Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21 January 2026

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the animal welfare strategy for England.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and to have secured my very first Westminster Hall debate on animal welfare, which really means something to me. I am sure that colleagues present are equally compassionate and animal friendly.

The UK has a proud and long-standing history of championing animal welfare. Back in 1822, this country led the world with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, the first ever piece of animal welfare legislation anywhere on the globe. That legacy continues today in the incredible organisations we are fortunate to have here in the UK: the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Cats Protection; the Blue Cross; the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, which provides free veterinary services to sick or injured pets; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; and South Derbyshire’s very own Wonky Pets Rescue in Swadlincote.

I am immensely proud that the Labour Government are committed to delivering the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. Whether we are talking about cats and dogs who share our homes, the working animals who give disabled people independence, or those who support our police force and airport staff in keeping us safe, we owe animals a huge debt of gratitude.

I grew up with pets, and until recent years my daughter did, too. Sadly, the demands of this job and the lifestyle it requires—and my personal lifestyle—make having pets impractical for me at the moment. It would feel selfish. But I have no doubt that my time will come again. I see how my mum and stepdad organise their entire lives around their little dogs Rosie and Oliver, which is why I often smile when people talk about pet owners—because in reality they own us. Or rather, they are family members.

Animals are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, fear and joy. That places a responsibility on us all to protect them. It is reassuring that 85% of UK adults agree that we have a moral duty to safeguard animal welfare.

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

My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for animals and for the people in her constituency, and I am grateful that she secured this debate. I want to thank all my constituents who have written to me to advocate for animals. We are clearly a nation of animal lovers. Last year, I wrote to the Government to request a ban on barbaric electric-shock collars and to raise concerns about the Warwickshire hunt and the damage it does to local wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that the animal welfare strategy will tackle those concerns, and that we must do all we can to protect our precious animals?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know is a big animal lover herself—we certainly have that in common—that the welfare strategy will tackle those concerns. I will address some of those points later in my speech.

We have a moral duty to safeguard animal welfare, and most people agree with us, so I warmly welcome the Labour Government’s recent animal welfare strategy. What a wonderful Christmas present it was for so many of us. The strategy sets out clear ambitions, to be achieved by 2030, on improving the lives of companion animals, wild animals, farmed animals and animals overseas. It commits to addressing loopholes around breeding, to banning snare traps, to delivering on our manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting and to introduce standards for the humane killing of fish.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I feel the need to say that, like 52% of the population, I am a dog owner myself—I have the wonderful Nico Ingham—and I was so pleased to see that the Government will consult on introducing a registration scheme for dog breeders to get rid of dodgy breeders and puppy farms, which many of my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages have written to me about. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strategy is a crucial first step towards a kinder future for dogs throughout the country?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is a crucial first step. I cannot understand how anybody in all good conscience can run a puppy farm, but I understand how some people have the wool pulled over their eyes to buy from one. If we take away puppy farms as an option, those people will not be tricked.

The scale of this issue is vast. There are an estimated 35 million pets living in the UK, with the pet care market worth £8.2 billion and forecast to grow by 7% annually. At the same time, there are around 150 million farmed animals in England at any one time, comprising 22 million cattle, sheep and pigs and 133 million poultry. The livestock sector contributes £20.1 billion to the UK economy, thanks to the hard work of our farmers. While strengthening animal welfare standards here in the UK is vital, this must go hand in hand with Baroness Batters’s report and with genuine partnership working with farmers, who are already driving standards upwards. Crucially, we must ensure that they are properly supported and paid for this work.

I welcome the Government’s decision to transition to non-cage systems and to consult on phasing out enriched colony cages for laying hens. I support Compassion in World Farming’s “End the Cage Age” campaign. Cages severely restrict hens’ movement, preventing them from running, flapping their wings, dust bathing and foraging—behaviours that are fundamental to their welfare. At my most recent coffee morning in Burnaston, it was good to speak about farming again with my constituent Angela Sargent, this time about her concerns regarding salmonella in eggs from imported caged birds. I never buy eggs from caged birds, but I fully appreciate that not everyone can afford to make that choice and must take the cheapest option available.

This issue also has serious implications for British farmers, who are placed at a competitive disadvantage by the tariff-free import of eggs from caged Ukrainian hens. The same point applies for meat imports.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart and to those of so many across my constituency. Will she join me in paying tribute to the local campaigners who have helped to keep these issues at the heart of the agenda, even while the Conservative Government was very slow to act?

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As MPs, we are pulled in every direction by many people, and it is hard to be in all places at all times, but the issues that cut through the most are the ones that are campaigned on the hardest and the heaviest. I am super grateful to the campaign groups that have helped to shape the animal welfare strategy.

I am reassured that the Labour Government recognise animal welfare as a global issue and have committed to continuing to work with organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Trade Organisation to champion high standards internationally and promote best practice. Public support for this approach is overwhelming: a 2021 National Farmers Union survey found that 86% of respondents believe that animal welfare standards for imports should match those in the UK, while a Which? survey found that 87% of people agree that imported food should meet our animal welfare standards.

Each year, approximately 40 million to 45 million male chicks from conventional laying-hen breeds are culled within 12 to 36 hours of hatching. It is encouraging that the UK egg industry is exploring technology to sex eggs before chicks are born, with the aim of eliminating the need for this practice. While I welcome the Government’s ambition to end the killing of day-old chicks, it is essential that we work closely with the farming industry to ensure that the costs are not unfairly passed on to farmers and that any transition happens on a realistic timeline.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. An assessment of male chick culling found that the cost to introduce in-ovo sexing of eggs in this country would be approximately 1p per egg. I visited a facility in the Netherlands on Monday, and it costs approximately €0.01 per egg there.

[Samantha Niblett]

I did not know that fact, and I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing it. One of the challenges is the lack of profit in farming. I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have committed to help our farmers to become more profitable. One pence per egg sounds very little, but it has a heavy impact on farmers’ productivity and profitability.

Similarly, we must listen carefully to farmers when considering how to move away from the use of farrowing crates for sows. While the crates are designed to protect piglets against being crushed, they also significantly restrict the sows’ movement and raise serious welfare concerns.

For many animal lovers, perhaps the most challenging part of the strategy is the issue of slaughter, even for those of us who eat meat. I will give a trigger warning now, because I am going to talk about things that might upset a few people.

Each year, just over 1 billion meat chickens are reared and slaughtered in the UK. I agree with the Government that all animals should be spared avoidable pain and distress at the point of killing, while also respecting the right of people to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. For example, a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter to render them unconscious and insensible to pain. Slaughtermen are required to check for signs of consciousness between stunning and death. Certification bodies, such as the Halal Food Authority, enforce the standards through regular audits and inspections, combining ancient principles with modern safeguards. However, “a significant proportion” does not mean all animals, and I understand and share the concerns of those who are worried about the percentage that are not stunned before slaughter.

On the difficult subject of end of life for animals, I was grateful to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation for inviting me to a game dinner last November. I feel far more comfortable eating meat from animals that have lived a full life in open spaces in our beautiful Derbyshire countryside, and whose deaths were carried out swiftly by trained conservationists who play a key role in conservation, pest control and habitat management. I am grateful to those who help to manage our countryside and parks responsibly and humanely, even for animals we do not eat, such as grey squirrels that damage young trees.

To turn back to pets, I met vets Kathryn and Kieran Patel back in October—

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

We have seen a dramatic increase in the price of vet bills over the past couple of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need better regulation, more transparency and to bring bills down for our constituents?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who picked the right moment because I was just about to address that issue. I met vets Kathryn and Keiran Patel in October at their newly opened independent practice in Bretby. They would like the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to be updated. They shared with me concerning insights about how a small number of large corporates dominate the sector, particularly in relation to fees and prescription charges.

In December, the Competition and Markets Authority published the provisional findings of its investigation of veterinary services for household pets, and it identified competition concerns. Many pet owners would welcome clearer pricing for common services, capped prescription charges and transparency around practice ownership. That said, the broader challenges facing veterinary practices and the cost pressures on pet owners deserve a debate in their own right. My good hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has been doing a huge amount of work in this space.

My constituent, David Llewellyn of Walton-on-Trent, is a strong advocate for reforming the regulations around puppy farming. I am delighted that our manifesto committed to ending puppy farming and puppy smuggling.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Puppy farming is a cruel practice, with puppies taken early from their mothers, kept in poor conditions and sold through misleading adverts. It also creates distress for the families who unknowingly buy dogs raised like that. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the animal welfare strategy’s commitment to end puppy farming, and call on the Government to ensure that the practice is ended as soon as possible?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the Government for putting an end to puppy farming. As we discussed earlier with other concerned colleagues, it is barbaric. So many people who buy from puppy farms have been tricked into doing so. It is absolutely right to put an end to it.

I am proud that the Labour Government passed the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which bans the import of dogs and cats under six months old, those that have been declawed or had their ears cropped, and those that are heavily pregnant. However, my constituent Lexi Ireland is vice-chair of Basil’s Forever Sofa, which rescues Romanian dogs and rehomes them in the UK, and she contacted me with concerns that, unless carefully drafted, the legislation could inadvertently prevent legitimate charities from rescuing dogs with cropped ears or docked tails. I wrote to Baroness Hayman, who reassured me that all necessary exemptions will be provided through secondary legislation. I also welcome the Act’s power to prevent the supply to the UK of low-welfare pets, such as stray animals brought back from overseas holidays.

Cats Protection has raised concerns that the strategy does not go far enough in delivering what it describes as

“meaningful protection for cats and kittens”,

particularly around irresponsible breeding, including the breeding of bully cats. It has also called for a single point of search for cat microchipping—I must confess that I assumed that already existed.

