Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
I am proud that this Government are investing £1 million into the connect fund to strengthen collaboration between communities across the UK. Mr Speaker, I know that as a dedicated supporter of our veterans you will be pleased to hear that I recently visited Castle Community Trust in Belfast, which through this funding is bringing together veterans in Belfast and Shrewsbury to overcome social isolation. Whatever part of the United Kingdom people are in, they have our support to tackle shared challenges.
Mr Quigley
As an MP who represents an island that has a significant veteran community, with one in 10 homes in Isle of Wight West home to a veteran, I know how crucial and effective community relations funding is. Will the Minister commit to working with Cabinet colleagues to explore adapting successful Northern Ireland-GB initiatives such as the excellent connect funding, so that similar tailored support can be delivered on the Isle of Wight to ensure that our veterans receive the recognition and assistance that they deserve?
Matthew Patrick
I am happy to speak to colleagues about the success of the connect fund and how it works. My hon. Friend should know that applications are open to anyone across the United Kingdom, provided that they are working with a group in Northern Ireland. I would be delighted to see applications from his constituents if they wish to do that.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Collaboration between groups across the Irish sea is very welcome. Those relationships will always be cherished. Unfortunately, Brexit really impacted the ability of those groups to serve and support people, and that was a consequence of the failure to plan for the constitutional change of Brexit. Regardless of the Minister’s own views on Northern Ireland’s future, that issue is the subject of increased engagement and debate. The SDLP acknowledges that we are not at a tipping point towards a referendum, but the Secretary of State was wrong to say that there is no appetite for one. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to work to improve the region in the here and now while also planning for the constitutional future that is a new Ireland, as the SDLP is doing?
Matthew Patrick
The Secretary of State has been clear that currently, there is no evidence that there is a majority in favour of constitutional change. Of course, we defend the principle of consent and the right of the people in Northern Ireland to determine their constitutional future. It is totally legitimate for people to advocate for the future they want to see.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that reported attempts to extend European Parliament observer status to politicians in Northern Ireland are bound to inflame tensions between communities in Northern Ireland and between communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will he say that the UK Government will have absolutely nothing to do with this attempt to break up our United Kingdom?
Matthew Patrick
I have seen no such proposals. We have agreements in place with the European Union to ensure that there is engagement with Northern Ireland on any matters that might impact it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will be enjoying his opportunity to travel across Northern Ireland and see some of the wonderful groups we have. He knows the strength of this United Kingdom, and he knows that increasing the bonds across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England is crucial. He should know that the last Government—supported by his Labour colleagues—agreed that through the East-West Council there should be educational collaboration, so that our young people can mix with one another and draw upon each other’s strengths. Could he indicate how many times he believes the East-West Council has progressed that matter and what plans he has to strengthen those bonds?
Matthew Patrick
I look forward to the next meeting of the East-West Council. The right hon. Member will know that I met Minister Givan to discuss education matters and how we can ensure that students in Northern Ireland have the best education possible. I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of shared bonds, and I hope we can progress those further.
Gavin Robinson
In drawing upon the bonds of our country, the Minister will know while Northern Ireland has a greater than average growth rate compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, we still have a productivity gap. Behind that is the fact that our growth is masked by an over-reliance on our public sector. The Minister’s colleagues agreed in the last Parliament—as I am sure he does now—with cross-fertilisation between the Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service. What plans does he have to increase our ability to draw on expertise and encourage secondments across this United Kingdom?
Matthew Patrick
I thank the right hon. Member for the opportunity to champion the growth taking place in Northern Ireland, with exciting work in the creative industries and the tech sector. On the opportunities for secondments and shared learning, I made the offer to the Executive Ministers I met last month that where we can share best practice, knowledge and learning, we should do so. I am happy to take forward other suggestions that the right hon. Member may have.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I have met a range of businesses and representative bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, to discuss supply chains and how the Government could improve guidance and support on the Windsor framework. I will continue to take that feedback into account as we respond to recommendations made by Lord Murphy in his report.
Mr Campbell
Will the Secretary of State step up his efforts to ensure that there is no disadvantage to companies trading within Northern Ireland? Further to that, he will be aware of the potential threat posed by Chinese-built buses. Given that excellent UK-made zero emission buses are built in Northern Ireland at Wrightbus, will he liaise with the Department for Transport and mayors in Great Britain to ensure that purchases of those buses, which have no security risk, are seen as infinitely preferable to purchasing those made in China?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to the wonderful zero emission buses being produced at Wrightbus, which I have had the pleasure of visiting two or three times. They are brilliant, one sees them on the streets in the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a very good reason to buy UK-made buses from Northern Ireland so that we can see more people travelling on them. That is an option that is open to local authorities.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has taken evidence from Lord Murphy on his review of the Windsor framework, which has made important recommendations that could support GB businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his considerations on the Murphy review?
Hilary Benn
I continue to give careful consideration to what Lord Murphy has said, along with what has been said by the independent monitoring panel and the FSB and other recommendations. There is a lot of similarity in the points that have been made about steps the Government could take to provide better, easier-to-access guidance for businesses to enable them to move goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We will set that all out when we formally respond to Lord Murphy’s review, which we must do early next year.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?
Hilary Benn
There are now 15,000 businesses that have registered under the UK internal market scheme, and 97% of lorries moving from GB to Northern Ireland do not face any in-person checks at all. The goods are flowing and moving. It is, in the end, for businesses to decide to whom they sell and from where they purchase, but the Northern Ireland economy is doing extremely well, which shows that the problems—and there are some—are not affecting its overall strength.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
Northern Ireland’s creative industries are thriving and are an important source of growth, and I have discussed that topic with Northern Ireland Executive Ministers. Whether it is “Derry Girls”, “Game of Thrones”, “Trespasses”, “Blue Lights” or “Line of Duty”, which has just been renewed and will be filmed in Belfast, producers choose Northern Ireland for its world-class talent and studios. To coin a phrase, it is a sector that is sucking diesel.
Dr Tidball
UK Disability History Month begins tomorrow and I am delighted that the Creative Diversity Network now reports the doubling of the representation of disabled people on and off screen since 2018 to 9% across the UK. One such example is the phenomenal BBC film “An Irish Goodbye”, which stars Down’s syndrome ambassador James Martin and was filmed in Northern Ireland. What is the Minister doing to ensure a further drive to again double the presence of disability on and off screen?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend speaks with enormous experience and I know that she wrote the impactful report, “Employing the change-makers”. I agree that expanding opportunities for disabled people to take part in the creative industries is important. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport often says, talent exists everywhere but opportunity does not. That is why I am pleased that the creative industries new entrants programme, delivered in partnership between Northern Ireland Screen, the BBC and the Northern Ireland Executive, is working to broaden access for disabled actors.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank him for his energy and interest in Northern Ireland. We hope to have him in Strangford shortly for a visit. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an increase in economic value of 19% in the Northern Ireland film sector, and there is the potential for much more. I live on the beautiful Ards peninsula—it is not beautiful because I live there; it was beautiful before I ever lived there—and in my constituency of Strangford there is the potential for much more. How do the Northern Ireland Office and the Minister intend to work further with Northern Ireland Screen to promote the high quality and the lower costs in Northern Ireland? We have lots to offer—let’s take advantage of it.
Matthew Patrick
If you’re directing it, Mr Speaker! I look forward to my visit to Strangford—I do not see enough of the hon. Member in this House. The creative industries in Northern Ireland are booming, as he says, and they are backed all the way by this Government. We have a modern industrial strategy and a 10-year plan to back our strengths and unlock potential, and the Government have committed to increasing investment in the creative industries to £31 billion by 2035.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by all the major Northern Ireland political parties, as well as by our domestic courts, by victims and survivors and by many veterans, who saw it as an affront to the rule of law that they sought to protect. The Government took a significant step in fulfilling our commitment to repeal and replace the Act by introducing the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday.
Sam Rushworth
I am proud to represent a community with a lot of veterans, many of whom served in Northern Ireland. Who is the Secretary of State engaging with to ensure that the protections for our veterans in the legislation are as strong and effective as possible?
Hilary Benn
Those protections have been drawn up following extensive consultation with veterans organisations, and I gave the House a commitment yesterday evening that I will continue to talk to veterans, the Royal British Legion, the veterans commissions and others to make sure that we get them right.
Sarah Hall
My constituents Colin and Wendy Parry, whose 12-year-old son Tim was murdered, along with three-year-old Johnathan Ball, in the 1993 Warrington bombing, have waited over 30 years for justice. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government act on the extracts of the Shawcross report and the all-party parliamentary group on Northern Ireland’s 2018 recommendations, and that there will be work across Government to deliver justice for Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism? Will he meet me to discuss these matters?
Hilary Benn
The whole House will once again want to express its sympathy to all the families affected by that terrible bombing. The Government and predecessor Governments have raised this issue with the Libyan authorities. Engaging with them is a difficult process, and there are complications to do with the way in which their assets are held. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is the lead on this matter, and I will make sure that the appropriate Minister hears the request that my hon. Friend has made.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Is it not the reality that this legislation has failed to win the confidence of many who served, and that we now need clear, robust protections against repeated investigations so that we honour our veterans in practice and not just in rhetoric?
Hilary Benn
Those protections, including against repeated investigations, are clearly set out in the Bill that the House gave a Second Reading to yesterday. I hope that, as people come to understand that they are there and how they work, they will offer the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Yesterday in the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that he would not appoint any paramilitaries to the victims and survivors group. In light of that undertaking, will he now underwrite it by indicating that he will accept an amendment to put into statutory form that there cannot be any paramilitary serving on that group? If his undertaking is good, let us make it even better by putting it in statute.
Hilary Benn
From memory, I gave that undertaking three times at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I hoped that it would provide the hon. and learned Member with the assurance that he seeks, because I am clear that no one with that record will be appointed to the victims and survivors panel.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Yesterday, along with the Veterans Minister, I met a group of special forces veterans based in Cornwall. The legacy Act’s immunity scheme, which would have enabled immunity for terrorists and included other key provisions, was ruled against by our domestic courts. Is it not the case that any new Government would have had to deal with that?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right—that is indeed the case. It was wrong to bring forward legislation to seek to give immunity to terrorists, which is what the last Government’s legacy Act did, and that is probably the principal reason why it had no support in Northern Ireland, including from victims and survivors. It is a fundamental principle that we believe in the rule of law and that it should apply to everyone. That is why the Government are acting, through the legislation and the remedial order, to finally lay that failed attempt at immunity to rest.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Was the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris wrong when he said that there were no new protections for veterans in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Hilary Benn
There clearly are new protections for veterans in the troubles Bill—throughout the legislation—that were never in the previous legislation that the last Government passed. We have laid them out to the House, and the veterans community and others can see clearly what they are.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On 15 August 1998 in Omagh, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins. It was the deadliest attack of the troubles, and the most wicked. Following the 2021 recommendation of Mr Justice Horner, the last Conservative Government launched the Omagh inquiry into whether UK state authorities could have done anything to prevent the bombing. However, the bombers planned and launched their attack from the Republic of Ireland, which is why Mr Justice Horner also said that an independent inquiry was needed in the Republic to ask whether Irish state authorities could have done anything. Given that the UK inquiry was announced three years ago, did the Secretary of State raise the question of an inquiry in the south with his counterparts on his recent trip to Dublin?
Hilary Benn
I have raised that question in my conversations with the Irish Government. It is, of course, for the Irish Government to decide whether they wish to hold a public inquiry but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the Irish Government have committed to co-operate fully with the inquiry that the last Government established, both through the memorandum of understanding on the provision of information and the commitment they have made to legislate to allow witnesses to give evidence to it.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am aware that the Republic is sharing the information with our inquiry, but he will be aware that the Omagh inquiry is only capable of answering questions about what UK state authorities did and did not do. Four years ago, Mr Justice Horner said that there needed to be a parallel inquiry in the south. The victims and families recognise that; does the Secretary of State recognise it?
Hilary Benn
I recognise what the judge said in his judgment four years ago, and I strongly support what the last Government did to establish a public inquiry, but it is for the Irish Government to make that decision. I hope that with the unprecedented co-operation that the Irish Government have undertaken to give the inquiry, they will provide vital information for the inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I hope that the Secretary of State knows, my party and I are hugely supportive of his efforts to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided the legitimate concerns of our veterans are fully met. Will he detail specifically, either now or in writing, which veterans’ groups he has consulted on the wording of the Bill, and which ones have expressed acceptance of the Bill as drafted?
Hilary Benn
I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the veterans’ organisations that the Government, the Defence Secretary, the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have engaged with in drawing up those protections, and I have already indicated to the House the groups that we will continue to talk to as we take that work forward.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government’s new partnership with the European Union aims to deliver a broad range of economic benefits for Northern Ireland, including smoother flows of trade, protection for the UK’s internal market, reduced costs for businesses and benefits for firms that move agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Matt Turmaine
Does the Secretary of State agree that aligning safety standards and cutting red tape—checks and paperwork—is precisely the kind of support for growth and trade that this Government promised to deliver for business when they were elected last year?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The partnership agreement reached with the EU back in May was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland, particularly by those in the agrifood sector, because as we take that forward and turn it into a full sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it will bring enormous benefits to firms that are moving those products across the Irish sea from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Come 1 January, veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland will be reduced by 40%, according to suppliers over there. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that veterinary medicines are supplied to Northern Ireland? They ensure animal health but are linked to human health as well.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have the veterinary medicines working group, and we have been working very closely with the industry. We have set out two schemes, the veterinary medicines health situation scheme and the veterinary medicines internal market scheme. Drawing on the cascade, we are confident that we will ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January to vets, farmers and others who need them.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will retain part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which includes provisions for memorialisation. I would welcome views and suggestions on how to take this forward, including on whether any new memorials should be established.
Jo White
On 5 April 1979, an IRA sniper fired at an armoured vehicle as it entered Andersonstown Royal Ulster Constabulary station, killing Blues and Royals serviceman, Anthony Dykes. My constituent Kathleen, his mother, now aged 94, has never let his memory go. She told me that her son is a forgotten soldier. There are monuments for soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but nothing for those who served in Northern Ireland. Kathleen is now very frail, so I am her voice today, asking the Government to commit to national memorial.
Hilary Benn
On behalf of the whole House, I express our condolences to Kathleen on the loss of her son all those years ago. The names of those service personnel who died on deployment to Operation Banner are rightly listed on the armed forces memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum as a lasting record of their sacrifice. I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s constituent has had a chance to visit there, but perhaps that is something that my hon. Friend might like to facilitate.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Many thousands of our brave troops served in Northern Ireland, and many gave their lives for peace and for our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that they deserve a permanent memorial, not for some of them to be prosecuted?
Hilary Benn
As I indicated in an earlier answer, there is already a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. There are other places in which the service and sacrifice of those who served the state is recorded, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial garden, which I had the opportunity to visit. It was extremely moving to look at all the names and remember the huge sacrifice that all those people made in the defence of freedom in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery? May I also welcome the new Chief Minister of Saint Helena?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Let me start by congratulating Scotland on its magnificent victory last night. It qualified for the World cup for the first time since 1998—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not realise that you were all Scottish MPs!
The Prime Minister
Scotland qualified with fantastic goals, including a cracker from former Arsenal player Kieran Tierney, who was always a favourite with the fans.
My thoughts are with the communities across the country affected by severe flooding, particularly in Monmouthshire. I have been liaising with the First Minister of Wales, and I thank all our emergency services for their response.
My thoughts are also with the family and loved ones of Royal Fleet Auxiliary member James Elliot, who has sadly been lost. I know the contribution that the personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary make, and the risks that they take in the line of duty. My thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with those who knew him at this tragic and difficult time for them.
Last Thursday, I visited Anglesey to announce the construction of the country’s first small modular reactor. That is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation, creating more than 6,000 jobs.
On Monday, we introduced the largest overhaul of the asylum policy in modern times, restoring control and fairness, and creating safe and legal routes.
Today, I am pleased to announce that inflation is coming down. There is more to do, but it is an important step. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Kit Malthouse
Many of us are becoming concerned that technical or procedural manoeuvres outside this House may be used to prevent Parliament from reaching a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill itself, but I presume they are not neutral on the issue of democracy or the primacy of this Chamber. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the decision of elected Members—and, indeed, the wishes and hopes of the vast majority of the people we serve—will not be frustrated in this way?
The Prime Minister
I know the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. As he says, the Government are neutral on the passage of the Bill. It is a matter of conscience; there are different and respected views across Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide in the end on any changes in this Chamber. Scrutiny of the Bill in the Lords is a matter for the Lords, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that any legislation that passes through Parliament is workable, effective and enforceable.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but working people paid a very heavy price for 14 years of economic failure. Austerity damaged the economy and decimated public services; the botched Brexit deal stifled growth; and the reckless borrowing of the mini-Budget saw mortgages and the cost of living soar.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are determined to tackle inequality; he will be pleased to know that under this Government, wages are up, but we need to do more. We have had a pay increase for the 3.5 million lowest-paid, and the Chancellor will deliver a Budget based on Labour values.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?
The Prime Minister
I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Budget is actually next week. She only has one week to go, but I can tell her that it will be a Labour Budget with Labour values. That means that we will concentrate on cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting debt, and cutting the cost of living. Because of the decisions we have already made, inflation is down this morning, the Bank of England has upgraded growth, and we have a record £230 billion of investment in this country under this Government.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Budget is next week, but we read all about it in the papers. This is the first Budget to unravel before it has even been delivered. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s cluelessness is damaging the economy now. The Prime Minister needs to end this shambles, so can he confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds?
The Prime Minister
The Budget is one week today, and we will lay out our plans then. I have said what we will do, in terms of protecting the NHS and public services; what we will not do is inflict austerity on the country, as the Conservatives did, which caused huge damage. What we will not do is inflict a borrowing spree, like Liz Truss did, which also inflicted huge damage. Have the Conservatives learned anything? The Leader of the Opposition apparently has a golden economic rule—it is very important, this golden rule. It is £47 billion of cuts with no detail. No wonder the Institute for Government says that they are on very shaky foundations. They have not listened, and they have not learned.
Mrs Badenoch
It is quite clear that the Government are going to freeze thresholds; we did not get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but this is really important. In her Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said:
“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Why was freezing thresholds a breach of the manifesto last year, but not this year?
The Prime Minister
Every week, the Leader of the Opposition comes along and speculates and distorts. Last year, the Conservatives predicted a recession, and what did we get? The fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. They opposed NHS investment, and what did we get? Five million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government. The Conservatives tried growing the economy with millions on NHS waiting lists, with our schools crumbling and holes in our roofs. It did not work. What do they want to do now? Go back to the same failed experiment.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister talks about speculation. The only people who have been speculating are his Government, every single day for the last three months. He mentioned inflation in his last answer; inflation has nearly doubled since Labour came into office. He wants a round of applause because it has come down a little bit, but I will remind him that food inflation is up to 4.9%. That is making life miserable for all of those people out there.
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about inflation, but it went to 11% and the country is still paying the price. Inflation is down this morning, wages are up and we have had five interest rate cuts, and that is because our fiscal rules are iron-clad. She and the Conservatives have no credibility on the economy. She was a Treasury Minister during the worst decline in living standards on record. She said that Liz Truss got the mini-Budget 100% right. There is not much room for flexibility there—100%; that is full marks. She might want to tell us whether that is still her position—100% right for Liz Truss.
Mrs Badenoch
I was a Treasury Minister at the height of the pandemic, and we cleaned up that mess. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clean up some of his own mess. I will repeat what the Chancellor said, because it is clear that the whole Labour Front-Bench team have forgotten:
“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
That, however, is what Labour is planning to do next week. All this speculation is having real-world consequences. Just this morning, the UK chair of ExxonMobil said:
“The Government needs to understand that the whole industrial base of the UK is at risk unless they wake up and realise the damage their economic policies are doing.”
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loss of UK industry is the price that the country has to pay for having a clueless Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
On ExxonMobil, it is a difficult time for the workforce there, and we must focus on supporting them. We have been meeting the company for more than six months and explored every possible reasonable avenue. It has been facing losses for the past five years. [Interruption.] It is best to do the detail before you chunter. The site is currently losing £1 million a week. The Leader of the Opposition talks about policy and approach. On energy policy, she follows Reform. On the European convention, she follows the man who wants her job. When her shadow Minister said that we should deport people who are lawfully here to achieve cultural coherence, she pretended that it did not happen. I could go on. She was the Trade Secretary who did not sign any trade deals. She was a cheerleader for the mini-Budget and a cheerleader for open borders, and when the Conservatives were crashing the economy, botching Brexit and running down the NHS, she was right at the centre. She has not got an ounce of credibility.
Mrs Badenoch
On energy policy, what we are doing is listening to industry. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Slinger, please, we do not want to have to sling you out.
Mrs Badenoch
Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn. We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?
The Prime Minister
Either we renew our country with Labour, or we go to austerity 2.0 with Reform and the Tories. The Tories left waiting lists at record highs and almost a million more children in poverty, and they wrecked our public services. The Leader of the Opposition comes here to talk down the country; we are turning the page, with more NHS appointments, free breakfast clubs, free childcare, more homes and better public services. That is what we are fighting for: a Britain built for all.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for South Dorset, and he is right to champion the revitalisation of our high streets. The Heritage Minister will be delighted to discuss how we can get this iconic building reopened, as he wants. I am pleased that Weymouth secured £20 million in Pride in Place funding, giving his community the power and resources to make a real difference to people’s lives.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks? May I also join him in congratulating Scotland on their amazing win against Denmark, and wish them well in the world cup? I hope that Wales will qualify to join England and Scotland.
Every year, there are more than 300 suicides related to problem gambling. It affects hundreds of thousands of families, tearing them apart. Meanwhile, online gambling firms are taking in record revenues of more than £7 billion a year. ITV News is reporting that one of them, Sky Bet, is moving its headquarters to Malta so that it can save tens of millions of pounds in corporation tax. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time we taxed those firms on their UK profits so that they do not escape, wherever they are registered for tax?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Wales well, as well as Northern Ireland—I should like to see all four nations in the finals.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very important issue of suicide, in men’s health awareness month. I think that the whole House would want to work together on anything that can prevent it. If all of us think about individuals we may have known who lost their lives through suicide, we will recognise that it is something that touches almost every one of us and all our families as well. We will of course look at the link between suicide and gambling, and take whatever measures we can to reduce suicide. It is a very important issue.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and we look forward to the Government’s taking action on that.
Let me raise another domestic matter. Next to the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire, a field is now covered in an enormous mound of rubbish, 150 metres long and up to 12 metres high. The water is now lapping against the waste and carrying it into the river. It is just one of many sites where organised criminal gangs are illegally dumping their waste on our countryside and getting away with it. This is a shocking environmental emergency, so will the Prime Minister instruct the Environment Agency to clean it up now?
The Prime Minister
These are utterly appalling scenes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a criminal investigation is under way and specialist officers are tracking down those responsible. The Environment Agency will use all available powers to ensure that the perpetrators cover the cost of the clean-up that must now follow. We have boosted the agency’s budget for tackling waste crime by 50% and given councils new powers to seize and crush fly-tippers’ vehicles, and lawbreakers can now face up to five years in jail.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud to lead an open, tolerant, generous country. To maintain that principle, we must restore order and control, fix the utterly broken system left by the Conservatives, and end the division that others seek to exploit. That includes creating safe and legal routes and recognising those who contribute, integrate and strengthen our society, while at the same time reducing the number of illegal arrivals and removing those with no right to be here. That is a fair, progressive system which meets modern challenges.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Governments of France, Germany and the United States have all extracted compensation from Libya for their citizens who were affected by Gaddafi-led terrorism across the world. Why are the British Government continuing to fail citizens of the United Kingdom who suffered to a huge extent through the importation of arms, and, in particular, the tonnes of Semtex that Gaddafi supplied to the IRA, giving rise to Enniskillen, Warrington, the Baltic Exchange and multiple other incidents? Why is no compensation being extracted from Libya for our citizens when it can be done for others? Will the Prime Minister at least meet representatives of the almost forgotten, but still campaigning, families of those affected by Gaddafi’s terrorism?
The Prime Minister
So many suffered from Gaddafi’s actions, and the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right to raise this really serious issue. We are working hard on it, and I will absolutely make sure that the meeting he asks for is set up with the relevant Minister, so that we can give the full position and take onboard what the families have to say.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his honesty. It is never easy to stand up and say what he has, and I hope he understands just how important that is for others who are suffering, who will be inspired to talk openly about their experiences, and, importantly, to get the help that they need.
I am really proud to publish the first-ever men’s health strategy today to tackle challenges that disproportionately affect men, including certain cancers and suicide, which is tragically the biggest killer of men under 50. We will invest millions in helping more men access mental health support, in better care for former miners, and in rolling out at-home blood tests to tackle prostate cancer. I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out; I think it is so brave and important. It has been done across the House—this is not a party political issue—but it is always very powerful. It is a model for all of us.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her important question. I have teenage children in secondary school, and I know this is an issue for concerned parents and teachers. The reality of the statistics is that the majority of schools already ban smartphones—[Interruption.] They allow children to bring their phones to school but they ban them in schooltime and lessons. Of course we will always keep this under review, but we have got to take steps that will be effective. I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member is putting to me, but we need to deal with it effectively.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s dedicated campaign means that Peterborough has one of the first youth guarantee pilots in the country. We inherited an awful situation where almost 1 million young people were neither earning nor learning, and we refused to accept that. That is why we are delivering the new youth guarantee, investing a record £3 billion into apprenticeships and increasing the national minimum wage for 16 to 20-year-olds. Reform and the Tories say that the minimum wage is too high, but they are totally wrong. We are going to focus on every young person to give them the chance to succeed.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Mr Speaker
Order. You might say it’s the way he tells them, but things might be worse, because it’s the way I tell them.
Lee Anderson
Our Reform-led councils have already identified savings of more than £330 million in the first six months.
Lee Anderson
The Prime Minister may shake his head, propped up by his gullible Back Benchers, but here is a challenge: will he guarantee that all the cancelled elections from this year and the proposed local elections for next year will go ahead in May 2026? Go on—be a man.
The Prime Minister
I did not realise the hon. Gentleman was quite so good at stand-up comedy. He talks about dog whistles. Last week, the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), said that he did not have time to condemn the racist comments of his fellow MP, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin); he also said he did not have time to condemn members of his party calling children in care “evil”. He did not have time for that. I wonder if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) could ask his party leader, sitting just next to him, whether he has time to give an explanation of the stories in today’s papers.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. There has been a surge in response to illegal shops selling products they should not be selling and not paying their taxes—this is very important. Raids in October saw more than 900 arrests, almost £11 million of criminal profits seized and almost £3 million-worth of illegal gear destroyed. We need to go further to protect our high streets, which is why we are giving councils powers to prevent certain shops from even opening, supporting them to deal with unwanted shops and, through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, cracking down on rogue retailers who break the law.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Pam is staggeringly bad—absolutely terrible. If he could provide me with the full details, I will make sure that the Government join him in doing whatever we can in his constituent’s case.
Before I sit down, I will take a moment to send my warmest congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on getting engaged on Thursday, I believe. The proposal was right here in Parliament—you never know what you might find in this Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker. On behalf of my party and, I am sure, the whole House, I wish him and Connor a lifetime of happiness.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Because of our actions, house building near stations like Crewe will now be a default yes. That means tens of thousands of homes delivered far sooner for families, with great transport links as standard. I will make sure that he meets the relevant Ministers to drive forward growth. Every step we have taken to deliver more homes has been opposed by the parties opposite. They are the blockers; Labour are the builders.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
We are delivering a record crackdown on illegal working in the gig economy, and expanding right-to-work and facial recognition checks, which are really important. We are also introducing a new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a crime through the Crime and Policing Bill.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Based on their reaction today, Conservative Members may not care or remember, but every day I see the cost to my constituents in Bournemouth West of years of cuts to public services—youth services gone, neighbourhood policing decimated and no NHS dentist appointments. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no return to austerity under this Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
I certainly can. The austerity that the Conservatives imposed on the country destroyed our public services, and we are still paying the price. We will be cutting waiting lists, cutting the debt and cutting the cost of living—fair choices to secure Britain’s future, not a return to the failure of the Conservative party.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This Friday we commemorate the 51st anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings, where 21 people lost their lives in what is still the largest unsolved murder in our history. The families do not believe that the approach set out by the Government will discover the truth, and they think that only a public inquiry will do. Can we now have the meetings in order to hear the families’ concerns directly, and agree an approach that will not just command confidence but find the truth about who bombed Birmingham?
The Prime Minister
My deepest sympathies remain with the bereaved and survivors of the horrific pub bombings in Birmingham in 1974. We believe that the most appropriate route is through the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, but my right hon. Friend has raised this issue directly with me and of course I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up, so that he and the families can put their point of view for us to consider.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I know how important face-to-face banking is to local communities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are rolling out banking hubs. Decisions over locations are taken independently, but they should be rolled out wherever there is a need for one, and of course there is more to come. In answer to his question, I will make sure that he gets the meeting that he requests, so that we can have a look at his proposal.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister is aware, November marks Islamophobia Awareness Month. This Labour Government have shown a steadfast commitment to supporting Muslim communities, particularly through consulting on the definition of Islamophobia. Given anti-Muslim hate is at a record level in the UK, can the Prime Minister outline the steps this Government will take to tackle the rising level of racism and xenophobia against Muslims in Britain?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He has always been a strong champion on this. Anti-Muslim hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. The increase in incidents must be addressed. It is why we are increasing funding to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools across the country. It is why we have announced a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims, and we continue to work on the definition of anti-Muslim hatred.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member raises a serious issue. I am not quite sure what he is asking the Government to do—to step in and nationalise it I do not think would be the right thing.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. On 5 March at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said these words:
“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]
Since then, I have repeatedly asked Ministers for Cornwall’s unique place on this island to be recognised through devolution. When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill comes back to the House next week, will the Prime Minister help me explicitly enshrine Cornish devolution and Cornish national minority status in that Bill?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, he has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions already. He is a great champion for Cornwall. We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements. We have provided half a million pounds to support distinctive Cornish culture, including the Cornish language.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour?
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Member for his question and reassure him on the protections that he seeks for veterans? It is a very important issue, and he has continually and rightly raised it. There will be protection from repeat investigations, so the commission does not go over old ground without compelling reasons. There will be protection from cold calling, and protection in old age, so that elderly veterans are respected. Those who do contribute to the legacy process will have a right to anonymity, a right to stay at home to give evidence remotely and a right to be heard through the commission. That is the work that we are doing, and I am happy to discuss it further with him.
Mr Speaker
To end no doubt on the subject of Scotland’s victory, I call Torcuil Chrichton.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
When the Prime Minister next meets the President of the United States, will he ask him if he knows any reasonably priced hotels near the MetLife stadium in New Jersey, where the world cup final is to be held, and, as we are about to provide the biggest boost to whisky exports since our trade deal was signed, will he gently ask the Chancellor to consider excise duties next week so that we Scots can continue celebrating at reasonable prices?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is important that we do everything we can to support whisky. I am really pleased with the progress we are making with the United States, and of course with India under that trade deal, and I will continue to discuss what more we can do with my hon. Friend.
Flooding: Monmouthshire
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will make a statement on the recent severe flooding impacting Monmouthshire and what support will be made available for those affected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
My first thoughts, and those of the Secretary of State, are with all the people and businesses affected by the flooding over the weekend. The impact in Monmouthshire has been devastating for local residents and traders and I know that hon. Members across the House will be thinking of them as they recover from this dreadful storm.
I am answering this urgent question because the Secretary of State is in Monmouthshire to thank first responders and to meet the community and thank them for their efforts. She is there with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), who has been supporting her local community since the flooding across the weekend. I also pay tribute to the emergency responders, the local residents who have rallied together, and the mayor of Monmouth, Jackie Atkin, who has raised a substantial sum for the community.
As the House will be aware, flooding is a devolved matter; however, the Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister over the weekend and offered the UK Government’s support for the Welsh Government’s response. My ministerial colleague who is here with me today, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), has also been in touch with the Deputy First Minister. The Environment Agency has offered support locally, including any mutual aid that may be requested by Natural Resources Wales, which operates in the area. We see the number of these events increasing, which demonstrates why our climate response on flooding is so important.
Today the Floodmobile response sponsored by Flood Re is in Monmouth, a mobile demonstration unit which showcases dozens of property flood resilience measures and techniques that can help keep homes and other buildings safer during a flood. That is reaching out to the community. I also bring hon. Members’ attention to what we are doing to support people to access insurance through our partnership with Flood Re, a joint initiative between the Government and the insurance industry to ensure that households at the highest risk of flooding can access affordable insurance.
In the financial year ’24-’25 alone, Flood Re provided cover for over 345,000 household policies. Government officials have met Monmouthshire county council over the weekend to discuss emergency funding; the Deputy First Minister was also there over the weekend to meet first responders and the community, and opportunities are being made available through the emergency financial assistance scheme. The Welsh Government have been working very closely with the council and all the emergency services, and have committed over £370 million to reduce risks to communities across Wales. The Welsh Government are doing everything they can at this very difficult time for the community and for businesses in Monmouthshire.
Mims Davies
This weekend, tragic and heart-wrenching floods affected families and their loved ones, resulting in evacuation from their properties in Monmouth after the River Monnow burst its banks. That, in turn, has blighted businesses with devastating consequences. This horrific experience also hit hard nearby areas, including Abergavenny and Skenfrith village. There are desperate families and business owners across Monmouthshire who have lost their homes and their livelihoods. They have literally lost everything, with Christmas looming—a key time also for hospitality.
I thank the emergency services and all the volunteers, including many local councillors and Peter Fox, Member of the Senedd. They have done fantastic work around the clock to assist, safeguard and do what they can to help and support those impacted. It is now vital that, without any delay, the necessary support reaches every single person who has been affected by these devastating floods, and that their longer term needs are also met. Local people report that they do not have any clarity, answers or insight on what to expect, beyond initial rescue and community kindness. They have been told that discussions are ongoing.
The First Minister outlined this week in the Senedd some support and the Prime Minister also offered support to Monmouthshire. Will the Minister provide details on what exactly that means, practically, on the ground in the coming weeks? Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when support will reach the people of Monmouthshire and what precisely it will entail? It is reported that some insurance companies will not pay, as they meet only storm damage, not flood damage. Locals want urgent resources, not endless form-filling for the Senedd. They need urgent help now and for it to be fast-tracked, they say, via the council. Finally, does the Minister agree that time is of the essence in answering those vital questions, to ensure that the anxieties of residents and businesses do not worsen?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that time is of the essence. My heart goes out to all those impacted by the storm over the weekend. It must be absolutely dreadful for those people to see their business or home flooded after all the hard work they have put in all their lives; I cannot image the trauma and the difficulty they are going through.
As I said, the First Minister spoke to the Prime Minister: the Prime Minister reached out over the weekend to look at how support can be offered following the flooding. The First Minister has also been looking at how funding can be provided in the least bureaucratic way possible to those impacted. We are a few days after the event and the nature of the support will become clear as the clean-up continues. As the days go on, we will work with emergency services and those impacted. The Welsh Government have emergency financial assistance schemes for just these very scenarios. They have kicked in and are being used. Proposals for support are being prepared. Local government financial officials are there on the ground. The Secretary of State is there on the ground today. We are doing all we can, working hand in hand with the Welsh Government, the council and the mayors, to make sure that those impacted get the support they need as quickly as possible.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My constituency neighbour and very diligent representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), is as we speak in Abergavenny and will join the Secretary of State in Monmouth shortly, meeting and listening to those affected by the devastating floods which hit Monmouth, Abergavenny, Skenfrith and the villages. She has asked me to say a very big heartfelt thank you to the emergency services, all the authorities and all those who have helped for the incredible community effort and many kindnesses shown over the past few days, which have included offers of beds, homes, donations and more. Hundreds and hundreds of businesses and homes will be affected and it will take many months to clear up. I know that my hon. Friend is liaising with the Prime Minister, Departments and the Welsh Government—this is a devolved issue and there will be many asks—but may I ask on her behalf that we continue to offer support in the many ways that will be needed in the period? I am also mindful of other areas impacted by flooding, including my own.
