Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Without our small businesses, we as a country are nothing, which is why we have published the first small business strategy in 10 years. We are going to change the law to tackle late payment, unlock billions to support businesses to invest, and revitalise the British high street.
Olly Glover
Love Beer Brewery in Milton in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage supplies fantastic ale for events and a number of local pubs. However, its viability is threatened by the freeze of income tax thresholds and the increase in beer duty. Its monthly beer duty costs are now between £1,500 and £2,000, and if its owner did not have a day job, it probably would not be able to survive. In that context, will the Minister say a bit more about what else the Government can do to support small businesses and small breweries such as Love Beer in Milton?
Chris Bryant
When I visited those at the de-alcoholisation unit at another brewery, the Budweiser factory just outside Newport, last week, they said that one of the really important things was being able to diversify, because of changing drinking habits in the UK. However, they also want the British Government to focus on making sure that businesses have access to capital and that people pay their bills on time. When we introduce legislation, as we intend to do later this year, which will tackle the problem of late payments, that will make a dramatic difference. It will be the most important piece of legislation in the UK in this field for 25 years.
Sally Jameson
Clean Power Hydrogen, a small business in my constituency, is a UK leader in the manufacturing of membrane-free electrolysers for green hydrogen production. It employs about 60 people in Doncaster, and it has the ability to expand that to hundreds by 2035. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to support companies such as Clean Power Hydrogen in Doncaster and across the country?
Chris Bryant
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a great defender of the businesses in her constituency. We are delivering targeted catalytic public investment in our clean energy industries. Some people see climate change as an economic challenge for us, but we see it as an economic opportunity in this country, because it is about future jobs. That is why we are so different from the political parties on the other side of the Chamber.
Mr Dhesi
Slough is a dynamic and innovative business hub, but as we enter the festive period, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, for example, are under immense pressure. Although businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, welcome the support measures that have already been introduced, what specific immediate actions are the Government taking to boost the high street and ensure that Slough businesses not only survive but thrive?
Chris Bryant
As my hon. Friend knows, I know a bit about Slough, because my brother is a headteacher there—and I am sure he has been helping out some of the pubs. The most important point is that we fully acknowledge that it has been a very difficult few years for the hospitality industry across the whole of the UK. That is one of the reasons we set a target of 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030. If we are to do that, we have to make sure that pubs survive. My hon. Friend will know that, when the Conservatives left office last year, they had no plan to replace the covid recovery funds and no plan to meet the coming cliff edge in the revaluation of business rates. That is why it is so important that we have put in £4.3 billion to protect businesses and provide transitional relief.
Will Stone
Will the Minister outline what work he is doing with the Ministry of Defence to support our defence SMEs, given the situation in Ukraine at the moment?
Chris Bryant
The single most important thing is that we have a defence industrial strategy. We should always have had a defence industrial strategy, because as many of us will know, up and down the land there are small and larger businesses that rely on the support they get from providing for the MOD. When I was in Auckland a few days ago, I was able to speak to the New Zealand navy about buying British frigates, which would be made in Rosyth. I very much hope that we will be able to get that over the line. We are determined as a Government to use these industrial opportunities in the MOD to deliver good jobs across the whole of the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Last month in Business and Trade questions, I asked the Secretary of State to show some backbone and stand up to the Chancellor and say, “No more business taxes”. But he did not: far from permanently lower business rates, small and medium-sized businesses on our high streets are experiencing enormous rate hikes. Will the Minister apologise to those retail and hospitality businesses who feel so misled?
Chris Bryant
No, because I want the hon. Lady to apologise for what the Conservatives did to the British economy and British businesses. Why is it that, following the Brexit that they delivered to this country, only one in 10 British businesses are exporting, whereas three out of 10 French businesses and four out of 10 German businesses export? It is because they gave us a Brexit which, frankly, was not fit for purpose. That is precisely what we should be changing.
Of course there are problems for lots of businesses up and down the country, but I note that every single time we ask the Conservatives, “Where is the money to come from to pay for improving the NHS and putting our public services back on their feet?” they always say it will come from some random budget. [Interruption.] Just as when the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for Liz Truss, he wanted us to—
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I did not hear an answer to my question. To add insult to injury to the retail and hospitality businesses on our high streets, the letter that has gone out from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the change in business rates gives completely different information from the guidance on the Treasury website. The difference means thousands and thousands of pounds. Will the Minister commit today to getting in touch with his Cabinet colleague to ensure that those letters are corrected?
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, I will find some Strepsils for you later.
Mr Speaker
I think my throat will manage. The hon. Member should not worry.
Chris Bryant
Well, I will find some hearing aids for the hon. Lady, because she refused to listen to the answer I was providing. Basically, when the Conservatives left government, they had not provided a single penny to make sure the cliff edge would not affect every single small business in this country. That is the problem they should be apologising for. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what she is chuntering, so I probably need a hearing aid, too. Of course I am happy to look into the letters she is talking about, but, really, the Conservatives need to get with the programme. Even the leader of the Conservative party now admits that Brexit was a “shock” on a level with covid and the economic crisis—but it was a self-inflicted shock.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Businesses of all sizes across my constituency are struggling due to the strain of Labour’s increases to national insurance contributions and the pressures created by the Employment Rights Bill. Many tell me they are questioning their viability or even considering relocating overseas. Will the Minister set out what steps the Department will take to support entrepreneurship and ensure that businesses choose to invest and grow here in the UK, rather than being driven overseas?
Chris Bryant
Look, we want to back British entrepreneurs and investors. That is why we addressed some of the key issues in our small business strategy, which we published earlier this year, in particular late payments. The Conservative Government refused to tackle that in any serious way across their 14 years. It is why we are also looking at access to finance. One thing we know about a business is that if it exports, it will be more resilient, more likely to grow and more successful in future years. To enable that, I asked UK Export Finance this week not just to focus on big contracts around the world, but to ensure that it provides specific support for SMEs.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has said that this Labour Budget
“falls short of reassuring business owners”
and that SMEs in Scotland are being left “on the brink”. I have met a range of businesses in the Scottish whisky and hospitality sectors and the crucial energy industry, and this Budget is a missed opportunity to reverse cack-handed Labour policies, such as national insurance contributions, which are hurting our SMEs. Will the Minister explain to Scottish businesses why Labour has gone out of its way to let them down so badly?
Chris Bryant
First of all, we have given £5 billion more to the Scottish Government; I sometimes just wish they would stop whining and moaning, and get on with delivering what they can with the budget that we provided to them. Secondly, I have met the Scotch Whisky Association frequently since I came into this post at the beginning of September. It is delighted that we are delivering trade deals around the world. The trade deal with India, in particular, will reduce tariffs in India from 150% to 75% and, in 10 years, to 40%. That will make a radical difference to the ability to export Scotch whisky around the world.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government have repeatedly said that they would introduce permanently lower business rates. We were pleased to hear the Chancellor announce lower multipliers in the Budget, but the recently announced higher valuations will wipe out any benefit that businesses will get from the lower multipliers. UKHospitality estimates that the average increase for hospitality businesses will be 76% over the next three years; that compares with warehouses, offices and large supermarkets, whose rates will go up by 16%, 7% and 4% respectively. Given that it has transpired that the Government were informed of the higher valuations back in September, how does that align with their pledge to support small businesses, and how do the Government plan to meet the commitment, in their own small business strategy, to bring down business rates bills?
Chris Bryant
Look, the single most important thing is that everybody, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Government, when they were in power, knew that after the revaluation in 2021—on the back of covid—there would be significant increases when a new revaluation came in 2024. Everybody was aware of that. At the same time, everybody recognised that there was a cliff edge, because not a single penny had been set aside to provide transitional relief following the general election. We provided relief last year, we provided £4.3 billion of relief this year, and that is why there is a very strong future for our hospitality sector under Labour.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Our 10-year industrial strategy and sector plans will boost economic growth nationwide. South Wales is set to gain a new investment zone in Cardiff and Newport, targeting semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. Across Wales, manufacturers can benefit from a range of other industrial strategy measures that target lower energy costs, faster grid connections, and billions in new capital investments for small and medium-sized enterprises, making it easier to innovate, expand and thrive.
Ruth Jones
I welcome the Minister’s response and the additional support for the compound semiconductor cluster in my constituency. What conversations has he had with Welsh Government colleagues on delivering the joint objectives of the Welsh manufacturing action plan and the UK industrial strategy to attract additional investment and jobs to the Welsh semiconductor cluster?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to champion the Welsh semi- conductor cluster, which is so important for our entire advanced manufacturing sector. The Minister for artificial intelligence and online safety—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan)—was in Wales last week, meeting industry leaders and co-chairing the semiconductor advisory panel, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was recently at the Wales investment summit. We hope to attract many more investors to the compound semiconductor cluster in south Wales.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I have discussed Royal Mail’s performance with the chief executive of Royal Mail and its parent company, and they recognise the need to do more to meet service delivery targets. In addition, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for failing to meet its service targets, and told it to urgently publish and deliver a credible plan that delivers major and continual improvement.
Mrs Blundell
I commend the efforts of posties across the country, especially at this time of year, but residents in Middleton in my constituency have been without a reliable postal service for well over a year. That has meant that crucial medical documentation and urgent financial correspondence have been reaching the people of Middleton too late, if at all. What steps are the Government taking to bring about serious improvements in Royal Mail’s service provision in north Greater Manchester, given that Royal Mail alone is proving unable to deliver the change that people in Middleton deserve?
Blair McDougall
On this, as on all things, my hon. Friend is a strong voice for the problems faced by her local people. I know that she raised those concerns about local services and resourcing challenges, particularly in Middleton, with Royal Mail. I understand that Royal Mail has recruited 17 more staff in the past few weeks, and that the Middleton delivery office is now fully staffed. As I say, I am discussing such issues with Royal Mail, and it recognises the need to improve.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the whole House, I wish all our heroic posties a merry Christmas at this most difficult time of year for them.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the dangers posed by unsafe e-bike batteries; 170 e-bike fires were recorded in 2024, mostly in London. Product safety laws require that businesses supply only safe consumer products, including e-bike batteries. Last year, my Department introduced new statutory guidelines to strengthen battery safety. The regulators enforce the rules; since 2022, the Office for Product Safety and Standards has published 24 recalls and 65 safety reports for unsafe e-bike batteries and related products. The new Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 enables Government to update the law to respond to new technologies and high-risk products.
Dame Meg Hillier
I welcome that response and the fact that the Government are leaning into this issue, because it is causing a great deal of risk. One of the challenges is that in order to upgrade bikes and extend their range, people often buy these batteries from non-regulated suppliers, and those are the dangerous ones. Will the Minister look further into how the Department could work with the rest of Government to try to regulate illegal sales?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend knows how vital consumer safety is for e-bike users and advocates passionately for their regulation, and I would be happy to work with her further on this. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has powers to remove unsafe products from the UK market and has taken action to prevent those dangerous models of UPP brand e-bike batteries from being sold. As I mentioned, the Department last year introduced new statutory guidelines. I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend and across Government on this important issue for her constituents.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister consider introducing minimum design and safety standards for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of overcharging, overheating and short-circuiting?
Kate Dearden
Our product safety laws do require products supplied in the UK to be safe, whether they are sold online or on the high street. As I have mentioned, our Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, gives us powers to update product safety laws where necessary to adapt to those new technologies and emerging product risks.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend, through his chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, is working very hard to highlight the issues of business competitiveness and energy costs to businesses. I would draw his attention to the British industrial competitiveness scheme consultation, which I launched a couple of weeks ago, which is our commitment through the industrial strategy to reduce energy costs for over 7,000 manufacturing businesses by around £40 per megawatt-hour from 2027. I encourage all Members to ensure that manufacturing businesses in their constituencies respond to that consultation.
Bill Esterson
Reducing costs by £40 per megawatt-hour for 7,000 manufacturing businesses is welcome, as is the news in the Budget of changes to the British industry supercharger scheme. However, there are tens—if not hundreds—of thousands of other manufacturing businesses facing some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, which has been the case for many years. What is the plan to help the businesses facing very high bills right now while we wait for lower electricity bills in the longer term through Government plans for clean power?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right. Alongside the British industrial competitiveness scheme, we have also committed to increasing network charges compensation from 60% to 90% under the network charging compensation scheme. We are also reviewing our energy intensive industries compensation scheme. He is right to recognise the lack of competitiveness on energy prices between the UK and the rest of Europe—a terrible situation that was bequeathed to us by the previous Conservative Government and their ideological adherence to relying on foreign dictators such as Putin for Britain’s energy needs. We are investing in our future energy needs to ensure that they are clean, cheap and secure.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
National Grid is going to spend about £30 billion by the end of the decade building pylons, but only 2% of the steel used to build those pylons will be British; similarly, in the offshore wind projects, only 2% of the steel will be British. That is because of carbon taxes and energy costs. Does the Minister recognise that rather than promoting the opportunity of the great, green revolution that they were espousing earlier, the Government are actually killing British business with high energy costs?
Chris McDonald
I do not believe the hon. Gentleman is correct to attribute that cause to carbon taxes or energy costs, but I share his concern about the lack of British steel and other British materials being used in construction projects funded by the taxpayer. I believe that the taxpayer expects materials for such projects to largely be sourced from the UK. That is why I had cause over the last couple of weeks to speak to British Petroleum about its use of Chinese steel in energy projects. I will continue to call in the chief executives of companies and discuss with them how we will increase British content in British projects.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK ceramics sector is one of the most gas and electricity-intensive industries in the UK, so I make my usual plea to the Minister to consider changes to the supercharger scheme ahead of the British industrial competitiveness scheme coming online. Will he also give some thought to the electrification process? There are parts of the ceramics sector that would like to electrify, but the industrial grid capacity simply does not exist yet. What will the Government do to allow those companies to move forward with electrification, which ultimately will help to bring down their energy bills?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the incredibly constructive Westminster Hall debate we had last week on the ceramics industry, which was supported by my hon. Friend and other Members representing ceramics constituencies around the Stoke and Staffordshire area.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s call for ceramics to be considered under the review of the supercharger scheme, and I have ensured that those calls have been heard within the Department. I want to ensure that ceramics is considered very carefully as part of that. I also appreciate the continued commitment of Ceramics UK, which I met with last week, and the rest of the ceramics industry to work together with me to see how we can improve the competitiveness of the industry.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In Wokingham we are lucky to have 119 great hospitality businesses. Those businesses are struggling under the burden of rising energy costs, increases in national insurance and business rates and many other cost increases. The Liberal Democrats called for a 5% cut in VAT to help the hospitality sector, but the Chancellor ignored that proposal, which would have gone some way to help businesses cope with rising energy costs. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns of business owners in Wokingham, who will be worried about their businesses?
Chris McDonald
The Government are, of course, very concerned about cost pressures on hospitality businesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) met with hospitality businesses just this week to discuss exactly that. The hon. Member raises the question of a reduction in value added tax, which would affect the whole industry, so it would be something of a blunt instrument. Instead, the Government are providing transitional support for those businesses, particularly on business rates. We continue to listen to and work with the sector.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I wish to come in after question 6, Mr Speaker—apologies.
Mr Speaker
That is not what we have been told by your department, but I am sure we can make arrangements accordingly.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are championing investment across every nation and region. At the recent regional investment summit and Wales investment summit, we showcased the strengths of our world-leading sectors and secured billions in private investment and commitments. We are making the UK the best place to start, scale and invest, while cutting unnecessary regulation so that businesses can innovate, create jobs and help rebuild our economy.
Andrew Ranger
As someone with a long and proud career in the hospitality industry before being elected to this place, I know—as we all do—that the sector plays a vital role for our high streets and communities. It brings people together, provides crucial local jobs and boosts economies. In Wrexham alone, over 1,200 people are employed in the sector. Alongside measures announced in the Budget and already this morning, will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to support the beer and pubs sector as part of their plans to revitalise our high streets, strengthen local economies and safeguard hospitality jobs in Wrexham and beyond?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend refers to his long and proud career in the industry. It can’t have been that long, because he is so young—[Interruption.] I am being nice.
One thing I have felt very strongly about for a long time is that the hospitality industry in the UK needs to consider a job in the industry as a proper, honourable career. All too often they are seen as jobs that are only done by a few people for a couple of months before they go on to university or whatever. We need to completely change that. That is why as a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport I tried to ensure that we have proper centres of excellence for hospitality in the UK so that it is a career that is available for people for the whole of their lifetime.
My hon. Friend will know of the work that is being done in Wales via Pub is the Hub to help rural pubs diversify. I think that is really important, and we are committed to ensuring that it continues.
Alan Gemmell
My constituency is home to NATS—the good kind, helpfully, because NATS is the UK’s leading provider of air traffic control services. It employs 5,000 people around the country and 500 in Central Ayrshire, and exports its world-class expertise around the world. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that great British success story and how we can continue to champion it?
Chris Bryant
I agree with my hon. Friend that gnats— I would not want to cast aspersions on any other kind, obviously—can be a terrible problem in Scotland.
The aviation industry in the UK is an important sector and is part of one of the key sectors that we have identified in the industrial strategy. We want to ensure that all our advanced manufacturing prospers. It was good to see significant extra investment in GE Aerospace in Nantgarw, made only the other day, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to see how we can drive forward our ambitions in the sector.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister mentioned earlier the disaster of Brexit, and I will add the loss to the UK economy of £250 million a day in tax revenue, according to research from the House of Commons Library. We Liberal Democrats want the Government to focus on a golden opportunity to grow the economy by considering a new customs union with the EU. Is it not time that the Government look at a new customs union with the EU? We will be told that there are deals with India and New Zealand that would be in peril. [Hon. Members: “There are!”] Those are nothing compared with the lost trade with the European Union.
Chris Bryant
Far be it from me to agree with a Lib Dem but, broadly speaking, I do. The truth is, as the Leader of the Opposition has now admitted, Brexit was a self-inflicted shock—and not just a small shock. It is as if the Conservatives decided to throw the three-bar electric fire into the bath while it was plugged in and they were sitting in it. The hon. Lady is right: it is a 4% drop in productivity, a 15% drop in trade and a £100 billion hit to our GDP, and there are 16,000 fewer businesses now exporting into Europe. I am sorry but they are not Cinderella—instead, we are having to clear up the mess left by the ugly sisters.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I always appreciate the Minister’s optimism, but I was with my local chamber of commerce a few weeks ago and it did not have the same views on how the Government are doing with growing the economy. I heard from a hospitality business in my constituency that costs for next year will go up by £150,000. They will not make it through next year. I understand and can perhaps predict what the Minister will say, but surely we need to consider some key measures, because we are hearing from across this House that hospitality is in crisis.
Chris Bryant
We are looking at all those issues in the round. We need to ensure that there is the support that people need in a variety of different ways. Some of that is about ensuring that bills get paid on time and some is making sure that those businesses have the access to finance that they have historically found difficult. We need to build on the successes and enable people to diversify more. That is precisely what our Department is there to help with. If the hon. Lady has people who want to meet me, I am happy to do that, but I can assure her that we are determined to drive economic growth.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Five Lib Dem Lords a-leaping. That is all it took for the Liberal Democrat party to throw every British business under the bus and expose them to the unimaginable liability of infinite tribunal payouts. It is hard to think of a more anti-growth, anti-job measure. On Monday, the Liberal Democrat spokesman was against, on Wednesday they were for and goodness knows where they will be tomorrow. Does the Minister agree that British business would have an entirely fair case to dismiss the lot of them?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member seems to have lost the plot, frankly. Let me just point something out to him: what was average growth under the Tories? It was 1.5%. What is it under Labour? It is 2.2%. Which is higher? It is higher under Labour than the Tories. Average employment in the UK under the Tories was 73.8%. What is it under Labour? 75%. Which is higher? It is higher under Labour. Average inflation under the Tories was 3.2%. Under Labour, it is 1.8%—better off under us. I will just say on rights that we do not create a healthy and wealthy society if we ignore the rights of workers.
Andrew Griffith
Lyndon B Johnson said the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. The Government lost the vote in the House of Lords last night on the unemployment Bill because 144 of their own peers did not want anything to do with that Bill. One Labour peer has already resigned to join the exodus to Dubai. Tony Blair would never have brought forward this Bill because he understood the importance of growth. Will the Minister now accept the sensible compromise passed in the other place last night and today give British employers and workers the certainty they need for business to grow?
Chris Bryant
I can count; the hon. Member cannot. Let me remind him: growth under the Tories was 1.5%, and growth under Labour is 2.2%. Which is higher? It is higher under Labour, isn’t it? Why did we lose the vote last night? Because of 25 Tory hereditary peers. Why on earth would that be? Why do we think they might not be willing to support Labour? Look, it is absolutely clear that it is business that builds economic growth, but we cannot create a wealthy nation if we do not tackle poverty, and we cannot tackle poverty unless we grow the economy—just like a prosperous business cannot be built on the backs of the workers, and that is what we will never do.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I appreciate you giving me the time.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Some £90 billion is being lost every year in tax receipts, 20,000 small firms have stopped all exports to the EU and 33% of currently trading businesses are experiencing extra costs. The Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser has recommended a customs union with the EU. The Deputy Prime Minister has also suggested that countries within a customs union tend to see stronger economic growth, and the Minister agrees, so what is his Government going to do about it?
Chris Bryant
We are going to get the best possible deal that we can out of the European Union. That is one of the reasons that I was in Brussels only yesterday alongside Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We are getting a better deal from the European Union. We want to ensure that we have frictionless trade with the EU—that was what was promised by the ragtag and bobtail of that lot on the Conservative Benches —and that is what we will deliver. But I say to the hon. Member that in all earnestness we had a manifesto commitment, and that is what we will stick by.
Mr Speaker
As the Minister knows, we do not normally use names, and he will not be doing it again.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work in this area. From April 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, statutory paternity pay will increase from £187.18 to £194.32 per week. The Employment Rights Bill will make paternity leave a day one right, extending eligibility to 32,000 more fathers and partners and ensuring that parents who move jobs to increase their pay will not lose their entitlement to paternity leave. The parental leave and pay review, launched on 1 July, will examine current and future parental leave entitlements, including paternity leave and pay.
Maya Ellis
I thank the Minister for how seriously she is taking this issue when, according to the latest analysis by the Dad Shift, 90% of paternity leave is claimed by fathers in the top half of earners, with almost a third of those being in London and the south-east. Anna Whitehouse and George Gabriel, who I will meet later today, are among a huge cacophony of voices in this country that are crying out for us to recognise the need for inclusive policies that put the voices of all parents at the heart of our growth, health and wellbeing strategies. Can the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will finally put them there?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and those she mentions for their unwavering commitment to supporting parents—I was delighted to meet the Dad Shift recently. We are committed to improving the lives of working families. Alongside expanding access to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, benefiting over 1 million more parents, we are strengthening flexible working rights and bolstering protections for new and expectant mothers. But more needs to be done. This year, we launched the parental leave and pay review to explore how the system can better support working families and reflect modern work and childcare realities. I look forward to working with her and hearing further from her constituents about the impact those changes could have for working people, especially those on lower incomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that helpful response. Many low-income workers often cannot afford unpaid or low-paid leave, so fathers feel obliged to return to work to receive full pay. What steps can the Government take to increase statutory paternity pay to match the reasonable proportion of wages across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will have heard my reference to a review. It will consider all forms of parental leave and pay, alongside current and future parental leave entitlements. I urge him to get involved in that process, and look forward to hearing from him as part of it.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
For too long, fans have been at the mercy of greedy touts charging rip-off prices on the ticket resale market. That is why the Government have announced plans to make it illegal to resell a live events ticket for a profit. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for that over the years, for which I thank him. There will be tough penalties for non-compliance: resale platforms will face fines of up to 10% of their global turnover. That will protect genuine fans while preserving fair resale, saving fans an estimated £112 million each year.
Nick Smith
The Government’s action on ticket reselling is the first substantive effort to tackle those who leech off the music sector. Previously, as one loophole closed, another would often open. There have been warnings, however, that ticket reselling could continue through social media and messaging apps. How will the Government monitor that to protect fans so that they can see the artists who bring joy into all our lives?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and appreciate his work on and commitment to this matter. Our approach will require all platforms that facilitate the resale of tickets—including social media platforms—to ensure that the price cap is adhered to on their sites. If platforms fail to uphold the cap, our enforcers will be able to issue tough penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. We believe that that will act as a strong deterrent. We will carefully monitor the impact of the measures once they have been implemented, and we will not hesitate to take further action to protect fans if required.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I was pleased that my hon. Friend joined the recent reception for small businesses. The Huddersfield-based Syngenta exemplifies local success, investing millions to convert an existing plant into an advanced life sciences manufacturing facility that supplies over 40 countries. The Government support local businesses through the business growth service, alongside the West Yorkshire growth hub, to ensure that businesses in the Colne valley have access to grow, scale and succeed.
Paul Davies
I represent 3,455 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency. Those businesses provide essential jobs in the local economy. Last weekend, we celebrated Small Business Saturday, and I had the privilege of joining world-renowned author Lee Child as we visited fantastic local businesses, including Read bookshop, Nellie’s Keepsake, the Huntsman Inn and many more. The previous Government turned their back on small businesses. Will the Minister outline what targeted programmes are available to boost local businesses in Colne Valley?
Blair McDougall
I am envious of my hon. Friend’s meeting Lee Child. If I had known, I might have asked him to put in a word for me to be the next Jack Reacher —I think I have the build for the role.
The Government continue to reach businesses through the West Yorkshire mayoral authority’s £1.4 billion investment over 30 years, including £30 million annually for local priorities. The West Yorkshire growth hub, along with help to grow and the apprenticeship reforms we have announced, will further boost local skills and productivity. SMEs in West Yorkshire will also be able to access the Made Smarter adoption pilot programme for professional and business services—a particular strength of my hon. Friend’s part of the world—with the aim of driving productivity through digital adoption and skills investment. We will continue to work with him to make those programmes a success.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses, including those in Glastonbury and Somerton, are vital to our communities and city centres. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000, worth nearly £900 million annually and benefiting over 750,000 properties. The new relief rates are permanent, giving businesses that certainty and stability, and there will be no caps—all qualifying properties will benefit. We have also introduced a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme to co-fund projects aligned with Department for Business and Trade and Hospitality Sector Council priorities.
Sarah Dyke
Earlier this week I met children from Ilchester community primary school. Maeve, who is in year 6, told me her No. 1 concern is the pressure on local businesses. Glastonbury and Somerton has many wonderful hotels and restaurants, like the Hollies in Bower Hinton, but many will face an average rates increase of 76% from April without transitional support. What action is the Minister taking to prevent a crisis in the hospitality sector and ensure that businesses like the Hollies can thrive?
Kate Dearden
We absolutely recognise the significant contribution made by hospitality businesses to economic growth and social life in the UK, including the hon. Member’s constituency. With the temporary pandemic business rates relief coming to an end and the first independent revaluation since the pandemic taking effect next April, we are putting in place a £4 billion support package, so that most properties seeing increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest. We inherited support schemes that the previous Government had put in place with no funding for them to continue. I thank her for raising this matter today and am happy to discuss it further.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We recognise that pubs are the beating heart of our communities, especially in seaside towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. They bring people together and support local jobs. That is why we have delivered on our promise to permanently cut business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses, which includes pubs. Additionally, the Chancellor announced a new national licensing policy framework, setting out a vision for a proportionate licensing system, and we are investing £440,000 to help pubs diversify and support rural communities.
Alison Griffiths
Mr Speaker,
“The Chancellor’s disastrous budget was the most bitter attack on the pub industry for years.”
Those are not my words, but those of Iain Brown, who runs the William Hardwicke pub in Bognor Regis. Charlie Cockaday, landlord of the Fox Inn in Felpham, told me that due to increases in business rates, the minimum wage and alcohol duty, he will have to put 22p on the cost of a pint just to break even. Can the Minister tell Iain and Charlie, who are fighting just to keep their pubs alive, what on earth they are supposed to do?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising her concerns on behalf of her constituents and businesses. We do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting. Last night I met lots of colleagues from across the industry, and I want to make sure that we continue to talk with the sector and with pubs to understand the questions they face. The main transitional support for ratepayers losing RHL relief is through our supporting small business scheme, which also helps those losing small business rates relief or the rural rate relief at the revaluation. We are supporting pubs and continue to work with them and support the sector. I thank her for raising that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?
Kate Dearden
As I said, we do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting through targeted support for the sector. Without our support, pubs would face a 45% increase in the total bills they pay next year. We have got that down to just 4%. The majority will have their bills capped at £800, 5% or 15% next year. In addition, we have established the licensing taskforce to cut red tape and remove growth barriers. I am committed to working with the sector.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is striking deals in the United States of America. In recent weeks, we have announced £2.5 billion of investment in the UK’s first small modular reactor site at Wylfa, launched a critical minerals strategy and done a deal with the US on pharmaceuticals.
Mr Speaker, in true Christmas spirit, I can assure you as Trade Minister that there is no tariff on gold, frankincense or myrrh, and Santa Claus can travel freely without a visa—although apparently, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness’ sake!
Bobby Dean
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you probably know, south London is wonderful, but you may not know that it is one of the UK’s largest regional economies. Last week my local council, the London borough of Sutton, launched its economic growth plan, inviting businesses to take advantage of opportunities in the area. Will the Minister meet me and the local council leader to connect the business community with all the opportunities that exist in my borough?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to have to sit down. Please, it is topicals and I have some Members who did not get in before you. You’ve got to help them, please.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for so kindly hosting me on a trip to Falmouth port, where I saw for myself the great potential in her constituency for critical minerals and floating offshore wind. I recognise the skills issue, and the Government are supporting the sector through the Government’s clean energy jobs plan and another £180 million for demonstration projects. She should be assured that I have raised the potential of Falmouth, particularly the extensive anchorage there, with both the National Wealth Fund and the Crown Estate.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Labour’s steel strategy was originally promised in spring 2025, but yesterday we learned from a written ministerial statement, snuck out without Ministers coming to the House, that the strategy will now not be published in 2025 at all—it is more likely to be spring 2026. We have no steel strategy after 18 months, there is no sight of the US tariff agreement on steel that the Prime Minister claimed to have on 8 May, and no deal with the Chinese owners of British Steel. Will the Minister give the sector the Christmas present that it wants and publish the steel strategy?
Chris Bryant
It is a bit of a cheek, isn’t it, the Conservatives coming and talking about a steel strategy when they had absolutely no strategy and did not even choose to go and visit some of the steelworks that we are talking about. There will be a steel strategy. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald) has been having discussions with trade unions and industry, both downstream and the producers, and we will be producing a comprehensive steel strategy very soon. I am happy to deal with the tariff issues if there is a little time later.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank Boutique Flowers for everything that it contributes to my hon. Friend’s local community. That sort of fraud is galling when someone is trying to keep a local business going, and colleagues in the Home Office and my Department are working on a new expanded fraud strategy to be published early next year. I will make sure that the experience of his constituents is fed in to that strategy.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. I am more than happy to meet representatives from the hospitality sector and industries across the country to understand their questions and the challenges they face. We are committed to supporting them as a vital sector for our economy, our local communities, and this country, and we want them to thrive.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement with me and the Department. I pay tribute to Ceri and Frances for their incredible campaigns and work raising awareness in memory of their son, Hugh. I am happy to plan for Hugh’s law to have a separate chapter in the consultation and to work with my hon. Friend its development. The consultation should provide the opportunity to highlight the specific circumstances in which parents find themselves.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting Halifax and the brilliant pubs in my constituency that I have been delighted to work with since I was elected last year. I will continue to work with and listen to them. He highlights the difference in the agenda and priorities of our parties: we can provide businesses in our brilliant hospitality sector, especially our pubs, with support. He has heard from the Dispatch Box about my determination and commitment to work closely with the hospitality sector on the transitional rate relief and to provide the support that they need.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in the Department; he is much missed, particularly by many of the civil servants and those who worked with him. I am happy to sit down with him and discuss whether we can bring forward specific proposals that would redress that imbalance.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady intervened on me to make a similar point in yesterday’s debate. She and her party knew that the transitional covid relief was coming to end and that revaluation was coming, because that had been agreed when the Conservatives were in Government. The difference with this Government is that we have put in more than £4 billion to cushion that transition. That shows our support for small businesses, versus them being thrown overboard by her party when they were in government.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Earlier this year, 150,000 workers across the north-east benefited from the increase in the national minimum wage, with another increase due in April as a result of the Budget. However, it is important that these increases are actually applied, so the Minister set out what steps she is taking to ensure that employers comply?
Kate Dearden
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that her constituents see that increase in the hourly rate of the minimum wage and national living wage. That is in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that the minimum wage should not go any higher. Our commitment further demonstrates that this Government are on the side of the working people. We will run a campaign to help employers understand their responsibilities and to ensure that workers across the country know what they are entitled to. There is a real opportunity with our fair work agency, and I would be delighted to work with her closely on that.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Blair McDougall
I am happy to join the hon. Lady in pressing for that action. It is a running theme that when we in this place vote to introduce more support, the money goes through to the Scottish Government but is not passed on to grassroots communities around the country. The question that she asks is the same as that asked by constituents in my area: where has all that money gone?
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The loss of the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry has had a detrimental impact on our high street, with businesses reporting a fall in footfall. Will the Minister meet me to advise on any potential capital revenue grants that could unlock growth in this area and the wider Thames estuary?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The high street is a really important part of ensuring that we have economic growth across the whole of the United Kingdom, rather than just in some parts of it. One of the things we have been looking at is the fact that when a high street has a cinema, that often makes it a place that people want to go to, and it gives a sense of pride in place. That is why the Pride in Place investment that we have made is so important.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
I backed the national minimum wage. Because I have been here since the time of Queen Victoria, I remember a time when the Conservative party—backed by the Lib Dems, incidentally—held out completely against the idea of a national minimum wage. If we are going to build successful businesses in this country, it is important that we have a national minimum wage that really pays the bills and enables people to put food on the table for their kids.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
May I welcome the deal with the United States to set zero tariffs on pharmaceutical exports? Together with the British Business Bank’s investment of £100 million in biotech, that is a real boost. However, the US offer was for just three years, whereas the price adjustment we have promised for the NHS is permanent. When the Secretary of State met the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative in America last night, what assurance did he get that the Americans will not come back and reimpose tariffs on UK pharmaceuticals in three years’ time?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee; this is a really good deal in many ways, not least because, as somebody who has benefited from medical advances that have happened in the past few years—I received immunotherapy that had been licensed only a week before I went to the GP with my stage 3 melanoma in 2019—I know how important it is not only that the UK has a strong life sciences sector, but that people can access those drugs through the system in the UK. I think this is a good deal. I am afraid I cannot answer his precise question about what conversations the Secretary of State had last night, because I was having discussions with another country about another deal, which we might be able to announce very soon.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I welcomed with interest the Minister’s earlier comments about support for the aviation sector. Let me give an example of how Brexit is damaging aviation in my constituency. CAE trains pilots, but at the moment it cannot bring in all the examiners it needs, so instead it has invested in Vienna. When will the Government decide that they need to join Lib Dem calls for a customs union?
Chris Bryant
I have already said that we will not be joining Lib Dem calls, but we will try to sort out all the issues about frictionless trade that exist. The hon. Lady is right about the aviation industry. It was a delight for me to be able to go to Dubai and help support the bid from Airbus and Rolls-Royce to be able to sell planes that are 30% made in the UK to airlines around the world. The aviation industry is a really important part of our manufacturing base, and we will support it.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I got the chance to do some essential Christmas shopping on small business Saturday last week. I bought cakes from Gayton’s and a wreath from the Flower House, and I managed to get in my Christmas turkey order at Bates in Atherstone. Can the Minister tell us what extra support he will provide to small retail businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth and across the country?
Blair McDougall
I, too, enjoyed small business Saturday; I got to return to Beveridge fishmongers in Giffnock in my constituency, where I used to work. According to Small Business Britain, the boost given by small business Saturday has been the biggest in six years, so there is real room for optimism for small businesses as we go into the new year. Through the small business strategy, increasing access to finance, cutting red tape and ensuring that we tackle late payments, we will support small businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the UK.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister’s magnificent waistcoat reminds me that last night I was at the grand opening of Tulip Treasures Florist on Shepperton high street in my constituency. Will the Minister wish young Rhiannon, who is taking that brave step, every success in her endeavours?
Chris Bryant
I wish Rhiannon every success in her endeavours, not least because one of the problems provided by Brexit affects florists up and down the country. Some 80% of the flowers sold by florists in the UK come from, or through, the Netherlands, and when we sort out our sanitary and phytosanitary measures deal—which we hope to do very soon—it will be much more affordable for florists to be able to survive in this country. Of course, it is good to support British tailoring as well.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The UK-US economic prosperity deal was very welcome for the automotive sector, but there are some challenges for that sector. The current quota of 100,000 units and the quarterly thresholds are particularly difficult for small-volume and micro manufacturers, such as Aston Martin, McLaren and Morgan. What conversations are taking place between the US and the UK on those details?
Chris McDonald
I certainly recognise the issue of the quota, and the importance of our small-volume manufacturers such as Aston Martin and McLaren. I met McLaren last week, I had a meeting with Aston Martin this week as part of the Automotive Council UK, and I will meet Aston Martin’s chief executive in the new year. This is perhaps a good opportunity to congratulate McLaren and Lando Norris on his outstanding win at the Formula 1 championship—only 35 men have won the F1 championship, and 11 of them have been British. The motorsport industry is a fine example of British engineering and British sportsmanship coming together.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Last week I met Community union representatives representing steelworkers across Wales, including in Llanwern— I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They support the welcome movement on energy costs, and they know that the Government are working on procurement and that there will be a steel strategy, but the most urgent ask is on the EU’s steel import quotas and tariffs. Can the Minister please give us an update on those?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue of Llanwern; sometimes we focus on some of the other steelworks in the UK, but this is about the whole sector. I met Commissioner Šefčovič yesterday; we are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard, but we also need to ensure that the UK has a steel safeguard after the end of June. We will do everything we can to ensure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the UK, including in Llanwern.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Last weekend I attended Waterloo Road’s first ever winter wonderland Christmas lights switch-on, which was a fantastic celebration in the spirit of small business Saturday in the most deprived ward in our country. Those businesses told me on Saturday, as they have done many times, that they have been left behind for too long, and that the high street is suffering. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to support our high streets in the most deprived areas of this country?
Blair McDougall
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue, and I know that he is a constant campaigner for small businesses in his constituency. In addition to my answer a moment ago about the measures within the business strategy, it is important to note that this has to be a cross-Government effort, including tackling issues such as bogus businesses and retail crime that have such an impact on the character of our high streets, as well as the footfall that ultimately leads to profitability for those small businesses.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Minister has rightly congratulated Lando Norris and McLaren on their victory in the Formula 1 championship at the weekend. Motorsport brings in an estimated £9 billion to the UK economy, along with high-skilled jobs, cultural soft power and so on. Will the Minister join me in commending the sector on its contribution to the wider UK economy, and perhaps join me in visiting one of the Formula 1 or motorsport teams in my constituency?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: advanced manufacturing and the creative industries come together in this area, because it is also about broadcasting. Those are two of the sectors in our industrial strategy that we are very keen to motor on with, and one or other of us in the ministerial team will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the 340 jobs at Grangemouth announced this morning as a direct consequence of the investment made by this Labour Government and MiAlgae. In less good news, the National Timber Group went into administration last month, making 500 workers across the country redundant. After five years at NTG, my constituent had her system access cut off, while working, with no warning, no process and no verbal communication. What dialogue have Ministers had with the administrators to ensure that a fair process is followed for NTG employees?
Chris Bryant
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point, which is extremely well made. I am very happy to have a conversation with him afterwards about the precise nature of the discussions that are ongoing.
Finally, I too visited one of my small businesses on small business Saturday, a great cake shop called Only Crumbs. Sadly, under the Tories, that was all we ever got: only crumbs.
Bobby Dean
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister indicated to the House that the Liberal Democrats were against the national minimum wage in the ’90s. My own memories are hazy, but I am reliably informed that that was not the case, so I hope the Minister will correct the record.
Mr Speaker
That is not a point of order, but you have certainly put it on the record. We will leave it at that.
US National Security Strategy
(1 day, 4 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
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the United States national security strategy and its implications for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I thank my hon. Friend for his urgent question. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the UK-US relationship has delivered security and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic for more than a century. The special relationship we share with the US is built on a foundation of deep defence, security and trading links, and unique cultural and people-to-people ties. Both the Prime Minister and President Trump have repeatedly emphasised their commitment to continuing to strengthen it.
Of course, it is for the United States to set its own national security strategy, as it is for any Government. The strategy contains many shared objectives: resolving conflicts, tackling migration and ensuring economic security. However, it will not surprise the House that on some areas we take a different view. When it comes to European security, what we see is a strong Europe coming together to defend Ukraine, with the UK helping to lead the coalition of the willing of more than 30 countries. We see a Europe that is stepping up on defence spending, with the UK committed to reach 5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. It is right that Europe steps up. That is in our interests. Europe is united behind Ukraine and united behind our long-standing values of freedom and democracy, and we will always stand up for those values.
Our bond delivers on both sides of the Atlantic. Our trading relationship is worth over £330 billion annually, we have over £1.2 trillion in mutual investment, and our businesses support over a million jobs in each other’s countries. The UK will continue to work closely with the US to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO, to support Ukraine, and to deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. The strength of our relationship allows us to discuss and debate areas where we disagree, so we continue to strengthen this vital and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. During the state visit, we announced over £250 billion in two-way investment, which was a powerful demonstration of the deepening economic ties between the UK and the US, and we signed a UK-US technology prosperity deal—the first of its kind—that will supercharge our co-operation across areas including AI, quantum and nuclear.
Matt Western
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Last weekend, the US Administration published its national security strategy, and it is the clearest articulation yet of President Trump’s ideological foundation. The whole House should be under no illusion. The United States consensus that has led the western world since the second world war appears shattered. The strategy refers to Europe facing “civilisational erasure” and states that it will be “unrecognisable in 20 years”. It vows
“to help Europe correct its current trajectory”
and to promote “patriotic European parties”.
The prospect of United States interference in the democratic politics of Europe is, I believe, chilling. The President’s comments on Tuesday further demonstrate that. He called European leaders “weak” and singled out one of the United Kingdom’s mayors as “horrible, vicious” and “disgusting”. But sometimes what is not said is as important as is what is said. In this case, the absence of condemnation of Russia is extraordinary, though not surprising. Given certain UK dependencies on the United States, this leaves the UK especially vulnerable.
I do not expect the Government to reorient their entire economic and security strategy here today, nor do I expect them to publicly condemn President Trump’s strategy, but will the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to update their national security approach to reflect the changing strategic and geopolitical context? Will the Government prioritise sovereign capabilities, and ensure that a clear definition is provided of which capabilities the United Kingdom seeks to onshore, to provide clearer signalling to our industry?
Seema Malhotra
As my hon. Friend and the House will know, national security is our first priority. It is important that we continue to discuss all national security issues on an ongoing basis with all our allies, and particularly with the United States. Ultimately, it is for the United States to set its strategy. When it comes to Europe, there are some things in the strategy that we agree with, such as the importance of sustaining freedom and security, and there are elements that it will not surprise the House to hear that we disagree with.
It is important that we maintain our close relationship with the United States, with which we work on a whole range of issues, including our economic security and our security in terms of migration. It is also important that we recognise some of the issues raised, including on migration. It is essential that we have a migration system that is controlled, fair and managed. That is what the public rightly expect.
My hon. Friend mentioned the comments about the Mayor of London. The Mayor of London is doing a great job delivering for London, and it will not surprise the House to hear that I disagree with the comments made about him.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The US strategy makes it even more important that the UK remains a cornerstone of European and global defence. With threats to us and our allies only growing, the Conservative party is clear that it would hit 3% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament. As it is abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by Russia, and that we need a Government who are serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, will the Minister confirm whether it is only the Government's ambition to reach 3%, or whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so?
The US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime, whereas our Government seem to be going cap in hand to Beijing, asking it to bail out their failed economic policies. We have seen reports that the Government are likely to approve China’s super-embassy spy hub. Will the Minister confirm whether the US has expressed a concern to the Government about the potential approval of that application?
On Ukraine, all of us want the war to end—it is an unjust and illegal war started by Putin—but an end to the conflict, or any potential settlement, has to involve the Ukrainian people, and secure justice and lasting peace for them. A lasting peace is not about ceding territory. Will the Minister therefore update the House on what specifically the UK Government are doing to leverage British influence, in Ukraine’s interests, at this critical time?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He was right to say what the Prime Minister has also stated: that the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and it is one that we will never turn away from. During President Trump’s historic state visit in September, he praised the “unbreakable bond” between the UK and the US.
The House has heard our commitment to increasing spend on defence as a percentage of GDP, and we stand by that. More broadly, the Prime Minister has been clear about the need for Europe to step up and increase defence spending. That is why we have committed, as part of our NATO agreements, to increase defence spending. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that on the record, and we stand by that commitment.
It is absolutely right that we seek to secure peace in Ukraine. That could be done tomorrow if Russia chose to end its illegal invasion of Ukraine. At the moment, it seems that only one side is serious about peace—Ukraine —but we commend and fully support President Trump’s efforts towards securing peace. On Monday, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky, President Macron and Chancellor Merz to Dowing Street to discuss the latest progress. As Secretary of State Rubio has said, we need a just and lasting peace, and a sovereign Ukraine.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is far too discreet to set out honestly her assessment of President Trump’s contribution to civilisation, but can she reassure my constituents—be they angered, insulted or just plain bemused by the pronouncements in the US national security strategy—that although we celebrate our cultural and economic ties with the United States and our relationship with its people, our sovereignty is not dependent on the US? Specifically, can she confirm that any capability that is dependent on the United States—whether it is to do with artificial intelligence, quantum or defence—is not a sovereign capability?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I am incredibly proud of my country, and migration is an essential element of Britain’s national story. We are a thriving multicultural society, and I am proud of that. We respect the US as a democracy, and friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. We must work together in a spirit of respect, recognising our mutual interests and long-standing relationship. Robust political debate can always take place in an environment of respect.
The shadow Minister mentioned the proposed Chinese embassy. The US is our closest ally, and we liaise with it closely on a wide range of issues, including China. A final decision on this case will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the timing of the decision is a matter for them.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
With this statement, Trump’s White House has driven a coach and horses through the UK’s national security strategy and strategic defence review. Trump has stated that the US has no enduring commitment to NATO, no support for fair and open international trade, and no willingness to co-operate in international organisations or abide by international law. The document shows derision for Europe, including the UK, for failing to share Trump’s divisive nationalist ideology, whereas Russia is seen as a great power with which the US intends to carve up Ukraine. No wonder the Kremlin said it was “consistent with our vision”.
Will the Government commit to an urgent review of the UK’s approach, and to making a statement to the House in January on the Government’s strategic response to this new Trump doctrine? Will the Minister take the opportunity to state clearly that her Government will not tolerate interference by America in the domestic politics of the UK, and will she commit that the forthcoming elections Bill will restrict funding to UK political parties from sources outside the UK?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I disagree with some aspects of what he said. It is important to say that national security is our first priority. We discuss matters of interest around the world regularly with the US, and we work on this security partnership through NATO, Five Eyes and a range of other international institutions.
It is important to recognise President Trump’s efforts to secure peace around the world, whether it is his role in Gaza or his work, in a process that we support, to secure peace in Ukraine. While we disagree with some aspects of the national security strategy, it is for the US to set its own strategy, and for us to have our own strategy and values. Indeed, friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The language of the US national security strategy is deeply regrettable. Frankly, it is not hard to see the rhymes with some extreme right-wing tropes that date back to the 1930s.
The publication of this document came at the same time as the collapse of talks about the UK joining the European Union Security Action for Europe programme to help boost rearmament, so it is now essential that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said, the Government specify the sovereign capabilities that we have decided to adopt in this country. It is essential that we now implement the recommendations of the Business and Trade Committee’s report on economic security. I am afraid that it is vital that we begin opening talks with our closest neighbours in the European Union about the kind of economic security union that could draw our countries closer together, and help provide the economic support and growth that rearmament will require.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he does on his Committee, which very much informs the work of Government. I agree that it is important for the UK to continue to develop its own capabilities, and to work closely with allies on security, not just to make sure that the UK is strongly defended, but in the interests of prosperity and security across the world.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I spent about five years, on and off, working in the Ministry of Defence, and we had a saying: plans without resources are hallucinations. On 8 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) that the Defence investment plan would be published “in the autumn.” Some people think autumn ends on 30 November; others, being generous, say it ends on 21 December. Will the Minister tell us today when the defence investment plan will be published, given that, in her words, national security is the Government’s “first priority”?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his question. This matter will, I am sure, be brought to the House by the relevant Ministers. We recognise the importance of boosting our defence and security co-operation, including with European allies who are strong in their defence of Ukraine. We do that through bilateral partnership agreements with France, Germany and Poland; our security and defence partnership with the EU; and our continued leadership of the joint expeditionary force and the coalition of the willing in support of Ukraine. As I have said, I am sure that the House will be updated on this matter by the relevant Ministers.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
At the heart of this strategy, laid out in black and white, is Trump’s explicit revival of the reactionary idea that Latin America is a United States backyard. We have already seen the consequences of that mindset in the US’s escalations against oil-rich Venezuela. Trump is adopting a similar approach to European countries, including our own, making it clear that he will be stirring up far-right forces here to serve US objectives. Is it not more urgent than ever that, instead of blindly following US foreign policies, as we have done so often, to disastrous effect, we forge an independent foreign policy of our own, based on peace, co-operation, mutual development, and respect for sovereignty and international law, as envisaged in the United Nations charter?
Seema Malhotra
That is our foreign policy and it will always remain so.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments, there is profound shock and confusion not just in this place but among the public about what Trump’s statements mean for our future defence and the future defence of our democracy. We have parliamentary elections in Scotland next year. Is he going to be promoting something in Scotland that is not necessarily in our national interest? Can the Minister specifically give us guidance on whether we are sure that Trump will, after this statement, abide by article 5?
Seema Malhotra
President Trump has been clear on the US’s commitment to NATO and article 5. The United States remains a strong, reliable and vital ally for the United Kingdom. The relationship between us helps us to protect the British people every day. We and European allies have shown that we are also serious about taking greater responsibility for defence and security in Europe. That includes allies’ historic commitment to 5% of GDP on defence and security to deliver a stronger, fairer and more effective NATO.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
A century ago, Members across this House failed. They failed to prepare for war and they therefore failed to prevent one. What followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind, with tens of millions dead and hundreds of millions more stories of unspeakable grief. Today, we once again face war in Europe, and it falls to us—this generation of politicians—to help prevent a war. To do so, and the only way to do so, is to prepare for one: to make it clear to Putin that any invasion would be so ruinous as to be unthinkable for him. Can the Minister assure me and the House that the Government, in their defence economic strategy, will scale up the production of munitions today, but also, if it came to it, that they would be able to scale up that production, allocating labour as well as energy to produce the munitions, tanks and everything else we need to win a war against Putin in Europe?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his very important question. The Prime Minister has also been clear about the need for Europe to step up and increase defence spending. We have made our own commitments in that respect. It is extremely important, too, that the UK continues to work closely with the US to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO, to support Ukraine, and to deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. Our commitment to NATO and to European security is iron-clad.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The US national security strategy says in black and white what many of us have been warning about for years now. The Minister was right to say that we Europeans need to step up, so can she tell me why Canada has be able to join the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—procurement scheme, which far outstrips any resource the UK could provide and would make us more secure and provide for more jobs, but the UK cannot? Why can Ottawa reach that agreement but the UK cannot?
