farmers towards damaging practices, such as excessive fertiliser use and intensive animal agriculture, because farmers see no other viable option if they are to stay in business. From speaking with my farmers across South Cotswolds, I know that they are keen to be allies in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, but they are being met with mixed messages and one economic blow after another, such as the family farm tax and the abrupt end of the SFI, as has been mentioned. Those decisions undermine both climate resilience and farmers’ livelihoods.

We need a strategy that aligns the land use framework, the food strategy and a credible farming road map. We need transparency about how the Government intend to deliver the 10 priority outcomes set out in their food strategy. That is eminently possible. With thoughtful, holistic planning, collaborative working and genuine respect for local knowledge, the Government can chart a path that strengthens our food system, restores our natural world and delivers the development our country needs.

15:15

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for securing this debate on an issue that sits right at the heart of our nation’s resilience. This is a real area of interest for me, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security and a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Our land is finite, so every acre has to do as much as possible for the country. The choices we make about it must balance food production, nature recovery, clean energy, and the homes and infrastructure we need. If we get the balance right, we not only protect our landscapes, but strengthen our ability to feed the nation and support rural livelihoods for decades to come.

A lot of good groundwork has already been done, as we have heard. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out a compelling vision for our food system and the need for a land use framework to break down Whitehall silos. The national conversation launched earlier this year, involving voices from farming, conservation and communities, shows that Ministers want to get this right. The evidence base gathered gives us something solid to build on, and the publication of the new food strategy for England, with its 10 high-level recommendations, is another important step towards a resilient, affordable and sustainable food system.

The consultation on the land use framework gave us estimates for the amount of land that may need to shift partly or wholly away from agricultural use—the former representing about 10% of land and the latter 9%. Our commitments to the environment, biodiversity and clean energy production necessitate changes in the way that we use land, but I share the view of many in the farming community and the wider food supply chain that we cannot afford to see food production as a sideshow—a “nice to have”. As the Prime Minister said, food security is national security.

We are acutely aware, of course, of the threats posed by cyber-attacks. In my region we have seen the devastating effects of the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and the thousands of jobs that were jeopardised by that prolonged shutdown. In response to that and other high-profile attacks, the public and private sectors alike are rightly investing in cyber-security. Let us place the same emphasis on food security. I am sure we all remember shelves going empty as global supply chains were disrupted during the pandemic, and we have also seen how the price of staples such as wheat has been affected by the invasion of Ukraine. It is not hard to envisage how geopolitical instability or bad actors could destabilise our food supply chains.

By safeguarding agricultural land primarily for food production and by supporting productivity improvements and innovation that help to maintain domestic food production, we can bolster the nation’s resilience in this crucial area. From my work with the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, I know that farmers are ready to embrace new tools and techniques, but they can do so only in an environment of long-term certainty, with clear policies and priorities.

On the contentious issue of our transition to clean energy, the National Energy System Operator’s analysis and the solar road map show that the land required for renewables is comparatively modest, and can in some cases remain compatible with farming, for example sheep and poultry grazing, or with measures under the environmental land management schemes. That is not always possible, of course, and that is why we should prioritise high-grade land for arable farming. That is where a land use framework is so crucial.

I am pleased to see that the Government are treating the framework, the environmental improvement plan and other strategies as interconnected. What the sector now needs is a land use framework that does four things: ensures that all the strategies being worked up dovetail, supports food production as a national priority to enable the delivery of environmental goods, facilitates the clean energy transition while ensuring rural communities benefit, and provides clarity and confidence for the people who steward the land every day. With strong evidence, honest conversations and a shared commitment to national resilience, we can ensure that our land delivers for food, nature recovery, clean energy and thriving communities.

15:19

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. It is important for the entire country, including my constituents in Chichester, who regularly think about the land and the way it is used. In our area, with the pressures from the South Downs national park at one end and Chichester harbour at the other, we experience coastal squeeze. There has also been a lot of development across a band of our constituency that used to be used for agricultural practices and farming.

I have some very specific points for the Minister. The NFU has raised concerns about the fruit and veg scheme, which ends in December without a replacement. The impact on my soft fruit farmers in Chichester will be significant. The fruit and veg scheme has been a crucial driver of growth despite a budget of only £40 million a year.

Although food security has never been more crucial, the UK is only 15% self-sufficient in fruit and 53% in vegetables. There was previously a commitment to deliver a replacement scheme. This scheme is due to close at the end of the year, so it would be helpful if the Minister could reflect on whether there will be any support coming forward for soft fruit farmers and fruit and vegetable farmers in this country.

The next point is on an important, but slightly niche topic: in recent years, we are just starting to understand the importance of a varied gut microbiome to ensuring health. Less is understood about the soil microbiome, but I had the opportunity to attend the Goodwood health summit a couple of months ago where we explored the soil microbiome. There is a link between the food that is grown in the soil and that soil’s microbiome.

Hydroponics are a source of innovation in the farming industry and food security. It is facilitating the growth of fruit and vegetables on less land in a way that uses less water and has higher yields. I celebrate the companies in my constituency that are championing that way of growing, but that cannot be used to justify the loss of our agricultural land. Just because we can grow up, it does not mean that we should stop growing out. Things that are actually grown in our soil have been proven to carry a far more complex set of nutrients that we need to be able to sustain life on this planet and our own health, including a healthy gut microbiome.

Chichester, as a warm, sunny and low-lying coastal plain with some of the highest levels of grade 2 agricultural land in the country, wants to play its part in the country’s food security, but all of those farmers need to be given the right environment to be able to do that. I would also like to briefly champion the horticultural sector, which is valued at more than £5 billion. It accounts for just 2% of farmed land and the delivery of nearly 20% of the total value from farming.

I have a number of horticultural businesses in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the role they play in our land use, supporting us all to make our own little patches of land in our gardens and patios as beautiful as they can be.

15:23

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a genuine joy to serve under your guidance, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) not just for her good speech, but for securing this important debate.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), as well as the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), all of whom made excellent contributions and made this a really thoughtful, worthwhile debate. I hope I have not missed anybody out. I also welcome the Minister. It is possibly the first time she has addressed Westminster Hall in her current role as the new Minister; I welcome her and look forward to many exchanges.

Britain is not secure unless it is food secure. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made a really important point when she quoted the former MI5 director general Baroness Manningham-Buller. I have an additional quote from her:

“The more self-sufficient we are as a nation, the better our ability to withstand price spikes, geopolitical shocks and instability around the world. The truth is, we are moving in the wrong direction”.

She is sadly right, and that is horrific. Various figures have been bandied around, but DEFRA’s own figures show that in 1984, the UK was 78% self-sufficient, and none of the figures mentioned were better than 65%. The NFU’s figure is more like 60%, and I think that I am more likely to believe it. Either way, there is clearly a massive decline in our self-sufficiency. It is vital that our land use policy ensures that we produce the food that Britain needs.

Leaving the European Union perhaps held one single, solitary silver lining: that we would leave the common agricultural policy and be able to set out on our own with something a lot less counterproductive. Yet even that silver lining turned darker, and the last Conservative Government must take responsibility. They are singularly culpable for ignoring our farming communities, taking their votes for granted, and completely botching the transition to the new environmental land management scheme. Nobody knows—and I could not say—whether they did that harm to our farmers by accident or design, but outrageously, we now have an agricultural policy that actively disincentivises the production of food. That is madness. We must reverse that damage, because that figure for self-sufficiency will only further decrease unless we take radical action.

At the heart of the food security problem is the counterproductive transition from the old payment scheme. Conservative and now Labour Governments have persisted with the same flawed approach—a stop-start payment system that leaves farmers unable to plan even a year ahead, even though farming demands planning cycles over years or even generations. Farmers are being asked to make long-term decisions about land use, stock numbers, crop planting and environmental improvements based on schemes that change suddenly, launch late, or simply close with no warning. The sustainable farming incentive is a prime and awful example. In March this year, farmers were one day being encouraged to apply, then the next day, the door was slammed shut. It is still shut.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for reflecting on the real and dangerous impact that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme had on farmers. One farm in my constituency was left in limbo by the announcement, having spent four months trying to switch to the SFI scheme. However, to do that, it needed to leave the community stewardship facilitation fund scheme—a process that took months, which meant that it could not complete its SFI application. It then found itself without SFI or the community stewardship facilitation fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a totally unacceptable situation for any farmer?

[Tim Farron]

It is completely unacceptable and the consequences have been huge. I had a public meeting with farmers, on the day after the SFI drawbridge was pulled up, I think, and there is huge anger and disillusionment. There are people who will now not even look at the schemes because they do not trust them anymore. I ask the Minister: when will SFI reopen, and will she ensure that it is accessible to the maximum number of people?

Of course, all that is happening at the same time as the Government’s choice to slash the basic payment scheme—what is left of it—by 76% this year alone. The BPS—the old farm payment scheme—has been phased out at sprint speed while its replacements have barely limped into existence, and with small, family farms at the back of the queue. Basically, if someone is wealthy enough to afford land agents and to have the luxury of being able to spend time off their farm, they can get into a scheme. However, if they are working for 90 hours a week to keep a roof over their head, they are outside it. It has been a redistribution of public money from the poor to the rich and away from food production. Now, for the first time since the 1940s, England has no universal option for farmers.

When farmers cannot rely on payments, access schemes or forecast their income, we run the risk of losing them altogether. That is a crushing blow for farming families—people who farmed their valley for generations and have realised that perhaps on their watch, they will lose that farm. Just imagine what that does to the wellbeing and mental health of the people on whom we depend for our food and for nature.