I welcome the Government’s decision to reconvene the responsible dog ownership taskforce, which provides an opportunity to reduce dog attacks and improve safety in public areas. Although I believe that the previous Government made the right decision at the time in introducing the XL bully ban, given the tragic loss of life we were seeing, I recognise the heartbreak experienced by responsible pet owners whose well-loved dogs were cherished family members.

I share the Government’s concerns about the welfare implications of e-collars, and I support positive, reward-based training as the preferred approach. Later in this Parliament, we will consult on whether to ban e-collars, following the example already set in Wales.

The Hunting Act 2004 is 20 years old, yet concerns persist about illegal hunting taking place under the guise of trail hunting. I have heard from farmers and landowners who oppose trail hunting due to the land damage but feel under pressure to allow it. Trail hunting was banned on National Trust land in 2022, due to animal welfare concerns, and Forestry England and several local authorities and private estates followed suit, often citing environmental damage. I am glad we are banning it altogether.

I also support the Labour Government’s decision to end the use of snares. A YouGov poll in January 2025 found that 71% of adults in England believe snares should be illegal. I welcome the review of other traps, including those used indoors, while noting concerns raised by the British Pest Control Association that banning smaller traps could increase chemical use, which is a concern more broadly. My constituent Harriet Redfern contacted me after losing her beloved dog, because she believed that non-pet-friendly pesticides were to blame. Others have had similar experiences, including Lisa, who shared her anguish with me during a horse-safety ride that I attended, organised by Councillor Ann Hughes, chair of Overseal parish council.

I welcome the strategy’s commitment to exploring measures to prevent equines from being exported for slaughter, but road safety is an urgent issue in the UK that affects horses and their riders, who are disproportionally women. Mary Holland, who invited me to the horse-safety rides, is part of the Pass Wide and Slow campaign, which calls for better driver education to ensure that horses, riders and motorists are kept safe. I am sure campaigners would welcome provisions on that in future iterations of the animal welfare strategy.

I was struck by something that Sally Barker wrote on my Facebook post when I announced the strategy before Christmas. She said that

“whilst I applaud this, we are quite clearly no longer a nation of animal lovers, if we were, this would not be necessary”.

That is a valid point, and it really made me sad. There will always be awful people who do not treat animals right, so I am glad that our animal welfare strategy seeks to provide protections. It balances compassion with practicality, ambition with partnership and ethics with economic reality. From pets and farm animals to wildlife and working animals, from domestic change to global leadership, the strategy sets a clear direction of travel.

Animal welfare is not a niche issue: it speaks to who we are as a society in the main. I am proud that the Labour Government are rising to the challenge, listening to constituents, working with farmers and experts, and placing animal welfare firmly at the heart of public policy. I look forward to continuing this work and to seeing our commitments translated into a real and lasting change for animals across the UK and beyond.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I am immediately imposing a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, so not every Member will get to speak. However, if Members keep their speeches shorter, more people will get in.

09:48

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this fantastic debate. My inbox is regularly more full of animal welfare issues than anything else. I have been contacted by residents such as Becky Wood, who invited me to her home to visit her rehomed donkeys and chickens and taste her vegan brownies, and many others who are really pleased to see this animal welfare strategy but are impatient for action to follow.

I welcome the commitment to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. I will leave it to other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who have expertise in this matter, to talk about that, but I want to make a plea on behalf of pets who are too old to insure or whose families simply cannot afford the premiums. My constituent Vivenne told me that

“the whole business model appears to be set up to milk insurance companies but the ones who cannot insure their dogs have to find the ever increasing costs themselves. We will always find the funds as it is not our rescue dogs’ fault that they both need care but we object to being unfairly ‘fleeced’.”

Concerns have been raised by vets in my constituency about their ability to operate alongside huge corporations. Given the changing landscape for our country, I hope that that will be treated with the urgency that it deserves.

Many vets work in cattle and farming, and I welcome the proposal about caged animals and male chicks. My brother Spencer’s first holiday job in the 1980s was on a battery chicken farm. I do not think that any of us had any idea what that was, but I recall him lasting just a matter of days there, because the brutality of the place and the overwhelming stench of ammonia led to the very swift decision that he simply could not work there.

[Will Stone]

Speaking about farming, my friend Kyle is opening up a company called Hoxton Farms, which is developing lab-grown meat. I invite everyone in the Chamber to come along in March to our open day and give it a try.

[Vikki Slade]

I have to say that that makes me feel a little queasy, but perhaps I will push my own boundaries.

Living on the edge of the countryside, seeing cows and sheep is an everyday occurrence that helps us to understand where our food comes from, and we are all used to mammals in our homes. Fish and sea creatures, however, do not have the same association, despite the very hard work of Pixar in bringing Nemo and Dory to life.

My daughter Abbi is a Young Dragon, a sea kayak ambassador and expedition leader. On her trips around the islands of Scotland and elsewhere, she has witnessed fish farms that are beyond the sight of most people. She described the water as being almost solid with fish. She explained that disease can spread fast when insufficient space is provided, and she shared her deep concern about the risk that poorly managed fish farms can have a detrimental effect on the wider ecosystem. I welcome the commitment to improve fish welfare, but can the Minister confirm if that will go beyond the nets and fences of the fish farms?

There are many more issues that I would love to talk about: speeding up the end of animal testing to deliver a truly cruelty-free UK, the absence of a ban on trophy hunting imports in the animal welfare strategy, and the consistent refusal, despite my many questions in Parliament and in writing, to make wildlife crimes notifiable. It is ridiculous that people who commit crimes against wild animals are treated less harshly than those who commit crimes against our pets. I really hope that the animal welfare strategy is the first step, and not the final destination. I look forward to hearing more about what legislation will follow in the King’s Speech, so that we can actually deliver change for our animals, wherever they are.

09:52

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this important debate. There are many Members present for this debate, so we can tell how popular it is.

I welcome the ambition of the Government’s animal welfare strategy for England, but it could be strengthened further. It contains important commitments that, if delivered, could significantly improve the lives of millions of animals. I am a long-standing supporter of animal rights, and I have consistently raised these issues with current and previous Governments. As a Labour MP, I pay tribute to the work of the Labour Animal Welfare Society.

In the past four or five weeks alone, around 7% of correspondence to my constituency office has related to agriculture, animals, food and rural affairs. The most common issues include calls to end animal testing, phase out cages for farm animals, strengthen hunting bans and bring an end to trophy hunting. I welcome that the strategy responds to many of those concerns, particularly by making it a key priority to end the use of crates and cages, and by committing to a ban on trail hunting and the use of snare traps.

Given the scale of ambition in the strategy, and the Government’s stated aim to deliver it by 2030, prioritisation will be essential. Farmed animals must be at the heart of delivery, simply because of the sheer numbers involved and the scale of potential welfare gains. Overall, the strategy represents a significant opportunity to transform animal welfare in England, but ambition must now be matched with urgency, clear timelines and strong legislation.

My time is limited, so I will cover just a few points. The Government have proposed a consultation on banning electric-shock collars but, sadly, there is no firm commitment and there are further delays. I want to see an immediate ban on the use and sale of electric-shock collars for pets. Furthermore, cats are bred without adequate safeguards. Many female cats are in ill health and are overbred, and male stud cats experience poor welfare. The Government must do more to address harmful breeding practices.

Lots of organisations and charities have raised concerns about microchipping. The strategy should commit to introducing a single point of search for microchipping databases. As the strategy notes, there are 23 databases, so anyone scanning a cat may have to check multiple databases. The Government must urgently include provision for a single point of search.

Some Members have already covered the issue of banning trophy hunting imports. I find it disappointing that a ban was not part of the animal welfare strategy. A recent survey shows that more than 80% of people support a ban. The Government should introduce a Bill as a priority. On 29 August 2025, I tabled written parliamentary question 71178. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), responded:

“The Government committed to banning the import of hunting trophies”.

I want to see urgent progress on that.

Early-day motion 86, “Ban on trophy hunting imports”, was tabled on 19 October 2021 by our former colleague Sir David Amess, who was tragically killed; I pay tribute to all his work on animal welfare issues over many years. I was the second person to sign the early-day motion so when, sadly, Sir David was brutally killed, I was asked to take it over—my record on this issue goes back a long time. I urge the Government to push a bit harder.

On male chick culling, the Vegetarian Society last year launched a campaign called Ban Hatch and Dispatch. Approximately 45 million male chicks are culled each year, primarily through gassing. I urge the Government to ban male chick culling and support the smooth implementation of mandated in-ovo sexing in British hatcheries.

I thank all the organisations that campaign on these issues, in particular Humane World for Animals, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Compassion in World Farming, which have supplied us all with briefings.

09:59

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing the debate.

There is much in the animal welfare strategy on which I think we can agree. I welcome the moves to ban puppy farming and introduce a close season for hares. However, there are also areas of great concern. We are in danger of effectively exporting many jobs and much of our farming industry abroad. We are increasingly going to see low-welfare standard meat and eggs coming into this country. I urge the Government to address that.

I think all Members in the debate welcome any improvement in animal welfare standards in our farming industry. However, we do not wish to see low-welfare meat coming into this country with the consequence that our industry is replaced, British jobs and British producers are taken away, and more animals are killed at welfare standards that are substantially below the welfare standards we have in this country today. I certainly do not think that that is the Government’s intention, but there is a danger that it is what we will deliver. I urge the Minister to ensure that any products imported into this country match the welfare standards we expect of our farmers in the United Kingdom.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report highlighting the massive illegal imports of meat that already occurred when his party was in government?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that. I think it shows that, across parties, we want to see something done about this matter. I would certainly support the Labour Government making moves to address it.