Seema Malhotra
What I will say is that we continue to work not just with the US and our European allies, but with allies across the world, to ensure that we have the security and defence capabilities we need not just for today but for the future. We continue to discuss all aspects of security with nations across the world, including Canada.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Last week, I was pleased to take part in a cross-party delegation to Washington to discuss matters of defence, security and development. At every one of those meetings, which were with both Republicans and Democrats and from across the political spectrum, the importance of the UK-US relationship was emphasised, particularly on defence and security, with a clear sense that that would outlast any one Administration or President. That was demonstrated again this week with the excellent news that, in my constituency, Virginia-class submarines for the United States will be constructed partly at Rosyth in Fife. Does the Minister agree with me that the relationship we have with the United States is so deep and so long standing that it will outlast any one Administration or President? Will she continue to work with the United States wherever possible to be constructive?
Seema Malhotra
The US is an indispensable ally. We have an enduring partnership that is built on deep security, intelligence and cultural ties, and it remains the cornerstone of our collective prosperity and security.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The United States’ new national security strategy was smuggled out in the middle of the night, which is fitting for such a bleak and dystopian vision of the world. It contains some very sharp criticism of European allies, including of our internal democratic processes, and a prioritisation of future interference in European democratic processes to promote a specific ideology and world view. What are the Government going to do to protect the integrity of British democratic processes from a President who has a track record of denying democratic outcomes in his own country?
Seema Malhotra
Ultimately it is for the US to set its own strategy, but when it comes to Europe, there are some things with which we agree, such as the importance of sustaining freedom and security, and some with which we have disagreed. We see a strong Europe that is coming together, working together on security and prosperity, and working together to increase defence spending. That is important. It is also important that we respect the US as a democracy, and that friends and allies respect each other’s choices. We will always continue to have strong and robust relationships with our relevant counter- parts in the United States. We will work together on areas of mutual interest—our economic prosperity, our security and our work across the world—but robust political debate must always happen in a respectful environment.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
On European security, I give my strong support to the position taken by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in relation to the recent Ukraine peace proposals. Does the Minister agree that there can be no deal affecting Ukraine without Ukraine, and that any deal that rewards Putin’s aggression cannot proceed?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Putin’s press secretary praised President Trump’s new national security strategy as aligned with Russia’s worldview. Meanwhile, a dark vessel was spotted in the Irish sea at around the same time as an EU satellite detected five drones near the flightpath of the plane carrying the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to Dublin last week. Given that the US strategy is now being welcomed by Moscow, will the Minister urgently request an assessment from her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence of the risk posed by Russian hybrid threats?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member raises an important point. We will continue to do all we can to ensure the security of everyone involved in seeking to achieve peace in and for Ukraine. It is important to recognise that we must continue to work as an international community on this issue. It is a critical moment, and we must continue to ramp up support for Ukraine and economic pressure on Putin to bring an end to this barbaric war.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Although the new US security strategy contains some elements that many across the House will find concerning, it also states that the US will seek peace everywhere. We all want to see a lasting and just peace in Ukraine—a sovereign Ukraine where the killing stops and the 20,000 stolen children are returned to their families. Does the Minister agree that we must use all the influence we have with the United States to step up financial pressure on Russia and choke off the finances that sit behind this illegal war?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on Ukraine and for the children who have been kidnapped, who must be returned to their families. She is right: it is vital that the UK and our allies across the world continue to put economic pressure on Putin to bring an end to what is an utterly barbaric war.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
In the light of the strategy’s departure from decades of shared assumptions, will the Government revise the 2025 national security strategy, and if not, why?
Seema Malhotra
As I have said, it is for the US to put forward its own strategy. This Government’s national security strategy, which was announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year, sets out a whole-of-Government approach to secure our nation, pursue the interests of the British people and seize opportunities for growth. That is what drives our work in the UK and across the world. As the Prime Minister has said, national security is the first responsibility of any Government, and collective security remains the foundation stone of our strategy to defend and deter against aggression. As the strategic defence review sets out, we are taking a NATO-first, but not a NATO-only, approach. We will continue to work on areas of national security and economic prosperity with the US, which is a natural partner for us and with whom we have a long-standing relationship that has endured and will always stand the test of time.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The United States is a long-standing and important ally. We very much recognise that in my constituency, where there are two large American military bases on the Norfolk-Suffolk border. I invite the Minister to recognise the significant contribution that thousands of American service personnel make to our local communities socially, culturally and economically.
Seema Malhotra
I am very happy to echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments and to thank those US troops, who also make a contribution to our security. The US is the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and the depth of our defence relationship with the United States remains an essential pillar of our security. The UK is deepening defence, security and foreign policy ties with the United States to uphold those peace and security objectives, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and north Atlantic. AUKUS, the carrier strike group’s 2025 deployment and our nuclear collaboration are other examples of where we work together to respond to a more contested and volatile world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Does the Minister not think that the Government’s response is extraordinarily low-key and acquiescent to a declaration by the US that it gives itself the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any country around the world with which it does not agree? This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Will she make any comment on what is actually an act of piracy in the Caribbean, where the US has seized and taken into custody an oil tanker with no basis in international law and without any kind of military threat being made to the US? This act seems to me to be wholly illegal within international law.
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that while it is ultimately for the US to decide its own strategy, there are parts of it with which we disagree. It is important that friends and allies respect each other’s choices, as we respect the US as a democracy. We can have robust political debate, but we must do so in an environment of respect. I believe the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Venezuela in his question. The act was a decision taken by the US Department of Justice in co-ordination with the FBI, the Department of Defence and other US agencies. It is for them to answer questions on that decision.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Whether Trump’s White House is parroting pro-Russian narratives around the peace plan or using abhorrent language such as describing Europe as facing “civilisational erasure”, what is clear is that a strong transatlantic relationship is no longer critical to US national security. Chatham House has described this national security strategy as being about
“commercial deals and authoritarian accommodation”.
Does the Minister agree that the idea of this being a special relationship, which has endured for many decades, has now come to an end?
Seema Malhotra
We commend and fully support President Trump’s efforts towards securing peace in Ukraine. Importantly, as part of the peace process the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky, President Macron and Chancellor Merz to Downing Street this week. The Foreign Secretary met Secretary Rubio and others in Washington DC on Monday this week to discuss negotiations and the path to an agreement. The Defence Secretary was also in Washington this week. Our ties remain strong. We have many conversations in public, and also many in private, as the hon. Member would expect for nations working together for peace and security around the world.
We are clear that matters relating to Europe will involve Europe. That is why this week when the Prime Minister met leaders in Downing Street, it was to review and discuss how we can support Ukraine to achieve a just and lasting peace.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I do not think we should tiptoe around this issue. The section on Europe talks of “civilisational erasure”. It says that the continent will be “unrecognizable in 20 years”. It says that they want “Europe to remain European”, and that within a few decades NATO members will be “majority non-European”. We need to recognise this for what it is. It is a document rooted in racist, white supremacist ideology, and it should be called out accordingly. The Minister has talked about respect, but they are currently showing us none. Mild disagreement will not cut it. History is watching us, so will the Minister take this opportunity to call that language out?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will have heard what I said in relation to the comments about civilisational erasure. I do not agree with those comments. I am proud of our country. I know that migration is an essential element of Britain’s national story. We are a thriving multicultural society, and I am proud of that. We will stand up for our values in the UK and across the world.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The rhetoric coming out of the US is frightening people, even those in my constituency, because it is building a wedge between communities. The strategy cites “civilisational erasure” and says that several countries risk becoming “majority non-European”. They have also declared that the US must cultivate resistance within European countries. I am glad to hear that the Minister does not agree with those sentiments, but what will she do to strengthen our diversity and response in this country against this really divisive ideology?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will have heard me say that, as we respect the US as a democracy, we expect that friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. It is important that we defend our democracies. It is also important that we have an environment in which we can have debate that is not divisive and that robust political debate takes place in an environment of respect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for those very careful responses encapsulating where we are. It is incredibly concerning that President Trump continues to assist in weakening Europe, and there is now a danger of the US abandoning support in the Russia-Ukraine war. Given the Prime Minister’s supposed strong relationship with the United States, and with President Trump in particular, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that we are committed to working together to deliver stronger outcomes for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, because Russia must be held accountable for the devastation that it has caused?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his question; he always asks extremely pertinent questions in relation to these matters. He will have heard me say how important it is that we continue to work closely with the United States to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO in order to support Ukraine, see an end to the war—a war that President Putin could end tomorrow if he chose to do so—and ensure that Putin is held accountable for his actions. It is also important that we deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. Our commitment to NATO and European security and to making sure that we work together across Europe to step up on defence spending is iron-clad, and it remains a priority.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 15 December will include:
Monday 15 December—Consideration of a Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill.
Tuesday 16 December—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 17 December—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message, followed by Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, followed by if necessary, consideration of a Lords message.
Thursday 18 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the Christmas Adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 18 December and return on Monday 5 January 2026, when the provisional business for that week will include:
Monday 5 January—Debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 6 January—Second Reading of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.
Jesse Norman
A key theme of business questions has been the need for the Government and, indeed, the whole country to be resolute in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. In that context, I know the whole House will want to join me again in expressing our profound sorrow for the death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment. He was clearly an exemplary soldier. We salute his courage and his service, and we send our deep regrets and condolences to his friends and family.
You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that I have inaugurated a chink-of-light moment at business questions, recognising a time when, accidentally, deliberately or under compulsion, the Government have done something right. Last week, they quite rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. In that same spirit, I express my very strong support for work under way on the need for European nations to collaborate on immobilising, freezing and utilising Russian financial assets for the benefit of Ukraine. Will the Leader of the House make inquiries with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the Government are taking every conceivable measure to do the same immobilisation, freezing and utilisation for any Russian assets controlled by UK financial institutions or passing through the jurisdiction of the City of London?
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fan of the film “Casablanca”. The House will recall the immortal moment in which the morally flexible chief of police, Captain Renault, professes himself “Shocked, shocked” to discover that there is gambling going on in Rick’s casino, even while he trousers his own winnings. So it is with the Chancellor, who told the Treasury Committee this week of how angry and upset she was at the level of leaking of the Budget that had taken place. It was, as she put it, “incredibly damaging”, and she had initiated an immediate leak inquiry.
I do not think that I am revealing a state secret in telling the House that that inquiry will not name any individuals as responsible or, indeed, discover that anyone was at fault at all, let alone in the nest of singing skylarks now occupying Downing Street. It is, however, offensive to think that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility can investigate and review the leak there and resign within a matter of hours while this nonsense drags on. We must therefore conclude that, as with Captain Renault, the whole thing is a sham confected for the benefit of the Government.
Even so, it is quite a revealing sham. One does not normally think of the Chancellor as a philosopher of language—though doubtless that will soon be added to her CV—but she drew an interesting distinction in her testimony between what she called authorised and unauthorised leaks. What, one might ask, is an authorised leak supposed to be? Given how damaging leaks are to the markets, should we think of authorised leaks as somehow not having those damaging effects? Under some circumstances, the act of leaking can itself be a criminal offence, or does that apply only to unauthorised leaks? If it does, perhaps someone should inform the Metropolitan police. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Chancellor to complete her inquiry within days and to make a statement to the House once the inquiry has reported, setting out its approach and results and explaining in plain English what an authorised leak is supposed to be.
Let me go further. Thanks to some excellent—indeed, forensic—detective work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), it appears that two Government leak inquiries are still outstanding many months after they were launched. The first is in the Department for Education on the leaking of the tuition fee increases, dating back a full year to November 2024, and the second is in the Cabinet Office on the leaking of the Prime Minister’s defence statement in February—a topic on which you, Mr Speaker, had some very pithy words for the premier. It is a total embarrassment to the Government that these leak inquiries are still outstanding after so long. They underline what a charade this whole process has become. I cannot imagine that the Leader of the House feels any differently about all of this, so will he please sort it out as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our condolences to the friends and family of Lance Corporal Hooley, who died while serving our country and in the cause of keeping the flame of freedom alive.
As we approach Christmas, I want to recognise the contribution that charities make across our country. Homelessness charities in particular provide an invaluable service in supporting those experiencing homelessness throughout the year, but particularly as the temperatures fall. I draw the House’s attention to the launch of the Government’s homelessness strategy today, which aims to halve the number of people sleeping rough long term by 2029 and which will rewire the system to ensure that support is where it is most needed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness will provide further details to the House in her statement later today.
I also want to mention the charity Citizens UK, which does a fantastic job across the country, including in my constituency, and which has been selected by The Guardian for its charity appeal this year. As a result of Citizens UK’s successful campaign, it has helped to triple the number of living wage employees across the north-east region and launched a citizens commission on mental health, particularly for young people. It has had a direct influence on the excellent work that the Government are doing in that regard. I want to place on the record, as the Member of Parliament for Tynemouth, my thanks to the Reverend Simon Mason and Father Chris Hughes, who provide fantastic leadership on these matters.
I am pleased to announce today the publication of the Modernisation Committee’s first report with recommendations to improve accessibility across the parliamentary estate. It is simply not acceptable that some MPs, staff and visitors are prevented from engaging in some aspects of parliamentary life due to this place’s inaccessible nature. As the crucible of our democracy and national debate, the House of Commons must be accessible for all, and I am happy to say that work is under way, but much more needs to be done. I thank all members of the Committee and the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for their work on the inquiry.
On wider matters, last week the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 received Royal Assent, which will protect vulnerable animals by strengthening the rules on pet travel to ensure that animals imported into the country for sale are healthy, treated with care and transported humanely. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on navigating the Bill successfully to Royal Assent, which underlines, as we approach a second Session at some point in the new year, how important private Members’ Bills can be. They can be highly effective and can provide an invaluable opportunity for Members to promote the causes they support, to change the law and—certainly in this case—to help deliver Government priorities.
If the shadow Leader of the House wants to take credit for some changes, I am pleased to let him live in a world in which he can do that. On Russian assets, the Government continue, as he knows, to consider how Russian assets might be used, particularly in support of Ukraine. We are working very closely with allies to make progress on that. I can assure him that we are constantly aware of what might be happening in our own country and therefore take these domestic issues very seriously indeed.
The shadow Leader of the House mentioned leaks and what the Chancellor said to the Treasury Committee yesterday. She made her views on leaks and briefings, including what happened with the OBR ,very clear to the Committee. Of course, any Government have a responsibility around Budget time to take market reaction into account, but I gently remind the shadow Leader of the House that the reaction of the markets to the Budget was actually quite positive—I want to ensure that that is on the record. If anything emerges from the inquiries that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about yesterday, I am sure that Ministers will want to update the House about those matters—they would be absolutely right to do so—but I gently remind the House that, although all these discussions about process are important, the Budget was about cutting the cost of living, balancing the books and getting growth in our economy, and those are the matters of most interest to people in our constituencies.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
At one second past midnight tonight, the race for the Christmas No. 1 begins. My constituent Andrew Horth, of HorthWorld, will be in that race, with his incredible Christmas song “Merry Christmas (Make Amends)”, which was written in support of men’s mental health in the wake of our having lost Mikey Heald, another constituent of mine, back in October. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Andrew and HorthWorld the very best of luck, and in encouraging influencers and others to support and stream the song as much as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Andrew Horth the very best of luck in his campaign for a Christmas No. 1, and in acknowledging my hon. Friend’s role in that endeavour. I place on record our thanks to the work of Derbyshire Mind and all the other charities that do such vital work for men’s mental health.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Before I begin, I join the tributes to Lance Corporal George Hooley. His tragic death reminds us of the courage of all our armed forces in their determination to protect our country.
My inbox, like those of other Members, I am sure, has this week been full of correspondence from demoralised businesses, after they were hit by yet another tax rise. We have spoken a lot about the cost of living crisis, but we are now experiencing a cost-of-doing-business crisis, too. Nowhere is that felt more than in the hospitality and retail industries. We in this House are quick to talk about such businesses being the heart of our communities, but they have suffered a lot in recent years. They closed during the covid pandemic, have suffered the rise of the online competition, and were hit by employer national insurance rises last year—those industries were particularly hit by that change because they employ many of the low-paid and young first-jobbers in our economy. They were promised good news on business rates in the Budget, in the form of a fairer system and lower rates, but the revaluations, combined with the tapering of reliefs, have meant that many bills are set to rise.
Businesses in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency, such as Wallington Cycles and the Sun pub in Carshalton, have sent me pretty desperate emails setting out their worries for the future. I have tried to reassure them about the transitional relief that the Government have put in place, which should offset some of the damage, but that is small comfort against the backdrop of so many rising costs. We talk about fairness, but Harrods’ bills are set to fall by over £1 million, while the bill of the average pub will go up by £1,400 every single year.
The Government gave themselves powers to offer a discount of 20p in every £1, but so far they have offered discounts of just 5p. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to make a statement to clear up all this confusion and reassure businesses that they will be supported in the coming years?
Sir Alan Campbell
We do not just talk about small businesses being at the heart of our local communities. They are at the heart of what we do and our approach to these matters. That is why we have introduced permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000, which is worth nearly £900 million annually and benefits three quarters of a million properties. The new relief rates are permanent, giving those businesses certainty and stability, and there is no cap at all, so that all qualifying properties will benefit.
We recognise that there is a challenge in revaluation, which was instigated by the previous Government and is being carried out independently by the Valuation Office Agency. Some businesses have seen their values increase significantly since the pandemic, and I understand that some will be disappointed with the outcome of the Budget, but we are spending £2 billion this year to cap any increases for many businesses up and down the country.
In terms of statements from Ministers, I have just read out the business for next week. We have the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, and I am sure the hon. Member and his party’s finance spokesperson will use that opportunity to raise these concerns further.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I am horrified to report to you and to the House that last night in Swale borough council there were violent scenes, as people wearing balaclavas in the public gallery violently intimidated councillors. They were threatening them and pelting them with eggs and missiles from the gallery. This is an attack on democracy itself, it is an attack on free speech, and it is an attack on my constituents. The building was so badly vandalised afterwards, with toilets flooded and lifts destroyed, that it cannot be used today and is not open. My constituents cannot access council services because of these actions. Our democracy is based on the ability to disagree with each other strongly but never violently. What can be done here in the House of Commons for councillors and MPs across the country who are facing growing levels of violent intimidation?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully of the appalling actions that have taken place, and I join him in condemning them. Mr Speaker, I know that you have done a great deal through the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections, but this is also a priority for the defending democracy taskforce. The taskforce is focusing on where the police can be increasingly effective when such incidents occur and democracy is deemed to be under threat, not just where MPs are intimidated—of which there are too many examples—but where other local representatives are intimidated, too. It is simply not acceptable. Let me be very clear: anyone involved in public life should not be subject to harassment or intimidation for doing their job, and this House needs to stand united in sending out that message.
Mr Speaker
As the Leader of the House has brought me into the conversation, the contact that needs to be made within the constabulary is with Operation Ford. I would expect them to take over, and I would expect those who are embedded within Parliament to also connect to Operation Ford for local authorities and councillors. That hotline is there in every police force in the country. I hope people respond accordingly to what I find an appalling situation. An attack on democracy is not acceptable. I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the business in Westminster Hall next week will be, on Tuesday 16 December a debate on planning policy for quarries, and on Thursday 18 December a debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen, followed by a debate on community audiology. When we come back after the Christmas recess, on Tuesday 6 January there will be a debate on less survivable cancers, and on Thursday 8 January the Liaison Committee will be taking the first slot on a report from the Scottish Affairs Committee.
I thank the Leader of the House for his kind remarks at the Procedure Committee earlier this week about the work of the Backbench Business Committee and, indeed, my remarkable work, which he complimented. We will publish next week the report on the first 15 years of the Backbench Business Committee, with some recommendations for how we may improve the position of Backbench Business. We now have enough applications for debates in the Chamber to last until after the Easter recess, and for Tuesday debates in Westminster Hall until probably after the May recess. Indeed, the only slots available at the moment are the second slots in Westminster Hall on a Thursday—I cannot imagine why that might be.
Bob Blackman
He’s even turned one down, Mr Speaker.
Right now we are in the middle of a flu epidemic, and the number of patients presenting themselves at hospitals has increased by 50% in a week. I am sure all Members will have taken the sensible precaution of getting our flu vaccines as early as we could. We do not know the result of the doctors ballot, but I am sure we all hope that they will come to their senses and not go on strike. I got an email this week from one of my constituents that was very concerning. He is a 76-year-old man, and he went to his GP surgery to have his flu vaccine. The GP said, “I’m very sorry, but you are too old to have a flu vaccine in the surgery. You must go to the pharmacist.” My constituent went to his local chemist, who said, “I’m very sorry. There are no flu vaccines for people of your age. You can go on a waiting list and wait for what might happen.” That is a real concern for everyone out there who might be seeking a flu vaccine, and we want them to come forward and be vaccinated. Could we have a statement from the Health Secretary next week about the availability of flu vaccines, whether there are age restrictions on those vaccines, and what will be done to increase supply?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and the whole Committee for its important work. The list of future debates is testament to the important matters that the Committee is able to deal with. We must, of course, look ahead at the parliamentary year, and parliamentary weeks, but there is inevitably a place for such important debates.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman watched my performance in the Procedure Committee yesterday. That is at least one person who was watching, and I suppose it is a warning that in future I had better take more care with what I am saying. What I said—I invite colleagues to watch it or read the transcript; it is a blockbuster—and my comments about the hon. Gentleman and the Committee were genuine. He is doing a very good and important job, as is the Committee, and I am pleased to be able to say that.
If the hon. Gentleman lets me have details of the vaccine case that he raised, I will take it up with the Department for Health and Social Care. I am surprised, as he is, that we are talking about possible strike action by doctors in the midst of what is happening out there and the flu situation, which is very serious, and I hope that is reflected in the attitudes of doctors as they move towards a ballot. He is right: what people require is clarity. I do not know the answer to his point about why someone should be pushed from pillar to post. That is not acceptable. There are enough vaccines out there, and it is not acceptable that there is not sufficient clarity. If he lets me have the details, I will draw the case to the attention of Ministers, and if there needs to be greater clarity going forward, I will ensure that that is what we get.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will expect to run business questions until around 12.30 pm. Hopefully we can help each other, and the Leader of the House will certainly help with shorter answers. Jim McMahon will be first.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Credit unions make a significant contribution, providing safe, ethical and community focused financial services, and they remain an important part of the wider co-operative family. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the role of credit unions in promoting financial inclusion and supporting local economies, and will he ask the relevant Minister to confirm what steps the Government are taking to strengthen the credit union sector, update regulations and increase public awareness?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to credit unions, which do a fantastic job in many communities across our country. Were he to seek an Adjournment debate, I am sure that he could find common cause with hon. Members from across the House in raising the profile of credit unions and seeking the answer to his question. I remind the House that this time next week we will be approaching the pre-recess Adjournment debate, when Members will have the opportunity to raise whatever they want.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I pay tribute to five dads from Ilkley—Will, Sam, Martyn, Joe and Dan—who last week walked the entire 82-mile Dales Way, raising over £11,000 for the maternity and neonatal teams at our fantastic Airedale hospital. Between them, they have faced numerous challenges as fathers and are giving back to the hospital through their efforts. Can we have a debate, in Government time, to show our support for dads during early parenthood, and to discuss mental health and wellbeing support and the role that fathers play in neonatal care?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those dads and we wish them well. Men’s mental health is at the forefront of the Government’s health strategy, and the role of fathers is considered as well. Perhaps he will get an opportunity to raise the issue in an Adjournment debate or in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Some 60% of UK households enjoy the company of a pet, but the cost of caring for their health has increased exponentially in recent years. Since 2015, vet fees for household pets have soared by 63%, far outpacing inflation. The Competition and Markets Authority recently published its provisional findings into the veterinary services sector, proposing much-needed remedies to tackle the eye-watering rise in costs. Will the Leader of the House support a debate in Government time on the cost of living pressures on pet owners and what measures might be put in place to ensure that essential pet care remains affordable for families across the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that veterinary costs will be a real concern for many, and I say that as a pet owner. The Government will consider any remedies from the Competition and Markets Authority’s final report next year, but in the meantime if my hon. Friend could secure a debate, I am sure that many hon. Members from across the House would share her concerns.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent fled Ukraine after Russia’s illegal invasion. She is now 89 and disabled after suffering a stroke here in the UK, and is therefore bed-bound and needs specialist care. She recently applied to renew her visa, but the Home Office told her that her existing documents were no longer recognised, she needed a new passport, and it could not take account of her personal circumstances. That meant that she was required to travel to Edinburgh, but the consulate has no disabled access so she could not enter. She tried to give her signature seven times using her left hand, because she can no longer use her right hand, but she has been told that those documents are unlikely to be accepted. She still does not have a renewed visa. Will the Leader of the House help me to get support for my constituent? Does he agree that we need to have a debate in Government time about the seeming lack of compassion from the Home Office in how it deals with such cases?
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Lady gives me details of that case, I will do everything that I can to help her constituent.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My constituent, Emma Webb’s, 16-year-old daughter, Brodie, tragically took her own life in 2020. Yesterday would have been her 22nd birthday. Since then, Emma has worked tirelessly to raise awareness for suicide prevention, raising money for charity and launching her campaign, #DoItForBrodie. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending Emma for her work and ensure that this House takes every opportunity next year to debate suicide prevention?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our deepest sympathies to Emma and her family. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Emma on her incredible efforts in Brodie’s memory. Every suicide is a tragedy. Through the national youth strategy, we are taking steps to ensure that every young person feels supported.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Leader of the House will share my disappointment at the Scottish Government’s illogical and wrong-headed approach to nuclear power, which means that the former Chapelcross site in my constituency cannot be considered for a new nuclear power station. I hope that, like me, he welcomes the announcement from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that there is to be a strategic partnership with CX Power, with the hope of turning the site into a green energy hub producing hydrogen. While that might not be the nuclear power station that my constituents would wish to have, I hope that it will bring the skilled jobs that the power station did for over 60 years.
Sir Alan Campbell
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and frustration about the attitudes towards nuclear, because Scotland is well placed to benefit from new nuclear projects. There are millions of pounds-worth of investment, high-quality jobs and apprenticeships, and I certainly welcome what sounds like a fantastic development in his constituency. Should he wish to raise the matter through a Westminster Hall debate, he can test Ministers on what further can be done.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
When I am out across the constituency, whether it is in Elswick, Denton, Westerhope, Wingrove, Arthur’s Hill or Monument, too often the issue that people raise with me is litter. Some 14 years of austerity reduced Newcastle city council’s cleansing resources, but hourly cleansing would not be enough in some areas of the city. We need greater powers and greater enforcement. Can we have a debate in Government time about devolving additional powers to local authorities, such as the power to require fast food outlets to have larger bins or to require landlords to keep their properties clean?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises some really important matters, which I know are frustrating to her constituents. Local authorities have a really important role to play. The Government are very keen that both powers and resources are devolved not just to regions, but to individual communities, where they will have the most effect. I am sure that if she seeks a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, she can raise these matters still further.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
May we have a debate on capital expenditure in the NHS? All our constituents will see the tax announcements and then think that that means extra investment. In south Wiltshire, we are still waiting for the elective day surgery announcement to take place. We have been told that it is on hold and that work is trying to be done for less money, while the wards have buckets collecting water. It is pretty important that people understand the process of allocation to actually see the effect on the ground, and that would be valuable for all of us.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman’s case to the attention of Ministers. It is important to get good value for taxpayers’ money, wherever it is spent. I do not know the date of the original announcement, but if he is comparing this issue with announcements that might have been made and what the previous Government were going to do, I gently say that announcements were made and the money was never there. It is this Government who are trying to put that right.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
For the last nine years, the good people of south Wales have supported the “Everyone Deserves” campaign, which provides Christmas hampers and dinners for families across the region. What started on my kitchen table with 100 hampers now reaches families across six constituencies —families who may be struggling with loved ones in hospital or a child in special care, experiencing financial hardship, or living with a debilitating illness. If I promise the Leader of the House that I will not sing my very successful 2024 Christmas single at him, will he join me in thanking everyone who donates time, money and resource to make this event happen? Will he wish the 2,000 families who are supported by the campaign this year a very merry Christmas?
Sir Alan Campbell
As usual, my hon. Friend pays tribute to the good people of south Wales and to her constituents. Apart from her song, let me pick out an important bit in what she said: this started on her kitchen table. It would not have happened and would not be the scale that it is without her fantastic dedication. It embodies the very best of community spirit, and I praise her and people across her community for making it happen. I am very sad that she is not releasing a Christmas song of her own this year, but there is always next year.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Saturday morning, the manager and assistant manager of a local care home came to my surgery out of concern for an elderly resident—they gave up their own time to do so. She was bedbound and could not get dental attention for a serious abscess, and she was in great pain. She could not get to the hospital or to a GP, and no dentist was prepared to come and attend to her in the home. I have been in touch with the integrated care board, and we are trying to sort this issue out, but there does not appear to be any particular duty to provide in these sorts of circumstances. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement so that we can clarify the situation?
Sir Alan Campbell
We recognise that certain groups of patients still may find it difficult to access dental care. Specialised dental services are in place to provide dental treatment in several settings, and we are developing new emergency care hubs; in some cases, that includes care homes. The Government’s 10-year health plan will mean more dentists and improved access to oral healthcare, but I am as distressed as the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be by the case he raises, so if he wishes, I will try to get him a meeting with Ministers so that he can hear what is happening in his area.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Forty-one MPs, including myself, have signed early-day motion 2386 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) regarding the Palestine Action hunger strike, which calls on the Justice Secretary
“to intervene urgently to ensure”
that the treatment of the prisoners concerned
“is humane and their human rights are upheld.”
[That this House expresses its extreme concern that six prisoners associated with Palestine Action have felt that they had no other recourse to protest against their prison conditions but to launch a hunger strike; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene urgently to ensure their treatment is humane and their human rights are upheld.]
Ten MPs have also co-signed a letter to the Justice Secretary, but no response has been received. Will the Leader of the House send an urgent message to the Justice Secretary asking him to respond to our request, and can he help ensure an urgent debate next week? Time really is of the essence.
Sir Alan Campbell
We continue to assess the wellbeing of prisoners and will always take the appropriate action, including taking prisoners to hospital if they are assessed as needing treatment by a medical professional. We are keeping that under very close scrutiny; the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the situation, and he and his Department are monitoring it closely. However, as was made clear by our right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and by Mr Speaker yesterday, it is important that correspondence on these matters is responded to quickly and in a timely fashion, so I will raise this issue with the Department to make sure Members are kept informed.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I want to urgently draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the appalling situation at the Queen’s hospital in Romford, which serves the boroughs of Redbridge, Barking, Dagenham and Havering and the wider Essex area—in fact, it is the hospital that serves the constituents of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). The A&E unit is simply not able to cope; it is dealing with double the number of patients it was built to serve. People are lying in corridors and people’s lives are at risk—frankly, it is totally unacceptable. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), as well as with the Secretary of State, yet nothing is happening. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State to make an urgent statement on the situation at Queen’s hospital? I fear that many people’s lives could be at risk at Christmas.
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman points out, the winter crisis has started early this year—not least because of the flu situation—so our hospitals are under enormous pressure. A number of hospitals need capital expenditure; we inherited crumbling public services and, in many cases, a crumbling NHS estate, so that will take some time. However, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman shares his hospital with the Secretary of State, should he wish to discuss these matters with a Health Minister and see what can be done, I will facilitate that meeting.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for hosting a fantastic celebration of deaf talent and achievement in Speaker’s House last month, with deaf role models including Tasha Ghouri. It was an honour to help organise it when I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness, supported by charities including the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and SignHealth. The International Day of Persons with Disabilities was last week, but every single day must be an opportunity to break down barriers. Does the Leader of the House agree that deafness should never be a barrier to a successful career, and can we have a debate on widening opportunity for disabled people across every sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend continues to be a champion for deaf people in this House, and I commend her for that. I absolutely agree that no disability should be a barrier to a successful career. The Government are championing disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. Our Get Britain Working plan will support many people to enter and to stay in work. An Adjournment debate, and perhaps even the pre-recess Adjournment debate, would provide a good opportunity for her to give further detail about this important matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I want to get as many people in as possible, so could Members please help each other out by keeping questions short?
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Loneliness and social isolation are sadly common problems among older people. In Wokingham, the Link Visiting Scheme has spent 27 years tackling this problem, matching volunteers with the elderly and running projects to build friendships. This year alone they have helped over 1,000 people. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Link Visiting Scheme on being awarded charity of the year at the Great British business and community awards?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will. That is a huge achievement and it is fantastic for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, but this is also an opportunity to thank volunteers and charities not just in his constituency but across our country who do such fantastic work on loneliness and other matters. These issues come into sharp focus at this time of year, of course, and I pay tribute to the charity.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the UN, Sri Lanka, where many of my constituents are from, is experiencing one of its worst ever flooding disasters as a result of Cyclone Ditwah, which hit two weeks ago. Given that over 600 people have died already and over 2 million have been severely affected, and given the existing levels of hardship in Sri Lanka, may we have a statement on what more Britain could do to help, either directly or through the UN and the multilateral bank system?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our thoughts are certainly with the people of Sri Lanka, and my hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. We have already provided £675,000 to address the immediate humanitarian need in Sri Lanka. We are monitoring the situation very closely and stand ready to provide further support if necessary.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on the quality of parcel delivery services? Prompted by constituents, just last night I asked about Evri on Facebook. I have more than 100 responses already, most of them negative, sadly. Amid the gloom, one name did stand out, and that was Patrington’s Evri delivery superstar, Rachel McVitie, who goes above and beyond to make sure that parcels arrive safely and on time and seems universally beloved in the village, so it is good to mark that. Although some individuals provide that exceptional service, too many customers, particularly in rural areas, are facing problems with parcel delivery at Christmas. Will the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate so we can explore what more can be done to ensure consistent, high-quality delivery services across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is an issue not just in rural areas, but across the country. Unfortunately, I hear the name Evri very often, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it this morning because my wife constantly asks why it is not being raised in business questions. I pay tribute to the superstar—there are some good examples out there, and we should make sure that we do not have a blanket opinion of services, but Evri is a name that I do not often hear mentioned in a very positive way. This is the sort of timely thing that he might want to raise in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Right across my constituency, the decorations are up, the lights have been switched on and Christmas fairs have been in full swing. As we head towards Christmas, I would like to thank all the staff and volunteers who make these festivities happen and keep our communities thriving throughout the season. May we have a debate in Government time on what we can do as a House to recognise the value of their huge contribution?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to celebrate the dedication of the workers and volunteers who give their time to keep our communities running at this festive season, including in her fantastic constituency, which I know very well. I encourage her to apply for a debate so that we can formally recognise those efforts—or, as I have said to other colleagues, we do have time next Thursday if she wishes to raise such matters, as it is a very timely moment to do so.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The health of democracy unites us all in the Chamber. Carnegie UK’s 2025 report gives the UK a score of just 41%. Separately, The Economist has a new model looking at election outcomes, and after looking at more than 10,000 scenarios it concluded that running the next election under first past the post would be akin not to sending voters into a polling booth, but to sending them to Las Vegas and pulling a one-armed bandit.
There is a way out for the Government—it is good news. In the new year, the Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), will return to the House. Will the Government allot some time to discuss it and get behind it so that we do not risk the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) walking into No. 10 after the pull of a one-armed bandit machine?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are doing all sorts of important things to keep elections free and fair in our country, and that is very important indeed. I look forward to seeing the Bill. I cannot guarantee that the Government will want to support it, but it is important that this place discusses these matters from time to time. We have a proud tradition of free and fair elections in our country and it is imperative that it stays that way.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Henry Nowak, who sadly lost his life in an incident a few days ago. He was 18 years old, had just started university and had his whole life ahead of him. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with his family and those who loved him. May I ask the Leader of the House what the Government are doing to support victims of knife crime, and whether he will find time for a debate on this important matter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathies to Henry’s family. I know the case is sub judice, so I will be careful in how I respond, but I will raise with the relevant Minister my hon. Friend’s concerns on the wider issue of knife crime and what further we can do to support victims.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I welcome the Leader of the House’s opening remarks about charities. Spelthorne Dementia Support does outstanding work throughout my constituency, so I was delighted when it was given the King’s award for voluntary service in the recent list. It occurred to me that all hon. Members will have similar charities so awarded, and it would be fantastic to have an annual debate in Government time on the King’s award for voluntary service so that all hon. Members across the House could celebrate in the same way as I am celebrating Spelthorne Dementia Support.
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me join the hon. Gentleman in thanking Spelthorne Dementia Support for everything it does and commending it on getting a King’s award, which is a big achievement. He will know that the parliamentary year is quite full, but I will certainly give thought to what further we can do to highlight the fantastic achievements of charities across our country.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Personal protective equipment is all too often based on outdated, non-specific measurements, which disproportionately impacts women, people with disabilities and those with religious requirements. It affects many workers, with asbestos masks that do not fit, a lack of female-fit fire boots, and gloves that are so loose that women are failing basic training drills. Given the Government’s ambitions for major housing, infrastructure and clean energy projects, will the Leader of the House make a statement on new British standard BS 30417 on inclusive PPE and its possible adoption across Government procurement contracts and public sector workplaces?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important matter. The Government strongly support the principle of providing inclusive PPE. We stock PPE for a diverse workforce in the health and adult social care sector in preparation for a future pandemic, including in a wide range of sizes, but I will raise these concerns with Ministers. If she would like a meeting with Ministers to raise these matters, I will try to facilitate that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the points of order raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and me, and the question today from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), concerning the situation facing the Palestine Action hunger strikers in prison at the present time. It is important that the Secretary of State for Justice comes to the House and gives us an opportunity to question him about what appear to be serious allegations concerning breaches of prison rules in respect of all the hunger strikers, difficulties in obtaining medical support and help when they desperately need it, and issues of association and activities in the prison. They are all remand prisoners—they have not been convicted of anything—and they are being held for an inordinately long time until the trial takes place. These are serious issues about justice within our society. The Secretary of State for Justice should come here and answer questions about them.
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the Justice Secretary is monitoring the situation. The care and health of prisoners, whatever their status happens to be, are paramount in these matters. The Justice Secretary is taking these matters seriously and monitoring the situation. Should there be something to report to this House, I am sure he will come and do so.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I held a child poverty taskforce event in my constituency. All the organisations that took part identified inconsistent funding as a barrier to their work. I warmly welcome the child poverty strategy, but it is ironic that almost at the same time as it was announced, the SNP-controlled city council announced funding cuts to a number of organisations across Glasgow West. Given the record settlement from this Government to the SNP Government at Holyrood, does the Leader of the House agree that vital community organisations such as The Annexe, Drumchapel LIFE and Kingsway Community Connections—to mention just a small percentage—deserve stable funding to allow them to continue their good work, and that local authorities in Scotland have been underfunded for far too long?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a champion for the issue of child poverty, and I commend her for that. I agree with her about the vital community work that organisations such as the Annexe, Drumchapel LIFE and Kingsway Community Connections, among others, do in her constituency and many others. It is more than disappointing that at the very time that this Government are publishing the child poverty strategy, the SNP Government should act in the way that they have done. As she rightly points out, we have provided the Scottish Government with a record funding settlement. They have nowhere to hide on these matters.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Ben has a friend who is in HMP Stocken, and he tells me that family and friends have been banned from sending books into the prison for several months. Can the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about the guidelines? I understand that they say that friends and families can send or hand in books—which are checked by security staff—irrespective of whether or not there are exceptional circumstances. Will he ensure that the rules are followed in all prisons, particularly when prisoners want to occupy themselves in a peaceable way and want to learn?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly find out from the relevant Department what the circumstances might be at the prison. Of course, we would all want the guidelines to state that prisoners have access to books, but I am not sure what the individual circumstances might be at the prison. I am not going to comment any further on that, but I will draw it to the attention of Ministers.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month, the cold snap in my patch saw local residents on new estates struggling with icy roads and pavements. I took their concerns to developers, and I am pleased to see that grit bins have now been installed. This may all sound trivial, but not to residents on these estates, and it highlights the importance of the consultation that the Government are holding on greater protections for those living on unadopted estates. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that we have time in this place to discuss these matters?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that my hon. Friend is a great campaigner for her constituency. I can assure her that these are not trivial matters, and I congratulate her on getting developers to take this matter seriously and to provide residents with the grit bins they want. That is not an easy achievement, and she should be commended for it. As she points out, unadopted roads can cause a range of issues for residents, and we are consulting on how to speed up and simplify the process for the adoption of roads. She may wish to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, but when the Government have something to say on these matters, we will bring forward our findings.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Earlier this week, Baroness Amos published her interim findings on maternity care in England. Unfortunately, some of the readings are absolutely harrowing, and I apologise for the graphic nature of the following accounts. Women were left for hours to bleed out in toilets, and their concerns about a lack of foetal movement were completely ignored. There is a disturbing trend, which appears to show that women from black and Asian backgrounds receive notably worse care. The investigation into maternity care at Leicester royal infirmary has been postponed, but many mothers have told me that they felt ignored on when and where investigations should take place. May I ask the Leader of the House to please make time for a Back-Bench debate, or a debate in Government time, on the state of maternity care in England?
Sir Alan Campbell
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is by no means acceptable, and systematic failures have been highlighted time and again. Preventable tragedies cannot be ignored, and families show extraordinary courage in bringing forward these matters. In the new year, we are setting up the national maternity and neonatal taskforce to address these issues. It will be chaired by the Health Secretary. I am sure that the matter can be brought before the House for further discussion then.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
An organisation in my constituency, the Courtyard Pantry Enterprise, has this year established the Wester Common unity market, a community market that has seen growing demand from residents who are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of quality fresh produce available locally. The market provides not only affordable, locally sourced food, but a much-valued social space where people can meet and build community. Given the positive economic and social impacts of such initiatives, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on support for local markets, small producers and community-led food initiatives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of the Courtyard Pantry Enterprise, because small businesses are at the heart of our economy. We are committed to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises through our small business plan, which will break down barriers to starting a small business. We are working across Government to make sure that farms and farmers are brought into that, because it is a great opportunity. I invite my hon. Friend to go into these matters in further detail, perhaps in the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yesterday, I hosted a mulled cider event with the National Association of Cider Makers. Cider makers in Glastonbury and Somerton are increasingly focused on survival, as uncertainty grows around future inheritance tax relief. Cider making is uniquely capital-intensive and requires special equipment for milling cider apples, so many family cider businesses exceed the £1 million threshold. Will the Leader of the House bring a little festive cheer to my cider makers in Glastonbury and Somerton, and advise me on how I might meet the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the impact of changes to agricultural property relief on cider makers?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is probably more a Treasury matter than a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next Tuesday, and I am confident that Committee stage of the Finance Bill will take place in the new year, once we return from the recess; the hon. Lady may want to raise these matters directly with the Treasury then.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Dave Taylor and his volunteers at the Royal British Legion for their exceptional work during this year’s poppy appeal, which, in Gravesham, raised over £85,000 for veterans? I thank all those who donated. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the contribution of the Royal British Legion and its volunteers to supporting our veterans?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that the whole House will join me in congratulating Dave Taylor and the dedicated volunteers at the Royal British Legion in Gravesham; I am sure we can all find similar examples in our areas and constituencies. Despite some of the circumstances, it has been a very good year for the poppy appeal. I pay tribute to the volunteers, who do an absolutely fantastic job, but also to the public, who step forward and support the appeal. The volunteers’ hard work is a really powerful demonstration of our nation’s commitment to those who have served. Should my hon. Friend want to raise this issue in a timely fashion, she could do so next Thursday; or perhaps she could apply for an Adjournment debate, in which she could go into the subject in more detail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are reports that the authorities in Saudi Arabia use wide-ranging internet censorship, automated surveillance, and prosecution under cyber-crime or counter-terror laws to punish online religious expression and dissent. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to set out the concrete steps that His Majesty’s Government will take to challenge such violations of freedom of religion or belief in Saudi Arabia, and to protect the right of religious minorities and non-believers to express themselves online without any fear?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important point, as is his custom in this House. As he knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, both offline and online. The Foreign Office regularly engages with Governments directly to raise areas of concern. I will make sure that these concerns are brought to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, and that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
In High Peak, we boast several amazing mountain rescue teams, including those of Glossop, Buxton, Edale and Kinder. These are all made up of volunteers, who go out in all weathers, in the most hazardous circumstances, and they save lives day in and day out. I am proud to champion the work that they do. We had a big win in the Budget, with the announcement that vehicle tax is being scrapped for search and rescue vehicles; that will save the teams thousands of pounds. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on what more we can do to support these amazing people and their life- saving work?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises such an important matter, and I join him in celebrating the crucial lifesaving work done by mountain rescue teams in his area and across the country. His is a very beautiful area for both residents and the many visitors he gets. Unfortunately, mountain rescue teams are very active at all times of year, and they do an absolutely fantastic job. I know that Members have welcomed, as he has, the changes to vehicle excise duty announced in the Budget, but there are perhaps other things we can explore. If he seeks an Adjournment debate, or uses the pre-recess Adjournment debate to amplify his message, we will see where that leads.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The residents of Littleborough, Smithy Bridge and Rochdale have been plagued by roadworks on the A58, and they have suffered appalling delays as a result. They have been late for work, school and hospital appointments. Given that the privatised water company United Utilities is responsible for many of these roadworks, often because of years of neglect of its pipework, can we have a debate on the changes in the law needed to end the misery on the A58, and other roads like it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point, and therefore amplifying it, so that it is heard by Members across this Chamber and anyone who happens to be listening. Roadworks have been raised with me many times in these sessions, and rightly so. We know how disruptive street works can be for local communities. That is why we are doubling fixed penalty notices in the new year for certain street work offences, and extending overrun charges to cover weekends and bank holidays. As roads get busier in the run-up to Christmas, I have no doubt but that many people will be frustrated, and we need to tackle this. He may wish to raise this matter next Thursday, or indeed in an Adjournment debate, because this issue applies in not just his constituency, but virtually all our constituencies.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The UK’s universities play a vital role in our communities and our economy, but many of them, including the one where I worked for many years, face severe financial challenges, resulting in course closures and redundancies. Would the Leader of the House allow a debate on the subject in Government time, so that we can address this really urgent issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend brings to the House great professional and personal knowledge of these matters, and we should listen to her very closely. I know a lot of universities feel under pressure at this time; the Government are absolutely aware of that. I invite her to seek a meeting with the relevant Minister to talk through some of these issues, and to see what further the Government can do to address them.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
After a string of burglaries across Morley, Gildersome and Drighlington, in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shop has been targeted more than any other, I am so pleased to report that four people are serving time in prison for these crimes. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Inspector Mark Lund and his excellent police team for working so closely with me on this issue and a number of others, and will he grant a debate in Government time on the ever-growing need to get the police the resources they need to do their job properly?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Inspector Mark Lund and his team for their hard work keeping our streets safe. Such efforts should be the norm in police work. This winter, the police will use hotspot patrols, alongside locally tailored approaches, to keep our high streets and estates safe. He may wish to use next week’s pre-recess Adjournment debate to make his point further, but we will also bring to the House our proposals for the police settlement.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking everyone involved in the Wolves Orange campaign? It has raised awareness about unacceptable violence against women and girls, and also supports men affected by domestic abuse. The campaign, which culminated yesterday, showcased how our hard-working local services and organisations, incredible volunteers and Wolverhampton city council reach out and support all those affected. Will he make time for a debate on tackling stigma and strengthening support for victims?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking the Wolves Orange campaign for its work. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, and we aim to halve it within a decade. Our upcoming VAWG strategy looks across the whole of Government at how best we can protect victims. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to use her experienced voice to add to future debates or statements on the subject.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Many of us are concerned about the progress of the assisted dying or Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the other place. There appears to be an orchestrated filibuster in progress to defy the will of the elected Chamber; many amendments have been tabled, including amendments demanding pregnancy tests for old men with prostate cancer. What does the Leader of the House recommend we do about this?
Sir Alan Campbell
This has been a divisive matter almost from the off, including in this House. On occasions, we rose to the challenge of the debate, and sometimes we slipped a little below it. However, this House made its position on the Bill very clear, and off it went to the other place. The other place has a duty and responsibility to scrutinise such legislation, but there are conventions about the way it does that. I would urge it to do everything it can to respect the view of this House—the elected Chamber—on these matters. I have made it very clear that if the Bill returns to this place, perhaps amended, we may look at making available further time on Fridays, if necessary, so that it can make more progress, and we can get it across the line.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I need to say that my lovely mum is a WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—woman. On Budget day, I met representatives from the WASPI campaign, following the Government’s recent announcement that they will once again review their decision not to compensate women born in the 1950s who were affected by changes to the state pension age. The WASPI campaign has been renewed, now that there is hope for justice and a fair outcome at long last. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the House will be kept fully informed of progress on the review, including through an oral statement once the Government have reached a decision, and that time will be made for full debate on any proposals brought forward?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know this issue is of serious concern to many women. It has been raised on numerous occasions in the House, and we want to resolve the matter as soon as we can. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has committed to updating the House on any decision as soon as a conclusion is reached.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The last Saturday in November in Atherstone is marked by our wonderful Dickens night. It is always brilliant to see my home town so busy. There are stalls, the Christmas lights are switched on, and Santa in his grotto; Arthur Stone, our town mascot, is walking around; and then there is a firework finale. These events would never happen without the hours of work put in by volunteers like Dave and the Dickens night committee. Would the Leader of the House consider joining us next year for Dickens night, and would he make time for a debate on the importance of volunteering?
Sir Alan Campbell
What a fantastic festive event! The contribution of volunteers to events like these is invaluable. It has a real impact in bringing communities together, and is in the best of our traditions. I thank everyone volunteering at this festive period for their contribution. I will certainly look at my diary to see whether I am available next year, but I am in danger of making Scrooge look cheerful.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the leader of Staffordshire county council, Reform councillor Ian Cooper, finally resigned after an investigation into his social media accounts found he was a top fan of a Facebook page that openly promotes white supremacy. Those views are abhorrent and completely incompatible with public life. They are the opposite of the kind, tolerant people of the county. Will the Leader of the House please make time for a debate on standards in public life to send a clear message that racism has no place in our politics nor in our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I completely agree that racism has no place in our communities or in public life. As elected officials, it is our responsibility to uphold the Nolan principles. There appear to be other issues coming to light with Reform councillors in Staffordshire council. I encourage them to treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last month was National Care Leavers’ Month. I had the pleasure of attending a question time event in my constituency, where I was interviewed by some incredible young people, including care leavers from across Wolverhampton. Will the Leader of the House first please join me in congratulating those young people on putting forward such excellent questions? Secondly, considering that care-experienced people are more than twice as likely to die prematurely, that they have a life expectancy of almost 20 years less than the national average, and that almost half have a diagnosed mental health condition, will the Leader of the House please agree to a debate in Government time to discuss making care experience a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010—a change that has already been adopted by almost 130 councils across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
Disadvantage faced by those who have grown up in care is one of the great social injustices of our time. The Equality Act already protects many care leavers under indirect discrimination provisions, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister is made aware of my hon. Friend’s comments and writes to him directly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Elsie Blundell to ask the final question.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Since the implementation of the peace deal negotiated in the middle east in recent months, we have seen a concerning acceleration of illegal settlements in the west bank in flagrant violation of various United Nations resolutions on the subject. What steps are being taken by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make clear the UK’s opposition to those settlements, and will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on the region’s future—a topic that is undoubtedly of interest to many across the House?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, those settlements are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a two-state solution, which is the Government’s preferred option for the future. We strongly oppose the Israeli Government’s settlements plan and we continue to press the Israeli Government to abide by international law. We have kept the House updated on these matters from time to time and we will continue to do so, but in the meantime I will ensure the Foreign Secretary hears my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sorry to those who did not get in at business questions today. I have made a note of who did not, so I will try to prioritise them at a later date.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), Staffordshire has been in the news this week not for the skills, smarts and successes of our wonderful people from Newcastle-under-Lyme to Tamworth and from Stafford to Stoke, but for the disgusting, disgraceful and deeply sickening social media posts of the now former Reform UK party leader of Staffordshire county council. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide to me and my Staffordshire colleagues on how we can ensure our people and our county are not tarnished by the disgusting views of a fringe minority?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his point. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has made sure that his thoughts are on the record.