The impact is particularly acute for hill farmers, such as those around the lakes and dales of Cumbria, who maintain some of the most treasured landscapes that we have, and yet they endure some of the lowest farm incomes. The University of Cumbria’s figures show that by the end of next year, the average income for a hill farmer will be just 55% of the national minimum wage.

Of course, the proposed inheritance tax charges cause further damage. Those same hill farmers—who are earning, let us say, £15,000 to £16,000 a year—will be hit with a typical tax bill of around £20,000 a year over 10 years. Those hill farmers will have to sell, usually to bigger, less productive estates or a big city corporation seeking to use the land for offsetting, often leading to a monoculture, not a restoration of nature, and certainly not for producing food. The family farm tax is not just unfair; it further incentivises a reduction in Britain’s ability to feed itself. It is a strategic disaster as well as being unjust.

Secondly, the Government’s failure to publish the land use framework that they promised is causing huge uncertainty and damaging our ability to feed ourselves. Without a clear national strategy, decisions about land are being made in the dark. Farmers cannot know whether to prioritise food production, long-term environmental projects or diversification. Developers and investors act on speculation rather than strategy. A proper framework would give clarity about where food production must be protected. At present, the delay in publishing the land use framework is actively undermining food security.

Thirdly and finally, on top of all this instability we are still waiting for a national food security strategy from the Government. I always hear that the Government have acknowledged that food security and national security are linked, but they have not acted with seriousness or urgency to get an action plan in place. We cannot hope to secure our food supply without a plan that links food production, affordability, nutrition, public procurement, fairness in the marketplace, farming, nature and trade. For instance, about a quarter of the food grown in the United Kingdom, amounting to up to 5 million tonnes of edible food, is wasted every year. The proportion of the population in households experiencing food poverty is 11%, but for children the figure is 18%. Schools, hospitals and care homes rely too heavily on imported food that could be produced affordably and sustainably here at home. A national food security strategy would bring coherence to these challenges. Instead, we have delay.

Of course, food security is national security, but simply mouthing those words will not help us to rise to the challenge of ensuring that the UK’s vital food supplies are protected against various threats. The Liberal Democrats are determined to offer a plan for food security that encourages and rewards those who labour 365 days a year to feed us, and to whom we are enormously grateful. It is the role of the Government to back them and produce an overarching strategy, across every part of national and local government, to ensure that food security is a practical priority. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that ELM schemes are boosted with an additional £1 billion-worth of investment towards active farmers and would reverse the damaging family farm tax, which is killing investment in farming and will further suppress food production. We will ensure that food security is formally considered a public good through the ELM schemes.

We will also have an overarching food security strategy across every Government Department, because we declare that the fundamental error of this and the previous Government is that they have bought the lie that there is a contest between whether we produce food or whether we restore our natural environment. That is nonsense. Without farmers we will not eat, and the best environmental policies in the world will simply remain useless—bits of paper in a drawer—unless we have farmers putting them into practice. Farmers in Cumbria and across the whole United Kingdom are vital to food security and to our natural environment. It is time we listened to them and made Government their help and not a hindrance.

15:32

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. We have had valuable contributions from Members across the House. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate on land use and food security, which matters to many of our constituents. May I also use this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place? I think this is the first time that the two of us have been opposite one another. I would like to work constructively with her as we go forward, to ensure that food security is at the heart of Government policy.

As we all know, land is a finite resource—no one is making any more land—so a national conversation about how we use our land and what use we put it to is crucial. Most importantly, we must ensure that food security is at the heart of that conversation. Right now, as we speak in this Chamber, farmers outside are protesting against the direction in which this Labour Government are taking our food security agenda—most pressingly because of the Budget next week and the issue of the family farm tax, which I will come to. As a result of the choices that the Government have made over the last 16 or so months, we are, quite simply, in a food and farming emergency.

The sustainable farming incentive has been mentioned, but I want to talk to the challenges that many of our farmers are facing to do with cash flow and the cash-flow pressures on our farming businesses. These are the result of the sustainable farming incentive being chopped and the implications of the delinked payments being dramatically reduced to an annual payment of £600 in years six and seven of the transition period. Those dramatically reduced payment rates are having an impact on cash flow. The stopping of capital grants is also having an impact on many of our farming businesses. The end of the fruit and vegetables scheme—it was disbanded with no announcement beyond the end of this calendar year—is also impacting many of our horticultural businesses and has created huge uncertainty for our many farming businesses.

Then there are the taxes announced by the Chancellor, including the dramatic increase in employers’ national insurance and the increase in the minimum wage. That has created a disparity between those on the minimum wage and those wanting to get a bit more, and has imposed a huge additional burden on many of our farming businesses. Business rates relief has been significantly reduced, while the fertiliser tax and the double cab pickup tax have been implemented. Those are all decisions that the Chancellor has made in the last 16 months or so, and which have impacted the cash flow of many of our farming businesses. Banks are now speaking to our farming businesses and wanting certainty that they will be able to service their debt. Why? Because many of our farming businesses have an average rate of return of 1%, if not less—sometimes they do not even break even. They are now therefore struggling to provide certainty to the banks that they will be able to service the debt that they hold.

All that is before we start talking about the family farm tax. Simply reducing a 100% relief on agricultural and business property to a threshold of £1 million will impact every farming or family business across the country. The average size of a farm is about 200 acres. Once we take into account the value of the farm land, the cottage, the growing crops, the stocks in store and the machinery, the value will be well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing every farming business to an inheritance tax liability of over 20%—one that they simply will not be able to pay. That is the elephant in the room, which not one of the Labour Members spoke about in their speech, despite this being a debate about food security.

[Chris Hinchliff]

My constituents have raised many of the concerns that the hon. Member has just described about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief, which I recognise. However, will he say whether his party recognises any of the points that the Government are making about that? Do they accept that some improvement could be made to the previous agricultural property relief? Or would the hon. Member just return it to how it was and not make any changes whatsoever?

[Robbie Moore]

Our position on the family farm tax is absolutely clear: the 100% relief on APR and business property relief needs to remain in place. That is why, as the Conservative party, we are absolutely clear that the family farm tax needs to be axed. When we come to the vote on the Finance Bill, I hope that the hon Member will join us on this side of the House and put his words into action by voting against this disastrous tax policy that this Labour Government are bringing about.

It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), despite being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, did not mention the inheritance tax changes once in his contribution.

[Wendy Morton]

On the point about the Budget, I hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate. She has made several speculative announcements and some U-turns on various tax and financial policy decisions in the last 16 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that she still has the opportunity, if she so wishes, to change her mind?

[Robbie Moore]

I do hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate and also that she engages with the farming community. It is incredibly disappointing that the Chancellor has not once met with the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association or the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers in the 12 months since the last Budget was announced. It is a disgrace. Therefore, what is the Minister doing to convince the Treasury to axe the family farm tax—the reduction of the 100% relief on agricultural and business properties?

If it was not enough for the Government to go after our elder generation and our family businesses, they are also going after our next generation, with the decision to scrap the £30,000 grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers. It is an absolute disgrace. Then we have the land use framework consultation, which is setting a direction of taking about 18% of land out of food production for other things—whether it is energy security, housing, biodiversity, offsetting or nutrient neutrality—and away from increasing food productivity. All that is on top of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which further empowers Natural England, not to acquire land at market value, but to acquire it at agricultural value, disregarding hope value. That all suggests that this Government are not interested in food security.

We have yet to receive the findings of the road map for farming, and Baroness Batters of the other place has spent a good deal of time—six months—producing a profitability review, which is on the Secretary of State’s desk. That was meant to be published before the Budget, but what has the Secretary of State said? It will not be published before the Budget, but before Christmas. I ask the Minister a second question: where on earth is that profitability review? Why will it not be published before the Budget, so that we can at least use it to urge the Chancellor to do the right thing? I call on the Government to release the profitability review this week, so that the farming community, stakeholders and all Members of Parliament can digest it before the Budget next week.

I cannot stress how urgently we need clarity and certainty from the Government. The implications of the land use framework consultation; the profitability review not being published; the increased taxes on our farming businesses; the decisions to dramatically reduce delinked payments and close the SFI—these are all causing huge uncertainty. What does it say to our many farmers who are outside this building protesting right now when a Chancellor is making those decisions and is not even willing to engage? The emotional toll on our farming community is stark. I therefore urge the Government to have the decency to engage urgently, before the Budget next week, so that our farmers can have clarity on how they use their land.

The Farming Minister will no doubt say that food security is national security, as the Prime Minister has already said. But those are only warm words if they are not backed up with sound policymaking across Departments that brings out a proper food strategy, has all-Government buy-in—including from the Treasury—and does not have a huge, detrimental impact on how our farmers use their land or on their hopes to increase food security for the good and the health of the nation.

15:42

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I hope you are warmer than I am, having sat in what is quite a cold room for the entire debate. It has been a good debate, so I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her success in securing it. We have had a good and serious debate across all parties about a serious, if somewhat complex and multifaceted, issue.

Food security is about land use, but it is also wider than that, so I will begin my response by explaining how the Government are approaching this issue in the round. I do not think anyone would argue that food security is not an important part of our national security. If they were going to argue that before covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, I do not see how they could possibly argue it after living through those occurrences and seeing the effects and implications that those unanticipated events had on our ability to be resilient in future unforeseen circumstances. Being open-minded to learn the lessons, and doing our best to anticipate what the challenges of the future might be, is an important part of how we develop a more resilient stance than we would have if our post-war complacency—if I could put it that way—had carried on without what has happened in the last few years.