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) has been so diligent. I was on the phone with her over the weekend, and I know that she has been speaking to the Welsh Government. I was also on the phone to the Deputy First Minister over the weekend, and I have been in contact with Natural Resources Wales and local community groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire has been out there in her wellies, helping with the clean-up. I know that she feels this as deeply as those who have been impacted. The support we will be there, and we will continue to work together. Although flooding is a devolved matter, it reaches right across the country. Wherever we can help, we will. We are working together to ensure that we resolve this at pace and help the people who need it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The recent floods in Monmouthshire have been devastating for local communities, and our thoughts are with everyone affected as they try to return to some sense of normality. I would also like to pay tribute to the emergency services and everyone who has worked tirelessly to keep residents safe throughout these events.
Last year, we saw attempts by multiple fire and rescue authorities in Wales to close small fire stations, which often house the equipment needed to respond to major floods like the ones we have just seen. Two of the proposed closures are in my constituency in Knighton and Crickhowell. Crickhowell is just a stone’s throw away from Monmouthshire, and the services that are based there often go over the border to help out. Will the Minister clarify what engagements the Government have had with fire services in Wales on potential closures? Does she agree that it is vital that we keep small stations open to protect residents in rural Wales from devastating events such as the ones we have just seen?
Anna McMorrin
I also pay huge tribute to the first responders and emergency units and the fire and rescue service, who did an outstanding job over the weekend and will continue to do so—and right across Wales, too. It is important that we protect those who put themselves in danger and support people in need. I am happy to write to the hon. Member about the details of the closures.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney neighbours Monmouthshire. Last winter, we experienced coal tip slipping because of heavy rain. People experiencing flooding deserve all our support. Can the Minister please tell us more about the support available to residents who are claiming insurance or emergency financial help in order to get through this really difficult time?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate in this area, and I thank him for that. The UK Government have pledged £143 million in this Parliament for coal tip safety. This is a big issue that needs to be continually monitored. Coal tips were being monitored over the weekend throughout Storm Claudia and they will continue to be monitored. The Government take this issue very seriously and are investing in coal tip safety.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I appeal to the Minister to help us in one way? Although this is a devolved matter, it is possible in the internet age very easily to make charitable donations, so could she investigate whether there is a reliable local charity to which people across the country can make donations? Could she perhaps circulate the details of that after this urgent question?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will absolutely take away. There has been a lot of money raised locally; I mentioned the local mayor, who has raised significant funds. That is fantastic, but I know that a lot of people will want to help, so I will certainly take away that suggestion.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to all those affected and the emergency responders—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for the tireless effort she has put in since the flooding. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said and for what the Prime Minister said earlier about the conversations and constant interaction between the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the First Minister. Collaboration between our Governments when there are civil emergencies such as this is integral, so will she assure me that that collaboration continues and that the people of Monmouthshire will have everything they need from us? Will she also push the Welsh Government to do everything they can to ensure that those affected get through this crisis?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Collaboration is key. In situations like this, where speed is of the essence, it is important that we work together quickly and seamlessly. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding has been in touch with the Deputy First Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). We will all continue to work together to resolve this and make sure that those impacted get support and help as quickly and seamlessly as possible.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I also associate myself with the Minister’s comments. My thoughts are very much with the people of Monmouthshire as they try to get their lives back on track. She rightly mentioned the increasing frequency of severe weather events. Further to the very wise words of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), in addition to collaboration between the two Governments, in light of the increasing frequency of severe weather events, I wonder whether it is time for us to consider a central resilience fund to provide the additional emergency support that is sadly becoming far too routine?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member rightly points out the important link between climate change and increased flooding, which I mentioned earlier. It is very important to build resilience into communities and housing. I know that there is a fund. We are putting funding in; this Government take very seriously that investment, whether it is in new build, existing build or communities, businesses and infrastructure at risk. We absolutely need to ensure that with changing weather patterns, increased rainfall and further flooding, our communities and people across the country are safe.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On behalf of residents in flood-prone West Worcestershire who approached Storm Claudia with trepidation, I convey our sympathies to people in Monmouthshire. Experiencing a flood like that is one of the most terrible things that can happen a community. Could I ask the Minister to ask the Minister for Water and Flooding, who is beside her on the Front Bench, to follow up with the Environment Agency on two projects it is working on in West Worcestershire—in Severn Stoke and Tenbury Wells—to improve flood resilience? I would love it if the Minister could give the Environment Agency a nudge to complete that work.
Anna McMorrin
My colleague has heard that loudly and clearly and will get back to the hon. Member.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
There are few around the country better equipped to empathise with the people of Monmouthshire than my people in Tewkesbury in north Gloucestershire. Will the Minister join me in thanking the volunteers of the Severn Area Rescue Association who were called out this weekend, as they so often are? Will she also tell me when her Department will respond to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience in England?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for his words to the people of Monmouthshire. I pay tribute to his communities. It is important that we support communities right across the country, wherever they are. This Government are intent on doing that.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Although I am not a Welsh MP, I would like to express my sympathies for what the people of Monmouthshire are going through. In 2014, when I was the Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I spent weeks in Cobra meetings helping to co-ordinate military assistance in response to the severe flooding in the west country, particularly on the Somerset levels. Can I offer a suggestion? We all hope that this will not happen again, and certainly not quickly, but if there are further named storms, has the Minister or the First Minister considered speaking to the Ministry of Defence about military aid to the civil authorities—so-called MACA arrangements? We learned in 2014 that there are some specialist units, such as the Royal Marines or the Royal Engineers, who have capabilities to offer in these circumstances that can really make a difference to local people. Is that something that she and the First Minister might at least be prepared to consider?
Anna McMorrin
Of course, when there are critical or major incidents, such as the flooding in Monmouthshire, we are ready to consider anything. Where we need that support, collaboration is important and that extends to all our Departments. In every way possible, we will ensure that people, businesses and infrastructure are looked after, and that can and would extend to Defence if necessary.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My heart goes out to the people of Monmouthshire, which is just downriver from my constituency. Terrible damage has also been done in South Herefordshire, with places such as Ewyas Harold very badly affected. We know that these things are happening more frequently and more severely. It is also tragic to see the huge amount of soil that is washed off the land at times like this. Does the Minister recognise the hugely important role that farmers play in managing floodwater and building resilience to these sorts of events? Will she invest more in nature-friendly farming—river-friendly farming—to help prevent these sorts of disasters, which do so much damage to people’s livelihoods?
Anna McMorrin
It is exceptionally important, for those who have a duty to their land, to manage that land safely. These events have a devastating impact and soil is washed away, but there are things that can be done further upstream to prevent flooding. The Welsh Government have put in place projects right across Wales to ensure that happens. Just this morning I was talking to Powys county council about some of those taking place there.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Flood Re’s report earlier this year highlighted that, in the face of more extreme weather and more frequent flooding, many insurers are increasing excesses and premiums often to eyewatering levels or withdrawing insurance support altogether. What immediate support are the Government putting in place for people who find themselves without insurance?
Anna McMorrin
An emergency financial initiative is available. Welsh Government officials are working with community groups, the local council and us to ensure that they have access to those emergency funds.
Driving Without Insurance (Penalties and Enforcement)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the penalties for driving without insurance; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report containing an assessment of the effectiveness of existing methods of enforcing the law on driving without insurance; and for connected purposes.
In preparing this ten-minute rule Bill, I have had the opportunity to speak with so many incredible organisations and charities that work to deliver better road safety. At the outset I want to thank, in particular, Brake, Protect Young Drivers, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, Thames Valley Police and the fantastic Road Safety Foundation, which is based in my Bracknell constituency.
I am delighted to bring forward this Bill during Road Safety Week, which raises awareness of the importance of safer driving at a time of year when dark nights come down earlier, fog and icy conditions can increase hazards—we even had snow today—and the temptation to drink and drive is heightened by the festivities. I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering a national road safety strategy, and I am grateful to the road safety Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for taking the time to speak with me on several occasions about the progress of developing this strategy. Remarkably, it will be the first update to national road safety in well over a decade. Where the previous Government failed to act, we will, because every accident, every death on our roads is a tragedy, and too often an avoidable one.
Last month I published my road safety report, which captured the real concerns of Bracknell Forest residents regarding road safety in our community. I thank the almost 500 constituents who responded to the campaign and shared their views on everything from speeding and antisocial driving to the illegal use of off-road bikes and scooters. I am honoured to discuss the report today to ensure that the voices of Bracknell residents are heard and acted upon, making our roads safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike. Vitally, I have shared a copy of my report with the road safety Minister so that Bracknell Forest’s voice can be heard at the heart of the upcoming national road safety strategy.
The findings of the report revealed a critical level of concern among residents and calls for tougher action on antisocial driving. The overwhelming issue that residents felt affected road safety was speeding, followed by off-road bikes and e-scooters. Almost 80% of residents either agreed or strongly agreed that people drive too quickly down residential roads in Bracknell Forest, with similar figures for speeding on main roads.
To tackle that, residents agreed that there should be more speed cameras and Community Speedwatch initiatives. They also called for more appropriate speed limits, speed bumps and more visible police patrols, with police providing more information on local patrols so residents can see how their concerns are being addressed. The report identifies a clear public mandate for decisive intervention on road safety, prioritising enforcement and infrastructure upgrades. Concerns were also raised about overly bright car headlights, and I am delighted that the Government have already listened on that point and announced that further research will be conducted into headlight glare.
Residents supported more action around schools, with particular concerns that an accident was simply waiting to happen. I heard about the challenges caused by pick-up and drop-off times, the need for more safe crossing points and the widespread support for the implementation of school streets. I am pleased to share that directly with the local council and offer it my full support as it works to address road safety around schools. Residents also raised concerns about potholes, which can cause damage to vehicles and lead to unsafe driving as motorists do their best to swerve around them. That is why I back the Government’s £3.3 million investment in Bracknell Forest’s roads this year, with Bracknell Forest council committing an extra £5 million over four years to pothole repair and other road maintenance.
When we design road safety initiatives, and indeed roads, it is vital that we listen to the experts. That is why I want to highlight the work of a fantastic organisation based in Bracknell called the Road Safety Foundation. When I met the Road Safety Foundation, it emphasised how important it was that speed limits reflect the purpose of roads and the vulnerability of the users they support. By mapping the risk on major roads across the UK, the Road Safety Foundation plays an essential role in driving road safety improvements and, ultimately, saving lives.
I now turn to the subject at hand: uninsured drivers. Sadly, uninsured driving is all too common. Every 20 minutes someone is the victim of an uninsured or hit-and-run driver, every four minutes an uninsured vehicle is seized, and every year uninsured drivers cost the UK economy £1 billion. A crackdown on uninsured drivers on our roads is essential to improving road safety, as data has shown that those who drive uninsured are often disproportionately involved in road accidents and also more likely to commit offences that put others at risk, such as hit-and-run incidents, speeding and driving under the influence. The economic cost of uninsured driving, which includes compensation for victims, emergency services, medical costs and loss of productivity, is significant. This is a question of fairness: we cannot allow the costs of those who flout the law to be shouldered by honest drivers who are paying hiked premium fees to cover that.
Mr Speaker, I want you to imagine for a second that you were involved in a car accident. Imagine an inconsiderate driver has been going too fast, or not paying attention to the road, and has crashed into you. You are standing there on the roadside, perhaps injured, your car a write-off. You are feeling incredibly shaken, as anyone would. But thank goodness you have insurance. Now, Mr Speaker, imagine you find out that the other driver is not insured. Suddenly, a stressful situation becomes so much worse. The victims of accidents involving uninsured drivers often face delays and complications in securing compensation, which only exacerbates the immense emotional and financial toll.
I recently met the Motor Insurers’ Bureau to hear about “Operation Drive Insured”, a week-long UK campaign with the National Police Chiefs’ Council that saw police forces increase their operational activity in tackling uninsured driving. It involved identifying and removing uninsured vehicles from the road, as well as an excellent public awareness campaign. During our conversation, the MIB highlighted the need for a real-time database of all uninsured drivers, which would make it easier for the police to catch those driving uninsured. At the moment, it is far too easy for criminals to take out fake insurance under assumed names and present that to police on the roadside because insurers do not update the national insurance database in real time.
Insurers also do not always carry out checks to verify drivers’ identities and ensure that they have not been disqualified from driving. I have even heard how some uninsured drivers are now using AI to create fake policies when pulled over by the police, making it more difficult for the police to clamp down on uninsured driving in real time as they struggle to instantly verify the legitimacy of these documents at the roadside. Those who forge or deliberately fabricate such documents, through AI or any other means, are putting other road users at risk and must face tough sanctions.
The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that there are 1 million uninsured drivers on our roads, a figure that suggests that existing penalties are not providing a serious enough disincentive. A fixed penalty notice for owning a car without insurance starts at just £100, which rises to £300 and six points on a person’s licence if they are caught actually driving it. The police also have the power to seize and crush the vehicle, but given the serious consequences that can result from driving uninsured, my view is that these penalties should be increased.
Cracking down on the number of uninsured drivers will also help to tackle high insurance premiums, because claims made against uninsured drivers are made through the MIB and ultimately paid for through mandatory annual contributions from all UK motor insurers. If we can reduce the number of those driving uninsured, we can reduce costs for the vast majority of drivers who do the right thing by insuring their vehicles. Insurance premiums rose, on average, by 21% between 2022 and 2024, before falling by around £50 this year, so I welcome the action that the Government are taking, through the motor insurance taskforce, to tackle the high cost of driving for the honest many.
This Road Safety Week, let us all commit ourselves to taking the action needed to make driving safer for everyone, prevent crashes and save lives. Let us tackle the costly problem of uninsured motorists, deliver on our manifesto commitment to an ambitious national road safety strategy, and back the drivers of Great Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Peter Swallow, Sarah Russell, Chris Vince, Rachel Taylor, Josh Newbury and Cat Eccles present the Bill.
Peter Swallow accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 331).
Point of Order
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important matter of national security. This morning, the Secretary of State for Defence gave a speech on television—I think it was in Downing Street, not in the House—about a very serious incident in which, he said, a Russian spy ship has tried to blind British military pilots with lasers. This is very important, but there has been no statement in the House and we have not been briefed. I wonder if you can give any clarification on this matter.
Mr Speaker
It has not been brought to my attention either. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are listening. I take this very seriously. Matters relating to the defence of the realm should always come first to this House, and I will always make arrangements for a Secretary of State to make a statement to this House on very important matters. The hon. Gentleman’s point has been heard. Who knows? Let us see. Yesterday, the Government reflected and came to the House with a statement later. Let us see if they can reflect again today on this important matter. If it was good enough for a TV interview, it is certainly good enough for this House to know. I will leave it at that.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 92 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 41
Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 36 and 38 to 42.
Alex Norris
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has returned to this House in good order. A number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill to date, the strength of feeling about the importance of a properly functioning immigration system that is controlled and managed so that it is fair and works for the people of this country has been evident. Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is crucial to that.
As we discussed in this House on Monday, the Government’s new asylum policy statement sets out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. That statement builds on the measures in the Bill, our consideration of which returns our focus to the core objectives of the Bill.
This Bill will strengthen UK border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect our borders that sees the Government working closely with our international partners upstream and in our near neighbourhood. It is a plan that sees this Government bringing to bear the powers and impact of the system as a whole, under the leadership of the Border Security Command, against those who seek to undermine the UK’s border security. It is a plan that delivers for our law enforcement partners by creating the new powers that they need to intervene faster and earlier against more of those involved in serious and organised immigration crime activity, providing for better data-sharing and creating stronger intelligence to inform enforcement activity. It is a plan that disrupts the sales pitch spun by the gangs by preventing illegal working in sectors that are not currently required to confirm whether a person’s immigration status disqualifies them from working.
Turning to the Lords amendments, I will start with the non-Government amendment passed by the other place. Lords amendment 37, tabled by the Opposition, is in our view unnecessary. It would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visa revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visa and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visa.
It is first worth emphasising that the Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contribution that international students make in the UK. They enrich our communities, including my own in the city of Nottingham. The immigration rules provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain they are liable to administrative removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.
On the specifics of the amendment on publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs and the resources required to compile those numbers, as well as the quality and availability of data. This ensures that we balance the production of high-quality statistics against the need for new ones to support public understanding on migration.
I want to be clear, however, that we recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK and about what happens to foreign national offenders—FNOs—after they have been convicted, and after they have completed their sentences. The Home Office is looking closely at what more can be done both to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of FNOs and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside the other Home Office statistics that I have talked about. When this work progresses, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on FNOs subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I hope that, on that basis, right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government motion relating to Lords amendment 37.
The Lords amendments introduced by the Government further strengthen and expand the powers and offences that target organised immigration crime groups. The most significant is Lords amendment 7, which introduces a new offence that criminalises the creation or publication of material relating to unlawful immigration services online, on internet services including social media, and on messaging platforms. Such material will be considered criminal when a person knows or suspects that the material will be published on an internet service and it has the purpose, or will have the effect, of promoting unlawful immigration services. I hope that the policy objective is clear to Members: it is crucial in order to tackle the facilitation of organised crime online, and to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online environment, including social media.
Lords amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 work alongside this new offence, providing intermediary liability protections for internet service providers, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence and the actions of those being targeted in this offence—namely, individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online. The offence will have extraterritorial effect and therefore may be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world and by a person or body of any nationality.
I turn now to the amendments to the core immigration crime offences set out in clauses 13 and 14, which concern the supply and handling of articles used in immigration crime. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 enable us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. That sends a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it was the ultimate horror and an attempt to outdo Reform, but it was a mere aperitif compared with the main course of the horrors of this week. On these specific measures, does the Minister recognise the possible impact on support agencies and services that assist refugees and asylum seekers? Did he not listen to the many representations from those groups about the difficulties that the measures will cause them?
Alex Norris
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is horrified by our attempts to crack down on organised immigration crime, which is the ultimate industry in profiting from misery and desperation, and which leads to vulnerable people losing their lives and has such impact on public confidence domestically. If he waits a little longer, I hope I can give him a degree of succour on the point he makes.
The amendments seek to criminalise those who are concerned in the supply of relevant articles for use in immigration crime and will bring into scope possession with intent to supply, or the making of an offer to supply, such an article. The amendments will also bring into scope those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.
Lords amendments 16 to 32 strengthen the powers of search and seizure in relation to electronic devices. Lords amendment 16 seeks to expand the definition of “authorised officer” to include officers of the police services of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Lords amendments 17 to 32 ensure that those officers have the relevant safeguards, protections and legal clarity when utilising the powers, and make the required consequential changes.
Lords amendments 5, 6 38, 39 and 40 were tabled in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill and debate in the other place, and ensure that proportionate, robust and appropriate safeguards are in place. Lords amendments 5 and 6 introduce additional safeguards to the offences set out in clause 13, and exempt from these offences any item or substance designed for personal cleanliness or hygiene. This includes items such as soap, toothpaste, sanitary products and other essentials that individuals may carry for personal dignity and wellbeing. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) a degree of comfort. Limitations to this exemption are set out where certain items present a heightened risk of being repurposed as weapons or used in ways that endanger others. That strikes the appropriate balance on this important point.
Clause 43 enables stronger conditions to be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal. Lords amendments 38, 39 and 40 do not alter the original intention of the clause, but ensure that the Bill sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring or curfews placed on their leave to enter or remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security or public safety, or where they have been convicted of a serious crime or a sexual offence.
The Government made a number of small amendments in the other place that seek to clarify the provisions to which they relate. Lords amendments 33, 34 and 35 are minor and technical changes to remove references to data protection legislation that are redundant following the enactment of section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
Lords amendment 36 amends the consultation requirements to require the Secretary of State to consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the relevant Scottish Ministers prior to making regulations that determine the purpose for which trailer registration information may be shared with the police. The amendment does not affect the Secretary of State’s discretion to consult representatives of police bodies.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and I do not think he has heard everything that has been said. That is rather unfair, and I do not expect people to do that. He should know better.
Alex Norris
I can assure Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, that we are talking closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well from our many discussions on the topic how much I value my relationships with them. I met several of them on Monday and I will continue to do so to make sure that the application of this provision and beyond is as good as possible and works seamlessly across all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that provides a degree of comfort.
Lords amendments 41 and 42 relate to clause 62, the commencement clause, and the commencement of clause 42, which provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU settlement scheme status—those who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and have that as the source of their rights in the UK. The amendments change the commencement provision so that clause 42 will be brought into force on Royal Assent, to provide legal certainty as soon as possible for all EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status as to their rights in the UK.
This is a really important Bill. The work done in the other place was excellent, and I commend Lord Hanson of Flint especially on his work. Colleagues in the other place worked hard to improve the legislation, which we appreciate, and I ask the House to support our amendments today.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their work on and scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, as well as numerous members of the other place, including Lord Jackson, for their work.
The subject of the Bill is extremely important to this country and its future. I am afraid the reality is that, under this Labour Government, illegal immigration has got much, much worse. We are in the grip of an immigration crisis. Small boat crossings have surged. They are up 55% against the same period before the election. In the nine months before the election, the number of people in hotels had gone down by 47%, but since this Government came to power, it has gone up.
This country is our home; it is not a hotel. We need stronger borders to make sure that those who come to our country share our values, contribute to society, and are not simply a drain on the resources that taxpayers fund. The Bill will remove powers that allow us to detain and deport people who arrive here illegally. It will remove powers that allow us to mandate scientific age tests for those who arrive here illegally claiming to be children. It will allow people who break into our country illegally to become British citizens. Those who break into our country should not be allowed to stay.
This week, the Home Secretary announced a new plan, which she says will tackle the immigration crisis.
Lords amendment 37 would ensure transparent data on one of the key contributors to the high immigration that the Government say that they want to reduce. Transparency matters for public trust and accountability. Opposition to the amendment is completely at odds with the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, and the action that she promised us earlier this week. Once again, the Bill has been nowhere near as ambitious or radical as it needs to be to stop dangerous crossings in their tracks. The Government should be using every tool available to control immigration and make our country safer.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his earlier comments. When I speak to constituents in Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Quarry Bank, their message for me is clear: they are concerned about illegal immigration, and they want the Labour party to secure our borders. That was one of our manifesto commitments, because there is nothing progressive about allowing smuggling gangs to take people across Europe, or about children drowning in the channel. I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the tough measures that the Home Secretary announced on Monday.
I will speak to Lords amendments 7 to 9 and 12 to 15. They are mostly about criminalising the online advertising and marketing of illegal migration actions, often conducted by smuggling gangs. There are lots of reasons why people flee a country and seek refuge in another, including conflict and persecution.
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and the thrust of what the Minister is saying, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman are referring to the fact that we have to ensure that there is a bit of muscle behind the legislation. My colleague Lord Weir was very clear in the other place about our party’s point of view on the legislation. There are people from across the world who flee their home because of persecution or human rights abuses, and who have nowhere to go. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those who can never go back to their country again? I know people who came to Newtownards in my constituency six or eight years ago, and there are six Syrian families who are still there. They are established in the community. Does he agree that those who flee persecution must be protected in the legislation?
Alex Ballinger
Yes, of course. We are a compassionate country, and a place of refuge for many people who are fleeing persecution or face other issues. Everything that the Government have announced this week, and the measures in the Bill, allow us to be compassionate; but we can also be also tough on the smuggling gangs, who are in no way compassionate, and who are bringing people into this country on very dangerous journeys.
As I said, people are fleeing conflict and poverty, and I have mentioned in other debates the importance of the Foreign Office investing in conflict resolution and prevention in order to mitigate the challenges from which people are fleeing. However, that does not excuse the smuggling gangs that are operating for profit, or the organisations that market these dangerous journeys, often on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or Telegram. They are selling the service of smuggling people across continents on dangerous journeys. I am pleased that Lords amendment 8 cracks down on online gangs’ marketing and advertising, and that we have some tough new criminal measures to use against them. I understand the need not to place the liability on the platform providers, but how will we work with those platforms, if we see smuggling gangs advertising routes or selling illegal work opportunities on them? How will we ensure that the legislation is effective?
Lords amendments 12 and 13 are about cracking down on such advertising, even if it is not in the UK. People advertising smuggling opportunities are likely to be based in Europe or the middle east, so it is important that our legislation is extended to allow us to go after the gangs operating outside the UK, where possible, and I welcome that change.
In summary, this is an excellent Bill and I support the amendments. It is important that we use all the powers that we have to go after the smuggling gangs. The legislation is an important step, and I am pleased that we are building on it with what the Home Secretary announced earlier this week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures.
Pete Wishart
Like me and several other hon. Members present, the hon. Gentleman spent hours in Committee considering these measures, only for the Home Secretary to come along this week and trump them with even harsher measures. Does he agree that it almost feels like we are all wasting our time considering measures that will be superseded by the measures announced by the Home Secretary?
Mr Forster
The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Since we all served on the Committee for this Bill, the Government have announced a “one in, one out” deal with France, and this week, new safe routes were announced by the Home Secretary as part of the new package. Under the “one in, one out” deal, the “one in” will arrive by a safe route, so will the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s reforms to the immigration system, given that that is what he has been calling for?
Mr Forster
I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Government are finally listening to what I and others have been saying for years: that safe and legal routes are important. However, the “one in, one out” deal with France is not delivering what the Government wanted. The humanitarian visas and the safe routes that we proposed would have done so. We have not seen a flood of Ukrainians crossing the channel, because we have a genuine safe route for them, and we need to expand such initiatives to others.
Let me make some progress. The Liberal Democrats—and others, I assume—welcome parts of this Bill, but the glaring reality is that it falls far short of what is needed to keep our borders and people safe. The Government say that the Bill gives authorities stronger tools, and some of that is true. For example, clauses 19 to 26, which were added in Committee, give the Border Force and the police further powers to seize electronic devices, and I think that is broadly sensible. A Government amendment on Report on tightening offences linked to the supply of equipment used in organised crime was also a reasonable step.
The Liberal Democrats and I also welcome changes that our peers pressed for in the other place, including the exemption for hygiene products, which came from a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know the Minister mentioned that. I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance to the suggestions of my colleagues.
The Government were defeated in the other place on an amendment that required the collection of data about overseas students who had visas revoked due to criminal offences. That Conservative Lords amendment would not help to tackle organised crime, or to improve border security, and I do not believe that it strengthens this Bill, so Liberal Democrat MPs will not support it today.
The Government pushed Lords amendments on data sharing, the EU settlement scheme and conditions on leave or bail, many of which tidy things up, or respond to the Liberal Democrats’ human rights concerns. Those are fine as far as they go, but they do not change the overall picture.
In summary, if the Government truly want to stop small boat crossings, they must work more closely with our European partners. Tough talk at home will not achieve what co-operation abroad can, and this Bill and the tabled Lords amendments will not tackle the huge asylum backlog, or reduce the hotel bills that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. Unless the Government support what we are calling for, this Bill will not deliver the safe borders and fairer system that the public expect, and they will remember that at the ballot box.
Chris Murray
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.
It is good to see us making progress on this really important Bill, which is utterly essential to what the Government are trying to achieve on the reform of asylum. Nobody can argue that the asylum system in Britain does not need reform. Public trust has been draining from it, because of the growth in illegal crossings and asylum hotels, and because asylum seekers are drowning in the channel as a result of this vile trade. Only last month, a one-month-old baby drowned off the British coast. That is unacceptable. Some 14 children died last year; if that number of children were dying in any other circumstances, people would call on the Government to go hell for leather in tackling it, and to do anything it took to do so. We must do the same for children who are asylum seekers.
I strongly welcome Lords amendment 8. Asylum crossings in the channel are driven by two factors: supply and demand. “Demand” means the causes of asylum, such as war, climate change, conflict and repression. “Supply” relates to the supply of small boats, gangs who facilitate the crossing, the ability to get over the channel, and the networks upstream funnelling them to Calais. A big part of the operation is the social media enterprise.
More than 10 years ago, I was a justice and home affairs attaché in Paris, working on channel crossings. They took place on lorries at the time, and we were able to clamp down on that, but the fundamental difference between now and then—it was more than 10 years ago—is the existence of social media. There is an incredibly sophisticated network of human traffickers, who are incredibly well financed, as a result of the costs that they put on migrants and organised crime. They use social media, exploit migrants and put them in the boats.
Lords amendment 8 is really important in criminalising the facilitation and advertisement of illegal immigration. My question to the Home Office is whether it is properly stepping up its capabilities, and its engagement with private sector and social media firms, to ensure an impact. It will change the calculus for asylum seekers on the path to the UK if they are given proper information, not misleading information by traffickers.
I turn to the Opposition’s Lords amendment 37, on data collection and international students. Public data on migration is incredibly important. The public want to see control of the immigration system; transparency and data are central to that. However, this Lords amendment is not the way to go about getting proper data and scrutiny of the migration system. That is partly because amendments to primary legislation lead to selective, partial or mandated publication of data that is highly controversial and can be selectively and partially used by people on all sides of the migration debate to make their specific point.
Alex Norris
With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions and to those who took this legislation through all its previous stages.
Let me address some of the points made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made some important points around online advertising and the responsibilities falling not on the providers, but on those sending those messages or putting out those advertisements. We think that is the current gap in provisions that we need to fill, but providers have a really important responsibility too. There are provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 that relate to that work, but I reassure him that we talk to providers and will continue to engage with them to ensure that their platforms are not being used for what is the ultimate trade in human misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) mentioned that issue as well.
I share the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen made about conflict resolution. We talk about upstream working, and that is the ultimate upstream working—it is very much Britain’s place in the world. British Aid works to tackle famine and disease and also works on education, particularly for women and girls, which we know can be transformative around the world. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point about our work overseas, which the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), also talked about. That work and that international co-operation are crucial, and I assure colleagues that we are doing that day in, day out, as I always say.
We had the pleasure of hosting the Berlin process in recent weeks. I said to all my counterparts that we are dealing with these shared challenges, and they agreed. The organised immigration crime networks, which we are talking about and which are addressed in this legislation, are by definition sophisticated and global, and we are engaging with them in different ways. We have to ensure that we have as good a co-ordinated approach as possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, given his long professional work in this space and his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful to him for enhancing the process of this Bill’s passage and other processes, and he is right: at the root of this issue are death and misery, which is exploited by criminals. We must tackle that, but those criminals’ networks are sophisticated, so as their capabilities increase, so must ours. That is the purpose of this legislation—both being able to tackle where those criminals advertise their services, and giving Border Security Command and others the tools they need to tackle them. I totally agree with his point about the value of data in its collective form, rather than any one strand, which I will address when I respond to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).
I thought that the Lib Dem spokesperson was slightly unfair—which is not in his nature—in his characterisation of what happened on Monday. Everything we talked about on Monday builds on what we are putting in place through this legislation; it is all part of the same approach to tackling both organised crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, and the supply and demand challenges in this area. I know that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks the work on safe routes that we announced is really important. He and his colleagues are going to want to take part in that process, and of course they will have an opportunity to do so.
That brings me to the Opposition spokesperson. He has a terribly difficult job—the word I wrote down was “desperate”, but I am not going to use that word in this context. “Difficult” is what I will say to the hon. Member for Stockton West, because he wants people in this place and those watching us to believe that there is in some way anger among Conservative Members at the circumstances we find ourselves in today regarding hotels and small boat crossings, as if these are not phenomena that can be dated to within much less than a decade and started on the Conservatives’ watch. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, and as I will say again, any contribution from the Conservatives that does not start with an apology will not wash with the British public.
Matt Vickers
Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash.
Alex Norris
Again, I know that the hon. Gentleman has to try hard to desperately defend the previous Government’s record and their failure. He knows as well as I do that the original sin in this area was the six-year head start that he and his colleagues gave to organised crime, and he will now chirp from the sidelines while we break that cycle. We are getting on with the job while the Conservatives talk about it.
Let us talk about the removal of the deterrent—that is not quite within the scope of the amendments made in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman talked about Rwanda, as his colleagues did the other day. I would gently say that from the day that the Rwanda deal was signed to the day it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel, so the idea that it was in some way a deterrent is for the birds. Until and unless colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench enter the real world, they are going to struggle for credibility.
Matt Vickers
Those people who arrived in this country illegally were going to Rwanda. Where are they now?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will know that in this Government’s 16 months in office we have removed 50,000 people who had no right to be here.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman can ask the questions, but he cannot give the answers as well. I am afraid that I will not give way again—I am going to finish my point. When it comes to removing people with no right to be here, our record in office is a 23% increase on what the Conservatives managed to do.
On Monday, we heard something very interesting from the Leader of the Opposition. She committed Opposition Front Benchers to co-operating with what she said was such an important shared endeavour, and we have an opportunity to test that today, because the hon. Member for Stockton West heard what I said in my opening speech. He heard about my belief in transparency in this area and building public confidence through transparency in the statistics, which he also expressed in his contribution.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case.
Matt Vickers
People out there are really concerned about people arriving illegally in this country claiming to be children, and the impact that that can have on our education and care settings. This Bill removes our ability to scientifically age-verify some of those people, but more than that, since this Government came to office, they have stopped publishing the data on age disputes on arrival. What do they have to hide? Why will they not publish that data?
Alex Norris
I am afraid that panto season is starting early, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Alex Norris
We want to bring forward a whole set of data on this issue that helps people get a picture of what is going on—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) heard me say that, but the hon. Member for Stockton West certainly did. I have made that commitment from this Dispatch Box, and that is what we will do.
Alex Norris
I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.
It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that despite his opening remarks and his words about Northern Ireland, the reality and the understanding of people in Northern Ireland is very different, given that we are subject to EU law in this space? This is a very real issue for people in Northern Ireland. They want zero tolerance of illegal entry and fast removal of those who are blocking up our public services, which are already stretched to capacity, so will the Minister go further and have this sovereign UK Parliament legislate for Northern Ireland to protect our borders?
Alex Norris
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She may have heard me say before that it is not in the interests of anyone, anywhere in the UK, for the work of establishing order and control at the United Kingdom’s southern border to create displacement challenges with regard to the common travel area. That is something we are very concerned about, and it is something that I talk to colleagues across the UK and beyond about. Of course, we have had very successful interventions in this area, such as Operation Comby.
Turning to her question about future legislation, she will have heard what the Home Secretary had to say the other day. There will be plenty of opportunities within that process to have those sorts of conversations, but our resolution is to make sure that we have a system that establishes order and control. That is what this legislation is in service of, and it is what the work set out on Monday is in service of.
Alex Ballinger
Could the Minister talk more about the data that we already have, how we are properly tracking the number of refugees already, and why Lords amendment 37 is not appropriate?
Alex Norris
As I said in my opening speech, it is right that we take our time to develop the right package of data, so that we can publish it and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I can sit down and discuss it in great detail. [Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley wants it now, but as I suspect he is learning, opposition does not always work on a “now” timeline. The Conservatives may well have some time in which to find that out.
Chris Murray
Does the Minister agree that we have a very strong ecosystem of data on migration in this country? For example, the Home Office publishes enormous amounts of data every quarter. The ONS publishes a lot of data, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration publishes and analyses lots of the data that the new occupant of that role collects. We also have an ecosystem of think-tanks, research organisations and universities—for example, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford does amazing work in this space. The challenge is not that data on immigration is not available; it is that people interpret it selectively for their own purposes.
Alex Norris
That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.
I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible.
Matt Vickers
People out there are concerned about 30-year-olds trying to get into classrooms with 13-year-olds. They want to know how often it is being tried. Why have the Home Office and the Government stopped publishing the data around age verification?
Alex Norris
It is getting to the point where I might not be able to help the Opposition spokesperson, because I have answered the question. It is in nobody’s interest, as I say, for important information to not be available. We are preparing it as a whole dataset. I said that in opening, and I have said it in response to him at least once, and I have said it again. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “When?” As soon as we can accurately publish it, that is what we will do.
There is a danger that we are down to the narcissism of small differences on this Bill. I do not really think that this is the hon. Gentleman’s principal objection, but I know that he has committed from the Opposition Front Bench, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to co-operation in ensuring that we tackle the pernicious crime of organised immigration crime and that we have order and control at our borders. I look forward to their co-operation.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but use our names. Madam Chair, Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to open this discussion on the clauses of a focused but important Bill, designed to drive innovation, enhance legal certainty, and strengthen our standing in the global digital economy. Let me turn first to clause 1—an unassuming clause on the page, but one with important implications for the future of our legal system and our economy.