National Plan to End Homelessness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I would like to make a statement to the House about the publication of our national plan to end homelessness.
The strategy we have published today, I want to say from the outset, builds on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I pay tribute to both of them for their considerable work.
This Labour Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation increased radically from 2010. It is not just the people we can see sleeping in Westminster tube station as we leave this building, but the families and children we cannot see—those living in unsuitable temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfasts, without a kitchen and far away from family, friends and schools. For some, this has been a matter of life and death: 1,142 people died while homeless last year, and 74 children’s deaths were connected to temporary accommodation in the five years to 2024—58 of them were babies under one. Everyone deserves a roof over their head. Children in the worst housing our country can offer deserve the attention of this House. The strategy outlines the tangible actions and targets we have set ourselves for delivery this Parliament, which will act as milestones on the way to achieving the long-term vision.
We have looked at the issues carefully. As well as the interministerial group, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government convened a lived experience forum, so that the people who have experienced homelessness and rough sleeping could influence the strategy. We established an expert group to bring together representatives from organisations that support people, local government and experts to provide knowledge, analysis and challenge. I thank them all, on behalf of the House, for their contribution.
To tackle the root causes of homelessness and break the cycle of failure, we must build more homes. We want to build 1.5 million new homes, including more social and affordable housing—more than has been built for years. The new programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with about 180,000 for social rent.
Not having enough money is another cause of homelessness. The child poverty strategy, presented to the House last week, will lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, including through the removal of the two-child limit. The implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will give more protection to renters by abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, closing a key route into homelessness.
Building more homes and preventing homelessness overall will take time, but families living in squalid, overcrowded conditions simply cannot wait. The Government will eliminate the use of B&Bs for families in this Parliament and make sure that, on the rare occasion that homelessness cannot be prevented, temporary accommodation is liveable. We have already proven that that is possible through innovation funded by our emergency accommodation reduction pilots programme. The programme funds new work to find more sustainable accommodation, the inspection of properties, the acquisition of long-term accommodation for families, and support to make that transition. That is why, in this strategy, we are increasing funding to £30 million to stop a wider range of poor practice, including the overuse of B&Bs and unsuitable out-of-area placements.
There is £950 million for the fourth round of the local authority housing fund. That means councils can invest in owning their accommodation, rather than paying through the nose to rent bad accommodation, and we will explore partnering with social impact and institutional investors to use private finance and support from the National Housing Bank to yet further increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation.
To make sure that children in temporary accommodation get the support they need, we will introduce a new duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors and GPs when a child is in temporary accommodation—something that Members have called for. That will improve health outcomes and school attendance, and reduce the risk of mortality for those children. Most crucially, we will work with the NHS to end the practice of discharging newborns with their mums into B&Bs.
There is no worse feeling for any of us as public servants than seeing a man or woman on the street in need of help that we failed to give them. Over a third of people who have been sleeping outside have been doing so for months, and some for years. They have complex underlying needs and have been failed by services again and again. This cannot continue, so today we are setting a target to halve the number of people sleeping rough long term by the end of this Parliament. We will help more vulnerable people off the streets and into stable housing by investing £124 million over the next three years in supported housing services. We will provide £37 million to our partners working in the voluntary, community and faith sector to support recovery from homelessness. We will target £15 million for councils to test innovative approaches to helping people experiencing long-term rough sleeping, which is often complicated.
In a country such as ours, we really should be able to prevent homelessness; instead, hard-working professionals are stuck responding to crisis after crisis. Many councils have simply become overwhelmed by the costs, and people are having to face a night on the street just to access support in the first place. I am proud that the strategy prioritises the targeted prevention of homelessness among vulnerable groups, like young people and survivors of domestic abuse. We are providing more support to young people in supported housing, helping them to develop the skills and independence they need. By making work pay—crucially, by removing the work disincentive for those in temporary accommodation and supported housing —we are ensuring that a job is a reasonable and achievable outcome.
Public institutions should lead the way in preventing homelessness, and this strategy sets out our long-term ambition that no one leaves a public institution into homelessness, with cross-Government targets to start the change to reduce homelessness from prisons, care and hospitals. To force lasting system change, we will introduce a duty to collaborate—to compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness.
We are backing up all these actions with record levels of funding. We have invested more than £1 billion in homelessness services this year, including the largest ever investment in prevention services. Today I can announce the allocation of an extra £50 million top-up to the homelessness prevention grant this year, which further boosts the support available to people at risk of homelessness right now. The strategy sets out how we will provide a further £3.5 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, with much more freedom and flexibility for councils to get on and do.
We have made our ambition clear, and we will hold ourselves accountable for achieving the outcomes we seek. The strategy sets out three new national targets, alongside commitments from six of our most crucial partner Departments across Whitehall. The interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping will continue to meet to deliver the strategy, and will publish a report on progress at least every two years—although I have absolutely no doubt that hon. Members will hold us accountable for the targets week in, week out. We will monitor local progress with new outcomes metrics, with councils setting targets and publishing action plans.
On those goals—ending the use of B&Bs, halving long-term rough sleeping and increasing the rate at which homelessness is prevented—I know that everyone in this House wants all our places, up and down the country, to succeed. Now more than ever, we need our partners to join us in this mission: councils, frontline public services, homelessness organisations, and voluntary, community and faith groups. If we join forces, the strategy will set us on the path to ending homelessness and will deliver immediate action to improve the lives of people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping.
For every child without a bedroom to do their homework in, for every adult whose life could be turned around by an arm around their shoulder, and for every person who needs a home for Christmas and beyond: this plan is for you, and this Government are for you too. I commend this statement and our strategy to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her remarks and for advance sight of her statement. This is the third time that I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue of homelessness with the Minister in the last seven weeks. I do not doubt that all hon. and right hon. Members here today share a strong desire to end rough sleeping and homelessness for good.
Homelessness is a social tragedy wherever and for whatever reason it occurs. No one in our society should be forced to live on the streets, and it is incumbent on us all to do our best to ensure that our constituents can live in a safe, decent and secure home. The Minister’s reference to the horrendous figure of how many men, women and children have died while being homeless is a poignant reminder of why decisive action is critical. Although progress to that end was made under the previous Government, work remains to be done, and I offer my full support to the Government in their desire to end homelessness once and for all.
As policymakers have increasingly come to appreciate, homelessness does not simply begin when someone finds themselves on the street. Rather, it is rooted in long-term causes. For example, some people have persistent issues with mental health or substance abuse, offenders may be stuck between prison and the streets with no place to go, or young people may leave the care system without a fixed destination.
I am pleased that inspiration for cross-departmental working has been taken from the previous Government’s “Ending Rough Sleeping For Good” strategy, which brought seven Departments from across the Government together. The previous Government implemented StreetLink to provide more support for those who are sleeping rough or those concerned with someone who is sleeping rough. It connects local authorities and charities, and provides quicker support to those who need it most.
We welcome the Government’s taking action, but we need to see details of how the plan will be implemented in the long term to achieve their goals. Homelessness has reached a record high in the past year, with the number of households including children in temporary accommodation surging to historic highs. St Mungo’s estimates that long-term rough sleeping is up by 27% in London. It is vital that the Government look at the wider picture to see all the connected pressures. Only by making a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living and make private housing more affordable will the Government get people out of temporary accommodation and into secure, long-term homes of their own.
However, the Government are determined to spend ever increasing amounts on welfare, increase taxes and make it harder to employ people, and they must square that with the negative impact on people’s jobs. Labour promised to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, as the Minister mentioned again today. To make good their promise, they must build 300,000 new homes per year, but with only 208,600 delivered in 2024-25, they are already 91,400 behind their self-imposed target. That does not bode well for the future.
The homelessness strategy has only just been published, and we will of course study it carefully, but I have some initial questions for the Minister. With the Government demonstrably failing to meet their housing targets, what guarantee is there that they will meet their new target on homelessness and halving long-term rough sleeping? How will they make that promise cast-iron? The Government are pushing more responsibility on to local authorities by requiring them to publish action plans, in addition to the homelessness strategy. How will that help? Will it just result in more paperwork?
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), promised to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. Is that still the plan? If it is, will the Minister set out a clear timeline? The strategy mentions various new targets. What metrics will the Government use to assess the success or otherwise of the strategy? Will the Government report back to Parliament on progress regularly, and if so, with what frequency?
We all want the strategy to work. In that spirit, His Majesty’s Opposition will engage constructively with the plan and scrutinise it as it is implemented.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I thank hon. Members across the House for the cross-party way in which they have engaged on the strategy. We will disagree—I am sure we will disagree about the manner in which Opposition Members sometimes discuss social security—but where we agree, let us make every effort to put the people who need this strategy first. Those are people who have been on the streets for too long and children who deserve a proper childhood. I hope that we can share that ambition.
The hon. Gentleman asked about metrics. The Department publishes a number of datasets that we are using to analyse the metrics. He mentioned a couple of them—children in temporary accommodation and long-term rough sleeping—but we also know how many people present themselves to councils at risk of homelessness, and we want to increase the rate at which that is prevented. I will ensure that we report regularly to Parliament on that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned repealing the Vagrancy Act. Some other bits of legislation need to come into force so that we can do that. I will write to him with the exact timings, because they relate to the business of another Department.
On the matter of councils’ strategies and whether it is just paperwork, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it very much is not. The statistics show that in some areas, we have been able to get on top of B&B use—there are more details in the strategy—while in some areas, we have not. It is less about paperwork and more about transparency over outcomes and then taking action to ensure that best practice informs what is going on everywhere.
The hon. Gentleman asks about targets and how cast-iron they will be. Thinking about the state of house building, we were always going to have to ramp up over time. I am clear that the goals in the strategy are achievable, and I would welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House in ensuring that we see them done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for their work; this is an area they were both committed to when they were in their previous ministerial roles. The Minister is correct that reversing the tide of homelessness should certainly be a national priority. It is not something that will happen overnight, and we know that further action will be needed to ensure that councils have the support they need for the pressures they are facing—particularly London councils, as the Minister will know, which are collectively facing costs of £5 million a day just on TA.
One of the ways the Government can help to alleviate those pressures and stop people becoming homeless in the first instance is with their rents. There have been asks of Government with cross-party support and from a number of organisations, including the Local Government Association, to look at local housing allowance rates to ensure that people can afford to rent locally so that they do not find themselves facing the threat of eviction and homelessness. Has the Minister discussed this matter with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to ensure that our residents and tenants do not find themselves evicted? I think of the many children who, two weeks from today, will be opening their presents in another B&B or in more unsuitable temporary accommodation. For them and for many others, we have to make sure we get this right.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her words and for her long-standing commitment to tackling homelessness in the capital and right across the country. She is right to ask about council pressures, and we are trying to address the inadequacies of council funding across the country. At the moment, the costs of TA and the spikes in demand are putting pressure on councils that will make it even harder for them to balance their budgets, and that serves nobody. We have to get this under control, because it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, no less than it is a waste of childhoods. We have got to get on top of it.
My hon. Friend asks about incomes and whether I have discussed that with other Departments. This is a cross-departmental strategy, and Ministers from DWP and other Departments have been very involved in it. At the heart of the problem is the lack of social housing, particularly in London, which is why we need to build more. I am glad that this strategy comes closely after the child poverty strategy last week, which saw action to improve family incomes, not least the removal of the two-child limit.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats also welcome this statement and the additional funding, although I still have some questions. For Liberals from Beveridge to Stephen Ross, who introduced the first homelessness legislation into this Chamber, tackling homelessness and poor housing has been central to allowing people to lead the fulfilled and free lives that we want to see them lead. I pay tribute to the Shared Health Foundation for highlighting the tragic numbers, as the Minister mentioned, of children and babies who have died with temporary accommodation mentioned on their death certificate as a contributory factor. It is a truly tragic situation.
The 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, with 12,000 households on the waiting list in my Somerset council area, are far too many. Even one homeless house- hold is, of course, far too many. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised last week, there has been a 22% increase in the number of people homeless after being discharged from public institutions, which, as the Minister said, is a massively important aspect of this.
Our Liberal Democrat manifesto called for an end to section 21 evictions and for a cross-Whitehall strategy on homelessness, and we welcome both of those things—it is excellent that they have happened. However, we urge the Government to go further, in particular by increasing the social housing target from 18,000 to 150,000 social homes per year, or at least to the 90,000 social homes per year that are required according to Shelter and the National Housing Federation.
In welcoming the statement, I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the timeline is for completing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act provisions? Will the Government uprate the local housing allowance to represent the bottom third of rents and index-link that allowance to those rents, and when will housing benefit be effectively unfrozen by reviewing that local housing allowance? Finally, will the Government consider exempting homeless people from the shared accommodation rate, which both reduces the quantity and diminishes the quality of housing available to homeless people?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the strategy and for joining the cross-party support for our objectives. It is important that we make it clear where we have agreement across the parties. I join him in welcoming the important work of the Shared Health Foundation.
On his final question, there are exemptions to the shared accommodation rate, and I would encourage him to have a look at that part of the strategy. On the local housing allowance, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee a moment ago, it is important that family incomes improve, which is why we took the steps we did in the child poverty strategy. I spoke about the Vagrancy Act in my response to the shadow Minister, but I will happily also send the hon. Gentleman the details about the steps that we are taking.
The hon. Gentleman also mentions the need to increase social housing, and I would recommend to him the detail on this published by the Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I do not think any of us should have a cap on our ambition for building social and affordable homes, and I encourage all parts of the country to get on with spending the investment the Chancellor has allocated so that we can put a roof over people’s heads.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I welcome this strategy and pay tribute to the Minister and her predecessors for the work that has gone into it. I also pay tribute to the Banbury Youth Homeless Project in my constituency, which does great work with young people affected by homelessness, and extend an invitation to the Minister to come and visit the organisation at some point. One feature of the current housing crisis is that temporary accommodation is often anything but. The Minister has reiterated the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes during the course of this Parliament, but I would be grateful if she could provide some detail on how the Government plan to accelerate the delivery of homes, particularly in areas like mine, where infrastructure issues are frequently a barrier to the delivery of much-needed affordable homes.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend knows that I am a fan of Banbury. I am hoping to get there before too long, and would be most grateful to meet that organisation; it sounds like it is doing sterling work, and I am grateful to them for it. It is true, as he says, that temporary accommodation is often anything but. The distinction we are trying to draw in the strategy is one of quality. While good-quality temporary accommodation often cannot help a family get back on the road to stability, we do see some really poor-quality temporary accommodation. To give people a long-term home where they can set down roots, as Members will know, our Planning and Infra- structure Bill has been proceeding through Parliament. That legislation will allow us to speed up the delivery of all housing, including the social housing we so desperately need.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I welcome this statement. We do need a massive house building programme, but I suspect the Government are going to have to strip away many more delays and controls if they are going to have any chance of meeting their own target. Does the Minister understand that there is a real lack of confidence in all this? The public see our own people on the streets without proper housing while people who enter the country illegally and migrants are held for months in comfortable hotels in idleness. If the Government were to be really robust and arrest, detain and deport those people, we could not only concentrate more resources on those genuinely in need, but actually save lives at sea.
Alison McGovern
As part of the strategy, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Home Office to support their priorities, which are to secure our borders, deal with the dreadful criminality of people trafficking across borders and get the backlog down. That is the best way to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, which is to have the resources to support people who have fled conflict and need to rebuild their lives. We want to ensure, through this strategy, that we get help quickly to the people whose cases have been decided, with the outcome that they are a refugee and will be settling in the UK. That means councils knowing where the people are and the support being available. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for that approach.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend knows, homelessness pressures in Oxford are some of the worst in the whole country. Will she join me in commending Oxford city council’s plan to purchase 260 additional homes for temporary accommodation to get kids out of hotel rooms and other unsuitable accommodation and into decent-quality, much cheaper accommodation? What will she do to back initiatives such as that and to preserve councils’ ability to impose requirements on developers so that they also provide social accommodation?
Alison McGovern
I will join my right hon. Friend in commending Oxford city council’s plans. That is exactly the sort of action that this strategy envisages. We must get kids out of totally unsuitable B&B accommodation and help councils to have the resources to acquire much better accommodation that can stabilise family life. In order to back councils to do that, we have the £950 million local authority housing fund, which I mentioned earlier. I want to see local authorities charging forward to tackle this problem. Oxford’s council is not the only one that is getting this right—there are others across the country—but I would encourage all local authorities to look at the approach that Oxford is taking.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The excellent team at Plymouth city council work tirelessly to tackle homelessness, but pressures on the private rented sector in the city, increased because of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, has hindered the supply of permanent move-on accommodation. We know that it does not all need to be social housing and that we need private rented homes as well. The council puts the sustained number of Plymouth households in temporary accommodation at about 440 a month—half of them in B&Bs—of which 40 are families. Although I recognise support for councils to buy properties and aims for new home completions, the reality is that will not be enough. How long must households in Plymouth who are currently in temporary accommodation wait for a home? Is Plymouth one of the 20 local authorities being supported to eliminate B&B use as part of the child poverty strategy?
Alison McGovern
I will have more to say about funding for local authorities specifically in the coming days. As the hon. Member will know, we are expecting the provisional statement for local authorities. She mentions renters’ rights. Section 21 evictions are a significant cause of homelessness, so it is right that we have brought those to an end through the Renters’ Rights Act. We all want to see good-quality private rented accommodation too. Any area needs a mix of housing so that people can have choice and a good community around them.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this welcome strategy, to which I know she is personally committed. There is a long-term ambition in the strategy to reduce the number of days of school missed by children in temporary accommodation, but is there a specific target for that? On data transparency for children from more deprived backgrounds, will she set out in more detail how that will be achieved and in particular whether there is an ambition to have wider tracking of outcomes for these children—not just the number of school days lost but how many times they return to temporary accommodation in the course of their childhood?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is a really important one. She will know that the Department for Education is introducing the unique identifier, which is at the core of the data we need to track this properly. On an ambition for the number of days lost, in an ideal world it would be zero. We need to get the work with the DfE under way and plot a course through the action plan over the coming weeks and months to get the numbers reduced significantly.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Glastonbury has the highest density of van dwellers in the UK, with around 300 people living in caravans. While some do choose this as a way of life, many are vulnerable or simply cannot afford to pay rent. They deserve a proper roof over their heads, as many of these caravans are simply not fit for accommodation. What considerations has the Minister made in this strategy to support those being exploited by unscrupulous van lords in this unregulated market? Will she meet me to discuss this ongoing crisis?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her input into the strategy on behalf of her constituents. I would be happy to arrange a meeting.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab )
I thank the Minister for announcing a bold, radical and ambitious plan—much needed after the appalling record of the last 14 years—to end homelessness. I draw her attention to the target for eliminating the use of B&Bs for families. Having grown up in temporary accommodation and spent time in bed and breakfasts, I know that this is long overdue, so I thank the Minister.
The strategy is a major undertaking and will require cross-Government working. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I am pleased that the awful practice of discharging people back to the street will end under the plan. To achieve this, does the Minister agree that, first, NHS trusts will have to start accurately counting those in hospital who are homeless, which shockingly does not already happen; and, secondly, that more support teams such as the wonderful Pathways teams in many trusts need to be rolled out across every eligible hospital trust?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He demonstrates his expertise, both from his life experience—and the House is so much the better for having people in it today who know what we are talking about—and the considerable work that he has done on this matter. He mentioned a couple of areas where we need to work with NHS and health colleagues. That is exactly the nature of the work we have been doing. I trust that he will use his place on the Health and Social Care Committee to hold us all collectively to account.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the ambition to end homelessness and pay tribute to the Purfleet Trust, King’s Lynn Night Shelter, the borough council and other groups that are working hard and collaborating to end rough sleeping and homelessness. How will this strategy and the resources help to support their efforts and focus on intervention and prevention and providing more local accommodation?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and through him I would like to give my own thanks to the organisations in his constituency that he just mentioned, which I am sure are doing vital and important work. One of the biggest challenges for local authorities in recent years has been living hand-to-mouth, with year-to-year funding, which they then pass on to the organisations that they fund. Having three-year settlements, which ensure a level of predictability, will not only help organisations to plan better, whether they are a council or a voluntary sector organisation, but will mean that they can engage more in preventive work, because they will have enough time to see the benefits.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her commitment on this issue and on the child poverty strategy, which is not unrelated to this work. I welcome the strategy she has announced today as a good first step in the right direction. The focus on prevention and the duty to collaborate are particularly important, as is the new money for supported housing. The lack of a Homes England plan for supported housing has been a real gap, and we have seen supported housing units close as housing associations have struggled to balance what they have to do on compliance, responsive repairs and new developments with wanting to offer supported units. Helping people to deal with the trauma of homelessness and the underlying reasons they became homeless in the first place is the best way of preventing recurrence, and we have seen that with Housing First programmes elsewhere. I was wondering whether the Minister will commit to monitoring the success of the supported housing element of the strategy and whether she will look to expand it in future if it proves successful.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his apposite question. There is extra money for supported housing in the strategy, and we will be monitoring the success of that. There is also money for recovery, because there is no doubt that people live with the trauma of homelessness for many years, and we need to help them move forward.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for the statement and for the aspiration to end homelessness, which is extremely welcome. I have two areas of concern. One is the insufficiency of council house building happening at the moment and the way in which almost every local authority seeks, in their terms, to balance a development, which includes properties for sale or properties for a rent much higher than a social level. That means that, in constituencies such as mine, a social cleansing of an entire borough ends up taking place as people cannot get council housing because so much is being built for other people to make money out of.
The second issue is related to the private rented sector. Even though I welcome the end of section 21 evictions, they are still going on and will do so until May. Hundreds—actually, thousands—across the country have been evicted through that process. Can the Minister not do something to bring forward the abolition of section 21 and look at the real issue, which is rent control within the private rented sector, because we are subsidising it through taxpayers’ money?
Alison McGovern
I think I have responded a number of times on our ambitions for social housing and mixed communities. On section 21, the right hon. Member will have noted that we are investing more in this year to help councils respond to the crisis that we face now, as well as having long-term objectives.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s work on this important subject. Just after we came into office, Ministers committed from the Dispatch Box to a revolution in council house building. I have welcomed and noted the Minister’s statements on social housing, but she will be aware that there are growing concerns around an increasing corporate ethos in housing associations, many of which have a mixed record at best. I have heard directly from constituents about the stark contrast in security of tenure between when they were living in a council house home and now, when it is owned by a housing association. Given that Shelter estimates that nearly 400,000 people are currently homeless across the country, will the Minister set out what the Government will do to deliver that council housing revolution in constituencies such as mine?
Alison McGovern
Housing associations will have heard the comments that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that they all aspire to treat their residents with the utmost respect and care, but they will have heard what he has said and will want to ensure that they fulfil that ambition.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I remind the House that under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was implemented in 2018, 1.7 million people in this country have been prevented from becoming homeless in the first place. There is also a duty to refer on the health service, the Prison Service, the armed forces and every statutory body. If they come across people who are threatened with being homeless, they must refer them on.
The Minister talks about a duty to co-operate and assist, but we must ensure that if she needs to revisit that duty to refer and put the onus on co-operation between the two parties, that is fine. Equally, she could immediately implement the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 that I piloted through this place so that the supported housing provided is taken away from rogue landlords who exploit vulnerable people. I look forward to that being implemented.
In the limited time that I have had to read the document, there does not seem to be a mention of the roll-out of Housing First. We know that works. It puts a roof over people’s heads and then we can build the network of support they need to get them back on their feet. Finally, if she needs legislative change, my Homelessness Prevention Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in this place but awaits Government approval, a Committee stage and potential funding. If she needs a legislative process, it is there, ready to go.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work over so many years on this issue. He mentions a number of legislative vehicles, some of which have already made a change and some of which could. I will work with him to do what we need.
On the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, he will have noticed in the Budget that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading some work on value for money in that sector. I will write to him with details on that. On the duty to collaborate, I am sorry to say that we are all aware, as constituency MPs, of terrible cases where homelessness could clearly have been prevented at a number of turns and was not. Two things are necessary: we need to introduce a duty to collaborate and work across the House to do that, but we also need transparency about results. We know how many people present themselves to councils with a risk of homelessness. This strategy sets out an objective to increase the number of cases when homelessness is prevented. Let us have transparency, let us have clarity about where it is happening and not, and let us make sure that councils have the tools in the box to do the job.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
This is deeply personal to me because I was one of those children, 34 years ago, sat on a double mattress in a room doing my GCSE revision and my coursework, and then having to sleep next to my mum and sister in a room while all that was going on. That is why today is so remarkably important, and why I am so proud to stand here and hear that we are going to do something about this. I can tell this House that when that happens to you, you feel alone, you feel isolated, you feel that no one cares, and your dignity and self-respect sits in somebody else’s hands. There are thousands of children out there today living in cramped B&Bs. I am so glad that the Labour Government will end that unlawful practice and protect those families from being placed in those unsafe, unsuitable conditions. Something that is massively important for me is my patience, but on this issue it runs out all the time. What is the timeline to stop that happening to those children in B&Bs?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Children who are stuck in inappropriate B&Bs should know that they have a champion in this House, they should know that there is someone who has been there too, and they should know that they are not alone. On the timeline for getting kids out of B&Bs, we will end the use of B&B accommodation by the end of the Parliament in all but the most extreme cases—an absolute emergency. It is already the law—it has been for 20 years—that children are not supposed to be in B&Bs for more than six weeks. What on Earth is going on in this country when there are 2,000 children in such a situation? Let us work together, let us do something about it and let us bring those numbers down very quickly.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Before entering this place, I spent nearly two decades working for the YMCA. I have to say to Conservative Members, respectfully, that their cuts had consequences. It is no wonder that, as the money was taken away year after year, rough sleeping more than doubled since 2010. I therefore warmly welcome this statement. It is particularly important that we listen to people with lived experience of this—we have heard about some of that today—and that they help shape our services and solutions. In Stoke-on-Trent, Expert Citizens, under the leadership of Darren Murinas and Andy Meakin, is led by people with lived experience of homelessness, mental health problems and addiction, and they use their voices to help shape local services. Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to support organisations such as Expert Citizens to continue their excellent work?
Alison McGovern
I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that I and the ministerial team who produced this report agree with him can be evidenced by the foreword written by the people who did not just come to Ministers, give their experience and say what they have been through—although they did do that—but who shaped policy. That is exactly how it should be and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of that.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the focus on ending homelessness. I have met many constituents who have harrowing stories of homelessness, so this is a welcome step. There are not enough council homes, and where councils need to use private temporary accommodation, so much of that is of poor quality, yet those landlords are taking that public money. The additional funds are therefore welcome so we can expand the number of council homes. Will the Minister consider visiting Gravesham so she can see for herself the ambitious plans to help end homelessness?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the use of taxpayers’ money. As she will have heard me say in previous responses, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading some cross-ministerial work on value-for-money questions on the provision of support for homeless people. That is important, because we cannot afford to waste a penny in this mission. I would be delighted to visit her constituency.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the strategy and I agree with its stated aims. I especially welcome the ending of the unlawful use of B&Bs for families. We have already heard the case powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) as to why that is so important. In Morley, my team and I are supporting a particularly complex case of an individual who is homeless. Although the details are complex, the outcome is simple: they are sleeping in shop doors across Morley. Would the Minister consider meeting me to discuss this case to ensure that the strategy will cover them so that we can get them off the streets and into a home?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes his case well. If he would care to send me some details of the case, I will of course meet him.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I hope she will accept my apologies for being a little bit late; I missed the first few seconds of her statement, although I have read it.
In a few hours’ time, I will be getting the train back to Scotland. This is a place where Scottish Labour recently forced the Scottish Government to declare a housing emergency, made worse by the fact that they had cut the affordable housing budget in Scotland by 37% between 2023 and 2025. Hundreds of households are in hostels and B&Bs in Edinburgh. We are now in the crazy situation where the council will use tourist tax income to build houses to move homeless people out of B&Bs and into those houses so that tourists can actually get in the B&Bs where they should be—it is absolutely incredible. I am sure that my constituents will be listening to the Minister’s statement with envy and thinking about how that money could be spent in Scotland if the Government there had the same kind of ambition.
The Minister will know that one of the categories of the homeless that people are most concerned about is veterans. She talked about public services and public institutions, and I know the Ministry of Defence is doing great work to prevent veterans from becoming homeless and supporting them when they do. Does the Minister’s strategy connect with what the MOD is doing?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is of course right. The great city of Edinburgh deserves a lot better in so many ways, and I support everything he said. I long for the day when we can have a pan-UK strategy, including Scottish Labour, to end homelessness where we work together, which we will do.
On veterans, it will be important to us all to know that people who have served our country are supported in every aspect of their life afterwards, and it is an absolute disaster if a former member of the armed forces experiences homelessness. That is why the MOD has played a full part in the creation of the strategy. I have spoken about it directly with my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People. Through her work on Operation Valour and other things, we are ensuring that we have in place the necessary care and support for veterans, because they deserve the absolute best.
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered St Andrew’s Day and Scottish affairs.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to mark St Andrew’s day and to discuss Scottish affairs. As a Fife MP, I begin by noting that the town of St Andrews is at the opposite end of the kingdom from my constituency, and it is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in her place. St Andrews is obviously not as important or beautiful as anywhere in Dunfermline and Dollar, but it is a place long associated with Scotland’s patron saint and, of course, famous for being the home of golf.
Across Scotland, we celebrate not only our connection to St Andrew, but the thread that runs through our national story: a generous spirit, a quiet strength and a belief that community, work and learning can change lives. As the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, I see those qualities every day in the people and places that have shaped our history and will build our future.
Today I want to speak in three parts: Scotland as it was, Scotland as it is, and Scotland as it could be. In doing so, I will speak to the opportunities that different generations have experienced, the prospects that Scotland now must champion, the importance of our infrastructure and the lessons we can take from St Andrew’s life itself. I will also celebrate organisations—
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, especially so early in his speech. He talks about Scotland as we were. Does he share my concern that too often our history has been oversimplified, over-romanticised and focused on William Wallace, Robert Bruce and this entanglement with England, and has not looked at Scotland’s contribution not only to British but to world history and our achievements in engineering, for example?
Graeme Downie
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and, indeed, for sponsoring my application to the Backbench Business Committee. She has anticipated one of the points that I will make later, and I should say that my speech does not mention either of those key figures in Scottish history she mentions, but it does mention many others. In this speech, I will embody some of those names that are particularly associated with my part of the world, such as King Malcolm, St Margaret and Mary Queen of Scots, through to Andrew Carnegie and beyond. I do not intend to start a civil war this afternoon, so I will perhaps not dwell on the most famous person to be born in Dunfermline: a certain Charles I—a name well known in these parts, of course.
When we talk about Scotland as it was, we should be proud of our history, but we should also acknowledge the difficulties and errors that have led to our present. As well as celebrating Scots abroad in every corner of the world, every airport people land in and every bar, we must remember Scotland’s past—the past we see when we look up in cities like Glasgow and across the country and see the remnants of the slave trade that Scotland also profited from. When we talk about the British empire and its legacy, both positively and negatively—as we rightly should—Scotland must also be part of all sides of that conversation. We must weigh the legacy that older generations built, the conditions they enjoyed and the sacrifices they made against the obligations we owe to younger people today.
In my constituency, Dunfermline is a place where the past walks with us. It is simultaneously Scotland’s newest and oldest city, and beneath our streets lies St Margaret’s cave, a place of reflection linked to a queen whose charitable deeds still resonate. It reminds us that the spiritual heart of our country rests not in institutions, but in the everyday acts of care for neighbour and stranger.
Few names loom larger than Andrew Carnegie. Born in Dunfermline, Carnegie’s journey from a weaver’s cottage to global philanthropy is the essence of the Scottish ladder of opportunity: education, enterprise and duty to community. Carnegie understood that libraries, learning and practical skills were not luxuries; they were the engines of mobility and civic confidence. The more a society invests in open knowledge, the more its people can change their lives.
Beyond Fife, Scotland’s identity was also forged in its coalfields. In Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, the Lothians and beyond, coal powered our factories, heated our homes and drove our railways and ships. Coalfield communities were not just clusters of employment; they were webs of support, with co-operative societies, miners’ institutes, working men’s clubs, brass bands—the social infrastructure that turned wages into lives.
Yet we must be honest. Older generations grew up in an era when the opportunity of a path from school to a skilled job was more certain, when housing was more affordable and when public spaces were continually endowed. For many, the apprenticeship or the training scheme led to stable employment and social housing, and the state, industry and unions wrestled—however imperfectly—towards fairer settlements. That does not mean life was easy. The safety net was less secure, working conditions were tougher, child poverty was higher and life expectancy was shorter, but the stability and prospects for generational improvement were clearer.
Let me move on to Scotland as it is, in my eyes. Where has the Scotland of the past led us? What do we see around us? I will focus on the support that we provide to older people in need, compared with what we provide for the young. We see an intergenerational gap in assets, wages and housing security. Graduates and non-graduates alike report difficulty finding stable, well-paid work in their field. The cost of renting has increased, a deposit for a mortgage remains out of reach for many, and the certainty associated with long-term careers is less common. For the first time since world war two, our children’s generation is projected to be poorer than that of their parents. Younger people come from an uncertain past. The financial crisis of 2008 left deep scars. Brexit—a decision made by older people—has reduced young people’s opportunities. The pandemic not only affected the people who were also hit hardest by the crash, but, by hitting their children, became intergenerational. In that pandemic, we asked young people to sacrifice their tomorrow to protect the today of their elders.
St Andrew spoke of the importance of service to others, respect and compassion. What better example can we find of those values than our nation’s young people? Is it any wonder, though, that those young people, with their uncertain past and present, look around and wonder why older people are the ones with the skills that the economy needs, and which young people have never had the opportunity to get; with the wealth that young people have never had the opportunity to gather; and with the security of their own home, while young people languish in childhood bedrooms? On top of that, successive Governments have granted older generations certain and increasing income—something that younger generations will likely never know.
This is not intended to be a counsel of despair; it is a call to rebuild the ladder with more rungs and stronger rails, and a call for clearer signposts. The answer lies in a proper economic strategy and skills. The UK Labour Government have acknowledged mistakes of the past, in which a university education was presented as a guaranteed path to securing higher income—a myth blown truly and utterly wide open. The Government have sought to place apprenticeships on the same level of importance and pride, because our economy desperately needs technical and professional skills. We need both learning by doing, and learning by the book. To misquote slightly a book that many of us read at school—I am sure that our teachers will be delighted to know that we still remember it—we need the Chris of the land and the Chris of the book. Scotland should be the best place in the UK to learn a trade, upgrade a qualification or pivot mid-career.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a London MP, but I feel that I must step in for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not here. But my intervention does have a connection to the subject of the debate. It is about the vibrancy of Scottish universities. People from my constituency travel as far as Scotland to get a world-class education, and during a recent trade envoy visit to Nigeria, I spoke to Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff who had studied at Scottish universities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must invest in education, as that is a good way to achieve economic regeneration and support?
Graeme Downie
I could not agree more. St Andrews University, which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, is the heart of education in Scotland, along with institutions in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere across the country. [Interruption.] I see that university arguments are breaking out already among Opposition Members—or is this a rare moment of agreement between the SNP and the Lib Dems? I should add, as someone who went to Stirling University, that we have many universities across the country that are able to contribute.
More employers should co-design curricula; colleges must be funded to deliver practical, modern teaching; and learners of all ages must be supported with opportunities, transport and clear progression routes. There is so much more that we can do to make it as easy for a care worker to earn a digital health certification as it is for a technician to gain offshore safety accreditation, or for a veteran to translate military skills into civilian qualifications.
I turn to the uncertainty that young people face in their future. Most people now approaching retirement have never seen world affairs so unstable, never dreamed of a land war in Europe, and never saw global power politics of the sort we have today, but that is the future that young people are navigating. A continuing series of once-in-a-generation crises affect this generation of young people. The war in Ukraine, which is fuelling rises in the cost of living, is one of the most long lasting they will see, in a world that has spent the resources that are needed to tackle the problem.
That gives me the opportunity to talk about my favourite topic: the contribution of the defence industry to Scotland. It will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I am talking about this. Not only do young people have to face the security, technological and economic threat from Iran and China, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but they are the ones who will be asked to fight it—hopefully only in economic and social terms. Scotland’s defence footprint—in shipbuilding, aerospace, cyber and logistics—is both strategic and local. From the yards that turn steel into hulls and the bases that secure our airspace, to the small and medium-sized enterprises that supply components and services, defence sustains skilled employment, supports innovation and anchors communities. We should celebrate the engineers and fabricators, and the logisticians and technologists—world-class workers whose labours keep our nation safe and advance our industrial capability.
When it comes to energy, Scotland stands at the crossroads of legacy and leadership. The North sea still matters for investment, jobs, tax revenues and world-class expertise. At the same time, renewables are no longer a promise; they are a present reality. We have offshore wind, onshore wind, tidal, hydro, solar and emerging hydrogen technologies. The lesson of the first energy era is plain: if we export raw resource and import finished value, we risk missing wealth multipliers. In the second energy era, Scotland must build, service, innovate and train our workforce for the new jobs—good-quality, well-paid jobs—that follow.
Thanks to this Labour Government, our ports, fabrication yards and grid infrastructure are being upgraded, but the benefits will not be felt for years, and it is likely that costs will rise by far less than they otherwise would, rather than being reduced in absolute terms. As in the financial crisis, we are asking young people to thank us for avoiding a not-experienced counterfactual, rather than for real improvements.
Despite the challenges, I believe that Scotland stands on a solid foundation—we are outward-looking, innovative and compassionate—but to be future-focused, the promise of real and practical opportunity must be renewed for everyone: the nurse in Dunfermline, the apprentice in Dollar, the graduate in High Valleyfield, the veteran retraining in Rosyth, the parent seeking a second chance at college, and the care leaver negotiating their first tenancy. If St Andrew teaches us anything, it is that influence need not be loud to be profound. Tradition tells us that he was a bridge-builder, a bringer of people to a higher calling, and a man whose life spoke of hospitality, humility and service. In a divided age, Scotland could choose to lead by those virtues—welcoming, learning, working, serving—not as slogans, but as social habits. Scotland talks a great deal about those virtues, but we should remember that we face the same challenges in making them real as people in other parts of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. We are not alone, nor are we exceptional. The rules apply to us as much as to others.
We must build a settlement in which older generations can contribute their wisdom, mentor apprentices and access retraining at any point without stigma, and in which younger generations find and build dignity through quality careers that help them to secure housing, develop skills and find stability and progression, so that they have the opportunity to build their life, and to hand the world on in a better state than it was in when it was given to them.
We can design skills pathways that reflect our national character by being practical, rigorous and humane. Imagine an ecosystem in which Carnegie’s legacy of free libraries becomes a digital learning commons, college workshops are connected to local firms, defence apprentices rotate into civilian advanced manufacturing, and energy sector traineeships are co-delivered by colleges, employers and unions. Credentials should be stackable and portable, so that a 19-year-old turbine technician can later specialise in grid management or hydrogen systems, or any other sector, without the need to start from scratch.
In celebrating St Andrew’s Day, we should always embrace our civic and cultural soul. Let me take the House back to St Margaret’s cave in Dunfermline, where Queen Margaret—whose saint’s day is on 16 November, just two weeks before St Andrew’s—came to pray over 900 years ago. It is a reminder that reflection and service are not opposites. Carnegie’s legacy tells us that public learning multiplies across generations. Our local institutions —schools, colleges and voluntary groups—prove that community is built by hands, hearts and habits. If we want Scotland as it could be, we must sustain the places where Scotland is: the library, the workshop, the youth organisations, the working man’s club, the community centre, the church hall, the café, the sporting venue and, yes, the pub, the bookies, the chippy and the bingo. The quiet networks of trust are the strongest parts of our infrastructure.
We must build a fairer society, with more opportunity, more dignity and more security for every young person starting out, and for every older person seeking to contribute anew. Scotland as it was gave us our foundations. Scotland as it is demands our fidelity. Scotland as it could be awaits our work.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate, which gives us an opportunity to consider some of the important issues facing Scotland. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I was very disappointed not to have the opportunity to take part in the debate reflecting on 25 years of devolution, because I wanted to pay tribute to three colleagues whom we lost over the summer. The first is Sir George Reid, who was the second Presiding Officer. Although an SNP Member, Sir George always put the Parliament ahead of politics. Indeed, I voted for him in the 1999 election for Presiding Officer against party advice, which was to support Lord Steel. I have never regretted that decision.
I also pay tribute to my colleague Jamie McGrigor, who was one of the great characters of the Scottish Parliament. Many a night was spent—after parliamentary proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker—with his guitar and several drinks consumed. Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent, the late Ian Jenkins, who was the first Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, a Liberal Democrat Member of the Parliament and a very well-respected figure. Even when he left the Scottish Parliament, he played an enormous part in the community across the Borders, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him.
It may surprise Members to hear that for my constituents, this is not the single most important debate taking place at the moment, or the one that will most affect them, because at this very moment, SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council is proposing that £68 million be invested in a flood prevention scheme in Dumfries. Only a few months ago, that scheme was to cost £25 million. The cost of the scheme has ballooned, with no proper explanation, to £68 million. There may be a few moments left in which to influence councillors, if I have any influence at all with them, so I urge them to reject that proposal, which, in my view, would be a criminal waste of money for a council that is closing rural schools and struggling to provide basic services, such as maintaining our roads. I hope that my plea makes it across the ether to Dumfries.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
In my previous life as an academic, I got a little bit involved in that project, but that was many, many years ago, so I am really surprised that it has not yet been delivered in some shape or form. I am sure that the local authority is working hard on it, but surely if the work had taken place much sooner, it would have been much more cost-effective, and would have delivered benefits to people well before now.
David Mundell
I am sure that we do not want to go down the blind alley of a long discussion about this flood prevention scheme, but it was the subject of a public inquiry, because—this is one of the most important parts of the issue—it does not command public support. That, in my view, is the reason why there have been numerous delays and it has not been progressed. Today is the opportunity to end all the uncertainty and say, “No, this project is not going ahead.” But of course, in our democracy, it will be for councillors to decide, and we will respect their decision.
As all of us representing constituencies in Scotland know only too well, the story of the past two decades of SNP government has been one of stagnation, mismanagement and, in many cases, outright failure in stewardship of our public services. Education standards in Scotland’s schools are on the slide. We have fewer police on the streets, and those streets and roads are in a poor state of repair, as vital transport infrastructure does not receive the investment that it needs. But of all Scotland’s public services, few are under such intolerable strain as our NHS.
Just a few weeks ago, the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care was boasting of cutting NHS waiting times, while ignoring the fact that there are now 86,000 cases of patients who have been stuck for more than a year on waiting lists. That is higher than in 2022, when the Scottish Government pledged to “eradicate” the problem by September 2024. More than a year on from that broken promise, SNP Ministers are claiming that they will wipe out waits of over 12 months, this time by March next year—conveniently, just in time for May’s election.
Christine Jardine
The right hon. Member is giving an impressive speech and a very important speech for Scotland. Does he agree that in May next year, Scotland will stand at an important crossroads where our future may be decided on how we pursue that election and who wins it, and that the time has come for change to address the problems of which he speaks?
David Mundell
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that change in Scotland is the theme of my speech, because I agree that we desperately need it.
In relation to SNP promises, we have heard it all before. Year in, year out, SNP boasts about bringing down waiting times ring hollow in the ears of patients whose experience is of being left to languish on those very same lists. It is not just on waiting times that the nationalists have let Scotland’s patients down. Emergency departments—the service people turn to in their most desperate hours—are overwhelmed. A year ago, more than 76,000 people waited over 12 hours in A&E before getting treatment, compared with just 784 in 2011.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way, but I am struggling a little bit to reconcile his rhetoric with the facts. The fact is that waiting lists have been falling in Scotland for five months in a row up until now. He then moved on to emergency healthcare. Scotland’s core A&E functions outperform England’s and Wales’s consistently, year after year. How does he reconcile that dichotomy?
David Mundell
As Members across the Chamber know, this is a well-used SNP tactic of constant comparison with other places, rather than focusing on the SNP Government’s delivery compared with their promises. It is clear that there is a huge discrepancy between what has been promised by the Scottish Government and what has been delivered.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Is it not the case that there are more people waiting more than two years in individual health boards in Scotland than in the whole of England? Does the right hon. Member agree that that is a disgrace of the Scottish Government?
David Mundell
I do. What the hon. Lady points to is the shuffling of figures that we have just seen, so that the best figures are presented, but those 86,000 people I mentioned who have been on waiting lists for more than a year are erased from the debate. It is all about smoke and mirrors.
Analysis of this astonishing increase in waiting times by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine found that it has likely contributed to more than 1,000 needless deaths, despite the best efforts of frontline staff who have been failed by the SNP’s inaction. And what of the strain on those hard-working NHS workers? Last year, data revealed that NHS frontline staff were forced to cover understaffed shifts on 348,675 occasions. That is hundreds of thousands of times when there were simply not enough staff on hospital wards and in other care settings to meet Scotland’s healthcare needs. A recent report by the Royal College of Nursing Scotland warned that over the year to May 2025,
“at no point has NHS Scotland employed the number of nursing staff needed to deliver safe and effective care.”
The warning signs have been there for years, but the Scottish Government have failed to act on workforce planning, and it is patients and health service workers who are paying the price of that failure.
Of course, the healthcare crisis in Scotland is not restricted to our hospitals. Anyone who represents a rural constituency like mine will be acutely aware of the often severe pressure on GP services, where face-to-face appointments can be difficult to obtain, and that is to say nothing of the near impossible job of getting registered with an NHS dentist. In Dumfries and Galloway, which has one of the worst rates of NHS dental registration, more than 40% of residents are not registered with a dentist. That is not because they do not want to be, but because practices are not taking on new patients, and thousands of existing patients have been deregistered.
Dave Doogan
It is especially generous of the right hon. Gentleman to give way again. He touched on general practice. I am not suggesting for one minute that everything is perfect in Scotland, but our constituents enjoy 83 general practitioners per 100,000 population, compared with 67 GPs in Wales and 64 in England. How much worse must it be for constituents in England and Wales?
David Mundell
I am afraid we are back to the old record, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard it so many times. It does not wear thin; it must be digital now, so that it can be reproduced in just the same words that I have heard for the last 20-odd years. What the hon. Gentleman says does not relate to the experience of my constituents in Dumfries and Galloway when getting a dentist. They hold the Scottish Government accountable for whether or not they have a dentist, and for the promises that the Scottish Government have made in that regard. SNP Ministers say that the situation with dentists is “challenging”, but that is no substitute for the action we need to solve Scotland’s dental deserts, like Dumfries and Galloway.
And what of Scotland’s social care system—the very services meant to protect the vulnerable, the elderly, and those in need? Unions and public service watchdogs have repeatedly condemned persistent delays in discharging patients. Those delays clog up hospitals and deny timely care to people who should be at home or in community care. Staffing is chronically inadequate, care homes are overstretched, home care services are chaotic, and families often wait weeks—sometimes months—to get support for loved ones. Long-standing plans to deliver a national care service collapsed this year, having consumed tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but without delivering a single additional hour of social care to those who need it. It is the record of the SNP Government summed up: make bold promises of reform; spend millions of pounds; blame everybody else, but especially Westminster, when it all falls apart.
For years, the SNP has made bold promises—promises of better health care, stronger social care, more GPs, more nurses, reduced waiting lists and an improved social care framework, but the facts speak for themselves. GP and dentist numbers remain too low, and constituents like mine struggle to get appointments. Too many newly qualified young medical professionals leave Scotland, even as vacancies are unfilled. More than £2 billion has been spent on agency and bank nurses, and midwives, over the past five years because of a lack of proper workforce planning. One in nine of Scotland’s population is currently on an NHS waiting list in Scotland, and despite the hard work of NHS staff working in the most challenging of circumstances, public satisfaction with the NHS in Scotland has plummeted to the lowest level since devolution. Once we strip away all the self-congratulatory boasting of Scottish Government Ministers, this is the reality of the NHS in Scotland after two decades of SNP rule: an older person waiting weeks for home care; a mother with a child waiting years for mental-health support; a nurse driven to burnout; a cancer patient left on a waiting list so long that even Scotland’s First Minister says it is “not acceptable”.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a clear case about recruitment in Scotland, which is a fair point, but a key issue that has caused recruitment difficulties, not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK, is Brexit, which his party supported—and now we are in this state today. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the UK Government’s new visa rules will mean that the NHS would “cease to function”. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a bespoke visa system for Scotland, so that we can get adequate resources and people into the places that need to be filled in Scotland’s NHS?
David Mundell
One factual point worth making is that one third of those people who supported independence voted for Brexit. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when in government I looked at various schemes that could operate separately in Scotland, but ultimately we found that they were unworkable.
Christine Jardine
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He mentioned the problems that we are facing with mental health care in Scotland. A parent came to me last weekend, distraught because they have been told that there is no prospect at the moment of their son getting the treatment he needs, as there is not a psychiatrist available in that part of NHS Lothian to deal with him. This is not a singular case. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in Scotland we need a root-and-branch examination of where healthcare has gone wrong for everyone?
David Mundell
I agree with the hon. Lady, but there also needs to be fundamental acknowledgment that there has not been the workforce planning that was required and that is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, not people in England or Wales or somewhere else. These responsibilities lie with the Scottish Government, and they should be held accountable for the way they have exercised them. Given the list of deficiencies that I have set out in relation to the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues, most particularly the NHS, let us demand better from Scotland’s Government on behalf of all of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk of Scotland, I am afraid my mind does sometimes wander to that other place at Holyrood.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate about St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing it and on an excellent opening speech. May I also add my thoughts for the families of the former colleagues we have lost this year to those of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)? They were, without exception, good parliamentarians, good people and good friends. They will be missed.
In a debate on Scottish affairs, it would be remiss of me not to mention the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair. The Committee met for the first time in this Parliament just two days after it was formally re-established, and we have been working non-stop ever since. Although the Committee’s remit covers the Scotland Office, in practice we examine any issues affecting Scotland where the UK Government have a responsibility or interest. That results in a varied programme. In the last year, we undertook five inquiries covering topics that hon. Members might expect such as energy, the Barnett formula and Scotland’s industrial transition.
We also considered less obvious topics where Scotland leads the way or is implementing original approaches. For example, one of our inquiries looked at the impressive potential of Scotland’s space launch sector. We eagerly await the UK’s first rocket launch next year from the SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands. Members of the Committee thoroughly enjoyed the visit and found their experience at SaxaVord enlightening with regard to the potential of that industry for our country. We also examined in detail the establishment of the Thistle in Glasgow’s east end. The Thistle is the UK’s first sanctioned safer drug consumption facility, and reflects a pioneering approach to drugs policy.
So far, the Committee has produced four reports; those hon. Members who have not quite sorted out their Christmas reading might want to pop down to the Vote Office and collect a copy of each, as they do make very interesting reading. We have also launched four new inquiries for 2026, including on digital and fixed-link connectivity, defence skills and jobs, and the future of Scotland’s high streets.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of the Committee’s work is getting out of Westminster and visiting businesses, communities and leaders across Scotland. Just this week, the Committee was on the Isle of Skye hearing at first hand about connectivity issues experienced by some of the most remote communities in the UK. We have also visited Shetland, the Western Isles and key parts of Scotland’s energy industry on the east coast. On no other Committee of this House would Members find themselves visiting community energy projects in the Hebrides one week, and having tea and cake on a nuclear submarine the next.