Anticipating the challenges of the future requires a close working relationship with the food sector. I chair F4, which brings together the National Farmers’ Union, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. That group represents the food system from farm to fork, and ensures that we are prepared for disruption to food supply chains and that we can respond quickly to threats as they emerge. We have heard about some of the threats from right hon. and hon. Members today, ranging from cyber-security threats to threats from Ukraine. Nobody has mentioned pests or diseases, but that is another potential threat that farmers know only too well. We have sadly experienced that in this country while I have been a Member of Parliament.

Robust analysis and transparency are critical. That is why we will publish an annual food security digest report, in addition to the UK food security report, which is published every three years. The most recent was published last December. Those reports highlight how diverse international trade routes and resilient domestic production systems ensure that any disruption from risks, such as adverse weather or disease, does not affect the UK’s overall security of supply.

Figures have been bandied around by different people about the percentage of our food we grow ourselves. UK agriculture currently provides 65% of the food we eat—77% of what we can actually grow here. We may not be brilliant at growing bananas, even though people love to eat them. The figure rises from 65% to 77% if we take account of what we can grow in our climate. Those figures have been more or less stable over 20 years.

Recent geopolitical challenges have highlighted increasing risks to food security, but have also demonstrated the resilience of our food system. As we develop implementation plans for the food strategy, we are applying lessons learned from covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine about how to prepare for, respond to and recover from shocks.

For example, one of the lessons from covid-19 was the key role that local communities and food systems played in maintaining access to food, particularly for the most vulnerable. I know from my experience during that strange time that working with the local authority and local kitchens was a far better way of ensuring that those who had to shield had access to useable, nutritious food. That is why the food strategy will focus on strengthening local food systems.

I am working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to end mass dependence on food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society. I raise that point because food security is also about the ability of every citizen to access the nutrition they need. The new crisis and resilience fund will enable local authorities to provide preventive support for communities and assistance to individuals facing a financial shock, improving citizens’ financial resilience and reducing the need for future crisis support.

We also face challenges to the resilience of domestic food production systems from soil degradation, disease and climate change. Those are critical long-term risks, but we should be clear that the impacts are here today. We need only speak to a farmer whose fields were underwater last winter and then parched and drought-ridden this summer. They would say that that is not a theoretical risk, but a threat to food production today. That is a threat we can manage because we need to take climate change seriously and do something about it, as we do with more conventional threats.

[Wendy Morton]

I am genuinely interested in what the Minister is saying about food and food systems, but how does she see the connection between that and our farmers? We do not want anybody to be reliant on a food parcel, but what is her Department doing to ensure that the food in a kitchen, in a parcel or on our shelves is produced by British farmers? That is at the heart of this debate: British food security.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was coming to that. I am happy to get across my view of what this should be. The food strategy that we published in July makes clear that we will act to ensure that our food system can thrive and grow sustainably and continue to provide a resilient and secure supply of healthy, safe and affordable food. It sets out that that should include investment, innovation and productivity, and a fairer, more transparent supply chain, which is why we are dealing with the supply chain adjudicators and introducing regulation on how to ensure fairness. Dairy and pigs are already in a process, but other work is being done for other sectors to ensure that a fair price is paid for the food that is produced, which is important.

Boosting the resilience of our food system will prepare it better for supply chain shocks and disruption. Some of what we have to do is ensure resilience to climate change, which will make us more resilient in the way in which we produce food. Environmental changes therefore go hand in hand with protecting food production. If we do not make our landscapes more resilient and more sustainable environmentally, it is likely that the productivity of our land will decline and it will be harder as the climate changes for us to guarantee reasonable food production. Some of those things bolster each other and should not be set against one another, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said in her opening remarks. They can produce a more effective and more resilient result if we do them effectively and properly.

We already manage the resilience of domestic production through updated environmental land management schemes. The good news is that actions taken today to manage these immediate risks can also reduce the risk from climate change. There is a £7 billion farming budget focused on improving the resilience of our food systems. That maintains the Government’s commitment to farming, food security and nature’s recovery. It includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £385 million for peatland restoration, all of which is vital for sustainability.

The farming budget will pay for land management actions that reduce flood and drought risk for arable systems and manage heat risk for livestock. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it.

The new energy infrastructure and new homes are not a risk to food security. Today, ground-mounted solar covers 13,000 hectares of land, which is 0.1% of England and 0.15% of English agricultural land. Half the agricultural land generating solar power is still producing food because it is dual-use—there are sheep grazing, and so on, on it. By 2035, the plan is for the percentage to rise to 0.4% of England as we increase our solar power generation capacity from 18 GW to 75 GW.

To put that into perspective, golf courses take up 0.7% of UK land and grouse moors take up 4%. At the moment, solar is at 0.1%, with plans to go up to 0.4%. People may not like solar panels appearing in and around the areas they live in, but they are not a threat to food security.

[Wendy Morton]

I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Lady—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Hon. Lady.

[Wendy Morton]

I beg your pardon—the hon. Lady. Maybe one day! It is one thing to see a few sheep grazing under a solar panel, but my point is about agricultural arable land that grows crops. I have yet to see a solar panel in an arable field because I do not think that is possible.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was not trying to make out that arable crops could graze around solar panels—

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady gets my point.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is correct, but I am trying to get this into perspective in terms of overall land use.

There have been many calls for the land use framework to be published. I hope I can reassure hon. and right hon. Member that we will publish it early next year. Having looked at some of it, I am totally fascinated by it; when we publish it, I think we will have very many interesting debates about what it demonstrates. As I see it, the food strategy goes together with the land use framework, which goes together with the farming road map—all of which are in parallel production even as we speak.

[Robbie Moore]

Cash flow challenges are hitting many of our farming businesses right now. Baroness Batters, of the other place, has produced a profitability review, which seems to be hidden in the depths of the Department at the moment. Will the Minister guarantee that the profitability review will be published this week, before the Budget, so that all our farmers, the stakeholders and us, as Members of Parliament, can scrutinise it and lobby the Chancellor to make the right decisions before the Budget next week?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I do not think that the lack of appearance of Baroness Batters’s report has stopped anyone lobbying the Chancellor; lobbying is happening outside even as we speak.

[Robbie Moore]

But will it be published?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course it will be published.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the Budget?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course it will be published, and it will be published this year. I cannot think of any Government who produce large reports on matters of interest in the week before the Budget. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see it this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the EFRA Committee in evidence, I think last week.

I could understand why the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would be worried if solar farms were planned to take up more than 0.4% of land in England in the next period, up to 2035, but they are not. Also, the 1.5 million homes that this Government have said they will deliver in this Parliament are likely to take up approximately 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land. That is quite a small land take to transform the lives of the many hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in need of homes. The Government are quite right to pursue a target of 1.5 million homes, and clearly one needs to build those homes on land. As I said, 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land, is the approximate amount of land that will be needed to ensure that we can house many people who currently do not have the prospect of having a home of their own.

[Bradley Thomas]

I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer a question that I have asked several Ministers in the main Chamber. My constituents and I do not dispute the need for more housing in the country, nor do we dispute that it needs to be located in areas where people want to live, but what would she say to my constituents living across Bromsgrove and the villages—an area that is 89% green belt and 79% rural—when I tell her that, as a result of choices made by this Government, our housing target has increased by 85% while the housing target in adjacent Birmingham has decreased by more than 30%? Every area has to take its fair share, but does she agree that that is a grossly unfair imbalance?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

In the small amount of time left to me before the end of the debate, it is hard for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. It is not up to me to take decisions about local planning issues of that kind. That is what local plans are for.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate. I know that she wants to say a few words, so I will sit down.

15:58

[Wendy Morton]

We have had a good debate, but I feel that the conversation has only just started. So many questions remain. The key point is that food security needs to be recognised as critical to national security. There is no more time for warm words; we need some action. Our farmers and our farming community need action.

I will try quickly to list all my asks. I would love the Government to take food security seriously, support our farmers and farming, axe the family farm tax, deliver a truly brownfield-first approach to development, and listen and respect the views of our farmers and local communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.

Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:01

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the reconsideration mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

In 2018, the Parole Board decided to release John Worboys, the so-called “black cab rapist” who drugged and raped women between the years 2000 and 2008. It is believed that he assaulted more than 100 innocent victims. That was the wrong decision, and the Parole Board clearly made an error in assessing the level of risk that Worboys posed to the community, and particularly to young women. At the time of that decision, the then Secretary of State for Justice had no means to ask for a review, because he would have had to apply for judicial review proceedings against a public body over which he had ministerial responsibility. His hands were therefore tied. He had to wait powerlessly—those of us who were in the House will remember it—for the outcome of a separate third-party judicial review, which thankfully led to the quashing of that irrational Parole Board decision to release John Worboys.

To avoid this happening again, that same Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, rightly considered and introduced the policy that became—I think under Sir Robert Buckland—the reconsideration mechanism in 2019. Those changes created a specific route, the reconsideration mechanism, that allows the Secretary of State to apply for an internal review of a Parole Board decision to release, on the grounds of either an error in law, irrationality or material procedural error—in other words, grounds similar to those for an application for judicial review.

The so-called reconsideration mechanism is effectively a form of internal review, giving the Secretary of State an element of authority over the Parole Board, without in any way compromising its independence, but merely to request that it review a potentially flawed decision. The right to apply for reconsideration was also extended to prisoners.

It is now clear, however, that what was intended as a safeguard to prevent dangerous prisoners such as Worboys from being wrongly released while a Secretary of State watched from the sidelines is now being deployed by such prisoners to mount effectively limitless, cost-free internal appeals against decisions they do not like. One example is the high-profile, nationally renowned case that occurred in my South Leicestershire constituency involving one Colin Pitchfork, who brutally raped and murdered two young girls, Lynda Mann in 1983 and Dawn Ashworth in 1986.