Clause 1 is the engine room of the Bill. It provides a clear and powerful statement: that a thing—including something digital or electronic—can be recognised as personal property, even if it does not fall within either of the categories that our legal system has traditionally recognised. For centuries the law has drawn a simple line: personal property was either a “thing in possession”, that being a physical object such as a car or a watch, or a “thing in action”, something that exists because the law says it does and is enforced through legal action, such as a debt or a contractual right. However, the world has changed. Technology has leapt forward, and our law must keep pace. Today we have assets such as crypto-tokens. They are not physical objects, yet their existence is not reliant on the law. They do not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories.
Our courts have begun to acknowledge that such assets can and should be the subject of property rights, but without a clear, binding legal foundation, uncertainty remains—uncertainty that could stifle innovation, deter investment, and push the digital economy elsewhere. This Government will not allow that to happen. Driving sustainable growth is a top priority for us, and that means giving businesses and investors the certainty that they need to thrive. With this single clause, we are removing doubt and sending a clear message: we are open for business in the digital age.
By removing ambiguity, clause 1 ensures that those who hold or transact in digital assets are better supported to defend their property rights, transfer them and recover them when it matters most. The Bill reinforces our position as a global jurisdiction of choice for legal innovation, emerging technology and the digital economy. We are leading from the front. To be clear, clause 1 does not attempt to draw rigid lines around what qualifies as property—that is a deliberate choice. It rightly empowers our courts to continue developing the common law, case by case, applying centuries of legal wisdom to the frontiers of a digital economy. The reference to “digital or electronic things” in the Bill simply reflects where the issues most commonly arise today, without boxing in where the law might go tomorrow. The clause paves the way for fairer outcomes in cases of theft, fraud, commercial dispute or insolvency involving digital assets. It will reduce litigation costs, promote market stability and underpin our reputation as a jurisdiction of choice in a digital world. This is a small clause with big consequences. It is a bold, forward-looking step that reaffirms our commitment to legal certainty, technological progress and global leadership.
Clause 2 sets out the title, territorial extent and commencement date. Once granted Royal Assent, the legislation will become the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. That title—Digital Assets etc—is no accident. It has been carefully chosen to capture the technologies of today, such as crypto-tokens, while keeping the door open to future innovations. This is a law built not just for now but for what may come next. The Act will extend to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. That will minimise legal discrepancies across jurisdictions and help to ensure that the benefits, such as legal clarity, investor confidence and streamlined dispute resolution, are more widely felt across these jurisdictions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, owing to differences in property law. However, the Scottish Government introduced their own Digital Assets Bill on 30 September, confirming that certain kinds of digital assets can be objects of property under Scots private law.
Importantly, the Act will come into force the moment it receives Royal Assent—no delays, no retrospective effect—because the legislation does not create new burdens. It confirms and clarifies the law as it has been developing under common law. As a result, there will be immediate certainty, minimal disruption, and a strong foundation for our digital economy. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am pleased to speak again on behalf of the Opposition as we carry forward the constructive debate that we had on Second Reading.
Let me restate from the outset our support for the Bill, which represents a careful, modest step in the right direction, and preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law while giving just enough statutory certainty to ensure that businesses, innovators and courts know the ground beneath their feet. That balance is vital. If we over-prescribed in statute, we would risk freezing progress. If we left matters entirely to the interpretation of the courts, we would risk fragmentation and delay. The Bill avoids both extremes.
Importantly, this legislation was not born overnight. It is the product of the rigorous work of the Law Commission—work commissioned by the last Conservative Government, who recognised early the need for clarity in this space if the UK was to stay competitive internationally. The commission’s conclusion was clear: certain digital assets simply do not fit neatly into the centuries-old categories of things in possession or things in action. Without intervention, the risk grew that uncertainty would hold back investment, undermine commercial transactions and frustrate innovators and consumers.
The Bill answers that challenge in the right way. It does not attempt to define every kind of digital asset that might emerge. Nobody in this Chamber—or indeed beyond it—can predict the full scope of the technologies that will shape our financial and commercial future in the coming decades. Instead, the Bill does something both restrained and profound: it confirms that digital things are not excluded from attracting property rights merely because they fall outside the old categories. Beyond that, it gives our common law the space it needs to continue doing what it has done for centuries: develop sensibly, case by case, guided by principle rather than by prescription.
That is not to say that the state has been inactive in related causes. Since 2023, cryptoasset promotion has been subject to the Financial Conduct Authority rules, the money laundering regulations have been amended for the new cryptocurrency class, and the Government have consulted on bring crypto-trading platforms and custody services within the broader perimeter of financial regulation. The Bank of England and the FCA are exploring robust frameworks for stablecoins and custody. However, none of this works unless the foundational question, “What is the legal status of these assets?”, is clearly answered. That is exactly what the Bill provides.
Let me end by reiterating what I said on Second Reading: the UK must remain at the forefront of global legal innovation. When technological change accelerates, the temptation can be either to rush into rigid regulation or to do nothing at all. The Bill avoids both pitfalls. It is proportionate, it is principled, and it is rooted in the understanding—championed strongly by the previous Conservative Government—that legal certainty is a foundation for growth, investment and innovation in this area. For all those reasons, the Opposition will continue to support the Bill, and we look forward to working constructively to ensure that it delivers the clarity that our courts, consumers and businesses need.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age.
The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss.
The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings.
The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy.
We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage.
Sarah Sackman
With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Third Reading
Sarah Sackman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me I start by reiterating my sincere thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their support and insightful contributions. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster), and all Members who have contributed throughout the passage of the Bill. Their engagement demonstrates strong, cross-party momentum behind modernising our personal property law.
I also pay tribute to the former Special Public Bill Committee, which gathered expert evidence and was ably led by Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Law Commission deserves particular recognition for its exemplary work, led by Laura Burgoyne and Christopher Long, and on which this Bill stands. Their engagement with stakeholders has been gold standard and demonstrated the benefits of coherent law reform—transparent, expert-led and deeply consultative. I would also like to thank the former law commissioner Professor Sarah Green for her contribution to this work and for giving evidence at Committee.
Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this Bill. I thank my policy officials, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear, the Bill managers, Harry McNeill-Adams and Lily Sullivan, and Helen Hall from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my private office, in particular my private secretary, Amelia Overton, and Meheret Ashenafi.
This is more than a Bill; it is a landmark step towards ensuring that the law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, not only keeps pace with innovation but leads it. The Bill will give digital pioneers the certainty they need, backed by the legal strength they expect from our country. It shows that our economy is open, our ambition is global, and we are here to support innovation. By supporting the recognition of digital assets as property, the Bill helps establish legal certainty.
The Bill gives industry the confidence to innovate here, knowing that our legal system can support new models of ownership, transfer and settlement. This is how we translate legal reform into economic leadership. It is how we show that we are at the forefront of the technical revolution, and how that can be seen in the real world with the London Stock Exchange’s announcement of a new digital asset platform. This is the first major global stock exchange to implement a blockchain-based system.
This Government are backing growth, backing technology and backing Britain’s future, and as such, I commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Mullan
I rise simply to put on the record my thanks, particularly to the Bill Committee and to the Law Commission for its diligence. Yet again we see the great benefit that our state machinery and apparatus as whole derive from having the Law Commission. I have nothing further to add.
Mr Will Forster
I thank colleagues from across the House. It is a good example of cross-party working, delivering a Bill that has been well-scrutinised and is fit for purpose. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister can take that away and encourage her colleagues to do the same with other legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Delegated Legislation
Proposed Development and Road Layout Changes in Crawley Down
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I rise on behalf of the 279 petitioners from Crawley Down in my constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and the further 370 who have signed the petition online. I present the petition especially on behalf of Joy, an elderly constituent who risks being cut off and isolated should this unwanted and unwarranted development take place.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield,
Declares that the proposal to potentially demolish the existing dwellings in Woodlands Close and to create a significant new access road serving potentially 48 additional homes is inappropriate and would cause significant harm to the wider local community; further declares that the scale of the proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding area, that residents would be subjected to noise and disruption, that the affordable housing mix of the proposed development is inadequate, that Woodlands Close could not accommodate the volume of traffic that would arise from the development, that the development would risk harming the heritage asset of Grade II listed Burleigh Cottage and the natural environment, and that public consultation regarding this proposal was inadequate and has not taken into account significant flooding risks and topography.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Mid Sussex District Council to withhold planning permission for this development to protect the wider local community in Crawley Down and in particular any homes impacted by this significant road layout change which will isolate one dwelling in particular.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003136]
Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
From a debate about the personal property rights of crypto tokens, we move seamlessly into a debate I am proud to have secured on railway station accessibility, specifically at Northwich in my constituency. My thanks go to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity to talk about it. This is a long-standing issue that affects not just disabled people but the entire community of Northwich. For more than a decade, the station has lacked any step-free access to its second platform, leaving many passengers effectively cut off from half the station and unable to complete their journeys.
As we all know, rail travel is not just about getting from A to B; it is about connecting lives and communities. Our railways provide essential links for people who might otherwise face isolation and exclusion, offering vital access to employment, learning and healthcare and keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. They are the backbone of opportunity, helping people to participate fully in society. By doing this, rail services drive economic growth, strengthen social cohesion and improve health and wellbeing across the country. However, these benefits matter only if everyone can use the network with confidence, which means removing the obstacles that make rail travel challenging or impossible for some people.
Accessibility is not an optional extra—it is fundamental to ensuring that our railways serve every passenger, regardless of their needs. That is not the case at Northwich station today. Since 2013, when the old barrow crossing was removed, passengers have had no step-free way to access the Chester-bound platform, meaning that passengers who cannot use stairs cannot get to it.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about accessibility in train stations. We had a similar issue at Alfreton train station, where, after 20 years of campaigning by Labour councillors, I was fortunate enough to open the new lift, allowing accessibility from one platform to the other, only in July. However, we still have a similar issue at Langley Mill train station, so I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Will he join me in urging the Government to make accessibility at our train stations an absolute priority?
Andrew Cooper
I congratulate my hon. Friend and her councillors on securing that improvement. I agree with her entirely, and I am sure the Minister has heard what she has said.
Passengers in Northwich who cannot use stairs cannot get to the Chester-bound platform. There is no lift and no ramp; there is just a steep footbridge with 41 steps. That means that wheelchair users, people with limited mobility, elderly passengers, parents with prams and anyone with heavy luggage are all put at a disadvantage or, worse, locked out completely. For some, that means missing trains; for others, it means giving up on rail travel altogether. When we talk about building stronger, fairer communities or encouraging greener travel, we have to ensure that our public transport is open to everyone. A railway station that only some of us can use is not truly public transport—it is exclusion by design.
I have spoken with residents who are unable to visit family, attend job interviews or enjoy a simple day out because they cannot use their local station. Local charity Disability Positive has highlighted how disabled passengers are being denied equal access, with one user telling them they had to be driven miles to another station simply to start their journey because Northwich was a no-go. Others are forced to rely on staff-organised taxis to get between stations, turning a simple journey into a logistical headache. While Northern Rail does its best to accommodate passengers, that is not a real solution; it is a workaround for an infrastructure failure. It does not offer dignity or spontaneity—it just underlines the problem.
Let us not forget: this is happening at a station that about 65,000 people live within 5 km of. Northwich is not a minor rural stop—it is a key part of the Mid-Cheshire line. Yet we have a station that in practice serves only part of the population.
What makes this worse is that we had the perfect opportunity to fix it. In 2021, the gable end of the station building collapsed on to the station’s Victorian canopy, causing major disruption and narrowly avoiding killing three people. Part of the station building had to be demolished and rebuilt, and has in fact yet to reopen four and half years later. That should have been the moment to deliver step-free access. The construction teams, plant and equipment were already going to be on site, line possessions were going to be in place and detailed plans had already been prepared as part of the station’s soon-to-be-submitted Access for All application. Cheshire West and Chester council, Northern Rail, Network Rail and local campaigners including the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association were all united behind a proposal and were vocal in their support. The right thing to do—for the Exchequer in long-term saving and for what might be considered adequate compensation to the people of Northwich—was obvious.
Instead, the previous Conservative Government declined to act, simply authorising a like-for-like rebuild, and directed campaigners to Access for All.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
My hon. Friend points to a frustration shared by me and lots of campaigners in Weston-super-Mare, where we have seen missed opportunities over and over again to give people the basic dignity of access in travel. I am pleased that we in Weston join the people of Northwich and Alfreton in trying to get that accessible travel. Does my hon. Friend agree that accessibility must be included by design, right at the very start of any of these processes?
Andrew Cooper
I absolutely agree. If we are going to give people dignity, we have to make sure that we are catering for everybody’s needs.
When the previous Government declined to act in Northwich, a funding application was submitted to the Department for Transport under the Access for All programme. The previous Conservative Government dithered for three years before turning it down just before the general election. A once-in-a-generation chance to build access into the heart of the station was squandered: we put the walls back up and left the barriers in place.
This was not just a missed opportunity to install a lift. It was a chance to show that disabled people matter, that we are serious about inclusion and that public transport is for everyone, and a chance to spend public money more efficiently by combining projects and minimising disruption, and we let it slip through our fingers. The result is that Northwich station remains inaccessible for many people—a neglect made all the more galling by the £99 million underspend on Access for All in Network Rail’s control period 6. Northwich deserves to be part of that progress. It should not be left behind. Every year of delay means more people excluded from rail travel, more opportunities missed and more money wasted on temporary fixes. That is simply unacceptable.
I welcome the Government’s plan to establish Great British Railways and I recognise that structural reform takes time. I also welcome the very recent publication of the road map to an accessible railway, the commitment to end the short-term, stop-start approach to delivering step-free access and the £373 million committed over five years for Access for All projects, which I am sure the Minister will talk more about shortly. This is a significant step forward, and I commend the Government’s genuine commitment to inclusion, but I also say this: warm words are not enough. Funding must follow need, and few stations in the country demonstrate that more clearly than Northwich.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister directly. Will the Department publish the process for how stations will be submitted for consideration for delivering step-free access following the road map’s publication? Will the Minister set out a timescale for when that will occur and when communities can expect the next batch of stations for improvement to be announced? Will he consider Northwich station for inclusion in the next round of Access for All projects, ensuring that stations like ours—overlooked and underserved for too long—are given the priority they deserve? Will he commit to working with Network Rail and train operators to ensure that in future, when rebuilds or refurbishments take place, accessibility improvements are delivered at the same time?
We cannot afford to miss opportunities like that again. We cannot afford to leave communities behind. Accessibility is not just about ramps and lifts; it is about dignity, independence and fairness, and it is time that Northwich had a station that reflects those values. Let us make sure that no one in Northwich is left behind simply because the station was not built with them in mind. Let us put that right. Let us deliver a railway that works for everyone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on accessibility at Northwich station. It is an issue that clearly has a massive impact on the Northwich community and the local travelling public, regardless of their mobility, age or the fact they are travelling with heavy luggage.
Many of Britain’s 2,581 railway stations were constructed before modern accessibility standards were established, making them challenging to navigate for many disabled people. My Department’s recent accessibility audit found that approximately 56% of stations are step-free. It might also be helpful for me to explain that around 66% of the 1.3 billion journeys that take place on the network every year are between those step-free stations. This is significant progress, compared to where the network was just a few years ago, but we still have a long way to go.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and other hon. Members that accessibility is an absolute priority for this Government and, once it is fully established and operational, it will be of critical importance for Great British Railways. We are absolutely committed to delivering accessibility improvements, allowing more people to travel easily, with confidence and with dignity. We also know that the experience for disabled people when travelling on rail too often falls short of what is expected and, frankly, what passengers deserve.
That leads me on to our recently published rail accessibility road map, which ensures that we remain on track to deliver improvements, both to facilities and to the little things that create a better passenger experience. The road map includes a range of tangible actions that will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, access to journey information and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and facilities such as toilets.
Meaningful improvements are being delivered across the railway to improve the accessibility of the network. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access at over 270 stations right across Britain. This has included new lifts and bridges, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. Thirty-two station accessibility upgrades have been completed since the beginning of April 2024, with accessibility upgrades at a further five stations planned for completion by the end of March 2026.
Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations, including everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. This is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway or were unable to use it at all, and we are continuing to invest in station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.
Now that I have addressed some of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that we provide adequate accessibility at stations, I will turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at Northwich railway station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Mid Chesire. I regret that Northwich station does not offer full step-free access. As he set out in his speech, the Chester-bound platform remains accessible only via a bridge with stairs. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and hugely regrettable in 2025.
In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Northwich station; indeed, this nomination received strong support from my hon. Friend. The previous Government announced that the initial feasibility work would be undertaken for 50 of these projects, and as my hon. Friend knows, Northwich railway station was not one of the stations announced. Of course, it is not for me to comment on decisions made by the previous Government, but I absolutely recognise his disappointment and frustration at that decision.
My hon. Friend spoke clearly and passionately about the gable end of the station building collapsing into the Victorian canopy and the immense disruption that it caused to users of the station. As he observed, this created an opportunity to deliver step-free access at Northwich station. Again, I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration that such an opportunity was not taken under the previous Government.
Let me now respond to some of the specific questions that my hon. Friend put to me. First, he asked whether the Department will publish the process by which stations will be submitted for consideration under future rounds of the Access for All programme. Our recently published rail accessibility road map includes a clear commitment to reform the Access for All programme as part of establishing Great British Railways. As colleagues may know, the Railways Bill recently had its First Reading. As the Bill progresses, we will be able to provide a clear timeline for reforms to the Access for All programme, but the House can be assured of our commitment to transparency and a reformed, more efficient approach to this programme.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Minister is making a compelling case for why the Government are so insistent on making all stations accessible to ensure that everybody has access to public transport. In my home town of Redditch in Worcestershire, the plan for a newly redeveloped station has been cancelled by the local Reform-led council, just when this Government have pledged hundreds of millions of pounds to improve cross-city lines via the midlands rail hub. The plan was to bring the station up to compliant standards for accessibility. Does he share my frustration, and will he urge the county council to think again about the redevelopment plan?
Simon Lightwood
I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s frustration and that of, I suspect, hundreds of his constituents, who will continue to face challenges when using the rail network. We are very much committed to delivering a more accessible rail system, and I am sure he will continue to voice the thoughts of his constituents loud and clear to his local council.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks about the timescale for the next tranche of Access for All stations, which will be announced soon. Network Rail has completed feasibility studies on the 50 stations selected by the previous Government, and in the coming months we will announce which of these will progress.
Linsey Farnsworth
It is very exciting to hear the proposals coming forward from Network Rail. Can the Minister give us some more information on how we local constituency MPs can support our local communities in pushing forward with the campaigns to have our stations included in that? As he heard me say earlier, it took 20 years of campaigning by very committed local Labour councillors in Alfreton town council to get the measures put in place in Alfreton so that everybody can enjoy access to the train station. We still have a train station in Langley Mill, which is much simpler to resolve, but I am told by Network Rail that although it is not against doing improvements there, it depends on footfall. More people would be able to use the train station if it was accessible, but it will not be accessible unless more people use it, so it is a bit of a Catch-22. I would very much welcome advice on that.
Simon Lightwood
We have seen some great examples across the country of where local stations have managed to attract third-party funding. What I am able to do is volunteer the time of the Rail Minister. I will ensure that he reaches out to have a one-on-one conversation with my hon. Friend.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks whether Northwich station will be considered for inclusion in the next round of accessibility funding. Given the powerful case that he has made today, I fully expect Northwich to be considered for future rounds of Access for All funding. Indeed, the limitations of the current station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which he set out so clearly today, are exactly the sorts of factors that I expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding.
Finally, my hon. Friend raises an important point about ensuring that when stations are refurbished or rebuilt, accessibility improvements are properly considered for delivery at the same time. I share his disappointment that under the previous Government, opportunities to deliver such improvements at Northwich station were missed. I am happy to commit to my hon. Friend that we will write to the chief executive of Network Rail to ask him to consider whether accessibility is sufficiently embedded in planning and delivery, and how these arrangements can be strengthened further as we move towards the full stand-up of Great British Railways.
During the course of this exchange, we have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility. Drawing on the example of Northwich in my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have discussed missed opportunities under the previous Government to integrate accessibility improvements. Let me finish by reiterating that this Government are absolutely committed to developing a rail network in which accessibility is incorporated from the outset, not just as an afterthought. That is demonstrated by the £280 million of funding that the Chancellor has made available to the Access for All programme through the recent spending review.
I thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. I also thank him and other hon. Members for their patience as we continue to move towards a more accessible rail network that works for all passengers.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. A copy of the draft regulations was laid before the House on 21 October.
There are estimated to be around 47,000 people in the UK with Down’s syndrome. Despite existing legal duties and frameworks, those people face real challenges in accessing the care and support they need to live the lives they want to in their own communities. This Government are determined to set that right. Through the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, aligned with the overarching aims of our 10-year health plan for England, we are striving to improve the life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome by improving their access to services, raising awareness and understanding of their needs, and breaking down the barriers to opportunity that they and other disabled people face. The draft regulations will make a technical but necessary amendment to the Down Syndrome Act to support its effective implementation, and it is right that they should be given full scrutiny in Committee.
I will begin by setting out what the Down Syndrome Act requires. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is required to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. Relevant authorities must have due regard to the final statutory guidance, once published. This Government want disabled people’s access to, and experience of, healthcare services to be equitable and effective. The guidance under the Down Syndrome Act supports that aim by raising awareness of, and bringing together in one place, the practical steps that organisations should take to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. It also helps to clarify the support and services that people with Down’s syndrome can expect to receive.
On 5 November, we launched a public consultation on draft guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. Work to develop the draft guidance has involved significant engagement with people with lived experience and, importantly, with the organisations that support them. The consultation presents a further opportunity for people with lived experience and their families to share their views. We expect the guidance to improve support for people with Down’s syndrome and for those with other, similar conditions. In order for the guidance to deliver improvements for those people, it needs to be implemented effectively across the range of communities that it serves.
On 9 May 2023, NHS England published statutory guidance stating that every integrated care board should identify a member of its board to lead on supporting that ICB to perform its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down’s syndrome. The NHS England guidance also states that ICBs should have a lead for learning disability and autism, and a lead for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It will be important for ICB leads to work collaboratively across the integrated care system, with local authority, public health, education and wider partners. The consultation on the draft guidance will help us to understand whether the guidance is clear, informative and useful to relevant authorities in carrying out their legislative requirements in support of people with Down’s syndrome. We will use the feedback received to ensure the guidance is fit for purpose.
I now turn to what the draft regulations will do. Under the Down Syndrome Act, relevant authorities must have due regard to the final statutory guidance when exercising their relevant functions. The Act does not create any functions beyond that duty. The schedule to the Act specifies the relevant authorities that must have due regard to the guidance and the specific functions of those bodies to which the guidance applies. As drafted, the schedule does not include NHS England or ICBs. Rather, it refers to the National Health Service Commissioning Board, which was the former name of NHS England, and to clinical commissioning groups, which were the commissioning bodies in place at the time the Down Syndrome Act was passed.
These draft regulations seek to bring the legislation up to date by replacing references to CCGs with ICBs, and references to the National Health Service Commissioning Board with NHS England. The changes are required because the Health and Social Care Act 2022 made provision for the abolition of CCGs and replaced them with ICBs, and renamed the National Health Service Commissioning Board as NHS England. The purpose of that change is to bring ICBs and NHS England within scope of the Down Syndrome Act duty to have due regard to the guidance.
Final guidance issued under the Down Syndrome Act will not be published until these changes come into force. We intend to publish the guidance before the planned abolition of NHS England comes into effect. We understand that the ongoing reforms across Government affect the timing and content of the final guidance, and its content after publication. We will keep the final guidance under review, and it will be updated to reflect the latest policy and legislative frameworks as and when necessary.
The Down’s syndrome guidance will not be statutory for those not specified in the schedule to the Down Syndrome Act, which means that persons who are not relevant authorities are under no obligation to have due regard to the guidance. It is therefore important that we change the wording in the Down Syndrome Act now to ensure that the guidance will apply to current relevant authorities. The change will also ensure that the legislation is in alignment with NHS England’s statutory guidance on the ICB leads on Down’s syndrome. ICB leads are responsible for the implementation of the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. It is therefore critical that they are referenced in the legislation itself.
The regulations will come into force on the day after the date on which they are made. The rationale is to ensure that the duty under the Down Syndrome Act to give guidance to relevant authorities applies to the correct authorities. The regulations will have no material effect until the final guidance is published. We therefore do not believe it necessary to engage with or notify the public further on these changes.
By making important updates to the Down Syndrome Act, these regulations will provide vital assurance that the guidance will be implemented effectively, ensuring that it can achieve the aim of improving the life outcomes of those with Down’s syndrome. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure it will delight the Committee to know that I do not intend to detain us for too long. [Interruption.] I always get a cheer when I say that. I would like to begin by saying that I do not see anything particularly contentious in this. The Minister rightly points out that these are technical changes that bring the Down Syndrome Act into line with the reforms introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022, in particular the replacement of CCGs with ICBs and the renaming of the NHS Commissioning Board as NHS England.
However, it is worth questioning the Government on the longer-term stability of these changes. As hon. Members will know, the Government have stated their intention to abolish NHS England by April 2027. That process has already been delayed, reportedly due to uncertainty over who will meet the redundancy costs for staff within those organisations. If that abolishment proceeds, a new health Bill will be required. At present, we do not know when that Bill will be brought forward or what it will contain. It is therefore entirely possible that the statutory references being updated today will need to be amended again in the near future.
I also note that there is no statutory review clause in this instrument. While that may be understandable given the technical nature of the changes, it adds to concerns that further legislative changes may not be properly anticipated or subject to adequate scrutiny in good time.
While I support these draft regulations, I urge the Minister to clarify what transitional arrangements are being considered for the functions currently held by NHS England and the integrated care boards. That is especially important, as he rightly pointed out, for the consistency of support that we all want to see in the context of the Down Syndrome Act. We must ensure that people with Down’s syndrome are not adversely affected by any ongoing organisational changes within the health system. The Minister mentioned some of the updates to the Down Syndrome Act. Perhaps he could update us further on any other actions that are ongoing. How many still need to be done?
In addition, I note that the Act seems to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance, on which the Government have just launched a consultation. One of the criticisms of the Act at the time was that it is specific to Down’s syndrome. Although I obviously welcome that focus, others face similar disabilities and challenges. How might the Government support them?
Finally, it looks like people can respond to the guidance only online. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he is confident that those who are digitally excluded will not be prevented from taking part in this important consultation?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing the consensus on the Down Syndrome Act. It should be placed on record that the Act was a private Member’s Bill sponsored by Sir Liam Fox, then a Conservative Member. I am delighted to carry forward the draft regulations on the basis of that consensus.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what these statutory instruments will look like in relation to future iterations of NHS governance structures. As he said, NHS England will continue to undertake the statutory functions until parliamentary time allows for legislative changes. I am confident that the Down Syndrome Act and Acts like it will be components of the primary legislation that will be required to make those new arrangements, such that we will not require this type of Delegated Legislation Committee process again.
I will take back the question about digital access to the consultation process to my officials. The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point on exclusion, of which I am also very cognisant. I am happy to write to him with a fuller answer.
Again, I am grateful for the consensus on both sides of the Committee. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The purpose of the statutory instrument is simple: to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.
As the Committee will know, the UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements where possible after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI implements the procurement chapters of them.
Before I cover the procurement chapter commitments in some detail, I want to provide the House with more background on the two agreements. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. They will strengthen our co-operation across a range of priority areas and signal our commitment to two strategically important partners.
The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister al-Sudani’s visit to the UK in January this year. During that visit, both Prime Ministers announced a trade package worth over £12 billion. That package, when fully delivered, will represent a tenfold increase compared with our current annual trade. The UK has therefore started a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq, and the PCA will deepen our bilateral relationship across a wide range of sectors including, but not limited to: energy, transport, scientific research, education and culture, as well as counter-terrorism and arms controls.
The UK-Kazakhstan SPCA, which was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government, provides a framework for political dialogue and deeper co-operation on trade, security, climate, education and culture. The agreement goes further than existing World Trade Organisation arrangements on the provision of services, creating more favourable conditions on the establishment of cross-border supply. It also exceeds Kazakhstan’s current WTO commitments on global procurement, aligning them to the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding.
The treaty is a substantial indication of the UK’s commitment to strategic political and economic co-operation with Kazakhstan, and it confirms our long-standing shared interests. UK businesses have traded with Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991 in areas such as minerals, education and architecture. The agreement will deepen those links. The text of the SPCA also makes important and specific references to bilateral dialogue on human rights, labour relations and gender equality.
It is important to note that the procurement chapters of the agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements before our exit from the EU. Some of the language has been tweaked to better reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and the two countries today. A key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazakh agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the SPCA can considered broadly equivalent to that of the WTO GPA. However, the market access levels in the Iraq PCA are lower than that as they only include access to central Government entities.
As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this SI was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of the agreements can only take effect once the agreements have implemented in domestic legislation. The SI will achieve that by updating schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. Through the addition of the agreements to schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Procurement Act. That will provide them with access and rights in UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access for UK suppliers. The Procurement Act regulations are being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial extent of this instrument is UK wide. The territorial application of the instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. Therefore, the Welsh Government will make a separate SI to implement the agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers, and the Scottish Government will implement the agreements separately, under their own legislation, in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the statutory instrument, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations.
If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders?
On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected?
The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.
Chris Ward
I was rather expecting some further contributions, but there we go—I can see what the time is. I welcome the continuing cross-party support on this matter across the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of this work—particularly on the Kazakhstan agreement—was started under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. We do not expect there to be a material policy change. As I said, the regulations replicate much of where we were pre-EU exit. There are some technical tweaks, but, to his point, there is no material change. On additional burdens on business, which he also mentioned, we do not expect there to be a significant impact from the regulations because the underpinning framework is not being substantially amended; these really are technical changes.
On SMEs, as I said, we do not expect huge changes, but once the regulations are agreed to formally by the House, updated guidance will be published to inform SMEs, affected people and suppliers looking to trade into Kazakhstan and Iraq and vice versa. More broadly, the Government have a big programme of work to try to improve support for SMEs in the procurement regime. Some really important progress was made on that in the Procurement Act—there is cross-party agreement here—but we are looking to go much further and ensure that the public procurement budget of almost £400 billion a year does everything it can to support SMEs. We will look to do that going forward, but we do not expect there to be material change from the regulations. I think that covers all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
The implementation of the regulations will be a key step in formalising our relationship with both countries, with mutual benefits on both sides. We are committed to enhancing our relationship with Kazakhstan and with Iraq. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to open this debate on the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies. The number of colleagues who have joined us this early on a Wednesday morning is a mark of just how important this issue is to so many constituencies.
Manufacturing is the backbone of our economy. This country is unique. We do not mass-produce rubbish; we make specialist things that only our foundries and factories can produce. Decent manufacturing brings good jobs but also economic power to our country. Manufacturing contributed £217 billion in output to the economy last year—nearly 10% of GDP—and supported 2.6 million jobs.
Calder Valley has manufacturing in its history. The story started with wool, but has developed into chemicals and specialist manufacturing. As new businesses opened in old mills, we also focused on particular industries. Calder Valley has long been known for its engineering. We are home to what many call valve valley, a cluster of more than 20 firms that design, build and service valves that are used across the world. In the valve community, which I mainly discovered after becoming an MP, Brighouse and Elland are central hubs. These companies are not household names, but they are businesses that keep industry moving, from energy to water to pharmaceuticals. They employ local people, train apprentices and anchor our economy in towns that too often feel overlooked.
When I visit manufacturing and engineering firms in Calder Valley, I see the same thing again and again: highly skilled workers who are proud of the worldwide reach of their products, from 60% of water in New York city travelling through valves made in Brighouse to oil rigs in the North sea being made safer because of the expertise of workers in a West Yorkshire factory. I see innovation, with companies investing in new technology and tapping into various sectors such as defence, renewables and nuclear. I see resilience, because these businesses have survived downturns and global shocks, yet they continue to provide good jobs in Calder Valley.
But we cannot ignore the fact that the numbers working in manufacturing are falling. As of 2024, 15% of jobs in Calder Valley are in the manufacturing sector, compared with a national average of 7%, but that share has been declining. In 2007, just under a quarter of jobs in Calder Valley were in manufacturing. From the financial crisis to Brexit and the Tories’ disastrous deal, the past couple of decades have ripped the heart out of our manufacturing industry.
We will hear a lot in the next few weeks about growth and so forth. It will come as a relief to many Members that I am not in the Treasury, so rather than talking about statistics, I will share what local manufacturers tell me. They tell me that their order book has never been so bad, because of the impact of tariffs. The lack of stability means companies are not making long-term decisions that would see them step up. That is why we need a strong domestic manufacturing sector, but it is also why we need to be strategic in our support for the industry and how we spend our money on the infrastructure that we need to rebuild.
If we are serious about Labour’s promise that two thirds of young people will go to university or achieve a high-level qualification, this is exactly the kind of work we need to encourage. We need to make sure that those qualifications are linked to opportunities in advanced manufacturing, engineering and design. That means working with local authorities and businesses to understand the needs of industry in each region.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. On the point about training and upskilling, does he agree that we need to do more to develop the skills and competitiveness of our manufacturing base, and that that needs to spread beyond the large cities so that smaller towns and their residents can benefit?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The point about smaller towns is so important, because as well as creating brilliant jobs in the smaller economy where they will make a difference, they give a sense of place and value to what we produce. People are proud of what their town produces, whether it is valves or textiles, and they think of those things as defining their town. That commitment is something that only a small town can offer, and it really makes a difference.
Businesses in this country are ready to grow, but they need support with skills, infrastructure and investment. They need to know that their order book is guaranteed for the long term. The Government have made really positive noises about encouraging skilled apprenticeships; that is welcome, but apprenticeships work only if the companies can afford to hire and train young people. We need to ensure that small and medium-sized manufacturers, which are the lifeblood of Calder Valley and other small towns, have the support that they need to take on apprenticeships without being too financially stretched.
In September, I visited the Brighouse-based training charity West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services, as part of National Manufacturing Day. It showcased a range of firms in Calder Valley to school students. I also met Stuart Billingham, who is set to become the managing director of KOSO Kent Introl next year. The company, founded in Brighouse, employs about 150 people and exports specialist valves across the world. Stuart started at 16 on a youth training scheme and has worked his way up the company to become its managing director. His journey is a brilliant example of how skills and apprenticeships can lead to as rewarding, lucrative and challenging a career, with as massive a global impact, as we are often told that universities can. It shows that those careers have progression and responsibility. I want this Government to produce 1,000 Stuarts, albeit that some of his close friends might not want that many Stuarts.
At that event, there was so much interest from young people and so much curiosity about the opportunities that a career in manufacturing could bring. That spark of curiosity must be nurtured into a flame of ambition, especially at a time when too many young people feel pressured into pursuing degrees that may not suit them or lead to secure employment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I praise my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. On apprenticeships, I wonder whether he would care to comment on the excellent work of the Catapult centres, which are Government-funded and which work collectively between business and academia. In my constituency of Rugby, at Ansty Park, we have the Manufacturing Technology Centre, which has its own training facility. It has already trained 1,200 apprentices. That can only be a good thing for our region, and particularly for our young people who want to get on and get jobs.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Yes, 1,200 apprenticeships is 1,200 decent jobs and 1,200 families who have pride that their son or daughter will make a real difference and make products that make it around the world. That is why this matters.
Only 14% of apprenticeships that started in the past academic year were in engineering and manufacturing, however. The Institution of Engineering and Technology has reported that engineering faces one of the largest skills shortfalls in the economy, with more than 46,000 vacancies in the sector. Similarly, the welding industry needs 35,000 more people. That is the key to growth. It represents a real opportunity to support young people into secure, well-paid work. Without it, our manufacturing sector will be in trouble.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I encourage him to go one step upstream and look at some of the wider policy context? If we are to regrow our manufacturing base, as we absolutely need to, we have to accept that it will be about future technologies, not just replacing what we had in the past. In my constituency, the development of tidal energy offers a supply chain of 80% UK product, which would then be exportable. If we could capture that, we would have something special—but for that to happen, we need a better policy framework to come out of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
We have to be really bold. We need to look at our future-focused industries and at what we specialise in. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tidal energy, but we will not be able to produce that without a load of specialist valves. I want to ensure that they are built in Calder Valley and go throughout the country. That is what this debate is about: we need to plan and think, but we also need to look at what we do well.