Seeing operations and engaging with stakeholders at first hand provides unparalleled insight that we bring back to Westminster and use to inform our reports. The aim of this scrutiny is to ensure that the work of the UK Government reflects Scotland’s unique strengths, interests and needs. In each of our reports, we set out how the Government can do that. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow Committee members, whose hard work, commitment and good humour makes our work possible.
This debate is about St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs, so—surprise, surprise—I am now going to talk a little bit about St Andrew. He is the patron saint of Scotland, as well as of Russia and Greece. The New Testament tells us that he was the first of the apostles chosen by Jesus, and that he was ultimately martyred for his beliefs in Patras in Greece. We are told that Andrew asked those who would crucify him not to do so on a traditional upright cross, because he was not worthy to die in the same way as Christ, and that is why his cross is diagonal. That cross, with its blue and white design, forms Scotland’s national flag, the saltire.
We are told that Andrew brought his brother, Simon Peter, to Christ. He did not try to keep his new and inspirational friend to himself, but instead encouraged his brother and others to embrace and follow Christ. We are also told that it was he who found the little boy with the basket of loaves and fishes and brought him to Jesus, so that the crowd that had followed him could eat. He also arranged for some Greek people who wished to meet Jesus to do so. As a result of these stories, he is often spoken of as an intermediary, someone who was open and encouraging of others and who worked hard to bring people to Jesus through his missionary work. I mention that because I believe that those attributes are reflected in the character of Scotland.
We do not have an exclusive right to those values, and we do not always get it right, but we are generally a welcoming, supportive and encouraging place, with a warm welcome for the stranger. We have experienced waves of immigration over the centuries. Irish immigrants sought refuge from the economic difficulties of that island, my own family among them. At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, many Italian families came to Scotland. After the second world war, many Polish people sought refuge with us. And many people from the Indian subcontinent came to our country after partition. I well remember the Chilean refugees, many of whom came to Drumchapel, in my constituency, seeking safety having escaped from the brutal regime of the dictator, Pinochet. In recent years, we have welcomed many Ukrainian refugees. It is always a pleasure to attend the annual event to celebrate Ukraine’s independence day, held in Victoria Park in my constituency, which is an absolute joy, even if my painting skills have not got any better over the years.
All of that is the reason why the comments made last week by the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), were so objectionable. He attempted to sow division in Glasgow, by describing multilingualism in the city’s schools as “cultural smashing.” What he chose to misunderstand—I think he made a choice to misunderstand—is that many languages are spoken by families in our city, including Scots, Gaelic and British sign language, and that for many children in Gaelic-medium education and in BSL education, English is not the language in which they are taught. Such comments by any politician are despicable.
Dave Doogan
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, my colleague and Chair of our Select Committee, for giving way. She is making a powerful point about Scotland’s identity and our values. She is a Unionist and I am a nationalist, but I do not think for one second that I am any more proud of my flag than she is proud of her flag. Does she agree with me that we must do everything that we can to prevent our St Andrew’s flag from being hijacked by those who would seek to use it against the very values that make Scotland the welcoming place that it has always been?
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my colleague and friend, for his comments. I will come on to talk about flag shortly, so I will not answer him directly at this moment.
As I was saying, I think that comments such as those that we heard last week are despicable. I for one will continue to praise and welcome the work of teachers across Glasgow who work to support bilingual families and multiculturalism. There is much good work going on to promote that within the city of Glasgow. In my own area, every year Thriving Places Drumchapel hosts a well-attended Hope not Hate event, which showcases the talents that young people from other countries and traditions have brought to our local area.
I mentioned earlier that the saltire is the flag of St Andrew and the flag of Scotland. It does not belong to any one of us and it does not belong to any political party. Like the man whose death we should remember when we consider that flag, it is a flag of welcome and inclusion—we would all do well to remember that. I have no problem with people celebrating their nationality by flying their flag, whichever flag that happens to be, but when that flag is used to threaten, intimidate or suggest to people that they are not part of that country, then that is bullying, which is despicable.
That is why I found the showing of flags across the country this summer, wherever they happened to be, to be totally reprehensible, because in many instances—perhaps not all—that was being done for entirely the wrong reasons. We have to be proud of our flags as symbols of our identity. Whatever our political differences, we share certain values—values that we will work with anyone to protect. At the end of the day, those values are what make us who we are and they are important; if they are not, they should be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they are going to refer to other hon. Members in the House and criticise them, they should have informed them beforehand.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) highlighted in his opening remarks, as the MP for North East Fife, I represent St Andrews, so I thought it was important to be here today.
St Andrews was the ecclesiastical capital of Scotland until the Reformation, but it was not always a safe harbour for religious leaders. Cardinal Beaton, the last Scottish cardinal prior to the Reformation, was murdered by Fife lairds angered by the execution of Protestant preacher George Wishart. He was stabbed and his body was hung from the window of St Andrews castle. In the last Parliament, The House magazine invited MPs to write about something of particular interest in their constituency. I do not know what it says about me, but I chose to write about the murder of Archbishop Sharp, who was murdered by Covenanters outside St Andrews as his made his way there from Ceres. Indeed, the centrepiece of the annual parade and celebration by the Kate Kennedy Club, which is part of the University of St Andrews and celebrates its centenary next year, is a re-enactment of that murder. Members should definitely come and see it—it is great.
I liked the comments made by hon. Members about Charles I. When I give a tour of the Houses of Parliament, I take pleasure in pointing out, “That is where the Fifer was sentenced to death.” As a member of the History of Parliament Trust, I am clear that we should not refer to the English civil war but the war of the three kingdoms, because that whole conflict started in Scotland, with the first bishops’ war.
I pay tribute to some of the groups and organisations that work in St Andrews, such as the community hub; the St Andrews community council, which recently hosted the hoolie that marked St Andrew’s day in the town; and the university. I was here not that long ago marking the passing of my predecessor-but-one, the right hon. Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, or Ming Campbell, who was the chancellor of the university.
I note the debate that is taking place in Westminster Hall. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes)—who is not here, but in the other chamber—because he is marking Fairtrade. It is the 20th anniversary of the same group in St Andrews as well.
Let me mention the St Andrews Harbour Trust, which is not a normal trust, because it was gifted to the town by James IV. One of the challenges we have post- Storm Babet is that the harbour needs essential funding to maintain the whole coastline, and the trust is struggling to do that. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland looking for support because of how critical that infrastructure is.
As the MP for St Andrews, I get to be on the board of the Links Trust—my father does not share my politics, but he is a keen golfer, so he is very happy about that. We are known for golf, and the Open returns to St Andrews in 2027. Let me take this opportunity to highlight a recent report by the Links Trust, which demonstrates that St Andrews and the courses there deliver £300 million of economic impact to Scotland’s economy. Visitors and their families support nearly 1,700 full-time jobs in St Andrews and more than 4,000 jobs across Scotland. For every pound that passes through the tills of the St Andrews Links, an additional £3.43 is generated for other businesses in St Andrews. More than 100,000 visitors made St Andrews Links their destination in 2024, with more than 91% coming from outside Scotland.
St Andrews is absolutely vital to the wider Scottish economy as well as the wider North East Fife economy. Earlier this week, I was speaking to the owner of a hotel in my constituency outwith St Andrews, who pointed out how essential St Andrews is to their trade. However, they also pointed out how they are hampered by their rural location, poor footpaths between communities and poor local transport links. With the decision following the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance on a station in St Andrews being turned down, it is important that we get the other recommended transport links, so that we can connect tourists and the local workers who support the industries I mentioned but cannot afford to live in St Andrews.
I have aspired to the lofty opening of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—he really tried to set the scene—but I will highlight one concern. As a former police officer, I thank my former colleague Martin Gallagher and “Jobs Forgotten” for their work on a particular issue in relation to the McCloud judgment. The McCloud judgment in 2018 and the changes to public sector pensions have been challenging for all Governments, but it seems that the Scottish Government have found it the most challenging. They have missed numerous deadlines, despite knowing since 2022—arguably since 2018, because that is when the judgment happened—that work to ensure remediation for the people affected by the McCloud judgment in relation to their public sector pensions was mitigated.
I am concerned to hear reports that retirement statements are apparently not being provided when requested, simply because an individual is yet to submit their intention to retire. Why would somebody make a decision on whether to retire if they do not have the financial information they need? That makes me wonder and be concerned about what the overall liabilities are, particularly given the 8% per year increase in interest rates in relation to those delayed decisions, which are paid for by UK taxpayers. The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee may be interested in that, because just recently, on 2 December, the chief executive of the Scottish Public Pensions Authority gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee. He apologised, but he failed to provide information or confidence in the system or to say whether the issue can be totally resolved by 2027.
I have here a freedom of information request suggesting that less than 3% of individuals who retired on the grounds of ill health have had their statement in relation to the McCloud judgment. That is very concerning, and I hope the Minister will agree that the Scottish Government should not have got themselves into this situation. It is unacceptable for public sector workers such as firefighters and police officers—some of whom, as I mentioned, retired on the grounds of ill health directly related to their service—to be left in this limbo. In particular, there are concerns that back payments might need to be made and that they might lose money as a result.
It is really important that we have the opportunity to debate St Andrew’s day, our patron saint and Scottish affairs in this place, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It would be very helpful if Members could keep their contributions to around five minutes or less. That will enable me to get everybody in.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this debate on St Andrew’s day and for giving us the opportunity to take stock of the issues and challenges facing Scotland. I will not detain the House for long, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you caught me on the hop—I had hoped to be writing my speech while others made theirs.
I will plough on to discuss poor St Andrew. I have been checking in on Scotland’s patron saint, and he does not look very good. As a Scot, his average life expectancy would be just 77 years; his sister, Andrea, could expect to live to 81. Some 26 years into devolution and 18 years into an SNP Government who were meant to make things better, Scotland has the lowest life expectancy not just in the UK, but in the whole of western Europe.
But do not worry, because the SNP is coming to the rescue of Scotland’s ailing saint and ailing population—or it would do, if it could get ambulance waiting times in order. In January last year, one patient in Lothian on category red—that is a heart attack situation—had to wait more than 17 hours for an ambulance, and an individual in the highlands this year had to wait for 18 hours. It now takes a median wait of 22 minutes for NHS 24 to be answered in Scotland. The NHS app, which I have had for many years as a patient at the Royal London hospital, will not be available in Scotland until 2030. Why? Because the SNP Scottish Government refused the English NHS app, because the political optics of putting the St Andrew’s cross on an English app just would not look good, so Scots have to wait.
Scots are being ill-served. They have been waiting a long time through our revolving carousel of Health Ministers. A rotating carousel of 130 health strategies—one for every seven weeks of this SNP Government—has meant that 618,000 Scots are still waiting for specialist care in Scotland’s NHS. One figure is going up in Scotland’s health scene: the number of private health operations, which is up by 55% since 2019. Those are not just for those who can afford them, but those who need them because the waiting lists are so long that they have no alternative.
Scotland has a large number of health boards, with 14 health boards, 31 integration authorities and numerous quangos, all under tight Scottish Government control. Mike McKirdy, an eminent surgeon assigned by the Scottish Labour party to assess the future of Scotland’s health, has said it is a “complex structure”. He said that structure
“means reforms and improvements are difficult to roll out at scale or pace, while accountability and transparency are easier to avoid.”
Scotland is being ill-served in its health, and the ailing St Andrew is being ill-served by this SNP Government when it comes to health.
Torcuil Crichton
I do not think I will.
Of course, St Andrew was bilingual, or trilingual or quadrilingual—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) pointed out, he is celebrated in Russia and Greece. He appears on the Basque flag, and Basque is the oldest language in Europe. If he and his children were living in Glasgow, they would make up that one third of Scottish schoolchildren in the “Dear Green Place” who speak more than one language—something that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in his desperate attempt to divide Scotland, found so appalling. To allay your fears, Madam Deputy Speaker, I emailed the hon. Member for Clacton—I assume the email went to his constituency office. I saw that the email received no reply, because he is rarely seen in this place or in Clacton. But he has been informed.
The hon. Member for Clacton is appalled by the celebrated diversity of our great city, but I am not. I am very proud of the dozens of pupils at the Glasgow Gaelic school, and I am proud that dozens of pupils who speak Arabic, Urdu, Polish, Punjabi or Chinese are students as well, but these children—like St Andrew, ailing in his unhealthy bed on those waiting lists—are ill-served by Scotland’s SNP Government.
As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), a former Secretary of State for Scotland, there is a statistical fiction in education as well as in health. Professor Lindsay Paterson, the esteemed Scottish academic, has said that the attainment statistics for Scotland’s schools
“fail to capture the serious decline of attainment that has been picked up by PISA.”
Of course, the Scottish Government previously used international assessments to measure the gap between teachers’ appraisals and real attainment, but those surveys were abandoned in 2008. Now Professor Paterson says:
“What is euphemistically called pupils’ achievement of the curriculum levels is in fact teachers’ impressions of whether their own pupils have achieved the levels… They are simply hunches.”
In 2016 the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, promised that her Government’s priority would be to close the education attainment gap. On this week’s figures and at current rates, it would take 133 years to close the poverty rate attainment gap in Scotland—that is shameful. Scotland and St Andrew’s children are being let down again by this SNP Government.
Torcuil Crichton
I will, if only because the hon. Member displays the best budget cut I have seen this year.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Member is very concerned about St Andrew. We should focus on St Andrew today, but in parallel I am concerned for St David, and what he and his family might be enduring under the catastrophe of Labour-run Wales. I wish things were better in Scotland, and I know that my colleagues in the Scottish Government are working extremely hard to make things better under the egregious constraints of this Union, but the Labour Government in Wales are not so motivated. Can the hon. Member explain why it is only St Andrew’s bairns in Scotland who are getting elevated out of poverty on these islands, while child poverty is rising in Labour England and Labour Wales?
Torcuil Crichton
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which allows me to highlight that some 95,000 children in Scotland are to be lifted out of poverty by our Chancellor’s Budget, which got rid of the two-child benefit cap.
It is not just in terms of education and health that St Andrew’s children are being failed. St Andrew was a fisherman and was used to boats, as are many of my constituents in the islands, but these modern-day St Andrews are being let down. They see thousands of pounds of shellfish exports rotting in the harbour, or having to be deep-frozen at extra cost, because of the failing SNP’s ferry fiasco. For that situation, Madam Deputy Speaker, I need no notes, because the ferry fiasco is writ large in the experience of all my constituents, who have suffered for years because this SNP Government did not manage to procure enough ferries and took their eye off the ball. This crisis, which they thought would affect a few hundred islanders, has become an international symbol of the failure of nationalism in Scotland.
This week I welcomed the extra £820 million that the Chancellor found to give to the Scottish Government this year. In my book—in anyone’s book—£820 million is eight CalMac ferries, but the SNP Scottish Government can only manage 2.5 ferries for £500 million. It is a shame and a scandal. People in the Western Isles know that the S in SNP stands for “stunt”—the portholes had to be painted on to the ship so that Nicola Sturgeon could have a pretendy launch. That £500 million means that the S in SNP stands for “squander”, with millions wasted, affecting the ability and confidence of my constituents to stay in their homes and be connected to the rest of the islands. I hope that S will also stand for “swept away”, because in May that is what Scotland needs.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
St Andrew was a guest at my wedding. No, I am not that old— I just look that way. Italia ’90 will be remembered by most for “Nessun Dorma”, Totò Schillaci and—my sympathies—England going out on penalties to Germany, but for me it was not about football; it was in Italy in 1990 that, in secret, I got married. The ceremony was held in Amalfi, under a portrait of a bearded St Andrew who looked rather like Matthew Goode as Inspector Carl Morck in “Dept. Q”. Most of St Andrew’s relics reside in Amalfi, having been moved there for safekeeping after the fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Some think that Andrew brought Christianity to Scotland, but that was St Ninian, whose first footfall and church were in Whithorn, in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway.
So much for history. What has Andrew done for us lately? I have often thought that St Andrew’s day suffers a bit because of the date: 30 November tends to be dreich, in the slough of despond between Halloween and Christmas. I also think that we make rather too little of it—compare it with the global Irish celebration of St Patrick’s day and, increasingly, the festivities on St George’s day. Scotland should look ahead and not back, so while we are refreshing our take on St Andrew’s day, might we also move away from the dirge that is “Flower of Scotland” as our anthem, with its maudlin fixation on days that are past and
“in the past…must remain”?
The SNP needs to snap out of it, too. Scotland’s wars of independence are long over, Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” is most certainly not a documentary—that may trigger woad rage—and Scotland is no colony, but as one with Britain.
However, this Labour Government need to look again at their relationship with Holyrood. The much-vaunted reset between Westminster and Holyrood is just “devolve and forget” with better PR. Money is trolleyed north with little care for what happens once it is in SNP coffers. The nationalists oppose devolution; whether it is throwing a spanner in the works of defence firms by refusing to fund ordnance or a de facto boycott of our ally Israel, they will agitate in any way they can to break up Britain. Andrew was a fisherman before becoming a disciple—he of all people knew the value of mending your nets. Is it too much to ask of this Labour Government that they tend to the fabric of the Union? This is not about putting Holyrood in its place, but about delivering on what the people of Scotland voted for in 2014: remaining part of this great United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Julie Minns, to make what I think is a birthday contribution.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—today is indeed my birthday. I thank my Scottish colleagues for letting me, as an English Member, crash this debate on St Andrew’s day.
I have the great privilege of representing the great border city of Carlisle, the only city in the United Kingdom to have been governed by both the Scottish and English Crowns during its history. Standing just a few miles south of the Scottish border, Carlisle is a fortress city, its provenance bloodily contested for centuries. From its origins in Roman times—when not one but two Roman forts were built to defend the empire’s northern frontier—to the Jacobite rebellions, Carlisle has been the prize in a centuries-long struggle between England and Scotland.
In the middle ages, Carlisle was a city under siege again and again. In 1135, Scotland’s King David seized it, turning its castle into the beating heart of Scottish power. Two decades later it returned to English control under Henry II, whose treaty of York in 1237 finally fixed the border—or so Carlisle thought. In 1315 Robert the Bruce, of whom we have already heard mention today, marched south and laid siege to Carlisle, fresh from his triumph at Bannockburn. For days the city’s defenders fought, the walls shook under bombardment, but Carlisle held firm.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Jacobite rebellions again threatened Carlisle’s status. Indeed, it is joked locally that the reason why our old town hall’s clock tower, which has four faces, does not have a clock on its north-facing side is because we people of Carlisle would not give the Scots the time of day.
Torcuil Crichton
My hon. Friend may well be right about that clock tower, but she will also know that Carlisle will always be a little bit of Scotland, because it was apparently in Carlisle that the Loch Lomond ballad, with its famous lines
“You take the high road, and I’ll take the low road, and I’ll be in Scotland before you”,
was written by a Jacobite prisoner facing the gallows. That song, which is much more fondly remembered than “Flower of Scotland”, was written in Carlisle, was it not?
Ms Minns
Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was just about to mention Bonnie Prince Charlie and the 300 Jacobite soldiers he left in Carlisle castle after riding into Carlisle, standing on the steps of our historic market cross and claiming the city again for the Stuart Crown, and then riding south to do battle with the Duke of Cumberland. He then turned tail and rode back north, bypassing Carlisle entirely and leaving those 300 soldiers to their fate. As my hon. Friend says, the lyrics of that song are the lament of one of those ill-fated Jacobite soldiers.
Of course, Carlisle castle also had the honour of playing host, shall we say, to Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1568. Members may be interested to know that, thanks to the diligence of her guard, who recorded her every single movement, the Queen’s observance of a football match on an adjacent field resulted in the first written account of a football match played to rules.
Just as St Andrew’s day celebrates Scotland’s heritage, it is also a moment for all of us in the Border communities to honour our shared history and the deep connections between Scotland and its neighbouring communities—connections that my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria understands better than most. Our shared Christian traditions are a strong bond. St Andrew symbolises humility, and the service values that should guide all Members of this House, regardless of our geography. Carlisle cathedral, which owes its existence to the English Crown’s desire to create a diocese to ward off the diocese of Glasgow, still marks St Andrew’s day with prayers for Scotland. The St Ninian’s way pilgrimage links Carlisle to St Andrew’s, and echoes the spiritual roots that unite our nations. Such connections remind us that faith and fellowship have long bridged division. On that point, I pay tribute to the Border Kirk in my Carlisle constituency, which works tirelessly with a number of organisations to offer support and assistance to the refugee community in Carlisle.
Today, the ties are practical as well as historical. Our economy depends on cross-border trade, shared infrastructure and cultural exchange. The A74 and the west coast main line are lifelines for businesses and our communities, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his work on the Borderlands growth deal, a deal that we both wish to see rejuvenated because it offers great potential to the Borders region.
Tourism flows both ways. Visitors come to Carlisle for our castle, our cathedral and for the western gateway of Hadrian’s wall. My residents travel north for Scotland’s shopping at Gretna gateway and the fantastic Devil’s Porridge Museum, while Scots come south of the border to discover Hadrian’s wall and Carlisle’s heritage, and to shop in Carlisle’s big Asda, where minimum unit pricing does not apply.
Today, let us remember and celebrate the links, not the rivalry, between our two countries. St Andrew’s day is not just Scotland’s celebration. It is a reminder that when Carlisle and Scotland thrive together, the whole of the United Kingdom is stronger. I call on colleagues to reaffirm that spirit of unity. I call on the Scottish and Westminster Governments to work together to minimise the friction that too often arises because of divergent policy on devolved matters, such as health and agriculture—friction that causes unnecessary and costly problems for residents of our Border community. Let us invest instead in cross-border co-operation, culture and business, bringing our communities closer and ensuring that the decisions made in Westminster and Holyrood reflect the shared interests of the people who live and work along our historic border. St Andrew’s day is a day of pride for Scotland, but it is also a day of friendship for all of us.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing the debate, and for the very constructive way he approached it. He focused on young people, migration and those who make our country so much richer, which I thought was a useful thing to debate on St Andrew’s day. In that spirit, can I be the first to wish the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) a very happy birthday, and thank her for her speech? She touched on some really positive aspects of the cross-border element of the debate, which I will come on to in just a moment. I thoroughly enjoyed her speech, and I hope that she manages to enjoy the rest of her day.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar talked about history, and touched on this point very effectively. It is sometimes useful for all of us, regardless of our political allegiance, to reflect on the fact that history, like politics, is not black and white, but various shades of grey. There are things we get right and things we get wrong, and sometimes we do not do nuance as effectively as we could. Sometimes that is a debt we owe. On that point, we should talk about migration, which the hon. Member talked about very effectively. In recent times, we have talked about migration in very black and white terms, forgetting, as the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), set out very effectively, the rich tapestry that makes Scotland, as McIlvanney described it, “a mongrel nation”.
I represent Dundee as well as Angus, which had an even higher proportion of Irish people in its population than Glasgow. I am a product of that—I am a Stephen Patrick, after all—but to this day, I am very proud of my Scottish heritage. I will not mention any one individual, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when we debate migration, that includes the question of emigration from Scotland. We all know people who have moved away, and we have a rich diaspora around the world who will be celebrating this day, along with Scots in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. We have benefited from that, but we have also benefited richly from those who have migrated to Scotland. Dundee is a richer city and Angus is a richer county as a direct consequence of that.
I would like to reflect on how our predecessors have talked about the subject. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) is not in her place, but of course Ming Campbell was my immediate predecessor in North East Fife, which was my previous seat. He sadly passed away this year; the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned others who have passed away and contributed so much. I may not have always agreed with him, but he contributed so much, as did others who represented my constituency. There was Winston Churchill, but there was also, of course, former Labour MP E. D. Morel, who did so much on the slave trade and on what was going on in Congo, along with Roger Casement. I encourage anybody who is not aware of Morel’s fine work to read up on it. As we are talking about that, I also pay tribute to my predecessors, Gordon Wilson and Andrew Welsh, who contributed so much to this place and to the broader debate. It is a debate that it is right to have.
We talk about young people. We parliamentarians—this is a good thing on which to reflect on St Andrew’s day—have a responsibility to leave the world a little bit better than we found it. We should leave more rights for young people than we enjoyed, but unfortunately, we do not always get that right. For example, our immigration debate does not benefit our higher education sector, which thrives when it is international, and when it brings students in from around the world. Scottish students benefit from sitting in the same classroom as students from elsewhere around the world. Scotland thrives internationally as an energy hub—others rightly talked about that—yet we are the only country that has found oil and gas not to have implemented a future generations fund. Norway’s is now worth £1.5 trillion. That is not the fault of the current Administration, but it is worth all our while to reflect on that.
Torcuil Crichton
The hon. Member mentions a national sovereign wealth fund, which the SNP called for, to be funded from oil revenues, in the ’70s and ’80s—
Torcuil Crichton
And the ’90s, and maybe until today. The SNP Government had the opportunity to put one in place when they auctioned the ScotWind licenses for offshore wind for £700 million—they would have done it for £70 million, but were given guidance on that. They had the opportunity to either invest that £700 million in a sovereign wealth fund, or to give it back to the coastal communities from which those revenues flow, but they did none of that. They have used half of that £700 million in day-to-day expenditure, have they not?
Stephen Gethins
We focus an awful lot on the Scottish Parliament. I have no problem with that, but Members who sit here choose to be part of a Parliament that has powers that far outweigh those of the Scottish Parliament. I do not like that, but other Members here do.
On the future generations fund, since we are having a biblical debate and there has been biblical reference, I say to the hon. Member—he will not mind—that, to paraphrase Matthew’s gospel, sometimes you talk about the speck in my eye and ignore the plank in yours. Some £1.5 trillion, and 1.5% of every share on earth from the top 5,000 companies, is now in Norwegian hands, and Norway can use that, with transformative effect. If he thinks that Westminster control over oil and gas and other aspects of energy—it still has that responsibility—has been positive, I encourage him to think again. It has not been wholly positive; things have failed. As he has prompted me, it should be reflected that the failings of Holyrood are dwarfed by the gargantuan failings of Westminster. There has been Brexit, austerity—the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale was part of the Cabinet who brought that in—the Truss Budget, which put up all mortgages, and our relationship with the rest of Europe. Those failings have now been brought to bear.
Stephen Gethins
I will give way one more time, out of respect for the Chair of the Committee, if she can tackle the issue of our relationship with the rest of Europe.
Patricia Ferguson
There is something that has always perplexed me about the arguments around Brexit. I remember campaigning very hard to try to stop the UK leaving the European Union, but I do not remember seeing many SNP members out campaigning. Records show that the SNP spent less money campaigning against Brexit than on a local authority by-election. I have always wondered why that was; perhaps the hon. Member can tell us.
Stephen Gethins
I fought hard against Brexit in this place, and I continue to fight hard against it. I worked in the European institutions. I was an Erasmus student whose life was transformed by our membership of the European Union. The hon. Member’s party has removed, or refused to take decisions on, those opportunities for young people, having embraced a hard Tory and Reform Brexit.
Labour could change everything right now, but Labour Members could not even bring themselves to vote with the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and others on entering into a customs union. It speaks to the cautious nature of the Scottish Labour party that whereas 13 Labour MPs managed to rebel, not one Scottish Labour Member rebelled, just as only one Scottish Labour Member—they were chucked out—was able to rebel on the two-child cap.
The EU goes to the heart of what we are about. Labour Members talk about devolution, yet a third of the Labour group in Wales has had to write to the UK Government about the rolling back of devolution. I would be grateful to the Minister for tackling that. It speaks to our place in the world. To go back to St Andrew, I encourage anybody visiting Kyiv—I did so on a constructive visit with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—to visit the church of St Andrew. It is one of the founding churches, from when Christianity was brought to Kyiv. It is beautiful, and it speaks to my vision about where we sit in the world. Hon. Members have referred to their constituency; let me make my inevitable reference to the declaration of Arbroath at its abbey, an event that has influenced other parts of the world.
I hear gripes, but I rarely hear any sort of positive vision from anybody else. Here is mine, and it speaks to the points raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle. My vision is one of normalcy—of a Scotland that joins a European family of nations. We see all our neighbours outperforming us when it comes to fairness and the economy. Why? Because they have the normal powers of independence. They have the powers that Westminster has, but that Labour refuses to use to make life better for people.
On borders, we can look at Antwerp and Rotterdam, Strasbourg and Baden-Baden, and Nice and Italy. We see borderlands across Europe that thrive because they sit within the European Union; they thrive because of that partnership. It is not for me to tell England what its future should be, but surely the EU provides a 21st-century model for union—one that is embraced across Europe—whereas ours is an 18th-century model of union, with no article 50 to allow us to get out, no equal rights, and no place for the smaller parts. The situation is different for the Åland islands, Greenland and others.
In Central Lobby, we have St David over the door above the Commons, St George above the door to the Lords, and St Patrick above the door to the way out. The old joke goes that St Andrew sits above the door on the way to the bar, but maybe St Andrew is merely taking a slightly longer way out than St Patrick.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There will be a formal four-minute time limit on speeches.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for introducing the debate. He is my mother’s MP, so I will be able to give a good account of him on Christmas day.
I want to talk about Scotland. I will talk a little bit about St Andrew, but above all else I will talk about Edinburgh South West, which I believe is a microcosm of Scotland. I am talking not about the housing crisis, the potholes, and the long child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists, but about the dramatic landscape, including the fantastic Pentland hills, which I share with the Minister, and the unique culture—the Army School of Bagpipe Music and Highland Drumming is in my constituency. There is also our iconic food and drink; much of the shortbread that people will get as presents this year will have been made in my constituency at the Ferrero FBC factory, where Jammie Dodgers are also made—I am not sure whether they are Scottish, but I am happy to claim them.
Influential inventions also have their home in my constituency. This morning, I met a company called Lumino Technologies, which told me how it is using photons, telescopes and satellites to rival data transfer using cables under the Atlantic ocean. I did not understand it, but it sounded fantastic.
We also have literary giants. Robert Louis Stevenson used to come to my constituency for his summer holiday to meet his grandfather, and he undertook much of his work there.
I turn now to St Andrew—a Galilean fisherman and, as we have heard, the first of the 12 apostles chosen by Jesus; it is no accident that St Andrew’s day comes at the start of advent. It might be because he was a fisherman that he is also the patron saint of fishmongers. The striking thing about him is his name. It is not a Hebrew name, but a Greek one, which tells us that his family was perhaps a little bit more outward looking.
As we have heard, St Andrew travelled extensively in the Black sea region including Greece, and perhaps as far as Ukraine and Poland. There is no evidence yet that he visited Edinburgh South West or even the UK. But I think if he had visited, he would probably have come on a small boat; he would have been a man from the middle east coming perhaps to escape religious persecution.
What does it mean to have St Andrew as our patron saint in Scotland? He was a man who was called to love and care for other people. He believed in treating others with the same kindness, compassion and selflessness as he desired for himself. He saw foreigners and strangers as brothers and sisters. It is important to remember that.
Where would St Andrew go if he were to come to Edinburgh South West? I think he would visit the Edinburgh Interfaith Association, which operates right across the city and is a fantastic, cohesive force in the city for people of all faiths and none. He would visit Holy Trinity church in Wester Hailes, which does fantastic work on debt relief for people in prison and out of it, and obviously those who have never been in prison. He would also visit Soul Food, which is a fantastic community meal in Oxgangs every week. He would visit the people who operate the Edinburgh Food Project and Community for Food, who provide food for people right across the city. They were fantastic in campaigning against the two-child cap, and it is due to people like them, right across the UK, that we managed to get rid of that awful injustice.
These are troubled times, and people seek to divide us. We have to remember St Andrew’s values of being open and treating strangers not as foreigners, but as our brothers and sisters. I look forward to celebrating St Andrew’s day next year in that spirit.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
On St Andrew’s Day, we honour a Scotland rooted in community, fairness and responsibility—the values that have shaped our nation for generations, and which continue to guide communities like mine in Paisley and Renfrewshire South. Legend has it that St Andrew foretold the future site of the city we now know as Kyiv, and today the solidarity between Scotland and Ukraine is not just symbolic; it is lived.
I am very proud to welcome the Ukrainian diaspora into my constituency. In October, I invited members of that community to my constituency office so that I could hear directly about their experiences of building a new life in Scotland. They have found a place that opens its doors wide, and they have brought so much in return. One Ukrainian woman told me that she has put her skills to work as a seamstress, helping to carry forward the proud textile heritage of Paisley. It is a reminder that when people are given the chance to contribute, they do not just settle in; they help us all move forward.
I have touched on Scotland’s values of community, fairness and responsibility. Those are the values that shaped one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government: devolution. It was never meant to be about flags or slogans; it was about a simple, powerful belief that decisions are best made closest to the people they affect. That is why Labour delivered Sure Start, the national minimum wage, the Human Rights Act 1998 and devolution. It is why this Labour Government have raised the national minimum wage and lifted the two-child benefit cap, which will lift 1,560 children in my constituency out of poverty, and why we are delivering £150 off energy bills for every household next year.
But in Scotland our potential is being squandered by an SNP Government in Holyrood who are fixated endlessly on rerunning referendums, paralysing government north of the border. Instead of building homes, they build division. Instead of fixing schools and hospitals, they fall out with themselves. And instead of delivering for Scotland, they lurch from sleaze to scandal. Whereas other parts of the UK can move forward, Scotland is stuck with a Government who are more interested in constitutional games than in the hard graft of governing, and my constituents are feeling the pain of that.
The Scottish Government have just received the biggest funding settlement since devolution began, yet the SNP-run health and social care partnership in Paisley and Renfrewshire South is slashing vital frontline services to fill an £18.5 million hole that it dug itself. The disability resource centre, a vital lifeline for people with physical disabilities in my community, faces closure. The Weavers Linn respite unit, a cornerstone of support for families in my community, is being stripped to the bone. The housing and health hub, the community health champion service, and grants that help older people to stay well and live independently are being shut down. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is the voice of Scotland’s councils, has warned of a £16 billion shortfall across Scottish local government, calling it nothing less than an “existential threat”.
This is austerity in action—short-sighted decisions that undermine the fabric of communities and leave us exposed when a crisis hits. We all know there is a clear link between child poverty and lack of access to safe, secure and affordable homes, yet under the SNP’s watch, Scotland is in a housing crisis.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate and on his fantastic opening speech. The debate is an ideal opportunity to look at Scotland’s proud industrial heritage and contribution to the world.
Although Scotland’s history and inventions are iconic the world over, the spirit of innovation and industry is very much alive in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow. The Kinneil estate in Bo’ness hosts Scottish history from across the centuries. As a UNESCO world heritage site, Kinneil has large parts of the Antonine wall running through it, alongside the labs of the esteemed James Watt. The ruined buildings in Kinneil are the labs where he tested his prototype steam engine. The estate is also home to the beautiful walled garden and orchard where His Majesty the King planted an apple tree in 2023 to celebrate 100 years of the estate becoming a public park.
The experimental spirit does not stop with James Watt, however. Sir James Young Simpson experimented with spirits of his own, discovering and isolating the anaesthetic that we use in operations and medical procedures today. Thanks to his medical discovery, many millions of people the world over have been saved from suffering and life-threatening conditions. For that contribution, Sir James is also honoured with a memorial in Westminster Abbey, just across the road from here.
Each of these pioneers is a reminder of what Scotland gives to the world, but what Scotland gives to us as Scots is a landscape that has fostered our people. Across my constituency, from the shale bings to the Pyramids business site, industry has constantly evolved from mining and weaving to the manufacturing of the non-lithium vanadium flow batteries of today. I see the Scotland of innovators at first hand whenever I go out and visit community groups and businesses in the constituency.
As I have said, Bathgate is host to the only non-lithium vanadium UK-based battery manufacturer, and in the coming weeks the cap and floor scheme decided by Ofgem could create long-lasting industrial jobs in the heart of Scotland. From steam power to green power, my constituency has been a hub of engineering and energy for centuries, and where Sir James Young Simpson left off, Catalent Pharma Solutions continues with medical manufacturing in Bathgate today.
Dedication to the innovating tradition of the area is also at the heart of many community groups. Invoking the best tradition of scouting and being prepared, the scouts in Bo’ness have installed solar panels on the roof of their hall, and they aim to become the first net zero Scout group in the UK. Local energy projects give people the benefits of new green energy directly into their back pockets. Climate action networks like the one in West Lothian and the many community development trusts are putting themselves in the driving seat.
Finally, the spirit of St Andrew’s day is as poetic as it is practical. It draws together our history, but also our future. We can recognise it and honour it. Though it binds us together, we are not bound by it for the future. Invention and innovation, whether the steam engine or the spaceport, are at the heart of Scotland, so while we celebrate the innovators of our past, let us also acknowledge the pioneers who will shape our future.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—how appropriate that he should lead this debate given the history of Dunfermline not only as historical capital of Scotland, but as our capital in the great Kingdom of Fife. What a time to be a Scot with our team qualifying for the world cup finals! I am sure that the tartan army will once again be a great advert for Scotland, our hospitality and our conviviality.
As we celebrate our patron saint, let us recognise the vital role our faith community organisations play in our communities. Only last weekend, I visited St Luke’s Scottish Episcopal church in Glenrothes, where Father Gerry Dillon has established Luke’s Larder, providing a community pantry and activities to support wellbeing. This Christmas, St Luke’s and the Heart of Fife Church of Scotland will provide a Christmas lunch for people in the local community—another example of the importance of our local faith organisations.
Our patron saint’s national day is a time to celebrate Scottish civil society—not only our faith organisations, but our charities, from Fife Gingerbread, supporting lone parents and families, including through employability programmes, to Kingdom Offroad, tackling antisocial behaviour through providing safe organised off-road motorcycling activities. These charities thrive through their commitment, expertise and innovation, attributes for which Scotland has been known over the centuries.
Those attributes are also very much present in the H100 Fife scheme in Buckhaven in my constituency—a world-first demonstration project to bring 100% green hydrogen to domestic customers for the first time. That is pioneering innovation. In academia, in the third sector and in business, Glenrothes and Mid Fife is continuing the proud Scottish tradition of innovation, and releasing the potential of Scotland’s people through their skills and expertise.
We have to be more ambitious still for our country. I regret to say that we particularly need greater purpose, direction and ambition from a Scottish Government who are clearly failing to provide the leadership our country needs and, after two decades in power with far too little to show for it, are exhausted and out of ideas. That is why we need fresh leadership and a new direction with Anas Sarwar as Scotland’s next First Minister.
Perhaps I can finish on a point on which I hope we can achieve consensus. That is to recognise that in recent years St Andrew’s day has become an important day to mark the work that goes on in Scotland to tackle racism and xenophobia, not least through the work of the Scottish TUC. In a world that seems increasingly intolerant and where international tensions are heightened, that work and promotion of tolerance, understanding and compassion could not be more important and could not be more in keeping with the spirit of St Andrew. Scotland shares St Andrew as our patron saint with countries throughout the world, so as we move on from St Andrew’s day and look towards Burns night, when we remember our national bard who wrote so powerfully of our common humanity, we must note that a truly Scottish celebration does not dwell on what divides the peoples of our world, but what unites us all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is an honour to speak today at my first St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs debate as the Liberal Democrats spokes- person for Scotland. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing the debate.
St Andrew’s day, as we have been hearing, is a moment to reflect on the story of Scotland. We remember St Andrew not only as our patron saint, but as a symbol of solidarity and welcome, a fisherman whose cross now flies above a country built on resilience, hard work, learning and connection. Across the centuries, Scots have made their mark on the world. From the enlightenment thinkers who reshaped modern science and democracy to the coal- miners, foundries, engineers and shipbuilders who powered the industrial revolution, and, of course, the distillers, fishermen and farmers who are known across the world for their specialties in food and drink, Scotland shows again and again how a small nation makes a big contribution.
The story of my own constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire sits right at the heart of the national story. Along the line of the Antonine Wall, now a UNESCO world heritage site, Roman soldiers once stood to watch the northern edge of an empire. Later, figures such as Thomas Muir of Huntershill, the father of Scottish democracy, carried the banner of political reform and democratic rights from our own communities to the wider world. The arrival of the Forth and Clyde canal turned Kirkintilloch and Bishopbriggs into hubs of industry and transport, carrying coal, iron and goods from west to east. As time has moved on, Mid Dunbartonshire has changed. Heavy industry has given way to new businesses and growing communities. Milngavie is the starting point of the West Highland Way, welcoming walkers from across the world. Mid Dunbartonshire is home to residents who value being part of our diverse communities and the green space of the Campsie fells.
In this journey we see the history of Scotland: resilience in the face of change, pride in community, and a belief that education and hard work can open doors, not just for yourself but for the community around you. It is precisely because we are so proud of that history that we must be honest about the present. We know the people of Scotland have been let down in recent years, with mismanaged finances, abandoned healthcare projects and falling educational standards. Scotland is truly an incredible place, and I am proud to be Scottish, but right now it feels too often that things are not working. Household bills are soaring. Families are cutting back on heating, food and the small treats that make life bearable, just to keep up with rising costs. Long waits to see a GP are now all too common. People are in pain or struggling with their mental health. They are told to wait weeks, if not months, for treatment. We see enormous sums of money frittered away. Take the ferries fiasco: a saga of delay, overspend and broken promises has left island communities feeling abandoned. Sadly, when the Government fail to deliver infrastructure, ordinary people and local businesses pay the price.
The story is the same with Scottish education. Once the best in the UK, our system has slipped in international rankings. Teachers work hard, yet promises are broken. They are asked to do more with less, while support for pupils with additional needs is stretched even thinner. People are tired and frustrated, and they are right to be.
The Liberal Democrats believe that Scotland deserves better. We believe in fairness for everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from. That is why we have a realistic plan to get things done. We should have a health service that is genuinely there for people when they need it—first-rate care so that people can see their GP, dentist or mental health professional without waiting weeks or months. Health professionals should have fair pay and working conditions, so that talented people stay in our NHS instead of burning out or leaving altogether. That also means that Milngavie needs a new health and care centre, which is badly overdue.
We need to tackle the cost of living at its root. In a country that has as much renewable energy as Scotland, it is simply wrong that people are living in fuel poverty. By insulating cold homes, backing community energy projects and making full use of Scottish renewable energy, we can drive down household bills and bills for industry, cut emissions and create good, green jobs in every part of the country.
That is tied directly to transport. By fixing our ferries, roads and rail services, we can create an integrated transport network to get Scotland moving again. Rather than cutting services, we need to look at how to expand public transport. Importantly, we need to look at how we can power it with home-grown renewable energy and connect our island communities to give them a sustainable future.
Scotland’s past success was built on education, and at the heart of a fairer Scotland lie our schools, colleges and universities. Returning Scottish education to its best means expanding pupil support in every school and giving every child the best start in life. It means more classroom assistants, specialist support for additional needs, and a renewed focus on literacy, numeracy and science. It means providing enough places for Scottish students in our world-class universities, and enough further education to fill our skills gaps, offering a future to young people who do not currently feel that they can look forward to a brighter future. Above all, it means backing our teaching professionals with the resources they need and recognising that education is an investment in Scotland’s future.
St Andrew’s day reminds us that Scotland’s story has always been one of connection between the past and the future, and between our own communities and the wider world. Scottish people and their descendants are found all over the world, as are the red telephone boxes, which were manufactured in my consistency, that are all over London and all over the world. The choices that we make now will decide whether the next chapter of our story is one of decline and managed disappointment, or of renewal built on fairness and opportunity. Scotland deserves better. I want us to honour Scotland’s history and the history of places such as Mid Dunbartonshire by matching the ambition, courage and sense of justice shown by those who went before us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing it.
Today’s debate is timely and important because Scotland stands on the cusp of an election that will determine the future of our country. Regardless of our politics, we know how lucky we are to live in Scotland, represent it, bring our families up in it, and work for a better future for it.
Unusually for a history graduate of Scotland’s finest university, I am going to focus my remarks on the future. I am a Scotland rugby fan, a Scottish football fan, an Aberdeen fan and a Scottish Conservative, so I have to be an optimist. And I am: I do believe that a better Scotland, in a more secure and prosperous United Kingdom, is possible, but only with change—a change in Government in Edinburgh and a change of direction by the Government here in London.
Scotland has suffered 18 wasted years—18 years when we should have been focused on binding our country together, building a better economy, promoting Scottish business and building up and improving our education system. However, we were not doing that. Instead, we have had 18 years of division, constitutional obsession and the bitter and, at times, petty politics of grievance. It was Edwin Morgan who, in his poem “Open the Doors”, commissioned on the opening of the new Scottish Parliament building in 2004, wrote,
“What do the people want of the place? They want it to be filled with thinking
persons as open and adventurous as its architecture.
A nest of fearties is what they do not want.
A symposium of procrastinators is what they do not want.
A phalanx of forelock-tuggers is what they do not want.
And perhaps above all the droopy mantra of ‘it wizny me’ is what they do not want.”
I am afraid that in the Scottish National party, that is indeed what the Scottish people have had for the past 18 years—a party that leads a Government so misguided from the priorities of the Scottish people that they have allowed themselves to be distracted by narrow political fads instead of focusing on the real issues, with hard-working Scots suffering ever higher taxes to pay for them. However, those are as nothing when compared to the eye-watering social security spending, which is forecast to hit more than £9 billion in Scotland by 2030—triple what it was in 2017. For a population of less than 5 million people, that is insanity.
In Scotland, we have an economy that has lagged behind the rest of the UK ever since the SNP first took power. If Scotland’s economy had kept pace, the Scottish Government would have had £12 billion more to spend over that period. It is said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out other people’s money; the problem with nationalism is that you eventually run out of other people to blame.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman always makes an entertaining speech. He quoted Edwin Morgan, who, after writing that poem, donated a significant sum of money to the SNP. I just thought that should be on the record.
Andrew Bowie
Well, it is obviously for Edwin Morgan to determine where he spends his money. I do think that the hon. Gentleman and his party should reflect on the desire of the Scottish people when they voted for a Scottish Parliament in 1999 to address the real issues facing them. He must acknowledge that far too much of the past 18 years has been spent on issues that divide Scots, rather than building our country into a better place that we all want to see for our children.
Scotland knows who to blame. They know who could not build two ferries and who let Scotland’s drug deaths become the worst in Europe. They know on whose watch it was that our education standards slipped from their once great heights. They know that today, Scotland is worse off because of the decisions taken and promises broken by the Scottish National party, from its broken promise to dual the A9 and A96, as often highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), to its neglect of the A75 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), long raised in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). Remember the SNP promise to scrap council tax 18 years ago, the promise to close the attainment gap or the promise to deliver a national care service? For 18 years, the SNP has let Scotland down with broken promise after broken promise.
Torcuil Crichton
Does the hon. Gentleman regret that the Scottish Conservatives propped up the SNP for four of those 18 years?
Andrew Bowie
In 2007, when the decision was taken by the Scottish Conservatives to ensure continuity and certainty for Scottish business at the heart of the Scottish Government, it was indeed the right thing to do. However, hindsight is 20/20, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members present that no such agreement would be reached if we were to be asked at the next Scottish parliamentary election to support a Scottish National party Government for a further five years.
Scotland was suffering under the SNP, and the very last thing it needed was another Government letting them down. Then, enter stage left—far left—the Labour party. My goodness, it is not going well. After having been sold a story of false hope, folks in Scotland now have no hope in the Labour Government. The harm that this Government are inflicting on key Scottish industries is staggering.
Look at our farmers: already hammered by the daft policies that emanate from Bute House, they now have to contend with the brutal and callous family farm tax. The stories that we hear—and I know that hon. Members on the Government Benches are hearing them, too—are just heartbreaking.
The Government are knowingly destroying an entire way of life for thousands of families across Scotland, placing entire rural communities and our food security in jeopardy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) spoke recently of how this Government have no grasp whatsoever of the constant struggle facing our family farms. He was absolutely right. It is exactly the same for our energy industry. Oil and gas workers are an afterthought—if they are even thought about at all by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, whose messianic zeal to destroy the oil and gas industry knows no end.
I have stood at this Dispatch Box many times now over the past 18 months and raised the plight of our oil and gas industry. Almost every week we find that another business operating in the North sea has made the decision to cut jobs in the UK. It was Harbour Energy the other week. Before that it was ExxonMobil at Mossmorran. It was the Port of Aberdeen before that, then Petrofac, then Hunting, then Ineos, then Apache—I could go on. One thousand jobs are going to be lost every single month, and £50 billion-worth of investment is being passed over. The country is being made more vulnerable through increased reliance on imports. A poison is spreading through the energy industry, and this Government are doing nothing to stem it.
All of that begs the question of what the Secretary of State and his Ministers are going to do. Maybe the Secretary of State knows that the Prime Minister’s days are numbered and is just biding his time. Maybe, like every other member of the Cabinet, he is looking around the Cabinet Room and measuring the curtains. But time is something that workers in our oil and gas industry and on our family farms do not have.
Scotland does, of course, have another option—something that neither the SNP nor Labour can offer—and that is common sense. That is something that only the Scottish Conservatives are offering, and Scotland desperately needs it. The Scottish Conservatives would put an end to the stagnant, tepid policies that have come from the SNP Scottish Government and put growth at the heart of every single decision.
We would end the hostility to entrepreneurs and make it clear that Scotland is open for business. We would reverse the decline and go for growth. We would scrap the SNP’s 21% tax band and cut income tax to 19% for all taxable income up to £43,000.We would slash the number of quangos, restore regular police patrols, and allow for the building of new nuclear, bolstering our energy security, securing new jobs and driving investment. We would restore pride to our education system, so that it enables Scots to compete in a globally competitive marketplace for ideas.
Scottish Conservatives in this House would scrap the energy profits levy and the family farm tax. We would proudly, without fear or favour, stand up for Scotland’s continued place within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To be British as well as Scottish is, I believe, something that should be cherished. It is, in my view, to win the lottery of life. It is the best of both worlds—our freedoms, our shared culture, our institutions and our history. Being British has never relied on the rejection of being Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish. Those identities are entirely complementary, not contradictory.
To be British is to be part of something larger—a shared civic and cultural inheritance built across these islands together. Whether you find yourself in Dundee or Doncaster, you will realise that those shared values are to be discovered at every turn. The United Kingdom at its best is not a denial of national identity but a partnership that allows each nation to contribute its own unique character to something greater together.
From the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers who shaped British democracy to the engineers and writers who helped forge its industrial and cultural strengths, Scots have never been passengers in the British story but always at the tiller. We will continue to be so, but we need change in Scotland, we need common sense in Scotland, and we need it desperately. The Scottish parliamentary election in May can be that moment. Change can and will be delivered. Of that I am certain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I would like to begin by taking the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this debate. I thank him, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for the very interesting history lessons they gave us today, from which I learned a great deal. It is fitting that we are holding this debate to mark St Andrew’s day—even if it is slightly after the date itself. Let me take the opportunity to thank all Members across the House and wish them a very happy, albeit belated, St Andrew’s day.
The occasion remains important, as it invites people across Scotland, the United Kingdom, and indeed the world, to reflect on Scotland’s heritage and contribution to our collective UK story. Scotland has always punched above its weight, and it is right that we take this moment to celebrate what our nation contributes to the world. We are, as we have heard often today, a nation that helped to lead the industrial revolution. We have long been a world leader in engineering, philosophy, science and medicine, and we continue proudly to be a key contributor to Scotland and the UK’s defence capability.
Our contribution is woven into the fabric of global progress too. In recent years, we have added new chapters to that story—from advances in renewable energy and medical research to the cultural and creative excellence that resonates far beyond our borders. Our world-class universities are advancing innovation in quantum, clean energy and life sciences, and this Labour Government continue to support them. Indeed, in June we invested £750 million in the UK’s largest supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh—headquartered, of course, in Midlothian—which has so often been at the forefront of scientific progress.