Another area of great concern to me is non-stun slaughter. I am not going to go through how barbaric that is and how much pain we put animals through as a result, but we are seeing an ever-increasing number of animals being killed by non-stun slaughter. In just two years, the number of sheep slaughtered by non-stun slaughter has increased from 22% to 29%. Under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, animals must be stunned before slaughter so that they are unconscious and do not experience unnecessary pain.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has long been a doughty champion for animal welfare. The strategy includes other measures around slaughter, such as on the use of carbon dioxide stunning. The industry has looked at various ways to reform that, but it would be very challenging and potentially very costly. Like a number of other measures in the strategy, we must ensure that transition is done with the industry and does not impact British food production or our food security.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Absolutely. We need to do everything we can to produce more food in this country rather than abroad.

I am concerned about the increasing trend of non-stun slaughter. As I said, 29% of all sheep slaughtered in this country are killed through non-stun slaughter. The 1933 Act made it clear that non-stun slaughter is permitted only for religious reasons, but that is clearly not what is happening today. Many retailers, right around the country, sell animals that were non-stun slaughtered; the National Secular Society found that Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco all did so without any form of labelling. It is critical that consumers understand what they are buying.

In this country, 30 million animals are killed by non-stun slaughter—a most awful way of slaughtering animals—every year. We can make a significant difference. There is no reason for them to be killed in that way. In making sure that they are stunned, we can still ensure that they comply with halal and kosher standards. If we want to make sure that animals are put first and that we are looking after them, the Government need to be more robust in squeezing out these practices, and I hope the Minister will say a few words about how she is looking to do that. We want to make sure that our farmers can compete on a fair playing field on the world stage, but we also need to end the barbaric act of non-stun slaughter in this country and deliver higher welfare standards to so many animals.

10:03

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Ms Lewell. I am tempted to join the discussion about non-stun slaughter, but I will not, other than to say that my understanding is that the derogation to allow it is meant to cater to domestic populations, yet we are exporting quite a lot. Not allowing animals killed in that way to be exported would be one way to significantly reduce the numbers.

I very much welcome the animal welfare strategy. There is lots of good stuff in it, and things that some of us who have been around for a long time have been pushing for for many years. I would like a bit more clarity from the Minister on the timescales and when these measures are likely to come into effect. Will legislation be needed? Will there be one overarching animal welfare Bill—primary legislation—or can we do things by statutory instrument? Will the Government look to private Members’ Bills? That was something that the previous Government used to try to kick issues into the long grass; they were nervous about bringing forward anything more substantial because they thought that we would try to ban trail hunting. We tried to tack that on, so they farmed off individual, discrete private Members’ Bills to their Back Benchers instead, and even those did not get over the line for the most part. Also, how will progress be monitored? Can we have a regular statement to Parliament?

I am a little concerned by how much is going out to consultation. I have had a briefing from the NFU, which I have read carefully. I appreciate the financial pressures on the farming sector, and I know that colleagues will talk about things like the sexing of the 40 million to 45 million male chicks that are slaughtered each year within a day of their birth. There are systemic issues with how much farmers are paid for their food and how much we are prepared to pay for it, but we should not use the argument about the financial pressure on farmers to move away from doing what is right in terms of ethical animal welfare practices.

I look at things very much from the perspective of trying to avoid a shift towards ever more intensive industrialised farming. We know that the poultry industry, for example, is huge: over 1 billion meat chickens are bred every year. We know the impact on our water supplies and air quality from what are more like factories than farms. There is very little profit to be made from that.

On the dairy sector, one of my concerns is how the strategy links up with moves to reduce emissions from livestock. The Climate Change Committee recommended reducing herd sizes to about 80%, but the Government talk about increasing production as a way of compensating for that. As I understand it, a beef suckler cow naturally produces about 4 litres of milk a day, and at the moment a dairy cow produces about 28 litres a day. If we are talking about increasing production and getting ever more milk out of a cow—treating them like machines rather than sentient animals—that will be of real concern to me, so I would like to know how that will be dealt with.

My final point is about octopus farming. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was recognised, after quite a battle, in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, but cephalopod molluscs, which include octopus, have not been brought into the scope of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There are measures abroad, in the United States in particular, to ban octopus farming. I am very concerned about plans for an octopus farm in the Canary Islands. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s stance on that?

10:07

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this really important debate. I really appreciate the discussion, and wholeheartedly support much of what has been brought up.

One thing that I am disappointed to see is missing from the strategy is the breeding of dogs with extreme conformation. I am specifically talking about brachycephalic dogs—dogs with flat faces, including pugs, French bulldogs and English bulldogs. They are bred with such extreme conformation that they have a narrow trachea, so they struggle to breathe. They have narrow noses and what we call inverted laryngeal saccules at the back of their throat. That all impedes air flow, which means that many of these dogs require surgery in the first few months of life simply to breathe. Many owners who buy these dogs have no idea that that is going to be the situation. They might spend several thousand pounds buying a puppy, then come into the vet and discover that, within weeks or months of owning the dog, they are going to have to fork out for surgery. Some cannot afford that, which means the dog gets rehomed or euthanised—that is heartbreaking for owners and vets.

In case people think I am talking about a very niche issue, the number of brachycephalic dogs increased by 3,000% between 2010 and 2020, and around that time French bulldogs surpassed labradors as the most registered dog in the UK. This is possibly the single biggest pet animal welfare situation at the moment. Aside from the breathing issues, the dogs look very cute—that is why people breed them; they look like a teddy bear, with little flat faces and big bulgy eyes—but their eyes end up getting corneal ulcers and are damaged very easily. Some of these dogs have lifelong painful eye conditions as well.

The popularity of these dogs is driven partly by social media influencers posing with them and partly by companies using them irresponsibly in advertising, completely out of context—for example, for absolutely no reason, a pug pops up on the Amazon error page. It is such a problem that it is causing vets a lot of distress as well. If you talk to a bunch of vets about it, they will almost roll their eyes and say, “You wouldn’t believe how many of these I saw today. It’s really upsetting.” It is upsetting for owners as well.

It is rightly illegal to intentionally cause an animal to suffer, and people get prosecuted for that. For some reason, it does not seem to be illegal to breed an animal that you know will definitely suffer—an animal that will almost certainly require surgery just to be able to breathe. This is something that the Government need to take very seriously, and something that we should really focus on. There is the potential for legislation to apply already, if it were tweaked, because it could be argued that an animal with two parents that were bred to need that type of surgery in the first place is being intentionally caused to suffer. I urge the Government to look at this, because it is possibly the biggest pet animal welfare issue that we deal with at the moment.

10:11

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing the debate.

Animal welfare is one of the biggest issues people write to me about, and I am glad when they do, because the way we treat our animals matters and says a lot about what kind of country we are and want to be. I see every day in Aylesbury and the surrounding villages how much people care about animals. We are fortunate to have local charities doing brilliant work with and for animals. I think, for example, of Horses Helping People, a charity in Ledburn, where I met the most beautiful, well cared-for horses and heard about the role they play in helping people who are neurodivergent, have learning disabilities or anxiety, or are experiencing other mental health challenges.

We are fortunate to have local farmers like Nick, who I met on his beef farm near Wingrave, who are determined to give their animals the best quality of life. They know what a difference that makes to consumers. I am also fortunate in my patch to have people who feel passionately about this just on a personal level and write to me about all sorts of things, some of which we have discussed today, whether it is banning electric-shock collars for pets, ending the cruel use of snare traps, or banning illegal puppy and kitten smuggling—I was pleased to support the law on that that passed last year.

I want to touch briefly on three recurring themes that come through most strongly from my constituents. The first is the use of cages for hens. We have heard a lot about chickens and the industrial scale of the chicken farming industry in particular. My constituents are really clear that animals should receive care, respect and protection, whatever farming system they are kept in, and I agree. I welcome the fact that the animal welfare strategy commits to phasing out cages for laying hens, alongside farrowing crates for pigs. Those will be fantastic steps, and I hope the Minister will work at pace, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to drive them forward. I would love to see an end to male chick hatching, too. We have the technology; we just have to adopt it, and others have covered that well.

The second point that many people write to me about is animal testing. Personally, I want to see that phased out as quickly as possible. We have made a great commitment—a £60 million investment—to accelerate the development of alternatives, alongside further funding to advance human relevance testing models. We have a serious science-led road map in the animal welfare strategy, and it has been welcomed by organisations such as the RSPCA and Cruelty Free International, but I hope we can keep going further and faster to advance the scientific alternatives in areas where they do not yet exist.

The third point, which has not yet been raised in detail, is food labelling. Many constituents have told me that they want clearer animal welfare information on the food they buy so they can make the right purchasing decisions that align with their values. It can also really help the farmers who invest in higher welfare standards to differentiate their products and be fairly rewarded for them. It is really important for young people as well; we want them to have a better relationship with food and animals than we do, and knowing where their food comes from and seeing it on packaging could help. I have seen commitment from the Government in this area and I hope we can progress that quickly.

The direction of travel set out in the animal welfare strategy sets a really positive path ahead of us. I hope we can continue to move at pace to implement it. The UK’s proud reputation for high animal welfare standards is deserved, and if we can move the strategy forward, we can ensure that further improvements become a legacy of this Government.

10:15

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for setting the scene so well and for her contribution. I understand that this issue is devolved, but colleagues in Northern Ireland watch decisions in this House very carefully, including the proposed legislation, so there will be much interest in this debate.