The imbalance between small and large manufacturing companies is accentuated by the fact that larger companies often secure Government contracts, particularly in defence. Not only does that provide them with guaranteed revenue, but it often allows them to poach skilled staff from smaller firms that cannot compete with the salaries and the security that those contracts bring. Yorkshire and the Humber received the least defence spending per person, despite the fact that across our region we have a manufacturing sector that is eager to grow and develop.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. As he knows, the south-west has a brilliant, large defence-related manufacturing sector. Needles and Pins Aerospace is a small, women-led business based in Somerton that provides precision textile engineering for aviation and defence. It should be entitled to the same opportunities to compete on a level playing field for the larger contracts. Does he agree that if the Government are prioritising value and security, they should offer equal commercial opportunities to UK businesses and supply chains in respect of defence and security-related manufacturing contracts?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I absolutely agree. The Defence Office for Small Business Growth—I believe it will open in January, but the Minister will know better than me—will be a great opportunity to grow businesses such as Needles and Pins Aerospace in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the many businesses in my constituency that want to get into the defence industry. She is right that the south-east does very well out of defence. In fact, the defence industry supports 85,000 direct jobs in the south of England, but just 3,750 in Yorkshire and the Humber.
As part of the Government’s mission to make defence an engine for growth, there should be a concerted effort to spread its benefits across the regions and our small towns, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We will grow this economy only if the Government interact with industry, including in Calder Valley and West Yorkshire, in a way that encourages competition rather than dominance. Smaller manufacturers are equally vital and are a sign of a balanced and resilient economy. They must be supported if we are serious about building the balanced and resilient industrial base that we really need.
Valve manufacturing is a reminder that regional economies thrive when we back specialist sectors. It is not about chasing the latest fad; it is about recognising and building on our strengths. In Calder Valley, that means supporting our manufacturers with a skills pipeline, and with the apprenticeships and investment that they need to grow. We can use the power of the public purse to do that, but—I will be honest—we have failed to do that over multiple years and multiple Governments. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has more than 100,000 valves, but they are all made in China. The only company in Calder Valley that has benefited is the company that fixes faulty valves, because the quality is not as good as that of British-made valves. If we expect other countries to use our high-quality valves in manufacturing, our Government must lead by example.
This is about the pride that people feel when they know that something they made in their town is used in projects around the world. It is about the contribution that specialist manufacturing makes to identity as well as GDP. It is about ensuring that places such as Calder Valley are not left behind, but are recognised as central to Britain’s industrial future.
I will finish by making a few points directly to the Minister. In Calder Valley, we know how vital apprenticeships are, yet only 14% of apprenticeships last year were in engineering and manufacturing; what will the Government do to ensure that new training opportunities match the skills shortages that we face, such as those in welding and advanced engineering? Our small and medium-sized manufacturers are the lifeblood of towns such as Brighouse; how will Government support for apprenticeships and investment reach those firms rather than being skewed towards the largest players? Defence strategic procurement could be a real engine for growth in places such as Calder Valley; will the Minister set out how contracts will be used to back British industry, particularly in specialist sectors such as valve manufacturing and precision engineering?
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I will impose an informal time limit of five minutes to allow all Members to get in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me early, Mrs Harris; you are very kind. I am sure hon. Members are wondering why. I thank the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing today’s debate. In his short year and a half in the House, he has shown himself to be assiduous on behalf of his constituents. He works hard, with a key focus on the subjects he brings to the House, both in the main Chamber and here. Well done to him.
Our manufacturing sector is crucial to the UK-wide economy. We must not forget the unique build-up of this country. I always say that we are better together, and there is no Scots Nats person here to tell me otherwise—not that that is a bad thing, but anyway. Whether it be Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, we can do it better, with a significant contribution to the manufacturing industry.
Library research highlights that in 2023, Northern Ireland added £2.2 billion gross value added in manufacturing economic output. In 2024, around 900 direct jobs were supported by the defence industry. Defence plays a crucial role in Northern Ireland, but it does not get its full percentage of defence contracts. I gently put that point to the Minister to get a helpful answer. The defence sector should get more contracts, although there have been lots of commitments.
With great respect, Northern Ireland people—men and women—have proven themselves as leaders in their contribution to the sector. The best is yet to come, with more young people becoming interested in all aspects of manufacturing and engineering. There is a keen interest in science, technology, engineering and maths study and employment in Northern Ireland, especially from young people and from women who have leading roles in manufacture. We are doing and seeing good things happening; we see equality and opportunity.
This is a good news story. Northern Ireland is home to major companies such as Thales and Bombardier. Bombardier at one stage had two major factories in Newtownards, hiring hundreds of people from the local area, showing our skill in the design and manufacture of composites and polymers. I usually visit Thales at least once a year with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who told me that the majority of the workforce live in my constituency of Strangford, so it is obviously to my advantage to be there.
The good news with Thales is that, with Government help, 200 new jobs have been created there. There are also important apprenticeship opportunities. Given my age, I have known some of the young fellows there since they were born. Aged 18, 19 or 20, they now have jobs at Thales, with fantastic opportunities, a good wage and help with their student fees. I have met unions on various occasions to hear their concerns, and have brought this issue to the Floor of the House to seek assurances.
There are some things I ask of the Minister. It would not be right to take part in this debate without highlighting the risks in the manufacturing industry relating to job security. At times like these, the Government are able to step in. That is my Great British Government, and everybody’s Government, whether we voted for them or not. On this occasion, efforts fell short in committing to the manufacturing industry in the way we wanted. I will mention Spirit AeroSystems, the plane manufacturer, and the contribution made by Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland may be a small nation, but we are mighty—a word not often used—just like small David, who took on big Goliath in the Bible and beat him.
Alongside Scotland, Wales and the mainland, specialist manufacturing is crucial to economic prosperity. There must be an unwavering determination to achieve that. I ask the Minister to engage with me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and other Northern Ireland MPs to ensure that, when it comes to helping each other, to make this great United Kingdom of Great Britain even greater and better, we do that together. It takes that commitment. Will the Minister work alongside a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, the Assembly and us to deliver for everyone?
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate and for his call for the use of British parts in British infrastructure.
The debate is incredibly pertinent to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and to neighbouring areas across north Staffordshire, and unsurprisingly my colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent are here with me today. Ours is a post-industrial city and, typically for the coalfield and other regions across the north and midlands, we have lagged behind others in wage growth and investment. Although we rightly take pride in our industrial past and heritage, we must also look with ambition to our future. North Staffordshire is the home of the British ceramics industry, and we are incredibly lucky to have manufacturing specialisms in advanced ceramics, which form part of the supply chains for critical industries and the IS-8—the eight sectors identified in the industrial strategy.
Without ceramics, we cannot have steel, glass or mobile phones. The industrial strategy rightly recognised ceramics as a foundational industry, and I am delighted that the national materials innovation strategy, championed by the Henry Royce Institute, recognises the importance of ceramics as critical materials. Ceramic materials are used in specialist components for high-tech industries, and I will name just a few. They are used in implants and prosthetics in the healthcare sector and as jet engine coatings for civil and defence aerospace. They are used in fuel cells for small modular reactors and in defence applications including rocket components, antennas, surveillance and armour. In fact, they are the only class of materials capable of enabling hypersonic weapons for defence.
North Staffordshire’s advanced ceramics industry is therefore a cornerstone of the UK defence capability. We have a well-established cluster for advanced ceramics in our region, with established companies and research consultancies. That includes Mantec, Ross Ceramics and Lucideon. Lastly, north Staffordshire is incredibly lucky to have AMRICC—the Applied Materials Research, Innovation and Commercialisation Company, which is the Government-funded centre of excellence for advanced ceramics.
The global ceramics market was valued at £200 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach £358 billion by 2035. Advanced ceramics account for 54% of that market, with the UK holding a share worth £4.5 billion, so the opportunity for growth here is clear. I must stress, however, that advanced ceramics are only part of the advanced manufacturing specialisms in our part of the country. The west midlands has the UK’s second highest number of advanced manufacturing jobs and contributes 6.7% of total GVA. In my constituency, the engineering manufacturer Goodwin produces materials for submarines, aeroplanes and advanced surveillance systems.
Key to the potential for growth is the A50/A500 growth corridor, the nexus of which is in Sideway in my constituency. It is the key connector between Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Along the A50/A500 growth corridor are world-renowned advanced manufacturing companies, including Bentley, JCB and Toyota. That growth corridor connects more than 1 million people and 500,000 jobs in clean energy, hydrogen and technology. If we extend to Nottingham, it connects three university city regions, and if we use the East Midlands rail line, it will take us all the way to Lincolnshire.
Midlands Connect has estimated that the A50/A500 project, along with the building of more houses, will generate more than £12 billion in GVA, could create up to 39,000 new jobs—an unbelievable number—by 2045, and has a projected annual growth rate of 1.6% until 2070. He will tell me off for doing this, but I am going to quote the chief executive of Stoke-on-Trent city council. He said to me that it “could deliver a greater bang for its buck than the northern powerhouse.”
The project requires £3 million to develop the business case. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to support the project and development of the business case. The economic benefits from the project would link manufacturers in north Staffordshire to the east midlands, with strong implications for devolution and economic growth across the regions. I believe that it might be worth considering a north midlands strategic authority to unlock those benefits further, as the corridor is a critical supply chain and distribution artery for businesses to the east and west and, indeed, the north and south, because it connects the M1 and M6.
There is an incredible amount of specialist manufacturing in our regional economy, particularly in the advanced ceramics sector. With the right investment in innovation, infrastructure and skills, the north midlands advanced manufacturing corridor could become a leading growth hub for our regional economy and the UK economy more broadly.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome today’s debate. Plymouth and the surrounding area boast some of the finest examples of British advanced manufacturing. Babcock refits the Royal Navy’s frigates, maintains our nuclear deterrent and assembles the Supacat Jackal armoured vehicles at His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Today, Helsing is opening a resilience factory in my constituency, manufacturing autonomous underwater gliders to protect critical infrastructure. The date was supposed to be last week, so I went to visit. Unfortunately, I am here for this debate today rather than there for the official opening today, but it is an exciting opportunity for my constituency of South West Devon and Plymouth as a whole. The company was attracted to the city because of its easy access to deep water for testing and sea trials of marine autonomy. For similar reasons, Thales at Turnchapel Wharf is delivering the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy.
Plymouth’s industry is not just defence companies equipping the men and women in uniform with world-class kit. Mars Wrigley, a company I visited last month, manufactures its chewing gum in Plymouth. Alderman Tooling, another advanced manufacturer in Plympton in my constituency, is a metal fabrication company that produces a range of products, including metal bed feet, bus handrails and displays for museums and fashion retailers. Plessey Semiconductors, Demon Pressure Washers and Princess Yachts are all significant to South West Devon, and many other businesses manufacture in neighbouring Plymouth constituencies.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Plymouth wears the crown as the south-west’s pre-eminent manufacturing city, ranking ninth across the UK. This is within the south-west region, which has the third highest proportion of advanced manufacturing jobs in the country, employing 86,500 people. Indeed, the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group represents over 50 local businesses right across the city, employing almost 5,500 people.
With the current focus on the defence sector across the country and in Plymouth, it is easy to just focus on the prime companies: Babcock, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. However, it is important to also recognise the immense contribution of small and medium-sized businesses to the advanced manufacturing sector—both the defence supply chain and the wider manufacturing sector that populates Plymouth and the surrounding area.
Plymouth’s regeneration is being led by manufacturers, small and large, in our city. Our city’s future success is tied to theirs. The city’s offer is impressive and often overlooked. Our advanced manufacturing sector contributes hundreds of millions of pounds of GVA to the local economy and the country as a whole. Defence in the south-west adds £3.6 billion of GVA, with 43,500 jobs. However, it is well documented that Plymouth has a skills shortage. This in turn risks local growth, social cohesion and cost increases to the defence programme. To unlock Plymouth’s potential, we must meet those challenges head-on.
Recent data has highlighted that as many apprenticeships are needed by local SMEs as by defence primes—something we must be alive to as we promote our manufacturing sector and the skilled employees required. That is especially the case since high wage inflation—something already mentioned—brought about by the demands from the defence primes can impact those critical SMEs that also provide significant numbers of jobs and need to grow their skilled workforce, too.
We are not alone in this reality in the south-west. Recent Transport Committee hearings that I was part of have focused on the skills shortage in transport manufacturing, too. We often hear about welding, but ultimately those welders are needed right across the country in a whole range of jobs. It is very important we ensure that that supply and demand match each other. I am particularly interested to hear how the Minister can address that, because I sit in those meetings hearing about the need for welders, and I am not convinced that there are enough young people out there to fill those jobs, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The need for a laser focus on skills is crucial, and a reality check is needed on the numbers required across all manufacturing sectors to ensure we tackle the demand effectively.
Although I welcome the Government’s defence spending and commitment to Plymouth, I am watching to ensure that their investment also addresses the broader systemic challenges I outlined facing Plymouth’s advanced manufacturing sector. Labour has pursued policies that actively harm our SMEs. The jobs tax is costing small businesses £615 more a year per employee, and the Employment Rights Bill is tying them up in red tape. I hope that the Chancellor is taking a second look at the harm that those policies are causing to small businesses ahead of the Budget next week.
Plymouth is an exciting place to set up a business, with the Plymouth and South Devon freeport providing incentives and a skilled workforce that is growing every day, even with the challenges I have mentioned, all in the most beautiful place in the country to live. It is clearly the place to be to invest and to seek those jobs. My hope is that the Government will help and not hinder the city’s potential.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. We do not talk nearly enough about manufacturing in this place—I am sure the Minister would agree with that, given his personal commitment and understanding of the sector from his previous role.
I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I am sure that parts made in my constituency, at Meighs & Westleys, Goodwin or Mantec, make their way down to her local businesses, but I say gently to her that scaremongering about the Employment Rights Bill is a disincentive to industry and a restriction on our economy. The Bill is not yet anywhere near implementation.
Gareth Snell
Very briefly, as long as the hon. Lady is going to admit that she is wrong.
Rebecca Smith
I am not going to do that. Many businesspeople across my constituency have contacted me to stress how damaging the Bill will be. It seems to be more of an ideological issue on which Opposition Members differ. The red tape, particularly around things like zero-hours contracts, will have a massive impact, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
Gareth Snell
I am many things, but I have never been called an ideologue. We can have a debate about the Employment Rights Bill on a different occasion, but I suggest that securing the right for people to know what hours they are working does not seem to me like a minimum ask for anybody.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley raised the importance of manufacturing to pride in place. He rightly talked about the valves made in Calder Valley, and he will know that I and my colleagues from north Staffordshire talk quite a lot in this place about ceramics and pottery—I cannot imagine your disbelief, Mrs Harris, but it is true. We talk about that because we are proud of the things that we make. We are proud to know that the tableware in our dining rooms was made by Duchess in Stoke-on-Trent, and the gifts in the Lords gift shop were made by Halcyon Days in Stoke-on-Trent. There are Wedgwood plates, Spode mugs and Burleigh prints all around this building that were made in Stoke-on-Trent.
It is not just Stoke-on-Trent that has a unique commitment and an integral identity connection to manufacturing. Think about the cutlery manufacturers of Sheffield, the jewellery quarter in Birmingham, the shoe manufacturers of Northampton, the knitwear and textiles in Scotland and, of course, the shipyards of Barrow and Belfast—clear commitments to industry that have helped to shape people’s identity. That is why we have to think about what regional investment means. We are proud of the things we make: they contribute to our local economy, which therefore contributes to the national economy. The supply chains need to stretch right across the whole United Kingdom because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, this is about the nations and regions of this country coming together to do what we all do best in our localities for the greater good of the nation.
In Stoke-on-Trent we do not just make tableware, giftware and ceramics; it is also proudly home to a factory that makes all the cherry bakewells in this country. I did not know she was here this morning, but one of our guests in the Public Gallery works in that factory. The workers there are proud of what they do and their creation of pastry, frangipane, icing and hand-placed cherries.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Did the hon. Gentleman bring any with him?
Gareth Snell
No—but those workers know how they contribute to our national economy.
When manufacturing, pride in place and identity overlap, that is something to be celebrated, because it drives innovation. Hannah Ault of Valentine Clays in Stoke-on-Trent is incredibly proud of the work she does. She is formulating a new clay that can be baked at a lower temperature for a shorter period of time, because she has an intense connection to the ceramic sector and the use of such skills. That research and development would not ordinarily happen; it happens because of her connection to a place and the support she can give to a sector that still has things to make.
I want to press the Minister on two points. First, on procurement, it is a travesty that only a third of the cars in the Government Car Service are made by British manufacturers. The proportion is even less for police cars purchased in this country. We have bus manufacturers, train manufacturers and brick manufacturers in this country, all of which make wonderful products, yet we import products from other parts of the world. Local and regional manufacturers can make them at better quality and lower cost if we give them the opportunity, but to do that the Minister—he knows what I am about to say—has to get a grip on industrial energy costs, which I know he is doing.
Small manufacturers in this country face some of the highest industrial electricity prices anywhere in the world, and although our gas prices are relatively competitive with Europe, they are much higher than they were two or three years ago. Small manufacturers need help with export finance to ensure that they can go to trade shows and exhibitions. We also have to get a grip on skills; it is brilliant that T-levels are coming online, but they have to come online quicker.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing the debate, and not least for mentioning one of the many shocking things about Hinkley C in my constituency.
My Tiverton and Minehead constituency is home to some truly remarkable specialist manufacturers whose contributions extend far beyond our borders and into the global economy. I have chosen to confine my speech to just three examples—so apologies to HepcoMotion, Rotolok and others.
Heathcoat Fabrics is a shining example. Founded by John Heathcoat, it has a storied past. After the factory in the midlands was destroyed by the Luddites, Heathcoat led his workforce to the south-west and established a major lace-making enterprise in Tiverton in 1816. Ahead of his time and a thoroughly righteous man, not only did he build a thriving business, but he invested in the welfare of his workers, building a series of cottages for them. The homes are, of course, still standing, and are well lived in by Tivertonians today.
The company carried forward Heathcoat’s vision and ethos of worker welfare, providing pensions to employees before Lloyd George’s Old Age Pensions Act 1908. Today, Heathcoat Fabrics designs specialist fabrics that are trusted by NASA for its space missions. I say that again: trusted by NASA. Enough said—wow. It is quite the distinction, and a testament to Heathcoat Fabrics’ world-class innovation.
Impressive, too, is Shearwell Data, a family-run business based in Wheddon Cross, Somerset. Under the leadership of director Richard Webber, Shearwell has become a global leader in livestock-monitoring systems. Its technology supports farmers worldwide and is backed by advanced data storage and a remote support network that stretches across continents. Agriculture is a way of life in our part of the world, and Shearwell’s success puts Somerset firmly on the map in conversations about agricultural innovation.
I also want to mention Singer Instruments, which is based in Roadwater, in Watchet. Its precision instrumentation accelerates scientific discovery, supporting and supplying labs in more than 60 countries and in every corner of the globe. It is a source of great local pride to know that such cutting-edge science is powered by a company rooted in the constituency.
Although it is not in my constituency—it is just over the border—it would be remiss of me not to mention Agratas, Tata’s global battery arm, which is building the UK’s largest electric vehicle battery factory. Once fully operational, it is projected to generate more than £700 million annually for the south-west economy, and will be a significant employer, with around 4,000 people across the full site—opportunities for talented constituents of mine.
All those enterprises form the backbone of a flourishing hub of specialist manufacturing. They demonstrate how innovation, resilience and a healthy dose of ambition can drive prosperity for our communities and contribute to the wider south-west regional economy.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate, and echo his calls to buy British.
As the first seaside resort in Britain, Scarborough pioneered bathing machines for women—horse-drawn sheds on wheels—who entered the ocean clad in vast garments, helped by servants. In those days, it was all about protecting modesty, but today the innovators in Scarborough are, thankfully, all about protecting the environment, as we move to net zero and tackle the climate crisis.
Local business SeaGrown has created the Kelpedo, which is an innovative and robust offshore seaweed cultivation system. The small cylinder is literally fired from boats into the sea like a mini-torpedo. More than just a structure for growing seaweed, each Kelpedo unit actively contributes to ocean health by sequestering carbon, improving water quality and creating vital habitats that enhance marine biodiversity. It can be scaled up to be used in offshore wind farms, and shows how new employment opportunities and local identities can be created beyond conventional maritime activities.
The move to net zero also inspires Alexander Dennis Ltd, formerly Plaxton—manufacturers of fine electric buses and a major employer in Scarborough—and in September, Schneider Electric opened up a brand-new, £42 million, state-of-the-art smart plant that produces the critical electrical equipment needed as the UK moves to cleaner energy. I have visited that incredible new facility in Eastfield, which makes the low-voltage switchgear needed to manage and distribute incoming power supplies into separate circuits, such as the feeder pillars for electric vehicle charging. The plain green box behind the whizzy plug-in will probably have been made in Scarborough. The facility is net zero in scope 1 and 2 emissions, and it uses modern technologies to reduce energy waste and maximise the use of renewable energy, 30% of which will come from its own solar energy system.
By manufacturing in the UK for UK organisations, our investment builds resilience into the nation’s critical infrastructure, reducing exposure to global supply chain shocks and slashing both cost and carbon emissions through shorter, optimised transport and logistic routes. UK production means faster and more flexible delivery of bespoke engineering solutions, tailored to the unique needs of UK projects. Customers can visit the Scarborough site and collaborate directly with product designers and engineers to ensure that products fully meet their needs before they move into production. Companies like Schneider and Alexander Dennis are looking to us for joined-up policy and a stable regulatory environment, as well as a Government commitment to electrification, transport decarbonisation and buying British through procurement incentives.
Advanced manufacturing employs nearly 50,000 people across Yorkshire and the Humber, contributing £6.2 billion to the country’s economic output. I am proud to represent a coastal constituency where innovation and excellence in specialist manufacturing proudly plays such a major part in addressing the climate emergency and in our regional success story.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on shining light on a really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally.
Specialist manufacturing is critical to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. I could talk about a range of companies, including Pearsalls, which is part of the Corza Medical group and has been spinning its looms in the same building since the 18th century. Today, it is the world leader in manufacturing sutures and surgical stitching materials, which it ships around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned the Agratas factory that is being constructed just across the border from my Taunton and Wellington constituency. As she said, it will employ around 4,000 people and have a huge impact on not only our two constituencies but the whole south-west economy. Many of my constituents work there already, and many local suppliers will be involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be greatly affected in a positive way. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right.
The University Centre Somerset College Group, which is based not only in my Taunton and Wellington constituency but across Somerset, is the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. It has partnered with Agratas to develop new training pathways, including apprenticeships for upskilling and reskilling, to deliver the skills the new facility needs. It is not just another training programme: UCS has to develop a first-of-its-kind programme to meet the demand, which barely existed just a couple of years ago. It is not an easy task, but it is exactly the kind of innovation required to build a skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors we need, such as battery production.
UCS has done all that at its own risk, and without Government support. It is developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry, with a lack of up-front funding. It will receive funding from the Government or other sources only once the course starts. As a further education college, it cannot borrow against potential future funding. The current FE model does not support the up-front investment that is required, and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Such investment is desperately needed and the current system has to change.
There is another way in which UCS skills investment is being held back. Colleges are no longer allowed to borrow in order to invest in the student accommodation they need as they used to be able to. The community of Taunton and Wellington, as well as the college itself, desperately want to see such investment. However, the college cannot facilitate that, because it is no longer allowed to borrow to invest. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of these initiatives while the Government take the credit for positive outcomes without having supported them in the first place.
This issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills; sites such as the Agratas site require an enormous amount of construction skills and labour. During peak construction years, the construction of the site will generate a total of £540 million for the region. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build such facilities and work in them. Agratas shows what is possible. The investment appetite is there. Battery manufacturing could be a brilliant new green growth opportunity for the UK. However, we need the Government to match that ambition with support for skills in both specialist manufacturing and construction. That means properly funding institutions such as UCS and ensuring that Skills England invests up front in these partnerships that deliver, rather than just producing consultation papers that plan.
For Taunton and Wellington, and indeed for the south-west as a whole, the opportunity is in front of us. The Government need to grab it with both hands and provide the support and the certainty to turn it into a success.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this important debate.
In discussing the contribution of specialist manufacturing to regional economies, there is no better example than the city that I am so proud to represent. Indeed, we have a bit of a pincer movement going on today, because all the MPs from Stoke-on-Trent are in Westminster Hall today. That speaks to the importance of our ceramics industry, whether it is traditional or advanced. That industry is personal to me, because my mum and my grandad worked in it; they would rightly expect me to be here for the debate.
As we know, Stoke-on-Trent was moulded by ceramics, and ceramics remains one of the UK’s most distinctive specialist manufacturing clusters. It is an industry built on technical skill, precision and an understanding of materials that has been passed down from family to family for hundreds of years.
When Moorcroft closed its doors earlier this year, I met its incredible workers who, between them, had over 800 years of experience in the ceramics sector. That is not some abstract figure but lived experience of firing temperatures, glaze chemistry—dipping, as we call it—moulding techniques and quality control. Those skills cannot simply be recreated once they are lost. I am delighted that Moorcroft now has a new lease of life. It has reopened under the stewardship of Will Moorcroft, the grandson of the company’s founder, which is great news for the city.
The reality of specialist manufacturing is that it is place-based. We have heard about the importance of identity. It crosses generations, and it has an economic and cultural value that goes far beyond any set of accounts. Across Stoke-on-Trent, ceramics companies continue to innovate. They support supply chains that reach into retail, hospitality, construction and advanced industries. They offer skilled employment and apprenticeships for our local people, anchoring our local economy, yet, as we know, the sector faces some real difficulties at the moment: rising energy costs, international competition from countries that do not have the same regulatory or cost environments, and an older workforce that needs a pipeline of new talent. If the Government are serious about backing specialist manufacturing, clusters such as ceramics must be treated as a strategic national asset that is worthy of receiving targeted support on energy, skills, exports and fair competition.
We all know that Stoke-on-Trent stands ready to play its full part in the UK’s industrial future, but we cannot afford to lose our skills and our manufacturers, which the generations before us built up. I hope that the Minister will set out clearly today how the Government plan to protect and grow specialist manufacturing sectors such as our ceramics sector, which remain essential to regional economies and to the country as a whole.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing the debate. We have some Yorkshire people here today.
Our manufacturing towns and communities have long been the engine rooms of this country. They built our economy, drove innovation and gave generations of working-class families good, secure jobs and pride in their local identity. From textiles and engineering to precision manufacturing, these industries shaped the story of our country.
In my constituency of Huddersfield, that story runs deep. The town’s industrial heritage is woven into its very fabric—literally, as Huddersfield’s rich textile history dates back to the early 1700s. Since establishing a worldwide reputation for the manufacturing of fine woollen and worsted cloth, the words “Made in Huddersfield” have been a highly revered global brand. Merchants travelled from across the world to buy Huddersfield cloth, and generations of local workers powered an industry known for exceptional craftsmanship, precision and skill. I have seen at first hand the skill and dedication needed to work in these industries, as my dad worked as a weaver for over 30 years at a local textile firm, C & J Antich & Sons. It makes the cloth for the best fashion houses in the world, as well as putting together materials for Formula 1 cars, which is very exciting.
The truth is that manufacturing matters to Huddersfield, and it matters that we make things in our country. Since becoming the MP for Huddersfield, I have had the opportunity to meet and visit many incredible family-owned and locally born manufacturers working in Huddersfield. That includes W. T. Johnson & Sons, a fourth-generation family-run textile finishing firm that has operated in Huddersfield since 1910; David Brown, a defence manufacturer providing highly complex equipment to the defence industry; the Textile Centre of Excellence, which provides training and research; Thomas Broadbent & Sons, which has run its company in Huddersfield since 1864; Olympus Technologies, which has been designing robotic solutions since the 1980s; Camira Yarns, a woollen spun yarn specialist that was founded in Huddersfield in the 1860s; and Reliance Precision, which has been around for 60 years and does some highly technical stuff that I do not fully understand, but it is very exciting. I also recently attended a roundtable hosted by the Calderdale and Kirklees Manufacturing Alliance.
On those visits, manufacturers and industry leaders often told me the same story. They want to grow, innovate and recruit locally, but there is an issue with finding a younger workforce, so continued investment in vocational training and partnerships between industry and education is really important. Energy costs continue to be a concern, and they want to make sure manufacturing —not just advanced manufacturing—is a strategic priority for this Government. We must invest in the businesses that make things here in Britain.
The ongoing impact of Brexit on trade and the supply chain is a concern for some businesses. SMEs particularly need support with cyber-security. Could the Minister explain what support is available to them? There was also some positive feedback on the export growth programme, which provides tailored advice to industry, and businesses asked what we can do to make sure that model goes further.
These businesses are not nostalgic for the past; they are building for the future. The challenge and the opportunity is to make sure that the benefits of that innovation reach the people and places who need them most. Skills and workforce development will be particularly important for that. Without long-term funding for skills, the system will continue to fall short of what both learners and employers need. If we invest in people, prioritise skills and provide stability for the specialist industries that underpin our economy, we can restore pride and prosperity to the regions that built this country. That means creating secure, high-quality jobs. It means keeping our young people in the towns where we grew up, and it means ensuring that the next generation can take pride in the industries that define their communities.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. When I woke up on this cold Wednesday morning, I did not think I would learn so much about the manufacturing in all our regions—and when there are so many Members from Stoke-on-Trent in the Chamber, how could we not learn so much about ceramics?
Specialist manufacturers do not operate in a vacuum; they need certainty to make investment decisions spanning years—often decades—and they need to know that the Government understand their sector and will back it for the long term. I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to British business and reinstated the industrial strategy, and I am pleased to see it focusing on many of the same sectors that the Liberal Democrats have prioritised for so long: life sciences, clean energy, professional business services, aerospace and automotive.
Obviously, the background to that is disappointment from the previous Government’s decision to scrap the industrial strategy in 2021, pulling the rug out from under businesses that had planned on the basis of Government commitments. However, I am disappointed that not enough attention has been paid to the agrifoods industry and the rural economy.
Agricultural technology was one of the 11 priority sectors that Liberal Democrats identified in our industrial strategy. Recognising and supporting that sector will help make food healthier, safer and more affordable. Agrifood tech is not a niche industry; it is about applying the same precision engineering we have for aerospace and pharmaceuticals to the sector that feeds our nation. It is disappointing that the Government have relegated it to a handful of mentions in the White Paper.
We cannot have this debate without discussing the issue that keeps specialist manufacturers awake at night: energy costs. Many other Members mentioned that we have some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world, and measures to bring them down will always be welcome news. When Nissan tells us that its Sunderland plant has the highest electricity cost of any of its plants worldwide, Britain’s competitiveness is obviously going to become an issue. That lack of competitiveness will harm our regional economies in the future.
Britain’s businesses are not only struggling in this sector. When it comes to regional economies and these specialist manufacturers, they do not just rely on affordable power for themselves and their factory floors; they also need it for the companies that supply them, such as local services and the businesses that form the ecosystem to allow them to be viable. It is also important for the hospitality sector and small and medium-sized enterprises, so the Government need to do more to ensure that small businesses across all those sectors have access to better energy deals. There cannot be a thriving specialist manufacturing area when broad business in the region is struggling.
Manufacturing is reliant on skills, and specialist manufacturing sites cannot be run without people with deep technical knowledge. When I speak to businesses across the country, they tell me that after energy bills and tax, skills comes out as their most pressing issue. Multinationals have the choice of where they put their facilities across the world, so we need to ensure that they are in Britain. That means that we need the talent pipeline, and not just the talent density, to ensure that that we are at the front of manufacturing in the future. The Liberal Democrats have set out a comprehensive approach to reforming skills that includes replacing the broken apprenticeship levy with broader flexibility in the skills training levy, guaranteed apprenticeships paid at least at the national minimum wage and lifelong skills grants so that adults can learn to use new technologies as they evolve.
I will briefly touch on two areas where specialist manufacturers are facing significant challenge, the first being trade. These are international sectors, and if the Government are serious about backing British business, they must show more ambition on trade with Europe. We would do that by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, because our specialist manufacturers face red tape and friction when they trade with our largest and closest market neighbours. That makes them less competitive and increases costs. Secondly, there is the national insurance contributions—the jobs hike. The Government must scrap that damaging measure, because making it more expensive to employ people is counterproductive.
I conclude by pressing the Minister to work cross party to ensure that we get a fix for those issues and asking him about national exporting. We are hearing concerning news from the Department for Business and Trade about its plans to reduce its international export team by between 27% and 38%, and in particular reports about cuts to the Latin America trade support team of up to 54%. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on that, as that is an area we must focus on to ensure that Britain is competitive and is exporting. Given that we must support our small businesses to export, those reductions cannot be correct.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly.
The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world.
The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable.
We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future.
In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly.
Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge.
Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk.
As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing.
Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites.
Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the
“current economic and policy environment”.
I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible.
The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships.
Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Carolyn. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate, and for his opening remarks.
Hon. Members may have thought, when they heard that Stoke-on-Trent had been “moulded by ceramics”, that it was the worst joke they would hear in the Chamber today, but I will try my best. When I heard my hon. Friend refer to valve valley, I wondered, as a cornet player, whether it was a reference to the famous West Riding brass bands: the Brighouse and Rastrick brass band, the Elland Silver band and my personal favourite, the Friendly band of Sowerby Bridge. I am sure that they use their cornet valves to lower or raise the tone just as effectively as we did in this debate. Cornet valves, of course, respond well under pressure—I shall see how I do with that.
Maybe, after this debate, the particular expertise of the valve industry in Calder Valley will be better known to the country. It is not difficult to see the impact that manufacturing, and the valve industry in particular, has on Calder Valley. I have seen, as I am sure those watching will have, the pride and importance that hon. Members across this House recognise in the manufacturing industries in their particular areas. These companies are the heart of British manufacturing.
In the valve industry, we have companies such as Hopkinsons, established in Huddersfield in 1843, which continues, as part of Trillium Flow Technologies, to export valves globally. Its valves are used in applications ranging from boilers to power plants, in oil and gas, and in petrochemicals. In Fort Vale, founded in Calder Valley, we have a global manufacturing presence making valves for transportable tanks. Last year, Fort Vale received its fifth King’s award—formerly the Queen’s award—for international trade. Blackhall Engineering is another astonishing story of a link between our Victorian heritage and modern engineering. It supplies valves for the New York City water board, replacing originals installed by its predecessor company a century earlier.
We need to recognise the local pride in Calder Valley, and in all parts of the country with a strong manufacturing heritage, and recognise the economic opportunity of wages and real value that manufacturing brings to these communities. But there are, of course, significant challenges, including those that hon. Members raised in this debate. I wish to address the challenges in procurement, skills and energy costs, as well as the challenges that have been mentioned for small businesses.
The framework through which the Government are working with industry and manufacturing is, of course, our industrial strategy, which attempts to respond to those challenges and to deliver productivity and growth, and is unashamedly place-based in the regions that matter to manufacturing. Some 84% of manufacturing jobs are located outside London and the south-east. I want to mildly disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because she mentioned deindustrialisation—a word that I do not particularly like to use in this sense. The UK is very much an industrial country; we have just chosen to locate our industry elsewhere, and part of my mission is to ensure that we regrow and restore that manufacturing here in the UK. I know that she would agree with that.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke of regional growth, which is also vital. Our industrial strategy is about securing competitiveness not only for sectors, but for regional prosperity, and we recognise that manufacturing is key to the resilience of our national economy.
Gareth Snell
A lot of Members have talked about the importance of defence manufacturing; the Minister has talked about our economic resilience, but a big part of this is our sovereign capability and our national security resilience. I know that he has done work on that, so can he say more about how his work aligns with the work of the Ministry of Defence team to ensure that the manufacturing capability in the UK is about not just economic growth, but our national security and safety?