For those who did not live in South Leicestershire at that time, as I did not, it is impossible to comprehend the anguish and worry felt in the areas of Narborough, Enderby, Blaby and beyond between 1983 and the day when Pitchfork was caught in 1987. Those were four whole years when parents were terrified to let their daughters out of their sight, women were scared to walk home alone and suspicion was rife, while families and friends grieved for the lives of those two young women, who would be around my age today had their lives not been taken so early and so brutally.

Before Colin Pitchfork was caught, he forcibly manipulated one of his colleagues into giving DNA evidence on his behalf, to deceive police into thinking that his DNA did not match that of the killer. Pitchfork was eventually caught and the case was of national significance for English criminal history, because it was the first in which the embryonic DNA fingerprinting technique was used. Pitchfork received life imprisonment for the two offences of murder, with a minimum term of 28 years, and concurrent terms for rapes and perverting the course of justice.

That is just one of the high-profile cases in which a dangerous, violent sexual predator and murderer has served their sentence and the Parole Board has had the unenviable job of deciding whether that prisoner is safe to be released into the public. On its website, the Parole Board explains that its role is

“to determine whether prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, and those serving certain determinate sentences for serious offences, continue to represent a significant risk to the public.”

The Parole Board has an incredibly important role in protecting us all, and our constituents the public, from the most dangerous offenders in the criminal justice system. The public and victims’ families need to know that when the Parole Board makes a judgment, it is definitive. If the Parole Board’s work is disrupted by repeated or opportunistic applications for reconsideration, the public understandably lose trust in its ability to deliver timely and conclusive decisions. Victims, their families and the wider public want clarity and finality. That is all they ask from the reconsideration rule and it is what they deserve.

That is why I have raised concerns over many years about Colin Pitchfork, and over the last few years particularly about the reconsideration mechanism rule, with successive Ministers of different governing parties. Pitchfork has already once successfully used the mechanism to request reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision. After Pitchfork’s successful application for reconsideration last year, I wrote previously to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), then the Minister responsible for justice and sentencing. He confirmed to me:

“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”—

I repeat that statement; it is what the Minister said—

“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”

He went on to state:

“Consequently, there will be a final decision only where a provisional decision is not subject to an application for reconsideration (from either party) or where an application for reconsideration is made but then rejected by the Reconsideration Assessment Panel.”

That is a problem, because there is no finality. Imagine the pain that my constituents and the victims’ family members have to go through when Colin Pitchfork, every couple of years, makes a bid for parole. That is his right, but none of us expected that the reconsideration mechanism rule would be used for never-ending challenges by the prisoner, repeatedly calling for a Parole Board decision to be reconsidered until effectively they get the decision they want.

That potentially never-ending process has created legal uncertainty in the parole system, delaying finality and causing ongoing distress to victims’ families and friends. The public understandably feel that justice is now always hanging in a fragile balance, where a murderous sexual predator can exploit a loophole in a way that was never intended by David Gauke or Sir Robert Buckland when the rules were first introduced.

The Parole Board—rightly, in my opinion—decided recently that Colin Pitchfork is not safe to be released to the public at present, but my South Leicestershire constituents are now in the unpalatable position of waiting to see whether Mr Pitchfork will challenge the board’s latest provisional decision, made only on 27 October. Pitchfork has until this Thursday to do so; if he does, not only will it be one of the first cases in English history where a prisoner who has committed such offences has asked for reconsideration, but it will effectively mean that he is being given the opportunity through these rules to request that a reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision is once again reconsidered. That is a farce.

While I fully accept that there must be a route for prisoners to challenge genuinely flawed decisions, my view is that there must be a right to apply for just one reconsideration, whether by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State. I note that the Parole Board rules were updated last year to strengthen the system, for example by tightening the criteria for claiming a procedural error under rule 39. Those were welcome changes, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on their impact. If he is unable to do so today, I invite him to write to me on that point.

I will raise two related further points. First, those changes, while welcome, do not change the fact that a prisoner can still apply for the reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision, as Mr Pitchfork did in 2024 on the grounds of irrationality.

Secondly, the changes introduced last year were made through secondary legislation, just as the reconsideration mechanism itself was created through secondary legislation in 2019. It follows that, if the Government seriously consider limiting the mechanism to one application per parole decision—and I very much hope the Minister will take it into account, given the high profile nature of this case and the cross-party involvement in my campaign to highlight the issue—that too could be achieved through secondary legislation without the need for primary legislation.

That is why I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the reconsideration mechanism should be limited to one application per parole decision, which would still allow a prisoner to apply to reconsider a decision, and would in no way detract from that prisoner’s having the right to issue an application for judicial review if the decision was generally irrational or unlawful. We must remember that the reconsideration mechanism is relatively new, and making this change would restore it to what it was always intended to be: a targeted safeguard against wrongful release, ensuring that the Secretary of State could respond to significant public pressure, as we witnessed with Worboys. It should not be, and was never intended to be, an open-ended appeal system for dangerous offenders.

I end with the comment made by the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston:

“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which made be made.”

That is the mischief—but, if the Government are serious on this, they can attend to that mischief and rectify it.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this important debate and raising this critical issue on behalf of his constituents and us all. I start, where we all should, by recognising the appalling crimes of double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork. It is important to pay tribute to the victims’ families, who continue to live with his crimes. They must always be at the forefront of our minds whenever we discuss these quite technical issues of criminal law.

The function of the Parole Board is of paramount importance to our criminal justice system: to assess whether very serious offenders who have completed their minimum term in prison could be safely managed in the community if they were to be released. The board takes that responsibility extremely seriously, and rigorously examines all the evidence before reaching a decision. Only about one in four cases the board reviews results in a decision to release, and in the majority of cases, the board concludes that the offender must remain in custody for the protection of the public. Indeed, that was the board’s conclusion in their most recent review in the case of Colin Pitchfork, to which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred. These decisions are of such importance to victims and the public, and I welcome any opportunity to discuss how they are made and how safeguards such as the reconsideration mechanism are used.

I will begin by setting out the Government’s approach to the Parole Board’s reconsideration mechanism rules, their origins and their purpose. The approach was adopted following the case of John Worboys and the flawed parole decision in 2018, which was met with understandable public outrage. The decision was eventually quashed, but only as a result of third-party application for judicial review. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, ensuring that decisions that may be flawed can now be challenged without resorting to lengthy and costly judicial reviews. Alongside those measures, the Parole Board rules were comprehensively updated to modernise procedures, strengthen victim engagement and improve case management.

To avoid what might be called a Worboys scenario, the then Government introduced changes to permit the Secretary of State to have a direct, quick and effective mechanism to challenge a Parole Board decision, with similar grounds to that of a judicial review: error of law, irrationality or material procedural error. Crucially, the opportunity to challenge the decision was available to both parties of a Parole Board decision—the Secretary of State and the prisoner or offender. That must be right, as it would be offensive to the laws of natural justice to allow one party a route to appeal but not the other.

The Government’s view of the mechanism, as things stand, is that it has been broadly successful. Of more than 17,000 Parole Board decisions last year, there were only 257 applications for reconsideration. The argument—it was not made, but could be—that this mechanism is being abused in some manner on a wide scale is not correct.

The case of Pitchfork, however, has proven deeply problematic. First, there have been unusual and wholly unwelcome delays—unusual in the sense that they do not and have not occurred in other cases. His 2021 application for reconsideration was only heard in 2023, and the 2023 application for reconsideration of that Parole Board decision was only heard in October this year. He has until Thursday to apply for further reconsideration of the latest Parole Board decision.

There were various legal and evidence-gathering explanations for those delays, but I wholly appreciate, considering the decision in 2021 and the controversy at the time, the enormous anxiety that such delays create for families. The Government are always determined to ensure that justice and Parole Board decisions are undertaken as expeditiously as possible. In most cases, however, the rarely used reconsideration mechanism has been quick and efficient.

Further measures are being enacted to empower public protection in Parole Board decisions and appeals. Ministerial oversight of release decisions made by the Parole Board will be strengthened in the Victims and Courts Bill through a fresh determination. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are looking to enact that provision quickly. We have also taken measures to improve transparency and victim involvement in the process, including allowing victims to observe and play a greater role in Parole Board hearings, with certain measures having already been rolled out earlier this year.

I also accept that there is a potential mischief for historic offenders sentenced prior to whole life order provisions, whereby a prisoner makes hopeless applications, wasting time and money, and—more importantly—putting families through unnecessary strife. I will look at what can be done to mitigate this risk, but I must stress that this mischief would be incredibly rare, and I repeat the assertion that the previous Government’s changes in this area have been broadly positive.

It is also worth noting that a prisoner would continue to have opportunities to challenge a Parole Board’s decision, or a decision not to hear a prisoner’s case, in our common law. I will write to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire on those specific measures over the coming weeks, and I am very happy to meet him, or any other Members who want to discuss this issue, either at the Ministry of Justice or in Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

16:21

Sitting suspended.

Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the North West.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I asked for this debate because people in Warrington South are worn down by the constant risk of flooding. It shapes their day-to-day lives far more than most people realise. We need a frank conversation about what is happening and what needs to change. For my constituents in places such as Dallam, Bewsey, Sankey Bridges and Penketh, this is not about distant risks or statistical forecasts. It is about the reality of waking up to flood alerts, checking river levels whenever the rain starts to fall, and wondering whether the water will stop before it breaches the banks of the brook.