I speak as an animal lover—many people will say that, but I am. My wife has volunteered in animal shelters for the last 15 years, so I am used to coming home to another cat or dog that she has acquired along life’s way. For some reason strays seem to come to our house and stay too—they obviously know that they will be well looked after. We love our animals and have an animal graveyard at the bottom of our garden—we live on a farm—for the dogs and cats that have passed on. We have a place for them in the garden, and also among the trees as well.

I have long stood firm on the need to ban the import of hunting trophies, and this comes from someone who supports country sports. It is my firm belief that we should use what we shoot, which is why many of my neighbours woke up on Boxing day after we had been out shooting with a present of pheasants, ducks or pigeons. They have to be plucked and cleaned before they are ready, and the preparation is left to them. My point is that we must never confuse shooting to eat or for conservation with the collection of a trophy.

To give an example, each year on our farm we use a Larsen trap, which is a humane trap, to capture and control predators and encourage small bird life. Along with my son, last year we trapped 45 magpies and 10 grey back crows. What did that do? It transformed our farm; before there were few young songbirds, but now there are many. We now have an abundance of small bird life that we have not had on our farm for many years, including yellowhammers, which are back in numbers on our farm, and indeed on our neighbours’ farms. That bird is almost extinct in some parts and is often used nowadays in different terminology, for a different reason. Looking after the predators ensures that the small, threatened species can thrive. The animal strategy must acknowledge that a multifaceted approach is necessary in the countryside for farm control and conservation, and that animals should not be senselessly slaughtered.

I will conclude because I am conscious that I would like to give others a chance to speak. I highlight, very briefly, that while I oppose animal testing on many levels—it is not worth testing a face cream that may take away wrinkles on animals—I do believe that there is a place for animal testing for medication to save lives. That must be acknowledged in any strategy that comes forward. There is a difference, and we must acknowledge that.

10:18

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I stand here as the owner of Roy the dog, who we were originally told was a black lab but turned out to be the size of a cocker spaniel—we are still not entirely sure what happened there. When I told my wife that I was going to apply for selection in Hexham, she said that if I was going to do this mad thing then we were getting a dog—thank goodness: he looked good on the leaflets.

Animal welfare and the extension of the fox hunting ban to include trail hunting was one of the first things that drew me into politics, and to the Labour party. There is a lot to be welcomed in the animal welfare strategy, and I say that as someone who has spoken to many constituents who are appalled by the continuation of fox hunting and want to see it end.

I want to touch upon the excellent speech, in many respects, by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). Continuing to allow lower standard food into UK shops undermines our farmers and our claims to prioritising welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) made the point that improving food labelling is essential for allowing customers to make conscious choices to know that they are supporting, not just high-welfare food standards and domestic procurement, but reducing the carbon emissions caused by food when they back British-made food. Therefore, labelling could be looked at by the Minister, to see how we can ensure that we not only prioritise animal welfare in trade deals and preserve UK standards wherever possible, but that we promote domestic food consumption, so that we do not allow fields to be carved out of the Amazon to feed the United Kingdom. We must ensure that we back our farmers wherever possible, in order to feed the United Kingdom.

I will quickly mention a few other issues that the strategy could address. One of the issues that comes across my desk quite a lot is concern about vicarious liability when it comes to raptor persecution on grouse moors. I engage a lot with grouse moors in my constituency—I speak to the people involved with them—so I know that it is incredibly important to a lot of people that where raptors are being persecuted, the ultimate owner of the land is held responsible, and that we do not simply allow those lower down the food chain to take the blame. We must ensure that such persecution of raptors is made the landowner’s responsibility.

The constituency of Hexham is full of animal-lovers, who are concerned about pets, livestock and growth in animal welfare standards. The strategy is an incredibly good foundational document, but I urge the Minister to consider where we can go further. I note that one of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries at the Department for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), is here; it would be great if he could go back to colleagues in the Department and urge them to ensure that when they engage in trade negotiations, we are able to have confirmatory votes on them, so that MPs can stand up and be counted when it comes to ensuring that animal welfare standards are preserved, not just at home but abroad.

10:21

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate today.

I come to this debate with the simple belief that animals should not suffer at our hands. That is why I welcome the animal welfare strategy, which was published last month. It reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change. It also marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on cages, crates, wildlife protection and welfare standards. I look forward to supporting the Government in making sure that those commitments are kept and change happens.

A strategy is only as good as its delivery. As organisations such as Humane World for Animals and Compassion in World Farming have made clear, without clarity about how and when the strategy will be delivered, there is a real risk that it will remain aspirational, rather than being the transformative instrument for change that we all hope it will be.

The scale of the challenge is stark. In 2024, around 280 million animals were kept in intensive farming in the UK, and that number is going in the wrong direction—an increase of 23 million since 2017. That growth has not been driven by rising domestic demand but by cost pressures, economies of scale and policy choices that continue to favour factory farming over higher welfare alternatives. That is why the strategy’s commitment to ending the use of cages and crates matters so much. Around 200,000 sows still spend weeks of their lives confined in farrowing crates, unable even to turn around, while around 8 million laying hens remain in cages that are little larger than an A4 piece of paper.

Warm words are not enough. The reforms must be time-bound, properly resourced and backed by financial support to help farmers transition. The Nature Friendly Farming Network and Compassion in World Farming are clear that improving animal welfare must go hand in hand with supporting farmers, rather than their being left to shoulder the costs of transition on their own. Crucially, we must ensure that the higher standards that will be required in the UK are applied to imports, so that any higher welfare British farmers do not find themselves being undercut. As others have said, mandatory welfare labelling for both domestic and imported goods is also vital.

There are welcome things in the strategy for animals in the wild, such as the imminent complete ban on the use of snares and the action on trail hunting, but there are crucial omissions in the strategy. It is silent on ending greyhound racing, which the Labour Government in Wales are doing. It also fails to mention the prohibition of imports of fur and hunting trophies, as well as regulation to limit the noise from fireworks in order to protect animals.

There is much to welcome in the strategy, but there are also some omissions. It acknowledges the need to reduce animal experimentation, yet we have heard that 2.5 million animal experimentation procedures were carried out last year. The Government are on the right path to replacing animal experiments with modern, reliable alternatives, judging from the plans that they announced in November. However, we need clear, time-bound plans that cover experiments on all types of animals.

Finally, none of these things will work without enforcement. Animal Aid, Cats Protection and many others warn that weak inspections and under-resourced regulators undermine even the best legislation. Whether we are talking about farms, laboratories or companion animals, standards without enforcement are standards in name only.

The public, the science and morality have aligned. We have the evidence and the expertise and, with this strategy, we have the momentum. The question now is how we can support the Government to match ambition with action, clear timelines, robust enforcement and real support for those doing the right thing. I urge the Government to ensure that the strategy delivers not just promises, but real lasting change for animals—and I will support them in doing so.

10:25

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published last month, is welcome. It makes important commitments to improving animal welfare, but it will come as no surprise that I want to raise some issues around cats in particular. I will declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. I am also owned by three furry felines.

There are roughly 12.5 million cat owners in the UK, with around a third of households owning at least one cat, but there are significant inconsistencies in animal welfare protections between cats and dogs. In July 2025, I presented a petition to No. 10 Downing Street with the charity CatsMatter, which called for cats to receive the same legal protections as dogs when involved in road traffic collisions. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to report hitting a dog but not a cat. CatsMatter has another petition calling on Parliament to legislate, which has already reached 11,000 signatures. The animal welfare strategy should include a commitment to providing that protection for cats.

The strategy needs to go further to address breeding practices, as has already been mentioned today. Over the last 200 years, cats have been increasingly bred for distinctive characteristics to make them look a certain way. Unfortunately, those characteristics become increasingly extreme and over-exaggerated, and they cause serious health and welfare issues. In the Netherlands, new ownership of Scottish Fold and hairless Sphynx cats was recently banned to prevent unnecessary suffering; that followed a breeding ban of those species in the same country in 2014. The UK Government should consider similar moves to prevent cats suffering. Extreme cat breeds such as the Bully cat are bred in ways that predispose them to skin disease and respiratory issues. Breeding Munchkin cats with short legs can lead to joint abnormalities that result in arthritis. There needs to be far greater parity between cats and dogs in breeding regulations to prevent the exploitation of cats for commercial gain.

Another significant concern, which other Members have mentioned, is that we have only committed to a future consultation on electric-shock collars. There was already a consultation in 2018, which was fairly conclusive. We do not need another consultation: we need an immediate ban on cruel electric-shock collars. We also need to go further with microchipping and create a single point of information rather than 23 separate databases. At the start of this week, many colleagues were here debating fireworks yet again; that is another missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy.

We have an opportunity before us to deliver a strategy that does more than just gesture at compassion, and one that genuinely protects millions of cats—and other animals—who share our homes and lives. Cats deserve the same consideration, protections and commitment to welfare that we already extend to dogs. I urge the Minister: let us be bold, let us listen to experts and the public, and let us implement meaningful change that cat owners and cats have waited far too long to see.

10:29

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this important debate. I believe that how we treat animals says everything about who we are as a society. I receive countless emails from constituents who care deeply about the welfare of animals, so I welcome the introduction of the Government’s animal welfare strategy for England and the recognition that animals are sentient beings. I am pleased that the Government have committed to measures that include the banning of cages for laying hens, ending puppy farming and phasing out pig farrowing crates. If Britain is to secure its reputation as a world leader on animal welfare, the strategy must go further, faster and be wider in scope.