Chris McDonald
That point is well made. Of course, alongside our industrial strategy, we have our defence industrial strategy. When I come to talk about procurement, I may say more about that, and many hon. Members have talked about defence.
When we talk about our manufacturing sector, it is important to highlight some of the headline statistics. Manufacturing pays higher wages and has generally higher productivity in the areas where it is located and, when it comes to the balance of trade, although around 10% of our employment is in manufacturing, it accounts for around 50% of our exports. Those outputs, jobs and exports consist of thousands of specialist manufacturers, large and small, up and down the whole United Kingdom. Those exports are global and, as we have heard, we also export into space.
On procurement—I know that this area has been a major concern for many hon. Members, and particularly Government procurement—I have great sympathy for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I am happy to pursue the specific issues that he raised. I see it as vital to our manufacturing and industrial sectors that we ensure that the money that we as a Government, or our regulated sectors, spend is significant and is concentrated as effectively as possible in the UK, for both its economic and its social value. We need to raise awareness of the opportunities. We must ensure that those opportunities are open to UK manufacturers and that our UK companies are competitive enough to win those contracts. The industrial strategy plays a part in ensuring that those companies can do that.
To increase business investment, we must also ensure that we have a real market opportunity, both at home and overseas. Our clean energy strategy is introducing measures aimed at directly increasing UK beneficiaries in Government procurement. The clean industry bonus for offshore wind, for instance, is designed to encourage investment in Britain’s coastal industrial areas and supply chains. We also want to see robust local content targets. We are examining market demand guarantees to encourage UK scale-ups and introducing a clean energy supply chain fund to support UK-based clean energy manufacturing.
The defence industrial strategy, which I mentioned earlier—the defence industry is, of course, another user of valves—sets out a major reform agenda for procurement to grow our UK industrial base. We will be speeding up procurement processes and reducing bureaucracy, while ensuring greater visibility of defence procurement and taking steps to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater access to our supply chains. Our procurement and capital programmes are key to anchoring manufacturing here in the UK and then encouraging businesses to secure investment and export overseas.
UK manufacturing, however, ranks just 24th globally for robotics and automation. Here I move to the topic of productivity, which is of course a key element in profitability and competitiveness. That is an area where, as a nation, we need to work more. If we are not working digitally, we cannot adopt automation and move as fast as our competitors. Our Made Smarter adoption programme, with up to £99 million of additional funding, will help with this. It will support more manufacturing SMEs to take up new technologies and improve their digital capabilities. We have had reference today to the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which I know from personal experience is a great supporter of improving competitiveness, robotics, automation and productivity in our supply chains.
Skills was also an important feature of today’s debate. They were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, with his inspiring story of Stuart Billingham —maybe we all need to see more Stuart Billinghams in our lives. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) also mentioned regional skills development. I know that persistent skills shortages and the availability of good applicants are a concern felt across our manufacturing sectors. That is certainly an area for Government and industry to work closely together on, to encourage talented people from across the UK to seek jobs in our manufacturing sector. Fort Vale in Calderdale has a strong tradition in apprenticeships, and I understand that it receives over 140 applications each year for the opportunities it provides. That experience of high numbers of applications for apprenticeships is something I see across the country. I applaud the work of the West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services charity and its partnership with Calderdale college on the Industry 4.0 hub, which addresses exactly those digital issues.
Rebecca Smith
I mentioned skills as a significant challenge in the defence sector and the additional manufacturing. We have five defence technical excellence colleges opening by the end of next year. How well connected is the Minister’s Department with the Department for Education? Does he have any knowledge of when those colleges will be announced? They are surely a key part of what the Government hope to achieve with defence skills, but they will also be important for regions such as the south-west.
Chris McDonald
I welcome those comments. The hon. Member is right to point out that skills is a cross-Government exercise, and that applies not only to defence skills colleges. Work is done across the two Departments I work in—the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and skills itself resides in the Department for Work and Pensions, which is where it is co-ordinated. Moving skills into that area and having the co-ordination there is exactly right. I also meet Defence Ministers to discuss this issue; many of these skills are transferable across industries, and we want to ensure that people can transfer across from different industries. A couple of weeks ago I launched the clean energy jobs plan, which provides support for people to move out of the oil and gas sector, for instance, and into clean energy industries. I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue.
Our focus on skills includes a new engineering skills package, worth over £182 million, to fund technical excellence colleges in advanced manufacturing. More widely, through the post-16 education and skills strategy, we are introducing wider reforms, including new foundation apprenticeships for young people in target sectors. Our new V-levels will encourage young learners into vocational pathways, and I am sure that hon. Members will have heard the personal priority the Prime Minister placed on this during his speech at the Labour party conference.
Attracting young people into manufacturing is clearly a priority for the sector, and our advanced manufacturing sector plan sets out ways in which we can do that. Wages in the sector are 8% higher than the UK average, which can provide great opportunities for young people. We heard earlier that welders earn even more than that—something that my nephew, who is a welder, also tells me. My welding is terrible, so I was absolutely unable to pursue that as a career. We are also concerned about equalities, and we have a target of 35% representation of women in the sector by 2035.
Young people also value their employment rights, and I should say to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that before I came to this place I ran a small business that had almost all of those employment rights. I understand that small business owners might be concerned, but I can assure them that it is perfectly—[Interruption.]
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) wishes to speak, I suggest that she ask for an intervention.
Chris McDonald
Small business owners might be concerned, but I know from personal experience that with the right level of support, it is perfectly possible to manage a business with these employment rights. I suggest support, rather than scaremongering, is the way to go. We heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about the support a previous local industrialist gave to their community. Although I commend that, Labour Members think that good pay and conditions are a right rather than a gift.
Energy costs are clearly the major competitiveness issue for industry. I agree with the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), about the lack of competitiveness of UK energy costs—she cited a figure from the International Energy Agency showing they were 46% above European averages, and that is a figure I recognise. However, our clean power mission will ensure that we are weaned off the international gas markets, to which we were enslaved by the previous Government for such a long time. The shadow Minister mentioned Mossmorran, which is a good example of a business that sustained losses for years and was unable to justify investment as a result of the previous Government’s neglect of manufacturing and industry.
We recognise that, beyond our clean power mission, we must do more and act quickly to support sectors with high growth potential and significant exposure to high electricity costs. We are increasing the support available for energy-intensive companies through the British industry supercharger, and from 2027 we will introduce the new British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs.
Gareth Snell
I make my regular plea to the Minister to consider extending the supercharger scheme to energy-intensive industries that are not currently covered, ahead of the introduction of the British industrial competitiveness scheme.
Chris McDonald
I would have been disappointed had I mentioned the supercharger from the Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend did not intervene—I shall write that into my speeches from now on. His point is well made and is heard by me. A consultation on the British industrial competitiveness scheme will open shortly. I encourage the valve manufacturing industry of Calder Valley to participate in the scheme, and all Members to publicise the scheme to small businesses in their areas.
Hon. Members did not particularly mention regulation, but I want to raise it. Of course, £1 off the costs of regulation is worth £1 off any other business cost. A lack of new funding or of access to finance or working capital can be a reason that businesses fail to grow. Small companies tell me that financial institutions often do not understand their businesses or the need for more patient returns. We are undertaking a programme with the British Business Bank to make available £4 billion for our industrial strategy growth capital in industrial strategy sectors, and the Office for Investment will focus on high-value investments, leveraging the National Wealth Fund’s £27.8 billion for industrial strategy sectors.
Although we hear very strong voices regarding international alignment on products and standards, we also hear about the complexity of business regulation and its impact on smaller businesses. We have set out an ambition to cut the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%. I am pleased to say that we have released a business questionnaire seeking views on the impact of regulation on businesses. Again, I ask for help from hon. Members in encouraging all manufacturers in their areas to consider closely which regulations are enabling or hindering growth, and where compliance is creating an undue burden.
Jim Shannon
I hope the Minister will forgive me if he is going to address my earlier request, which related to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister back home. I know that he travels to Northern Ireland and has an interest in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we work together. Will he give the commitment I mentioned?
Chris McDonald
I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that earlier, and he is right that I have a strong interest in Northern Ireland and a great deal of respect for our advanced manufacturing there. I look forward to visiting the aerospace and shipbuilding industry there soon—I think it will be early in the new year—and I am absolutely committed to working with Northern Irish MPs and the local authorities to ensure that the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland thrives.
Our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, published this year, includes a number of additional measures aimed at assisting those businesses, including ending late payments, modernising the tax system, establishing the new business growth service, and considering how we can best support exporting businesses to increase their exporting activity.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
The Minister talks about SME exporting. Is he aware that, although UK Export Finance has unveiled what it believes is a fantastic and ambitious plan to support 1,000 SME exporters a year by 2029, there are 314,000 SME exporters in the UK at the moment? I would not have thought that 1,000 a year out of 314,000 is very ambitious.
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right that UK Export Finance’s plan is to encourage an additional 1,000 businesses, but that is not the limit of our ambition with regard to SME exporting. It is important that we increase not only the number of SMEs that are exporting but, as I said earlier, the competitiveness of SMEs, so that they can increase the percentage of their exports. The work we are doing on UK procurement will also help with that by giving a baseload of orders to UK businesses that will then increase their competitiveness and enable them to win more export orders.
Dr Gardner
In 1882, a ceramics company in my constituency exported 50% of its products to Europe and globally. Since Brexit its ability to export to Europe has dramatically reduced. It can export to the US in two days, but it can take months to get its exports to Italy. What can the Minister do to help us improve our trade to Europe?
Chris McDonald
This comes back exactly to my point about regulation. Through our work with the EU, we are endeavouring to ensure that we have maximum access to the market. Where regulatory burdens are restricting export activity, I am keen to hear about them. I encourage businesses to come forward and support the questionnaire we have released on business regulation.
The industrial strategy places an emphasis on growth and frontier industries, but it also gives a clear focus to city regions and clusters with the highest potential to support our growth sectors. It is important to us that we grow the manufacturing sector across the country and also businesses, small and large, in supply chains, as well as well-known household names. I reaffirm that the Government have an ongoing commitment to UK manufacturing. We can too easily think about manufacturing as being about household names and consumer products, but we have heard a lot today about manufacturing businesses in the supply chain that employ many more people and make a significant economic contribution, over and above the consumer products we can buy.
As I know myself, manufacturing is about local businesses that have an impact locally on communities and prosperity, as well as on the growth of the country. The Government have a high ambition for our manufacturing industry. By 2035, we want to be the best place in the world to start, grow and invest in advanced manufacturing. We want to double the annual business investment entering the UK manufacturing sector from £21 billion a year to nearly £40 billion a year. That requires bold action, and in many of the measures I have set out we are looking to do more. The steps we have taken in setting out the industrial strategy and various sector plans this year, and the reforms we are making to skills, finance, innovation and regulation, will have a positive and lasting impact, not only for valve manufacturers in Calder Valley but for other specialist manufacturers around the UK.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister for my elevation to Dame—it has a certain ring to it. I call Josh Fenton-Glynn to wind up the debate briefly.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank all Members for the tour we had of the UK, with a particular focus on Stoke-on-Trent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about specialist ceramics, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talked about Bakewell tarts and the saucers on which they are placed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) talked about the clusters that really make a difference. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) about textiles, and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the huge role Northern Ireland plays. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) about things produced there that go to the bottom of the sea, and from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about products that go into space. All of that leads us to understand the pride that people have when they produce things—when they make something in a factory in a town in the UK and it can go anywhere. That is why our manufacturing services are so important and why we need to make sure that we get the absolute most out of them.
I will resist talking more about brass bands, although the Minister tempted me to do so, but I will take him up on what he said about wanting to understand more about the valve industry. He is welcome to visit me in Calder Valley so that I can show him some of the things we do better than anywhere else in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies.
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else.
I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire.
Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do.
Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire.
Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses.
I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to be helpful, as I always try to be. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the debate. We had a local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, reducing councils from 26 to 11. The idea was to save money and make the system more accountable. It did not save any money and became more bureaucratic, and the people were the ultimate sufferers. If reorganisation is not done right at this stage, problems will occur down the line later.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.
Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.
Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.
It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.
The option D business case states:
“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”
That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.
Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.
Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:
“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.
Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!
Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.
Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has informed the relevant people that he is mentioning them today in the Chamber? Can I also ask him to keep his remarks to questions that the Minister can actually answer? A lot of this seems to be straying off into an area that the Minister has no power to influence or respond to.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Has the hon. Gentleman informed the people whom he mentioned that he would name them in Parliament?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I have to ensure that I ask you the question.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options.
When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%.
On improving children’s services, option D states:
“Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”.
On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states:
“Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”.
On special educational needs and disabilities, it states:
“The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”.
Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse.
Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire.
I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham?
Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote?
The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing:
“clear patterns of support for option A.”
Support from whom? The county council goes on to say:
“The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”.
How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised?
Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city.
One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden?
Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council.
Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it.
For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production.
A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal.
Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy.
I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications.
The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that
“this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.]
Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment.
In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking.
If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects.
Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has.
I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
The matter that the hon. Member has raised is not in the domain of the Government. I have allowed him to continue, as it is something he obviously feels very passionate about, but I cannot expect the Minister to respond to issues that have nothing to do with her brief.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate that. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your experienced and knowledgeable chairship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing a debate that is clearly of great importance to his constituency. I think that he asked me two questions, about the place of St Neots and about whether the Government intend to deliver on their defence commitments.
Unfortunately, in relation to the specifics of the proposals, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while we are in an active process of consultation I must reserve my judgment, so that I am able to take a decision based on the facts as they will be presented to me.
On defence, I am sure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, everyone in this country would expect the Government to do what we need to do to defend our country. Although that is not my specific responsibility in government, the defence of this country is a collective responsibility and I will work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, as I do week in and week out, to make sure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to keep this country safe.
Before I turn to the topics in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will briefly set out why we are reorganising local government and why that process is important to the Government’s overall objectives. Nearly a third of our population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government services and functions split across county and district councils. That slows down economic decision making and delivery and leads to fragmentation in our public services.
Even in the short months in which I have been the Minister for Local Government, I have heard that from councillors directly. It is confusing—who does what and who is responsible? In our Department, several Ministers were leaders of councils themselves and so have practical experience of the issue. Through local government reorganisation, we are simplifying local government and establishing single-tier unitary councils everywhere.
We need stronger local councils equipped to make economic growth more likely, improve public services and empower communities. That is the point of reorganisation: so that we have councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than, in some cases, lines drawn on a map 50 years ago. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that our national growth story includes everyone, everywhere. Local government reorganisation can help to do that. With one council in charge of each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment.
There are also social and public services benefits. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture, spot problems early and, for example, support a family in need of housing and then support the children to stay in school. That often does not happen at the moment—we see families who are dealing with the worst type of homelessness being passed from pillar to post.
We have already announced two new unitary councils in Surrey, investing in residents’ futures and putting local authorities there on a sustainable footing. I am also pleased to announce further aspects of the process. This is just the start: we are working with a further 14 areas across England that will benefit from this once-in-a-generation reform, with their proposals due by 28 November.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On putting councils on a good financial footing, there are huge concerns across Cambridgeshire about being partnered with Peterborough city council, because its finances are in such a grave state. Peterborough is already a unitary council. Would the Government consider excluding it from the rest of Cambridgeshire, working out how to do the unitary authorities elsewhere and then taking action at a national level to shore up Peterborough’s dire financial position?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the fragility of council finances. Everything that we are doing needs to put local authorities on a much firmer footing. The past 15 years have seen town hall finances deteriorate. We are taking steps through the local government finance settlement to address that. More information on that will come shortly. Further local government reorganisation is an opportunity to streamline public services and get councils on a firmer footing.
Unfortunately, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, but I assure him that all the actions we are taking in relation to local government change have finance stability at their heart. He mentioned the work of CIPFA; I take the opportunity to pay tribute to CIPFA and the excellent work it does in helping to support councils. We will take more steps shortly to get councils on a firmer footing.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Local authorities across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been developing proposals for unitary local government. That follows the commitment made in the English devolution White Paper last December and the invitation letters sent to areas last February. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, made with regard to the criteria he mentioned that are in the statutory guidance, the consultation responses received and all the relevant information.
The Government’s criteria for unitary local government set out that new unitary councils should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. We understand the importance of communities having their say on the future of their local public services, so we have been clear about the importance of councils engaging with local residents and organisations as they develop their proposals. I know that the hon. Gentleman led a Westminster Hall debate on these important issues before the summer recess and has been an active part of discussions on local government reorganisations in his area, as we have heard again today.
I am expecting to receive proposals from local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough by 28 November, and we anticipate that we will publicly consult on final proposals in the new year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am in a challenging position and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage or provide my view on the specifics that he mentioned, because it would pre-empt future decisions that I have to make under the statutory process. There are clearly strong views locally, which were reflected in his speech. When the time comes to launch the consultation, I am sure I will not need to encourage him and his constituents to make sure that they have their say and feed in their views on the future of local government in their area. The Government want to hear them, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local councillors several times. I am sorry to say that I think being a local councillor has become a bit of a thankless task, whichever party local councillors represent, and our politics has become more fractious. I reiterate what an important job they do in providing people with preventive public services, trying to build our economy and being there for members of the public when they most need it. I will finish by saying a massive thank you to all the local councillors in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, in my constituency and right across the country. They do a fantastic job.
Question put and agreed to.
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing the stigma associated with suicide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, in this very important debate; I am grateful that time has been found for it. Suicide can be an extremely difficult topic for people to discuss, whether that means talking about suicidal thoughts, opening up about an intent to commit suicide, or for the families and friends of loved ones who have taken their own lives and who need someone to talk to. That is why I would like to dedicate my speech to my constituent Philip Pirie, who is sitting in the Gallery, and to his son Tom, who tragically lost his life to suicide just over five years ago. I cannot imagine the pain that Philip has been through, which makes his work on suicide prevention in the following years even more commendable.
Just this year, Philip co-chaired work on the NHS guidance “Staying safe from suicide”, which developed best practice for medical professionals to help identify and support those who may be considered at risk of suicide, and I am pleased that the Premier League will be promoting this work. The guidance sought to support those who are in contact with mental health services; however, nearly three quarters of people who take their life are not receiving professional help. Philip has since been engaging with Members of Parliament, mental health workers and charities to discuss his proposal for a national public health campaign to encourage people to talk about the topic. Tackling the stigma of talking about suicide is critical to ensuring that people do not suffer in silence, and it is vital that those who are struggling feel comfortable in reaching out for support.
Today marks International Men’s Day, and perhaps the greatest issue impacting men in today’s society is their mental wellbeing. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. Each death—of a son, a father, a brother or a friend to someone—is a tragedy. Members in this room will have experienced this close to home. We all know the shocking statistics associated with male suicide, but it is important to think about the individuals who lose their life, and the severe emotional impact that that will have on their loved ones, which cannot be quantified or understood by quoting statistics alone. Talking openly about suicide is the first step to reducing the stigma towards it, and I am so pleased to see MPs from all parties in attendance at, and wanting to speak in, this debate.
According to the charity Campaign Against Living Miserably, one in four people living in the UK will experience suicidal thoughts in their lives, while 200,000 people attempt to commit suicide each year. Suicide will impact almost everyone in this room, and across the country, in one way or another. We will all have been confronted with moments in our life when we know that a person close to us is struggling. But when we reached out to check on them, were we doing so just at surface level, or did we really try to tackle the thoughts that we suspected they might have been experiencing? With suicide such a prevalent issue in our society, why is it so difficult for us to talk about it frankly? Why do we try to dance around the issue, even when we know we should not?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On 30 September, I had the privilege of participating in the Baton of Hope relay across Torbay, which is an initiative that propagates conversations around suicide. The impact that it had across our communities in Torbay was amazing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the more conversations we have about suicide, the more we will prevent it?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging example of how taking steps to reduce the stigma around suicide can have a positive impact, and how we need a community approach to help reach out to all those people who might be struggling.
Although talking about mental health is becoming more socially acceptable, to what extent are we asking the challenging questions? To what extent do we really want to know how other people are getting on, and to what extent do people who are suffering feel comfortable in talking honestly about how serious their struggles are? For those reasons, I want to echo my constituent Philip Pirie’s calls for the Government to launch a public health campaign to truly tackle the stigma associated with suicide.
As we have seen today, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has launched his men’s health strategy. He promised the Samaritans that
“mental health and suicide prevention”
would be at the “heart of it”. Everyone in the House will welcome these words and the recognition that the men’s mental health crisis needs serious attention. I would like the Secretary of State to go one step further and consider a public health campaign with posters and adverts on TV and radio, and to hold regular open discussions with the public on the topic of suicide.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, all too often I hear devastating stories of suicide in the farming community. Campaigns such as the Farm Safety Foundation’s Mind Your Head play an important role in encouraging frank and honest conversations. We know that 95% of young farmers say that mental health is the biggest hidden danger in the sector. I fully support my hon. Friend’s call for a national awareness campaign; does she also agree that cuts to the rural England prosperity fund should be reconsidered, given the vital support it provides to rural-focused services, including those for mental health?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how specific groups and particular sectors can be impacted. Just under an hour ago I was having a conversation with my friend Diana Chrouch, who is the adviser to the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, of which I have been a co-chair for many years. She pointed out that there is a high risk of suicide for people working in the construction sector. I think it would be valuable to identify particular risk areas, and design a strategy that could reach out to them, but I also fully support my hon. Friend’s call on the subject of the rural England prosperity fund.
In the late 1980s, the UK launched a public health crisis to raise awareness of the AIDS epidemic. That was hugely successful: it not only raised awareness of safe sex practices, but served to reduce the stigma and falsehoods associated with the illness. At the peak of the AIDS epidemic in the UK in 1994, just over 1,500 people died from the illness. In the UK last year, more than 7,000 people died from suicide. That figure is growing, and the suicide rate for young women under 24 saw the steepest increase since records began.
As the Secretary of State identified in his men’s health strategy, underlying addictions, such as gambling and drug addiction, often cause or exacerbate mental health conditions. Those addictions can cause isolation and financial difficulties and destroy relationships. As the Government strategy identifies, 12% of participants in the gambling survey for Great Britain reported that they had thought about, or attempted, taking their own life. Many betting stores are positioned on high streets of deprived areas in the UK. We must acknowledge the link between gambling addiction, poverty and suicide.
The statutory levy imposed on gambling firms is a positive step, and I am pleased that the funds raised will be directly invested into gambling harm prevention, research and treatment, but what steps are the Government taking to engage those who treat, or provide support to, people with a gambling addiction to directly address the risk of suicide among their patients? What more can be done to integrate the identification of suicide risk into our approach to treating addictions of all sorts? What more can the gambling industry in particular do to mitigate the impact that its activities have on vulnerable people, particularly in the light of the enormous profits that it makes as a result?
Exercise can be a positive outlet for many people who are struggling with mental health difficulties, enabling them to set targets, grow their confidence and involve themselves in sociable activities. However, there can be a reductive narrative about the relationship between exercise and mental health, and that can be dangerous. Some influential, outspoken figures have dismissed the real and serious issues that people are struggling with by instructing people that going to the gym is the simple answer. For most people, a workout in the gym will encourage body positivity and self-confidence, but for some, the constant need to achieve a perfect body can lead to obsessions and eating disorders.
I support the Government’s recently announced work with the Premier League. Conversations about mental health also need to start in gyms and sports clubs, so I encourage the Government to target local sporting hubs to widen awareness of mental health, and to encourage those struggling to speak with friends, families or mental health professionals. Can the Minister tell me whether the engagement of sports bodies and mental health initiatives includes a specific recognition of suicide risk, and the ways in which sports clubs and coaches can assist in identifying and responding to suicidal intentions among the young men, in particular, with whom they work?
More also needs to be done to encourage support for employees in the workplace. Whether they are a new or experienced member of staff, reaching out to their line manager or boss to let them know about the difficulties they are facing, and to request additional consideration—whether that means an adjustment to working hours or time off to see a mental health professional, or just letting them know the stress that they are experiencing at work or in everyday life—can be daunting. I encourage the Minister to increase awareness of best practices to support employees’ mental health in the workplace, and ensure that those who are struggling receive the support that they need. What more can be done to assist employers with training on how to respond if they recognise that one of their employees is struggling with a mental health issue? How can workplaces support some of those difficult conversations that might make all the difference in saving a young life from suicide?
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Over the past 10 years in England and Wales, one student has died every four days as a result of suicide. Ben West, a young man from my former constituency, set up a project called Walk to Talk when he was 17 and still at school. He did this following the death to suicide of his 15-year-old brother Sam. Does the hon. Lady agree that talking and asking questions directly about suicide can help to remove the stigma around it and save lives?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am so sad to hear Sam’s story. It is very encouraging to hear about the steps that Ben has taken to raise awareness of the issue. The hon. Member makes an important point about academia at schools and universities; that is another big risk factor for young people. They feel the real pressure of academic studies and exam results, so schools and universities also have a role to play in reducing stigma and encouraging those conversations, which could be lifesaving.
We urgently need to tackle the stigma around suicide, and a public health campaign would be a significant step in the right direction. Many lives could be saved if more people understood the difference that the right conversation, at the right time, could have on the young people in their lives. We would not just save the lives of young people who are deterred from suicide, but save their friends and family from the burdensome legacy of grief, guilt and heartache that affects all of those who are affected by the suicide of a loved one.
In closing, I ask the Minister if he would meet me and my constituent Philip Pirie to discuss the details of a campaign such as that I have laid out today, as well as the impact that suicide can have, its increasing prevalence in our society, the impact it has on young men, in particular, and what this Government can do to take action.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her constituent, who is in the Gallery to support this campaign.
It is important to reflect on the progress that has been made in this country to remove some of the stigma around suicide, but more progress still has to be made. The more we discuss this issue in this House and in our constituencies, the greater the impact we can have in removing the stigma completely.
This Government inherited a mental health crisis—there are nearly 1.8 million people on NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment. At the same time, after decades of decline, suicide rates have increased since 2007. Worryingly, the suicide rate is now higher than at any time in the 21st century. In my local area of Kent, although the suicide rate has been coming down in recent years, it is still higher than the national average.
As is the case in the rest of the UK, suicide rates in Kent are significantly higher among men than among women. Across the country, 100 men die by suicide each week and men account for approximately three quarters of all suicide deaths in the UK. This trend has been consistent since the mid-1990s. While men are more likely than women to die by suicide in all age groups, that difference is most pronounced among middle-aged men—suicide is the biggest killer of men aged under 50. I welcome initiatives such as Movember, Andy’s Man Club, the Campaign Against Living Miserably and other similar schemes for the work that they do to help men. I particularly welcome the fact that today the Government published the first ever men’s health strategy, as part of which they will be working with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about that, and about what will be done to remove the stigma around men’s mental health.
Suicide rates among young people are the lowest of all age groups, but over the past decade there has been a concerning 22% increase. A rise in the number of young people feeling disconnected and isolated after the pandemic lockdowns and an escalation in online bullying are reported to be contributing factors.
Another sector in which the silent tragedy of suicide is all too prevalent is the farming and agriculture industry, in which an average of three people die by suicide every week. Mental Health First Aid England reports that, between 2021 and 2023, suicide deaths among farmers increased year on year.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about young people and farming. Those two issues overlap in rural areas such as mine. Our child and adolescent mental health services are centralised in Dorchester, so someone living in the extremities of Lyme Regis, Beaminster or the surrounding villages could be looking at a 30-mile round trip to access them. Given that our part of the country is famous for its unreliable bus network, that is pretty difficult for a lot of young people and for those living in isolated communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving access to things like CAMHS is vital if we are to protect young people in rural communities?
Sojan Joseph
As someone who worked in mental health services for 22 years, I absolutely agree. We need access to mental health services, and not just for young people; everyone is important. Getting help early is key to preventing suicide among young people.
The situation is worse among men working in the farming industry. The likelihood that a male farm worker will die by suicide is three times higher than the national average for men. Earlier this year, a Farm Safety Foundation report revealed that over 90% of farmers said that poor mental health is the biggest hidden problem in the industry.
What is contributing to that poor mental health and the increased risk of suicide among those working in the agricultural sector? It is driven by a combination of isolation—many work alone in remote areas—and financial pressure from market volatility, debt and rising costs. Long working hours, often exceeding 60 hours per week, lead to exhaustion and poor mental health. There is also a strong stigma around seeking help, which means that many farmers suffer in silence.
The connection between suicide and mental illness is well documented, but reducing the stigma of suicide should not be viewed solely as a mental health issue. Many individuals who die by suicide have never engaged with mental health services or displayed obvious symptoms, and not all have a diagnosed condition. People at risk often face a complex mix of personal, relational, community and societal factors. As the suicide prevention strategy highlights, common risk factors include physical illness, financial hardship, gambling, substance misuse, social isolation, loneliness and domestic abuse. Although mental health support is important, the strategy stresses that reducing stigma extends far beyond that. Focusing only on mental health risks overlooking those in acute distress who do not meet the diagnostic criteria. It also places the burden on mental health services, when in reality reducing the stigma of suicide requires a collective effort from local authorities, employers, schools, the justice system and society at large.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
One of my constituents, Steve, founded the Jordan Legacy after he lost his son to suicide. Its work involves outreach to schools, universities, employers and community groups. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he, like me, think that there should be more support for the fantastic work of such charities and organisations?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree. Charities do a brilliant job. Youth groups in our communities used to be very good places for young people to go, and I would love to see them coming back into our communities.
Effective prevention means prioritising early intervention in schools, universities, workplaces and community settings, which are also important. Every suicide is a tragic event that has a devastating impact on the family and loved ones, and this impact can be felt across the community. That is why we must break the silence and dismantle the stigma around suicide. Every conversation matters. When people feel safe to speak, they are far more likely to seek help, and that can make all the difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for setting the scene, as she so often does. I know that this issue is very close to her heart; indeed, it is very close to all of us. I will give a couple of examples from Northern Ireland. They are never easy stories to tell, but both of them are solution-based. I will tell them without mentioning any names or specific details, so we can consider what steps we are taking to address the issue.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place—I wish him well in his role—and, as always, to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). He and I seem to be tag-teaming all the time on health issues in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.
When I thought about this issue, and I have given it a lot of thought because it is so real to all of us, I went back and forth in my mind about the title of this debate. The motion refers to “reducing the stigma associated with suicide”. I believe that we need to normalise talking about how we feel. I say that as a man, because men—myself included—seem to have some difficulty in understanding the issues that we face, especially the difficult aspects, relating them to others and acknowledging that we are not alone in having these thoughts. It is important that we recognise that, and that there is help for so many.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is not here, but anyone who heard his Prime Minister’s question today will know that he lived the story that he told. We need to recognise what suicide truly is. He took us through his experience: he did us proud and did his family proud in how he dealt with the things he faced up to.
When I was first elected to this House back in 2010, the constituency of Strangford took in a new part, Ballynahinch. Around that time—in 2010, 2011 and certainly in 2012—there was a spate of suicides of young men in the area. It was horrendous. It was almost impossible to comprehend what was happening. However, a local Presbyterian minister, Rev. Mairisine Stanfield, galvanised the community in Ballynahinch to come together. What a lady she is! She organised all the churches and the individuals, who were all hurting and all wanted to know what to do. She was the prime mover: she created a hub in the area, which was a brand-new idea that gave young people and others a place to come together, talk about things, relate, socialise and have a chance. Alongside other things that were happening, the hub helped to reduce the suicides in that town, so I have never forgotten Rev. Mairisine. Indeed, I met her last Friday night at the mayor’s do over in Bangor. There she was, as bright as ever and with that wonderful smile. That lady motivated the people of the area, the community groups and others to come together and try to help, so I am always deeply indebted to her.
I remember that when I was younger—this goes back to the title of the debate—a stiff upper lip was expected. That was the demand of the day, but that approach is not helpful attitude to take to mental health. If we look at the cultural climate across most western countries, attitudes were shaped by fear, silence and, in some cases, religious views. This was not spoken about.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend will know that in Northern Ireland there are somewhere in the region of 200 suicides per year, which is deeply troubling and terrible for each family walking that difficult pathway. Online platforms and social media now play a huge part in some of those suicides. Does he agree that this Government need to go further in regard to platforms that are sharing information on how to commit suicide, and that we all need to play a role? Our mental health champion in Northern Ireland has said that by asking someone how they are, we are not likely to make the situation worse. There is a challenge for us all to reach out and ask people how they are, so that we can be more in tune with them and help them through difficult situations.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for her words of wisdom. I know that she has tried, before and during her time in this place, to address the issue of online access to information about how to commit suicide. I cannot conceive how that can be available; maybe I am from a different generation, but the availability today is scary. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I know that he will give us some ideas on how to tackle that.
People did not talk about mental health in the past. There was no awareness, and psychological conversations were not had day by day in the way they are today. We had a spate of suicides of young men in Newtownards a few years ago, and it was so tragic. There was a wee group of young boys who ran about together. One committed suicide, and unfortunately the other four or five all did the same. It is really difficult, sometimes, to deal with things.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) spoke about the suicide rate among farmers. This is not about pointing fingers—I do not want to do that—but I can say from the family farms that I know in Northern Ireland that the pressure on farmers today due to the family inheritance tax is incredibly worrying. I will leave it at that.
While any suicide is devastating, I would like to focus on the stats surrounding male mental health and suicide in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency revealed that there were 171 male suicides registered in Northern Ireland in 2023, which accounted for some 77.4% of all suicides. My goodness me! We men—that includes me and every one of us—need to have a look at how we deal with these things. Males in Northern Ireland are consistently three to four times more likely to die by suicide. It also noted that for males aged 15 to 49, such as those I referred to in Ballynahinch and Newtownards, suicide was the leading cause of death in 2023, followed by drug-related deaths.
Male suicide in Northern Ireland has been a painful and persistent issue for years, and the stigma around it can make things even harder for those who are struggling. The harsh reality is that men do not talk. We tend to be private about our health issues. There is a very strong cultural script back home that we just get on with it; we do not want to come across as weak or unable to cope, which is how we fear it would be perceived. Furthermore, for many men and their families, the pattern is passed down from our parents. To give a Northern Ireland perspective, our dads and grandads who suffered during the troubles were told to be silent at that time and swallow their feelings. Some of them had PTSD—we never knew what that was until the last few years, by the way. That has had a knock-on effect on how we deal with issues now.
We must do more to ensure that talking about mental health is as normal as talking about the weather or the news. That is how we will reduce the stigma. Transparency and openness is the way forward. First and foremost, we must ensure that help is accessible and available in this country. That is our responsibility.
Our mental health services are not where they need to be. More should be done to provide counselling services, as opposed to going to the GP and walking out with a prescription for anti-depressants. With great respect, they are not always the answer. I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government will do more to ensure that those services are properly funded so that we can help more people stop making that final decision, which some feel is the only way forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. If we stick to about seven minutes each, everybody can get in.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
Today’s debate on reducing the stigma associated with suicide is of grave importance to my constituents, particularly those in Ollerton, which has one of the highest suicide rates in the country. We know that the suicide rate is three times higher for men than for women, and although there are many contributing factors to that, one of the most significant is the stigma associated with asking for help and speaking up about mental health. There are so many societal pressures saying what men should be and how they should act. Often that involves appearing strong and as if they can face any problem head-on and by themselves. This starts very early. As a mother to a boy, I know that the attitude towards boys is often that they have to be strong, be tough and face things head on, and that crying is a weakness. It is ingrained by society in boys at a very young age. As a mother, I am consistently having to battle with those things.
The stigma of suicide affects not only the person struggling, but the people around them. Often loved ones do not know that someone is struggling and are left feeling confused and heartbroken. There is a ricochet effect to suicide, especially on the family and friends left behind. I know that because our family lost someone to suicide. The act of suicide leaves you grieving for a life gone too soon. It leaves questions, anguish and guilt and a space that will never be filled again. Mark was a son, a brother and a friend. I therefore welcome the Government’s landmark new health strategy, which will help to tackle men’s mental health challenges.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight the incredible work of a Nottingham organisation: In Sam’s Name. After the death of Sam Fisher, Sam’s friend Richard McHugh wanted to create a safe place for males to break the stigma of talking about their mental health and help them realise that they are not alone. Their peer support group helps members find strength from men who have previous experience, or are also suffering with mental health issues themselves. Through the power of conversation, friendship and support, men in Nottinghamshire are saving lives. I will never fail to be astonished at the ability of people who have experienced unimaginable pain to use that in pursuit of making the world a better place for others. The organisation runs several groups in Nottinghamshire communities, including in Ambleside community centre in Ollerton, and has a partnership with our fantastic local football team, Ollerton Town football club. It is vital that we take this conversation directly to men where they spend their time, and that—especially in my constituency—is at the football.