We have achievements on the world stage that speak to our spirit and resilience. Honestly, I cannot believe it took until the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for it to be mentioned in this House that Scotland has, of course, qualified for the world cup. We are also, with Glasgow, hosting the Commonwealth games next summer and will be in a position to showcase not only our sporting ambition but our ability to welcome the world with warmth and confidence.
However, our accomplishments should not be measured only in medals and milestones; they should be measured, as for all Governments, in the lives that we change. We secured places in Scotland for Afghan women medical students whose futures were thrown into uncertainty. By opening our doors, we offered not just education, but hope and dignity.
As we look outward, Scotland is strengthening its place in the global economy. Labour’s trade deal with India is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million every year, in a transformative partnership that opens new markets for our businesses and deepens our ties with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Together, those achievements tell a powerful story: Scotland is a nation that leads, welcomes and builds. It is in that spirit that I welcome today’s debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar began the debate by paying tribute to working men’s clubs, institutes and miners’ welfare. I am delighted that he did so, because it gives us a chance to reflect on the fact that not only do we belong to those kinds of institutions, but they belong to us. They are theatres of self-help and community power, which is exactly what this Labour Government’s Pride in Place programme is all about.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and I do not agree on much these days, but we do agree on this: Scotland has too long been troubled by division. I suspect our remedies for that division would differ, but I believe that we need a new direction with a Government focused resolutely on public services and growth—a new direction offered by Anas Sarwar.
The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) talked about the ferry fiasco and how terrible it was for islanders. That is true, but it also speaks more widely to a deep sickness at the heart of a Scottish Government who are much more interested in announcements than achievements. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) suggested that this Government are sending money to the Scottish Government without worrying very much about what will happen to it. I can assure him that, on the £11 billion that has been sent to the Scottish Government as a result of this Labour Government’s decisions, we will be watching like hawks. That money is intended to be spent on Scotland’s public services and Scotland’s communities, and if it is not, we Scots will ask, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) asked us to comment on the Government’s commitment to devolution, and I am pleased to reassure him too. Devolution is not simply a destination and it is not even a process; it is, to my mind, a habit of mind that the Scottish Government have simply never acquired because they are obsessed with centralising inside Scotland and talking about what powers will come to Scotland and not what powers will be distributed inside Scotland to communities, where they belong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) talked about how, despite the very best efforts of our NHS staff, the state of Scotland’s NHS should shame us all. I can refer to stories in Midlothian too, which are similar to those that have been mentioned on the Floor today: one person waiting 120 weeks on a CAMHS waiting list; parents talking about the fact that they had been referred to an urgent ear, nose and throat waiting list, but will still be on that list for two to three years with a child in pain; and a woman in excruciating pain who has been waiting for a gynaecology appointment since the start of the year. What is the answer to that from the SNP? It is simply, “Look at England.” That is of no comfort at all to any of our constituents, and I suspect that that complacency will be roundly rejected in May.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee, whose work I commend, talked with great passion about how, as Scotland, we have to forge a place where people can come together, and although we might not agree on everything, we have to find ways to agree about more.
My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) gave moving tributes to the extraordinary community groups in their constituencies, which I was delighted to hear about. Some of them I have visited and I look forward to learning more about others. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) paid a moving tribute to the children of Ukraine. I know we all commend her for the work she is doing to see their safe return.
From many Members across the House, we have rightly heard commendations of lots of Scottish laddies. I want to even it up a little and put on the record some commendations for Scottish women. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar about Queen Margaret, but I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to Jane Haining, recognised as “Righteous Among the Nations” in the Holocaust and most recently commemorated in Edinburgh; to Mary Barbour, who showed that when working-class women come to fight for working-class women, there is nothing they cannot achieve; to Jennie Lee, without whom we would have no Open University; and to Mary Somerville, whose achievements were quite literally astronomical.
As we come to the end of the debate, and indeed the end of the year, it is a good time to reflect on what we have achieved together across this House. From the Labour perspective, we are proud of our local growth programme, which will deliver real, visible benefits for communities right across Scotland. The Pride in Place programme and impact fund will see up to £292 million invested in regenerating Scottish communities, which will transform neighbourhoods across Scotland. That funding will revitalise our high streets and town centres. It will create jobs, boost productivity and improve safety, security and connectivity. Local communities are at the very heart of Scottish life, and the Scotland Office is proud to back them.
David Mundell
In her eloquent description of the importance of cross-border economic activity, the hon. Lady referred to Borderlands, which in many ways was a precursor to Pride in Place. Like her, I feel that the Borderlands initiative needs a bit more oomph behind it, so will she commit the Scotland Office to providing that oomph?
Kirsty McNeill
I am always delighted to commit to oomph and would be delighted to meet all relevant MPs from the Borderlands growth deal, to which I know the right hon. Member is very committed. I am following it closely.
Our Brand Scotland effort promotes Scotland’s exports, culture and global reputation. We fund a range of initiatives, including delivering trade missions to key markets and supporting our overseas network to undertake Scotland-specific promotional activity. We have delivered a number of successful ministerial visits—to Norway, Japan, Spain, Washington DC and New York—and we recently supported a major trade mission to Shanghai by Glasgow city chamber of commerce.
We are seeing the results of having a UK Government with Scotland at their beating heart. The Budget provided an extra £820 million for the Scottish Government. That means that since the general election the Scottish Government have received an additional £11 billion. We have announced £14.5 million to back Grangemouth’s transition to a hub for low-carbon technologies, and a further £20 million for Inchgreen near Greenock, which will upgrade the port’s dry dock; £20 million has been found to support the regeneration of Kirkcaldy’s town centre and seafront; and £25 million will be released following the full sign-off of the Forth Green freeport.
All in all, the UK Government will be investing more than £2 billion in local and regional growth programmes in Scotland. That is alongside the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, with a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots. We also focused on ensuring job security for 350 skilled workers at Harland & Wolff shipyards in Methil and at Arnish. We have secured a deal worth £10 billion to supply Norway with Type 26 frigates, securing 2,000 jobs in Scotland until the late 2030s. Of course, we did not stop there. We are firmly committed to tackling child poverty, having removed the two-child cap, which will change the futures of 95,000 Scottish children.
As we mark St Andrew’s day—a moment when we celebrate Scotland’s history, identity and shared values—we are reminded of the strength that we can draw from solidarity across these islands. Yes, we have deep pride in being Scottish, but it is pride with a purpose, because if we remain focused on our common purposes of stronger growth, fairer opportunities and resilient communities, Scotland will not simply be part of the UK’s prosperity; it will be at the very heart of it.
Graeme Downie
I thank everyone from across the House for taking part in the debate. Having listened to the debate, I am reminded of a comment made by a colleague shortly after the general election in a similar debate in Westminster Hall, when he reflected on what it must be like for someone to walk into the room during a debate involving Scottish politicians. He referred to it as being like walking in at the end of a wedding when everyone has had far too much to drink, just as the first fight starts to break out. That is possibly a very helpful way to think about it. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and the Minister said, it is unusual for football in Scotland to be a unifier and not a divider, as it so often is. I thank everyone else for taking part in the debate, the Minister for responding, the Opposition spokespeople and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker— I hope you have enjoyed the entertainment on show this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered St Andrew’s Day and Scottish affairs.
Foreign Interference
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call James MacCleary, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and my co-sponsors for their support. Since I submitted my application for the debate, the profound and urgent national importance of this matter has only increased. Foreign interference now strikes at the very core of Britain’s democratic institutions, our economy and our national security.
This debate takes place against an extraordinary backdrop. Just last week, the United States released a national security strategy that represents nothing less than the wholesale rejection of the values and alliances that have underpinned British security for 80 years. That serves as a warning signal, threading through everything that I will say today. The world order that we built, and the certainty that we have relied on, are no longer guaranteed.
Let me be clear about what we are witnessing and what it means for the United Kingdom. The post-war settlement that Britain helped to forge, and the post-cold war structures that we helped to build, are eroding simultaneously. International institutions—the United Nations, where we hold a permanent Security Council seat; the World Trade Organisation, where we championed free trade; and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—are receding in influence at precisely the moment when Britain needs them most. Their weakening leaves us—a medium-sized power that has always punched above its weight through alliances and institutions—dangerously exposed.
We live in a fractured world in which authoritarian states test boundaries with impunity, and Britain is squarely in their crosshairs. Russia’s war with Ukraine is not simply a regional conflict; it is on our doorstep, and it threatens the security architecture that has kept Britain safe. China has already made a grab for British infrastructure, from our nuclear power stations to our telecommunications networks. The United States’ new doctrine explicitly criticises European allies more harshly than it does adversaries, with senior officials accusing Britain and our European partners of “civilisational suicide”.
Europe is the most liberal, free and democratic continent on earth. That makes us a prime target. Sweden’s chief of defence put it starkly last month, when he said:
“Political polarisation in many countries in the west is…a candy shop for a hybrid-warfare warrior to exploit”.
Britain’s own political polarisation—the Brexit divisions are still raw, and trust in institutions is declining—creates exactly the type of vulnerabilities that our adversaries seek to exploit. The rejection of value-based alliances outlined in the national security strategy and espoused in Beijing and Moscow underscores precisely why Britain must now step forward as the champion of liberal democratic values.
That is not merely idealism; it is in the national interest. Britain’s prosperity depends on the rules-based international order. We are a trading nation—an island that lives by global commerce. We are a financial hub that requires stable international law. Britain’s power is at its greatest when multiplied through alliances and institutions. Liberal international institutions brought peace and prosperity on an unprecedented scale—and Britain was their architect. From the Atlantic charter to the United Nations, and from NATO to the Bretton Woods institutions, British statesmanship created the frameworks that defeated fascism, contained Soviet communism and enabled decades of prosperity.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this timely and important debate. Given the NSS and other challenges, we must move closer to European partners—we see what happens when there is division. I commend him for his work in Georgia in particular. Will he comment on the breakdown of the belief in the rule of law and democracy there?
James MacCleary
I will come to Georgia later in my speech, but on the European aspect, the context of the national security strategy has, if anything, made it more urgent to work more closely with our European friends. The SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund negotiations seem to have broken down. It would be good to get more clarity from the Government on exactly what assessment they have made of the benefit to British industry of the SAFE fund, in the light of the amount for which the European Union has asked for entry into that fund. Clearly, there is an urgent need to work more closely with our European friends on rearmament.
The institutions that I mentioned must adapt and evolve, but retreating into transactional geopolitics—treating alliances as protection rackets and viewing international law as optional—leads to disaster for a country of our size and position. Cyber-attacks, disinformation and economic coercion are now as potent as tanks and missiles. The Defence Committee reports rising numbers of cyber-incidents targeting British infrastructure, Government systems and private companies, but the threat is not merely digital. In July 2024, a parcel exploded in a logistics centre in Birmingham. The explosion would have been powerful enough to bring down a cargo plane, had the parcel detonated on board. Security services traced the plot to Russian-directed saboteurs. Their plan’s next stage? Attacking flights to the United States, using British territory as the launching pad for an attack that would cause more disruption than any terrorist attack since 9/11.
In March 2024, a warehouse in east London was set ablaze by Dylan Earl, a 21-year-old recruited online by Russia’s Wagner Group and paid in cryptocurrency. He was convicted after a video of him starting the fire was found on his phone, alongside a Russian flag and £34,000-worth of cocaine. His Wagner handler told him to watch the television series “The Americans” for tradecraft tips. The arson was meant as an audition. Earl wrote to contacts afterwards:
“They have a warehouse in Czech Republic to burn for 35 thousand”.
This is hybrid warfare, and Britain is on the frontline. As Chatham House observes, what is publicly understood is just the tip of the iceberg. There is far more happening that the Government have chosen not to disclose, often for good reason. These attacks seek to destabilise British democracy internally, rather than defeat us militarily. They exploit our openness, our freedoms and our legal systems. Young men recruited on Telegram carry out sabotage, often unaware that their paymaster sits in Moscow. When caught, they are released by the courts, which lack sufficient evidence. This is not so much le Carré or Bond; it is espionage delivered via the gig economy.
We must also see China’s systematic penetration of British infrastructure as more than just a financial investment—it is strategic positioning. Huawei’s involvement in our telecommunications network sparked years of debate before partial restrictions were imposed. China General Nuclear’s 33% stake in Hinkley Point C nuclear power station gives Beijing influence over critical national infrastructure. Chinese ownership of British Steel, of swathes of student accommodation near sensitive facilities and of port infrastructure, and a potential new mega-embassy, all represent potential leverage.
The United States’ new national security strategy explicitly threatens economic warfare, even against its friends. Washington now imposes tariffs on its allies. The Trump Administration have already placed such measures on Britain. That should be viewed in combination with our botched post-Brexit trade position. Having left the EU single market, Britain faces economic pressure from multiple directions. We cannot and must not separate economic security from national security. Every foreign investment, every supply chain and every trading relationship carries potential for coercion if not handled with the utmost care.
Let me offer two international examples of the corrosive effect of foreign interference that should worry, if not terrify, British policymakers, because they show what happens when western resolve weakens. Georgia stands as a clear example of hybrid interference and democratic backsliding. A country that aspired to Euro-Atlantic integration and sent troops to fight alongside British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has been pulled increasingly into Russia’s orbit through economic pressure, political interference and an ever-present military threat. Young Georgians take to the streets of Tbilisi, desperately protesting to protect their European future, while their leaders respond with water cannon and arrests on trumped-up charges.
In Sudan, we see foreign interference layered upon state collapse. British interests in the Red sea—through which 12% of global trade flows, including vital supplies to Britain—are directly threatened, yet we did nothing to prevent state failure or ensure early stabilisation. At the very moment when sustained UK engagement was most needed, this Government cut our overseas aid budget and hollowed out the very conflict prevention and stabilisation tools designed to prevent crises like this. Exacerbated by interference from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and others, we face regional instability and a humanitarian catastrophe, the scale and horror of which are hard to comprehend.
Russia’s influence on operations in eastern Europe is unmistakable. Across the Balkans most recently, and also in Moldova and Romania, Russian interference has been both brazen and routine. Ahead of Moldova’s most recent elections, the BBC reported voters flying in from Russia carrying thousands of euros in cash, which was allegedly handed out in exchange for people backing Moscow’s preferred candidate. These are not distant problems; they are British problems. Georgia’s struggle warns us what happens when we fail to support democratic allies and to counter foreign interference, and the tragedy in Sudan demonstrates the cost of inaction. Both show that Britain, having retreated from global engagement, now reaps the consequences. That is why we must stand up with our allies, and continue to live and promote our values, both at home and around the world.
One key way we can promote and protect those values is through our alliances. For 20 years, one of Vladimir Putin’s top objectives has been to undermine and break up NATO. The alliance is the cornerstone of British security, which makes reckless comments by individuals, including the new leader of the Green party about leaving the alliance, music to the Russian dictator’s ears. Russia has interfered in our domestic politics for years. Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report documented credible open-source commentary suggesting Russian interference, but the Government of the time shamefully refused to investigate properly. As a result, we still do not know the full extent of Russian influence on the most consequential vote in modern British history.
Even more starkly, Russia has murdered British citizens on British soil. Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium in London. Sergei and Yulia Skripal were attacked with Novichok in Salisbury, tragically leading to the death of Dawn Sturgess, too. Not only were those assassinations carried out on British soil, but we now know that they were messages. They demonstrated that Russia would violate British sovereignty with impunity. That makes it even more critical that our politics is free from Russian influence. Unfortunately, the recent trial of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales has exposed bribery in UK political movements. Until we have seen a thorough investigation of Reform UK’s wider funding, question marks will remain about that party’s links to the Kremlin.
This is not a minor issue. Russia is working every day to infiltrate and undermine our politics and our infrastructure. British train lines are surveilled. British infrastructure is mapped for sabotage. British political discourse is poisoned by disinformation, and British resolve is tested constantly. We are up to the test—our security services are among the world’s very best—but we must root out corruption and foreign interference with energy, resolve and openness. That makes the language of the new American national security strategy all the more alarming. The document’s bleak, even dystopian, worldview, echoed in recent days by the US President, should alarm us all. It trashes the values underpinning alliances that have guaranteed British security since the war. It seeks to interfere directly in European politics, and to fuel instability by calling for a cultivation of resistance to mainstream European political discourse. Essentially, it is endorsing nationalist populist parties such as Alternative für Deutschland, Le Pen’s Rassemblement National in France, and the Reform party here in Britain. It emboldens Russia and China to push further against British interests.
Most alarmingly, the NSS reserves its harshest criticism not for its adversaries but for allies. Christopher Landau, the US Deputy Secretary of State, posted that America can no longer
“pretend that we are partners”
with European countries, Britain included, that are pursuing policies “utterly adverse” to American interests. He listed climate policy, tech regulation, and alleged “censorship” as justifications. Russia’s reaction tells us everything. Putin’s spokesman praised the NSS, and Russians close to Putin endorsed Trump’s attacks on European allies. They sense an opportunity, and we must respond.
The UK must therefore take foreign interference more seriously than it has done in decades. We cannot rely on an America drifting towards transactional nationalism. We must prepare for a world where Britain and Europe stand together to succeed in a transformed global political and security landscape. That is why I was particularly disappointed by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw from negotiations on UK access to the EU Security Access for Europe fund, and I hope we can revisit that at a later time.
Britain must act with urgency on multiple fronts. We must strengthen our democratic resilience, implement the Russia report’s recommendations that the Government ignored, expose foreign interference wherever it exists, protect electoral integrity, and expose attempts by foreigners to bribe British officials. We must bolster our economic security, enhance our cyber defences and rebuild our conventional military capabilities. We must be out front in defending free trade, democratic integrity, and international institutions, even when our closest ally wavers. Britain shaped the world order. Britain championed the rules. Britain built the alliances. If we will not defend them, they will collapse and we will suffer first, and worst.
The world is entering an era defined by hybrid threats, authoritarian ambition and weak multilateralism. This Parliament must confront foreign interference with cross-party seriousness and honesty. The threats are real and the vulnerabilities are known: already British citizens have died, British sovereignty has been violated and British democracy has been attacked. The UK built a global system of rules to reject the notion that might is right. As Putin, Xi and now Trump attempt to reassert that very notion, it falls to us to stand firmly by our values to secure a fair, peaceful future at home and abroad.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
There are six Members bobbing and I will be calling the Front Bench spokespeople at 4.30pm, so the guideline is seven minutes each.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate. I have expanded my remarks beyond foreign interference, because the way Russia views what it is doing at the moment is more than that. It is a direct attack on a system and on our way of life. This is more than interference—it is conflict.
Across the world, the contest is under way between liberal democracies that trust their people and autocratic regimes that fear them. Nowhere exemplifies that more than Russia, a state built on the control and takeover of civil society. Russia views its democratic neighbours to the west as weak and vulnerable, to be divided and picked off one by one, but Russia is wrong and we must show it that it is wrong. It cloaks its aggression towards its former colonies in a sense of entitlement and ownership—a warped hangover from its imperial past.
Ukraine is on the frontline of this contest. That is why I am glad that this Government and this Parliament are committed to standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and that our Government have increased military support for Ukraine to its highest level ever. This year we are providing £4.5 billion in financial aid and military support to Ukraine. However, while all wars must end in negotiation, we have to be clear that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine, and we must recognise that we will all have capitulated if Ukraine is forced to agree to unfavourable terms. If that happens, we will have capitulated to the idea that unprovoked aggression should be rewarded and that the victims of an illegal occupation should be collectively punished for standing in the way.
After so many years, it is easy to forget what Russian aggression and occupation mean: children forcibly taken from their families and transported for reeducation in Russia, prisoners of war raped and executed, and civilians publicly hanged in occupied towns simply for speaking out. We cannot live in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. That is Russia’s world, and its success, in Ukraine and across Europe, would represent the death of our values and our way of life.
I was pleased that we in the Defence Committee put out a joint statement reaffirming our commitment to Ukraine, and calling on the UK and our European allies to do more. We must do more, not only in supporting Ukraine but in countering the attempts by Russia and its autocratic bedfellows to destroy our democracy, pull apart our alliances and undermine our society. For that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for securing the debate and for the opportunity to speak in it.
Russia believes that it is already at war with NATO, and so with us. While it competes on the battlefield in Ukraine with drones and missiles, it is also seeking to influence and interfere in our societies and communities. That reality is something that most people in this country do not yet understand. The recently published Defence Committee report on UK contributions to European security highlighted this as an area where further effort and cross-Government co-ordination are needed.
While our public are largely unaware, Russia seeks to slowly slice away at our defences and at the trust we have in one another, slice by slice, until we find that the freedoms, security and unity we have taken for granted have been carved away. Russia does this by subtly building relationships with local actors and influencers. This tactic is not new; it has a long history. In the ’60s, the KGB orchestrated a campaign to alienate West Germany from its allies by portraying it as a hub for Nazi antisemitism. The operation involved antisemitic graffiti and synagogue vandalism, emboldening far-right elements and sparking international outrage.
Today, Russia intervenes selectively and strategically to support far-right and far-left parties across Europe, while its intelligence farms out sabotage plots to criminals and opportunists. From Russian oligarchs socialising with Boris Johnson and the Brexit brigade to Kremlin-backed spending on pro-Brexit disinformation campaigns, Russia has long sought to influence and undermine our democratic system from the top.
Today, in this Parliament, there sits a party whose leaders have taken Russian bribes. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, took at least £40,000 in cash from a pro-Kremlin operative; David Coburn, the former UKIP leader in Scotland and former Brexit party MEP, discussed a potential $6,500 payment from the same pro-Kremlin network. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once vouched that his right-hand man was “decent” and “honest”. Now he insists that there are no pro-Kremlin links in Reform UK—so why do his parties keep being led by Putin’s puppets? I suggest that the hon. Member takes a look in the mirror and, for once, puts the country before himself and investigates Reform’s pro-Russia links.
Russia’s reach also extends to our streets, where it seeks, in the words of MI5 director general McCallum, “sustained mayhem”. In my own constituency, we have seen two Russia-linked attacks: an arson attack on a Leyton warehouse storing aid for Ukraine, and an Islamophobic graffiti campaign across east London, which targeted a mosque and religious schools locally. These attacks are Russian attempts to influence our politics, including our support for Ukraine. Most importantly, they are attempts to cause division among and within our communities.
As the Defence Committee’s report on hybrid threats highlights, our democratic openness makes us more vulnerable to Russia’s influence campaigns, but that does not make autocracies such as Russia stronger or more resilient than us. In the spirit of democratic honesty, we must make the case to the public that investing in our security is essential. Our security services must play an active role in countering attacks on democracy and elections. We must all make the case for increased defence spending, which is essential to ensure the safety and security of our democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will make the same entreaty that I made in the last debate. If hon. Members are going to criticise other hon. Members of this House, they should have informed them in advance; I trust that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did so in relation to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I call John Cooper.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Who is in charge of our national security, and who is a risk to our national security? Those are simple questions, but the answers are tough to determine. Take China, for example: this Labour Government are attempting to ride multiple horses—or should that be dragons? Whatever decision is taken on Beijing, it should be shaped here in this place, for perhaps no other foreign policy area is so delicate and holds such peril for national security.
Yet blundering into the powder keg of Anglo-Sino relations comes the SNP. Despite having no remit in foreign policy, Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead undertook a stealthy visit to Beijing in April under the cloak of trade promotion. What occurred is hard to determine, but worryingly it has since emerged that First Minister John Swinney gave what might be loosely called a letter of comfort to Chinese firm Ming Yang as it seeks to insert itself—possible kill switches and all—into our critical energy infrastructure. Alongside fellow Scottish Conservative MPs, I have signed a letter to the Security Minister asking what effect Mr Swinney opening up this new front might have on UK national security and international trade. That is in part because the Scottish Government have a dreadful track record in this area. Embarrassingly, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon inked a deal with Chinese firms in 2016. She boasted of a $10 billion boost, but that deal fell apart when corruption concerns emerged regarding one of the firm’s parent companies.
There is more. John Swinney is just back from Dublin, where he was incorrectly hailed as the first head of a Government to meet the new President, Catherine Connolly. Although they style themselves as the Scottish Government, Holyrood are a devolved Administration—small beer, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps small stout. But make no mistake: the missive from the Áras an Uachtaráin, the House of the President, cocked a snook at this House. Worse, Mr Swinney also met Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald. The Northern Ireland Secretary confirmed to me that the Windsor agreement allows for such discussions if they are confined to devolved matters, but Miss McDonald bragged, “We discussed our aims for constitutional change and will continue to work together.” As the House knows, the constitutional aims of the Shinners—so democratic that they dodge scrutiny in this place—are to damage Britain by ripping Northern Ireland out of the Union, and the constitutional aim of the SNP is to defy the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and to tear Scotland from that same Union.
As Labour stands idly by, the SNP has created an effective boycott of our ally Israel. Former First Minister Humza Yousaf seems more concerned about Gaza than about Glasgow Pollok, which he is actually meant to represent as an MSP. Meanwhile, the SNP’s lack of financial support has undermined the defence industry north of the border to the extent that the Defence Secretary has called them
“a threat to our security”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 620.],
so the threats to our national security are not all external. When will this Labour Government stop facilitating the Scottish Government’s damaging shadow foreign policy, show some backbone, and stop Britain being undermined by John Swinney—the pound-shop Parnell—and his fellow travellers?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
These are dangerous times for democracies in Europe and across the world. I will not be alone in having heard one particular word used increasingly to describe our social and political state as a country over the last 10 years: “divided.” From Brexit to immigration, from the conflict in Gaza to LGBT+ rights, it feels as though we as a country are more divided than ever.
In a sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, division is a feature of democracy—so much so that when we vote in this, the mother of Parliaments, you quite literally shout “Division!”, and we divide off into our respective voting Lobbies. However, healthy division must be underpinned by a willingness to listen to other views, respect them even when we disagree passionately with them and, yes, sometimes accept that we are wrong. That is what I fear we have lost in this country—the ability to engage in the debate—and I fear that social media has much to do with that.
I see a democracy under pressure, not from internal division but from external actors looking to destabilise our way of life and our beliefs. It will not be a surprise to hon. Members or to our constituents that social media is used by foreign actors, particularly Russia, Iran and China, to actively undermine our democratic institutions and exploit the natural disagreements present in democracy to sow the seeds of division. As anyone who has been on Twitter recently will know, it is also increasingly being manipulated by its owner to promote a very specific—and, in my view, very dangerous—narrative.
Today, I want to focus my remarks on Russia and the impact of its state-affiliated and state-aligned online activities on our democracy. Earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary strongly reaffirmed our commitment to UK support for Ukraine against Russian aggression in her speech to commemorate the signing of the Locarno treaties here in London. Ukraine is fighting to defend western democracy against Russia’s illegal invasion, and is paying a high price to do so. As the Foreign Secretary recognised in her speech, though, while Russia’s war may be physically constrained, its offensive is playing out on multiple frontiers, including our very own social media feeds.
Evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee identified Russian operations across every single conceivable channel and platform, including Minecraft. These operations include bot farms that produce fake accounts at a rate far faster than they can be banned, and use them to create significant noise around a particular issue, drowning out legitimate discussion and undermining trust in UK institutions.
If I had stood here and said even a few years ago that Russia had infiltrated my local Facebook groups to spread disinformation, as well as the local Facebook groups of many Members across this House, that would have been received with some scepticism. Now, if I may say so, we should be more sceptical of the fool who believes that Russia is not doing that. The corrosive effect that it has on community cohesion is immense, and it is happening every day on a hyper-local level. Russian troll factories are spewing out lies not to push any single political ideology, but simply to sow chaos and undermine faith in institutions. I fully welcome the Government’s decision to sanction a further seven entities and individuals for their role in destabilising Ukraine, but I also ask the Government to go further and consider what action can be taken within our own borders to curb this economy of disinformation.
I welcome the provision in the Online Safety Act 2003 to limit foreign interference as a priority offence, meaning that services must take proactive steps to identify and minimise users’ exposure to state-sponsored or state-linked disinformation aimed at interfering with the UK, but I question whether any social media company is living up to its obligations under the Act. I have asked to meet Meta to discuss the issue, but I am disappointed to tell the House that I have not yet been given that opportunity. I assume that all social media companies are aware of the threat of foreign interference and know that it is happening on their platforms, but I have not seen any evidence of their taking any action to stop it. If social media companies do not take action, then we must pursue them and force them to do so because our democracy is more valuable than their profits.
We cannot ignore the fact that Russian interference is clear and evident not only within the borders of our own country, but within the walls of this House and the political sphere across the great nations of this country. I am sure that I do not need to remind colleagues that the former leader of Reform in Wales is now behind bars for taking bribes to make pro-Russian statements. Reform is now refusing to conduct an investigation into pro-Russian interference in the party. That prompts a question: what are they hiding? That is, of course, a question we could have asked Reform Members today, had they shown up. Pro-Russian narratives are nothing new to Reform or its previous incarnations, the Brexit party and UKIP. In fact, during the 2024 election campaign, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) suggested that the EU and NATO had “provoked” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He said that he “admired” Putin. Madam Deputy Speaker, he is a Kremlin apologist.
The fight against Russia in Ukraine is morally right, but it is also strategically right, and the Government are correct to be unwavering in their support of Ukraine—for their future and for ours. Ukraine is defending Europe’s eastern flank. Any Government who neglect that approach neglect their first duty to the security of the public, and we must be in no doubt that Reform is a threat to that and to all of us.
A further aspect highlighted by the Royal United Services Institute report is the need to support civil society and media ecosystems that are directly targeted by such operations. It is not just about technical defences, but also about improving media literacy so that everyday citizens can be better prepared to spot deepfakes, fake news and misinformation. Yesterday, the Government released their national youth strategy and, amid all the fantastic announcements about funding for more youth facilities, a plan to address workforce challenges and give more young people a voice. I want to highlight specifically the commitment to embed media literacy into the curriculum and ensure that Ofcom can fulfil its obligations under the Online Safety Act to promote media literacy. Media literacy is important not just for young people—although it is—but for everyone, especially older people who may be more vulnerable to the effects of deepfakes and misinformation.
Our democracy rests on our ability to disagree with each other, but to remain a united country. We must not allow ourselves to be siloed. We must not refuse to listen to those whose views we do not share, but who we should nevertheless respect. Losing sight of the ability to disagree agreeably drives a wedge into the unity of this United Kingdom, and leaves us more vulnerable than ever to the narrative that hostile foreign actors would so like to see spread. We are a country of diversity, and proudly so. Our greatest strength must not be allowed to be exploited to become our greatest weakness. We must all of us in this place commit to fighting Putin’s corrosive influence over our democracy, wherever it is found. That starts by recognising the extent of the challenge we face.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for raising the existential threats from Russia and China, as well as more recently from the US with its national security strategy, which we heard of last week. I said earlier today on the Floor of the House that the special relationship is now well and truly over.
Foreign interference is not a new phenomenon, but it has undoubtedly become an increasing and urgent concern in recent years. Heightened aggression from hostile states and increased economic competition is creating a more polarised world in which those who seek to increase their power and influence are looking to maximise every possible avenue. Our increased reliance on digital infrastructure and the rise of social media and artificial intelligence, combined with an erosion of trust in established political systems and traditional media has opened up a significant space to be exploited.
Whether it be through espionage, cyber-attack, intellectual property theft, transnational repression, disinformation, electoral interference, foreign political donations or bribery, we are under attack on a daily basis. Regrettably, we have not responded quickly and coherently to that, and in some cases many remain naive to the threats posed.
Let us look at the behaviours of those who seek to undermine our society and our values, create global instability and remould the world on their own terms, and at how the Government have reacted in response. Russia’s war against Ukraine did not begin in 2022; it began in 2014 when Russian-backed militants seized towns and cities in the Donbas and Russian forces illegally annexed Crimea. The strategic defence review called Russia
“an immediate and pressing threat”
but that has been the case for decades.
When I visited Ukraine in 2018 for the first time as a Member of Parliament, I found a real and live war, and was shocked that there was so little discussion of it in our own media, and certainly within this Parliament. In fact, shockingly, the language used was of a “frozen conflict”, all because we wanted to continue to have supplies of oil and gas—business as usual. Despite the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, it took until the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the death of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury in March 2018 for the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to be introduced to detain people at ports and borders to determine whether they are engaged in hostile state activity.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report warned us as far back as 2020 of disinformation, political influence and aggressive cyber-operations. It criticised the UK Government’s response as playing catch-up, with unclear responsibility for defending democracy. Despite Russia’s malign intentions and behaviours, for years Russian state-funded broadcasters such as Sputnik and RT—Russia Today, as it was known—were given licence to disseminate disinformation during crucial elections and referendums. Yet, despite that, the UK Government continue to underfund the BBC World Service. It is time to step up and fully fund it again, because Russia is stepping into its place.
Russia has reportedly invested over $1 billion into ongoing disinformation campaigns aimed at diminishing western support for Ukraine, while recent events such as the 2024 Southport attacks and the summer race riots were both amplified by foreign interference. Of course, we now know that one of those recent investments was over £40,000 in bribes to the former leader of Reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, who is now spending more than 10 years in jail. We know through recent reports that at least eight other members of that party have made pro-Russia statements.
That is able to happen because of a fragmented institutional response from the Government. Their time- frames for handling disinformation are painfully slow. Each recent regulatory advance, such as the Online Safety Act, which the SNP does welcome, relies on reactive content takedowns that cannot match the speed at which hostile actors manipulate and spread disinformation. As was mentioned, the strategic defence review identified disinformation as a new top-tier threat across the UK, but there is still no single entity fully accountable for national cognitive security.
My first question is simply this: now that the threat has been identified—in fact, the evidence is overwhelming —what tangible steps are the Government taking to implement the shift from reactive responses to sustained strategic resilience? Will the establishment of a national disinformation agency be considered to enable a whole-of-society institutional response?
Furthermore, Russia has rightly been placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, yet China, despite clearly meeting the criteria, has not and remains on the lower “political influence tier”, along with most other countries. I am pleased to hear that more voices from across the House are starting to raise this issue, because the UK Government are clearly not currently budging. Shockingly, Members of this House have been sanctioned and spied on—I consider myself, among others, to have been spied on in that process. When that was exposed, we were not defended by the Government of the day or, indeed, by the Government currently in place. It was the Speakers of this House and the other House who banned Chinese diplomats and the ambassador from coming into Parliament.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Like some of our allies, we have had major issues with transnational repression, misinformation and disinformation, hostile cyber-attacks by our adversaries, spy ships surveilling our critical infrastructure and much more besides, which has cost British businesses and had a hugely detrimental impact on our national defence and security. In these increasingly tense times, when adversaries are testing our resolve, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Defence Committee’s recommendation that we need a dedicated Minister for homeland security?
Chris Law
I have not had a chance to read that report, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it, because it is now clearer than ever that we need a separate Minister and Department. That is a key point.
A cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights report describes China as a “flagrant” perpetrator of transnational repression. The strategic defence review states that China is
“likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.”
Why, then, have successive Governments continued to let China get away with this behaviour? Put simply, failing to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme leaves a systemic gap in the UK’s national security and defence, and ignores the fact that the criteria have already been fulfilled. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse to close the gap, and why they will not make this urgently needed change?
Instead, this Government seem intent on appeasing China. Not for the first or second time, but for the third time, they have reportedly delayed their decision on whether to approve a controversial new Chinese embassy in central London, after they were expected to approve the plans for a vast mega-embassy. It cannot go ahead. Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hongkongers, local residents, US security and US financial services all demand to have the decision revisited. Surely China’s continued harassment and bullying over services to the UK embassy in Beijing, for example, is not a reason to kowtow.
In conclusion, foreign interference is a daily reality that touches our security, our economy and the integrity of our democracy, but warnings from parliamentary Committees and the intelligence community have simply not been translated into policy. They cannot continue to be ignored, and the Government cannot continue to hide from the uncomfortable truths about hostile states and their escalating interference against us all.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on securing this important debate. At a time when our country faces profound geopolitical uncertainty, when hostile states are probing every weakness in our democratic and economic systems, and when the US national security strategy talks about
“cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”,
one truth stands out above all others: as the Government’s anti-corruption strategy published earlier this week recognises, Britain’s security is the foundation of Britain’s prosperity.
Before I progress any further, may I take this opportunity to commend the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)? As the Security Minister, he has worked closely with the Government’s anti-corruption champion, the noble Baroness Hodge, and with staff at the Home Office’s joint anti-corruption unit. Together, they have done excellent work in completing the anti-corruption strategy.
I wish to focus my speech on foreign interference in our politics and elections, and how it goes to the heart of our much-cherished democracy. First, let me talk about paid access by foreign actors. Today, the greatest threats to our security do not always come in the form of tanks or missiles. Increasingly, they come through money, influence and covert networks operating quietly inside our financial system and even our politics.
Before coming to this place, I dedicated my professional life to tackling corruption. I have to say that I was therefore appalled to see a former British Member of the European Parliament charged and recently sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for offences under the Bribery Act 2010. I take no pleasure in mentioning Nathan Gill, but I have a duty to be candid, honest and frank with Members of this House, so let us not forget that Mr Gill was paid bribes by Oleg Voloshyn—to parrot “meticulously scripted” Kremlin lines in Brussels, according to Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb’s sentencing remarks—and that Voloshyn, Gill’s handler, is a former Ukrainian MP whom we sanctioned in March 2023 for
“using his position of influence to promote…the spreading of disinformation and pro-Russian narratives which support Russia’s actions in Ukraine.”
Let us remember that Nathan Gill even hosted Oleg Voloshyn and oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk in the European Parliament, supposedly to talk about free speech in Ukraine. Medvedchuk is known in Ukraine as “the grey cardinal”, in a nod to his low profile and closeness to the Kremlin, and Vladimir Putin is the godfather of Medvedchuk’s daughter. Let us also remember that Medvedchuk flew to Moscow the day after his meeting with Gill to boast, in a one-to-one meeting with Putin himself, about the extent of Russia’s influence operation among western politicians, and that the Medvedchuk-Putin meeting was then broadcast on Russian television.
Medvedchuk and Voloshyn’s work was a clear influence operation to spread Kremlin narratives, undermine western support for Ukraine and subvert our democracy by paying a British politician to parrot their lines. Gill, Voloshyn, Medvedchuk, Putin—there is a straight line from a former Reform UK politician to the Kremlin. Putin’s coterie of cronies is exploiting our democracy, using useful idiots along the way to amplify its messages and undermine our institutions, yet Reform has the audacity to claim to be the party for patriots. It is nothing of the sort.
On lobbying, our regime is desperately in need of reform. Nothing shows the need for urgency more severely than the recent scandal involving an undercover reporter from Democracy for Sale posing as a Chinese AI investor, who gained access to political events, MPs and decision makers with seemingly no meaningful checks. The reporter was not who he claimed to be, yet he got far too close to the heart of our democracy. This should be the final warning that we need mandatory transparency for all lobbying activity; stronger revolving-door rules, so that privileged access cannot be immediately turned into private profit; and a modern foreign influence registration scheme that brings covert activity into the daylight, including activity linked to China.
The anti-corruption strategy confirms that the Government will keep the transparency of lobbying under review, including considering recommendations from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That work must lead to concrete reform, not another cycle of scandal and regret. Influence without transparency is a security vulnerability. As the fake AI investor case shows, hostile states can exploit vulnerabilities that we leave open.
On political donations, the Government’s July elections policy statement set out important measures to limit foreign interference. That work is welcome, but we must go further. As a former financial crime compliance officer, let me be crystal clear: we should ban cryptocurrency donations outright. Crypto is the perfect vehicle for covert foreign funding—fast, opaque and hard to trace. In my mind, there is no democratic justification for allowing it. It is a solution in search of a problem. There is only one reason why political parties would encourage donations in crypto: to conceal their origin.
I refer Members to recent reporting that Reform UK—I notice it is unrepresented in the Chamber today—became the first party to start taking such donations. I have recently returned from a visit to Montenegro with the Foreign Affairs Committee. Our focus has been on looking at misinformation and disinformation, and how it is spread like a cancer by those who wish to undermine our institutions. While there, several local politicians and officials raised with me their concerns about British national George Cottrell, a well-known figure in the crypto world. Back in 2016, Cottrell was indicted in the US on 21 counts for crimes including money laundering, fraud and blackmail. He served eight months in prison for wire fraud after being caught in an FBI sting offering his services to undercover agents posing as drug traffickers. He is currently being investigated for his tax affairs by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He was once described by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as being “like a son”.
Cottrell’s unlimited company, Geostrategy International, pumps out dubious polling and Reform UK talking points, but it does not file accounts or publish its clients. It is not a member of the relevant trade body and so is not signed up to the polling industry’s ethical codes. It claims to have offices in London, Montenegro, Switzerland and the US, where it is registered in the secrecy jurisdiction of Delaware. Companies with such little transparency should simply not be able to flood money into our politics, yet they seemingly could do so at the drop of a hat. Given that Cottrell has been accused of illegally financing a political party in Montenegro—accusations that he denies—I am deeply concerned about his proximity to Members of this House. It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Clacton is not here to explain the conduct of his right-hand man.
It is clear to me that Reform wants nothing more than to strip back the vital safeguards protecting our democracy from the long hand of dictators such as Vladimir Putin. Let us not forget, as has been mentioned, how the hon. Member for Clacton described Putin as a man whom he “admires”. That is one of many reasons why we need to ensure that the forthcoming elections Bill guarantees the independence of the Electoral Commission. If we are to have a genuinely independent electoral regulator, we need the commission to be free from ministerial direction, free from political pressure and properly resourced.
It was Boris Johnson’s Conservative Government that stripped the Electoral Commission of its independence in the Elections Act 2022. That followed the commission’s investigation into Johnson’s Downing Street refurbishment, its fining of the “Vote Leave” campaign for breaking spending limits in the run-up to the 2016 referendum, and a number of donation scandals involving Russian-linked individuals.
Political financing is a cross-party issue, but it should be this Labour Government who restore Electoral Commission independence, ensuring it can fulfil its obligations in the service of the British people. Across Europe, we are seeing active attempts by hostile states to manipulate elections. Britain must not be complacent. We must build a system that is resilient, transparent and modern. Foreign interference succeeds only where democracies are asleep at the wheel. Britain cannot afford to be one of them.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Before I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me assure you, in relation to the comments made by the previous occupant of the Chair, that I will be mentioning a Member of this House and I have given him advance notice that I will be doing so.
Our democracy is under threat. We cannot and must not fail to defend it against the bad-faith actors who seek to attack it. Today I will concentrate the bulk of my remarks on Kremlin-linked Russian interference, starting with the long-time right-hand man of the habitually absent Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Nathan Gill, who was at the very top of Reform UK in Wales. Mr Gill is now sitting in jail serving a sentence of 10 and a half years for taking Russian bribes from Putin’s operatives to parrot Kremlin propaganda about the war on Ukraine. The leader of Reform UK, the Member for Clacton, is desperately suggesting that Mr Gill was a bad apple, as he and his organisation scramble and evade following Gill’s bribery conviction, but that simply does not wash.
Gill was not the only pro-Brexit politician in Europe spreading Kremlin talking points about Ukraine. Indeed, the Member for Clacton himself echoed Moscow’s narratives on the war in Ukraine, accusing the west of “provoking” the war. It is also worth remembering his frequent appearances on Putin’s propaganda TV channel, Russia Today, between 2010 and 2014, on which he made no criticisms of the lack of democracy in Russia or its position on Ukraine.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case about Reform UK speaking on Russia’s talking points. Of course, the biggest talking point of them all is that NATO is the enemy. When her leader says that the Green party believes we should leave NATO, is that not a Russian talking point?
Dr Chowns
That is not the Green party’s position. The Green party’s position, which I clarified in a point of order in this Chamber just last week, supports our membership of NATO at this time of extreme threat on Europe’s borders.
It has long been known that the Kremlin seeks to interfere and undermine democratic politics in other countries, with online bots and cyber-disinformation. The need is urgent. In June 2025 the Government published a strategic defence review, which stated:
“The UK is already under daily attack, with aggressive acts—from espionage to cyber-attack and information manipulation—causing harm to society and the economy.”
Russia was called
“an immediate and pressing threat”,
including in key areas such as cyber-space and information operations. These concerns are not new. Credible evidence of Russian interference in UK elections was flagged in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report. In 2022, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put out a press release that revealed that a Russian spy agency had targeted UK national infrastructure in a “calculated and dangerous” hacking campaign, and that Putin was sowing
“division and confusion among allies.”
The Foreign Secretary at the time was Liz Truss, who said that she would not tolerate it, yet she, and the moribund Conservative Government of which she was a part, did not open an investigation into the ISC’s Russia report on Kremlin-linked influence in the UK.
Obviously, Liz Truss should never have been anywhere near the levers of high office, but why have this Government not acted as the US did? The 2017-19 Robert Mueller special counsel investigation was a criminal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. We need something similar here. The US report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election did occur in “sweeping and systematic fashion”, and that it “violated U.S. criminal law”. In 2016 we had the Brexit vote, which has so harmed and divided our country, and it is well known that the Kremlin wants a weakened, fractured EU, so where is our version of Mueller?
The upcoming elections Bill will be critical in addressing the dodgy influence of foreign money in UK politics, not least via cryptocurrency, on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). Reform UK is the first British political party to accept donations in crypto, despite UK National Crime Agency investigators recently saying that cryptocurrency has turbocharged money laundering. The NCA also points out that the cryptocurrency backed by the Reform donor is used for the Russian war effort. Reform UK’s record £9 million crypto donation is just the latest offering from abroad. Last Sunday, The Observer reported that two thirds of the funds given to that organisation in this Parliament have come from donors with overseas interests.
That demonstrates why it is so urgent that the forthcoming elections Bill is robust in stopping dirty money. We have not yet seen the Bill, but as well as urgent controls to prevent big overseas donations, the Bill must, among other things, streamline national versus local spending limits with a per-seat cap on total spending, have a limit on major donations, give the Electoral Commission the power to prosecute and reinstate its independence. It is also crucial that we have rules requiring the submission of all online and offline advertisements to the Electoral Commission as soon as they are published, with data on who has sponsored the ad readily available to the public. As things stand, we get only partial transparency after an election has happened. That is too late.
Today’s debate is crucial. As we have heard, it has many strands: the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and our democracy. I reiterate the critical point that defending our democracy must mean the UK Government finally investigating Russian interference in our elections. Not to do so is effectively to send a message of permission, and that is intolerable. The stakes could not be higher. I urge the Minister to tell us when we will get the long-overdue Mueller-style inquiry into Kremlin-linked interference in our democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate and all other hon. Members who have spoken so thoughtfully.
The first duty of the state is to protect the freedom of its citizens. Today’s debate has highlighted how foreign states with malign intent are seeking to undermine our security, press their own economic interests through political interference, and take direct steps to subvert our democracy. I will focus my remarks on the threat to our democracy.
We are rightly proud of the UK’s history of continuous parliamentary democracy, yet functioning democracy is not an end state, but a continuous task that we in this House all share. At its heart is the belief that each person’s vote should have equal standing, and that that equality is the best defence against tyranny and the best protector of liberty.
Too often, however, the votes of our citizens are not equal, when the powerful, including other states, seek to buy influence or suppress opposition. The UK is beset by external threats that seek to undermine our democracy. Just today, we heard how the Hong Kong authorities have ramped up their campaign of extraterritorial intimidation against UK residents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) has highlighted that his constituent Carmen Lau has been subjected to the circulation of fake photographs to her neighbours. That follows similar letters that asked the same neighbours to take her to the Chinese embassy to receive a $100,000 bounty.
This Government need to demonstrate to the Chinese authorities that there are red lines when it comes to protecting our citizens. That should begin with the Government rejecting the application for the super-embassy, which would allow the Chinese authorities to spy more effectively on British residents. It should extend to clamping down on the Chinese use of cyber to attack our universities and steal intellectual property in this country; to giving real reassurance to students and others on our university campuses that they are free to express views and research the activities of China and the Hong Kong authorities without fear of intimidation; and—as we are acutely aware—to saying that spying on our Parliament is totally unacceptable.
China’s activities are eclipsed perhaps only by Russia’s. Vladimir Putin may be the President of Russia and perhaps the richest man in the world, based on hidden wealth, but above all, he remains the jilted KGB man from St Petersburg who has never accepted the break-up of the Soviet empire. In an eerie parallel with Adolf Hitler’s psychological response to the humiliation of Versailles, Putin has made it his life’s mission to restore Russia’s standing on the world stage. It is his doctrine to restore Russia’s borders to those of the Soviet Union and the Tsarist empire, as was evident from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the first decade of this century, and from the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
More recently, in Hungary, Moldova and Romania, we have seen clear examples of Russian interference in democratic activity. Most recently, the sabotage of railways in Poland shows Russia’s willingness to engage directly in interference in the critical infrastructure of countries. We have seen similar threats in this country. All of this activity comes straight out of the KGB playbook; it is a means of escalating intimidation intended to destabilise other states. The same is true of its attempts to interfere in our democracy.
Russia is constantly looking for useful idiots. Sometimes those are petty criminals and thugs like Dylan Earl, who burned down a warehouse in east London containing goods for Ukraine; sometimes it is suited criminals whose interest in money or power is greater than their loyalty to their political party or country, like Nathan Gill. The relationship between senior Reform politicians and Russia is of particular concern. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him that I would mention him this afternoon—initially denied any connection to Nathan Gill’s handlers, yet photographic evidence shows him consorting with the wife of Oleg Voloshyn.
Under the previous Conservative Government, there were commitments to tackle the flow of Russian money into London, but there was little action. I am sure that there is no connection, but at the same time, Russians in the UK were close to the Conservative party and provided it with funding during the previous Parliament. To their credit, a number of Conservative Members expressed concerns, yet those funds still supported Conservative elections, and the regulatory tightening did not take place. Perhaps these were wealthy Russians with strong Conservative values; if they were, then judging by the holiday companions of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), whom I have also notified, Russians like Lubov Chernukhin have switched allegiance, and are now entertaining the hon. Gentleman in their French Riviera châteaux instead of paying for tennis matches with the former leader of the Conservative party.
We must have more scrutiny of Russian money in British politics, but sadly, Russia is not the only declining superpower that wants to meddle in UK politics. Last Thursday, Trump’s national security strategy was published. There is much that we should worry about in that document, as many Members articulated earlier today during the urgent question, but the most arresting statement is the claim that the US Administration will cultivate
“resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”.
The Trump White House declares itself to be isolationist, and interested in the affairs of other countries only in so far as they affect America, yet for the UK and the EU, it makes a special exception. Let us be clear: this means that the Trump White House intends to meddle in the domestic politics of European nations, including the UK. We should not stand for this, just as we would not stand for it from Russia or China.
Just because the President is unhinged, it does not mean that he and his entourage are not a threat. There is a toxic set of anti-democratic forces around the President today who have ambitions every bit as imperial as Vladimir Putin, and the vice-president is the cheerleader-in-chief. Vested interests around Trump intend to meddle in our politics, urging him to use US national influence to bully the UK into serving its commercial interests, even when that would harm children here. They want to export to the UK the same toxic, violent and divisive politics that are doing such damage to America, and we should stand against that.
We see Elon Musk funding the legal bills of a convicted criminal. We see Donald Trump sustaining lies about safety on the streets of our capital city, and making racist attacks on its mayor. We see James Orr, who has been described by J.D. Vance as a national conservative sherpa, joining Reform UK and providing a bridge for funding between the UK and the US. Other Reform UK advisers have complex corporate directorships that could mask donations from US entities that would corrupt British politics.
These external threats are compounded by the perhaps more insidious political forces in our country that are enabling them. The hon. Member for Clacton blames the small boats on what he may call foreign courts, even though it was his irresponsible devil-may-care approach to Brexit that tore up partnerships that helped UK immigration authorities to exchange data and work together to prevent people trafficking. Meanwhile, Zack Polanski wants to take the UK out of NATO at the most fragile moment in European security since the early 1980s. Nothing would make Vladimir Putin happier.