My constituency of Eastleigh is home to the Blue Cross, which regularly receives greyhounds that have been abandoned, injured and traumatised. Between 2017 and 2024, across the UK more than 4,000 greyhounds died or were put to sleep as a direct result of racing, and more than 35,000 injuries were recorded on UK tracks. Interest in greyhound racing is declining. The industry has repeatedly promised reform, but has failed to deliver meaningful improvements. That is why the largest animal welfare charities, including the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and the Blue Cross, have jointly called for greyhound racing to be ended. The Welsh Government are already taking steps in that direction. I am therefore deeply disappointed that the animal welfare strategy does not mention greyhounds once. Will the Minister consider the calls made by charities and commit to end greyhound racing in the UK?

I also want to raise again the issue of trophy hunting. I have previously asked the Minister why it remains legal to import hunting trophies of vulnerable and endangered species, including critically endangered rhinos, elephants, cheetahs and leopards. Despite repeated promises from the previous Government to end the practice, legislation has not yet been delivered. Will the Minister provide a timetable for when exactly the Government plan to introduce the legislation? I also urge the Government to stand firm against attempts by the Trump Administration to influence our country’s stance on trophy hunting imports.

Turning to kept wild animals, the strategy states that the Government will work with experts and industry representatives to ensure that animals kept in zoos and aquariums in Great Britain are looked after to the highest standards. What reassurance can the Minister give me that zoo licensing inspectors and the Zoos Expert Committee will be given tangible powers to enhance that goal rather than simply offering advice, and that those powers will include the ability to mandate improvements, impose sanctions or ultimately withdraw licences where welfare standards are clearly not being met?

I was proud to support my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), with his Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to protect those animals from mutilation and illegal trafficking. I welcome the strategy’s desire to take steps to improve the uptake of a pet-selling licence by those who sell cats and kittens as pets, but the lack of a commitment to regulate cat and rabbit breeding, which has been highlighted by the Blue Cross, is disappointing.

The strategy is a very welcome step forward, but it must be more ambitious on timescales, enforcement and scope. Animals cannot wait another decade for change.

10:32

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to all the speakers, including those who have come here with much to say but have not managed to get in in this debate. I feel for them— I have been there. I offer a massive thank you to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) who led the debate with real distinction and great passion. She made an important series of points, many of them followed up with her own examples.

How we treat animals is an indicator of whether we can even call ourselves a civilised or humane society. Overall in the UK I think we treat animals relatively well. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is what we call ourselves and mostly that is true. Some 84% of us, for example, consider animal welfare when we act as consumers and buy food. Animals are sentient, but they do not have agency, although I can neither confirm nor deny that the size of our majority in Westmorland is down to the fact that we extended the franchise to certain woolly residents. Herdwicks are, after all, rugged individualists and are thus part of the core Liberal vote.

But animals do not get to decide how humane we are. That is for us to choose. We can choose to protect the culture and practices of how we care for wildlife, pets and livestock and not, for example, undermine those practices by undercutting our ethical British farmers with products from overseas produced in less than humane conditions.

The Government are doing some things right—it is important to acknowledge that. They are choosing to ban cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs by 2032, but the strategy fails to adequately consider domestic food security and competitiveness, which are crucial to maintaining and extending our strong animal welfare culture in the UK.

If the Government propose raising domestic animal welfare standards further, which they rightly do, they must also take steps to ensure consumers are protected from imported food products that can be produced to lower standards. British farmers should not be asked to compete with imports produced at those lower standards, which would be illegal if they were produced here in the UK, and yet they are being asked to do so.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

We have seen reports about the US suspending the technology prosperity deal with the UK in an effort to force the Government to accept lower-standard imports in order to secure a trade deal with the US. Does my hon. Friend agree that these bully-boy tactics by the Trump Administration should not be kowtowed to, and we should not accept lower standards in return for a trade deal with the US?

[Tim Farron]

Of course. What is the point in having these standards if we give them away to those who put us under extreme pressure? I completely agree with my hon. Friend and urge the Government to take the same position.

We are seeing the UK outsourcing its egg and pig production abroad, to lower standards—it has already begun. In 2024, the UK imported 109,644 tonnes of eggs, equivalent to the output of approximately 8.5 million layer hens. The previous Labour Government banned sow stalls in 1999, and this Government are now proposing to phase out farrowing crates, yet in the last year the UK imported just shy of 600,000 tonnes of pork—6.4 million pigs—mostly from countries where these practices remain, and are likely to remain for some time, utterly legal.

More than 90% of UK citizens believe that UK animal welfare standards should apply to imports, and so do I. The UK needs to protect those high welfare standards, for ethical reasons of protecting animal welfare but also to ensure that we do not harm our domestic agriculture industry and therefore reduce our food security even further. Farmers in Cumbria and across the whole United Kingdom are vital to food security. It is time we listened to them and made Government a help, not a hindrance. It is not right to put them in a position where they are forced to compete with cheaper, less ethically produced imported food.

I am a free trade liberal, but free trade is not free if it is not fair. We need a level playing field, especially on animal welfare practices. It is right that we celebrate Britain’s high animal welfare standards, but we should do more than just celebrate them—we should put our public money where our public mouths are. Public sector procurement policy should ensure that the majority of food we purchase comes from the UK, because buying British is not just patriotic; it is the surest way we can know that the food we eat will be ethically farmed. Across the 1,600 farms in Westmorland and Lonsdale, farmers take great pride in the high animal welfare standards they implement. The Government need to recognise and reward that.

The Liberal Democrats will not punish farmers by importing animal products with low welfare standards. Sadly, the Government continue to do that. On 9 January, the Government lifted reinforced import controls on consignments of beef, poultry meat, meat products and meat preparations exported from Brazil to Great Britain. That change means that Brazilian shipments will no longer be subject to the additional checks that were previously imposed, reducing inspection intensity. That is clearly a backwards step.

The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for how we would tackle these issues more broadly. Trade deals must never undercut UK animal welfare. We will sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, restoring co-operation and alignment on food and welfare standards. We will ban the import of food produced with antibiotic growth promoters and ensure that no product illegal to produce in Britain can be sold here, and we will support farmers directly to help them lead the world in high standards of animal husbandry. Because animal welfare matters to us, we would ensure that the regulatory and economic levers that Government can pull will be used to not just protect Britain’s high welfare standards but advance them further.

The animal welfare strategy, welcome though it is, must be far more comprehensive in scope, recognising that our approach to trade, public procurement and our domestic economy can have huge impacts on improving or worsening the collective welfare of animals. I urge the Government to be fully aware of those impacts and learn from the failure of the last Government, whose rush for politically convenient trade deals led them to throw our farmers and our animal welfare standards under the bus.

09:39

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is good to be able to discuss the animal welfare strategy after the Government announced it on 22 December—after Parliament had risen and just before Christmas—in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this debate, which I believe is her first in Westminster Hall—what a great topic to bring to the House, because it finally gives all Members of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the strategy.

We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made clear by the contributions to the debate. Members have mentioned the pets at home that they care for deeply—including Roy the dog, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I hope that it was not just Roy the dog that managed to get the hon. Member elected, and that it was his good work as well, even though Roy appeared on his leaflets.

It is right to point out that since leaving the European Union we have had greater freedom to determine our animal welfare law. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised the sentience of vertebrates. Powers conferred by the Act have also seen octopuses and lobsters recognised as sentient beings. The Act also created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to the Government on future animal welfare reforms.

The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, a practice that extended the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by export. In 2016 and 2023, the previous Government made changes to the law to require dogs and cats retrospectively to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners; I visited Oakworth Boarding Cattery and Yorkshire Cat Rescue, in my constituency, which very much welcomed the measure. In 2019, wild animals were banned from circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.

However, there is much work to be done. We welcome a good proportion of what is in the animal welfare strategy, including banning puppy farming, but I will spend most of my contribution talking about the recommendations that impact our farming sector. The Government must work with our farmers, listen to the concerns of the industry and ensure that any reforms are affordable, are practical, are effective and, at their heart, promote animal welfare. I therefore concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and the hon. Member for Hexham that any food we import into this country must meet our animal welfare standards.

When we are putting additional pressures on our farming community through employer national insurance, the minimum wage and the family farm tax—which are hindering the investment our farming businesses and wider supply chain need to make to deal with the additional challenges associated with animal welfare regulation—there is a fear that British domestic food production will be unable to compete with imported food. We have seen an increase in the amount of food not produced at our standards coming into this country.

The British Poultry Council has recognised this issue. It states:

“Welfare will continue to be a top priority for our members…However, welfare does not exist in isolation from all the other pressures we face, and our guiding light right now has to be feeding the nation through supporting our food producers not hindering them.”

That is why it was so frustrating to learn this week—despite the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about eggs being imported into this country—that the Government have extended for a further two years the relationship whereby Ukrainian eggs can be imported into this country, despite those eggs not being produced at the high standards that we require in this country and industry concerns around salmonella. I hope that the hon. Lady shares my concerns about the Government’s extending that relationship, despite the concerns raised by the wider egg industry.

One point that has not been mentioned in today’s debate is the Government’s desire to change the welfare practices associated with lamb castration and tail docking, about which many sheep farmers have raised huge concerns. The castration of male lambs is an important management practice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and tail docking is essential to prevent and reduce the risk of fly strike. Those are significant animal welfare issues.

The Government have launched a consultation, but they need to listen to our farming communities and learn from their insight. The current proposals will be detrimental to animal welfare, reduce our ability to compete and have a negative impact on the sector. Simply dictating that an anaesthetic must be used is wholly impractical and, I dare say, adds to the level of uncertainty about animal welfare. When dealing with very small lambs, it is very difficult to get the dosage of anaesthetic right. That is just one illustration of the Government’s naivety in relation to how food is produced in this country.