We must also ensure that our communities are equipped with the necessary infrastructure to give help and support when it is needed. Access to healthcare in Ollerton is poor. Given its rural nature and high levels of deprivation, it is no stranger to the struggle to access basic services. Deprivation is a huge factor in suicide: rates in areas of high deprivation are almost double those in areas of low deprivation. If we are to reduce the stigma around mental health and suicide, people, no matter where they are born in the country, need access to healthcare and support. For Ollerton, that must include a super health centre where people can walk in off the street and access the healthcare they need. Working in collaboration with Ollerton Town football club, we want to transform lives, and that could work in combination with a healthcare centre.
I hope that the Minister will join me in recognising the importance of access to health services and support in showing men that there are places to help and people willing to listen. Nowhere is that more important than in Ollerton, where there is such a high rate of male suicide. Perhaps he would like to get on a train to sunny Ollerton, visit the football club and meet In Sam’s Name—
Michelle Welsh
The shadow Minister has obviously been to Ollerton before.
The Minister should go to see the fantastic work In Sam’s Name does, because it could be replicated across the country and have a huge impact. It would also allow him to see an area with fantastic people who support one another, but which is suffering because it does not have the services or infrastructure to combat suicide, and that is what we need to save young lives.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on International Men’s Day. I also pay tribute to her constituent, Philip Pirie; no one can imagine the loss of a child, and it is a testament to him that in the pits of his despair, he has reached out to others.
If ever I am asked when someone is struggling, I always say, “Just talk—help is available.” That would be my attitude today. If someone needs support, they should reach out and find it. Just six months ago, I might not have chosen to speak in this debate at all. Then, in the summer, two events taught me a harsh lesson; they made me realise that reaching out and receiving support is not so easy and, in many cases, not done.
On 13 August, I was driving to work on a normal day. I had been away for a long weekend with the family and had just dropped my kids at the sports camp. I was trying to work out what time I had to leave work to pick them up. As I said, it was an ordinary day. Then the phone rang and everything changed. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was then a Government Whip, telling me that Hefin David, MS for Caerphilly, had died suddenly.
To talk about Hefin in the past tense is surreal. He was someone so full of life—so passionate, so dedicated to his job and to the people of Caerphilly. He had a wide circle of friends. He was someone who knew help was available and would have told anyone else that, but now he was gone.
I think back to our last conversation in July and how normal it was: I was going to Greece and he was going to Benidorm. We both talked about how much we were looking forward to the break. We ended the conversation by saying we would speak when we were back. Surely, I thought, the news that he was gone was not true. But that is the grim reality that all his family and those who loved him have to face on a day-to-day basis.
Then, a month later, on 14 September, while I was settling down for Sunday lunch, a news alert flashed up on my phone telling me and the world that Ricky Hatton, the beloved Manchester boxer and world champion, had been found dead. I had only met Ricky on a few occasions at boxing events, but I was always struck by how polite and down to earth he was—a man who dedicated his post-boxing career to men’s mental health and talked candidly about his suicidal thoughts. He brought joy and excitement to so many people and had seemingly put his problems behind him, but he was found alone at home.
In different ways, both Hefin and Ricky were warriors. One fought passionately in the Senedd for those on the margins of society, and one demonstrated untold bravery in the ring. In the end, outside appearances can, and often do, mask the struggles that men face.
The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. With the rate of male suicide in Wales having risen by 56% in the last 40 years, it has become the joint highest killer of men under 50, with those aged 45 to 49 facing the highest risk. At that stage of life, men are burdened with societal expectations that mandate how they should think and behave. Those expectations are passed down from generation to generation, derived from traditional notions of masculinity that promote strength, self-reliance and emotional restraint.
Acknowledging poor mental health can feel like a confession and lies at odds with this supposed ideal. Rather than being seen as a sign of humanity, it is viewed as a weakness or failure to live up to what a man should be, as opposed to men being seen for what they are: simply human beings. Men are just as likely to experience emotional difficulty in life as anyone else, so why are they expected not to talk about it? As a result, many men are reluctant to seek help and tend to downplay symptoms for fear of appearing weak or vulnerable.
It is important to acknowledge that there are people in society doing important work to address this problem, undo stigma and, more importantly, start a conversation. The Jolly Brew Crew in my constituency is a free men’s mental health group focusing on peer support, reducing stigma and having more meaningful conversations. It provides a place for men of all ages to go, speak openly about their problems and feel supported. It has fostered a sense of community, combating social isolation and loneliness, proving that problems can be solved.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Does he agree that organisations such as the one he mentioned mirror the work of Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, a support group in my constituency who literally go out on walks together? They also run a podcast, which I was on this week. It is all about getting men together so that they can talk about the way they feel. In my view, that is one of the best ways to avoid terrible mental health problems. Boys and young men should always be encouraged to speak to friends and family, and to seek the help of charities and, when they need it, professional help. We can then break the stigma and prevent far more of these terrible cases of suicide.
Chris Evans
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the group he mentioned. Anything that can be done to reduce the stigma of suicide must be done. We must realise how important this is. One family losing one life to suicide is one family too many. It is time to end the silly stigma about “real men” being this, that or the other. Real men talk about their feelings. We are human and we have got to get away from this stigma.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, groups are incredibly important but they cannot bear the sole responsibility for starting the conversation and providing support. Government must provide more education, support and treatment for mental health. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about health awareness campaigns, which are vital. There are posters of Davina McCall referring to breast cancer to ensure that it is diagnosed earlier than ever. We should take the same approach to suicide.
Suicide is the joint highest killer, alongside accidental poisoning, of men under 50 in Wales. It is ironic that there is so little conversation about such a big killer. That must change and can start with local groups, but should be led by the Government. If the mental health strategy launched today is to work, it must not only address men’s health issues, which have long been ignored, but seek to undo the deep stereotypes that impact men’s likeliness to reach out for help.
Undoing those stereotypes will make it more acceptable for men to receive support in any area of their lives, proving that their struggles can be addressed. There is no stigma or embarrassment in that, only strength. The impact that Government action can have on the stigma surrounding men’s mental health and suicide must not be overlooked. Healthcare systems must better hear and respond to the epidemic of male suicide. I hope the Welsh Government introduce a similar strategy to address those problems.
At a meeting I had with the Men and Boys Coalition charity last week, it revealed the necessity for a men’s health strategy in Wales. I want to echo that message. My constituency has the seventh highest suicide rate in Wales. Figures like that prove the necessity and urgency of a mental health strategy. I know the Minister well and we are friends. As a fellow Welsh MP, I hope he can use his influence to ensure that the Senedd adopts the strategy we have launched today in England.
More importantly, I call for the rhetoric around male suicide to change: compassion, understanding and kindness must be at the heart of whatever we do next. We must use the lessons we have learned from the deaths of others. The solution may involve some uncomfortable, unfamiliar and new conversations, but those conversations could save someone’s life.
I want to end by talking about Ricky Hatton. He fought battles in the ring and fought wars, but the one battle he could not face, against himself, he lost. Let us hope that there are fewer people who feel like that. I urge the Government to take action.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate, and I thank hon. Members for their powerful speeches and interventions.
I start by wishing everybody a happy International Men’s Day. It is a great opportunity to reflect on the contributions made by men and boys, and a chance to talk seriously about men’s mental health and wellbeing. All of which, I hope we will continue to do tomorrow in the Backbench Business debate on International Men’s Day, which I have the honour of leading this year. I hope all hon. Members who are able to will join us.
One issue we cannot shy away from is suicide. As we have heard, it remains one of the leading causes of death for men under 50, which is a heartbreaking and unacceptable reality. This morning, as I scrolled through Instagram, I came across a video of Clarke Carlisle speaking to the Health Secretary. He said something that struck me deeply:
“There is no situation that is irretrievable other than a completed suicide.”
That is a powerful reminder that every moment before crisis is a moment when a life can still be saved.
That is something I can relate to personally, as I have suffered throughout my life with mental ill health and probably always will. In the past, I have felt that the world would be a better place without me. I will be honest and say that has been the case even in the past 12 months. I have not said that out loud to many people, but in debates like this, I think we should be as open as possible in the hope that it helps others and shows that mental ill health and suicide can touch all of us, no matter what position we are in or what walk of life we come from.
As always, our NHS is there to care for us in our most desperate moments and to help us recover, but for so many, that is sadly not the reality when it comes to mental health. That is why I am proud that today the Government have published the first ever mental health strategy. I wholeheartedly welcome it and think we should be very proud of it. In particular, I welcome the commitment of £3.6 million over three years for suicide prevention projects that are focused on middle-aged men, particularly those in the most deprived communities where the risks are highest; the partnership with the Premier League and the Samaritans, through the Together Against Suicide initiative, which will embed mental health messaging directly into the matchday experience, where many men already feel at home; and the expansion of mental health teams in schools, so that nearly 1 million more young people will have access to early support by 2026.
I particularly commend the Government’s approach of involving the Premier League, because we must do everything we can to reach out to men who have previously felt isolated from discussions around mental health. Let us face it: those discussions can sometimes feel too full of expectation and pressure or can be too medicalised, rather than meeting men where they are by using language and settings with which they already feel comfortable and familiar. The reality is that, for many, it is hard to be a man in today’s society. Many men feel overwhelmed by stress, financial pressures and expectations of being a provider, a protector and a pillar of strength. They feel as though they are failing in those roles, not because they are failing as men but because the structures around them have stopped giving them support.
This morning, I went to a briefing from More in Common, which has produced a fantastic report on how men across the country are feeling. It told us that nine in 10 disillusioned men feel that politicians do not care about places like theirs; seven in 10 believe that no matter how hard they work, they will never be able to improve their circumstances; some feel that they no longer have any good friends to rely on; and many do not feel proud of their community. Many men feel that debates about masculinity and gender cast them as the problem, never just as people trying to get by in life and partners in building a better society.
That matters for suicide prevention because a man who feels he has no control over his life, who feels isolated and that he is failing the people he loves, is a man who is more vulnerable to crisis. The path to suicide often begins not with one traumatic moment but with a long erosion of purpose, belonging and hope. That is why we must continue to promote male-focused approaches to building positive attitudes towards mental health to help to restore a sense of a man’s role in society and to create spaces and conversations about wellbeing that genuinely work for men.
That is one of the many reasons why initiatives such as men’s sheds, Andy’s Man Club and Stand By Me, which is a local group in my constituency, have been so effective. In the world of farming, the Farm Safety Foundation does incredible work through its Yellow Wellies campaign. I only wish that our farmers did not have the dark cloud of the proposed changes to inheritance tax hanging over them.
Many men describe support groups as feeling like a family and a community where they can be honest and hear someone say, “It’s not just you,” and “You’re not alone.” If we want to reduce the stigma associated with suicide, we must recognise that mental health is not isolated from everything else in a man’s life. Financial security matters, sense of belonging matters, community matters and conversation matters. Men need spaces where they feel safe to talk long before they reach a crisis point.
Strength is not found in silence, and courage is not found in pretending that everything is fine. I hope that we can continue this conversation and make today’s International Men’s Day the start of a really positive set of actions, so that men do not reach that irreversible point of crisis.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing this really important debate to the House, and I join other Members in paying a massive tribute to her constituent Philip for the incredibly positive work he has done in the wake of an unspeakably devastating event. I thank him so much.
I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that the world is a much, much better place because he is part of it, but I know how mental health works, and I want to say that if he ever feels that it is not and wants someone to speak to, he can come and speak to me. However, it works both ways, and I would also appreciate that.
According to the 2024 health and wellbeing report commissioned by Harlow council, the suicide rate in Harlow is 16.3 people per 100,000, which is higher than the Essex average of 12.6. Suicide is a significant issue for my constituents, and I am aware that Harlow Mill station in my constituency is one of the biggest blackspots for suicide in Essex, as I have previously discussed with Greater Anglia staff.
I join the hon. Member for Richmond Park in calling for a national campaign to tackle the stigma of mental health, specifically by talking about suicide. I also join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke about his personal experiences of mental health in PMQs today. That is so important.
As many Members on both sides of the House have said, it is important that people do not suffer in silence and feel confident to talk about their struggles with others. It is also important for their friends and family to have the confidence to ask the question, “Are you all right?”, sometimes several times—we must feel that we can check on each other. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate from my opening remarks that they can always ask me that if I look like I need to be asked.
This seems a strange point to make, but I want to talk about 28 November 2011—I am glad there are two Welsh MPs in the Chamber today. I woke up to the news that one of my footballing heroes, Gary Speed, had taken his own life, and it really shocked me. I was shocked again this morning when I read that he was the same age as me when he took his own life: 42 years old. Gary Speed was a hero to me, and I think he was the greatest Welsh footballer who ever lived—although I am sure some would argue with that—so when I talked about mental health to a class of mine, I spoke about him.
What was particularly shocking about the news was the fact that the very morning that Gary took his own life, he was on television as a pundit talking about a football match. Anyone watching that had no idea that he was suffering from mental health issues or that he was going to take his own life. It is important to recognise that people suffering from mental health issues or potentially suicidal thoughts do not have a badge that tells other people that. It is not necessarily obvious; in fact, there may well be no external sign that that is the case.
I realised this morning when I was writing this speech that it is a year this month since a friend of mine, Matt Parsons, took his own life. He was one of the many people I used to talk to at Harlow Town football games. He had an encyclopaedic knowledge about “Doctor Who” and “Neighbours”, which is why we got on so well. It came as a huge shock when Matt took his own life. Every life lost to suicide is one life too many, and I often reflect on what I could have done, or whether there is anything that I or others could have said, to prevent that happening. I wanted to reflect on that, pay tribute to Matt and mention him in this place.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is no longer in her place, mentioned social media. It is fair to say that social media has its part to play, and it is important to reflect on some of its dangers. Only recently, I spoke about the dangers of the glorification of drug taking on social media. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the terrible videos about how to take your own life, which is absolutely awful—I am as shocked as he is about that. There is also a place for social media to be part of the solution, and I hope the Government will consider that when we look at a public health campaign on the stigma of suicide and talking about suicide.
I also pay tribute to groups in my constituency. We have talked a lot about farming, so I want to pay tribute to YANA—You Are Not Alone—which is a farming charity that offers mental health support and is based partly in my constituency. I pay tribute to Harlow men’s shed, Hatfield Heath men’s shed, Mind in West Essex and the Young Concern Trust, which provides counselling for young people. I declare an interest because I am one of the trustees there. I also pay tribute to Butterfly Effect Wellbeing, Roots to Wellbeing and many more. There are so many good people in my constituency and across other constituencies who want to support people suffering from mental ill health. I pay tribute to what they do. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, it is incredibly powerful when people who have suffered such devastation —we have one such person in the audience today—turn that into a force for good, so I thank them for that.
The Labour Government have committed to recruiting 8,500 extra mental health professionals, improved infrastructure and improved training. Will the Minister talk more about that and about the substantive point, which is ending the stigma of talking about suicide and potential suicide thoughts? Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for securing this important debate. I hope the honesty with which Members on both sides of the House have spoken will help to challenge that stigma, and I hope we can continue to do more.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this hugely important debate. I thank all the Members who have spoken today, especially the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who was vulnerable and honest, which can be difficult in a public forum. His example will help a lot of people to understand that no matter what job we do and how much support we have around us, people still have these kinds of thoughts.
Many people know that I was involved in a mental health charity that offers support to the veterinary profession. Vets have a suicide rate about four times the national average. It is a tiny profession, so everyone knows everyone, and everyone has lost friends and colleagues to suicide. Vets have challenges similar to farmers, another demographic who we know struggle quite a lot.
I pay tribute to Mr Pirie for being here today. The most difficult and emotional conversations that I have had since becoming an MP have been with parents who have lost children to suicide and wives who have lost husbands. Amid the frustration and anger that they all experience, they feel that if they had just known how much someone was struggling they could have done more to support them. Even worse are the cases where someone was actively trying to access support, but did not get the right type of support at the right time and so fell through the net.
I think about my own friends, Sarah Brown and David Bartram, two vets who were also trustees of a veterinary mental health charity. When we lose people, it is important that the memory of their life is not defined by how they died. Sarah was one of the funniest people I have ever met. She never missed a night out. David was an ultramarathon runner and one of the best speakers I have ever seen giving lectures. He was a hugely engaging person. It is a real shame that people get remembered for the way they died and not the positive contribution and the fun and happiness that they brought when they were here.
As a mental health spokesperson, I get really concerned when I hear people from other political parties, specifically Reform, belittling mental health issues and saying that it is the new back problem, it is over-diagnosed or people should man up. Are they seriously saying that farmers, who are some of the toughest people we could ever meet, working all hours in all weathers and earning a living in the hardest way possible, and veterans, who have experienced situations that most of us can only ever imagine, are a bunch of snowflakes who need to man up and toughen up? Mental health is a real problem that can affect even the hardest people on the planet, and no one is immune to those sorts of challenge.
Other Members have talked about 2023 having the highest rate of suicide for 25 years. That rate, thankfully, is slightly declining. It is interesting that the World Health Organisation states that depression is the No. 1 global disease. It affects people in all countries; it is a very prevalent issue. We are much better than we used to be at talking about depression and mental health issues, but suicide is the one aspect of such issues that still carries a lot of stigma. People still do not want to talk about suicidal thoughts, or sometimes there is shame in having a relative who died from suicide. It is not talked about as openly as it could be.
I thank the Minister for his diligent work over the last year on the Mental Health Bill. We have all worked closely on that, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). It is fantastic work and I know the Minister cares very much about this issue. I also welcome the £3.6 million over three years provided under the men’s health strategy specifically for suicide prevention, although I am concerned that it is very much less than the previous £10 million-a-year suicide prevention grant fund for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. How will the £3.6 million be targeted? Will there be scope to support in other ways the many organisations and charities, such as the Samaritans, that have contacted me to say that the grant is a significant part of their funding to deliver their services to help prevent suicide?
There are so many amazing community groups all over the country. I meet some quite regularly. The Farming Community Network, the Bishop’s Waltham men’s breakfast, the men’s sheds that are everywhere—we have one in Alresford and one in Hambledon—and Winchester Youth Counselling do brilliant work bringing people together. We must do everything we can to keep those organisations viable, running and thriving. It is so much more economic if people are prevented from heading down the route of depression, with a good social network and a lot of community support, than if they end up needing to engage with clinical services.
I also thank all those on the frontline: the clinical staff, the nurses, the counsellors and the carers caring for people who are struggling with mental health issues. The mental health of carers is another huge issue.
Dr Chambers
I will—the hon. Gentleman caught me two seconds before I finished.
Chris Vince
I apologise for that; it happens to me a lot as well. The hon. Gentleman mentioned carers. That is particularly important because tomorrow is Carers Rights Day. I worked for a charity that supports young carers and we have seen an increase in the number of young carers supporting people with mental health issues. There should be recognition of carers, including young carers, so I thank him for mentioning them.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for intervening just in time. I reiterate how pleased we were that the Minister looked at the amendments to identify children of mental health patients. Sometimes those children are essentially carers as well, and it is really important that we know they exist and that they get the support they need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I want to start by finishing where I left off in the main Chamber in the debate during Suicide Prevention Month. I talked about a TikTok meme that was going around about where men go, and who they turn to, when they are at their lowest. The answers in that video are all “no one”: “No one cares”; “There’s no one”; “It’ll be used against me.” I want to speak to the people in that video, because after I mentioned it, I received literally hundreds of messages, first to thank me for raising it, secondly to thank me for raging, because people are not listening, and thirdly to say, “Well, people don’t care.” Actually, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the Members from across the parties in the Chamber today do care.
This is an ongoing conversation that we are having, and action has been taken by previous Governments and is being taken by this Government. We must get out the message that things are happening and that people are talking about it and are interested in it. This is being looked at and discussed at the highest possible level to bring in changes to make the world a little bit better. It is thanks to the pressure that we apply in this place that such changes are made, and I think it is important to get that on the record.
When it comes to men’s health, I am very keen to point out that this is not an “or” issue—it is not about women or men, but about women and men. That is particularly the case for mental health and mental wellbeing because woman partners often spot the issue first. Women are the advocates we all need when we are having this discussion, and it is important to make sure that is on the record too. The last Government brought forward the women’s health strategy, and we now have an allied men’s health strategy. They are not in competition, but work in conjunction, which I think is important.
I followed up September’s debate on suicide prevention with a letter to the Ministers to raise a few points, and I think it would be prudent for me to use my time to press them home a bit further. The first point was about the £10 million suicide prevention grant fund, which was brought in to deliver specific support for 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. The fund has now run out, and after that was raised, the Minister for Care responded in answer to a written question:
“There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.”
However, in April he followed up by saying:
“We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
In my letter, I asked whether we could have
“some details on the basis behind this decision”
as well as
“what alternate provision…is being provided”
and when we would hear about the evaluation. I was lucky enough to get a response on 13 November from the Minister in the other place who has responsibility for mental health. She addressed that point, but she simply said:
“As previously stated, the Department is evaluating the impact of the Suicide Prevention Grant Fund from 2023 to 2025, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. The evaluation will be completed in due course and learnings from that evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
That is welcome news, but we have now gone from April to November, and I would like to understand when the evaluation will come, because it will be imperative in deciding how we take forward these services.
In that light, I welcome the men’s health strategy, particularly its emphasis on suicide. However, as my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), pointed out, the £10 million over two years seems to dwarf the £3.6 million across three years. That is a concern for the Opposition, especially when we look at how it is likely to be delivered, which is through the charity sector, as the national insurance changes have already taken a massive toll. For example, Mind has said that that tax increase will cost it £250,000, so its £1 million across a year suddenly starts to be whittled away. I am keen to understand how the Government will square that circle.
That leads me to my last point, which we have raised in the House before—I have certainly raised it both with the last Government and now with this one—on the issue of representation for men and boys. Before the election, the last Government were looking at having a men’s health ambassador. In my letter, I asked whether any consideration was being given to bringing in such an ambassador or about having a Minister for men and boys. I am open to suggestions about how that could work or would not work, but it strikes me that in the current climate, we have a Minister for Women, but not one for men and boys.
That leads me full circle back to where I started, which is that this is not an “or” issue, but an “and” issue. If we believe that women consult differently on their health, by definition men must do so too, so we need different pathways. The strategy is a good stepping stone from the Government, and I welcome it, but I just hope they use it as a springboard, rather than simply as a plank across a river.
We have talked a lot about the stigma, which is probably the most important thing, and heard a lot about how it is important to talk, but if we think about what the people in that TikTok video are really saying when they talk about how they feel there is no one, we as a society and this House have to not only listen, but show that we care, we have to make people believe that we care, and we have to follow that up with actions to allow people, in particular men, to get the help they need to help themselves. That is really important.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on such a vital topic. I pay tribute to her constituent Philip Pirie, who has been such a strong advocate on this issue. His campaigning and advocacy has absolutely helped us to shape where we are today.
I am also very grateful to other hon. Members for their valuable and profoundly moving and honest contributions. We heard many examples, some very high profile and in many cases household names, such as Ricky Hatton and Gary Speed, and others heroes from people’s local communities. Their heroic families have done so much to reach out and campaign on these issues. I knew Hefin David very well. The tragedy of Hefin is impossible to put into words, but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) really did pay a fitting tribute to him. and I am sure his family greatly appreciate that.
Every suicide is a profound tragedy, leaving families, friends and communities devastated. As we work to improve prevention and support, we must also confront the stigma that too often stops people seeking help, speaking openly or being met with understanding. That is why we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide and ensure fewer lives are lost to suicide, as well as working across Government to improve support for those who have self-harmed or who are bereaved by suicide.
Our manifesto committed to a renewed focus on preventing suicides, as one of the biggest killers in this country. Poor mental health is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide, but we know that suicide is complex and that there are a range of other influencing factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address, including those identified in our suicide prevention strategy: financial difficulty and economic adversity, substance misuse, harmful gambling, domestic abuse, physical illness, and social isolation and loneliness. These are complex pressures, and we are working across Government and beyond to better understand them and deliver on our commitment to tackle them.
Beyond the risk factors and priority groups, one of the key visions of the suicide prevention strategy is to reduce the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health, so that people feel able to seek help, including through the routes that work best for them. That includes raising awareness that suicide is not inevitable. Around a quarter of people who take their own life are in contact with mental health services. Through the delivery of the 10-year health plan, we will transform the mental health system to ensure that people are accessing the right support at the right time.
Nearly three quarters of people who take their own life are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but many are in contact with wider services. We will ensure that our delivery of the 10-year health plan, which focuses on intervening early so that people can access high quality and compassionate support at an earlier stage, also considers how we can support those at risk of suicide when they are not in contact with those services. Our cross-Government approach to suicide prevention will help us to make the most of key interaction points both within and outside public services and address risk factors for suicide for everyone, not just those in contact with the NHS.
Steady progress has been made through joint working with our colleagues in the NHS, the voluntary sector and academia and with a wide range of other partners, all of whom play a key, crucial and valuable role in prevention, early intervention and support.
John Slinger
On the point about the various organisations, governmental or otherwise, that are involved, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Rugby borough council, which has partnered with the charity I mentioned earlier, Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, to put plaques on benches across the council’s parks? These support plaques state:
“There’s no need to sit alone.”
They also encourage local businesses to sponsor them, which is a really good example of how the private sector, local government and the charitable sector can work together to make sure more men can gain access to support—not necessarily by calling a phone line, but just when they are in the park.
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rugby borough council. That sounds like an excellent initiative that we should explore in other parts of the country, if that is suitable. He is right that there is almost an ecosystem of different groups now. In my constituency we have the Men’s Shed and a fantastic walking group for men called Mal’s Marauders, which does fantastic work. That is great to see, and I am a huge fan and supporter of what it does and stands for.
A lot of this is about having that organic development at the grassroots, because that is where it is best placed; it is not always for the Government or the authorities to come in—in some ways, that might not be appropriate. We should do whatever we can to encourage these things, and our £3.6 million programme and our £3 million programme are absolutely about being co-designed with these groups; they are not a top-down process at all, but something that should be organic and from the bottom up.
It is important to highlight the fact that this debate falls on Wednesday 19 November, which is both International Men’s Day and the day when we are launching the first ever men’s health strategy for England. Despite huge progress over the past century, men still live too much of their lives in poor health and die too young. Our vision for the strategy is simple yet ambitious: to improve the health of all men and boys in England. The strategy includes tangible actions to improve access to healthcare; provide the right support to enable men to make healthier choices; develop healthy living and working conditions; foster strong social, community and family networks; address societal norms; and tackle health challenges and conditions. By addressing the broader barriers that prevent men from accessing support, including the stigma surrounding mental health and suicide, we can take meaningful steps towards reducing avoidable deaths and ensuring that every man feels able to seek help when he needs it most.
Today, through the men’s health strategy, we are launching a groundbreaking partnership with the Premier League to tackle male suicide and improve health literacy, building on the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide campaign.
Chris Evans
Like me, the Minister represents a rugby stronghold and he will know of instances of ex-sports players committing suicide. We have already spoken about some high-profile cases, including Gary Speed and Ricky Hatton, but there are others who stop playing at lower levels and then develop feelings of isolation and lack of identity. When the Minister speaks to the Premier League and other sporting institutions, will he ensure that ex-sportsmen have the necessary support once they retire from the game?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether there is a connection, but it is possible that some of the perhaps more macho attitudes in some sporting environments are connected to the difficulties that some men—particularly men in those environments—have in reaching out, talking and being honest and open about their feelings. There may well be a connection. However, I hope that other sporting federations—the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union or whichever sporting association it might be—will look at what the Premier League is doing, and that we will perhaps see a blossoming of these initiatives across other sports and sporting disciplines.
The Premier League’s reach is unmatched. The partnership will engage men who are less likely to seek help and more likely to suffer in silence, meeting them in spaces that they trust, rather than waiting for them to access traditional health services.
Dr Luke Evans
It is great to hear about the Together Against Suicide partnership with the Premier League, but will the Minister explain how it works? Having looked at the details, it appears to be run in conjunction with the Samaritans. Is extra funding coming from the Premier League or from the Government to run the scheme? If the Samaritans provide the signposting, how are they being supported? In essence, it looks like an area to people together. Is that correct?
Stephen Kinnock
There are 11 premier league clubs that have signed up so far. The most visual way in which the partnership will manifest itself is through the advertising hoardings, which will be given over for periods of the game to advertise our Every Mind Matters campaign. That will offer talking therapies and an online mental health tool that we have developed. Anybody in the stadium—often there are 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 spectators—can see that information flashing up. In some stadiums, there will also be mental health experts—wearing visible materials to show who they are and what they do—who people can come and talk to. The scheme is quite devolved, so each club will do things in a slightly different way. The Premier League is covering all the costs, so this is an entirely Premier League-funded partnership, with us providing the content, the steering and the opportunity to engage with the programmes, and the clubs are looking after the rest.
Chris Vince
That is a really exciting initiative. Is there scope for it to be extended beyond premier league clubs to lower-league clubs, down to Harlow Town? If it is successful, will the Minister talk to the English Football Association about lower-league clubs taking part?
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely—we believe the sky is the limit. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, we are clear that we see this as the first step. Clearly, premier league clubs are high profile, so hopefully people will look at the partnership, learn from it and say, “Yes, that is something that we can do.” Fingers crossed that it takes off.
As part of the men’s health strategy launch, we also announced the suicide prevention support pathfinders programme for middle-aged men. The programme will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men and create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems. For over a decade, middle-aged men have faced the highest suicide rates of any age group. They account for around a quarter of all deaths by suicide in England. That is a shocking statistic, and it is why middle-aged men are identified as a priority group in the suicide prevention strategy for England.
It is important that we do not simplify the picture. The national confidential inquiry into suicide and safety in mental health found that of men aged 40 to 54 who died by suicide, 67% had been in contact with health and partner agencies in the three months before they took their own life, and 43% had been in contact with primary care services in the three months before they died. That tells us something vital: a significant proportion of men do reach out, presenting an opportunity to make the most of every interaction with men who may be at risk of suicide. Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that when men take that step, the services they encounter are accessible, joined up and genuinely equipped to meet their needs. That is what the pathfinders programme will do.
By improving engagement with healthcare and improving access to the right support, we can begin to dismantle the stigma that continues to cost too many men their lives. In April this year, NHS England published its “Staying safe from suicide” guidance, which strengthens the approach to suicide prevention across mental health settings. It promotes a holistic, person-centred approach, rather than using stratification tools to determine risk. The guidance directly aligns with the aim of our suicide prevention strategy and reflects our commitment to continually improving mental health services, particularly by identifying risk assessment as an area where we must go further.
The implementation of the guidance has been supported by a new NHS England e-learning module, which launched in September, to help ensure that staff across services are confident and equipped to apply the guidance in practice. The NHS medium-term planning framework, published last month, states that in 2026-27, integrated care boards must
“ensure that mental health practitioners across all providers”
undertake the e-learning
“and deliver care in line with the Staying safe from suicide guidance.”
The Minister with responsibility for women’s health and mental health, who sits in the other place, wrote directly to crucial stakeholders across the sector—including the chief coroner, the Charity Commission, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, and the British Psychological Society—to promote the guidance and the e-learning module, and I am pleased to say that the response has been overwhelmingly positive. By way of example, the Charity Commission circulated information about the e-learning to around 5,000 charities involved in suicide prevention or mental health support—an encouraging demonstration of the sector’s commitment to improving safety and support for those at risk.
More widely, we are improving mental health services so that people are met with the right support. We recognise that expanding and equipping the workforce will take time, but I am pleased to say that we have hired almost 7,000 extra mental health workers since July 2024. Mental health remains a core priority for the NHS. That is why we are investing £688 million to transform services, including £26 million to support people in mental health crisis.
As part of the 10-year health plan’s commitment to transforming how the whole health and care system works, we are introducing neighbourhood mental health care for adults, which will bring community, crisis and in-patient care together in a single, seamless offer. Six neighbourhood mental health centres are already operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, offering open-access support to anyone who needs it. Co-delivered with primary care, the voluntary and faith sectors, and local specialist services, the centres make it easier for people to seek help in their own communities, without judgment or barriers.
Stephen Kinnock
I am very tight on time, but I will give way briefly before wrapping up.
Sojan Joseph
A recent study shows that many people are reaching out to artificial intelligence chatbots to seek mental health support. The Government are putting so many new initiatives in place; does the Minister agree that we need to publicise them more, so that people do not seek incorrect information from AI chatbots?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree. This is a human challenge, and humans need to take it on. That is what we will do. There is nothing more human that going to a premier league football match, so I hope that that will be a good way of raising awareness, just as my hon. Friend says.
As we reflect on the lives lost and the families forever changed, we reaffirm our commitment to tackling stigma, improving support and ensuring that everyone feels able to speak up, ask for help and be heard. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for raising this crucial issue.
Sarah Olney
May I say what a privilege it has been to have this debate today, not least because it has given me an opportunity to highlight the work of my friend and constituent Philip Pirie? It has been a wonderful tribute both to his hard work and to the memory of his son, Tom.
It has also been a privilege to hear the contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. I particularly want to thank the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for sharing their personal experiences, which provided a moving context to the debate.
It was great to hear about various initiatives from the Minister, not least because Mr Pirie has directly contributed to some of them, but I reiterate my call for a public health campaign. Particular groups are at risk. The farming community has been mentioned a number of times, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Horsham (John Milne). The hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned young people in schools and universities, and other hon. Members mentioned gambling and drug addiction. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned social media, and we know that veterans and carers are also at risk. Many hon. Members made the point that so many people are not in touch with mental health services when they commit suicide. That is why we need a public health campaign to reach much more widely.
I thank all the hon. Members who contributed today with examples of successful community initiatives, which the Minister might want to look to when he is planning a public health campaign. My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and the hon. Members for Maidstone and Malling, for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), for Caerphilly, for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Harlow all talked about amazing things going on in their communities.
Finally, I want quickly to mention the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), among other hon. Members. MPs are such great advocates for mental health in their communities, and we should all take that forward.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Access to Healthcare: Bracknell Forest
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to healthcare in Bracknell Forest.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for her engagement on this important issue.
As local MPs, we all hear on the doorstep and at our coffee mornings about the importance of the ability to access timely, good-quality and local healthcare, and the impact not just on individuals, but on our communities more broadly, when the standard is not met. What those who work in our health and social care system do day in, day out touches all our lives and families. I thank those in Bracknell Forest and across the country who work in our NHS and wider health and care system for everything they do. I must declare an interest: my brother and sister-in-law are both NHS doctors.
These are challenging times for the NHS. Chronic under-resourcing after 14 years of Conservative austerity has left too many unable to access the care they need and has prevented the system from evolving to reflect the needs of today’s Britain. But although the NHS may be down, it is not out. While other parties threaten the very principle of the NHS—that care should be available to everyone and free at the point of use—the Government are investing in the NHS and putting in place the reforms we need. We have already seen those efforts bearing fruit, with the first cuts to waiting lists in 15 years, the recruitment of 2,500 more GPs and the creation of 5 million extra appointments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the issue of GPs. Does he agree that access to healthcare must begin with access to the local GP surgery, and that the Government must prioritise training and retraining GPs to ensure that people can access their GP and do not head straight to emergency care at the local hospital when it is not necessary? GPs first—then, everybody else can do better.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member predicts where I am going with my speech. I am sure that the issues in Bracknell Forest are similar to those in Northern Ireland. As I will say, it is important that we have seen changes in the way GPs operate in England.
The 10-year health plan for England represents a once-in-a-generation chance to reform and rebuild the health system. It is underpinned by the three radical shifts of hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. In Bracknell Forest, we have already seen the Government’s commitment to moving healthcare to the community through the announcement of funding for the Frimley Park hospital rebuild, which was promised under the last Government but never funded, despite unsafe reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete making up about 65% of the current building. The funding will go directly to help to deliver a hospital that is safe, modern and equipped to deal with the demands facing our healthcare system today.