I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they cannot sleep when heavy rain is forecast. Parents have told me that their children get anxious when storms are mentioned on the news. Older residents tell me that they keep a torch by the bed, just in case. It is those small details that show just how deeply flooding affects people long after the water has gone. That is no way to live. No family should have to brace themselves over and over again for another clean-up every time the water rises.

In Dallam, we now see a situation where people are effectively marooned. When Longshaw Street floods and the Hawley’s Lane bridge goes under, Dallam becomes an island. People cannot get to work, get their children to school or leave their homes safely. Older residents who rely on adult social care are cut off. Patients at Lea Court are placed at additional risk because the access routes simply disappear under the water. Those are serious safety issues. No community should find itself trapped because the infrastructure around it can no longer cope.

From Merseyside to Greater Manchester, and Warrington in between, communities are facing the same issues: extreme rainfall, overwhelmed watercourses and schemes that take too long to materialise. The north-west is carrying a growing share of the national flood burden. Our region contributes significantly to the national economy. We should not be left fighting year after year for the basic infrastructure needed to keep homes and businesses safe. For too long, flood resilience in the north-west has relied on a patchwork of bids, lobbying rounds and one-off pots of money. That is not a strategy. It leaves communities vulnerable, stuck in a cycle of uncertainty.

On new year’s day, I was out across Warrington South in communities devastated by flooding, down Higham Avenue, Tavlin Avenue, Longshaw Street and Southworth Avenue. Some families were only just returning to normality following the Storm Christoph floods in 2021. Others were already exhausted by the constant cycle of rain, flood alerts, worry and clean-up, and it has not stopped there.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Storm Christoph. Both Northwich and Winsford in my constituency flooded twice in an 18-month period, most recently during that storm. Our section 19 investigation found that although Northwich’s flood walls held, the ancient Victorian combined sewerage system was not up to scratch. Does she agree that when we talk about investment in flood defences, it is about not just flood walls, but investment in our sewerage infrastructure?

[Sarah Hall]

I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend makes an important point.

In September, we came within inches of another major event. The emergency services set up a temporary command post, and we were preparing to evacuate homes again. Then, just last Friday, we had another flood alert, with modelling suggesting that we were heading for yet another breach. Residents can see what is happening: these events are coming closer together and they are becoming harder to predict, but none of that should come as a surprise.

I want to be clear that the areas most exposed to flooding in Warrington South are some of the most deprived, with some of the highest levels of disadvantage. They are the least able to shoulder the cost of repairs, the rising insurance premiums or months of disruption. Those communities are hit first and hit hardest, and they deserve the very best protection we can give them, not the uncertainty of waiting year after year for the infrastructure that they should already have had.

When I looked at an old Ordnance Survey map from the 1880s, I saw that the land around Dallam and Bewsey was clearly marked as liable to flooding, with mud flats shown across an area that is now full of homes. Much of the housing built in the pre-war and post-war decades went up before anyone talked about climate resilience or long-term hydrology. Those decisions were not malicious; they were just made in a different era. With the kind of extreme rainfall that we are now seeing, those early planning decisions are showing their limits. That history matters—it helps to explain why that area is so vulnerable and why modern infrastructure simply must catch up.

Nobody back then could have foreseen the level of rainfall now, but we cannot pretend that those planning decisions are not part of why we are here today. We have a responsibility to respond to the risks that are now so clear. This is not bad luck or a one-off winter; it is a pattern. The storms are heavier, the water rises faster and the ground saturates more quickly. Our infrastructure simply was not built for that pace or intensity of change.

People often ask me about dredging, clearing the gullies, reopening canals and maintaining the brooks. Yes, those things matter, and I will always push for better maintenance, but we need to be straight with our residents. Dredging, clearing gullies, reopening canals and cutting back vegetation cannot prevent flooding when we get an entire day’s rain in just a couple of hours. That is the scale of the challenge; no amount of clearing alone can keep the water back.

Flood events that used to be rare are now frequent. What used to be a slow rise in water levels can happen in the blink of an eye. The weather has changed, but the infrastructure has not. That is why the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme is so important. It is why I fought to secure the funding that finally allowed the outline design stage to begin. The contract has now been awarded and engineers are progressing the plans. Without securing that funding, we would still be talking about possibilities, rather than the engineers beginning their work. But I have to be honest: in the past, promises were made without a plan and people were let down. I will not repeat those mistakes. Sadly, even now, there are some making big claims about this scheme without understanding how complex it is. It is easy to say what people want to hear, but much harder to follow through and deliver. This is not a fast process and I will not pretend it is, but it is real progress after years of false starts.

My constituents are desperate, and they ask me the same question time and again: when will this actually be built? The honest answer is not an easy one. At the moment, construction is not due to start until 2029, with an expected completion date in 2032. For communities that have faced repeated flooding, that is a long wait. They understand that the scheme is complex and that it needs to be done properly, so that flooding is not simply pushed on to other neighbourhoods. But they also need reassurance that the project will not stall again because, right now, we still do not have all the funding required. There is an affordability gap that we cannot ignore.

In the north-west, we have already seen schemes fall behind when the funding picture is unclear. We cannot afford for that to happen here. Sadly, we all know that the Sankey brook scheme will not entirely remove the risk of flooding. With more extreme weather and a change in climate, that risk will always be there in some form. What we can do is take every practical step to protect the communities most at risk. We can identify the gaps, strengthen the early-warning systems and put better support in place while the scheme is being designed and built.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point about early warning. My constituency experienced devastating flooding in 2005 and 2015. Last week, despite flood warnings, we mercifully escaped—though parts of the city were affected —when what had been forecast was not what transpired. The Environment Agency appears to lack access to accurate radar forecasting. Does she agree that we must equip the EA with exactly that type of early warning?

[Sarah Hall]

I absolutely agree. We have also experienced that. At the time of the last flooding event, certain levels were predicted that did not come to pass. The accuracy is not there at the moment.

I want to take a moment to thank the EA, Warrington borough council and our emergency services, because they have done everything they can with the limited resources available. Partners I have worked with have been open and honest about the challenges, and they care deeply about getting this right, but they cannot carry the burden without stability and adequate support from central Government on the ground.

I hope that the Minister will consider the following asks. First, schemes such as Sankey brook need funding certainty. Families who have lived with repeated floods should not be waiting each year to see if the next phase can go ahead. Short-term funding creates long-term uncertainty. It slows down planning, delays construction and leaves communities exposed.

Local choice cannot become a replacement for proper, national investment. It was never designed to plug repeated funding shortfalls. We need a mechanism that can close affordability gaps quickly for schemes that are already progressing. It is not good enough for a project to be technically sound, publicly supported and urgently needed, only to sit half-funded for years.

Secondly, we need faster approval and progress for schemes where the risk is clearly rising. Sankey brook is routinely flagged during heavy rainfall. The recent September near miss, new-year floods, Storm Christoph and this past Friday show how urgent that is.

Thirdly, we need better support for interim measures while the long-term scheme is built. That includes making flood alerts more reliable, especially at night and for nearby communities. It means property flood resilience grants, measures to protect people’s homes, and enhanced practical help that is routinely available for councils and landlords dealing with the aftermath of flooding. Our experience in Warrington shows that the current flood recovery framework and Bellwin scheme are not fit for purpose and do not go far enough to support communities or local authorities.

Fourthly, I ask the Minister to look seriously at the growing issue of insurance affordability. Local residents are finding that they either cannot get flood insurance or that the premiums are so high that they cannot afford insurance. I urge her to look for solutions to ensure that families are not left uninsured or financially exposed while they wait for long-term schemes like Sankey brook to be completed.

Fifthly, I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme, give it the priority the project deserves and do everything in her power to ensure that the scheme progresses at pace. My constituents and I are desperate for this scheme. We have lived through years of flooding, near misses, evacuations and constant anxiety. This is not a “nice to have” for my constituents. It is essential infrastructure. We need additional funding, more resources, spades in the ground and defences built. We need certainty and a commitment that only the Minister can provide.

Across the north-west, we are seeing a pattern: more extreme rainfall, more frequent events, and infrastructure that simply was not built for that. Communities cannot tackle this alone. Warrington South is an incredibly strong and resilient place. People look out for one another—they always have—but they should not have to rely on luck every time the rain comes. Good will alone will not keep homes dry. People need proper infrastructure behind them.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I agree with all the things that she has asked for. Perhaps I can add one more ask of both the EA and the Government, which is for more of a focus on the upstream prevention activity, so we can stop the waters coming down on the Mersey—a number of colleagues here are based on the Mersey, and she described the floods coming down so well. Perhaps we could work upstream in the Goyt valley and bring some of the longer-term measures forward to cut the problem off at source. Maybe we can all work together. The MPs who represent constituencies along the Mersey could talk to the EA about how we do that.

[Sarah Hall]

I absolutely agree and would be more than happy to do that.

Residents across Bewsey, Dallam, Sankey Bridges and Penketh are doing everything asked of them. They sign up for alerts, check river levels, move furniture upstairs and support one another through the worry. But what they cannot do is hold back water that rises faster and more aggressively every year. We finally got the Sankey brook scheme moving. Now we need the reassurance that it will continue at pace with the funding and support required to get it over the line. If schemes like this stall, the ripple effects are felt from family homes to local businesses and transport routes.

The storms will not wait for 2032. The water will not wait for the next funding round. We have been lucky more than once this year, but luck is not a flood defence strategy. It is not good enough for communities who have already suffered through repeated floods. Behind every issue I have raised this afternoon is a principle: people deserve to feel safe where they live, supported when things go wrong and listened to when they speak up. My constituents in Bewsey, Dallam, Sankey Bridges and beyond have waited long enough. They deserve the right infrastructure to protect them, and I will keep fighting until they get it.