The Government also wish to introduce further animal welfare controls for broiler breeding—the meat chicken sector—to promote slower-growing breeds. I again urge them to continue to engage with the sector through the consultation that they will no doubt undertake and to adopt an evidence-based approach that considers domestic food security and consumer demand. Chicken is of course a very important meat product, and the Government’s direction of travel is causing concern in the broiler industry.

I also want to talk about ending beak tipping in the poultry sector. As birds age, there is huge risk associated with pecking. That issue has high animal welfare status, and hatcheries use skilled operators and precision equipment in beak tipping. The Government aspire to ban the practice, but that is not necessarily in the best interests of the industry, so I urge them to engage with the poultry sector through the consultation. There was a real opportunity in the animal welfare strategy to be really tough on food labelling, and it is therefore frustrating that there is no real ambition in that regard. Compassion in World Farming and Members in this Chamber have expressed their disappointment that the strategy does not include proposals on food labelling.

Our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), said that there was a missed opportunity to tackle the issue of dogs with facial conformation challenges. He made the point that between 2010 and 2020, there was a 3,000% increase in flat-faced dogs. I will not repeat the terminology, because I am not familiar with it, but there was a missed opportunity to tackle that conformation in dogs.

It is also disappointing that there was no ambition to reform the veterinary sector. The strategy fails to include much-needed urgent reforms and actions for the veterinary sector, which faces a workforce shortage. The sector not only maintains standards but should be driving the enhancement of animal welfare and animal standards. The Opposition are clear that the Government need to make that a priority, so I ask the Minister what their intentions are.

Another area of concern, which we debated in this Chamber earlier this week, is fireworks. That issue was raised not only by the RSPCA but by more than 376,000 people who signed petitions on the subject. There was a huge missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy, which does not address the hugely negative impact of fireworks on pets, other animals and livestock.

[Perran Moon]

I have listened intently to hon. Gentleman, but I am struggling to understand the Opposition’s position on trail hunting. Will they join Reform in supporting it or Labour in banning it?

[Robbie Moore]

I am very clear: fox hunting was banned in 2002, and any fox hunting that is seen to be taking place is illegal. The fact that trail hunting has been included in the animal welfare strategy is an indication of the Government’s naivety about what is happening. This is not an animal welfare issue; the Government are removing liberty, freedom and the ability for private individuals to conduct an activity on their land. The Opposition’s position is that there are much, much more important things that the Government should be focusing on.

10:49

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing the debate. I am sure we can all agree—as virtually everyone has said—that we are a nation of animal lovers. We love our pets, we look after our farm animals and we want to ensure that we protect the nation’s wildlife. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare.

Animals are at the heart of British culture and identity and our relationship with them runs deep. Protecting them matters to this Government. We published our new animal welfare strategy for England in December, setting out a clear long-term plan to safeguard standards and deliver the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation. This is a comprehensive package of reforms, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK.

There were questions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), about timings. This is a comprehensive strategy, although I note other contributors wanted more to be included. We clearly cannot implement it all in one go and we have begun with some early consultations to bring in the first steps. Some issues in the strategy will require primary legislation; others require consultation and tweaks. It is a progressive approach to introducing it across the piece, as we go through this Parliament. There will not be one great big Bill; there will be a range of things to get on with before the primary legislation that will be necessary to deal with some issues, as many contributors to the debate know.

People across the country already do exceptional work to improve the lives of our animals, including farmers, vets, volunteers at rescue centres and many more. The strategy is about backing that work with support from Government, clear standards and practical action. This Labour Government want a strategic approach rather than the piecemeal interventions we have seen in the past. We are not worried about having primary legislation to which people can attach amendments that we can argue about and discuss as the Bill goes through the House.

We will take a more strategic approach that targets action where it is most needed. We will strengthen enforcement and will support animal keepers and owners to do the right thing. Legislation alone is not always enough to change behaviour. That is why we must continue to work with scientists, industry and civil society to ensure that the reforms lead to better outcomes for all animals.

The animal welfare strategy builds on the Government’s proven track record in delivering reforms, ranging from introducing new world-leading standards for zoos to tightening the laws around livestock worrying. In November, we also published a strategy on replacing the use of animals in science, which set out how we would partner with scientists to phase out animal testing.

Our strategy sets out the priorities we will address, focusing on the changes and improvements we aim to achieve by 2030 and the steps we will take to deliver our manifesto pledges to ban trail hunting and the use of snare traps, and to end puppy farming and smuggling. Pets play an important role in many people’s lives, providing companionship and joy to millions of people, but we know that loopholes in the current system can mean some animals are bred in and sourced from low-welfare settings.

We will end puppy smuggling by consulting on reforming dog-breeding practices, improving their health and welfare and moving away from practices that lead to poor welfare and unwell animals. The brachycephalic issues spoken about by our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), are obviously included when dealing with some of these concerns. We will take steps to implement the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, closing loopholes in pet travel rules that have been exploited by unscrupulous traders. We will use the powers to prohibit dogs and cats being brought into the country with non-exempted mutilations, such as docked tails and cropped ears.

We will also consider new licensing requirements for domestic rescue and rehoming organisations, to ensure that rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for. We will consult on a ban on the use of electric-shock collars due to the possible harm those devices cause to our pets. I hear what hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on both sides of the House have said about that ban, and the firm view that we should have one. We just want to check through the consultation that nothing significant has changed since the last one was done in 2018, and we will act on the results. Alongside that, we will continue to promote responsible dog ownership to protect public safety and we are looking forward to seeing the recommendations from the reconvened dog ownership taskforce.

Let me mention cats, as they came up in several contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We do not plan to regulate cat breeding as a separate activity at the current time. Anyone in the business of selling cats as pets should already have a pet selling licence, and we will work with the sector to improve take-up. We will also work with the sector to build an evidence base to see whether there is an increasing need to go further. We have our eyes on it, but there are no current plans to include cats in some of the other regulations for dogs.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

A quick question on road traffic accidents, only because it would involve simple secondary legislation that inserts the word “cat” to give cats the same protection as dogs. Are there any plans for that?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There are no current plans for that, but I am happy to consider it given my hon. Friend has raised it.

I now turn to how we protect our precious wildlife. As our understanding of animal welfare continues to evolve, the law must keep pace with the latest evidence to prevent wild animals from suffering cruelty, pain or distress. Therefore, we will ban trail hunting. The nature of trail hunting makes it difficult to ensure that wild mammals are not put at risk, and we intend to launch a consultation very soon. We will end the use of snare traps because they are indiscriminate, can catch pets and protected wildlife, and cause terrible suffering.

We are also among the only European countries without a closed season for hares, which means that young hares can be left motherless and vulnerable. We will therefore consider introducing a closed season, which should reduce the number of adult hares shot during the breeding season.

We are giving farm animals greater freedom and dignity. The Government value the excellent work of British farmers who produce high-quality food to some of the highest welfare standards in the world, which we are rightly proud of. Ending the use of intensive confinement systems such as cages and crates is a key priority. We have launched a consultation on phasing out colony cages for laying hens and plan to consult on transitioning away from farrowing crates for pigs, but we will do that in conjunction with the industry, because we understand the nature of the costs and the transition time required to move to higher welfare standards. We have already launched a consultation on improving the welfare of lambs during castration and tail docking, and I will continue to work with the industry to support voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds.

We also want to improve welfare throughout an animal’s life, so we are taking action at the time of killing. Following advice from the Animal Welfare Committee’s report last year, we propose to consult on banning the use of carbon dioxide gas stunning for pigs. We will introduce humane slaughter requirements for farmed fish into legislation and publish guidance on humane methods of killing decapods. We are committed to working together with the farming community to maintain and enhance our world-class animal health and welfare standards. I will sit down so that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire can wind up.

10:59

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank everybody for their contributions, and I encourage them to listen to the most recent brilliant New Scientist podcast, “The World, the Universe and Us”, in which the historian Rutger Bregman, who wrote “Moral Ambition”, asks what, in the future, we will look back on and be ashamed of. The way we treat animals is probably one of those things. I am reminded today that the animal welfare strategy is not an end game, but animal welfare is a moving goal.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the animal welfare strategy for England.

Dementia Support: Hampshire

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

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

11:01

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dementia support in Hampshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. We all know someone who has been impacted by dementia. My much-loved mum died in 2024 after a seven-year struggle with Alzheimer’s, so I know first hand what it is like to have to fight for the care and support that dementia sufferers need.

One in three people born today will develop dementia in their lifetime. Across Hampshire, more than 22,000 people are currently living with dementia. If national trends continue, that number is expected to rise to more than 31,000 by 2040. Dementia already places high pressure on families, the NHS and social care, and without decisive action that will only intensify. It is vital that we get the system right.

According to Dementia UK, 1,323 are living with dementia in Eastleigh, which is approximately 1.41% of the local population—higher than the national average.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a massive issue for each and every one of us. The hon. Lady has referred to figures in her constituency, but given Northern Ireland’s ageing population, the figures there are expected to almost double, rising from 22,000 to 43,000 by 2040. That poses major challenges for health and social care. Does she agree that to be forewarned is to be forearmed, and that the Government must make preparations to deal with the growing numbers by implementing changes to the system right now?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

The average wait time for a dementia diagnosis in Eastleigh is 91.7 days, and post-diagnostic support is inconsistent and often inadequate. We must get to a position where dementia care is built around a clear, joined-up pathway that families can rely on from the very start and where a person can receive early diagnosis followed immediately by assessments, access to specialist advice, dementia-trained professionals and consistent points of contact, such as Admiral nurses. Drug treatments, where appropriate, home-based support, respite care and, where needed, smooth transitions into care homes, would all be part of one coherent system, not a maze of disconnected services. We need more support to stay at home and more support in the community, and family carers should be informed about available support and given greater access to regular respite. Diagnosis must be the gateway to timely, specialist and sustained support; too often it is not.