I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday, and on many other occasions, to discuss the rebuild, and for all the work that has gone into progressing the project behind the scenes, but as she knows I remain concerned that Frimley Health NHS foundation trust is still not in a position to announce the location of the new hospital, despite several deadlines already having been set and missed. I urge the trust to make that announcement as soon as practically possible, so that constituents can have the visibility and transparency they need on the delivery of those plans.
Bracknell Forest residents are determined that the new hospital addresses the existing issues with access to Frimley Park hospital, including insufficient parking, and that it should be as close as possible to the current site. Better access by public transport also needs to be baked into the design. Constituents also have concerns about the ongoing need to rebuild the Royal Berkshire hospital. I take this opportunity to reassure them that I am as keen as they are to see that delivered as soon as possible, and I will continue to push for it in this place.
As the 10-year plan sets out, the future of our NHS cannot be delivered just through hospitals. Care needs to be embedded in our communities, so I am delighted that Skimped Hill health centre—or Bracknell Forest centre for health, as I believe it will officially be known—is now in the final build stages. Once completed, the centre will bring together in one place several services in the centre of Bracknell, including two GP practices, maternity services and children’s services, rooting healthcare in the community and breaking down the bureaucratic barriers to access both for patients and for service providers.
A key element of the shift from hospital to community is ensuring that all health spaces are used to their full potential. Brants Bridge in Bracknell spans both Frimley and Berkshire healthcare trusts and offers a range of services, including X-rays, urgent care, dialysis and chemotherapy. However, constituents regularly tell me that they struggle to access the space, or are turned away and directed to A&E for arbitrary reasons. The centre is a resource with huge potential, but I fear we are not utilising it to its fullest. I would therefore welcome a review of the services offered by Brants Bridge, as well as of its accessibility, to better support the Government’s ambitions for community care.
As we build the homes of the future, it is important that we match them with the health infrastructure needed to support them. It is fantastic to see that with the new Skimped Hill health centre and, although it is not in my constituency, I will also mention the new Binfield health and community centre. But Bracknell Forest has a shortage of GPs, with 1,874 patients for every GP, so it is important that we keep developing primary healthcare provision to serve our growing population. We also have a mismatch between pharmacy need and provision, with some areas with the greatest need, such as Bullbrook, relying on just one pharmacy.
I recently met with both Forest Health primary care network and Health Triangle PCN, which includes Ringmead, to discuss patient access, the 10-year plan and the implementation of the new GP contracts. I was pleased to hear thar Ringmead has implemented a new booking system and, although not all patients have felt the benefits of that yet, it has been great to hear from many constituents that it has gone a long way to make accessing their local GP much easier. I stress, however, that we still have a way to go when it comes to ensuring that patients can access the right choice of appointment for their needs. For many, online appointments offer flexibility and convenience, but others want the reassurance of seeing their GP face to face.
In a local authority like Bracknell Forest it is also important to match healthcare provision to where people live, so that people are not forced to travel long distances to access their appointments. I have heard many residents share their frustrations at getting an appointment in Bracknell when they live in Sandhurst, and vice versa. Although I appreciate that that is sometimes unavoidable or about ensuring that healthcare can be accessed as quickly as possible, I would like more local appointments to be prioritised.
The aim in the 10-year plan to end the 8 am appointment rush resonates with many constituents who have, too many times, faced the stress of scrambling for an appointment while unwell and in need of treatment. I am pleased to see the Government delivering on that key ambition, but I am aware that the shift has come with operational challenges for primary healthcare providers when managing patients who book close to closing time. I know that healthcare professionals would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the teething issues can be addressed, so that the system works as well as possible for both patients and providers.
The Government’s ambition is rightly to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, and early intervention and community-focused care will play a crucial role in delivering that. As many colleagues know, I often speak about special educational needs and disabilities issues in this House, and with my constituents. SEND is not just an educational issue. Among many other things, it is a social issue, an equalities issue and, of course, a health issue. Across the country, children and adults wait far too long to access attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments. The number of children waiting for an autism assessment is acknowledged to be high across all six Berkshire local authorities. In June 2025, there were 682 children aged between five and 18 in Bracknell Forest waiting for an assessment, and a further 241 adults were also waiting.
Berkshire healthcare NHS foundation trust has been overhauling its system to improve waiting times and deliver a better performance, and has recently been recognised as one of the top performing trusts in the country, but it will take time for the efforts of those reforms to be felt on the ground. The long waits involved mean that many are turning to private diagnosis, which risks creating a two-tier system in which those who can afford it receive a diagnosis and the support that follows and those who cannot are left to struggle. I fundamentally believe that young people should not need a diagnosis to access essential support. When parent carers, classroom teachers and the young person themselves can all see that there is need for more support, it should be made available, and the diagnosis can be worried about later.
As the Government develop their reforms to our broken SEND system, I want to see a shift away from a system that too often feels diagnosis-led, and towards one that is genuinely needs-led. Prioritising early intervention will enable quicker support and treatment and will improve young people’s quality of life and outcomes.
I recently hosted a series of roundtables with parent carers and practitioners to hear directly from my constituents what they want to see in a reformed SEND system, and I produced a report on their local concerns and perspectives. Many of those who contributed highlighted a need for joined-up, holistic working across agencies and service providers. Nationally, there is a chronic shortage of trained speech and language therapists and occupational therapists in our schools. That has deep and long-lasting consequences, locking young people out of fully accessing their education and preventing them from reaching their full potential. I urge the Government to recognise the importance of increasing recruitment and retention in those critical roles.
I also heard that it too often felt like health services were walking off the pitch and leaving everything to schools and the local authority. Although I recognise the importance of an education-led approach to reforms, local health services, including integrated health boards, need to be held accountable for the parts of the system they are responsible for.
I was delighted to welcome the SEND Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), to Bracknell last week to discuss these issues further and to share the voices of the parents, carers, professionals and young people whose experiences informed my report. Again, I thank those who contributed. I am pleased to have the chance to raise the issue in this health debate too.
I recently attended a dementia forum, hosted by Bracknell Forest council, which brought together dementia patients, their families and carers, healthcare professionals and social workers. It was fantastic to hear how a joined-up approach to offering health and social care was having a positive effect on outcomes for those living with dementia and their loved ones. I was also delighted recently to meet our local Admiral nurse, who works with patients experiencing early onset dementia and is supported by Dementia UK. I heard how important it is for the whole team of support around a person with early onset dementia to have access to their health record, enabling a more holistic approach to care. That is a fantastic example of best practice, and it has had a profound impact on patients and their families across Bracknell Forest.
Such community provision is essential if we are to meet our goal of developing a genuinely neighbourhood-led health service. There is much that the voluntary sector can contribute. For example, local mental health services are profoundly stretched, and young people face long waits for support through child and adolescent mental health services. In Bracknell, I am proud that we have excellent local organisations such as Youthline, which was just awarded a King’s award, and Create Hope, which works closely with schools to deliver counselling for young people. I would like them to be supported more by the health system, including through commissioning. Young people across the country face unprecedented challenges, and community organisations play a vital role in advancing a preventive approach to the development of longer-term mental health problems and providing the support on the ground that young people desperately need.
A healthcare system fit for the future must embrace the technological age we live in, and the Government’s ambition to shift the NHS from analogue to digital is commendable. The lack of reliable information-sharing across services is a familiar barrier for both patients and professionals in accessing and delivering the best healthcare, so I am strongly in favour of the Government’s work on the single patient record, which is currently in a test phase. It will play a key role in our 10-year health plan.
The single patient record will lower barriers to access by ensuring that healthcare professionals have a clear, unified view of patient health records, thereby enabling a safer, faster and more co-ordinated approach across services and ensuring that both patients and healthcare providers can access the information they need as seamlessly as possible. That is particularly important in an area like Bracknell, which benefits from services delivered by both the Frimley and the Royal Berkshire NHS trusts—we get the best of both systems.
When patients walk into a health centre, GP clinic or hospital, they do not want to have to think about which ICB or trust is providing the service and whether their data can be shared with the other parts of the health system that they access. They just want to be treated, and to know that every part of the system will understand the treatment they have received. Instead, I often hear residents in Bracknell Forest complaining that their blood test at the local hospital has not been shared with their local GP, or that the care provided by Bracknell Forest council does not speak to the care they access through the NHS. Will the Minister provide an update on the progress towards a single patient record, and set out what it will mean for my constituents in Bracknell who rely on overlapping health systems?
Building a health system fit for today’s needs is a challenge, but one that I know the Government are determined to embrace. I recognise and welcome the progress that has already been made, and I urge the Minister to continue in the spirit of innovation and ambition to drive forward critical changes. We must ensure that flexibility, early intervention and a community-first approach are placed at the heart of our reforms, and that barriers to access are considered carefully so that no community is left behind. I hope the Minister can take these concerns back to the Department to ensure that they are fed into the Government’s plans to rebuild our health system, and that Bracknell Forest’s voice is heard loudly as the ambitious work continues to build an NHS fit for the future.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this important debate. He has made absolutely sure that the voice of Bracknell Forest is heard loud and clear, both here and at the Department of Health and Social Care. We know that the NHS faces pressure all over the country, including in Bracknell Forest and the south-east of England. I also thank his brother and sister-in-law for their work to ensure that people get a good service.
Our 10-year health plan is a plan to fix the issues, with the three shifts improving access to healthcare for everyone, no matter where they live or how much they earn. We are seeing improvements, with 5 million more elective appointments, 135,000 more cancer diagnoses within the 28-day target, and waiting lists cut by more than 230,000 since we came into office. Ambulance response times are down, including in Bracknell Forest, which has seen significant improvements in category 2 response times compared with last year. Twelve-hour waits in A&E are also down nationally and there are 2,500 more GPs. Over 100 community diagnostic centres have been opened at weekends and evenings, and new surgical hubs are helping to tackle the backlog.
Let me turn to the important local issues that my hon. Friend raised. First, on RAAC, the safety of our patients and staff will always come first, which is why we continue working to eradicate RAAC across the NHS estate, backed by £440 million this year. It is because of that investment that we can continue to invest in crucial RAAC mitigation safety work at Frimley Park hospital. However, our investment in local hospitals goes significantly further, with a new Frimley Park hospital being planned. Since he became a Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend has been very assiduous and active in meeting me and those in the Government talk about this issue. I know he has been working closely with local leaders as well; I was able to meet them in advance of this debate, to understand their position.
I am pleased to say that that work is progressing and remains on track against the timeline set out in the new hospital programme plan for implementation, with construction expected to commence between 2028 and 2029. I also assure my hon. Friend, other local Members and the public that we are working closely with the Frimley Park trust on the location of the new hospital. I know that he appreciates that we are currently in a commercially sensitive phase of the process, but the trust expects to be able to provide further updates soon. My hon. Friend’s constituents will also have an interest in the Royal Berkshire hospital, so let me be clear that we remain firmly committed to its delivery in wave 3 of the programme.
My hon. Friend raised special educational needs, and I know from my constituency that this affects Members across the House. I acknowledge the concerns about SEND support in Bracknell Forest, and I welcome the urgent local plans that are in place to address the issue in the region. It is right that my hon. Friend met the SEND Minister. At the national level, the Government are determined to deliver meaningful reform that stands the test of time, rebuilds the confidence of families with lived experience and puts partnerships at the heart of our solutions.
Furthermore, our 10-year health plan sets out the core principle of early intervention and support—including without the need for diagnosis—for children and young people with SEND. We are also accelerating the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to reach full national coverage by the end of this Parliament. Going further, the first 50 young futures hubs will bring together services to support children and young people with early access advice and wellbeing intervention.
The Government recognise the pressures on elective care. That is why we are delivering millions of additional appointments and reducing waiting lists up and down the country, and the local picture is promising. I am pleased to report that, since July 2024, Frimley’s acute trust has lowered its referral-to-treatment waiting lists by over 17,000 and more than halved the number of patients waiting for over a year. Local people will welcome that, but there is much more to be done. It is a vital first step in improving those services.
Community health services also play a critical role in reducing pressures across the system; my hon. Friend made that point and paid tribute to the Admiral nurse and the role of Dementia UK in his constituency. We are working closely with NHS England to improve access to community health services, including in Bracknell Forest, helping to deliver our shift from the hospital to the community. That is important work with the voluntary and community sector, and those third sector organisations are crucial to that. We are seeing tangible results. My hon. Friend talked about the multimillion-pound Skimped Hill development in the town centre, opening in February 2026. That will see new community health services, including maternity services and a new GP practice serving the people of Bracknell Forest. It is a real trailblazer for the sorts of thing that we expect in neighbourhood health services, so well done to all those making that happen for local people.
My hon. Friend mentioned pharmacies, which are an absolutely integral part of the community. That is why in 2025 and 2026 we have increased funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework to more than £3 billion, representing the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS at that time.
Improvements to primary care do not stop there. I am pleased to report that we are investing over £1 billion extra into GP services, including in the primary care workforce and funding for infrastructure improvements, ensuring that places such as Bracknell Forest get the resources and GPs they need. The local picture relating to access to GPs is strong, with more than 90% of people in Bracknell seeing a GP within 14 days of requesting an appointment. That figure is reinforced by the positive feedback that practices are receiving from their patients. The opportunity to request appointments online, which has been available since 1 October, is also helping with that 8 am scramble; I was able to take advantage of that myself in my own patch. That online access is a real benefit for local people. If there are any particular local issues—as I know there are—it is the role of the ICB to work with local practices to make sure that those are resolved, which is what local people expect.
As a result of these broad national and local efforts, over 10 million more appointments have been delivered in England this year compared with last year. Dentistry is an issue across all our constituencies and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. We are recruiting more dentists in the areas that need them most to improve the oral health of children and to deliver additional dental appointments in places such as Bracknell Forest, where I am pleased to report that an additional 3,300 appointments have been commissioned across 2025 and 2026. All of that will deliver better dental care for everyone in England, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I welcome and share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the single patient record. A key thing that came out of our consultation on the 10-year plan was the desire of patients not to have continually to repeat their story and the desire of clinicians to be able to see more of the patient’s record. If staff providing care can see a single, accurate and up-to-date record that draws together the key information from different services, wherever that is needed, that will deliver significant benefits not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but for everyone in England, not least in the time and effort saved and the greater accuracy and appropriateness of treatment. We are currently building three proofs of concept to test the different technical ways that we might deliver the single patient record and to prove a clear pathway to taking that forward. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on that.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Parliament on behalf of his constituents. It is hard to cover everything that affects local people, but I think we have done a pretty good job. I hope that my response shows that the Government are seriously committed to addressing the important issues that he raised on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that we are embracing that challenge. We are determined to deliver innovation, and we have the ambition to make the health service fit for the future. That is the manifesto commitment that he and I were elected on, and that is what the Government are absolutely determined to do. I look forward to working further on making these services better for the people of Bracknell Forest.
Question put and agreed to.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a complex, chronic condition affecting multiple body systems. There is currently no cure or established treatment. The symptoms of ME go far beyond chronic fatigue or being very tired; the sickest patients lie alone in darkened rooms, sometimes unable to move or to speak—or, in the very worst cases, to swallow or to digest food. Even at the mildest end of this condition, people with ME who once had lives, hopes and dreams for the future live a shadow of their former lives.
More than five years on from the start of the covid pandemic, it is timely to note how the numbers affected have increased. Approximately half of those with long covid go on to meet the diagnostic criteria for ME, so it is now estimated that 1.35 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms. That includes healthcare workers, teachers and other key workers who kept our country running at the height of the pandemic. Add in carers, and even more are directly affected.
Importantly, there is a gendered dimension, with women five times more likely than men to develop ME. Despite the devastating toll of the condition, people with ME have endured decades of substandard and sometimes downright unsafe healthcare, with pitifully little funding for research. In spite of the lack of robust evidence to this effect, ME is treated as though the condition is psychiatric.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for securing this important debate. According to at least one survey, about 66% of sufferers require some form of social care and, as is the case for some of my constituents, it is their own families who put their life on hold to provide that care. Will my hon. Friend join me in stating that this is just one example of how the Government must address social care if they are going to get health and social care right?
Tessa Munt
I could not agree more. For far too long, patients have been dismissed, and that care element is incredibly important, because it affects so many people.
In July, the Department of Health and Social Care published the final delivery plan for ME, a cross-Government strategy aiming to improve attitudes, bolster research and better lives. It included some positive steps: new small grants for research into repurposed medications, and the development of a new service specification for mild and moderate ME. However, overall, the consensus of the charities and patient advocates I have spoken to is clear: the delivery plan falls far short of what was needed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about plans in England, because in my constituency we were privileged to have an incredible ME specialist nurse, Keith Anderson, who helped countless people. Sadly, he passed away two years ago, and since then there has been no specialist support in Fife—indeed, there is no specialist ME doctor or nurse in the whole of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things any plan needs to consider is training, so that, no matter where someone is in the country, they can get access to a specialist?
Tessa Munt
I agree. In fact, we do not just need specialists; we also need training for GPs and other healthcare workers.
I will highlight four areas in which we need to see much more from the Government going forward. Given the gravity of the situation, I would appreciate it if the Minister could arrange for written responses to a number of my points.
The first area is funding. If the delivery plan felt threadbare, that is because no substantive new funding was attached to it. Before the plan was published, all 72 Lib Dem MPs signed a letter expressing our concerns about the anticipated lack of funding, which of course came to pass. To put it bluntly, what patients need is transformed NHS care and a step change in research. Neither is likely to happen without investing some money.
The case for investment is clear. I urge the Minister to see this not as a sunk cost, but as an investment in a group of people who are desperate to contribute to society. We know that one in five working-age adults are out of the workforce, many because of health problems, yet remarkably there was no modelling of the demography of those living with ME for the delivery plan exercise, and neither the Department of Health and Social Care nor the Department for Work and Pensions has an estimate of what the neglect of people with ME is costing our economy.
I would like to look at some of the figures. The most recent estimate of the economic impact of ME was for 2014-15—10 years ago—and was carried out by 20/20health. The cost was then calculated at £3.3 billion annually, based on only 260,000 people living with ME. With many more affected following the pandemic and a decade of inflation, that cost will now be much higher. Even the most conservative estimate of current numbers living with ME, excluding cases linked to long covid, puts them at 404,000 patients. Does the Minister accept, using that conservative estimate and adjusting for inflation, the annual economic impact of ME today is likely to be at least £7 billion? If those living with ME-like symptoms following covid are included, we could be approaching an annual cost of £20 billion. Surely it is time for the Government properly to cost the impact of a condition that affects so many, rather than brush it under the carpet, and to invest accordingly.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. She will be aware that there is still significant uncertainty among many clinicians as to whether this should be treated a medical rather than a psychological condition. Does she agree that, because of the gravity and extent of cases around the country, it is important that medical services are supported to deal with those patients and their symptoms?
Tessa Munt
I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case.
Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments.
Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward. In Northern Ireland, the figures for ME have unfortunately risen from 7,500 to 12,500 in the past few years. We have no clinical lead, no specialist services and no commission care pathways. We need research. Queen’s University Belfast is really good with research partnerships. Does the hon. Lady agree we should spend the money on research and find the cure? It has been said that the cure for cancer will come in 10 years’ time. The cure for ME could come too if research money were put into it.
Tessa Munt
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. The second area where I would urge the Government to go further is support for people with severe and very severe ME. It is estimated that around one in four people with ME are severely affected. ME is perhaps the only condition where the sicker someone becomes, the less care they receive from the NHS. The recent prevention of future deaths report focused on the tragic case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, describing NHS care for severe ME as “non-existent”.
In my work on this issue, I have collaborated closely with #ThereForME, a campaign founded by two women, Karen and Emma, who are carers to partners with very severe ME. It can be difficult to comprehend the depth of suffering that ME can bring in its most extreme forms. With his permission, Karen has shared details with me about of her husband James’s day-to-day life.
Before developing ME, James, in his 30s, lived a full life and was a civil servant. Today he is completely bed-bound and spends 99% of his day alone in a dark room, unable to tolerate any noise, light or stimulation. He is hardly able to communicate and is so sensitive to touch that, despite his suffering, his wife Karen is unable to give him a hug or hold his hand. Despite an acute level of need, James is receiving next to no care from the NHS. Karen tells me that her biggest fear is that he deteriorates to the point of needing lifesaving care. She cannot feel confident that the NHS will provide it.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. One of my constituents, an NHS nurse, suffers with ME. He cannot play with his children, walk his dog or undertake basic activities. When he went to the NHS, he got a referral, but was told that it would be nine months before he got an appointment, which forced him to consider private options. An NHS nurse is having to use private healthcare to get results—this situation is untenable, is it not?
Tessa Munt
It is not only untenable, but completely absurd. In September 2024, on World Patient Safety Day, over 200 healthcare workers were so concerned about NHS care for ME, and particularly care for severe and very severe ME, that they wrote a letter to the Health Secretary calling for immediate action to save lives. That letter was sent 14 months ago. I am sorry to say that very little has changed since, and they did not receive a response.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to quickly mention one of those 25% of people with ME who are severely affected: my constituent Alice. She cannot leave her room, and is scared to call for treatment in case she has to go into hospital: she has been into hospital twice, but people there are not sure how to treat her and they make it worse. I simply want to empathise on behalf of my constituents, one of whom is one of the very severe cases the hon. Lady is talking about.
Tessa Munt
Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing.
Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage.
Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that
“tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.”
However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to
“explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”.
I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table.
I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications?
The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government.
Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.
Tessa Munt
Forgive me, but I am going to carry on.
The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded.
A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field.
The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity.
The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that?
The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations?
Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs.
Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary.
“People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions.
And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.”
I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women.
Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits.
Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better.
Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. It is clear that we need a three-minute time limit if we are to get everybody in, but I cannot guarantee that we will.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I declare my interest as chair of both the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis and the all-party parliamentary group on long covid. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for bringing this important debate to the House; we work together on the APPG on ME.
ME and related conditions such as long covid are among the most devastating illnesses of our time, yet they remain some of the most poorly understood and most neglected. Unless we confront this misunderstanding head on, we will never deliver the change that patients so desperately need.
This issue is personal to me. In 2020, I contracted long covid. The infection was mild, but the aftermath was devastating, and it changed my life forever. With long covid, I developed ME, so I know the exhaustion, isolation and gaslighting that patients face. I cannot know for sure why I improved, but I believe that one reason was early recognition. I give a big shout-out to my friend Shelley Guest, who saw that my symptoms mirrored her own. She gave me books; she shouted at me, and told me to pace myself. I am forever grateful to her.
That raises a critical question: if diagnosed and supported early enough, could ME’s symptoms be managed to the point of recovery or partial recovery? My journey is not over yet. That is why research and recognition are not optional; they are essential.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work chairing the two all-party groups. My constituent Janet contacted me about her son Richard, who was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome six months ago. He is still waiting for a proper referral. Does my hon. Friend agree that an early pathway is vital, and would she encourage the Minister to outline what form that might take?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I hear from so many constituents that, out of those suffering from any condition, people suffering from ME have the lowest quality of life. Is it not also the case that people simply do not understand what ME is?
Jo Platt
I completely agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned, there is confusion about what chronic fatigue is and what ME is; there needs to be differentiation and clarification on those conditions. We all understand chronic fatigue, but ME is different. It is not just tiredness; they are complex issues. Many of those who are severely affected cannot even sit upright. They are confined to darkened rooms, often tube-fed, cut off from the world and too often ignored by the very health system that is meant to protect them.
Long covid has only added to that burden. Millions are affected, half of whom meet the criteria for ME. Next Tuesday, Parliament will host the first drop-in session of the Overlapping Illness Alliance, which will raise awareness of ME, long covid and related conditions, and I urge colleagues from across the House to attend.
The Government’s ME delivery plan is a welcome step. NHS e-learning service specifications and small research grants are progress, but they are not enough, particularly for severe ME. The scale of the challenge demands ambition, accountability and strategic investment. We need specialised NHS services for ME, we need urgent support for children whose education is disrupted, and we need co-ordinated action across health, social care, education and employment.
Research is central to progress. DecodeME has shown the brilliance of UK science, but funding remains far too limited. Germany has pledged €500 million to research with the aim of curing ME by the next decade. We need to be just as ambitious, but we must also confront the misinformation and bias on ME that has plagued us for decades. Patients are dying from nutritional failure because there is no commissioned service for severe ME. Some spend hundreds of pounds in hospital on private care without a proper pathway. Lives are at risk now and we cannot wait for long-term provision while patients suffer.
That is why, alongside the APPG, I am calling for the commissioning of specialised NHS services for severe and very severe ME with expertise in nutritional failure, and I would welcome the chance to meet the Government to discuss immediate solutions that can save lives today. Will the Minister commit to improving data collection so that we can better understand risks and create the foundations for effective care? The Government have taken steps in the right direction, but more must be done. As chair of both APPGs, I will continue to work with the community and the Government to do that.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for calling this debate.
I would like to use my short time to tell the story of a young man who made me understand the tragedy of ME six years ago. He was a very promising first-year student at Durham University called Tom. He was on track to get a first in maths. He was a big hockey player, but in his second year, he started struggling, first to walk upstairs and to climb hills, and eventually he found that he could not wash himself, eat by himself or even read. Then, to his enormous frustration, he dropped out in his third year. When all his friends were starting a new life with their first job, he had to stay at home and go through the nightmare of first trying to get a diagnosis and get someone to agree that he had a problem, and then trying to get treatment for it.
Tom felt that he was going in circles: doctors were not really persuaded and he was not getting any answers. He was very lucky because he had two remarkable parents, Alex and Denise, who could afford to go to America. In fact, they moved to America and they got him enrolled on clinical trials. This story has a positive ending, because six years on, he is doing incredibly well. He is actually thriving; he has a job and a partner, and his life is back on track—except, sadly, in America rather than here.
As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, there are 400,000 people with ME or with long covid symptoms that are like severe ME. For some of them, it is already too late. Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis tragically lost their lives, and coroners issued prevention of future deaths notices.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Sarah Lewis was my constituent. I have here the prevention of future deaths report that was issued after the inquest. She took her own life, but was severely ill with ME. One thing that comes through very strongly is that she did not feel she was believed or taken seriously, or that her symptoms were recognised by the medical profession. It is so important that we challenge the medical profession to take this more seriously.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for talking about that very sad case. I actually think that the NHS is better than it was because of long covid.
The real cause for hope is Edinburgh University’s DecodeME study, which the chief executive of Action for ME, Sonya Chowdhury, described to me as being like a treasure hunt map with eight crosses where there is a genetic code that matches ME, but where we then have to go and dig up that treasure. That is what is now waiting to happen, and why funding is so important.
Ultimately, with the quality of research in this country, there should be no need for anyone to have to go to the United States or Germany for their treatment. During the pandemic, more lives were saved through treatments and vaccines discovered in this country than any other country in the world. We have amazing research happening here.
My plea to the Government is this: the last Government started the process by ignoring some of the scepticism in the medical community about whether ME was really a serious condition. It would be fantastic, and it would give so much hope, if this Government could now finish the job and invest in research that will transform the lives of so many people like Tom.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. A constituent recently wrote to me:
“ME has taken almost everything from me. I can no longer work, I am mainly confined to my chair or bed and, on the rare occasion that I leave the house for medical appointments, I need to use a wheelchair or walker and it often results in PEM”,
or post-exertional malaise. This was the sentence that really stayed with me: “ME has taken almost everything from me.” That seems to sum up the decimating effects of ME for the 25% of sufferers who experience the most severe symptoms. ME takes and then it takes some more, until in too many tragic cases the patient dies.
The fate of patients with severe ME has been brought home to me through my involvement with my constituent Debbie Seymour, once a working mother of two but now into her third year of being bedbound in a dark room and principally cared for by her incredible mum Sylvia, who is in her 80s. Although nurses are offering practical support, there remains a lack of knowledge about severe ME among healthcare providers and allied professions—particularly about the nature of the key diagnostic symptom of the disease, PEM.
Too often, sufferers of severe ME are required to fit into NHS pathways and procedures that suit the system but take little account of the human being at the centre of them. I welcome the Government’s delivery plan on ME. One of the stated aims is for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to explore whether there should be a specialised service for very severe ME. NHS England is in the process of being dismantled, so could the Minister confirm in her summing up that that exploration will still go ahead? The desperate experiences of so many people highlight a lack of research into the disease. Perhaps the Minister can reassure my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby that there is a future in which the ringfenced funding granted for research into other illnesses can be extended to ME.
In conclusion, I have felt helpless when it comes to supporting my constituents who suffer from severe ME, and their families and carers. I am putting my faith in this Labour Government to drive forward the research to find a cure for this devastating disease and to improve specialist care for seriously ill ME patients such as Debbie, before it is too late.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate and for her campaigning on this issue. In the brief time I have today, I will share the story of Iona, who was finally diagnosed with ME in 2019 after being unwell since 2014. Her ME comes with a range of horrible symptoms from physical and mental fatigue to muscle weakness. She was housebound for four years and cannot do anything independently. However, she told me that the biggest barrier to support is other people’s limited or incorrect knowledge of ME, which is damaging. She says:
“As a chronically ill young woman…I am constantly looked down on and dismissed, while at the same time expected to act as if I am not disabled”.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
One of my constituents, Nick, has ME and has described feeling as though he is stuck in a well without anyone to pull him out. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more action from Government, the NHS, businesses, schools and colleges to counter the misunderstanding and neglect that ME sufferers receive?
Adam Dance
I agree. It is really important that the Government provide more support for ME, because it affects the lives of a lot of people.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, from one Adam to another. I want to give a shout out to ME Group Staffordshire, which does wonderful work in supporting my constituents and people in the surrounding areas, and does so much to challenge the stigma that many people living with ME face on a daily basis, as the hon. Gentleman talked about. As the Minister looks to provide the support that we are all calling for today, I hope that she will consider extending it to those groups and communities that support people with ME, including some of my constituents.
Adam Dance
I agree that we need lots more support groups across the country. It is really good that the hon. Member has one in his constituency.
Iona’s school offered her no help; indeed, it told her that she would fail all her GCSEs. She went to her GP and other doctors many times but was told that she was “anxious and did not know it”, that she “did not want to go to school”, that she “was depressed” or even that “nothing was wrong” with her at all. Anyone who knew Iona knew that that was ridiculous. She is a positive, determined, intelligent and hard-working person, and it is only because of her determination that she finally received support—she got it only because she and her family kept pushing for it. People should not have to be medics or administrative experts to get the support that they need.
Even after Iona received some support, limited knowledge meant that she was told to do graded exercise therapy, which did her more harm than good. Eventually, the Somerset ME service provided helpful advice and medical letters that unlocked support in education and from the council. However, that service is a short-term service that cannot provide medical care, and Iona has often found that GPs do not understand the nature of the service. Today, she still receives little or no medical help.
It is great that the NHS has rolled out training on ME, but people such as Iona who have ME and who have lost trust in the health system need to know how we can monitor the uptake of that training to change attitudes and reduce stigma among the medical profession. That is so important, yet more broadly the ME delivery plan lacks clear accountability structures, has no proper way to measure impact and has no clear deadline to meet. I hope that the Minister can respond to those concerns today.
Greater funding and support for research are also vital. Germany has pledged €500 million to research ME and find a cure for it. It is time that this country also stepped up and showed the same ambition. We owe Iona and all those with ME at least that much. In fact, Iona herself wants to contribute to such research and is now at university, studying hard after achieving fantastic results at school. People with ME are not asking for much; they just want to be believed and to receive the support they deserve. It is about time they got that support.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
With apologies to other Members who wished to speak, I now call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate on such an important issue as myalgic encephalomyelitis. This chronic condition completely changes people’s lives, as we have heard today.
My constituent, who loved her job as a nurse, was diagnosed with ME in 2019. She has been left unable to work, relies on a mobility scooter to get around and is often confined to her bed for days on end. Since her official diagnosis, she has experienced constant muscle pain all over and severe headaches that frequently prevent her from sleeping. Despite her battle with myriad health challenges, one GP asked her, “What do you expect me to do about it?” Reading that stopped me in my tracks but—even worse—that reaction is not isolated. I contacted the local NHS trust on behalf of my constituent, and its locally commissioned NHS chronic fatigue services, which include ME, have been suspended as they cannot cope with the number of referrals.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent mirrors that of my constituent Emily in Edinburgh. Even though health is devolved, we face the same situation. Does the hon. Lady agree that even though Edinburgh is leading the way in research—as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said—we need to look into people’s experience of dealing with health services?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I should say that interventions on the spokespeople will not lead to them having any additional time.
Helen Maguire
My constituent’s experience builds into the bigger picture of a healthcare system that is simply not set up to support those with the most complex and devastating conditions. People with ME who rightly rely on health professionals for advice, support and solutions cannot be abandoned just because their diagnosis does not fit into a one-size-fits-all treatment plan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
We have heard just how little money is being spent on research, comparatively speaking. As has already been mentioned, the DecodeME study is identifying genetic signals linked to immune and neurological pathways, offering real clues to the biological mechanisms of this disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must finally adopt a strategic and properly funded research programme?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Although I welcome the Government’s final delivery plan for ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, and I recognise the contribution of the ME community in shaping it, I remain deeply concerned that the plan falls short of delivering the meaningful change that is urgently needed by people living with those conditions. I therefore reaffirm the calls rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. In particular, the plan fails to set out dedicated funding to encourage early career researchers to specialise in ME research, or strategies to keep established researchers in the field. Those things are vital to develop new pathways that enable people to better cope with their diagnosis and, most importantly, improve their quality of life.
Funding is also needed to step up education and training to improve understanding of the condition across the public sector and to pilot new approaches that strengthen the quality of care. Recent figures estimate that over 400,000 people in the UK have ME, and around 50% of the 1.9 million people in the UK with long covid are thought to have symptoms that are similar to ME. Those figures make it clear that there is a desperate need for research to develop better treatment options and training for doctors, carers and wider healthcare workers.
We cannot ignore the fact that making those changes is a big task. Under the previous Conservative Government, cuts only made supporting people harder—from slashing health services to letting wait times pile up and overseeing a horrifying breakdown of community services—so it is no wonder that more people are suffering without support. That is why I urge this Government to make sure that the final delivery plan delivers real change for people living with ME and invests properly in research to change the course of diagnosis and treatment for good. For my constituent and for people living with ME across the country, we must take serious action to ensure that their experience with the healthcare system is rooted in dignity and care.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I try to take a positive outlook. The one thing the pandemic did was shine a spotlight on the likes of long covid and ME, and I know from my medical career how difficult that can be. I would like to thank Sajid Javid, who in 2022 announced the plan for ME, and I congratulate the Minister because she brought it to fruition on 22 July 2025. There are some similarities between the NHS 10-year plan and the ME plan: the ME delivery plan is fantastic, and a lot of people agree with it, but, importantly, there has been a lack of delivery. Action for ME has said:
“The Plan also lacks clear accountability structures with no mechanisms to measure impact or deadlines to hit. We are concerned that despite this well-meaning Plan being published, it will have no material impact on the historically stigmatised and ignored ME community. Action for ME wants to work with MPs, Ministers and Officials to improve its implementation.”
It went on to say that the delivery plan on ME/CFS fails to include a “strategic approach” to ME research. However, that was not the only group to say so; the ME Association said:
“There is no clear ambition or strategy to drive consistent implementation of the NICE guideline recommendations”
across ICBs. It went on to say:
“Severe and very severe ME receives minimal attention, despite known risks during hospital admissions”.
It also said:
“Several of the Plan’s own deadlines have already passed, and it is unclear what progress has been made.”
In the short time that I have, I want to focus my questions on two areas: action and accountability. The first concerns the questions that those living with ME will have, particularly when it comes to the changes around the Department for Work and Pensions and what that will look like in the light of the imminent Timms review. I would be grateful to understand what plans the Government have for both Departments to discuss what this will look like, given the scale of the problems facing the 400,000-plus people with ME/CFS in this country.
Secondly, turning to the actual plan, we need to look at what actions will be delivered. I am keen to look at the section called “After publication of the FDP”, because it goes on to say that
“we will monitor the actions included in it. The DHSC secretariat will continue to engage with the Task and Finish Group in an appropriate form as required”.