16:44

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for bringing this issue to the House today.

“Despite three section 19 reports identifying the issue of a blockage…nothing happens despite recommendations to do so.”

Those are the words of Stephen, a constituent of mine in Bramhall who has suffered bad flooding at his home for many years. Just this week, flooding on the A555 relief road under Hall Moss Lane bridge in Bramhall, just down the road from Stephen, led to accidents, a road closure and disruption to many people’s lives, yet the area is being bombarded with planning proposals, encouraged by Government policy that does not in any measure address flooding.

Every year, more and more houses are at risk. That takes a serious toll on people, not just financially but emotionally. Post-traumatic stress disorder, long-term displacement and lifetime debt are only some of the consequences of flooding events in our communities. One resident contacted me to say that every time they get the Environment Agency’s emergency alert on their phone, they break out into pure panic.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Flooding is a huge issue in south Somerset. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Somerset Rivers Authority and me that the Environment Agency’s plan to stop maintaining small rivers and streams due to Government funding cuts will only increase the risk of flooding?

[Mr Morrison]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, and yes, there is a question of flooding here. According to the EA’s March 2024 report, 3.2 million properties are at risk of surface water flooding. The latest surface water flooding risk assessment carried out by the EA increased the flood risk rating of many of the homes in my Cheadle constituency. Residents need to know that the Government are taking such flooding seriously.

From working with residents, Stockport council and the EA after the awful floods in January, it is clear to me that serious clarification is needed. Stockport council did not receive any funding from the EA or the Government following January’s disastrous flooding, despite its serious and widespread impact and the lives it ruined. What is more, the EA’s long-term flood risk management strategy for the River Mersey has been delayed, which is arguably one of the reasons why Stockport council missed out on the funding.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a very good point. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the large drainage basins of rivers such as the Mersey, the Dee, the Kent and the Lune, which have systemic flood risk, there is also the issue of serious localised flooding across the region, which is often not tied to major drainage basins but connected to sewerage or groundwater?

[Mr Morrison]

The hon. Member makes a fantastic point, and that is the crux of the problem: we concentrate a lot on areas such as the Mersey, but we have a load of waterways and a load of issues around sewerage and drainage that need to be encompassed by our thinking.

Organisations responsible must be not only properly funded in the long term, but able to work constructively and effectively together to protect residents. As the Government force us to “build, baby, build”, new developments will only increase surface water flooding as more green belt gets built on and natural drainage is reduced. In the words of the National Infrastructure Commission itself, the Government’s response to the commission’s report on surface water flooding did

“not meet the scale of the challenge.”

The National Flood Forum receives more than 1,000 calls a year, often from vulnerable residents affected by recent developments causing flooding.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not even refer to flooding or flood risk management, and the Environment Agency’s flood risk guidance is often ignored or legally challenged within the Bill. I was proud to support the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have properly tackled flooding in relation to planning and required the implementation of sustainable drainage systems in any new development.

The EA’s own road map to 2026 suggests that, for every pound spent on protecting communities, we avoid around £5 in property damages. This is incredibly important, so now is the time to commit to long-term funding rather than shy away from it. That is essential to ensuring that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford, Gatley and all the communities that have been impacted by flooding over the last 12 years can be supported in protecting their homes, their businesses and their communities, as well as reducing the impact of increasingly heavy storms, increased surface water and new developments that have not properly been considered.

I will finish with a remark from Karen, who lives near the Micker brook in Cheadle. She said:

“Planners and developers must take into account flooding when building. What happened at the mill in Stockport on New Year’s Day was simply appalling. The developer should be responsible for this.”

The Government must take urgent action that takes flood risk seriously and provides long-term, ringfenced funding for organisations such as the EA and responsible councils, and they must legislate without delay on the close connection between flooding, development and infrastructure.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I shall begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so colleagues might like to titrate their contributions accordingly.

16:50

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing this critical debate, and praise her language, campaigning approach and resilience —that is really the buzzword for this topic.

When we talk about flood risk in the north-west—not just in Burnley but, more obviously, in Padiham and Brierfield—we are not talking about abstract theories or far-off scenarios. We are talking about real people with water in their homes and shops, and about destruction. In Padiham, many families still recall the shock of waking to rising water, the distress of damaged homes and businesses, and the long clean-up that followed the Boxing day floods of 2015. Those experiences stay with our community.

That is why the Padiham flood risk management scheme is so important and such a momentous project for Padiham. It is more than a construction project; it represents security, care and commitment to the people who live and work in our town. Once completed, the scheme will protect around 160 homes, businesses and public buildings in the centre of Padiham, and defend our community from the River Calder, the Green brook and the surface water that has caused so much destruction in the past.

We are now seeing clear progress: the new flood wall and gate at Bendwood Close is already finished, detailed design work for the wider scheme is nearly complete and full construction is planned to begin in spring 2026, with completion expected by winter 2028. The investment gives the town something very valuable: the ability to look to the future with greater confidence.

I put on record my recognition of the team effort that the scheme has been—it has spanned three Members of Parliament and 10 years of lobbying—and of the work of all involved, involving the Environment Agency, Burnley council, Councillor John Harbour, Councillor Barbara Dole, Councillor Alun Lewis and, indeed, the Minister, who I believe signed off the proposals last week, in her first week in office. I am proud that the Government have seen fit to fund the proposals, after the floods in 2015, and that residents and businesses can now have assurance that the scheme will be completed.

I ask that the Environment Agency, which I thank for the work so far, does its best to keep the scheme on track and get it delivered. For residents, the scheme is about not just engineering, but peace of mind. It is about being able to put children to bed on a stormy night without worrying that the streets, shops and homes will be flooded in the morning. On Christmas day last year, I was contacted by businesses on Padiham high street; people were texting me as they watched the water levels in the Calder while enjoying their Christmas day turkey. This is about keeping the heart of Padiham strong, vibrant and protected for years to come. Padiham is a reminder that investment in flood resilience is ultimately an investment in people, their wellbeing, and the secure future that they deserve.

16:53

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing the debate, which is so important, especially with the winter months approaching.

As we have just heard, in January the north-west faced floods of such ferocity that they took everyone by surprise. Across Manchester, Cheshire and the Wigan borough, homes and livelihoods were devastated. In Leigh and Atherton, the damage was significant. For residents near Lilford Park, it was the second time they had endured a major flood in less than 10 years. To experience such destruction twice in a decade is unacceptable, and it is no wonder that people are asking whether our flood resilience measures are truly fit for purpose.

I witnessed at first hand the disruption and devastation that flooding causes to people’s lives—possessions lost and communities shaken. In the aftermath, the focus has rightly been on recovery. I am grateful to the emergency services, which responded swiftly at the time. I want also to acknowledge the support of local councillors, Wigan council officers and local businesses that gave their time and resources to those impacted. I thank the Minister for visiting the area to meet residents. I know her commitment to this issue; she is steadfast in wanting to support communities in their time of need.

People have gone above and beyond to support our neighbours, and we must never forget that spirit of solidarity. However, we owe it to residents to reduce the risk of this happening again. Since the incident, I have been working with the council, the Environment Agency and United Utilities on flood risk management in our area, particularly in Lilford and Higher Folds. Following our section 19 report, the Environment Agency is undertaking modelling of the Leigh East catchment area, which is expected to be completed in the summer.

Planting trees and promoting biodiversity are absolutely worthwhile, but they cannot replace the urgent need for proper flood storage—that goes back to the comment that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made earlier. We need solutions that deliver real protection. Preliminary work has already identified potential water storage areas further upstream, but they need safeguarding from development at least while modelling is completed.

When they are done responsibly, developments can assist with flood prevention, but it is imperative that they are not looked at in isolation. Incorporating sustainable drainage systems, such as attenuation ponds, can drastically reduce downstream flooding. While they may not appear necessary for each development, the benefits downstream must not be underestimated.

[Phil Brickell]

As my constituency neighbour, does my hon. Friend share the frustration that I and my Bolton West constituents sometimes have about identifying who is responsible for the existing infrastructure and its maintenance? For example, we struggle to understand whether United Utilities or the council is responsible for localised flooding by Old Station Park and on Chorley New Road in Horwich, or on Lostock Junction Lane, and the source of the flooding.

[Jo Platt]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As near neighbours, we share the same concerns. I do think that the Greater Manchester combined authority is leading on some really good work, pulling in all the agencies in order to work on the responsibilities of some of those partners, and we need to be part of that too.

We need decisive action now. Every household must be made flood-proof, not through quick fixes but through sustainable solutions that stand the test of time. That means that local and national policies must embed resilience at their core. Local authorities and the Environment Agency should be held accountable and given the resources to deliver.

Finally, I want to raise an issue that residents repeatedly bring to me. Many households find that insurance companies differ widely in the cover they offer for flood risk, leaving families vulnerable. What discussions has the Minister had with insurers and with the Build Back Better scheme to ensure fairness and consistency in cover for those affected?

Our community has shown strength in the face of adversity; now it is time for leadership to match that strength with action. We must build a future where homes are protected, families feel secure and flooding is no longer a recurring nightmare for Leigh and Atherton residents.

16:58

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate.

In January, there was flooding at Meadow Mill in my constituency, with almost 200 residents impacted. I thank the Meadow Mill residents association for all the work it has done in representing residents but also raising real concerns. I have corresponded with a number of residents, and I met the association just a few weeks ago in my office. One of the main issues they face is that the building’s owner is unable to secure insurance against the flood risk. That is quite concerning for leaseholders, who are liable to pay out of their own pockets for any future flood damage to Meadow Mill, which may run to hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more.