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

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech about an incredibly important subject. It affects my constituency, too, where we have 1,500 people living with dementia. On top of that, as she was referring to, around a third of the people currently living with dementia do not have a diagnosis and, staggeringly, the NHS does not have a target to tackle that. Will she join me in urging the Minister to meet with Alzheimer’s Research UK to discuss its call for a national 18-week target from when people are referred by their GP for assessment to when they receive diagnosis and a treatment plan?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

I heard from a constituent whose wife has Lewy body dementia and has lived in the same care home for several years. She is settled there and knows the staff. They know her needs, her routines and her personality. It is, by any reasonable definition, her home. Yet my constituent has been told that when money for his wife’s self-funded care runs out, she will not be supported to remain there because the home is not on Hampshire county council’s approved list. She will be forced to move away from familiar faces into an unfamiliar environment at precisely the stage when stability and familiarity matter most.

Families impacted by dementia frequently find themselves navigating a fragmented system, unclear funding decisions, delayed assessments and a complete lack of continuity of care. One of my constituents told me that his mum, who is in her 90s, has been informed that her savings have now fallen below the financial threshold. He requested a review from the county council months ago. Despite repeated chasing, he has been told that it may be many months before their situation is reviewed. In the meantime he has been placed in the impossible position of having to somehow find the funds to continue to pay care home fees that he cannot afford or risking financial instability for the care provider. That is not how a compassionate system should function. Continuing healthcare funding must be urgently reviewed. Too many families face flawed assessments that fail to recognise the complex needs of people with dementia, leaving them to shoulder enormous financial burdens at the most vulnerable moments of their lives.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s mother, and the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituents. Many people in my constituency of North East Hampshire face similar challenges. I have personal experience with a relative who could not get a diagnosis in Hampshire despite many of us, as her family members, trying very hard to help her to do so. She ended up having to fund all her care herself, and did not get treatments that she might have needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must prioritise this care so that people with dementia can have continuity and the support that they need?

[Liz Jarvis]

Of course, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is too much confusion and delay around accessing assessments for dementia patients and their carers, and too much focus placed on ticking boxes rather than determining the most cost-effective options available to families.

Hospital discharge is another major pressure point, as up to one in four beds are currently filled by someone with dementia. I have been contacted by families whose loved ones have spent weeks in hospital only to face discharge into home environments with minimal support. My constituent Nicola told me that the consultant and occupational therapist caring for her father said that he should not be discharged because of his high risk of falls, but that their hands were tied by the county council. She said that the family were told to supervise, rather than to provide care, and to wait for carers to arrive. That meant her father would be left at risk of falls and accidents, or left sitting in soiled clothing, because no one was allowed to intervene. Family carers should not have to go through such endless battles, facing constant uncertainty about support and being stretched to the limit just to get their loved ones the care they deserve.

The ambition in the Government’s 10-year health plan is to move care from hospitals into the community, with greater access to neighbourhood health centres. That ambition is welcome but it will succeed only if dementia specialist support is embedded at its core. Neighbourhood health services must include dementia-inclusive multidisciplinary teams with access to specialist dementia nurses. Changes to the Hampshire carer support and dementia advice service have compounded those challenges. For 12 years, that service was delivered by Andover Mind, which provided advice, guidance and vital emotional support. It was changed with very little notice, as part of Hampshire county council’s ongoing savings programme, which is addressing a projected shortfall of £143 million for the coming year. Chronic underfunding of local government has meant that such non-statutory services are often cut back, despite being lifelines for so many people across the county.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I can empathise with my hon. Friend’s experiences of caring for her mother. My father also died of dementia; we cared for him at home for many years. On a more positive note, I recently visited the St John’s dementia group in Winchester. It is a fantastic group with loads of activities—I joined them in singing “Sweet Caroline”, badly—and it provides vital support for those with dementia and for their carers by giving them some respite. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do all we can, at the local and national levels, to support such community groups, which provide light relief for people in very stressful, chronic situations?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my mum was first diagnosed with dementia, one of the most important things for her was going to Singing for the Brain sessions, where people are encouraged to remember old songs. That was brilliant for her, but obviously it is not enough. When the condition starts to progress, it becomes harder and harder, yet the care that is needed is often not available, as I am setting out.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), it is important that families know where to access these voluntary sector services. The East Hampshire dementia services directory is a great initiative, as are voluntary groups such as Dementia Friendly Petersfield and Dementia-friendly Alton. The Alton group now has its own dedicated building and a full programme of activities; I have invited the Secretary of State to visit, as it is an interesting initiative to see. Will the hon. Lady join me in commending all the wonderful voluntary sector groups?

[Liz Jarvis]

Absolutely. Community-based activities that keep people active, stimulated and social must be protected and expanded. Those services delay deterioration, reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life for people living with dementia, and for their fantastic family carers.

At present, there is no Admiral nurse service in Eastleigh, leaving my constituents reliant on acute services, such as Wessex neurological centre or Winchester hospital. Admiral nurses provide specialised, dementia-specific care, offering expert guidance and continuity to families navigating a terrible disease in an increasingly complex system. Without that local, in-person support embedded in community care, families are more likely to face prolonged uncertainty at the very moment when specialist help would make the greatest difference. I urge the Government to adopt a new national dementia care pathway, backed by clear minimum service standards, that includes guaranteed support across the entire journey—from pre-diagnosis through to end-of-life care—standardised wait times and a meaningful post-diagnostic support plan for every person with dementia.

Improving dementia outcomes must also include wider access to new treatments. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has ruled that the drugs lecanemab and donanemab will not be provided on the NHS due to their cost. As a result, people with early stage Alzheimer’s disease in England and Wales will not have NHS access to medicines that have been shown to slow the progression of the disease. Will the Minister support an update to the NICE guidelines to reflect the growing pipeline of disease-modifying treatments, so that people who cannot afford to pay privately do not have to face long waits for innovative treatments?

I also highlight the need for greater consideration of the specific needs of people living with early onset dementia. According to Dementia UK, an estimated 70,800 people in the UK have early onset dementia, where symptoms develop before the age of 65, but diagnosis can take significantly longer for younger people and many are left with very limited post-diagnostic support. At their most vulnerable, they are forced to navigate health and social care systems that are designed for older people and take no account of mid-life responsibilities, such as dependent children, while facing the financial and psychological consequences of leaving employment early, as well as facing a terminal illness. That is why every integrated care system must be required to develop a clear, co-ordinated early onset dementia pathway.

We must also address the needs of people living with rarer forms of dementia, those for whom English is a second language, and those, such as veterans, whose dementia is shaped by trauma. I have previously raised the fantastic work carried out by Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, which provides vital help to former service personnel and their families, and recognises the complex relationship between dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder and past trauma. That specialist understanding must be reflected across the system.

Care home quality and workforce training are also critical. An estimated 70% of care home residents aged over 65 are living with dementia, yet only around a third of staff receive any dementia training. A statutory duty for dementia training across all Care Quality Commission-registered care providers is long overdue.

Dementia care is not just about systems, funding and targets, but about people, and what we would want for our own parents, partners and friends. I have seen the difference that inclusive, enriching care makes, whether through meaningful activities, music, poetry, or simply someone taking the time to understand the person behind the diagnosis. On constituency visits to Sunnybank House care home in Fair Oak, Brendoncare Knightwood care home and the HC-One Chandlers Ford care home, I have witnessed the professionalism and commitment of staff first hand. It is always a privilege to join Dementia Support Hampshire and Isle of Wight for its Christmas carols at St Andrews church in Eastleigh. It is a reminder that joy, connection and matter right to the end.

With our rapidly ageing population, it is crucial that more support is given to families coping with dementia, so that they do not have to jump through endless hoops to get support, and that those living with dementia are treated with the specialist care, compassion and dignity that they deserve.

I have previously spoken in this House about the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s on my family and how, when a loved one is diagnosed with that terrible disease, you lose them twice. My constituent Nicola, whose father has dementia, has asked me to urge Members to

“think about how they would feel if it were happening to their loved one and how they would feel if their loved one had no-one to advocate for them to get the right help and support.”

I urge the Minister to listen to the experiences of families in Hampshire, to act on these recommendations, to work closely with Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK and Alzheimer’s Research UK, and to ensure that dementia care in this country is finally given the priority it demands.

11:15

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I really appreciate serving under your chairship, Ms Lewell—I think it is one of the first times I have done so.

I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing this debate; I know that dementia support in Hampshire is a cause that is close to her heart. It is also very close to my heart—sadly, I lost my mother to Alzheimer’s in December 2023—and I know exactly what the hon. Lady means when she talks about what a tough time it is for everybody concerned. I also thank her for her huge efforts to raise awareness of the condition, and for her active participation in the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. Although the hon. Lady has brought to the table the subject of dementia support in Hampshire, I hope she will appreciate that I will cast the net somewhat wider in my response, because it is important to see services in Hampshire in the broader context.

Almost 1 million people across the UK are living with dementia. Every one of those people, as well as their friends, families and carers, have their own unique and important story of living with dementia. Even those united by geography will have vastly different experiences. Our goal is to make sure that those experiences differ because we are all fundamentally different people with different thoughts, feelings and backgrounds, and not because of unequal access to diagnoses, health services or support. As I am sure everyone present will agree, it is vital that every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life.