I ask the Minister to respond to a series of opportunities. To address China’s threat, will the Government state some red lines, and say that they will have no tolerance of extraterritorial intimidation of UK residents? Will they further sanction Chinese Communist party officials involved in bounty hunting, and will they finally place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? To protect Russia from interfering in our politics, will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in the UK, following up on the ISC’s Russia report? Will they commit, given that the leader of Reform will not, to investigating Reform’s links to Russian money?
On wider reforms, will the Government commit, through the new elections Bill, to clamping down on excessive financial flows into British politics and tackle shell corporate structures, which are intended to shield those donations? Will they ensure scrutiny of access to Parliament through all-party parliamentary groups on dedicated countries, and other groups that allow people to come into Parliament under the guise of support for various issues? Will they regulate financial flows into the UK and its political parties from overseas and from Crown territories and dependencies?
Finally, in the light of the US’s recent outrageous statement, will the Government commit to an urgent review of the national security strategy and the strategic defence review to ensure that both can protect us from the stated goal of US interference in our politics?
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on securing today’s very important and timely debate. We live in unprecedented times, in which those who wish to undermine this great nation are doing so daily, and on multiple fronts. The need to co-operate more closely with our global allies is as strong as it has been since the second world war, and the United Kingdom must be prepared to combat the ever-evolving threats of tomorrow.
In the aftermath of the cold war and following the end of the conflict in the Balkans, we perhaps took peace in Europe for granted. The prospect of tank battles on the plains of Germany and the ever-present threat of a nuclear holocaust suddenly seemed like a distant memory, as though they were from another era. That illusion was shattered in 2014 when Russian paramilitaries crossed the border into Ukraine and took control of towns in the Donbas. Since then, Europe has been at war with its enemies, not just on the battlefields of Ukraine but in cyber-space and trade, and we have seen continued efforts to degrade our national security.
We should not shy away from who the malign actors are. Let us be quite clear that China, Russia, Iran and North Korea represent a very real threat to the United Kingdom. While their methods may vary, their intention is the same: to weaken our security, disrupt our democratic institutions, and undermine British values. China’s actions present an evolving challenge to our national security. Its activities span espionage, cyber-attacks, political influence operations, and exerting pressure through its trade, supply chain and investment decisions. We saw that very clearly in the spying case involving British citizens Chris Cash and Christopher Berry; the Government’s failure to clearly label China a threat collapsed a prosecution that had been years in the making. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy said that the handling of aspects of that case was best described as “shambolic”, and that the episode exposed “systematic failures”, and created
“a crisis of public confidence and fuelled allegations of conspiracy at the highest levels of government.”
The Committee exposed gaps in communication, process and backbone at the heart of our Government. The implications for our national security are profound.
We come to the frankly extraordinary saga of the Chinese super-embassy at the Royal Mint Court. Tower Hamlets council rejected the plans on entirely legitimate grounds, yet unlike the previous Conservative Government, this Government chose to call in the application and seem determined to approve it. That is despite warnings from MI5, which is concerned about the site’s proximity to major communications cables. When that is paired with the fact that the embassy blueprint submitted to the council has basement rooms blanked out for security reasons, it raises serious questions. At a moment when China is increasing its activities against Britain, the Government should not be supporting this; instead, they should be firmly defending our national security and critical infrastructure.
I come to Russia. Though this threat is sadly more familiar to us, it is no less serious. The Intelligence and Security Committee described Russian interference as “the new normal”, and that should be a constant consideration for British security. It uses a combination of cyber-attacks, disinformation, covert influence and grey-zone and sub-threshold operations to attempt to destabilise western democracies and test our resilience. We saw that recently, when the Yantar vessel intentionally positioned itself near undersea cables and energy infrastructure and aimed lasers at RAF planes. Such provocations are designed not only to intimidate us, but to test how we respond.
Beyond those actions—the actions we are supposed to see—the Intelligence and Security Committee also notes that the business interests and financial activities of Russian oligarchs in the UK continue to provide opportunities for influence that must be robustly guarded against. That is why my party brought in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and strengthened sanctioning powers. That has certainly improved our resilience, but the Kremlin’s methods are adaptive, and we must remain vigilant.
The threat from Iran is also increasing, and stems from an ideological opposition. That requires a tailored approach—one that does not allow Iran to be overlooked —in the context of wider disruption outside the middle east. MI5 has confirmed that more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots were identified in the last two years alone, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, operating both at home and abroad, has demonstrated a willingness to target perceived opponents on British soil.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s recent report on Iran highlights the extent of the challenges, which include, but are not limited to, a nuclear programme inching closer to capability, sophisticated espionage networks, credible kidnap and repatriation schemes, and a pattern of operations that disregards international standards. Despite the recent success of Israel in degrading the capabilities of Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, we must continue to confront the reality that Iran is an acute threat with its own global networks and its own methods of exerting pressure on Britain.
North Korea is often overlooked in debates about our national security, yet it poses a significant and evolving threat. Its cyber-activities go beyond the attack on NHS systems in 2017 and extend to attempts to access contract specifications, design drawings and project details from defence, aerospace, nuclear and engineering entities, as well as from medical and energy companies. Pyongyang’s covert digital operations have been used to distort public perceptions abroad, and to influence narratives in ways that serve its own interest. The regime has sought to deepen military links with other authoritarian states, complicating the broader strategic landscape, and its involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is well documented. North Korea operates largely outside international norms. It is driven by secrecy and control, and is willing to exploit vulnerabilities wherever they arise.
We have heard some excellent contributions from across the House. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for his excellent contribution and the concerns that he raised about the SNP Government in Edinburgh.
We should not underestimate the severity of the threats posed to this country by the likes of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Will the Minister outline the work that the Cabinet Office is doing with other relevant Departments to protect and enhance our national security? Will he pledge to build on the work of the last Government, who introduced measures such as the Counter-terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, which provided powers to stop, question, search and detain people entering and exiting the UK to determine whether they had been engaged in hostile state activity?
As mentioned, the National Security and Investment Act introduced powers to investigate and intervene in company mergers, acquisitions and other deals that could threaten the UK’s national security. Other measures included the defending democracy taskforce, which aims
“to protect the democratic integrity of the UK from threats of foreign interference”;
the Elections Act 2022, which tightens rules to prevent foreign money from influencing UK elections; the National Security Act 2023, which introduced new offences relating to foreign interference and the foreign influence registration scheme; and finally the Procurement Act 2023, which introduced enhanced powers for public bodies to exclude suppliers from procurement on national security grounds.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Defence of the realm, and therefore national security, is the No. 1 priority of any Government. While we will continue to debate and scrutinise the detail, it is something that unites us all. His Majesty’s official Opposition will continue to work with the Government to ensure that we keep British people safe at home and abroad, and that we protect the United Kingdom from those who wish to harm us.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
This has been an excellent debate. I extend my gratitude to the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing this debate on the pervasive challenge of foreign interference. The hon. Member made a very good speech, in which he spoke knowledgably and authoritatively about the complex nature of the threats we face, which, along with the range of points raised by Members, illustrates the diverse and evolving nature of the foreign interference threat landscape.
In just the last few years, we have seen attempts to influence our political system through: covert donations, as we saw with MI5’s disruptive alert on Christine Lee and the conviction of Reform UK’s leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, for bribery offences in November; the issuing of arrest warrants and bounties by the Hong Kong police on individuals for exercising their freedom of expression; Russian information operations spreading false pro-Kremlin narratives online to undermine support for Ukraine; and the recent and much-publicised concerns about activities in this place. As the Prime Minister said just last week, the Government are clear that China poses national security threats to the UK.
When these threats are left unchecked, they place at risk the things we value most about our country: our democratic values and freedom of expression, and our ability to pursue long-term economic growth. Upholding national security is the first duty of Government, and we continue to take all the measures necessary to disrupt these threats.
As Security Minister, I am deeply committed to using my position to cohere cross-Government efforts to make our country a harder target for these threat actors. The legislative foundation of the UK’s defence against foreign interference lies in the National Security Act 2023. The Act has overhauled our espionage laws and introduced a crucial new foreign interference offence, equipping our security and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats in the UK.
The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to strengthening the resilience of our democratic institutions. That is why he renewed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and I am leveraging that taskforce to co-ordinate the delivery of the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, of course, appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in America. For those seven months, someone had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson. I am not asking the Minister to give away any secrets, but could he tell us that he has personally investigated whether the presence of that kompromat left Lord Mandelson subject to foreign influence, or whether he knows the answer to that question one way or the other?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member. I would gently say that his intervention is not in keeping with the tone of what has been a good-natured and constructive debate, but he has asked the question and I can give him the assurances he seeks.
The action plan will deliver a protective security campaign to support those at risk to recognise, resist and report attempts of foreign interference, to strengthen existing legislation to mitigate the threat, and to co-ordinate action to disrupt the use of proxy actors. In line with our pledge to strengthen legislation, we are also introducing tougher rules on political donations through the elections Bill in order to protect our democracy. The Government believe that foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system, which is why the law is clear that foreign donations are not permitted. Yet as the tactics and techniques of foreign interference actors evolve, UK rules and safeguards also need to adapt.
Cross-Government work also continues at pace to counter foreign information operations. Our immediate focus is getting the Online Safety Act 2023 implemented quickly and effectively. The foreign interference offence in that Act places clear requirements on platforms to tackle illegal state-linked disinformation targeting the UK and our democratic processes. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is also driving a whole-of-society response to strengthening UK resilience against the threat, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has demonstrated relentless international leadership in imposing costs on Russian state-linked threat actors that seek to undermine our democratic elections and spread malign content through deceptive means.
Peter Swallow
The Minister is setting out the strong action that the Government are taking to target those threats. Does he think that social media companies are doing enough to ensure that their platforms are not being used by Russia and others to undermine democracy?
Dan Jarvis
That is an entirely fair challenge. Like every Member of this House, I suspect, I would like social media companies to do more. I am working closely, through the defending democracy taskforce, with colleagues across Government, including in DSIT, to ensure that that is the case.
Since October 2024, the Government have sanctioned 31 organisations and individuals responsible for delivering Russia’s information warfare. Just yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced a further package of sanctions against five entities and two individuals for their role in attempting to destabilise international democracies and undermine international support to Ukraine through the spread of false and divisive narratives. Efforts are also under way to improve data collection on experiences of transnational repression in the UK and to ensure that victims receive appropriate support.
Hon. Members have made a number of very useful contributions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) brought to bear a generation of service, and spoke powerfully about a number of issues, including the importance of our support for Ukraine. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) made clear his concerns about the threats from China and elsewhere. I think it fair to say, based on his contribution, that he is not a fan of the First Minister of Scotland. I will look closely at his letter. I was only sorry that today there was no quote from Sun Tzu—maybe next time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made a very thoughtful contribution and rightly raised his concerns about Russian attempts to undermine our democracy. Although I did not agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), who is not in his place, about the nature of the special relationship, I agreed with what he said about Russia and Ukraine. It is absolutely vital that we maintain that cross-party agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke incredibly well and in a very considered way, as he always does. I am grateful for his words about the publication just this week of the Government’s anti-corruption strategy. I pay tribute to Home Office officials for their work to deliver on that strategy and our commitments. He spoke powerfully and authoritatively about the impact of the Nathan Gill scandal. I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does in support of our national security, and I can tell him that the elections Bill will introduce tough new rules on political donations, including cryptoassets.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) expressed her concern about Reform and sought to clarify her party’s position on NATO membership—although I confess that I am still a bit confused about whether the Greens are in or out. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), spoke about the threats from China and Russia. He raised a number of entirely reasonable and constructive points. I hope that he will understand that I simply do not have the time to address them all today, but I can assure him of the seriousness with which we take them, and of our absolute commitment to working with him and Members across the House to address them.
Finally, I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), in what was a very assured debut at the Dispatch Box; no doubt we will be seeing much more of him in that position. He will not be surprised to hear that I did not quite agree with his assessment of the collapse of the recent China trial, but let me say something about the point he made with regard to the embassy. As Members will know, I have to be incredibly careful about what I say, because there is a quasi-judicial process under way, but should the embassy be approved—and that is very much a decision for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government—it will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic footprint. That is one to ponder on further, I think.
To conclude, the threat from foreign interference touches on almost every part of our national life, and this Government are steadfast in their commitment to disrupting these threats while also ensuring that those at the greatest risk are able to recognise, resist and report suspicious activity. From the comprehensive powers of the National Security Act 2023 and the protective work of the defending democracy taskforce to our focused efforts against disinformation, we are deploying a whole-of-Government approach to make the UK a harder target.
This Government’s clear commitment to upholding and restoring trust in standards and integrity in public life are not merely bureaucratic pledges; they are a vital line of defence, ensuring that the UK is not a permissive environment for foreign interference and safeguarding the sovereignty of our democratic future. On this Government’s watch, we will do whatever is required to disrupt, deter and defeat foreign interference, protect our national security and keep the public safe—nothing matters more.
James MacCleary
It just falls to me to thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I found many of the contributions very compelling and interesting. We are in a changing global environment that is moving very quickly in the security context. Security is a shared priority for everybody in this House and everybody in this country, and it is important that we name these threats and talk about them in this space, so that we are doing our duty as parliamentarians to talk about the specific threats that are coming down the line.
I thank the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), who spoke so well. Some fantastic themes came out from their contributions: the ongoing threats from Russia and China; the role of social media in the disinformation space in particular, which is being driven by those countries and others; the use of crypto—it is extremely welcome to hear from the Minister that action will be taken on donations in crypto format; and the clear lines of exploration, shall we say, that Russia, China and others are making to reach British parliamentarians, British influencers and British policymakers on a constant basis. It is important that we talk about that here. The final theme, of course, is the connections between Reform UK and Russia. It is unfortunate that no Reform MPs are here today to answer those specific concerns, but it is significant that almost every speaker in the debate has raised them; those concerns are profoundly important.
Finally, I thank my party’s spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), and the Minister for taking the time today, and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy.
Historical Interim Development Orders
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
“A monstrosity”, “the giant greenhouse”,
“like living next to a large prison”
and
“like ‘War of the Worlds’, it just kept getting bigger and bigger”.
Those are just a few of the words that my constituents in the village of Pilning have used to describe a gigantic new warehouse being built close to their homes. In a debate about historical planning consents, I will inevitably have to talk about some pretty dry planning matters, but I want to start by setting out the very real human impact that one such consent is having on the people of Pilning. Long time resident Sue said to the media:
“How have they been allowed to build it so close to our properties? It’s made everything dark, the constant noise and dust… And what about the flood plain? Where is all the water going to go?”
Simone said:
“I feel so upset. We have never drawn our curtains. Now you feel like you have no privacy… When they started the piling work the whole house was shaking.”
Claire Young
Residents of Pilning woke up one day to find piling work taking place on the edge of their village for a massive, stadium-sized warehouse, which they have dubbed the mega-shed. It now looms over their homes. Not only is it over 20 metres high, but the land on which it is built has been raised, making it even more imposing. It sits around 150 metres from the closest houses at Cranmoor Green in Pilning. It has robbed them of light, it impacts on visual amenity, and with the land raised and concreted over, it leaves them fearing that their homes will now be at greater risk of flooding. Residents worry about light and noise pollution, with the 24/7 nature of modern warehouse and distribution centres, refrigerated vehicles running while they unload, forklift trucks with warning bleepers, and HGVs arriving around the clock. They worry about the additional traffic that it will draw through the country roads that surround the site, which are already overwhelmed with heavy traffic.
So far, so familiar—our modern lives have led to huge growth in large scale warehousing across the country. However, what makes this particular case all the harder for residents to take is that the developers did not have to make a full planning application, which would have allowed all the residents’ concerns to be taken into consideration and properly assessed. That is because the work has been undertaken under historical planning consents first granted nearly 70 years ago, and that only required a reserved matters application that could look at a very limited set of issues. It does not end with this warehouse, because those consents would allow many more such warehouses to be built near Pilning, Severn Beach and Easter Compton. As one resident put it:
“It’s just so big and so impactful and affecting people’s lives. The issue is, it seems there’s nothing we can do about it.”
In 1957 and 1958, planning permission was granted to Imperial Chemical Industries to facilitate the expansion of chemical, storage, and distribution industries on an area covering over 1,000 hectares alongside and out into the Severn estuary, in what is now my Thornbury and Yate constituency. At this point I must clarify that these were general development orders, not interim development orders, but I will be returning to the latter shortly, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the title of the debate. Those consents were effectively hybrid applications that allowed development without any further planning applications for a large part of the site, as happened with the building of a new Amazon warehouse, and they required a reserved matters application in the remaining parts of the site, including the land next to Pilning.
That was part of a big post-war push to industrialise. The local area looked very different then. There was no M4, no M5, and no Severn bridges. Filton airfield was operating. There was an expectation of goods being brought in and out via the estuary, which was why the development area extended out into it. The lorries that would have moved goods about that were not being transported via the estuary were considerably smaller than modern HGVs. Pilning itself was smaller and Cranmoor Green did not exist.
The permissions are very open, and lacking in conditions by modern standards. The area is loosely described, and the only red line drawn on a map is at such a scale that the thickness of the line represents 100 metres to 150 metres on the ground. On those parts of the site where reserved matters applications are required, the only things that can be considered are the layout, design, and external appearance of the buildings. Planners cannot consider access, parking, ecology, biodiversity net gain, residential amenity, flood risks—the list goes on. Also, the council cannot use a section 106 agreement or receive community infrastructure levy to mitigate the impacts of any development. The world has moved on in the last 70 years, but that planning consent remains extant, despite efforts to challenge it. I am afraid Madam Deputy Speaker that this is where we get into the driest of planning matters.
A memorandum that the House of Commons Library found for me highlights that the 1957 and 1958 consents were granted without a time limit, and that although section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced time limits, those do not apply to permission granted by a development order. In any case, ICI had developed on a small proportion of the land, so implementation had been started.
In 1992, AstraZeneca purchased the site from ICI. A planning committee report from 30 September 2011 says that South Gloucestershire council challenged the permission in 2000, but it was found sound and capable of implementation in its current form by the courts in 2003. There was a further Secretary of State decision in 2022, when Redrow appealed against the non-determination of an application, which also confirmed the permission extant and capable of implementation.
In 2011, the Cresswell review was undertaken to see if the permission ran contrary to the environmental designations affecting the area. It identified that habitat loss would occur and identified potential sites for mitigation. The public authorities chose the two most impactful options and have implemented those at public expense, not the expense of the developer.
In response to recent media coverage of the mega-shed, a Government spokesperson said:
“Councils are ultimately responsible for reviewing old permissions if the development is no longer suitable and deciding whether action is necessary.”
But what powers do councils actually have to do this? They have already tried the judicial review route and the consent was found to be extant.
The local residents’ action group takes issue with the council’s interpretation of the case, but in many cases residents were unaware of the development until it was too late to mount a judicial review, and no other avenue is open to them. I believe that it will take Government action to resolve this situation and restore some control to the local planning authority. There is precedent, and this is where I finally come to interim development orders.
IDO consents were permissions granted between 1943 and 1948 for mineral extraction. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 created a process through which old mining and mineral extraction permissions authorised by an IDO consent could be updated with modern conditions. The Act required holders of IDO consents as at 1991 to apply to the mineral planning authority to register that old permission, as it was granted before the modern planning system, and then to apply for determination of the conditions to which the permission was to be subject. The planning policy underpinning Act states:
“The Government takes the view that this is an important opportunity to secure improved operating and environmental standards. Minerals are vital to the economy but it is essential that they are extracted in an environmentally acceptable away”.
Similar statements could be made about warehousing and the modern economy. No compensation was paid to the holders of IDO consents.
Although the legislation covered just about any condition, the Government guidance said that for working sites, a distinction should be drawn between environment and amenity aspects, where new conditions should not affect the asset value, and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. The latter should be done under mineral planning authority review.
Separately, under the Environment Act 1995, there was a review of old mineral permissions: ROMPs. This is a separate procedure that effectively does the same thing—modernises old mineral planning consents—but for consents granted in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. That Act imposed a requirement on mineral planning authorities to periodically review the planning permissions of mines to ensure that they stay up to date to modern standards. This legislation said that if the new conditions would prejudice the asset value or viability “to an unreasonable degree” the applicant could claim compensation.
The Labour Government issued revised minerals planning guidance MPG4 in August 1997, which provided guidance on the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) Regulations 1997, and section 198 of the Planning Act 2008 made changes to the process for appeals relating to old mining permission granted under IDOs. So through a series of legislation and planning guidance, we have a process in place for the pre-1948 mineral permissions—the IDO process—and one for the post-1948 mineral permissions. However, there is no process in place for other blanket consents that need modernising.
I ask the Minister to review the Severnside consents and to consider creating a process analogous to those I have just described for reviewing historical blanket consents that have not been fully implemented. To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that most old consents be reviewed and modern conditions imposed—only those that have not been implemented on all the parcels of land to which the consent applies, such as the Severnside consents. I appreciate that there is no power to halt the existing construction of the mega-shed, much to the anger of my constituents affected by it, but that would provide a route to ensuring that all issues can be considered before permitting further development.
Furthermore, I ask the Minister to consider taking steps to prevent this issue in the future. If most consents are not implemented within three years, the consent lapses, thanks to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The problem arises where consents cover a large area, such as this one, and they are considered to have been implemented as soon as the first thing is built, resulting in the whole consent being live indefinitely. If this Government want to speed up development in the pursuit of growth, they could put time limits on the completion of the implementation, so that if the consent is not fully implemented within that period, the consent for the remaining parcels of land lapses or can have its conditions reviewed. If no such measure is introduced, and Governments continue to let developers hang around for 70 years with no incentive to finish implementing permissions and no modernisation of conditions, it makes a mockery of the Government’s plans for growth and their stated commitment to do so sustainably.
Let me highlight the particular concerns felt by residents and the parish council around flooding. I am meeting the Environment Agency tomorrow, and I would appreciate the Minister’s support for me to convene a meeting of the Environment Agency, the parish council and South Gloucestershire council to understand these concerns better and identify any action necessary to address them.
This is a complex matter, which I have tried to explain in the time allowed and without the use of supporting diagrams. I would be grateful for an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss it in more depth and to see whether we can find a way to give hope to the residents of Pilning and the surrounding villages. Ultimately, they are the ones paying the price for a planning decision made years before many of them were even born.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this important debate. She has made a strong case on behalf of her constituents in Pilning and other nearby communities, who, while not directly affected, still have an interest in this matter. I appreciate fully the concerns she raises in respect of historical interim development orders on the communities she represents. In the time available, I will seek to provide her with a number of reassurances, although I suspect I will not be able to assuage her concerns in full, for reasons that will become clear.
Planning is principally a local activity, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government want local communities to be at the heart of the planning system. That is why we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal coverage of local plans that are shaped by early and effective engagement with communities, and that is why we continue to explore ways to enhance community engagement planning, including through greater digitalisation of the system.
The particular issue that is the subject of this debate has a long and complex planning history, as the hon. Lady made clear in her remarks. Although I am obviously unable to comment on individual planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, I will seek to respond to the concerns she has raised in general terms and, to the best of my ability, assuage them, although I suspect that I will be unable to do so in full, for reasons that I will now set out.
Let me make some general comments about planning permissions. The hon. Lady has acknowledged this point, but there really is no way of tackling this subject without dry commentary on some of the historical elements of planning law, but such is the debate we are having—it is an important one. For reasons that I trust are obvious, it is vital that the planning system provides certainty on what can be built and where. It is axiomatic, but nevertheless worth stating, that the grant of planning permission for development is a right to develop. It is important that developers and landowners have the certainty that a planning permission, once granted, will not be readily removed or altered, given the considerable investment committed to it as part of the development process.
When the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was enacted to establish the planning system as we know it, it was determined that the grant of planning permission would be in perpetuity unless it was explicitly for temporary development. No provision was made for the abandonment or lapse of a planning permission in instances where development did not occur. This issue was partly— but not entirely—addressed in the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which required, through a mandatory commencement condition, that development must begin within five years in relation to full permissions. The same Act extended that requirement to earlier permissions that had not been built out before 1968. Since then, the default commencement period in England has been reduced to three years for full permissions, to ensure timely build-out of developments. If a development is commenced, the planning permission remains extant, and it is often possible for a developer to carry out the remainder of the development many years later.
However, as the recent Supreme Court judgment in Hillside Parks Ltd v. Snowdonia National Park Authority made clear, it is not lawful to carry out development if the development has become physically impossible to implement—for instance, if a planning permission for another subsequent development has been implemented instead. This means it is likely that many historical planning permissions that have not been implemented cannot now in practice be lawfully carried out, as subsequent development has since been carried out so as to render further development under the historical permission physically impossible.
That said, the Government recognise that it is still possible to carry out the development granted by a small proportion of historical planning permissions—for instance, if there has been a partial commencement. We also recognise that the conditions and obligations related to the development of these historical permissions may not be as comprehensive as a recent permission for the same development would be.
Local planning authorities do have the power, as a last resort, to revoke or modify planning permissions that could be used for historical planning permissions under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State must confirm any revocation or modification, and there must be sound planning reasons for taking such action. As the local planning authority would in such circumstances be unilaterally affecting a land interest’s right to develop, it is worth making clear that in such a scenario the planning authority in question would also be left liable to provide compensation to the land interest for any expenditure incurred in carrying out works and other sustained loss or damage.
Another tool potentially available to local planning authorities is a completion notice under section 94 of the Act. This can be used where development has begun under a planning permission but the LPA is of the opinion that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period. In such circumstances the local authority can serve a completion notice, which works on a “use it or lose it” basis, with the planning permission ceasing to have effect at the end of a specified period of at least 12 months.
As part of this Government’s commitment to provide greater transparency and accountability in respect of build-out rates on housing sites and to speed up the building of homes, we intend to implement the changes made to relevant completion notice legislation under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This will remove the need for Secretary of State confirmation of a completion notice, making it easier for local planning authorities to use such notices.
It is worth me making some brief remarks about outline planning permissions. As the House will know, outline planning permission establishes the principle of development, on the condition that subsequent reserved matters are to be approved at a later date. When considering an application for the approval of reserved matters, the decision maker must consider these matters of detail within the context of the outline planning permission. Although this does not allow decision makers to revisit the principle of development or the parameters set by the outline permission, local planning authorities can ensure through reserved matters applications that the development constitutes sustainable development and that amenity, design quality, highways safety and flood risk issues are fully considered.
Finally, let me turn to community engagement. Where a new planning permission is sought, planning law requires that local planning authorities provide the local community with the opportunity to make representations about the application through a range of methods. As the principle and therefore substantive planning matters have typically been established through the outline planning permission, there is no legal requirement for local planning authorities to consult on an application for approval of reserved matters. However, I am aware that where the matters raised would warrant input from the local community, local planning authorities do carry out engagement with communities when assessing applications for the approval of reserved matters. In the unique circumstances of an historical planning permission, I would encourage local planning authorities to carry out such engagement. Where relevant considerations are raised by local residents, they must be taken into account by the local planning authority. However, the weight attached to a particular condition is a matter of judgment for the local authority as the decision maker in the first instance.
Although there are clearly cases where historical planning permissions may still be implemented years after they were granted, the Government consider them to be extremely rare. To the extent that such planning permissions remain extant after the development has been commenced, they cannot automatically be extinguished. As I have set out, local planning authorities do have the power to revoke or modify incomplete planning permissions, or issue commencement notices, but only in specific circumstances.
I appreciate, therefore, that the planning system as it has developed in the post-war period and as it is currently constituted does not provide a ready solution for the specific challenge outlined by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate. With a view to exploring what more might be done within the constraints of the current system, I am happy to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting early in the new year to give the matters relating to these specific applications the due consideration they warrant. As they relate to a specific application, I hope she will accept that in the first instance it would be appropriate for them to be with officials in my Department rather than me personally, but I will make sure that that meeting covers the analogous points she made about mineral permissions and IDO processes. I will also seek, through my officials, to ensure that she gets the requisite engagement with the relevant statutory consultees. In this instance, that will mainly be the Environment Agency, but she is more than welcome to write to me with other bodies that she wants to be engaged, particularly on the flooding issues she raised.
To conclude, I commend the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she set out her constituents’ concerns and the constructive manner in which she engaged with me on the subject. I will ensure that she gets the required engagement with my Department to explore what might be done in respect of the concerns that she has so ably set out.
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
Backbench Business
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
Fairtrade Certification
(1 day, 4 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
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade.
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing for the second time in a fortnight, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I was employed by the Scottish Fair Trade Forum prior to my election, and am currently chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Fairtrade.
Can we all honestly say we know who made the clothes we are wearing? When we buy a chocolate bar, do we always consider who grew the cocoa and under what conditions they worked? With every drink of tea, do we consider whether the tea farmer was paid adequately for us to enjoy our brew? Even as morally conscious as many of us would like to consider ourselves, the answer to those questions is very likely no. In this deeply globalised world, it is not possible for individuals to investigate the ethics of every product they buy.
Equally many corporations use their market power to exploit farmers and workers, suppliers of tea, cotton, and cocoa, with little regard for the environment and human wellbeing. That is why certification standards are important: they empower individuals to make informed purchasing choices through visible certification symbols, while also transcending the individual by helping to create a more ethical system of supply and demand, often by offering fair prices for products, financing for farmers, independent auditing of farming practices, transportation of goods, and processing to ensure high standards for people and the environment.
Not all certification standards were created equal. Some schemes can be used for greenwashing or to hide unethical practices through poor auditing standards. We must continue to champion independent certification standards and verification systems, and challenge those who opt for less demanding alternatives or no standards at all. I welcome the Government’s responsible business review, which I believe provides an opportunity for the UK Government to learn from certification standards as a way of delivering ethical business practices. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this in his response.
With that, I come to the main focus of this debate: the Fairtrade certification mark, which is one of the most recognised and effective certification standards. It is a household name, with an estimated 91% of UK consumers recognising the Fairtrade mark and some 78% caring about it. The blue, black, and green mark has come to be synonymous with certification standards. What really makes the Fairtrade mark so important is not just its public recognition or popularity, but the impact it has had and continues to have for farmers and communities globally.
Fairtrade guarantees a minimum price for farmers, provides a Fairtrade premium, ensures labour and environmental standards, and provides support and training. In practice, that means there is a price safety net enabling farmers to sell their products to cover the average cost of sustainable production. That income goes directly to farmers to increase their income, improve their livelihoods and increase wages for their workers.
The premium is paid directly to farmers via co-operatives; for every kilogram of produce sold, the funds must be spent democratically to invest in a community development project. It has been estimated that over the 25 years to 2019, Fairtrade farmers and workers have received around €1 billion in Fairtrade premium as additional funds to be invested in their communities and businesses. In 2023 alone, producers earned more than €211 million in Fairtrade premium. The projects and numerous types of training on the ground, including improved agricultural practices, climate resilience, business management, literacy and gender equality, have been supported by the premium.
Although the Fairtrade Foundation here in the UK does more than just implement its certification processes, there will always be limits to how much such an approach can deliver improved conditions for people and the planet, due to structural barriers and the imbalance of power in the competitive market system. This is why Fairtrade’s advocacy is so important. It helps producers, particularly smallholder farmers and workers, who usually are not given access to participate in public debate or to influence legislative and policy frameworks for the benefit of people and the planet.
The certification scheme is one part of the work of the Fairtrade Foundation, and the foundation in turn is only part of the global Fairtrade movement, bringing together consumers, producers, businesses and campaigners in a unique global movement for change.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Through their pioneering work, the Fairtrade movement and other organisations, such as Transform Trade, have demonstrated that we can have a real impact on human rights abuses and working conditions abroad by upholding standards in our own supply chains. Does he agree that we should work with big companies to incentivise best practice and transparency, protecting small and ethical businesses in the process?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that it is important that we look at reforming global trade in different ways depending on the particular context. One of the great successes of Fairtrade in the UK has been getting products into mainstream retail, where most people do their shopping. When it comes to quantity, that is where those products need to be. However, it is also important that the Fairtrade movement has supported other Fairtrade businesses to do all of their business Fairtrade and provided an alternative model of doing business. Both approaches are why Fairtrade has been so generally successful, accepting the current situation and how we make it better while also looking at how we build a better system overall.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on the way he is articulating the case for Fairtrade. It is important that it is robust and traceable and has strong integrity, but if we are to scale up, should we not also integrate international Fairtrade standards into the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is part of UK legislation? After all, the GCA is looking only at the final supplier to the large supermarkets in this country. If we can establish a strong relationship between international Fairtrade and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is currently under review, would that not be another step forward?
Martin Rhodes
The hon. Member’s highlights that certification schemes, important though they are, are not the only answer; we need to look at legislation and statutory guidance that will drive change in the system overall. I will speak later about what we can do in legislative terms to ensure that all the supply chains involved in goods and services sold in the UK are properly regulated and that we have a system in place to look at standards in the UK and elsewhere in those supply chains.
A recent example of the advocacy work of the Fairtrade Foundation is its “Brew it Fair” campaign, which called for greater accountability and responsibility in the tea sector. Some 13 million people source employment from the tea industry, and 60% of the world’s tea is produced by smallholder farmers. Regrettably, this market is made up of a high number of farmers and workers with low incomes and wages, working in the context of increasingly difficult conditions for farming due to climate change. This campaign called on the Government to do more to collaborate with the industry to deliver living wages and incomes for those in the tea sector and to be bolder in how we approach supply chain due diligence, and called for the UK to continue to honour its international climate finance commitments. During Fairtrade fortnight, at the end of September, around 117,000 people across the UK engaged with more than 1,000 local grassroots activities in support of the “Brew it Fair” campaign. Many of them were Fairtrade communities, a network of local campaign groups across the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) wished to speak today but is unable to do so due to prior commitments. However, she told me she wants on the record her recognition of the hard work of the Garstang Fairtrade community—passionate campaigners on these issues in the world’s first Fairtrade town.
Support for Fairtrade cuts across communities and generations, from faith communities who see it as an important part of their social mission, to student activists inspired by its empowering impact, to rural communities who know through lived experience where power lies in agricultural supply chains. When Fairtrade hosted tea farmers from Kenya and India to speak directly to politicians and policy makers, that demonstrated exactly why advocacy is so important: it closes the vast proximity gap, often spanning cultures and oceans, between those who make decisions in this place and in boardrooms and those working at the very beginning of supply chains to deliver so many of the goods we enjoy.
Yesterday, Fairtrade’s “Brew it Fair” campaign culminated in a cross-party group of MPs, activists, and representatives from business and the Fairtrade Foundation handing a petition in to Downing Street, signed by over 21,000 people, containing the main asks of the campaign. The petition calls on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence to oblige the public sector and businesses to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harms across their supply chains. I look forward to the Minister reflecting on the asks of the campaign in his response. In particular, I ask that he updates us on the Government’s position on human rights and environmental due diligence. The petition’s ask is the most important of the campaign, and the clearest ask of this debate.
Andrew George
I am dreadfully sorry to ask, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who are campaigning for Fairtrade believe that it can succeed properly only if this Government lead the way with their official development assistance budget, which has been severely cut? Does he agree that to achieve the aims that we all want to achieve, the Government need to look at their ODA budget? I cannot see how we can help countries enough if do it purely through trade.
Martin Rhodes
Trading relations become more important in the context of cuts to aid budgets, not just here but elsewhere in the world. Trade and business become more important as means of supporting and helping countries, and of narrowing gaps of inequality globally. There is a separate debate, which we might have at another time, about the levels of aid from the UK and elsewhere, but in the current context, trade becomes more important, not less.
In recent correspondence I had with the University of the Arts London, it highlighted structural challenges that are particularly clear in the fashion and textile sector. The debate so far has concentrated on food, but the university’s analysis shows that, despite strong consumer demand for ethical clothing, uptake of standards such as Fairtrade remains limited because of the lack of regulatory pressure, opaque multi-tiered supply chains and the competitive disadvantage faced by responsible brands. Its research underlines exactly why certification alone cannot fix a market that rewards the cheapest, rather than the fairest, production. We need human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to create that system change.
Some may worry that such legislation is a recipe for more red tape that will hamper growth, but that need not be the case. Many UK businesses already have to follow EU directives because that is where a large part of their market is. We risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while our own British companies, following best practice in order to trade with our closest and largest neighbours, are undercut. Some 50 global businesses have already signed statements calling for human rights due diligence legislation, including UK brands such as Tesco, Twinings and John Lewis. Organisations such as the Corporate Justice Coalition are working hard to advocate on the issue by proposing a business, human rights and environment Act.
Current legislation on supply chain transparency lacks effectiveness. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies only to report on their operations, but not necessarily to take responsible actions to address and prevent the problems. Having met the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I am aware that they are pushing for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in the UK. I would appreciate the Minister making reference to the commissioner’s work in his response.
Fairtrade shows that ethical trade can deliver; human rights and environmental due diligence would take it from optional to systemic. That said, the lessons of this debate for the Government are not just about the Fairtrade mark, a more ethical tea industry, or even important changes in due diligence laws. As we face a world of pressures and reductions in aid budgets, including our own, it places on us a greater and more urgent responsibility to use progressive approaches to trade and business and to promote progress on human rights, the environment and economic growth concurrently.
I shall conclude on that wider context. With the reductions in UK official development assistance, we should be viewing ethical trade and responsible business as cost-effective ways to put our principles into practice. Principles such as poverty reduction, gender equality and environmental sustainability can all be advanced through strong due diligence laws, and by growing our trade with allies that share the same high standards. But we are also required to take proactive action against regressive trade policies—most notably the use of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which are mechanisms to allow overseas investors to sue Governments for taking legitimate regulatory decisions in the public interest.
The Government’s recent trade strategy contains very welcome and strong commitments to embedding human rights and environmental practices into our trade policy. I similarly welcome the Government’s responsible business conduct review, which shows their commitment to tackle the issues we are addressing in this debate. Such Government engagement, led by the Minister, is welcome.
The Labour Government was elected on an ambitious programme for workers’ rights and environmental sustainability. This is now an important opportunity for us to put those priorities into practice, not just here in the UK but in our global supply chains. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the rest of the debate.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. I am going to call the Front Benchers at 2.25 pm at the latest. I do not think I need to impose an official limit on speeches, but it would be brilliant if Members keep their remarks within eight minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for excellently setting the scene, for his contribution today and for his hard work on this subject over the years, which is not forgotten about and provides extra context to the debate and to his speech.
The fairtrade system sets standards across the globe on ethical sourcing, fair wages, safer working conditions and proper environmental practices—four things that probably all of us in this Chamber would fully support. Fairtrade is a well-known organisation and it plays a key part across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in schools, so I am pleased to participate in this debate. In Northern Ireland— I hope this is true on the mainland too—children are very much aware of the Fairtrade organisation at an early age. As a result, they are well placed to tell their parents and other adults and remind them of the role they can play. The Minister is not responsible for education, but perhaps he can give us some idea of what is done to encourage schools more strongly?
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an important point about young children in schools. Last month, Joshua, Leyla and Elizabeth from St George’s primary school in my constituency wrote to me about their campaign to promote sustainable palm oil labelling. They are carrying on a fine tradition in Bolton, where one of the first Fairtrade shops in the country, Justicia, opened in 1985. Does the hon. Member agree with Joshua, Leyla, Elizabeth and myself that sustainable palm oil labelling is crucial for informing consumers and promoting ethical businesses, alongside greater Fairtrade initiatives?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. I am greatly encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman said, and by those three young children in particular in relation to their work on palm oil. That is one of the campaigns that school children in Northern Ireland are also part of. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, and I am sure that the children he mentioned will be given a copy of Hansard, where their names will be printed for posterity. I thank them for all that they are doing—well done! That encourages me when it comes to the greater picture for children.
UK businesses use Fairtrade to demonstrate commitment to ethical practices. Northern Ireland has held Fairtrade status as a region since 2004. It is something we are greatly committed to and have a great interest in. The NI Fairtrade forum works with councils, schools, businesses and communities to increase awareness. One of my staff members remembers that in primary school they celebrated a Fairtrade week, when all pupils had to bring in the labels of any foods or packaging they could find in their homes that were Fairtrade. I can imagine children scouring their cupboards to find something in their house—hopefully there were plenty of products that represented Fairtrade.
Fairtrade products are widely available in supermarkets across Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Glasgow North referred to some of the businesses that carry Fairtrade products. I am glad to report that the likes of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op all carry Fairtrade products that are sourced globally. Those shops are making these products practically and physically available across Northern Ireland, and they take in a large proportion of shoppers—although not all of them, of course.
Let us honest about the situation: some smaller, perhaps family-run, businesses will struggle slightly more because producers are paid a fair minimum price and premium. Smaller businesses with tight margins and sometimes unpredictable cash-flow will struggle to source Fairtrade products, for fear of passing the cost increases to customers. It is not possible for everyone to source Fairtrade products, but for those who commit to it and wish to do it, there is a way of making it happen. The smaller businesses in my constituency rely on the local wholesalers and independent distributors which, again, may not carry a whole range of Fairtrade products. Some of those suppliers perhaps need a greater awareness, so they can do more. People want to do their best, but in terms of finance they must work with what is available to them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North also referred to the role of churches. I am pleased to say that in my Strangford constituency there are a great many churches and churchgoers—those who practice their faith in a very practical and physical way. They are committed to Fairtrade because of their beliefs. They also want to do their best to help in a physical way, which they do by purchasing available Fairtrade products so that the money goes to people who need it in the right places. It is a pleasure to thank all the people in Northern Ireland who buy from and support the Fairtrade networks. Northern Ireland has some strong Fairtrade networks, and we should be proud of that, but of course people want to do more. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that people want Fairtrade. I think most people I meet, if not every person, wants Fairtrade, but some may be restricted by what is available on the shelf or where they shop.
I am so proud of the education on Fairtrade in schools and universities—the very thing referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) in his intervention. It is really encouraging to know that our children probably know more about it than their parents, and that they want to do something about it. There is an innocence that children have, where they see the good—things can be very black and white for them, but it is good that they have that.
The United Kingdom Government can do more to incentivise public bodies such as schools and hospitals to consider options for Fairtrade, such as tea and coffee, or prioritise ethical trade standards to make procurement easier for small public bodies. I should have welcomed the Minister to his place; it is always a pleasure to see him. He has been a busy man today—he has been in the Chamber and now he is here, so he has definitely earned his money today. Can he indicate what has been done to encourage public bodies to purchase Fairtrade goods? I know there is a campaign, but for those who are maybe hesitant, is there is a follow-up to encourage them?
Fairtrade plays a positive role by promoting ethical standards in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom. It strengthens our commitments to human rights. I am a great believer in and a huge supporter of human rights, and Fairtrade helps us to support human rights across the world. We can make an impact through everyday purchasing, and to build on that I ask the Government again to do more to make the procurement process easier. If that is possible, it would be a step in the right direction. I thank all Members for their participation in advance of the debate, and I look forward to the other contributions and to the Minister’s response.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate. I also thank the team at Fairtrade UK for their incredible work; it was a pleasure to attend their festive reception in Parliament yesterday afternoon.
I have been a supporter of Fairtrade for some time, inspired by some of the wonderful activists in my home city of Wolverhampton. I am very proud that recently the Wolverhampton City Fairtrade Partnership celebrated Wolverhampton’s 21st year as a Fairtrade city, showing the care and compassion of my constituents in Wolverhampton West and others in the city. I recently attended a tea party at the City of Wolverhampton College to celebrate Fairtrade fortnight, and it was a joy to see that the students had baked delicious cakes to promote the event, and to hear more about the work that Wolverhampton Fairtrade has been doing. I continue to work with the group on a regular basis to support the consumption of Fairtrade products in our city.
As we know, Fairtrade is much more than just a label: it is about justice, equality, humanity and sustainability. Fairtrade benefits the planet by helping the fight against climate change. Fairtrade certification enables farmers to respect human rights and tackle environmental risks, including by banning toxic pesticides, protecting biodiversity and encouraging sustainable organic farming practices that are free of hazardous waste and use water efficiently.
Shoppers in the UK know that when they purchase Fairtrade products they are making an ethical purchase, supporting fair, sustainable farming practices around the world. Most importantly, Fairtrade helps farmers across the globe who would otherwise live in deep poverty and very poor conditions to receive guaranteed minimum prices, with improved working conditions and a proper say in how decisions are made. On top of that, Fairtrade certification offers an additional financial premium that allows farmers to democratically decide how to invest the money in community development projects, such as schools, training and water treatment systems, thereby actively improving local communities and securing their livelihoods.
From my constituents who are choosing which teabags to buy, to major UK retailers and brands, to the more than 2 million farmers and workers across more than 70 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Fairtrade ensures that human rights and environmental risks are taken seriously throughout the supply chain. From protecting the climate to ending child labour and supporting farming communities around the world, Fairtrade does it all, with Fairtrade community development premium funds being used to reinvest in education, healthcare, housing and environmental initiatives. As parliamentarians, we must continue to champion Fairtrade and the farmers and workers it supports, for the present and the future. Our planet and its people depend on it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for presenting the case for Fairtrade, and for fairer trade practices overall, so compellingly. I also pay tribute to everybody who has been part of the Fairtrade campaign for many decades. I have been involved in it for at least 30 years, and it is a fantastic example of a widely supported public campaign that has, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, found its way into our schools and communities, and also into our supermarkets, making it easy for people to choose Fairtrade products. That is fantastic and to be celebrated.
This is not just about individual shopping choices, important though they are; it is also about ensuring a level playing field for all producers, so that good environmental, human rights and workers’ rights practices are not an optional add-on but fundamental to the way we do business. That is why I warmly welcome the Brew it Fair campaign and the petition handed in at Downing Street yesterday. I was involved in the delivery of a similar petition a few months ago with the Corporate Justice Coalition. Again, that had well over 100,000 signatures from citizens across the country calling for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. We have to ensure that the positive practice encapsulated by Fairtrade is not just an optional extra, but how business is done.
More than 80 MPs have signed an early-day motion in support of the Fairtrade tea campaign and mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. The reasons for supporting such legislation are clear. Introducing that horizontal legislation that obliges all UK businesses to take steps to prevent human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains, all the way down to smallholder farmers and workers, is the single most cost-effective measure we could take to support sustainability in the food system and to improve the UK’s international reputation for action to create a climate- compatible, sustainable, rights-supporting economy.
We have some legislation on supply chain transparency, but it is insufficient and riddled with loopholes. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to report on their operations, but not to take reasonable steps to address and prevent the problem—and prevention must be central to this. Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 applies only to commodities identified as key drivers of the UK’s deforestation footprint, such as cattle products excluding dairy and cocoa, palm oil and soy. That is important, but it is narrow in scope.
Human rights and environmental due diligence should not be addressed in silos, where businesses often face the challenge of potentially trading off one sort of risk against another. If we had mandatory requirements on human rights and environmental due diligence, that would provide the consistency and level playing field that businesses need. Businesses that already source their food responsibly—whether voluntarily or because they are covered by the direct scope of the European corporate sustainability due diligence directive—would not be put at a competitive disadvantage by mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in the UK.
If the legislation were designed correctly, it would reduce the risk of abuses or poor practices in supply chains, put farmers and workers on track to earn a decent livelihood to keep their families’ heads above water, and help end issues such as gendered, racial and pay discrimination, forced labour, child labour, undignified and unsafe working conditions, the denial of workers’ rights to freely associate, and lack of care and consideration for water sources and biodiversity. All those problems could be better prevented if we made such a change in the law.
I warmly welcome the Department for Business and Trade’s responsible business conduct review. It is a critical opportunity to introduce comprehensive, inclusive and enforceable legislation on human rights, labour rights and environmental protection in supply chains, and it is crucial that we take it forward.
Finally, I want to echo a point that a couple of other Members have made. We need to ensure that trade is fair. We need to ensure that these fundamental rights are built into the normal way of doing business. The UK’s foreign aid budget is a crucial element in supporting this work. It is vital that we restore it, so that we play our part in supporting and enforcing human rights globally. Will the Minister tell us whether the responsible business conduct review will include mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, and will he respond to my point on the aid budget?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.
Picture the scene: Downing Street in December and jolly Christmas trees sparkling away. No, it is not “Love Actually”, but the moment—exactly 24 hours ago, I think —that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), other officers of the all-party parliamentary group and I handed in the petition of 22,000 constituents. Such was the volume of names, the petition was in a blue cardboard box, carrying the logo that my hon. Friend described, with the distinctive swirly light-green and blue with a dot connoting a person. It was the Fairtrade logo, which people trust. It is like a kitemark.
When we buy stuff with the Fairtrade logo—bananas or whatever it is—we know what it means. As people have described, there is a minimum price guarantee for the farmer, and there is the Fairtrade premium—the financial bonus for community projects. Certification is a two-way bargain. On their side, the person being supplied has to provide transparent contracts. There are lots of things that these smallholders—they are often tiny farmers—find difficult, like getting finance up front, before the harvest season. Under the Fairtrade scheme, they can get money up front.
The scheme is about people, sustainability and community first, before naked transactional profit. Smallholding farmers can club together and get a lot more access to international markets than they would be able to get on their own. The scheme increases their bargaining capacity. It is also democratic and run on co-operative—I am a member of the Co-operative party—principles. The premium could go to football pitches, tuition fees or classrooms; that is decided by the community.
I do not know whether I am the only one in the room old enough to remember the 1980s and the advert with the man from Del Monte. Do you remember him, Mrs Hobhouse? He was a little bit neocolonialist in his hat and linen suit, and he swooped into a paradise-like community. Well, it was not all paradise, was it? He was on a plantation somewhere or other—it was an unnamed location—stroking his beard and inspecting fruit produce. It was some far-off location—somewhere in sunny climes. He was this western impresario and the community were all there, with their great expectations. In the end, the cliffhanger was resolved with a thumb up—“The man from Del Monte, he say yes!”, as one of the urchin children said. I like to think that in this day and age, it would be a certified, kitemark-able, Fairtrade business and the little urchin would be going to a school provided by this system and enjoying kicking a ball about on a pitch built with these community funds. That is what we would like to think, but it is an uneven playing field, as people have described.
The Minister is wearing a jolly waistcoat himself for this debate. It is very festive—I like it.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is British.
Dr Huq
It is made in Britain, but not everything can be. Bananas, coffee, chocolate—that is what we are talking about. The man from Del Monte said yes. In the time that has elapsed since the mid-’80s, when that advert was first shown, British consumers have become more demanding and sought more reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) referred to palm oil. In 2018, there was the advert for Iceland—not the country; the frozen food giant—that showed the orangutan who was sad that his habitat was disappearing because of palm oil. People are becoming more and more discerning. There is a worry, though, because we are in a cost of living crisis and people are looking for cheaper alternatives, which are not necessarily the ethical things, if the prices of those things are too many multiples of the cost of the standard-price item.
The petition that we handed in says that manufacturers should not be penalised for doing the right thing. We should not always be rushing to a lowest common denominator situation. This campaign for fair trade, which all our constituents are behind, links to concerns about deforestation and about fast fashion. Is it worth getting something for £4 from Primark if it comes with a real cost of many litres of water and hardship?
The petition looks particularly at tea, the national drink—we all enjoy a cuppa. At a time when the UK is seeing the biggest uplift to workers’ rights ever, in one go, this debate is about those things we cannot get at home: bananas, coffee, chocolate, flowers, tea, cotton and gold. They are all implicated when we hear of a dark side of undesirable practices in businesses’ supply chains: human rights abuses, environmental damage, child labour—all sorts of things. We are now outside the EU—something that I regret—and we are looking for free trade agreements. In that pursuit, let us not forget fair trade. We do not want farmers to be subject to naked exploitation—modern slavery.