Although none of the residential units was impacted by the flooding on new year’s day, the water filtration system, boiler and electricity substation were affected, which meant there was no water supply, heating or electric in the flats, so all residents had to evacuate. That should have been avoided, because the mill was only recently converted into flats. It is a serious issue.

Generally speaking, Stockport does not really suffer from flooding; it is usually the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), that has the most significant issues. However, with climate change and a number of other factors, it is something we are increasingly facing. I do not want to repeat points that others have made, but the issue of funding for the Environment Agency is quite serious. I have met the agency, and I appreciate all the work it does, but it has no earmarked funding for work in my constituency, which is a concern.

We also have an issue in Reddish, where a bridge collapsed in January. It will cost more than £1 million to repair, and Stockport council tells me that it cannot facilitate the work without central Government support. Across the borough, which includes three constituencies, the cost of damage is around £4.3 million—a serious sum.

We need much better drainage systems and much more investment in the Environment Agency, but we also need more protection for residents, whether they are tenants or owner-occupiers, from the risks that come with insurance and the additional costs. On behalf of Meadow Mill residents, I want to raise that issue with the Government.

I thank the firefighters, North West ambulance service and Greater Manchester police, but also Stockport council staff who went above and beyond in supporting residents. I take this opportunity to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular with regard to the Fire Brigades Union, but I am very grateful to them for doing all they can. I will finish by inviting the Minister to come to Stockport to try some of our award-winning beer, but also to meet residents of Meadow Mill.

17:01

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for this important and timely debate.

For my constituents in Wythenshawe and Sale East, flooding is a growing concern, severely affecting local communities on both sides of the river. On new year’s day, we witnessed one of the most severe flood events in recent memory: the River Mersey reached its highest level in 66 years following an intense downpour—70 mm of rain in just 18 hours. Emergency crews worked tirelessly and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) in giving my thanks to them.

At Northenden golf club, helicopters dropped one-tonne bags of rock to plug the breaches in the embankments. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) and I met representatives of our respective golf clubs, Northenden and Withington, a few days after the event. One of the nightmare scenarios now is that golf clubs cannot get insurance, and that is only spreading. That is what climate change is bringing to us. Manchester city council evacuated over 1,000 residents that day and closed footpaths and infrastructure near the river. The exact same thing had happened just a few years earlier; the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, visited a couple of days later—we thought we had averted disaster but clearly we had not.

Thanks to flood defences, nearly 12,000 properties were protected, but tragically 99 homes were still flooded because of the embankment breaches. On 1 January, the river at Northenden peaked at 3.76 metres, well above the property flooding threshold of 3.3 metres. That was not an isolated incident. When I was a young councillor growing up in Northenden that was a one-in-100-year event, but now it is happening annually because of climate change.

That is not all. The relentless discharging of untreated sewage into the River Mersey by United Utilities also points to a system under strain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) mentioned. Storm overflows are designed to prevent sewerage systems from backing up during heavy rain. When they are overwhelmed, the environmental impact is profound. Polluted waters threaten wildlife, biodiversity and public health. The River Mersey becomes a wet wipe and tampon alley for weeks and months on end, making it unusable.

Yet in 2024 alone, United Utilities discharged sewage into the Mersey estuary 1,865 times, lasting for a total of 12,500 hours. That is the equivalent of 1.4 years of continuous sewage, at an average of five spills every single day. That is just the estuary. The combination of damage to homes and businesses and the environmental impact of sewage overflow caused by flooding has created a perfect storm in my constituency and right along the River Mersey estuary. We are paying for it in countless unsustainable ways.

What can we begin to do about the situation? Local action is extraordinarily important to stem the waters entering the Mersey in the first place. The South Manchester urban brooks project, in collaboration with the team at Biora, have come up with a plan to de-culvert Baguley and Fairywell brooks. We have to tackle these issues at the source.

De-culverting and freeing our buried waterways, restoring them to their natural, open-air condition, is transformational: it reduces pollution, improves water health, creates vital habitat for wildlife and lowers water temperatures. Most importantly, it slows the water course down before it ever enters the River Mersey basin at all. That is why that type of infrastructure upstream is critical for helping my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South. It also creates recreation opportunities for residents; Baguley brook in my constituency runs by a cycle path, for example.

When we bring back our rivers and streams, residents gain access to improved green space, which in turn improves their own wellbeing. But more than that, de-culverting reduces the long-term infrastructure costs and acts as a natural form of green infrastructure, which, critically, slows down the flow of water and reduces peak flows during heavy rain, mitigating flooding further downstream.

Bringing back our brooks in a restorative course of action will reduce flooding, but it requires careful hydrological modelling and carries a high up-front cost. It needs funding and commitment from decision-makers to succeed. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plans in my constituency, to make sure that we take action on the devastating impact of flooding all along the Mersey valley?

17:06

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing this important debate.

In recent years, communities across the north-west have repeatedly endured devastating flooding, most recently following Storm Éowyn, which brought with it devastation and a prolonged recovery. We have also seen that severe impact in Somerset, including when Storm Claudia reaped havoc right across the south-west and into Oxfordshire over the weekend. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, which means that it is even more important to ensure that robust flood resilience is in place, through both a national strategy and local community flood resilience strategies. These events underline the fact that we cannot continue building homes without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is in place to protect communities from flooding.

My constituent Zoe moved into her new home in Martock in 2022 and then discovered that her property had been built without basic flood protection infrastructure. Her garden was built on clay without appropriate drainage and is also on a severe slope. Every time it rains, it floods. That is not an isolated case, more a consequence of a planning system that too often prioritises completion over responsibility. It is also a legacy of the former Conservative Government, who slashed flood protection plans for homes and failed to invest in flood defences, leaving communities to fend for themselves.

If the Government are committed to building the homes that people need, they must also ensure that new developments provide suitable flood mitigation measures, including sustainable drainage systems that properly manage excess rainfall. The Liberal Democrats have been clear: the Government must commit to implementing schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to legally require the installation of drainage systems in new builds to strengthen local flood resilience.

Furthermore, the Government have an obligation to ensure that all future housing developments are supported by upgrades to infrastructure to accommodate the expansion. Their current failure to do so is causing my constituents in Mudford, which floods regularly, to face the prospect of another 1,000 homes just outside their village. That is causing great anxiety. The proposals for that development would use the existing fragile sewerage system without any further enhancements, heightening the flood risk as the infrastructure will simply not cope with the increased capacity.

The Liberal Democrats have been consistent: the Government must ensure water companies are made statutory consultees during the planning process. That will help prevent future sewage spills and local flooding by ensuring that any increases in capacity are matched by suitable infrastructure upgrades.

The concerns are not limited to planning decisions; in fact, they are being weakened by the agencies tasked with protecting our communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) mentioned, owing to a funding shortfall the Environment Agency recently issued withdrawal notices to ratepayers in Somerset regarding the cessation of maintenance on the designated main rivers. I thank the Minister, who met me last week to discuss the issue, for her commitment to come and meet me and Somerset stakeholders at some point next year.

The Environment Agency’s decision passes the responsibility on to riparian owners, who in many cases lack the financial ability or knowledge to undertake maintenance, and it will only heighten their anxiety around flood risk. Given the Environment Agency’s own modelling, which has shown that an additional 39,000 homes in the south-west could be at risk of flooding by 2050, that action is contrary to the urgent need to strengthen flood resilience in flood-prone areas such as Somerset.

Last autumn, we welcomed the Chancellor’s decision to commit £2.4 billion towards flood defences. However, with increasingly severe and frequent flooding, compounded by the Environment Agency’s budgetary constraints, the Government need to urgently commit to address longer-term flooding. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a further £5.3 billion to ensure that flood defences are built more quickly and provided to all necessary communities, to increase local preparedness and resilience.

As a Liberal Democrat and the daughter of a farmer, I recognise the invaluable role of farmers in flood management: they store flood water on their land to protect rural communities. For example, the Kerton family, based at Higher Farm in Chilton Cantelo, have repeatedly stored water on their farm, including having half of their farmland submerged for much of last winter. The current custodian, Nobby, told me that he is extremely concerned that the Government have no clear plan for supporting farmers who are sacrificing their land and livelihoods to plug the gaps in rural infrastructure. By acting now, we can protect homes, safeguard livelihoods and create greater flood resilience for rural communities.

17:12

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate and allowing us to address the important issue of flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the north-west. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House today: from the hon. Members for Warrington South, for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).

The hon. Member for Warrington South started off by highlighting the key points about the mental health impacts of flooding and the anxiety and trauma that people face. As we face ever more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. The devastation brought in the past two years by Storms Babette, Kieran and Henk is a grim reminder that vigilance and forward planning remain essential. When thinking about the north-west, we remember the catastrophic impacts of Storm Desmond in 2015. Across the north-west and beyond, families, farmers and business owners know all too well the havoc that flooding brings to bricks and mortar but also the livelihoods and mental health of those living in fear of the next storm. Just this weekend we have had another named storm: storm Claudia. My thoughts go out to the people affected by the flooding, especially in Monmouth. As I said in the Chamber in the urgent question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we cannot overstate the mental health impacts of flooding events and on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I pay tribute to our emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers who demonstrate extraordinary dedication time and again.

However, our compassion for those affected must be matched by decisive action. The previous Conservative Government took the responsibility of flood resilience extremely seriously. Between 2010 and 2020, four Conservative-led Governments protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding. Our record includes a £2.6 billion investment in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, followed by a further £5.2 billion commitment in 2020. We introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and set out a comprehensive policy statement containing 40 practical actions and five ambitious policies for a more flood-resilient Britain.