Given the debate today, is that required, and what form will it take?
The document also goes on to say that a
“sub-group will be created to focus on improving care for those with ME/CFS.”
Has that group been created, and how many times has it met? It further states:
“We recognise the needs of those with ME/CFS and we remain dedicated to developing our approach as new research emerges and as we seek further engagement.”
Could I press the Minister on what that engagement is? Who is it with, and what does it look like? At the end of the day, there is a plan here and we do agree with it, but it is the actions and accountability within it that are truly going to make a difference.
ME may challenge the body, but it never diminishes a person’s worth or their hope that they carry. That is critical. When we have such a great plan, it is the action that is going to take it forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this debate, and pay tribute to her for her continued advocacy on behalf of people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis. Her work has ensured that the voices of those affected are heard at the highest levels of Government, and I am happy to accept her invitation to meet her and stakeholders, and the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the chair of the APPG.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I particularly acknowledge all the constituents they have referred to. They all deserve the very best care from our NHS. I will endeavour to respond to as many of the issues raised as I possibly can. If I have not covered something, my officials will take notes and follow up in writing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the Minister. We know that, at the heart of this, we need to ensure that all clinicians have a basis of training, and that is certainly missing at the moment. We see misdiagnosis, and we see some provision, including fatigue clinics, providing the wrong interventions. Will she ensure that there is a strategy around training clinicians and making it mandatory?
Ashley Dalton
I will come later in my remarks to the training that is being rolled out as part of the delivery plan.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis—better known as ME—and chronic fatigue syndrome, which I will refer to from now on as ME/CFS, is a condition that affects an estimated 390,000 people in the UK. Its symptoms can be profoundly debilitating, impacting every aspect of daily life, from work and education to family and social life. For those with severe or very severe ME/CFS, even basic tasks such as sitting up, eating or speaking can become impossible. We recognise the devastating impact this condition has on individuals and families. For too long, people with ME/CFS have faced stigma, misunderstanding, disbelief and inconsistent care.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister is a passionate advocate for women’s health. Does she agree that the reason for this disease often being overlooked and for the stigma she has talked about is that women are five times more likely than men to get it? Will she support clear funding, accountability and deadlines within the welcome plan that has been delivered, and a service for very severe ME for all ICBs?
Ashley Dalton
I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, and I will cover some of them in my remarks. She will be aware that the women’s health strategy is currently being refreshed, so we hope to dovetail wherever possible.
I want to set out the steps that this Government are taking to change the misunderstanding, stigma and inconsistent care that patients have experienced. Through our ME/CFS final delivery plan, we will deliver better care, boost research and ensure that every person living with ME/CFS is treated with dignity and compassion.
First, let us acknowledge the reality. ME/CFS is a complex multi-system condition. Its fluctuating nature makes diagnosis and management challenging. Historically, services have been extremely varied, and in some cases patients have felt dismissed or rejected by the healthcare system. That is unacceptable. We have heard those concerns loud and clear through our extensive consultation on the interim delivery plan and through ongoing engagement with patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and charities. Last year’s prevention of future deaths report following the tragic death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill further highlighted the urgent need for reform, pointing to a lack of specialist beds and inadequate training for clinicians. We cannot and will not allow such failings to continue.
In July, we published the ME/CFS final delivery plan, marking a significant milestone in our commitment to improving lives. The plan is built around three core themes: boosting research, improving attitudes and education, and enhancing care and support. With a clear commitment to ensure that people with ME/CFS can live as independently as possible and see their overall quality of life enhanced, that plan will help us to take an important step towards achieving that, but we acknowledge that there is more to do. We will continue to build on the foundation of those actions well beyond the publication of the plan. It is the springboard—the beginning, not the end.
Although the final delivery plan does not include every suggestion received through the consultation responses or through the task and finish group, it does not mean that those proposals will not be considered in the future, subject to resource and funding. We look forward to continuing those conversations.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister attended the task and finish group, as did I. Will it meet again to consider that?
Ashley Dalton
I will come to the task and finish group in my remarks.
Research is the key to unlocking better treatments and improving quality of life. As has been mentioned, we have seen progress through projects such as DecodeME, the world’s largest genetic study of ME/CFS, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Preliminary findings from the study indicate genetic differences in eight areas linked to the immune and nervous systems in people with ME/CFS. That discovery of specific genetic signals may help us to understand the biological pathways involved in ME/CFS in the future.
However, we need to go further. That is why the plan includes a funding offer and a commitment to continue working with researchers, industry and patient groups. New awards announced this year include funding for repurposed treatments and £845,000 for a large infrastructure project called PRIME, or, to give it its full name, Building Infrastructure for Patients, Researchers and Industry for ME/CFS.
Together with the MRC, we are actively exploring next steps in ME/CFS research. For example, earlier this month we co-hosted the research showcase event for post-acute infection conditions, including ME/CFS. It brought together people with lived experience, researchers, clinicians and funders to help to stimulate further research in this field. We are now considering the discussions that took place at the showcase to explore the next steps to stimulate further research. The output of that event will be circulated as soon as possible.
The final delivery plan also sets out actions to improve access to specialist services—to provide better support for children and young people, and their families, and to address employment challenges. It aligns with our 10-year health plan, which includes the roll-out of neighbourhood health services, bringing care closer to home and ensuring that multidisciplinary teams can support people with complex conditions such as ME/CFS.
Provision varies across the country and we are determined to reduce those inequalities. The final delivery plan includes actions to improve service mapping and workforce training so that every patient, regardless of postcode, can access the care they need. NHS England is working closely with the Department to support ICBs in commissioning equitable evidence-based services. Two of the most important actions in the plan are focused on NHS services. NHS England has already started its work on co-designing resources for systems to improve services for mild and moderate ME/CFS.
Ashley Dalton
While NHSE is in the process of being dismantled, all its functions continue, and the new Department of Health and Social Care will continue all its work. None of that is being got rid of; it is simply being brought together into a more efficient, new Department of Health and Social Care. The Department will continue to meet a group of key stakeholders to move the work forward on mild and moderate ME/CFS in the coming weeks. Additionally, I confirm that the DHSC has already started conversations with NHS England to explore a specialised service prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for severe ME/CFS. That work will continue.
Changing attitudes is as important as changing services to many people with ME/CFS who have faced disbelief or stigma. As outlined in the plan, we will address that by launching a public awareness initiative to improve understanding of the condition and the support available. We will work with schools, employers and social care providers to ensure that children and adults with ME/CFS receive the information and support that they need.
Ashley Dalton
I will not, as time is short.
To support healthcare professionals in diagnosis, as set out in the final delivery plan, the Department has worked with NHS England to develop an e-learning programme on ME/CFS for all healthcare professionals. The aim is to support staff so that they can provide better care and improve patient outcomes.
The plan was not developed in isolation. It reflects thousands of consultation responses and the input of the cross-sector task and finish groups. We repurposed the task and finish groups into a new post-publication stakeholder engagement group, and we look forward to working closely with it during the all-important implementation phase.
I recognise that some stakeholders feel that the plan does not go far enough, but let me be clear: this is not the end of the journey; this is simply the foundations. Our work does not stand alone; it stands on the broader ambition to transform the NHS from a sickness service into a health service. We are working with the DWP and the Department for Education to ensure that all the issues raised are considered, in particular during the Timms review.
ME/CFS has been overlooked for far too long. We are determined to change that. To everyone living with ME/CFS and to your families and carers, I say this: we hear you; we value you; we believe you; and we are committed to making the system work better for you and with you. Together, we can build a future where everyone receives the care, respect and support that they deserve.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Tessa Munt, you have one minute to wind up the debate.
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Mr Mundell, but I have little to say. I am delighted to hear what the Minister had to say, and I will be holding her feet to the fire. I wish to continue this campaign, and I will work with others on it. One of the things I omitted to say at the beginning was that I am a member of the APPG on ME. I should have declared that, so I seek your forgiveness for not having said so.
I am delighted by a number of the things that the Minister has been able to say. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate—I should probably have asked for a two or three-hour debate. In particular, I point to a phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), about digging for treasure, I think. It is so moving to have heard so many important stories of people who are suffering. We really have to do something about this.
Ticketing Consultation and Call for Evidence: Government Response
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our major sporting and cultural events not only are key to our social fabric, but support economic growth right across the country. For too long, however, access to live events has been undermined by ticket touts who exploit fans and extract value unfairly from the live events sector. Seeing your favourite artist or performer should not be a rip-off, and the hard-earned cash that fans pay to attend events should flow back into supporting growth and jobs in the sector, not line the pockets of touts. At the same time, we have seen that new practices across the ticketing market, such as dynamic pricing, are presenting further challenges for fans when buying tickets for the events they love.
This Government are committed to putting fans first, ensuring that they are protected from harmful practices on the ticket resale market. Today, we are setting out our plans to deliver for fans and the live events industry, by publishing the Government responses to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector, which we ran earlier this year. This is another milestone in delivering on our commitment to grow our world-leading creative industries, as part of the Government’s new industrial strategy, boosting investment in the sector from £17 billion to £31 billion by 2035.
Government response to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets
After reviewing the evidence submitted through the consultation process, the Government are announcing that we will introduce the following measures:
A resale price cap which prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket cost, inclusive of unavoidable fees incurred during the original purchase—saving fans an estimated £37 for each ticket bought on the resale market.
A separate cap on resale service fees, to ensure the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees, while providing a sustainable margin for resale platforms.
Resale volume limits which make it unlawful for someone to resell more tickets for an event than they were entitled to purchase.
Strict legal obligations on platforms to ensure compliance with the price cap, applied broadly to all online platforms facilitating resale of live events tickets.
There was broad support among fans, businesses and consumer groups for these measures, which make good on our manifesto commitment to put fans back at the heart of live events and end the scourge of industrial-scale touting. The Government will legislate to implement these measures when parliamentary time allows.
We recognise that robust enforcement is vital, so we will enable enforcement of the new measures via the consumer enforcement regime established by part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which recently came into effect. This regime provides for tough financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover, and expedited powers for the Competition and Markets Authority to tackle certain consumer law breaches directly.
Government response to call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector
Overall, the responses we received revealed considerable frustration among fans about their experience of buying tickets for live events and suggested that there is scope for live events businesses to improve how they present pricing and other ticket information.
Businesses are already required by law to give fans clear and accurate price information before purchase, free from undue pressure or other manipulative tactics that could influence their decision. These principles are linchpins of consumer law and continue to apply to businesses in the live events sector, as in any other market. Based on current evidence and given that price transparency is already enshrined in consumer law, the Government do not intend to bring forward any new legislative proposals on pricing practices in the live events sector.
However, the ticketing industry must do better to earn the trust of the dedicated fans that sustain the live events sector. The Government expect businesses in the sector to treat the evidence gathered through our call for evidence as an incentive to act. Businesses should also carefully review the CMA’s recent findings on dynamic pricing, published on 20 June 2025, and ensure that their practices align with the guidance that the CMA has published alongside those findings. We welcome the commitment from the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers to convene the sector to establish best practice on ticketing, including price transparency, and look forward to seeing the outcome of this work.
Meanwhile, the outcome of the CMA’s investigation into Ticketmaster sends a clear signal to all ticketing platforms that fans must have access to clear and timely pricing information with accurate ticket descriptions, especially where different pricing models and queuing systems are in use. Where businesses fall short of what is expected of them under the law, the CMA has powerful enforcement tools to ensure businesses can be penalised and brought into line.
I am placing a copy of the Government response to the consultation and call for evidence in the Library of each House.
[HCWS1077]
Employment Rights Bill: Electronic and Workplace Balloting Consultation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
This Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. We are clear that you cannot build a strong economy whilst having people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. This has allowed bad actors to take advantage of loopholes in the current law via exploitative practices, fuelling a race to the bottom, undercutting responsible businesses, and eroding the living standards of working people. We are clear that unfair competition, where a bad employer undercuts a good employer by reducing the terms and conditions of service for their employees, is bad for business, bad for workers and bad for growth. Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” publication, published on 1 July 2025, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all. Today I am launching a consultation seeking views on a draft code of practice on electronic and workplace balloting. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, this consultation will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
At present, almost all statutory trade union ballots must be conducted solely by post. This approach is outdated, limits democratic participation, and no longer aligns with modern voting practices or workplace realities. The Government are committed to modernising the rules for statutory union ballots to bring union participation in line with modern voting practices that political parties and listed companies already use. Therefore, we will be permitting the use of electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots, while retaining the existing option of postal balloting. This will be delivered through secondary legislation and will be designed to ensure the security, accessibility and integrity of the ballot, drawing from established balloting procedures.
The Government will introduce a new statutory code of practice to accompany these changes, setting out how electronic and workplace balloting should operate fairly and lawfully in practice. The code will provide a clear and detailed guidance for unions, employers, workers and independent scrutineers, and will help ensure confidence in ballot outcomes. The Government are consulting on a draft version of this new code of practice. We welcome views from interested parties to ensure the code is clear, balanced and practical for all. This represents the first step of our plans to deliver electronic balloting across a range of statutory union and industrial action ballots.
This consultation will run for 10 weeks and will close on 28 January 2026.
Next steps for consultation
This consultation sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. As trailed in “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill”, further packages of consultations are planned to launch over the winter. These will be central to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and employee right. This consultation will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1070]
Factories of the Future
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
In the strategic defence review published in June, the MOD committed £1.5 billion of additional defence investment for energetics and munitions, including the always-on munitions pipeline. The Government are committed to building at least six new munitions and energetics factories this Parliament, creating at least 1,000 new jobs and driving defence as an engine for growth in every region and nation, supporting the Government’s decade of national renewal. Today, I can announce that the Ministry of Defence has identified at least 13 potential sites for new munitions and energetics factories, and I expect construction to begin on the first of the factories in the next year. The new factories will make munitions and military explosives to boost the UK’s warfighting readiness as the Government start to build the factories of the future.
I can also announce today that we have invited industry to submit proposals to meet the Government’s requirements for energetics production. The MOD’s requirements for energetics production will be published online today, and will set out the MOD’s plan to deliver a significant set of multi-year investments to support onshore production and generate growth in the UK. The document includes details of nine energetic materials which have been identified as key for the UK.
This follows a number of feasibility studies that MOD has funded for the new energetics factories to kick-start high-volume production at scale for the first time in nearly two decades. The engineering design work on the first of these factories has been commissioned with a view to start production for our own armed forces, and to enable our continued support to Ukraine. Potential sites include Grangemouth in Scotland, Teesside in north-east England, and Milford Haven in Wales. The factories will produce the components essential for bolstering the UK’s weapons arsenal including propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
The new munitions and energetics factories will deliver on the strategic defence review’s commitment to move to warfighting readiness and need to boost the UK’s firepower for the armed forces—and today is an important step forward. The first-of-its-kind strategic defence review was published in June, with the ambition to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The Government are delivering at pace on the recommendations in the review to keep the British people safe, with national security the foundation of the Government’s plan for change.
This Government are making defence an engine for growth, with a record increase in defence investment to protect the British people in a new era of threat while delivering a defence dividend—measured in good jobs, growing businesses, and new skills across the UK.
[HCWS1072]
School Funding
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today, I can confirm the publication of the provisional funding allocations for mainstream schools and local authorities in 2026-27 through the schools and central school services national funding formulas.
Provisional funding for mainstream schools through the schools NFF will total £50.9 billion in 2026-27. To simplify the funding system, the 2026-27 schools NFF includes funding for pay and national insurance contributions costs that were previously allocated outside the NFF. The funding for teachers’ pay has been converted to a full-year equivalent, so that it will support the costs of the 2025 teachers’ pay award across the whole 2026-27 funding year.
On top of this rolled-in funding, the core factor values in the schools NFF are rising by 2.1%, to increase the funding available to schools. Average per pupil funding in the NFF will rise to £6,771 in 2026-27. The funding “floor” will be set at 0%, continuing to ensure that the NFF protects schools against cash-terms reductions in their pupil-led per pupil funding. The NFF will continue to apply minimum per pupil funding levels.
Local authorities will continue to be responsible for operating local funding formulae, which will determine the funding that individual schools and academies in their area receive. The actual funding that schools see will therefore, in many cases, diverge from the NFF allocations that we are publishing today. To support moves to a more consistent funding system, we will continue to require those local authorities which are not already “mirroring” the NFF in their local formulae to move closer to the NFF.
The central school services block funds local authorities for the ongoing responsibilities they continue to have for all schools, and some historical spending commitments that local authorities face. The central school services NFF for 2026-27 includes funding for pay and national insurance contributions costs that were previously allocated outside the NFF.
Updated allocations of schools and central school services funding for 2026-27 will be published to the usual timescale in December through the dedicated schools grant allocations, taking account of the latest pupil data at that point.
The publication of high needs allocations will follow by the end of the year.
[HCWS1069]
Diplomatic Immunity: Alleged Serious and Significant Offences 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
In 2024, seventeen serious and significant offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection branch of the Metropolitan Police Service, or other law enforcement agencies.
We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Also included are other significant offences, such as driving without insurance and certain types of assault.
Around 26,500 people are entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the UK and the vast majority of diplomats and dependants abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious offences committed by members of the diplomatic community in the UK is proportionately low.
Under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations 1961 and related legislation, we expect those entitled to immunity to obey the law. The FCDO does not tolerate foreign diplomats or their dependants breaking the law.
We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When the police or other law enforcement agencies bring instances of alleged criminal conduct to our attention, we ask the relevant foreign Government or international organisation to waive immunity, where appropriate, to facilitate further investigation. For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we request the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat or dependant.
Listed below are alleged serious and significant offences reported to the FCDO by UK law enforcement agencies in 2024.
2024
Common Assault
Angola 1
Assault
Guinea 1
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Cote d’Ivoire 1
Domestic Abuse
Pakistan 1
Domestic Violence
Saudi Arabia 1
Domestic Grievous Bodily Harm
Guinea 1
Child Abuse
USA 1
Distribution of Indecent Images of Children
Turkey 1
Modern Slavery
Equatorial Guinea 1
Uganda 2*
Oman 1*
Driving without Insurance
Saudi Arabia 1
Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle
Brazil 1
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
Saudi Arabia 1
Kenya 1
Uganda 1
*historic offence
Figures for previous years are available in the written statement to the House on 14 November 2024 (HCWS217), which can be found at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-09-14/hcws1028
[HCWS1075]
Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Debts 2024-25
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) officials have regular contact with diplomatic missions and international organisations in the UK about outstanding national non-domestic rates (NNDR) payments, outstanding parking fine debt and unpaid London congestion charge debt, to press for payment of outstanding debt and fines. Protocol directorate wrote in April 2025 to all diplomatic missions and international organisations about their obligations to pay the charges, fines and taxes for which they are liable, and has since written directly to those missions with outstanding debt to give them the opportunity to either pay outstanding debts, or to appeal against specific fines and charges that they consider incorrectly recorded. Diplomatic Mission / International Organisation Value of outstanding Beneficial Portion of NNDR payments due Embassy of the People’s Republic of China £528,051.64 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £269,902.03 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran £264,637.81 Embassy of Libya £241,751.25 Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe £196,685.52 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £189,348.60 Embassy of the Russian Federation £172,991.34 High Commission of the Republic of India £171,976.59 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £168,841.95 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco £109,923.16 High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £107,609.28 High Commission for the People s Republic of Bangladesh £106,402.09 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £103,413.32 High Commission of the Republic of South Africa £102,386.49 Uganda High Commission £83,780.71 Sierra Leone High Commission £81,989.86 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £77,776.11 Embassy of Tunisia £64,192.31 Embassy of the People s Democratic Republic of Algeria £58,487.81 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia £57,733.62 Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea £57,658.64 Kingdom of Eswatini High Commission £57,532.48 The Gambia High Commission £52,253.03 Embassy of the Republic of Yemen £50,137.92 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £47,778.81 High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon £42,399.47 Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela £35,418.96 Embassy of the Republic of Cuba £35,306.86 Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria £32,760.25 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £31,120.41 High Commission of the Republic of Fiji £26,805.17 Embassy of Luxembourg £26,581.56 Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £26,336.97 High Commission Of the Republic of Malawi £25,263.68 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £24,805.01 Kenya High Commission £23,695.63 Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo £23,669.33 Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation £23,364.36 High Commission of the Republic of Ghana £23,008.64 Embassy of Portugal £22,697.56 Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman £22,124.20 Embassy of the Argentine Republic £21,746.47 Embassy of the United Arab Emirates £21,489.65 Embassy of Iceland £20,156.76 Embassy of the Republic of Haiti £19,146.39 Malaysian High Commission £18,241.54 Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt £17,892.27 Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay £17,447.98 Embassy of the Republic of Albania £16,637.60 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £15,705.78 Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan £15,194.10 Embassy of the Republic of Guinea £15,082.76 Jamaican High Commission £14,131.20 Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia £13,446.99 Embassy of the Republic of Armenia £12,775.22 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany £12,466.26 Embassy of the Republic of Croatia £11,827.06 Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye £11,813.76 Embassy of the State of Eritrea £11,592.57 The High Commission of the Republic of Seychelles £11,567.59 High Commission of the Gabonese Republic £11,275.32 High Commission for Saint Lucia £10,951.20 Rwanda High Commission £10,893.12 High Commission for Grenada £10,892.50 High Commission of the Kingdom of Lesotho £10,748.40 Embassy of the Kyrgyz Republic £10,528.90 Embassy of Uruguay £10,483.08 Embassy of Nicaragua £10,022.49 Mission / International Organisation Value of outstanding PCNs Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £289,285.00 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £127,355.00 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £78,575.00 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £73,105.00 Uganda High Commission £67,095.00 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco £65,519.00 Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan £42,459.00 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £41,015.00 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £29,335.00 Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman £27,880.00 Embassy of Romania £25,780.00 High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £25,645.00 Embassy of the United Arab Emirates £21,545.00 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £20,995.00 Embassy of the State of Qatar £19,220.00 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £19,060.00 Malaysian High Commission £17,869.00 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £17,505.00 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £15,185.00 Embassy of the People’s Republic of China £14,253.00 High Commission of the Republic of Ghana £13,900.00 Embassy of Georgia £13,040.00 Embassy of Hungary £11,260.00 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan £10,725.00 U.S. Embassy £15,857,775 Embassy of the People s Republic of China £11,489,780 Embassy of Japan £10,932,048 Office of the High Commissioner for India £10,070,585 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £9,383,075 Embassy of the Russian Federation £6,143,715 Embassy of the Republic of Poland £6,117,550 High Commission of the Republic of Ghana £5,655,045 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan £5,588,665 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany £4,824,040 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £4,310,870 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £3,831,060 Kenya High Commission £3,768,270 Embassy of the Republic of Cuba £3,088,520 Embassy of the Republic of Korea £3,024,760 People s Democratic Republic of Algeria £2745,720 Embassy of France £2,728,320 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £2,503,640 Embassy of Spain £2,418,000 Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye £2,206,120 High Commission of the Republic of South Africa £2,191,370 Sierra Leone High Commission £2,161,095 Embassy of Romania £2,010,250 Embassy of Greece £1,840,742 Embassy of Ukraine £1,825,320 High Commission of the Republic of Cyprus £1,702,880 Embassy of Hungary £1,547,850 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £1,240,640 Botswana High Commission £1,211,290 Embassy of the Republic of Yemen £1,153,560 Uganda High Commission £1,031,060 Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria £1,026,830 High Commission of the Republic of Malawi £959,530 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £933,430 Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe £958,055 High Commission for the Republic of Mozambique £956,700 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £929,540 High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £920,490 High Commission for the Republic of Namibia £909,880 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco £903,610 Kingdom of Eswatini High Commission £889,390 Malta High Commission £817,055 High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon £792,150 Embassy of Belgium £786,840 Mauritius High Commission £748,655 Embassy of the Republic of Belarus £744,085 Embassy of Slovakia £719,790 Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania £710,265 Embassy of Austria £694,060 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia £674,670 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £629,460 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £612,680 High Commission of the Kingdom of Lesotho £609,700 Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam £589,110 Embassy of The Republic of Guinea £583,890 Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea £570,290 Embassy of Tunisia £570,160 Jamaican High Commission £529,740 Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo £521,580 Embassy of the Czech Republic £506,200 Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan £500,790 Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia £481,743 Royal Danish Embassy £435,695 Embassy of the Republic of Latvia £388,240 Embassy of Portugal £382,120 Embassy of Luxembourg £372,125 High Commission for Antigua and Barbuda £368,475 Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan £363,020 High Commission of the Republic of Maldives £312,470 Embassy of the Democratic People s Republic of Korea £276,590 Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £260,560 Embassy of Estonia £259,010 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania £257,120 Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt £244,000 High Commission for Guyana £217,900 Embassy of the State of Eritrea £203,080 Embassy of the Republic of Armenia £198,790 Embassy of the Kyrgyz Republic £181,257 Embassy of the Dominican Republic £180,790 Embassy of the Republic of Senegal £178,365 The High Commission of the Republic of Seychelles £169,935 High Commission for Saint Lucia £159,230 Embassy of El Salvador £156,715 The Gambia High Commission £136,690 Embassy of the Republic of Moldova £134,830 Embassy of the Republic of Albania £124,480 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran £111,020 Embassy of Bosnia & Herzegovina £101,380
National non-domestic rates:
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates (NNDR) due from them. Diplomatic missions and international organisations are obliged to pay only 6% of the total NNDR value of their offices. This represents payment for specific services received, such as street cleaning and street lighting.
As at 30 June 2025, the total amount owed to HMG for NNDR invoices issued up to 31 March 2025 is £4,458,866. Representation in 2024-25 by protocol directorate of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to diplomatic missions and international organisations has led to a reduction since April 2024 of over £1.2 million NNDR debt.
Diplomatic premises of the following countries and international organisations have balances owing in excess of £10,000 in respect of NNDR for invoices issued up to 31 March 2025:
Parking Fines:
Parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations are brought to our attention by local authorities, primarily but not exclusively in London. The FCDO considers those with privileges and immunities liable for fines issued as penalty charge notices (PCNs) by local authorities for vehicle parking infringements. We expect PCNs to be paid to the issuing office.
The FCDO regularly reminds missions and international organisations to pay outstanding PCNs. We wrote to all missions and international organisation in April 2025 to remind them of their obligations to pay fines for parking infringements and have written to those missions and organisations with outstanding debt, giving them the opportunity either to pay or to appeal against them if they consider that the fines had been recorded incorrectly.
As at 30 May 2025, the total value of outstanding PCNs notified to FCDO by local authorities is £1,358,383. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organizations which have outstanding PCN fines totalling £10,000 or more:
London Congestion Charge:
The value of unpaid congestion charge debt incurred by diplomatic missions in London since its introduction in February 2003 until 30 September 2025, as advised by Transport for London (TfL), was £164,621,750. TfL publishes details of diplomatic missions with outstanding fines at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/congestion-charge
We consider that there are no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from the London congestion charge, which is comparable to a parking fee or toll charge they are required to pay. FCDO officials wrote to all missions in April 2025 to encourage payment and directly to those missions with outstanding debt, giving them the opportunity either to pay or to appeal against any charges and penalty charge notices they consider to have been recorded incorrectly. TfL has similarly approached diplomatic missions.
The table below shows those diplomatic missions with outstanding fines of £100,000 or more:
Figures for previous years are available in the written statement to the House on 14 November 2024 (UIN HCWS218), which can be found at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-11-14/hcws218
[HCWS1076]
Men’s Health Strategy for England
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Today marks the publication of England’s first-ever men’s health strategy.
It can be tough to be a man in today’s society. Mental ill health is on the rise, preventable killers such as heart disease and prostate cancer are being caught far too late, and tragically, suicide remains one of the leading causes of death of men under 50.
At the same time, lots of young men and boys—particularly those from working-class backgrounds—are being led astray by a proliferation of harmful influences and left feeling isolated and confused by the bombardment of conflicting messages about what it means to be a man.
Men can be less likely to seek help and more likely to suffer in silence. This, combined with a higher propensity to smoke, drink, gamble and use drugs, all adds up to a crisis in men’s health that ripples through families, workplaces and communities. This first-ever men’s health strategy for England is the Government’s response.
The strategy is designed to support men to take charge of their physical health and mental wellbeing. It is informed by the voices of experts, including men’s groups, charities, men’s health ambassadors, campaigners and partners. It supports men first by expanding access to support services; secondly, by ensuring that they are supported to take better care of themselves; and thirdly, by ensuring stigma is challenged and every man feels empowered to reach out for help.
The vision is simple yet bold: to improve the health of all men and boys in England. The strategy identifies six levers through which we will achieve this vision.
Improving access to healthcare services
To improve access, the Government will invest in community-based men’s health programmes, partner with organisations including the Premier League, develop digital health services, equip professionals to respond to men’s health needs, work with media experts and improve the evidence on men’s health literacy.
Supporting individual behaviours
The strategy includes targeted “stop smoking” and cocaine and alcohol-related interventions, alongside implementation of the new statutory levy on gambling operators, which will provide increased independent, sustainable funding to support system-wide improvements relating to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms across Great Britain.
Developing healthy living and working conditions
Actions include workplace health initiatives, promoting NHS health checks for professional drivers, and campaigns to build resilience against online harms.
Fostering strong social, community, and family networks
The strategy harnesses the sports sector to build men and boys’ social connections and improves father inclusion in Best Start family hubs, and Healthy Babies. It also commits to strengthening the evidence base on the mental health of fathers during the perinatal period. For example, it explores commissioning research on the rate of all-cause mortality and suicide-specific mortality in fathers in the year after childbirth.
Addressing societal norms
The Government will challenge and change these norms by building the evidence base and identifying ways to build media literacy skills in men.
Tackling health challenges and conditions
Targeted actions include neighbourhood-based suicide prevention pilots and respiratory illness case-finding initiatives in former coalfield areas.
This strategy is a crucial first step, laying the foundation from which we can learn, iterate and grow. Recognising that men’s health issues cannot be solved by Government alone, the Government are committed to learning from, and working in partnership with, the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, through the establishment of a new stakeholder group to inform implementation. The Government will also look to build a broader coalition, including with service providers, employers and important sectors such as media and sport.
The Government will also work with the newly established Men’s Health Academic Network, and fund research through the National Institute of Health and Care Research to build the evidence and inform future policy direction.
This strategy is not just a plan; it is a call to action to create a society where men and boys are supported to live longer, healthier and happier lives; where stigma is replaced by understanding; and where every man knows that his health matters.
[HCWS1074]
Local Government: Unitary Councils
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are determined to streamline local government by replacing the current two-tier system with new single-tier unitary councils. This landmark reform is at the heart of our vision: councils that are close enough to care, but strong enough to reform public services, drive economic growth, and empower their communities. Empowered local government, based on unitary councils and strategic authorities, is the foundation for growth across the country—the Government’s number one mission.
Following the decision on reorganisation in Surrey, we are now looking forward to making progress across the rest of the country. With single councils in charge over sensible geographies, we will see quicker decisions to build homes, grow our towns and cities and connect people to jobs. Cities such as Colchester, Portsmouth and Norwich can drive growth at the national scale, but we need to make sure the structures around them support, rather than hinder, their ambitions.
Strong local government is also key to tackling deprivation and poverty. People living in neighbourhoods high on the index of multiple deprivation, such as in Hastings, Tendring, and Great Yarmouth, deserve responsive and joined-up services that help them reach their full potential. In place of multiple levels of confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for what a place needs.
On 26 September, my Department received final proposals from councils in six invitation areas. I would like to thank all councils in these areas for their work in bringing these 17 proposals forward. As per the invitation, these proposals include the areas of existing neighbouring small unitary councils. Some proposals were accompanied by requests for boundary change, whereby existing districts would be split; these will require careful consideration.
Today I am launching consultations on all the below proposals, available on gov.uk, and I will deposit a copy of each in the House Library.
Two proposals from councils in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove:
Eastbourne borough council, East Sussex county council, Hastings borough council, Lewes district council and Rother district council submitted a proposal for one unitary council for the current East Sussex county footprint.
Brighton and Hove city council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils on a pan-Sussex basis.
Wealden district council did not submit a proposal.
Four proposals from councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock:
Braintree district council, Essex county council and Epping Forest district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Thurrock council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Rochford district council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Basildon borough council, Brentwood borough council, Castle Point borough council, Chelmsford city council, Colchester city council, Harlow district council, Maldon district council, Southend-on-Sea city council, Tendring district council and Uttlesford district council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Four proposals from councils in Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton:
East Hampshire district council and Hampshire county council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Basingstoke and Deane borough council, New Forest district council and Test Valley borough council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Winchester city council submitted a separate proposal for five unitary councils.
Eastleigh borough council, Fareham borough council, Hart district council, Havant borough council, Portsmouth city council, Rushmoor borough council and Southampton city council also submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
All four proposals leave the Isle of Wight unchanged as an existing unitary council. Gosport borough council and Isle of Wight council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Norfolk:
Norfolk county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
South Norfolk district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Breckland district council, Broadland district council, Great Yarmouth borough council, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, North Norfolk district council, and Norwich city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in Suffolk:
Suffolk county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
Babergh district council, East Suffolk district council, Ipswich borough council, Mid Suffolk district council and West Suffolk district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in West Sussex:
West Sussex county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
Arun district council, Adur district council, Chichester district council, Crawley borough council, Horsham district council, Mid-Sussex district council and Worthing borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
The consultations will run for seven weeks until 11 January 2026. The consultation documents are available on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space" and those responding to the consultations can use this online platform, email or post to submit their views. I welcome views from all councils in these areas as well as neighbouring councils, and specified public service providers, including health providers and the police, and other business, voluntary and community sector and educational bodies. Where boundary changes are requested, we consider it appropriate to consult the local government boundary commission for England.
I would also welcome responses from any other persons or organisations interested in these proposals, including residents, town and parish councils, businesses and the voluntary and community sector.
Once the consultations have concluded, the Government will assess the proposals against the criteria in the invitation and decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, we will have regard to all the representations received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available.
I will continue to update the House as further milestones are reached in the delivery of this landmark reform.
[HCWS1071]
Cabinet Committees
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Today I am publishing an update to the Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1073]
East West Rail: Autumn Announcement 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
East West Rail will unlock growth and productivity and benefit communities right across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. It will create faster, more direct rail connections and improve access to employment, training, and education.
East West Rail is a central part of the Government’s plans for growth in the region and has the potential to support up to 100,000 new homes, providing well connected, sustainable communities. By 2050, East West Rail is set to boost the regional economies of the counties between Oxford and Cambridge by £6.7 billion every year.
Major infrastructure work for the first stage of East West Rail between Oxford and Milton Keynes via Bicester Village has now been delivered and is operational for freight and charter trains. The Department is supporting Chiltern Railways as it works closely with unions and other industry partners to get services on the first phase of East West Rail up and running as soon as possible.
At the 2025 spending review, the Government announced £2.5 billion to progress the next stages of the scheme. East West Railway Company has today published its “You Said, We Did” report setting out updated proposals for the railway and how feedback from the 2024 non-statutory consultation has been considered in its plans. The updated proposals include:
Increasing capacity on the line to deliver more frequent services for passengers;
Consolidation of stations along the Marston Vale Line (Bletchley-Bedford) into four new, modern and accessible stations on new sites at Woburn Sands, Ridgmont, Lidlington, and Stewartby;
Plans for the new station at Bedford St Johns and for the redevelopment of Bedford station to improve passenger experience and access to the station;
Updated options for the replacement of Bicester London Road level crossing;
The proposed alignment of the railway and the new east coast main line interchange station at Tempsford;
The location of the new station at Cambourne;
A new station at Cambridge East, subject to third party funding; and
Partial-discontinuous electrification of the line to provide passenger services using hybrid battery-electric trains.
The latest proposals for East West Rail reflect the Government’s commitment to realising the full potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and delivering improved connectivity for communities in the region.
East West Rail Company will continue to engage with local communities on the proposals ahead of further consultation in 2026 before finalising its application for a development consent order to build the railway. As part of its preparation for the DCO application, it is considering the opportunities from proposed reforms in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
The Department for Transport will be issuing updated safeguarding directions for East West Rail in line with today’s announcement. I am placing a copy of the safeguarding directions in the Library in both Houses.
[HCWS1068]