The indicators are good. Quarter 3 of this year spanned Fairtrade fortnight, which was the end of September to the beginning of October, and figures from the Fairtrade Foundation show that Fairtrade tea sales were up by 40%—it was a record quarter—confectionary up 20% and coffee up 15%. All the polls show that 95% of shoppers believe that businesses should take responsibility for upholding human rights throughout their supply chains. What we were all trying to say with the petition is that those who already invest in ethical sourcing should not be penalised. Introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence would level the playing field so that those operating responsibility are not undercut by those cutting corners and exploiting loopholes. Such legislation would be the single most cost-effective way to enhance the UK’s reputation as a champion of net zero, too.
At the moment, we have a fragmented system, with different logos, such as the swirly one I mentioned and those of the Rainforest Alliance, Red Tractor and so on. It is a little inconsistent. We should have one system for all, with an enforceable and consistent framework to protect people and planet. We should protect small-scale farmers and workers worldwide against a race to the bottom with fair prices. When we delivered the petition yesterday, I found out that Sainsbury’s has a human rights department—that I did not know. Other supermarkets are available, of course—Waitrose, the good old Co-op and so on.
We also want to continue our transition to net zero. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has gone—that’s Lib Dems for you—but he mentioned the aid budget cut. It was in our manifesto that we will work towards restoring that budget, so I hope that we will be able to do that when time allows. The main asks of the petition are a UK law on human rights and environmental due diligence; encouragement of multi-stakeholder collaboration in the tea sector, progressing towards living incomes and living wages for tea growers; and honouring of our climate finance obligations and, when time allows, restoration of our aid budget.
This is not just something for far-off places and the man from Del Monte. In 2003, Ealing council passed its first fair-trade measure and the Ealing Co-op was very active in Fairtrade fortnight, garnering some of those 22,000 signatures. My alma mater, Notting Hill girls’ school, is apparently now a Fairtrade school. St Stephen’s church and many other faith communities locally have also campaigned for fair trade.
If you want any more persuading of the good souls behind this cause, Mrs Hobhouse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North can attest, yesterday our cardboard box attracted a lot of attention from, if not Downing Street’s most famous inhabitant, certainly the most consistent one in my time in this place, which has spanned six different Prime Ministers: the contented purring that we heard proved to us that Larry the cat is on side as well.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this debate. Clearly, fair trade matters, and it does to all of us. I will spend a little time outlining why it matters so much to me and where I first came across it. Too often in global trade, people who grow and produce the food that we enjoy here in the UK take all the risks—unstable prices, poor conditions, climate pressures—while others further up the supply chain take the reward.
Nearly 20 years ago, I was fortunate enough to be part of a delegation organised by Banana Link, where we met those working on the plantations that produce the majority of the world’s supply of bananas for export, across central and South America. Yes, among those exporters and suppliers was Del Monte. We saw at first hand the exploitation that the banana workers experience: the complete control by the companies and multinationals, the non-payment of wages, the non-provision of healthcare—healthcare is provided only by the plantation owners—and products being sold only in the stores of the companies that people get their wages from. I live close to Robert Owen’s New Lanark, and I was reminded of the things that we got rid of 200 years ago at the beginning of the co-operative movement.
We saw the effect of the environmental pressures. Banana plants showed ash from volcanic eruptions hundreds of miles away. We also met small producers. The good companies—ironically, the ones that had leadership from Scandinavian countries—saw that treating workers fairly is important, that it is good to pay good wages and that Fairtrade is worth shouting about.
Although Fairtrade is important for bananas, it is also important for tea, coffee, cotton, wine, cocoa and sugar cane. Millions of people around the world depend on those products for their livelihoods, yet only a tiny shave of what consumers pay for them reaches those who grow and pick them. That imbalance is not accidental but a result of supply chains that prioritise low prices over fair outcomes. Fairtrade challenges that model and proves that there is a better way.
It is not all international; hon. Members have talked about the choices that we make here at home. I am proud that those values are being lived in my constituency. North Lanarkshire council, which covers Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, is a recognised Fairtrade zone. That reflects a commitment across schools, community groups, workplaces and public services to choose Fairtrade, and the steering group has recognised North Lanarkshire as one of the major distribution hubs in Scotland. Working with the wholesale market on Fairtrade is just as important, so we must ensure that all companies, including small businesses, are able to do that. In Kirkintilloch, East Dunbartonshire council has made similar commitments. The School Yard Kitchen, which is just over my constituency boundary, specialises in how to grow a community between Kirkintilloch and Ghana through chocolate.
Fairtrade is not abstract. For UK businesses, Fairtrade certification makes absolute sense. Colleagues have expressed that in much greater depth. Support for Fairtrade across my constituency shows that the public already understand that, but the Government and business must keep pace and ensure that Fairtrade certification plays a central role in building a fairer, more resilient and more responsible UK trading system.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for his work in securing this debate and for his authoritative opening speech, which set out the case for Fairtrade with clarity and thoroughness. It was very impressive.
Fairtrade is a global system that connects farmers and workers from developing countries with consumers and businesses across the world to change trade for the better. For more than three decades, Fairtrade has been having an impact on the way that trade works. Fairtrade believes that every farmer and worker should have access to a better way of doing business and a better way of living. As a leader in a global movement to make trade fair, Fairtrade supports and challenges businesses and Governments, and connects farmers and workers with the people who buy their products. It has been a real pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) about their experiences of being active in that movement.
Fairness is an important principle for the Liberal Democrats, and that should apply to the way that supply chains are managed by big companies working abroad. In our recent manifesto we committed to introducing a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. Businesses are the principal engines of growth and prosperity in the UK. When businesses succeed, our communities succeed. We must work in partnership with business to provide stability, encourage investment and help maximise opportunities for growth and employment across the country. In return we ask that businesses not only commit to promoting skills, equality and good governance, but protect human rights and the environment in the communities where they work, whether at home or in the global supply chains on which they depend.
The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a business, human rights and environment Act to require companies to take adequate measures or conduct due diligence to manage the impacts of their activities on people and the environment both in the UK and globally. We would also introduce a duty of care for the environment and human rights, requiring companies, financial institutions and public sector agencies to exercise due diligence in avoiding specified activities such as child labour or modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and to report on their actions. We would ensure that all large companies have a formal statement of corporate purpose, including considerations such as employee welfare, environmental standards, community benefit and ethical practice alongside benefit to shareholders, and that they report formally on the wider impact of the business on society and the environment.
If we are to take tackling climate change seriously, businesses must play their part. That is why the Liberal Democrats would require all large companies listed on UK stock exchanges to set targets consistent with achieving the net zero goal and to report on their progress. We would reform the regulation of our services sector to encourage climate-friendly investments, including requiring pension funds and managers to show that their portfolio investments align with the Paris agreement and creating new powers for regulators to intervene if banks and other investors fail to manage climate risk properly.
Ethical supply chains and Fairtrade certification do not exist in isolation. They connect directly to our responsibilities in development and reducing global poverty. For that reason, we have called for the immediate restoration of UK aid spending at 0.5% of GNI and a road map to restore 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible within this Parliament. We would ensure that the UK’s international development spending is used effectively, with a primary focus on poverty reduction, including by putting the United Nations sustainable development goals at the heart of the UK’s international development policy, funding genuine partnerships that are rooted in local needs and developed on grounds of mutual respect, and tackling the growing global crisis of food insecurity and malnutrition by increasing the proportion of ODA committed to delivering lifesaving nutrition interventions.
Fairtrade certification has shown time and again that when we create systems that empower producers, protect rights and support sustainable agriculture, everybody benefits: farmers, consumers and business alike.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing today’s informative and thoughtful debate. All the contributions have been insightful, but I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who spoke about the man from Del Monte, taking me back down memory lane. I had not thought about him for a long time, probably not since the ’80s.
This is a timely debate. It rightly draws attention to a topic that has relevance to how the UK positions itself as a responsible trading nation and global partner. Fairtrade certification schemes have become a visible and recognised feature of British consumer life. They are well understood by the public, well supported by major retailers and increasingly used by UK businesses to demonstrate transparency and ethical practices across global supply chains. This debate invites us to reflect on how Fairtrade sits within the wider landscape of British trade and business policy, and how it might continue to support responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability and long-term development goals.
At its core, Fairtrade is a voluntary certification scheme applied to consumer goods such as bananas, cocoa, coffee, tea and sugar. It sets minimum prices for producers, offers a Fairtrade premium to be invested in community projects, and lays out standards on labour rights and environmental protection. The scheme is built on a partnership model between producers in the global south and businesses and consumers in the global north. Over time, Fairtrade has come to play a role in supporting responsible UK sourcing practices. The UK has long been a leading market for Fairtrade goods, and British supermarkets were among the first in the world to adopt the Fairtrade label at scale. The distinctive mark is now found on thousands of product lines sold in every part of the country, from major supermarket chains to small independent stores.
Beyond consumer familiarity, the benefits of Fairtrade certification also flow into business practices here at home. For British companies, certification helps to meet environmental, social and governance expectations from investors and consumers alike. It offers reassurance on the ethical provenance of goods and helps to reduce reputational risk in complex and sometimes opaque global supply chains. More broadly, Fairtrade fits into a wider framework of responsible sourcing in which UK firms are increasingly engaged. For example, the cocoa industry has seen significant improvements in transparency and long-term planning due to Fairtrade and similar voluntary schemes. British food and beverage companies, in particular, have drawn on Fairtrade principles to strengthen resilience and quality across key import lines.
There is also a trade policy angle. Fairtrade is not only about individual transactions; it reflects a broader outlook on how the UK interacts with developing markets. As the Government have observed in the recent trade strategy, trade and development are not mutually exclusive goals. We can support UK business while also encouraging more ethical, sustainable and secure supply chains. The developing countries trading scheme, launched in 2023 under the last Conservative Government, is one such example. It reduces tariffs on goods from low and middle-income countries and allows for easier trade in value-added products, helping to support economic diversification.
The previous Government were also clear that they recognised the role that voluntary schemes like Fairtrade play in complementing formal legal frameworks, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which continues to apply to large UK businesses. In this context, Fairtrade certification can be seen as one of several tools that enable the UK to act as a responsible trading nation, championing higher standards while maintaining competitive access to key goods.
One of the great strengths of Fairtrade is the strong grassroots support that it enjoys. I saw that at first hand earlier this year when I was contacted by my local Reigate Fairtrade steering group to draw my attention to the “Brew it Fair” campaign. The campaign highlighted that, while the Government have committed to protecting human rights and environmental standards by endorsing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and by passing the Modern Slavery Act, wages, incomes and working conditions remain inadequate for the majority of the people involved in tea farming. As such, the Fairtrade Foundation called on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence.
Again, good work was done in that space under the previous Conservative Government. The UK was the first country to create a national action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which are widely regarded as the authoritative international framework to steer practical action by Governments and businesses worldwide on this important and pressing agenda. More recently, the UK has taken a number of steps through the Modern Slavery Act to ensure that no British organisation—public or private, and unwittingly or otherwise—is complicit through their supply chains in human rights violations. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that in a moment.
I conclude by noting that this has been an excellent debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing it.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
There is plenty of time, but I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Glasgow North to wind up.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I am not sure how long you think I will go on for, Mrs Hobhouse, but I will take that admonition in the way I think it was intended. It is obviously an enormous delight to have you in the Chair, notwithstanding your admonition. It is also a great delight to have this debate, which plays an important role in the Government coming to a view on responsible business conduct.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes). He would have been my mother’s MP if she was still with us, so I know his patch very well. My grandfather also lived in his constituency when he played for Glasgow Rangers. That was a very long time ago, so I am terribly sorry if my hon. Friend hates Glasgow Rangers—it has nothing to do with me.
My first point is that the world is fundamentally more connected, or even interconnected, than ever. I particularly feel that at the moment, as in the few weeks I have been in the job, I have been to Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Switzerland, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Spain and, arguably, Singapore— I was also in Brussels yesterday, so there have been quite a few. The truth is that, while in the past people might have only considered a holiday in France or Spain, even under Franco, their opportunities for holiday travel around the world are now much more extensive than ever before.
Exactly the same is true of supply chains. It might well be that the clothes we wear were stitched and made here—although they might have been stitched and made on the other side of the world—but the cotton or silk might have come from another part of the world entirely. The same is true of our furniture, tea and coffee, sugar and bananas. Even the glasses we wear are often not entirely sourced here in the UK. Neither are the medical instruments used when we are operated on by a surgeon, nor the medicines that we receive. All those supply chains are interconnected around the world.
Perhaps the most obvious instance of this is our choice of music. In the past, when we were young, we thought mainly about British music. There was perhaps a bit of alternative music from Latin America, Africa or wherever played by a few DJs late at night, but nowadays K-pop, African music and stuff from all around the world form our earworms.
In many ways, that interconnectedness is a good thing, but it also has potential downsides, because the arc of trade does not necessarily always bend towards justice. Quite often, because of price competition, the arc of trade can lead to quite the reverse—the abandonment of justice. I have always felt that the concept of fairness is a fundamental element of being human. It is why children will often shout and scream, “That’s not fair!” when they are told to go to bed, when they are not allowed to play with their tablet, or when they see their brother or sister staying up later than them.
We need to build on that sense of fairness in international trade. We need to make sure that the arc of trade bends towards justice and fairness. I have therefore always argued that we should strive for free and fair trade, not just free trade. Interestingly, the very word “boycott” springs from a moment in Ireland in the 1880s when a pretty awful land agent called Captain Charles Boycott was turfing people off their property on behalf of a pretty awful landlord. That has entered the language of nearly every country in the world—the concept of wanting to abide by good standards and fairness in trade.
This is why the Fairtrade Foundation is such an important concept. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the Christian churches, which have been big supporters of the movement, and led to the Jubilee 2000 campaign and so many other things. When I was training to be a priest, every church I went to had a Fairtrade stall at the back. I have to confess that early Fairtrade Foundation coffee was pretty dire, and now it is a standard part of the offer in Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Tesco and Aldi—in every single supermarket. It is great that a complete transformation has happened because of the dedication of a large number of people working on an entirely voluntary basis.
Sarah Olney
I am interested in the Minister’s formulation of free and fair trade. Would he not agree that fair trade is free trade, and that free trade is fair trade? It is about bringing down barriers, which may have been put in place by the larger producers or people with a market advantage. The point is to create a fairer playing field, because that is what free trade is.
Chris Bryant
I suppose, on the whole, I was trying to say that I want to try to take down tariff barriers where I possibly can, so that we can engage in free trade, but that only works when we have fair opportunities underlying it. The hon. Member for Strangford will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think there is a phrase in the Bible about justice and peace kissing one another. Sometimes we strive for justice, but it is not real justice if we do not get peace with it; and sometimes we strive for peace, but it is not real peace if it is not based on justice. That is the combination of Shalom and Tzedek, to use the Old Testament terms, that we are striving for with free and fair trade.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, the Fairtrade Foundation has been around for more than 30 years. It has done an amazing job in certification. Indeed, I think there are now more than 5,000 Fairtrade-certified products in the UK, and many of our constituents search them out every day of the week.
I, too, was approached by the Brew it Fair campaign, which has raised specific challenges around tea, including the living conditions of workers, gender inequality and a series of other issues. I praise it for raising those issues and bringing them to everybody’s attention.
I am delighted that Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council in my constituency was made a Fairtrade county in 2007. It has therefore had a considerable period of time to roll out these policies. I am sorry to keep referring to the hon. Member for Strangford, but he asked about procurement. Of course, procurement is a key issue. We often have discussions in Parliament about what consumers do, but it is also about what the Government do.
The hon. Member is quite right that we produced a new national procurement policy statement in February this year, which lays out new ways in which people can drive this agenda into procurement, on the back of taxpayers’ money. Similarly, the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February this year, has a new central debarment list, which Ministers can put people on if they have been involved in modern slavery. In that way, we can make sure the supply chain is cleaner.
Fair trade is not just about the issues I have mentioned. The International Labour Organisation says that, around the world, 28 million people are in situations of forced labour. I am sure that any of us could cite some of the places where that might be true. Similarly, every minute we are losing forest area equivalent to 11 football pitches, which is a challenge to all our climate change ambitions.
Of course, the impact of climate change will be felt most intensely among the poorest peoples on Earth. To see that, we only have to look at places such as the Carteret Islands, off Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, or the outlying poorer lands of Thailand, where some of the very poorest people are in danger of losing their homes, their livelihoods and their access to clean drinking water. Similarly, a million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, which is a threat to biodiversity, and whether biodiversity loss happens in our country or in any other country, it is a threat to us all.
There are two other issues that have not been referred to much so far today. The first is corruption. The danger of corruption in some political systems around the world, particularly where there is an authoritarian regime, is intense. That is why it is so important that, under the Bribery Act 2010, we have particular responsibilities to ensure that British businesses trading elsewhere in the world are not able to engage in corrupt practices.
The second issue is displaced people, which is slightly different from the issue of forced labour. I remember visiting Colombia in 2018 with ABColombia, where I was struck by two things. First, as we flew over vast territories, I was struck by how much of the land had been taken for palm oil. That massive agribusiness had effectively displaced many millions of people who had lost their property thanks to the activities of militias and the FARC, and the battle between the two.
Similarly, when I went to El Porvenir and La Primavera, which are not far from Colombia’s border with Venezuela, it was striking how people found it very difficult to make a living when they had been deprived of large amounts of their land—they had effectively been living in a warzone for the best part of 20 years. That is why it was so important that, when Colombia was able to bring about peace with the FARC, it was very keen to bring forward the idea of land reform—that work has never really been completed—so people have access to land again and can make a living.
I have a few principles that influence how I look at all of this as we go through the process of our responsible business conduct review. First, I believe in a seamless garment. Again, I am sorry, but that is another biblical phrase. When Jesus was on the cross, lots were cast for his garment because it was seamless. I think it is important that we look at all these issues together, in the round. As I said, it is not just one issue.
This may seem a slightly flippant way of looking at it, but I was watching “Do they know it’s Christmas?” the other day on a Christmas compilation TV show. Of course, it is great because it is dealing with human rights around the world, the lack of clean drinking water and people starving from famine, but I was struck that only three women were asked to take part in the filming of the 1984 version. That could be a test for anybody, but it was the three members of Bananarama: Sara Dallin, Siobhan Fahey and Keren Woodward. That made the point to me that we need to look at all these issues in the round. Gender inequality, human rights issues, corruption and environmental concerns all need to be addressed in the round when we are looking at the whole of our supply chain.
Secondly, I commend the voluntary efforts. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), referred to how the previous Government recognised them, which is true. I think we have all done that, and we have done it for many years. I doubt that there are many MPs who have not been to some kind of Fairtrade event and shown willing.
I pay tribute to Howies, a Welsh clothing company, because sometimes it is not easy to prosper in this world. It is great that the company is owned by its staff—I, too, am a member of the Co-op—and it says that its
“award-winning men’s and women’s clothing is ethically produced using organic, recycled or natural fabrics wherever possible… we want to be a company that does things differently to others—one that does things honestly, responsibly and quietly.”
I think an awful lot of UK consumers would love to be able to think that, whenever they go into a supermarket or any of the major chains, that would be what influences the company they are buying from, going all the way back to the beginning of the supply chain. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that companies are more successful when they adopt that kind of attitude. Consumers like it, so the companies can prosper. For that matter, it also gives a sense of purpose to everybody who works in the company.
Thirdly, as several Members have mentioned, we do not want a race to the bottom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said that if we have worse standards or weaker requirements than elsewhere, the danger is that all the least-ethically sourced stuff comes to the UK. It would be a form of ethical dumping—similar to subsidy dumping or carbon dumping—into the UK. We are very keen that it should not happen, so of course we want to work alongside international comparators.
Fourthly, I am very keen for the UK to have requirements that are both effective and proportionate to the harm being dealt with. I have a question in my mind that was raised with me a couple of weeks ago, at a roundtable involving quite a few of the sorts of organisations we have talked about, including the anti-slavery body. I am not sure that having another annual report that is never read by anyone—including the person who wrote it, possibly—would be either effective or proportionate. Reports are costly for an organisation to produce, and they might not make the blindest bit of difference to whether a consumer or the company takes action on this.
Fifthly, notwithstanding that, section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires large organisations over a certain threshold to publish transparency in supply chain statements, and we provided new guidance on that in 2025. As has already been referred to by the Liberal Democrats, some of that is good, but there is a danger that it is just ticking a box, not driving forward change; and I am far more interested in driving forward change than I am in simply ticking boxes.
My sixth point is—there are not too many more, honestly—[Interruption.] I do not know why you are all laughing. We are engaged in a responsible business conduct review, and this debate is a very helpful part of that; it feeds into what we are hearing from businesses, because we want to make sure that what we eventually come forward with will be proportionate and effective. I was asked specifically whether we will also look at mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence reports. Yes, we are looking at how those would work, what would be most effective, and how they relate to requirements for multinational companies in other countries as well.
Seventhly, since we came to power, we have opened the Office for Responsible Business Conduct, which is a one-stop shop for industry. Again, I am interested in driving change, and sometimes businesses do not know where to turn. Smaller businesses might have no idea how to meet the law or best effect the kind of change we are all looking for. The Office for Responsible Business Conduct has a strong mandate there.
I have already referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Member for Strangford—who of course is a friend to us all, as we meet him in so many debates. It was great, too, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and from the man from Del Monte—or rather, from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq); indeed, the one point she did not make was that it would be quite nice if there were a woman in charge. Maybe one day there will be a woman from Del Monte—although I note that Del Monte went into chapter 11 proceedings in July, so it is not clear what state it is in now. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray).
Many of us have effectively given the same speech, because we all feel quite passionately that we want to get these issues right. I know that many people work in retail in the UK in a whole series of sectors; quite a few of our discussions have been about food and beverages or fashion, but the same is true for furniture and other sectors, too. We simply want to get this right, because our aim here in Government is to ensure that British businesses have an opportunity to export and import, and that this is always based on free and fair trade.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for leaving plenty of time for Martin Rhodes to wind up.
Martin Rhodes
First, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We have covered a lot of common ground but brought a lot of different perspectives to it.
A number of hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), mentioned community campaigns, which are an important part of Fairtrade. Others, such as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), have spoken about campaigns more generally,.
Other hon. Members have also raised business— my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about what can go wrong when good practice is not in place, while others reflected on where business practice goes right. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about what can happen when things are not done ethically and about the difference that the Fairtrade premium can make when they are.
Others emphasised the input of producers, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch. Those different perspectives show one of the great strengths of Fairtrade: it brings together consumers, producers, campaigners and businesses to look at what can be achieved through certification.
I very much welcome what the Minister said about global connectedness. That is what underpins all this: the recognition that we are much more connected through trade, culture, travel and everything else than we were previously. In some ways, that broadens people’s horizons, and makes them see and understand things that they never previously had the chance to think about or knew existed, and it can help uncover injustices and make action more possible. However, in other ways, we see trading activity that is based on entering into places to deliberately and repeatedly exploit them.
We had some discussion earlier about the aid budget. I, too, look forward to returning to 0.7% of GDP, but as I said, when the UK aid budget and aid budgets across the world have been cut, we must look much more at trade and other means to achieve the principles that we all want to achieve.
The Minister spoke about “free and fair” trade and discussed what that means with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), but it is important to reflect on what was said. We want free trade, but if we free up trade and tear down barriers, and yet the underlying system does not allow for fairness, we will get an unfair outcome. We therefore need to make sure that fairness is embedded, and Fairtrade has shown itself for a number of years to be a proven way of doing trade that is mutually beneficial to all in the supply chain.
I welcome the Minister setting out the principles behind the responsible business review, and I very much welcome the fact that human rights and environmental due diligence are part of that. The Minister made mention of the Bribery Act 2010, which provides a framework for legislation—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. May I encourage the hon. Member to wind up?
Martin Rhodes
I have only 30 seconds left, and I am on my final point. I welcome the opportunity from including human rights and environmental due diligence, and the Bribery Act offers a framework for looking at how that might be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade.
Oil Refining Sector
(1 day, 4 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
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the oil refining sector.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I am pleased that this debate has attracted considerable support, particularly from north of the border, and that today The Times had a timely editorial on this issue.
My constituency is in northern Lincolnshire on the south bank of the Humber, which has been christened “the UK’s Energy Estuary”. In recent years, the Humber has become a world-leader in the offshore and renewable energy sector—something we are proud of locally. However, while the Humber is full of opportunity for offshore and renewable energy and will play a significant role in the UK’s net zero efforts, we must not overlook the UK’s carbon energy needs as we make the transition to cleaner energy sources. We must face the fact that a significant portion of our total energy consumption still comes from oil, gas and coal and will continue to do so. The UK’s annual total primary energy consumption is around 130 million to 140 million tonnes of oil equivalent; fossil fuels made up roughly 79% to 81% of that in the year 2022-23.
The Humber has played a significant role in ensuring that that demand is met. Until the crisis at Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency earlier this year, the Humber could boast of producing a third of the UK’s refined fuel, with two of the UK’s six major oil refineries based in the Humber region. Now, as we approach the end of 2025, only four operational refineries remain in the UK, following this year’s closure of Grangemouth, with significant job losses, and the uncertainty at the aforementioned Lindsey refinery where over 400 people are employed. Even more striking is the fact that the number of refineries is down from 18 in the 1970s.
Sadly for the oil refining sector, most people do not even realise that it exists or appreciate its importance, yet the sector is a vital part of the UK’s energy security. A number of our crucial sectors rely on it, including the transport industry and defence sectors. All Members will know that oil refineries produce products that are essential for our critical energy needs, such as petrol, diesel, jet fuel and fuel oil. The Lindsey refinery has a capacity equivalent to around 35% of British petrol consumption and 10% of British diesel, and also supplies aviation fuel to Heathrow via pipeline.
Yet the House of Commons Library states:
“Refinery output in 2024 was 48 million tonnes. This was 55% below the 1973 peak.”
Output in 2024
“was around 14% below levels from the late 2010s and more than 40% below output from the start of the century.”
That is worrying considering that refineries supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand, as 100% of aviation, 97% of road and 61% of rail transport still relies on liquid fuels. The refineries also support 100,000-plus jobs across the UK, with 4,000 directly in the refineries. We collect £37 billion annually in tax—that is duty and VAT—from them, and they deliver low-carbon fuels that have an impact equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road each year. That is not to mention the fact that ours are among the lowest-carbon refineries globally—in fact, 80% of the UK’s top import partners have a higher carbon intensity—yet despite their importance we have seen the closure at Grangemouth and the uncertainty at Lindsey.
What does the future hold? UK oil refineries continue to face a number of challenges. Of course demand for refined products will decrease as the country continues to reduce its emissions in accordance with the legally binding commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, though that target may change. Moreover, energy is the single largest cost of operating a refinery. The industry faces high energy costs, and carbon costs negatively impact the competitiveness of UK refineries. UK refineries are essentially competing with one hand tied behind their back while their competitors pay little or nothing in carbon costs. That is on top of the issue of unequal access to decarbonisation opportunities.
Our route to lower emissions must not come at the price of deindustrialisation or at the expense of our energy security. As an editorial in The Times today points out, some in the Government are so hostile to fossil fuels and so beholden to the green ideology that they are willing to sacrifice our future income and tolerate the jobs that are being lost. We must put the national interest first. Moreover, our climate targets are still some way off, so in the meantime we must continue to rely on the products that refineries produce.
The sector remains vital for today’s economy, yet our refineries are closing. We must realise that closing UK refineries does not reduce demand; it merely shifts production abroad. That, of course, often leads to higher emissions. We are thereby exporting jobs outside the UK while failing in our efforts to cut emissions. Losing further capacity would therefore leave the UK increasingly dependent on imports and the unpredictability of global politics, relying on other nations that often have weak rules on environmental protection, labour rights and safety.
Moreover, once a refinery closes, it does not return. The skills, infrastructure and investment are lost permanently. We must also consider the impact on the local economy and local people that closures cause. At Lindsey, over 400 people are directly employed on the site, and well over 1,000 rely on it through the supply chain. As North Lincolnshire council said in its position statement on Lindsey oil, the implications of any closure of the site will have far-reaching consequences for the local economy and the people employed directly and indirectly.
The council has stated that the potential closure of the refinery will have a significant impact on local market confidence, particularly following the turmoil at British Steel earlier this year. As such, failure to properly support the businesses impacted could multiply exponentially the impact of the closure. Moreover, the south Humber bank, where the site is located, relies on the interconnectivity of its industrial supply chains. As such, the refinery is not an isolated operator but an integral node in a wider network that supplies products to downstream users, and disruption at one site can quickly ripple across the regional economy.
These integrated clusters work in tandem, reflecting the modern industrial model, and our economic resilience relies on the system being maintained, thereby ensuring long-term industrial sustainability in the UK. I note the Scottish Affairs Committee’s conclusions on the handling of Grangemouth, which can be found in the Committee’s recently published report on Scotland’s oil and gas industries. I am sure the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), will delve more deeply into the detail of the report, though let me quickly say now that the report stated that both the UK and Scottish Governments should have acted sooner to prepare for the crisis in Falkirk.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I hear the hon. Member on the strategic importance of oil refineries; we have seen it in Grangemouth for over 100 years. Back in February 2024, in response to a question from the former Member for East Lothian, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the then Prime Minister, described the closure of Grangemouth refinery as “obviously a commercial decision”. Does the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) agree with that characterisation by the former Prime Minister, who was at the time his party’s leader, given that he is describing—and I agree with him—the strategic role that oil refineries play in his community?
Martin Vickers
The hon. Member makes an important point: it is the case that such decisions are not solely commercial; the Government must consider, more widely, energy security and the impact on the economy.
In preparation for this debate, I received representations from various interested parties that are dependent on the oil refining sector. They have outlined their concerns, some of which I have mentioned already, and the solutions they would like to see put forward. One issue that has been mentioned to me is the expansion of the scope of the carbon border adjustment mechanism to include oil refineries’ products. As Members may know, the CBAM is a tax levied on goods at the border based on their carbon content. Expanding the CBAM to products from oil refineries based overseas, as the Government proposed in their autumn Budget, would enable domestic oil refineries to remain competitive and stop them fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
I mentioned that the refining sector is subject to ever-increasing regulatory burdens and carbon pricing. Sadly, the impact of net zero politics, particularly the UK emissions trading scheme, is driving rapid and sustained deindustrialisation of the British economy. Refining receives substantially lower free allowances under the scheme compared with other industries, such as steel and cement, and ETS costs are one of the highest expenditures in a refinery’s operating budget. Competitors in other regions do not face those costs, which seriously damages the competitiveness of UK refineries. We must realise that the ETS damages our energy security and should be urgently repealed. Longer-term solutions may include bringing refined products fully into the UK CBAM or ensuring that the UK retains control over refineries in any future UK-EU carbon market linkage agreement. If we do not want to let this issue get any more out of control, we must act now.
Before concluding, I refer back to the situation at Lindsey oil, because the company is in administration. We have a situation in which FTI Consulting, acting on behalf of the official receiver, is engaged in discussions with potential buyers and investors. Those talks are rightly confidential, and when questioned, Ministers have repeatedly said that they are awaiting the recommendations from FTI. That inevitably feeds speculation through the grapevine that angers employees and their union representatives. I have held meetings with two consortia that are interested in buying the whole site and continuing operations, and the leader of North Lincolnshire council has held discussions with a third. Do the Government support a deal that would retain the refinery complete? Until now there has been no answer. I again ask the Minister: do the Government favour that option and, if necessary, would they provide some support?
Have the Government instructed FTI to prioritise jobs? A letter from Unite the Union to the Secretary of State throws that into doubt. In the letter, Unite says:
“In this vein you informed me and the Unite reps for the refinery on two occasions that you had advised FTI that bids which save the jobs should be prioritised and that if needed, there could be government money for a viable bid which saved the site.”
Is Government money available? The reply seems to throw doubt on all of that. The reply from the Minister for Energy to Sharon Graham at Unite says that the Government
“have made repeatedly clear that long-term and sustainable employment is a priority for the Government”,
but that does not necessarily mean it is a priority that has been passed on to the official receiver.
At a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), the Minister for Energy assured us that if the worst came to the worst and the refinery were to close, or there were to be large- scale job losses, one option would be for the Government to work with MPs, local authorities and other agencies to form a taskforce to consider what help and support would be available to revive the local economy. Is that offer still open? My understanding is that the Government have said that there will be no further redundancies until the end of March, which I welcome. Could today’s Minister clarify whether the Government are meeting the cost of that, or whether the costs will be taken into account by the administrators and the amount available to creditors adjusted accordingly?
The future of not just Lindsey oil but the whole oil refining sector is at stake. The Government must review their current position and act to secure the industry for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Order. I see that seven Members are looking to speak. Let us start with six-minute speeches and see how we progress.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate. I speak in my capacity as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which has recently published a report, “The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry”, as part of our inquiry into Scotland’s role in the UK’s energy transition. I thank the hon. Member for allowing the report to be tagged to this debate on the Order Paper.
The closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, following the Petroineos announcement in November 2023 that refining operations would cease at the site, was a key focus of our report. The Grangemouth oil refinery operated for over a century, and was Scotland’s only oil refinery before refining officially ended in April this year. The refinery’s closure has left some 400 employees and the wider Grangemouth community facing deep uncertainty. The Prime Minister’s pledge of £200 million through the National Wealth Fund for future industries at the site was welcome, as was the Scottish Government’s announcement of £25 million to help establish a just transition for Grangemouth. The extra £14.5 million announced in the Budget was another welcome boost. However, the Government have not yet set out how that will be delivered and how it will tangibly result in jobs.
The Committee visited the Grangemouth site during our inquiry. We heard oral evidence from Petroineos, the company that owns the refinery, from its parent company Ineos, from union representatives, from Project Willow and from the Forth Valley college, which provides the skills support for former refinery workers. Our report concluded that both Governments should have acted sooner to set in motion plans for the site’s future and to prepare for resulting job losses. That lack of action created an employment gap and hardship to the local community that could have been avoided.
We said in our report that Grangemouth is the “canary in a coalmine” and a stark warning of what is to come. That warning proved prescient: just a few months on from the publication of the report, ExxonMobil announced its plans to shut the Mossmorran ethylene plant in February 2026. That is yet another example of Scotland’s rapidly changing industrial base. As we move away from our reliance on fossil fuels, industrial transition will only accelerate. For our national resilience, we must learn from these cases.
The Grangemouth case has illustrated the need for the Government’s active stewardship in the energy transition. Our report recommends that the Government set out clear principles that outline the conditions and actions that underpin a just transition. We recommend principles that emphasise the importance of early Government intervention, proactive engagement with workers and communities, and a focus on decent jobs. Those principles should draw on best practice and ensure that transitions are fair and planned, not rushed and reactive.
Last month, the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), said that announcements will be forthcoming on the investment proposals brought forward by the National Wealth Fund. I understand that the first project to be funded on the site was announced today: a groundbreaking biotech company using by-products from whisky distillation, which is jointly funded by both the UK and Scottish Governments’ £3 million of investment and hopes to deliver over 300 good jobs. That announcement is welcome.
The timescales of establishing future industries at Grangemouth and the jobs that they will create all hinge on the types of investment proposal put forward. I commend the Committee’s report to all hon. Members. A response from the Government is expected by Christmas; I hope that that response will recognise the sentiment in our report that continued momentum on Grangemouth’s future is vital. Project Willow must not be left to gather dust while jobs are at stake. Communities that have powered our economy for generations deserve certainty and a fair future.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate about Lindsey oil refinery, which employed many of my constituents. The closure is a disaster for our Greater Lincolnshire area. It is, I believe, a direct result of green policies that are no longer logical.
I am no climate change sceptic. I am prepared to have investment in green energy—we are world leaders in offshore wind in the Humber, are we not? We are doing our bit, but the Government are taking it to new heights. All ideologues are dangerous, but fanatical ideologues are the most dangerous of all, and that is what we have in our Secretary of State. We have these ludicrous targets; I commend the editorial in The Times today calling it “targetitis”. Originally, Theresa May arbitrarily set a limit of 2040. Where did that come from? Boris Johnson, in his bumptious, casual way, not considering the evidence, unilaterally cut it down to 2030. Where did that come from? All this is massively damaging.
I would not mind if we were actually making a difference to global warming, but we are responsible for only 1% of global emissions. According to some estimates, our total global emissions are less than China’s annual accrual. We are making absolutely no difference! China holds us in contempt. It is doing to us what we did to it in the 19th century. China is totally ruthless.
Sir Edward Leigh
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the son of a very distinguished councillor in my constituency.
Luke Taylor
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. Together, the 100 smallest carbon-emitting countries represent more carbon emissions than China on its own, so if all those smaller-emitting countries make their own contribution it can make a bigger contribution to cuts than China. Does the right hon. Member not agree that those small measures add up to a huge difference globally?
Sir Edward Leigh
That may be a fair point. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am not a climate change sceptic. Everybody is prepared to do their bit.
I have already mentioned wind farms, but what about solar energy? In Lincolnshire we are prepared to have solar energy on our farmland, but in my constituency 16,000 acres of the most productive land in the entire country—enough land to feed the city of Hull every single year—is put under solar farms, with panels manufactured in China, destroying our ability to feed ourselves. There has to be a balance, but at the moment we do not have one. We are importing so much from our dear friends in Norway that they are opening 250 exploration wells.
This debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, is extremely timely. The closure of Lindsey oil refinery is a complete disaster. It employs many of our constituents and is vital for the whole of our industrial infrastructure. We need strong domestic refining capacity. The Secretary of State goes on about energy security all the time, but that would strengthen energy security at a time when we are already importing two thirds of our gas and increasing volumes of refined fuels.
I would not mind these green policies, but we are not actually contributing to tackling global warming; we are simply exporting carbon emissions to other countries. It is complete madness. If we were sensible about this, and if it were possible to get some sort of global recognition of the problem, maybe we could start to tackle it. Relying on foreign refiners means exporting jobs and value overseas while leaving Britain more exposed to global price shocks and geopolitical risks. Expansion of the UK refining sector protects thousands of highly skilled, well-paid jobs. It also supports an entire region and supply chain in engineering, fabrication, logistics and maintenance. Those are precisely the jobs that sustain industrial communities and create apprenticeships for young people.
Refining underpins every major industrial sector. Manufacturing, aviation, defence, logistics, agriculture and pharmaceuticals all depend on reliable supplies of fuels and petrochemicals. Allowing it to pass into decline would simply shift production to countries with weaker environmental standards.
Lindsey oil refinery was a major economic anchor for our area. We know that it was put into administration. I share the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham: this is a national crisis in terms of national policy, which is wrong, and of local policy. The people of Greater Lincolnshire demand action from this Government, and they demand it now.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this highly important debate, and I draw everyone’s attention to my membership of Unite the union.
Since coming to this place, I have repeatedly raised the issue of the Grangemouth oil refinery closing, with 435 jobs lost on site and 2,822 lost in the wider supply chain. Closure means an end to a century of oil refining on the site and to a generational employer for Grangemouth people. Nearly every family in the town has had someone, or knows someone, who worked at the site. There is no doubt about it: local businesses will feel the pain of the closure. The hairdressers, barbers, small independent retailers, hotels, restaurants, pubs and garages are the very businesses that make up the heartbeat of the local community and the town’s economy. They are all negatively impacted.
The closure is more than just a local constituency issue. It is Scotland’s biggest industrial issue in four decades, it is safe to say, since the end of the coalmining industry. To put the matter into the national context, the Grangemouth refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy, according to both Scottish Enterprise and PwC. While conflict rages on in Europe, British people have been susceptible to the resulting price shocks and disrupted supply chains that have impacted the oil industry in Europe. At this perilous time, with refining ending at Grangemouth, Scotland is now in the ridiculous position of importing our own oil. The energy-abundant nation of Scotland is reliant on global logistics and outside influences for our oil products. It is incredible that we have lost our self-sufficiency.
Why has this happened? Why did the refinery close? I will say something different from what right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned so far. Let me be clear: the idea that the Grangemouth refinery closed as part of trying to achieve net zero, or as part of some woke green agenda or an environmental campaign, is utter nonsense. The real reason—the heart of the matter—is Petroineos. It is made up of private capital, Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and a foreign Government in the form of Chinese state-backed PetroChina. It controlled the Grangemouth refinery, a key piece of Scottish and British national infrastructure, and closure was a commercial decision.
Closure happened because it was more profitable for a private company to make hundreds of workers redundant and operate Grangemouth as an import terminal. It was international capital concerned with the corporate greed of a billionaire owner, with shareholder dividends their priority. That is the ruthless nature of how international capital works. Ratcliffe has massively weakened Scotland’s national economy and jeopardised our country’s energy security for his own needs. I am disgusted by Governments allowing that to happen, and by the pandering to Ratcliffe in spending billions of pounds to help with the regeneration around Old Trafford and hundreds of millions of pounds to provide a loan guarantee for his plant in Belgium.
I make absolutely no apologies for being ideological. As the country sacrificed state ownership of vital infrastructure, we lost control of our own refinery. We have seen job losses, an exodus of skills and talent, local shops closing and all the social consequences that follow deindustrialisation. That is what has happened to former industrial towns the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. For goodness’ sake! The country needs a different industrial direction, to bring an end to being at the mercy of private capital and foreign Government influence.
There is a clear, coherent case for Government ownership. It is in the public interest. In questions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and to the Treasury, I have asked what ownership stake the UK Government are willing to take in future industries at Grangemouth. I put the same question to the Minister this afternoon.
Just as I make no apologies for being ideological in my opinion of public ownership, I make no apologies for criticising both the UK and Scottish Governments. We know that oil will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, so it is time for both of Scotland’s Governments to be bold. The existing infrastructure of the Grangemouth refinery is largely still in place, and there should be a conversion to sustainable aviation fuel there.
We have signed up to highly ambitious mandates, so let us try to meet those targets. Successful conversion of refineries is there for everyone to see—at La Mède in France, Eni’s Venice refinery in Italy and Phillips’s Rodeo refinery in the US. I say this to the Minister today: what happens at Grangemouth will go a long way in deciding how we shape our future economy, who controls it and who this Government actually serve and work for.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who spoke with his usual passion, but today I believe with a degree of anger as well, and rightly so.
A just transition supports and protects existing oil and gas sector workers through—I emphasise “through”—the transition to a world-class renewables workforce, a transition in which Scotland is well placed to lead the world. I want to share the following quote:
“‘just transition’ has now become meaningless for so many people and that’s a failure… People should feel like that’s not something done to them, but something they’re part of shaping.”
That was said by the Minister for Energy in a recent interview with the Holyrood magazine. Sadly, for thousands of workers in North sea upstream, midstream and—in the case of refining—downstream jobs, a just transition is far removed from the reality that they face.
The workers now made redundant are angry at the UK Government’s failure to support their transition. Their families and communities are also angry, as are we, their representatives. We know that the just transition is doomed to fail because of three things: first, the failure to press forward with renewable energy schemes in north-east Scotland at the urgent pace that is required; secondly, the failure to allow new exploration licences while persisting with the crippling energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector; and thirdly, the failure to protect refinery jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran. Today I learned that 7,000 business leaders, workers and companies have signed a letter to the Prime Minister in which they demand change to the EPL to avoid the projected 1,000 job losses per month.
Looking specifically at the situation in Grangemouth in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, said that a Labour UK Government would
“step in to save the jobs at the refinery and to invest in that transition…and we would put hundreds of millions of pounds behind it to make it a reality.”
No doubt the Minister will cite the £200 million promised to support Grangemouth, and reference has been made to the Scottish Government’s contribution. Of course, today brings good news in that regard, with MiAlgae’s welcome investment announcement on top of the Celtic Renewables project. The Scottish Government are an active partner in funding those projects, and we welcome the investment. However, the funding announced today amounts to only £7.73 million in total, and the 280 jobs —perhaps more—will not be fully realised for five years, if ever. Where is the rest of the promised £200 million? Where is fulfilment of the promise made by the leader of the Labour party in Scotland? Where is the intervention that occurred for Scunthorpe? People need work now. Families need certainty, but all they face this Christmas is uncertainty. In the meantime, the refinery workforce has been largely cast aside.
Looking further afield in Scotland, including Prax Lindsey, the UK has lost a third of its oil refineries just this year, on this Government’s watch. Furthermore, it is an uncomfortable truth for the Government that the UK’s uniquely high energy costs—the highest in the G7—are one of the main factors harming the refining sector and industry more generally.
I acknowledge that the North sea basin is in decline, but the importance of sovereign capability in national security is often repeated from the Government Front Bench. It is particularly true in defence, but how can defence capability be even remotely claimed if the vital fuel needed to operate tanks, ships and aircraft is acquired in the quantities needed through imports from abroad? Those imports can hardly be described as secure in this currently very dangerous world. Refining sites, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, have great potential for such things as sustainable aviation fuel production, but this remains a jam tomorrow promise. This is not remotely a positive trend for our economy, our environment, or, vitally, our national security.
I must press the Minister to address these questions. How can she tell the thousands of directly employed and supply chain workers at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and the many other sites and companies that are shedding workforce in the oil and gas sector that they are part of shaping the just transition? What assurance can she give those workers that the future is bright, especially when the Acorn project in my constituency faces growing uncertainty, for example? I urge her to address those questions in her speech. The destruction of the refinery jobs is a repetition of the Thatcherite coal mine closures and the steel plant shutdowns, with no plan for the workers, their families and the communities affected. We have long memories in Scotland. Only with the full powers of independence in areas such as energy policy will the workforce at Grangemouth and elsewhere in Scotland’s oil and gas sector get the priority and the just transition to the future that they so richly deserve.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate, and I agree with his comments regarding the strategic importance of oil refineries for their communities—if only colleagues who were previously in government had grasped that before the decision by Petroineos to close Grangemouth in November 2023 was announced.
As has been remarked by colleagues, 2026 will mark the first year since, I believe, 1850 that Scotland does not have an oil refinery. This year marked 101 years since the start of oil refining in Grangemouth, and the date that refining ceased in April 2025 was a devastating time for the community I represent, the community of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. I remember sitting in the Falkirk council chamber when the announcement was made. The implications were obvious immediately: the loss of many of the highest-paying jobs in the Falkirk area, and the loss of a substantial tax base for Falkirk council and the Scottish and UK Governments. The announcement was completely unexpected for those of us in opposition parties, who were not in the know.
The failure of Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) has articulated on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee, to prepare our community or have a plan in place for a no job loss transition at Grangemouth refinery has become symbolic of a similar story happening across industrial communities for decades. It was infuriating to find out from the Scottish Affairs Committee report that, through late 2023 and 2024, when it would have mattered, many of the decision makers failed to act to prevent the unjust transition at Grangemouth.
Petroineos confirmed to the Committee in April 2025 that, in the years prior to the announcement in November 2023, the then UK and Scottish Governments had requested information from the company, and subsequently chosen not to make an investment decision that would have saved the refinery. It was engaged for years with Government and no one lifted a finger to stop the path to the closure of refinery operations. Although I wish we had grasped the reality of the situation far more clearly in the transition from opposition to entering government, I welcome the determination of Ministers to get investment into Grangemouth quickly so that we can deliver that new industry to the community.
Today—two weeks after the Chancellor allocated further Government funding to Grangemouth to speed up investment decisions—marks an exceptionally positive announcement for the area. Up to 310 jobs are coming to Grangemouth to support the construction and operation of MiAlgae, a Scottish biotech success story. That does not, however, diminish the fact that many high-paid, high-skilled jobs have been lost, and the constant worry that they and the industry will never come back is justifiably the primary emotion that still grips my community.
We have an obligation not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We do not want the workers at Grangemouth, many of whom have not found employment since the closure in April, to be lost to the middle east, America or Norway. There is still a future for high-skilled refining workers at Grangemouth. That is why I welcome the Skills Transition Centre, announced back in February, funded out of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, which this Labour Government enhanced by £10 million when we came to power. However, the college that contains the skills centre is facing an existential financial crisis. One of the three campuses that constitutes Forth Valley college—the Alloa campus, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth —is directly jeopardised by the 20% real-terms cut inflicted on colleges since 2021 by the SNP Government.
The pathways for local kids to grasp the new industrial opportunities coming to our community will be actively barred if Government settlements for our further education sector are insufficient. Any consolidation that followed the closure of the Alloa campus would affect the courses available for thousands of young people in Falkirk, Stirling and especially Clackmannanshire. Kenny MacInnes, the principal of Forth Valley college, rightly reminded a conference recently that the college will be an instrumental part of whatever comes next at Grangemouth. The Scottish Government must bear that and Colleges Scotland’s recently published report in mind when they set their budget next year if they ever want to speak credibly about rebuilding opportunities in my community.
Seamus Logan
I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but is he concerned about his own Government’s commitment to this important debate, given the row upon row of empty seats on the Government Benches?
Euan Stainbank
I note the attendance, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s presence in this debate. However, when we were talking about the Grangemouth refinery at the time that it mattered, in the previous Parliament, I note there was an active lack of interest from SNP politicians, with the exception of the former Member for East Lothian, who is no longer a member of the Scottish National party. I have raised the concern, and I have asked for direct intervention from my Government about skills funding for the college during Treasury questions. I very much welcome the enhancement of the local growth deal, which enabled the skills centre to be built.
I will talk about the future of the refining sector. Since being elected I have repeatedly made the case that the best opportunity for Grangemouth is in refining biofuels, especially sustainable aviation fuel, due to its industrial role as a fuel supplier for Glasgow and Edinburgh throughout history, its equal proximity to Scotland’s two largest and busiest airports, its operational capacity and its proximity to a town that has the infrastructure necessary to host the required contractors.
The £200 million national wealth fund commitment to Grangemouth first proposed by Scottish Labour MPs late last year, fought for by Scottish Labour Ministers and announced by the Prime Minister in February, should be spent primarily on developing a new anchor industry for our community that complements the existing skills profile of refinery workers. Ideally, we would not give private international capital a full stake in the project. Many businesses are interested in investing in refining biofuels at Grangemouth, and they are calling for policy certainty during the transitional phase into sustainable aviation fuel.
Legislative measures such as the SAF mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism go a long way towards that, after the Government picked up the work that was delayed for far too long under the previous Administration. However, I would like the Minister to address the following points. Clarity on the revenue certainty mechanism and the pre-contractual work that can be carried out is crucial. Will the Government enable pre-contractual work to be carried out, as we did through contracts for difference, so that there are no delays once the RCM comes into effect later next year?
Project Willow mentioned a proposal to delay the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids cap. Despite substantial questioning from me, that has not been addressed yet by Ministers at either the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero or the Department for Transport. Will the Government consider altering, delaying or lifting the cap following that recommendation? Finally, it would be useful to have an update on how the £200 million is being deployed, following the welcome announcement on MiAlgae this year.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Of course, we have been here before with industry in this country. I remember what happened to the coal mines back in the 1980s. I worked in the coal mines in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and the whole industry was decimated by the Conservative Government at the time—
Lee Anderson
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he is more than welcome.
What the Government did not realise at the time is that when they got rid of a coalmine—each coalmine had a football team, a rugby team, a cricket team, a community club, a miners’ welfare, a brass band and a bandstand in the local welfare grounds—it destroyed whole communities, and those communities will never come back. They will never be the same again.
Fast forward 40-odd years and we have a Labour Chancellor and Government, who we would think would protect these industries. Look at the hypocrisy in that part of the world. We have Drax power station, which used to burn coal from a nearby coalmine, just a few miles down the road. I think that was shut about 10 years ago. I remember the Energy Secretary at the time was campaigning to keep it open. How things have changed! The power station now burns wooden pellets from trees chopped down in North America—in Canada. They chop the trees down and put them on diesel-guzzling cargo ships. They then chop them up into pellets using diesel-guzzling machinery on the ship. They then come to this country, are put on diesel-guzzling cargo trains and transported to Drax power station, where we set fire to them. And we say that is renewable energy. That costs the British taxpayer about £1 million a day in subsidies. I think it has cost about £10 billion so far since we have been using wooden pellets there.