Equally, the establishment of Flood Re created an essential safety net, making insurance viable for hundreds of thousands of homeowners. Today, I urge the Minister to build on that by expanding the eligibility. Many small businesses remain excluded, particularly where people live above their shop, and properties built after 2009 are ineligible. Will the Minister commit to reviewing those restrictions to enable fairer access to affordable flood insurance?

We Conservatives recognise that in our rural communities, flood management and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Through the environmental land management schemes, we rewarded farmers for natural flood management. Farmers across the north-west and across the country have embraced these schemes, restoring wetlands and investing in sustainable land management, which not only reduces flood risk, but improves biodiversity, captures carbon and enhances soil health. Innovative tree-planting programmes, with the right tree in the right place, and river re-wiggling are brilliant examples of natural flood management.

I ask the Minister to confirm that these actions will continue to be funded under ELMS and that this Government remain committed to supporting nature-based solutions as part of our national flood defence strategy. Regrettably, many farmers and communities are now anxious and uncertain. They have been watching this Labour Government abolish the farming resilience fund, which was a lifeline for mental health, and introduce their heartless family farm tax—all at a time when many are still repairing the damage from last season’s storms.

The flood resilience taskforce was designed to co-ordinate national response and readiness, yet the answer to my parliamentary question shows that it has met only infrequently since Labour took office. Can the Minister tell us what tangible outcomes the taskforce has achieved so far? Given the increased frequency of severe storms, the taskforce must be proactive. Will it start to meet more regularly than at quarterly intervals?

I want to acknowledge the charities that provide vital support to those affected, such as YANA—You Are Not Alone—and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies and the Farming Community Network. The impact of flooding is not only physical or financial, but deeply emotional: the anxiety of waiting for the next storm, the trauma of seeing homes and businesses lost and the long path to recovery all leave scars that last for years. Too often, that is ignored. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to deliver holistic support for flood victims not just in the immediate aftermath, when the water subsides and the blue lights leave, but for the long term.

In summary, communities who face the threat of flooding need certainty. They need reassurance that preventive measures will be sustained, that robust support is available when disaster strikes, and that their physical and mental wellbeing is taken seriously. I very much hope that the Minister will use this debate to provide that clarity and to guarantee that the Government will stand by our rural and urban communities, protect funding for flood defence and address the toll, both physical and mental, that flooding continues to inflict on our country.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this debate on a highly important matter. Flood and coastal erosion risk has increased and is projected to continue to increase as a result of climate change. I hope that that is at the forefront of all the conversations at COP this week.

A priority for this Government is to protect communities around the country from flooding and to improve the resilience of the country. I recognise the challenge that all constituents, including my own, face during extreme weather events. I sympathise about the impact on households and businesses and, of course, on people’s mental health. Now more than ever, it is important to act to improve our country’s resilience to flooding, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

Before I respond to Members’ remarks, I wish to raise the issue of Storm Claudia, which brought heavy rain and high winds to the UK over the weekend. The worst impacts were felt in south-east Wales. A major incident was declared in Monmouth because of significant flooding in the town and evacuations; The incident was stood down on Sunday, and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) this morning. My sympathies go out to all those affected by the flooding—I personally know the distress and upset that flooding can cause—and my thanks go to the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, other responders who were volunteers and all the people who have worked together to protect and support communities and who continue to do so. As flooding is a devolved policy issue, I have contacted the First Minister of Wales to offer my support, and the Environment Agency has offered support locally, including any mutual aid that may be requested by Natural Resources Wales.

I now turn to the focus of today’s debate. I like the passion that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South brought to this conversation. It shows clearly how much this issue means to her and what an important issue it is to her constituents. I thank her for her continued engagement on the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme, which aims to reduce the flood risk to homes and businesses from Sankey brook, Dallam brook and Longford brook in Warrington.

We aim to announce in March 2026 the further list of schemes that will receive investment during 2026-27, but with further announcements to follow each year subsequently. This announcement will follow the regular statutory yearly process for allocating flood funding, with support from the regional flood and coastal committees across the country. The reason we do it in this way is to give local people some say over the money and the schemes that are happening in their area, so it is really important that the regional flood and coastal committees play their role in looking at how the money is best spent and helping to ensure that it meets local priorities.

In 2026-27, we are prioritising projects that are already in construction—we are basically just getting on with building stuff—so the money will be going into projects that are literally being built. I would say, “Build, baby, build,” but I think someone else may have used that in a different debate. We will be delivering flood projects. This will deliver flood risk reductions as soon as possible and will secure the best value for money for taxpayers by avoiding costs that would be incurred if these projects were delayed. We will just get on with doing it and get on with building them.

The EA remains committed to the long-term goals of Sankey brook flood risk management scheme and will continue to work closely with Warrington borough council and United Utilities on progressing the scheme. There will continue to be close working on that as it goes on, and I will update my hon. Friend with any information that I have.

I was quite excited about one point raised in this debate—I am probably the only Minister to get excited about pre-pipe conversations. We can continue to build defences larger and larger, but as so many hon. Members said during the debate, if we slow the flow, if we deal with what happens to the floodwater elsewhere, we do not need as many concrete defences when we reach the bottom of the hill. What is really interesting about the pre-pipe idea is looking at how we prevent lots of the floodwater from ending up in the combined sewerage system, because when these sewerage systems become overwhelmed, what happens? We have a pollution incident, we have flooding—we have something happening around the country.

The pre-pipe idea is so sensible, but the previous flood funding formula rules inhibited natural flood management and inhibited what we wanted, which was to do things in a more innovative way. Our water White Paper takes the issue of flooding and water more holistically to look at the pre-pipe idea. Basically, where is the floodwater going to go? The floodwater is going to go somewhere when we have a downpour, so where do we want it to go and how do we design it to be in the places where we want it, rather than the places where we do not want it? It is a really interesting idea.

We have also increased the weighting for natural flood management. Under the old scheme, there was a separate fund for natural flood management, but that was because the actual formula did not result in natural flood management outcomes. The reason was that with natural flood management, it is not an engineered solution. We cannot build natural flood management and say, “I guarantee this changes the flood risk bracket—I guarantee this natural flood management scheme will hold this much water,” because by its nature it is a natural flood management scheme. We have changed the rules and the system around them to enable us to have more natural flood management.

The other thing of real interest in how the flood funding formula works is that we have given a deprivation weighting, because we know that areas with higher levels of deprivation are often the last to recover from a flooding incident and find it the most difficult to recover. Adding a weighting for deprivation and an emphasis on natural flood management to the formula that allocates where the money will be spent enables us to have more nature-based solutions and protect those who are most in need and least able to respond to flood events.

The EA budget has increased, not decreased. Under this Labour Government, we increased it by £188 million this year, and our flood budget of £10.5 billion is a record investment—the most money that has ever been spent on flooding. As a Labour Government, we can proudly say that we are putting the most money ever into flooding and giving the Environment Agency the most money it has ever had.

[Oliver Ryan]

It is great to hear about the record funding to tackle flooding. I wonder whether I can copy the words of another Member and invite the Minister to my constituency to see some of the great benefits of that funding increase in Padiham.

[Emma Hardy]

That is very exciting. I was offered beer by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), so perhaps I can come for a visit on the way.

The issue of forecasting was raised. We have improved our flood warning and informing system, with a new system going live on, I think, 21 October. The maps allow people to zoom down for more detailed information. Constant work is going on to make our forecasting more accurate. I encourage all hon. Members to talk to the specialists at the Met Office about how they do this work. It is more art than science, because they have to look at different predictions. If there are heavy downpours concentrated in one area, as we had last year, it becomes difficult to judge exactly, but they are continually working to improve the forecasts. Our flood forecasting in this country is some of the best and most accurate in the world, but there is always more that we can do.

Many hon. Members raised the issue of insurance. We had an insurance roundtable. As I have explained before, the floods resilience taskforce is a huge group of people who meet together, before creating action groups that go away and focus on particular issues. We have just had an action group to look into insurance—who is getting it, who is not getting it, how affordable it is and what information is out there. There is also the flood insurance directory, which I am happy to circulate among Members; it allows people to find something that is affordable. I have been pushing insurance companies to offer the Build Back Better scheme, which gives people an extra £10,000 to make their properties more flood-resilient, to as many as possible. Greater Manchester combined authority is doing great work, taking a combined look at how we tackle flooding: it is one of the best examples of that holistic working around the country. The authority sits on the floods resilience taskforce to offer advice.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It was lovely to visit Leigh and Atherton and talk to people there. I have met the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) to discuss watercourse maintenance, and I stand by my promise to visit next year.

On insurance—I apologise if everyone knows this—I want to flag something about how Flood Re works. It puts a levy on everybody else who pays insurance, so every time someone asks that the scheme be increased or widened, or that more people benefit from it, I want to sound a note of caution, because that would result in people who are not at risk paying more for their insurance. That is how it works: it is a levy system. It would be wonderful to have lots more money for everything, but I hope that everyone who is asking me for extra money will support our Budget next week.

Finally, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South for securing this debate on the incredibly important issue of flood risk and defence. We should all encourage our constituents to sign up for flood alerts and warnings, have a flood plan and know what to do if there is a flood emergency. A pack has gone out to every Member of Parliament and was circulated again just last week with a “Dear colleague” letter. Will Members please use that information and share it as much as possible, so we can ensure that everybody is prepared for the winter ahead?

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I call Sarah Hall to wind up extremely briefly.

17:29

[Sarah Hall]

Thanks, everyone. It has been a fantastic debate.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

That was commendably brief.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the North West.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.