Just a few miles down the road we have the perfectly good Lindsey oil refinery, which appears to be doomed, with 400 jobs at risk and a thousand more in the supply chain. If the Government are going to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise industry or keep places open, they should look at the oil refineries, because once they have gone, they are never coming back, and we have lost the community and that sense of pride.
There are not many Government Members here, to be honest—I cannot see many—although I will thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for his passionate contribution. I did not catch most of it because I am a little bit deaf; I will sit a bit closer next time.
Lee Anderson
We would expect this Labour Government to do a little bit more for these communities. Back in the ’80s, Labour was attacking the Tories for doing exactly the same thing: closing the vital industries. As I say, once the industry has gone, it is gone, and the skills that one generation passes on to another are gone as well. It is all well and good saying to somebody, “It’s okay, you can make windmills or solar panels,” or, “We’ll retrain you in green energy,” but they do not want that. This lot do not understand that there are still men and women in this country who want to get up in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft. They want to set the alarm clock at 10 o’clock at night, get up at half four or five o’clock in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft where they get their hands dirty. It is dangerous, dirty work, and they contribute towards their society by earning decent wages—good wages—and it keeps their communities going. If we lose that, we lose it for ever.
In the last year alone, we have lost a third of refineries, following the closure of Grangemouth, and now Lindsey is obviously doomed as well. That leaves just four refineries in the country. Why is Lindsey closing? Because it is being hit again and again with costs just to stay compliant with the UK emissions trading scheme. We know that to be compliant, refineries are required to submit verified emission reports to the UK ETS authority and to surrender sufficient allowances to meet the total emissions generated. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) said, those costs account for the highest expenditure in a refinery’s operating budget. Just let that sink in: the biggest cost to a refinery is one that has been inflicted upon it for the sole purpose of meeting net zero. In other words, it has been inflicted by this Government and the Energy Secretary.
Seamus Logan
I hear what the hon. Member says about oil refineries, and I share many of his concerns—you will have heard what I said—but I have also heard him and his party colleagues talking about “net stupid zero”. Does he actually believe that we should cancel all the wind farm projects and all the grid infrastructure rebuilding? Is that what he firmly believes we should do?
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that when they say “you” they are speaking to me.
Lee Anderson
I have heard colleagues talk about “net stupid zero” in the past. We think the targets should be scrapped; we are not against trying different sources of energy to fuel our nation. We are saying we should have a sensible transition. China has got it right: it is burning coal. China is opening coal mines and using coal-fired power stations. The irony is that China makes solar panels and windmills using electricity generated by coal-fired power stations, and then flogs them to us. We think, “That’s great! Look at this: we’re reducing the Earth’s carbon.” We are not reducing the Earth’s carbon; we are just exporting it to other countries. It is absolute madness and hypocrisy. When we are committing this nonsense, it costs our Treasury billions of pounds in receipts a year. It is absolute nonsense. When some of my hon. Friends say “net stupid zero”, that is what they are referring to. And it is stupid—it is absolute madness.
I am going to finish now, because I have had an extra minute and I know other people want to speak. I have been one of those working men who gets up in the morning at 5 o’clock and goes and does a dirty, horrible, dangerous job. I know what it is like to come home, after doing a horrible shift on a horrible job. I know what the people in these communities feel like. They do it because they love their family and their community, so they go and do some jobs that nobody in this room would ever do. This Labour Government should remind themselves what the Labour party was founded on: helping the working man in this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for leading the debate. The very thrust of the issue that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) underlined, and that I endorse, is how it changes communities whenever disastrous decisions are taken.
The future of the UK oil refining industry has become an increasingly urgent topic as we navigate the pressures of energy security and the transition to net zero. I should have welcomed the Minister to her position; I wish her well in it. I am not sure whether today’s is a good debate for her to be answering questions, but that is by the way—we will see how it all goes. We have seen the closure of two major oil refineries this year, so it is important that we are here to discuss the future of our fossil fuel sector across the United Kingdom.
This debate is important not just for the constituencies represented by, for example, the hon. Members for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), but for us in Northern Ireland as well. Our oil came from Grangemouth and Lindsey, so the impact for us in Northern Ireland will be the same as it is for everybody else. The difference will be that we will not be getting oil from within the United Kingdom and will have to buy it from outside. That concerns me greatly.
I commend the Members who have spoken. In particular, I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth for his passion, which he always shows in the main Chamber and here in Westminster Hall. He puts forward his case incredibly well.
The UK’s oil-refining capacity has shrunk substantially over the past 20 years or so. As of 2023, total refining capacity stood at roughly 1.22 million barrels per day, and the UK produced around 51.45 million tonnes of refined petroleum products. Some people ask how this effects the workers. Many of us have constituents who work in the oilfields—I think nearly every constituency has them; I know I have them in Strangford—and this impacts on them as well. Northern Ireland does not have any operating crude oil refinery, and all refined fuels, such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel, are imported.
Historically, some of Northern Ireland’s fuel came from refineries across the rest of the UK, with the products shipped or piped to Northern Ireland terminals. For example, Petronas, which until 2025 operated the Grangemouth refinery, supplied almost all the fuel for Northern Ireland. We have witnessed the closure of two refineries, Grangemouth and Lindsey, and Members have outlined their concerns, whether they represent the area or are here to speak on behalf of others. There is no doubt about the significant impact on where we source fuel. Events in the wider UK refining sector, such as closures or capacity losses, will have knock-on effects on fuel security, price stability and supply chain resilience in Northern Ireland. The impact will be felt by us all.
We have witnesses the United Kingdom’s reliance on imports, and there has been a significant impact in terms of job losses, and the redundancy of engineers, technicians and maintenance workers. We also have to recognise the significant loss of skill and experience. Even if things were to change in time, those people will have moved elsewhere, so how do we start again? That is, if we are able to start again, of course.
Furthermore, the closure of refineries has an impact on associated industries such as petrochemical storage and marine freight. The impact is like a domino effect: one thing happens and it knocks on right down the line. With two large domestic refining assets having closed, the UK must now import more petrol and more diesel, which completely reduces our domestic control over fuel supplies.
I believe that we are doing our bit to improve our infrastructure and to adapt to net zero goals, but what does that mean in the meantime? I do not think anybody here does not believe that there is a role for net zero, for the green environment and for green energy, but we do not want to lose the core of our ability to produce oil for our own country. The United Kingdom’s commitment to net zero remains essential to protect the environment and for our long-term energy security, and to create new green industries. However, the recent closures of the refineries at Lindsey and Grangemouth show that the transition also brings real challenges for workers and local economies—for every economy right across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—affecting all the regions and our overall industrial capacity.
The transition has to be carefully managed. It is the responsibility of the Minister and this Government to ensure that we are equipped to deal with the changes, for the benefit of everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I always say that we are better together, but we have got to work together as well. We have to work together for everybody. That is what I ask the Minister: how can we make sure that we can all do it better together?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate, and all the Members who have spoken for their contributions. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace—we have done a lot of work on sustainable aviation fuel—and that I met representatives of Exolum, the International Air Transport Association, LanzaJet and the Tank Storage Association in preparation for this debate.
At times of great upheaval and change, it is tempting to look to political leaders, artists or other major cultural figures to get a sense of where the world is headed. That is certainly a popular approach among historians, but I think it misses something: the often pivotal role of engineers—and I say that not just because I am one myself, or was. It is not necessary to subscribe to an entirely materialistic view of history to recognise that engineers, no matter who they work for or where they work, are often at the vanguard of the kind of technological change that enables our wider political or social ambitions to be achieved. That was true at the cusp of the industrial revolution; it was true when the white heat of technology exploded the middle class in the ’50s; and it is true now, perhaps more than ever, as we embark on the mission to undo the damage to our environment that previous technological shifts have wrought. We must secure our energy supply so that we can withstand an ever more uncertain future, and transform our late-industrial malaise into a green, prosperous and abundant economy through a truly just transition.
Data from the oil and gas industry shows that it directly supports around 26,000 jobs across the UK and indirectly supports 95,000 more. These are largely jobs in offshore drilling, rigging, catering, scaffolding, onshore fabrication yards, anchor manufacturing and vessel maintenance, and there are more. It is also estimated that there are another 84,000 jobs among the hospitality workers, taxi drivers and others who serve industrial communities and are supported by them in turn. We have seen before what happens when there is a major industrial shift and we fail to support jobs and the communities they help to keep alive—from the closure of the pits to the ongoing crisis of British Steel. We must learn lessons from past deindustrialisations to avoid similar damage to communities today.
All policy makers should dedicate themselves to avoiding the traumatic manifestations of necessary—or, at the very least, foreseeable—moments. It is vital that any job losses in this sector are mitigated by reskilling and retraining with new green investment. However, right now in 2025, we are losing our traditional refining, chemicals and existing biofuel production capability and home-grown expertise. Complexity, departmental misalignment and a lack of pragmatism in public policy are holding back the existing and future fuels sector. The Government have the power to solve those things. I hope that today we can suggest and agree some constructive next steps.
Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat colleagues and I recognised the importance of the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. Sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, will be one of the main enablers of aviation’s transition from polluting liquid fossil fuels to a future of hydrogen, battery and hybrid zero emission power plants. As part of that transition, SAF has a huge role to play in creating new green jobs and delivering on our energy security goals.
Local production creates jobs, improves resilience, reduces import dependence and stabilises prices, but without efficient resource allocation and strategic investment, future refinery closures could create severe supply bottlenecks and undermine our energy independence. It is equal parts encouraging that there is consensus among the serious political parties in this country about the need for transition and energy security, and concerning that from different ends of the spectrum, the Greens and Reform are either wilfully ignorant or unwilling to accept that supporting the oil refining industry to transition is critical.
The Greens seem willing to turn their back on any of the major technologies involved in the just transition of our fossil fuel infrastructure. They are locked into the pursuit of an ideological purity that sees those companies and producers solely as the problem and not as part of the solution. Reform’s static, stagnant and staggering belief that net zero is either bound to hurt working people or just bad in and of itself, only gives them the self-satisfied and smug smile of someone who thinks they know all the answers, but that could not be further from the truth.
Lee Anderson
The hon. Member talks about hurting working people. Does he not agree that the closure of the oil refineries hurts working people?
Luke Taylor
I completely agree. That is why we are talking about a transition. It may well bring shivers to the hon. Member’s spine to talk about transitions, but it is critical that we talk about them in a reasonable and sensible way, and about how we look forward to the future rather than to the past. Reform’s approach is equally dogmatic and damaging as that of the Green party and has already been found wanting in practice in local government.
We can only make the transition a reality if we grasp the opportunity to utilise our existing oil refining infrastructure to turn to the chemistry of the future, with a diverse set of feedstocks from a wide range of supply points. We should be working with industry on delivering that, but industry leaders tell me that on the critical steps that the Government should be taking, they are going ignored or unheard.
Let us take bioethanol, for example. At the start of 2025, the UK bioethanol sector provided 895 million litres of renewable fuel production capacity and thousands of direct and indirect jobs. It was also a significant market for British agriculture and providing critical co-products such as carbon dioxide for the NHS, and for the food and drink sector. As of December 2025, the industry has been halved, following the US-UK trade deal.
An immediate solution would be to transition that bioethanol to SAF, as the alcohol-to-jet technology being developed in the UK can convert it into jet fuel. Under the SAF mandate rules, however, bioethanol readily produced in the UK—sustainable enough for a car engine—has been deemed not sustainable enough for a jet engine. Will the Minister consider the request of industry to support the UK’s bioethanol industry to continue operations and simultaneously support SAF production by allowing bioethanol use under the SAF mandate? The upcoming call for evidence on the role of crops under the UK SAF mandate should be released urgently, and a pragmatic approach taken.
Similarly, opening hydrogen storage subsidies to include liquid fuel infrastructure would ensure that existing assets could play a role in the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen storage is critical, but hydrogen production and usage are also critical to our future renewable goals and to providing the supply of SAF that will be required to decarbonise aviation. DFT rules state that, to make compliant SAF in the UK, hydrogen must be green hydrogen—rightly—and cannot be supported by the hydrogen production business model, a scheme established by DESNZ to get UK hydrogen production off the ground. That alone is not controversial. However, there is no green hydrogen available in the UK that will not be supported by the HPBM, which means that a portion of SAF using these renewable molecules will be uncompliant and, essentially, very expensive fossil jet fuel, despite it actually being green. I convey to the Minister the ask from industry that the DFT and DESNZ should be urgently working together to ensure interconnectivity with hydrogen policy and SAF policy, so that SAF producers are not penalised for using domestic industry?
Euan Stainbank
Project Willow also recommended the delay or lifting of the cap on hydrotreated esters and fatty acids. Would the hon. Member agree with that approach being taken? This is the project and report on the future industrial options at Grangemouth.
Luke Taylor
I know that the hon. Member has a lot of knowledge on this issue. I think that looking at all the options that maintain capability is critical. What might come out of this is an ask for this Minister— or potentially the aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—to sit down with our APPG, in which there is a lot of expertise, to talk about some of the ways that we can maintain capability but also achieve our transition and net zero goals.
A pragmatic approach could be not to apply the rules to smaller users of hydrogen—for example, where hydrogen accounts for less than 5% of feedstock—while a longer time is taken to consider the impacts for large-scale hydrogen users.
I now turn to our wider ecosystem of logistics infrastructure. Pipelines, storage and distribution networks are essential for connecting supply and demand, especially as the market shifts towards sustainable fuels and as we look to improve our energy security. For example, Exolum, which runs a 2,000 km onshore pipeline network that delivers 40% to 50% of the aviation fuel used for UK flights each year, is transforming its aviation fuel pipeline network to supply SAF.
To unlock further investment in the infrastructure and ensure a just transition, industry is calling for long-term policy signals, such as extending and increasing renewable fuel mandates; targeted incentives like business rates relief and payment holidays for new infrastructure; inclusive subsidy schemes for hydrogen storage; and fast-tracking obligations for renewable liquid heating fuels.
At present, most support for fuel infrastructure is directed towards large-scale production projects. Conversely, investment in storage and distribution infrastructure is increasingly undertaken at an operator’s own risk and often ahead of immediate market need. That imbalance is amplified by a business rates system that can disincentivise new investments and high-end capital projects—including energy transition initiatives—especially when the investment is by overseas companies likely to be looking for more cost-effective placement of funding in countries with more generous and strategic policies. How will the Minister ensure that policy and investment frameworks can support storage and distribution infrastructure, thereby enabling the development of a future-ready energy system, capable of responding to evolving market conditions and minimising supply chain risks?
The Liberal Democrats urge the Government fully to grasp the opportunities that our industrial capacity and workforce capability offer our country, to lead the world in a transition to next-generation fuels and energy. It is in our blood and our tradition as a country to grapple with these big technological questions, so it should be up to us to show what real leadership on the just transition looks like—not just because great feats of engineering are impressive in their own right, which they are, but because a whole generation of people whose lives and careers have been shaped by our oil refineries and wider energy sector, and future generations, are counting on that leadership. In recent years, the Conservatives abandoned it. We urgently need to get it back and provide stability for the communities most affected.
Home-grown, local renewable energy and fuels can be clean, cheap and popular, and they embed resilience. The Government must work with industry because striving for theoretical perfection, rather than ambitious but deliverable policy, risks choking the sector and neutering this revolution. Our engineers and industry stand ready to deliver, as they have done time and again, the greener economy that we need and that communities up and down the country deserve.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this timely and important debate. I pay tribute to him for his work in standing up for workers, not just at Prax Lindsey but across his constituency and his region—his energy estuary. I also thank the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his wise words. We can support all energies; it is not an either/or. We must not run down the oil, gas and liquid fuel sector just for the want of achieving a target.
In 2025 alone, we have lost two of the UK’s six remaining refineries, with thousands of well-paid workers losing their jobs in the supply chain. Grangemouth and Prax Lindsey have closed, but not because we need any less petrol, diesel, jet fuel or heating oil—just as we will not need any less ethylene after the Mossmorran plant closed in Fife, or any less oil and gas when this Government wilfully shut down the North sea, destroying jobs in communities such as mine in Aberdeenshire.
As the Minister knows, we will simply become more dependent on foreign imports, lose billions of pounds in tax receipts that could support our public services, and destroy hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs in parts of the country that need them the most. We will, as the Minister also knows, strangle our domestic production and then import more products from countries with far higher emissions. We will offshore our carbon, offshore our jobs and offshore our security, all so that the Secretary of State can boast of global leadership at COP. No one is going to want to follow our lead if we make ourselves poorer and less secure. We will become a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. It is ideology over national interest. As Labour’s friends in the unions say, it amounts to exporting jobs in order to import virtue.
The production at Prax Lindsey will now be replaced by imports from other countries. Ineos will retain its ethylene and propylene production at Grangemouth, but will now import ethane on huge diesel-chugging container ships from across the Atlantic. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain how that is going to reduce global carbon emissions.
Rian Chad Whitton has produced a fantastic report for the Prosperity Institute in which he explains in detail how high energy costs and carbon taxes are crippling heavy industry in the UK, but particularly our refineries. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about electricity—as we should, because our electricity prices are the highest in the world, and this Government are locking us and our constituents into higher prices for longer in the upcoming allocation round 7 auction—but what we often miss in our debates is that only a small proportion of our current energy consumption is from electricity. The vast majority of it comes from other fuels such as natural gas, and that is particularly true for our heavy industry and refining sector.
When refineries use natural gas to produce their products, they are subject to a carbon tax on every unit of CO2 they release. Refineries have no choice but to use natural gas, because no other fuel can do the job that natural gas does in their processes. Many other countries charge a much lower carbon tax, or—when it comes to our competitors for refined products, such as in the US, India or the Gulf—charge no carbon tax at all. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme makes it significantly harder for refineries to do business in the UK, increases costs for consumers and makes our industry less competitive.
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can listen to the UK chair of ExxonMobil, which runs the Fawley refinery in Southampton. At the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recently, he said:
“the majority of…petrol and diesel imported into this country, is produced in the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and India…They have lower energy costs, lower labour costs and zero CO2 costs…Fawley refinery this year will spend between £70 million and £80 million on CO2 costs alone. In the next four or five years that will increase to £150 million. You tell me of another industry where you can afford to have a £150 million cost burden on a single producing unit and expect it to remain competitive for the long term. It is an absolute catastrophe waiting to happen”.
In his report for the Prosperity Institute, Rian calculates that at Prax Lindsey, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, the cost of the carbon tax alone amounted to 120% of the operating profit. How on earth can any refinery survive in that environment?
Things would be bad enough, but Ministers are not intent on making them even worse. Their decision to align the UK carbon tax with the EU’s more expensive one has increased the price that our industry pays by about 70% in the space of just a year. Why are they doing this? Ministers talk about EU alignment as if it is inevitable, but it is not. They control the market. They choose how many allowances they release. They could choose not to align with the EU and keep control of our own carbon market.
Increasing the carbon tax is a political choice that is already causing production costs to soar at refineries in Pembroke, Fawley, Stanlow and the Humber, and that has increased the cost of everybody’s electricity bill, too. Labour Members should know that electricity bills have increased by £2 billion this year alone because of the Government’s choice of alignment. The carbon tax is charged on gas-fired power generation too, and it is passed straight through to our constituents in wholesale electricity prices. That is exactly why the Conservatives have said that we will axe the carbon tax as part of our cheap power plan, to cut everybody’s electricity bills instantly by 20%.
The soaring carbon tax is crippling the refining sector. Will the Minister explain how refineries are supposed to survive when the Government are planning to increase the carbon tax between now and 2050? Is it the Government’s plan to have a carbon tax of £147 a tonne in 2030, as set out in the National Energy System Operator report? If not, will she disown her party’s claim that the NESO report shows that the clean power 2030 plan is achievable? Will the Government scrap their plan to align with the EU carbon tax scheme, which would lock us into ever higher carbon prices with no control? Will the Minister commit to increasing the number of free allowances given to the refining sector to shield it from at least some of the burden?
Refining is viable only when the raw product to refine is abundant and cheap. We cannot run a refinery on warm words about net zero and promises of green jobs that never materialise. We need crude oil and natural gas, so let us consider what is happening to the domestic oil and gas sector under this Government. Production is down, and falling at an accelerating rate; the cessation of production and decommissioning is being brought forward; investment is going overseas; 1,000 jobs a month are being lost from producers, operators and the supply chain, and no exploration wells were drilled in the UK North sea last year, for the first time since the 1960s. Why is this happening? Because the Government have banned new licences and continue—choose to continue—to keep the energy profits levy and tax UK oil and gas production at a higher rate than any other comparable basin. How can UK companies possibly compete when paying tax at 78%? There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, so why are companies still having to pay windfall taxes?
The Government’s short-term and idealistic policies on the North sea have an impact everywhere: they impact jobs, livelihoods, households, businesses and industries across the country. Does the Minister understand the anger and frustration in communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan, and throughout the energy sector, at the Prime Minister’s words about the EPL last week? People are losing their livelihoods and their ability to support their families because of the Government’s political choice to shut down the oil and gas sector. To hear that the Prime Minister does not even understand the policy that he is imposing, which is causing so much harm, is a complete slap in the face for energy communities across the country. Can the Minister confirm for the record that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that the windfall tax kicks in when there are excessive profits? Will she confirm that there is no longer any windfall left to tax?
Euan Stainbank
When the hon. Lady’s party was in power, in February 2024, in response to a question from the former Member for East Lothian, her then party leader said that the future of the Grangemouth refinery was “obviously a commercial decision”, essentially excluding themselves from taking any action. Does she agree or disagree with the former Prime Minister’s characterisation, considering what we have heard from the Conservative Benches—and I agree—about how oil refineries are strategically important? It was not a commercial decision, and something could have been done when her party was in office.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I am sure the hon. Lady will give the Minister enough time for her speech.
Harriet Cross
I absolutely will, so I will end on that point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I find the what-aboutery from Government Members extraordinary. They seem to think that because something has happened in the past, it is okay for something else to happen now. The Government are shutting down the UK oil and gas sector because they keep taxing it. Jobs such as those lost at Grangemouth are being lost every single week across the country as a result. If the hon. Member thinks that is okay, he should say so, but I do not think it is okay, and that is why I am fighting against it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I have really enjoyed the debate, which has been full of passion and emotion. I heard the anger, including in what my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said, but I also heard that there is a lot of commonality in some of our values and on the transition that we are trying to achieve together. I have genuinely enjoyed listening and I have noted lots of points. There were a lot of questions; I will endeavour to get through them, but if I do not, we may need to follow up in writing to hon. Members.
I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. This is a timely opportunity to discuss a matter of strategic significance for our nation’s energy security: the future of the UK refining sector. The industry has helped to underpin our economy and our resilience for decades, and its future deserves our full attention. The Minister for Energy is in Grangemouth today, and I will say more about that later.
Our refineries play a crucial role in ensuring a stable supply of the essential fuels that keep our transport networks running, our industries operating and consumers supplied with the energy they rely on every day. The sector is more than just a fuel; it drives growth in key sectors, supports thousands of skilled jobs in communities and sustains supply chains for chemicals, plastics and manufacturing. Refineries also play a critical role in the wider downstream oil sector. The Humber refinery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham is the UK’s only source of anode-grade petroleum coke, which is essential for electrical vehicle production. The Fawley refinery contributed to the global covid-19 response by supplying the specialist halobutyl rubber used to seal vaccine vials.
Importantly, UK refineries are also investing in their own future through decarbonisation and diversification by deploying carbon capture or producing low-carbon fuels to support our transition to net zero. Demand for refined products will continue, even beyond 2050, and the UK’s refineries will remain essential for hard-to-abate sectors such as heavy industry, aviation and maritime. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy made clear in June, the Government are absolutely committed to securing the long-term viability of the UK’s refining sector, and, as set out in the autumn Budget, we are reviewing critical policies to address the challenges that the sector faces.
Those challenges are real. In the 1970s, the UK operated 18 refineries; today, as has been said many times during the debate, only four remain. Falling demand for traditional fuels, global competition from mega-refineries in the middle east, India and Africa, changing trade dynamics and ageing assets all put pressure on UK operations. But with challenge comes opportunity, and the Government are determined to seize the opportunities by driving innovation, supporting investment and ensuring that the refining sector continues to play a vital role in our economy and for our energy security for decades to come.
The Government have already taken significant steps to support the refining sector and the wider fuel sector, and we are committed to do more. We have driven the shift to low-carbon fuels through the renewable transport fuel obligation, and this year we went further with the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, backing cleaner fuels for aviation. The Humber refinery already produces SAF at commercial scale, while Fawley and Stanlow are among the projects backed by our advanced fuels fund, which provides grants to accelerate the next generation of transport fuels. Refineries are playing a key role in driving the UK SAF industry forward, strengthening energy security with a home-grown supply. We are also de-risking investment in SAF production through the revenue certainty mechanism. We are working with industry to cut emissions through carbon capture and low-carbon hydrogen at major clusters such as Viking and HyNet. We will set out a clear plan for industrial decarbonisation to keep the UK competitive.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Lady is giving a paean of praise for refineries, so why are the Government taxing them out of existence?
Katie White
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened, as I was going to come on to his points—in particular, his interesting point about the national interest. I say to him gently that I feel we are working in the national interest, but the national interest includes energy security as well as respecting the science of climate change, which is happening. As he is the Father of the House, I genuinely listened to his points, but I was a little disappointed—[Interruption.] He can laugh all he likes, but I listened to his points. He talked about the UK being responsible for less than 1% of emissions. That is the case in terms of nation states, but I think the UK’s impact in the world is so much larger, whether through people following our policy decisions, the impact of our banking sector or our consumption of goods, which has also come up a lot.
We are looking at how we manage the transition, and we want to do it in a way that respects the science, but I am also competitive about where Britain can take advantage of these industries. We want to make sure that we have these industries, including the wind turbines that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but we also want to look at how we can make the transition justly and fairly. I will come on to that later in my speech.
Last month, the UK ETS Authority confirmed that current benchmarks will stay in place for the 2027 scheme. That decision gives refineries and other energy-intensive industries the certainty that they need. By maintaining those benchmarks, we are providing stability and breathing space, helping businesses plan, manage costs and prepare for future changes to the scheme.
We are also reviewing compensation for energy-intensive industries. We announced in the autumn Budget that we are assessing the feasibility of including refined products in the carbon border adjustment mechanism, so that imported goods face an equivalent carbon price and the sector’s efforts to decarbonise will not be undermined by carbon leakage. This is the refining sector’s top priority, which the Government are committed to exploring as one of several levers to support the sector’s long-term future. These measures demonstrate our commitment to supporting investment, driving innovation and ensuring that the refining sector remains competitive and resilient as we transition to a low-carbon economy.
Looking ahead, the Government are taking further steps to secure the long-term future of the UK refining sector and to ensure a just transition. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has established a dedicated team to work across Whitehall and with industry. A number of Members asked about working across Whitehall; we will continue to do that, to ensure that we maximise the impact. This will guide how we manage the transition, protect energy security and support jobs and local communities.
We will continue to engage closely with the fuel industry to identify practical measures that can strengthen the sector. That is why, in June, we convened the first ministerial—[Interruption.]
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Order. Can I have a certain decorum from other Members while the Minister is speaking?
Katie White
Thank you, Mr Western.
That is why, in June, we convened the first ministerial roundtable with the refining industry in more than a decade, providing a clear signal of our commitment to partnership and dialogue. As announced in the autumn Budget, we will shortly launch a call for evidence to inform the UK’s long-term strategy for the downstream oil sector. That will seek industry views on the opportunities and barriers to transition, the risks facing the sector and the types of support needed to deliver and manage a competitive transition. These actions underline our determination to work hand in hand with industry. I thank the Scottish Affairs Committee for its recent report, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for sharing it.
The refining sector has faced long-standing challenges, and recent closures underline the scale of change. Petroineos’s decision to end refining at Grangemouth was disappointing. As my hon. Friend said, while the difficulties there were well known, there was no Government plan in place before we took office. Within weeks of doing so, we worked with the Scottish Government to put together a £100 million package to support the community and invest in the local workforce, along with tailored support to secure good alternative jobs. When we came into government, there was no overall plan for Grangemouth from either the SNP or the Tories. We have put one in place.
We are committed to securing Grangemouth’s long-term industrial future. We are working closely with the Scottish Government, the Office for Investment and Scottish Enterprise to attract future investment and transform the area into a clean energy and sustainable technology hub. This effort is already delivering results. We have received over 100 inquiries to date, and the investment pipeline is supported by the £14.5 million in funding announced at the Budget, alongside the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million for co-investment opportunities at Grangemouth.
Today, I can confirm that, along with the Scottish Government, we have made £3 million available for MiAlgae, an innovative biotechnology company that produces sustainable omega-3 rich products, which will create over 130 direct jobs at the site and 310 jobs across Scotland over five years. These steps demonstrate our commitment to a managed transition by supporting communities, attracting investment and ensuring that sites like Grangemouth—
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Mr Western. You are a fellow member of the Panel of Chairs. Can we make it clear to our colleagues that it is normal courtesy for the Minister to allow the proposer of a motion some time to wind up, if only a minute? That did not happen on this occasion.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a courtesy, but my understanding—I think he will understand this, too—is that it is not an obligation. On this occasion it was not possible for the Minister to do that, given the number of interventions that we had, as well as the full contributions from all the Members who chose to speak.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the oil refining sector.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It took the Government a year and a half to confirm that they were going to scrap the two-child benefit cap. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of children who, during that time, were unnecessarily kept in poverty because of it?
Dame Diana Johnson
…The statistic the hon. Gentleman perhaps wants me to give is that I understand 100 children a week were pushed into child poverty through the two-child limit that the previous Government introduced in 2017.
[Official Report, 8 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 9.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson):
Dame Diana Johnson
…The statistic the hon. Gentleman perhaps wants me to give is that I understand 100 children a day were pushed into child poverty through the two-child limit that the previous Government introduced in 2017.
Transport
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—she knows I am a huge fan. In that spirit of solidarity, will she join me in supporting the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway company’s bid to the Office of Rail and Road for a new service into Shropshire, stopping at important market towns such as Wellington in my constituency? Does she accept that it is not just the big cities and urban centres but rural market towns that need to be included on timetables?
Heidi Alexander
Decisions about open access services, under the current model, are for the Office of Rail and Road to take. Network Rail supported the service that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but the Office of Rail and Road took a different decision.
[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 207.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander):
Heidi Alexander
Decisions about open access services, under the current model, are for the Office of Rail and Road to take. The Department for Transport supported the service that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but the Office of Rail and Road took a different decision.
Free Trade Agreement: Turkey
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The third round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Turkey took place in Ankara during the week commencing 17 November 2025.
Negotiations were productive, with positive progress being made in a number of areas:
Trade in services
Constructive discussions were held across financial services, professional and business services, domestic regulation, and entry and temporary stay. The UK set out proposals aimed at giving greater legal certainty and transparency for services suppliers. Both sides explored avenues for regulatory co-operation to support open and stable markets, and continued to narrow outstanding issues and further consolidate text across these chapters.
Trade in goods
Negotiators continued to discuss text proposals and relevant data across trade in goods, with a view to unlocking commercially meaningful opportunities for UK exporters. Significant progress was made on customs and trade facilitation, focused on enabling predictable, transparent and efficient border procedures through enhanced co-operation between customs authorities. On sanitary and phytosanitary measures, both sides continued to discuss practical co-operation to facilitate safe trade in agrifoods while maintaining and upholding the UK’s high standards.
Sustainability and collaboration
Positive exchanges were held on labour, anti-corruption and environment, building on work from previous rounds. Discussions also advanced on good regulatory practice with the shared aim of supporting open, transparent and predictable regulatory environments that reduce unnecessary barriers to trade, and support innovators and SMEs.
Additional areas
Text-based discussions continued on dispute settlement and the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Both sides also worked to refine and clarify respective approaches across Government procurement, state-owned enterprises and subsidies. On trade remedies, officials held further exchanges to build a common understanding of practices and mutual processes.
Economic growth is our first mission in Government and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. A stronger trade relationship with Turkey will contribute to jobs and prosperity in the UK, with trade between the two totalling around £28 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q2 2025.
The UK will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, including protections for the national health service.
The fourth round of negotiations is expected to take place in early 2026. Ministers will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with Turkey as they continue to progress.
[HCWS1153]
Child Protection Authority
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today Government have launched a public consultation on the Child Protection Authority for England, a new national body with one clear purpose: to protect children. In addition to this consultation, we are also publishing new analysis and data on child sexual abuse and exploitation in response to a recommendation in Baroness Casey’s audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The child protection system
For too long, we have seen heartbreaking cases where the system has not worked as it should. Despite the dedication of thousands of professionals, repeated reviews have shown the same weaknesses: fragmented leadership; poor information sharing; and lessons that take too long to turn into action. These failures have left children exposed to harm, and families devastated. We cannot allow this to continue. Whilst we cannot shield every child from harm, it is imperative that we do not repeat past failures and that we strive to create a future where we do not allow history to repeat itself.
We have heard at first hand from those impacted by systemic failures. It is clear that there is too often a lack of expertise, accuracy and grip in the most important decisions around significant harm. There are countless cases where poor information sharing contributes to serious safeguarding failures, and learning about what does and does not work has been too slowly embedded, if at all.
The Child Protection Authority
The CPA will change that. It will bring national leadership and oversight, using data and intelligence to spot risks early and advise on policy at local and national level, helping to create a system that is proactive, rather than reactive.
It will support initiatives from “what works” centres and centres of expertise in spreading and embedding good practice, as well as plugging vital gaps in research and evidence.
The CPA will also make sure that recommendations lead to real change, not just words on a page. It will work closely with inspectorates, regulators, and relevant Government Departments to drive continuous improvement across the system. Accountability will be clearer, impacts will be measurable, and practice will be expert, accurate and decisive.
The CPA will absorb and build on the impressive work of the child safeguarding practice review panel. I would like to thank Sir David Holmes, former chair Dame Annie Hudson, and panel members, for their tireless work—particularly their relentless focus on sharing learning and modelling multi-agency expertise.
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse called for a national body to address inconsistencies and drive stronger accountability where opportunities have been missed. They called for a body that has a laser focus on child protection, that can build on the strengths of the sector and that can support a system that can take swift and direct action where children are at risk of significant harm. The CPA will be that body.
Reform programme
The measures we are announcing today sit within a wider programme of reform. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and Crime and Policing Bill, we are strengthening multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, introducing a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, and improving information sharing. Through the families first partnership programme, backed by £2.4 billion, we are rolling out family help, family group decision making and multi-agency child protection teams in every local area, and we are taking targeted action to support victims and survivors, including reforms to the disclosure and barring system and removing the three-year time limit for civil claims. We will build a system that can prevent the tragedies we have seen in the past, and one that has enduring relationships at its core.
Baroness Louise Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse
Today, we have also published analysis of child protection data to meet recommendation 9 of Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. This includes analysis of children who were assessed as being affected by child sexual abuse or exploitation, giving valuable insight into their demographics and outcomes, and into trends over time. It will help us to better understand practice and recording for these children.
This is another important step in building our understanding of how we need to improve.
CPA consultation
This consultation, which will run for 12 weeks, sets out our proposals and invites views on the CPA’s scope, powers, and priorities. We will publish the Government response in summer 2026, alongside plans for legislation to establish the CPA.
This Government are unwavering in their commitment to act. Every child deserves a system that is expert, decisive and compassionate—and today’s announcements mark a bold step toward making that vision a reality.
[HCWS1156]
Hurricane Melissa: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I am writing to update the House on the impact of Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean and the action the Government are taking in response, following my recent visit to Jamaica, where I witnessed at first hand the devastation caused and the scale of the challenge facing communities.
Nearly 6 million people throughout the Caribbean have been affected by Hurricane Melissa, with Jamaica, Cuba and Haiti suffering the most acute impacts. In Jamaica, 45 deaths have been reported, and the World Bank has estimated that there has been up to $8.8 billion in damage—over 41% of the country’s 2024 GDP. In Haiti, assessing the scale of the damage has been challenging, with critical roads and bridges swept away, and severe damage to the agricultural sector. Haitian authorities report 43 deaths in the coastal town of Petit-Goave alone, and approximately 250,000 people have been affected. In Cuba, extensive damage was caused to infrastructure, agriculture and essential services. In the Bahamas, and in the UK overseas territories of Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands and Bermuda, the impact was limited but nonetheless disruptive.
Throughout my time in Jamaica, the importance of the UK’s support was evident. The UK Government have assisted Jamaica in three different ways. First and most importantly, there is the work that we do in advance of any crisis. The UK is a long-standing champion of disaster finance mechanisms, and it has worked closely with Jamaica to set up a sophisticated pre-arranged finance framework, with a reported $1.6 billion available to respond to disasters through financial instruments. We were also a founding donor of a regional risk pool—the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility. The CCRIF has announced that Jamaica has received around $92 million from hurricane and excess rainfall insurance, and Jamaica’s catastrophe bond paid out $150 million last week. The UK is also a major contributor to the Red Cross and UN global emergency response funds, as well as the Start non-governmental organisation network, with over £14 million additionally triggered for vulnerable households in affected countries, both for preparation ahead of the hurricane, and for humanitarian relief post impact. These initiatives provide countries with security at their most insecure time and allow them to rebuild at pace. I pay credit to the Jamaican Government for their prudence and foresight in engaging such frameworks.
Second is the work that the UK has done bilaterally. We delivered over 18,000 core relief items, such as emergency shelter kits, hygiene kits and solar lanterns, which are directly assisting approximately 33,000 people. HMS Trent arrived in Jamaica on 2 November, having supported the Turks and Caicos in the immediate aftermath of Melissa. 24 Commando Royal Engineers, alongside the ship’s company, cleared debris, repaired storm damage, and conducted urgent repairs at Falmouth hospital and a local primary school. These efforts enabled the Spanish Government-run field hospital to occupy wards.
The UK emergency medical team was deployed to deliver primary healthcare services in support of Jamaica’s Ministry of Health and Wellbeing; the provision of two mobile clinics operating in rural areas of Trelawny parish supported affected communities and reduced the burden on Jamaican healthcare. To date, our teams have seen 1,225 patients. We are also supporting the Caribbean Public Health Agency with public health supplies and specialist technical support.
The UK is also funding the staffing of a field hospital in Savana-la-Mar. Demonstrating the benefit of the UK’s efforts to build climate-resilient healthcare, I visited Santa Cruz health centre in Saint Elizabeth, a UK-funded resilient hospital implemented by the Pan American Health Organization—the regional WHO office—in collaboration with Jamaica’s Ministry of Health. The hospital has survived both Hurricanes Beryl and Melissa, continuing to provide critical healthcare throughout these crises. We have also provided funding for the Caribbean Electric Utility Services Corporation, which has deployed 51 specialist energy sector personnel to support restoration of the national electrical grid.
Lastly, there is the work we have been delivering through multinational organisations. We have funded critical surge staff positions in UN agencies in both Jamaica and Haiti, as well as providing humanitarian experts to support the British high commission in Kingston. During my visit to Saint Elizabeth, I met children directly affected by the storm—30% of early learning facilities were severely damaged, and another 30% were impacted. The UK has provided £850,000 to UNICEF to deliver water and sanitation services, child protection, and education support. I saw UNICEF’s mobile child-friendly spaces, which offer critical psychosocial support to children in affected communities. In Saint Elizabeth, I also observed the World Food Programme’s efforts, supported by £2 million from the UK, to provide emergency food supplies, strengthen humanitarian logistics, and deliver telecommunications expertise.
The Red Cross Jamaica is using £1 million in UK funding to provide emergency shelter, cash assistance, psychosocial support, including for children, and water, sanitation, and hygiene supplies. Preparations are also under way for cash assistance programmes led by the World Food Programme, the Red Cross, and UNICEF to help affected families purchase essentials and restore livelihoods once markets stabilise. The UK has also contributed to programmes that have been active in responding to the impact of the hurricane in Haiti and Cuba. The World Food Programme has provided anticipatory cash transfers to 9,400 households in high-risk areas ahead of Hurricane Melissa’s landfall, and a $4 million Central Emergency Response Fund allocation was also released to support humanitarian efforts in response to Melissa’s impact. The UK has also supported specific technical expertise to the response.
Alongside our humanitarian response, the UK consular operation has been significant. With the UK’s strong links to Jamaica, many British nationals and UK residents were in the country during Hurricane Melissa. The FCDO provided consular support to over 2,000 British nationals in Jamaica, including by organising a charter flight, closely liaising with airlines and providing tailored support to vulnerable individuals.
Throughout my visit to Jamaica, I was reminded of the deep and enduring bonds between the UK and the Caribbean; every map I saw contained links to every part of the UK. These relationships need to mean something in times of crisis. I pay tribute to all those I have met across Government, NGOs and local communities who continue to work tirelessly to ensure that assistance reaches those most in need. I am proud to say—and to have seen for myself—that the UK stands by Jamaica’s side in its hour of need.
[HCWS1159]
DHSC Annual Accounts: Covid-19 Reporting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The 2024-25 annual report and accounts for the Department of Health and Social Care has been published today, 11 December 2025.
The annual report discloses losses relating to covid-19 inventory that the Department is reporting under the requirements of HM Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance on dealing with public resources. The losses primarily relate to inventory procured during the pandemic, the great majority of which has already been impaired in departmental financial statements in previous years. However, we are required to disclose losses when they crystallise, which is when they reach their expiry dates or are subject to disposal. The losses are as follows:
Covid-19 medicines
There were two constructive losses occurring in 2024-25, of £856 million and £393 million respectively, relating to two covid-19 antiviral medicines that reached their expiry dates during the year. The bulk of these items were procured from December 2021 in response to the emergence of the omicron variant in late 2021, at a time when its severity and potential impact on vaccine efficacy were uncertain. In practice, the impact was less severe than previous variants, meaning not all medicines purchased were used prior to their expiry dates. All efforts were made with the manufacturers and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to extend the expiry dates to the greatest extent possible in order to get best value from the Government’s investment.
Covid-19 vaccines
The annual report and accounts disclose a constructive loss valued at £527 million relating to 19,285,820 doses of covid-19 vaccine, all of which reached their expiry dates during the 2024- 25 financial year. This was due to the actual use of vaccines ultimately falling below the total of 412,177,005 covid-19 vaccine doses procured as part of pandemic contracts, the majority of which were signed in the 2020-21 financial year. This level of vaccine doses was procured to give the Government the ability to vaccinate the entire population under potential “reasonable worst-case scenarios”, meaning there was always a risk that some stock would expire before it was potentially required.
Covid-19 testing kits
A loss of £0.7 million (547,420 units) has been disclosed relating to testing kits which reached their expiry date during 2024-25 and could not be repurposed. The stock was therefore disposed of, avoiding further storage costs being incurred by the taxpayer.
Covid-19 personal protective equipment
A “claim waived or abandoned” loss arises where a decision is taken not to present or pursue a claim, which could be, or has been, properly made. As set out in the DHSC group 2024-25 annual report and accounts, the Department is now waiving or abandoning claims to the value of £572 million against 25 covid-19 PPE suppliers. The Government covid counter-fraud commissioner has reviewed these cases and supports the Department’s course of action in each.
Managed quarantine service
A loss of £16.7 million has been disclosed in relation to debts arising from the covid-19 managed quarantine service. The MOS handled 214,000 arrivals who entered the UK during the pandemic between April and December 2021[1] and who were required to isolate in a quarantine hotel provided by the service. Of the loss disclosed, £6.3 million relates to debt where there is insufficient evidence of validity and £10.4 million relates to “hardship” debt which is no longer economically viable to pursue.
[1] NAO Report “Managing cross-border travel during the COVID-19 pandemic” https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/managing-cross-border-travel-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
[HCWS1160]
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust: Statutory Inquiry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
On three occasions this year, I have met with some of the families who lost their loved ones under the care of Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust. I would like to place on record my deep and sincere condolences to all the families who have taken the time to speak to me. Each one of them has suffered an unimaginable loss, and their courageous and tireless campaigning—not only on behalf of their loved ones, but also on behalf of everyone in urgent need of mental health support—has been inspirational.
I am grateful for their time and for sharing their experiences. What happened to their loved ones is unacceptable. Patients should be safe in mental health services, and their families should be assured that they are safe. Too many people have experienced care that has been well below the high standard that we all deserve when we are at our most vulnerable. I would also like to thank the many local MPs who have campaigned on behalf of their constituents and brought these issues to my attention.
This Government take these concerns extremely seriously. After careful consideration, I have decided to establish a statutory inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, into the deaths of mental health patients at Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust. I am concerned that services at the trust have not improved to the extent that they should have, and that there has been a lack of transparency around the circumstances of some of these tragic incidents. I believe a statutory inquiry is the only way to get to the bottom of the failings at the trust and to ensure we derive the learning required to prevent such poor outcomes in the future.
Information on the chair and terms of reference will be confirmed as soon as possible.
[HCWS1161]
NHS Pensions: McCloud Implementation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
On 1 July 2025, I issued a written statement on the implementation of the McCloud remedy for affected NHS pension scheme members. I informed the House that a number of deadlines by when the NHS Business Services Authority was required to provide remediable service statements to members would be missed. I explained that I was commissioning Lisa Tennant, independent chair of the NHS pension board, to lead a review of the capacity, capability and delivery plans of the NHS Business Services Authority’s McCloud remedy functions.
The review has now provided me with an interim report on the capability and capacity of the authority to enact the remedy and recommendations for its effective delivery. Key findings include that significant progress has been made in remedy delivery planning but that governance arrangements must be strengthened with enhanced assurance measures put in place, and detailed capacity planning and supplier arrangements need to be finalised. A final report will be published in line with the Government’s commitment to transparency.
Since my previous statement, the NHS Business Services Authority has been undertaking a significant replanning exercise for the delivery of the remedy. This exercise has now entered its final stage and the authority and my Department are implementing recommendations from the interim report. It is anticipated that the review will conclude its assurance of the revised delivery plan early in 2026. After this point, I will publish the final report and set new statutory deadlines by when the authority must provide remediable service statements, based on a complete and robust plan which has been independently assured and endorsed by the authority’s board.
The revised plan will continue to prioritise retired members who are likely to be facing financial detriment as a consequence of the discrimination identified by the McCloud judgment. RSS and remedial pension savings statements continue to be issued. The authority expects that their capacity to produce RSS will increase materially when software to automate a significant proportion of the calculations required comes online in spring 2026.
I want to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to delivering the remedy for public service pension scheme members affected by the discrimination caused by the coalition Government’s decision making. I will continue to keep this House informed of progress in the implementation of the remedy for the NHS pension scheme.
[HCWS115]
Terrorism Legislation: Report of Independent Reviewer
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
In accordance with section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2023 of the Terrorism Acts, which was laid before the House on 15 July 2025.
I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report and have carefully considered the recommendations and observations included within. I am today laying before the House the Government response to the report, Cmd 1466. Copies will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1158]
National Plan to End Homelessness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Today, the Government have published their national plan to end homelessness. For the first time ever, this is a truly cross-Government strategy, with commitments from all relevant Departments to both reduce homelessness and rough sleeping and—where appropriate—to use their levers to improve the lives of children and families already in the homelessness system.
Both the number of individuals sleeping rough and the number of households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. Behind these statistics are human lives—some who we can see sleeping on our streets and others who we cannot, often families and children living in unsuitable accommodation without adequate facilities.
This strategy sets out our clear vision for change. Homelessness should not be an accepted part of our society, but the scale of crisis we inherited means we cannot end it overnight. That is why this strategy sets out the actions we are taking to drive change across the short, medium and long term. It outlines the tangible actions and targets we have set ourselves for delivery this Parliament, which will act as milestones on the way to achieving our long-term vision.
In the long term, the strategy commits to delivering sustainable change to address the root causes of homelessness. This will include building more homes through our £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing; reforming renters’ rights, including banning section 21 evictions; and tackling poverty, as set out in our recent child poverty strategy, lifting 550,000 children out of poverty.
In the medium term, the strategy commits to supporting councils and public services to shift from crisis to prevention. We are investing £3.5 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping over the next three years via new, more flexible arrangements that prioritise prevention. Alongside this, we are outlining a long-term ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness. This is backed up by both a new duty on public services to identify, act and collaborate to prevent homelessness, and a set of targets and commitments from other Government Departments that recognise that the causes of homelessness do not respect departmental boundaries.
In the short term, the strategy commits to taking immediate action to tackle the worst forms of homelessness.
First, it pledges to eliminate the unlawful use of B&Bs for families over the course of the Parliament, as well as to tackle unacceptable temporary accommodation. We will do this by increasing supply, improving quality and experience—including via cross-Government commitments to improve health outcomes and school attendance and reduce the risk of mortality when children are in temporary accommodation—and supporting local models through an expanded emergency accommodation reduction programme.
Secondly, it pledges to halve the number of people with complex needs who spend months or even years on the street by the end of the Parliament. We will do this through a new long-term rough sleeping innovation programme, as well as targeted funding for supported housing and the voluntary, community and faith sector.
We have looked at the issues carefully, across an interministerial group. We were supported by a lived experience forum so that people who have experienced homelessness could influence the strategy, and an expert group bringing together representatives from homelessness and rough sleeping organisations, local government and experts.
We have made our ambition clear and will hold ourselves to account to deliver on it. The strategy sets three new overarching national targets: to increase the proportion of households supported to stay in their own home or find other accommodation; to end the use of B&B accommodation for families except in short-term emergencies; and to halve the number of people sleeping rough long term. It also places targets and commitments on seven Departments across Government. We expect local partners to do the same, outlining clear local action plans and targets of their own to deliver on this vision.
The interministerial group will continue to meet to monitor progress and make sure that we deliver. We will report publicly on this progress at least every two years, and will feedback regularly to Parliament in the usual way.
To underwrite this ambition, today we have also announced a £50 million top-up to the homelessness prevention grant to further boost services available to people experiencing and at risk of homelessness this year. The allocations will be published on gov.uk here www.gov.uk/government/publications/homelessness-prevention-grant-allocations-2025-to-2026
Now more than ever, we need our partners to join us in this mission, including local councils, frontline public services, homelessness organisations, voluntary, community and faith groups. Together, this strategy will set us on the path to ending homelessness, and deliver immediate action to improve the lives of people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping now.
Copies of the strategy have been laid in the House this morning and are now available at gov.uk.
[HCWS1154]
Connectivity Tool
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Achieving sustainable development is a core aim of the UK’s planning system, but it has been hindered by the lack of a clear way of measuring what is a “sustainable location” for development in transport terms. This means that policymakers and decision-takers have lacked a commonly agreed evidence base to define connectivity.
To tackle this problem, the Department for Transport has created a new connectivity tool that combines transport and land-use data in an innovative way to generate a “connectivity score” for every location across England and Wales at a resolution of 100 x 100 square metres. This score measures people’s ability to get where they want and need to go, using walking, cycling and public transport to reach jobs, shops, schools, healthcare and other essential services.
In June, we launched the tool with all public bodies in England and Wales. Today, we are going a step further and opening up access to the tool online to everyone, free of charge, to help inform their plans, strategies and decisions.
This landmark platform will serve as the new national metric of connectivity, transforming how we plan for new development and the transport infrastructure needed to support it, ensuring new homes and services can be easily accessed by sustainable modes of transport, helping kickstart economic growth, and delivering the Government’s house building targets. It will help to target investment in transport infrastructure that enhances connectivity to underserved communities, improving their access to opportunities. By helping planners and place-makers consider how to shape their towns and cities, it will ensure we are building homes that are part of vibrant and thriving communities and help unlock development sites.
[HCWS1155]