The first step in delivering great care and support for those living with dementia is ensuring that they are able to get a diagnosis. The Alzheimer’s Society’s recent survey on lived experience told us that 96% of people affected by dementia reported a benefit to getting a diagnosis. It is, therefore, our duty to ensure that as many people as possible can access that benefit.

We know that a diagnosis is the gateway to better care, support and potential treatments, and the least we can do is help those living with dementia, and their friends, families and carers, to step through that gateway. That is why we are committed to increasing diagnosis rates to the national ambition of two-thirds of those with dementia receiving a diagnosis. During the pandemic, we sadly dropped to lows of 61%. At the end of November 2025, the overall estimated dementia diagnosis rate for patients aged 65 and over was 66.5%, while the estimated dementia diagnosis rate for Hampshire was 64%. That is, of course, an overall increase from March 2020, due to sustained recovery efforts.

But even when they are armed with a diagnosis, many people have found that there is varying and unequal access to support. We know that our health system has struggled to support those with complex needs, including those living with dementia. People have braved incredibly difficult circumstances and faced hard, emotionally overwhelming conversations to get their diagnoses, and we cannot abandon them afterwards. That is why, under the 10-year plan, we will make sure that those living with dementia will benefit from improved care planning and better services. By 2027, 95% of those with complex needs will have an agreed care plan.

We have also committed to delivering the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia. This will help to deliver rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and in productivity, and will be informed by phase 1 of the independent commission on adult social care led by Baroness Louise Casey, which is expected this year. The framework will seek to reduce unwarranted variation and to narrow inequality for those living with dementia. It will set national standards for dementia care and redirect NHS priorities to provide the best possible care and support.

We are committed to a well-supported adult social care workforce who are recognised as the professionals they are. The Department is supporting the professionalisation of the adult social care workforce through our recently expanded care workforce pathway, which provides a framework for progression and development opportunities so that people can build their skills and careers in care.

We launched a public consultation on the design of the fair pay agreement process—a major step towards implementing it in 2028. The consultation looked at how the process should operate, including who will be part of the negotiations and how the agreement will be implemented. The consultation closed on 16 January 2026. The regulations to establish the negotiating body and to bring together employer and employee representatives are expected to be laid this year. We expect negotiations on pay, terms and conditions and other matters such as training and career progression to be held in 2027. Once the body has reached an agreement on how the funding should be spent, the fair pay agreement will be implemented in 2028. The Government are backing that with a £500 million investment.

The 10-year health plan sets out how we will work towards a neighbourhood health service, with more care delivered locally to create healthier communities, spot problems sooner and integrate health into the social fabric of places. This is crucial for those living with dementia. Adult social care is part of our vision for a neighbourhood health service that shifts care from hospitals to communities, with more personalised, proactive and joined-up health and care services that help people to stay independent for as long as possible. Social care professionals will be a vital part of neighbourhood teams, working alongside the NHS to help people to stay independent for longer and playing an enhanced role in rehabilitation and recovery. Over time, the neighbourhood health service and the national care service will work hand in hand to help people to stay well and live independently.

I know it is disappointing that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has been unable to recommend the two new disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s—lecanemab and donanemab—in the final draft guidance, but it is right that such decisions are evidence based and taken independently. NICE is a world-renowned health technology assessment body, and I remain confident in its methods and processes for ensuring that any new medicines recommended for use on the NHS provide the most health benefit at a cost-effective price to the taxpayer.

As announced in the life sciences sector plan, we are taking a number of measures to reduce friction and to optimise access to and uptake of new medicines. The measures will boost the speed of decisions and cut administrative burdens for the system and for industry. NICE and NHS England are doing the work to plan for the adoption of any new licensed and NICE-recommended treatments.

Research is crucial to support people living with dementia and their carers. The Government are investing in dementia research across all areas, from causes, diagnosis and prevention to treatment, care and support. The National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, funds and supports impactful research. For example, NIHR infrastructure investment has supported the groundbreaking DROP-AD trial, which has shown that Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers can be detected using finger-prick blood samples. That is a really exciting development that brings us closer to accurate and timely diagnoses of dementia.

Research cannot take place without the incredible people who volunteer to be part of it. Through the NIHR, my Department works closely with charity partners in the delivery of joint dementia research. People with and without a diagnosis of dementia can use an online platform to sign up to take part in vital dementia research. I encourage everybody and anybody who might be watching this debate to register with the service, to help to shape the future for people living with dementia. We will continue to invest in dementia research in Hampshire and across the UK.

We recognise the vital role of unpaid carers and are fully committing to ensuring that they have the support they need. I chair a cross-Government ministerial group with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions, all at the ministerial level. Through the measures in the 10-year health plan, we are equipping and supporting carers by making them more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and streamlining their caring tasks by introducing a new “My Carer” section in the NHS app.

To support unpaid carers, on 7 April 2025 the Government increased the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit from £151 to £196 a week—the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage. This was the largest cash increase since the carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976. As a result, more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30.

We are reviewing the implementation of carer’s leave and considering the benefits of introducing paid leave for carers. On 19 November 2025, we published the terms of reference for the review of employment rights for unpaid carers, and in 2026 we will run a public consultation on employment support for unpaid carers. To help local authorities to fulfil their duties, including to unpaid carers, we are making around £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26.

I again thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for bring forward such an important topic for discussion. Whether on research, the workforce or unpaid carers, we recognise that there is a tremendous amount to do. We have two work streams, one of which is the Casey commission, which will look at how we fundamentally rewire how we do care in our country, and the other is what the Government are doing immediately. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for the Casey review; we are taking forward the measures that I have, I hope, outlined with sufficient clarity.

I absolutely recognise that there is a huge way to go. We have a mountain to climb on this. We are not going to fix our national health service unless we fix our care service; it is a deeply integrated ecosystem and we have to get both sides of it right. The 10-year plan and our plans for a neighbourhood health service are all about moving from fragmentation to integration, and that is the way we have to go if we are to get our health and care systems back on their feet and fit for the future.

It has been a real pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I hope I have reassured her that dementia is a priority for this Government, and that we are going to do all that we can to ensure that those living with dementia, and their loved ones and carers, are supported and cared for.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

10:44

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government re-organisation.

It is, as usual, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Before I begin, I would like to ask the House a simple question: who truly understands the challenges and intricacies of local life in our constituencies? Is it civil servants sitting behind desks in Whitehall, or is it our constituents—the people who live, work and raise their families in the communities affected by local decisions? The obvious answer, as I hope the House will agree, is that our constituents know best, and yet we find ourselves in a situation where the Government appear determined to ignore those voices on local government reorganisation.

Since those plans were announced and rumours emerged of an extension to the city council boundary in Leicester, I have led a campaign against it. I have tabled amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, asked questions on the Floor of the House and written to Ministers, and yet the response remains the same. The Government simply do not want to listen to the people who will be most affected by any local government reorganisation.

This is not to say that I am opposed to reforms. I recognise the potential benefits of consolidation: savings for the hard-pressed taxpayer, particularly at a time when this Government continue to raise taxes to unprecedented levels; and the possibility of more efficient public services. But any changes must be done with communities, not to communities. Residents must have a voice—a say in which neighbourhood plan they fall under, who runs their local services and, crucially, how much council tax they will be asked to pay. I do not want to predetermine what the Minister will say today, but if she decides against opening a discussion on the introduction of referendums, I will continue this campaign. I will be presenting a Bill to the House of Commons to give Members the opportunity to empower their residents with a final say on what local government reorganisation should look like in their areas.

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

I completely agree with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we did not have that opportunity under the last Government when the Conservatives imposed local government reorganisation on places like North Yorkshire. Does he think that his party’s Government should have done the same too?

[Mr Bedford]

A lot can be learned from previous Governments of all different colours, and I ask the Minister to look at history and not repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past.

Local identity, democratic consent and keeping council tax low are all at the forefront of my constituents’ concerns. First, there is growing concern throughout villages such as Glenfield, Leicester Forest East, Birstall and many more that if they are absorbed into the city council area, they will have development after development quite literally dumped on their green and beautiful spaces. These communities see their villages—currently served by Leicestershire county council—coming under increased pressure from the city council expansion.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. Having been elected as a councillor back in 1985—in those days, I had some hair—and served some 26 years on the council, there is a special place in my heart for local government and the real benefit of local councils making local decisions. Does he agree that accessibility to the council for the general public must be protected at every level, and the removal of access for people in towns and villages by centralisation can never be acceptable?

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree: council services should be accessible to all. One of the concerns that my constituents have—particularly those in rural areas—is that if they are absorbed into a city unitary authority, they will have less access to be able to get their views and thoughts across. I share the sentiment that the hon. Member expressed.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I share with my hon. Friend a cautionary tale? Often, reorganisation is promoted as delivering better value for money, but since Christchurch was absorbed into the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, the consequence has been less efficiency and higher costs, to the extent that BCP council is now applying for a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, without a referendum. The history of the Christchurch council area is that in a local referendum with a 60% turnout, 84% of people were against joining up with Bournemouth and Poole—and they were right. The trouble was that the Government then refused to listen to the views of the local people.

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) earlier, this Government should reflect on the mistakes that previous Governments of different colours have made and ensure that the views of local people are always taken on board before any decisions are made, which was not the case in the example my hon. Friend just gave.

In my constituency, development is being pushed further and further outwards, right up to the boundaries. As a result, my constituents see local services being stretched. In Glenfield, for example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the city mayor in Leicester, who recently declared a climate emergency, is looking to build over the much-loved Western Park golf course, which is on the city-county boundary. Residents’ groups are currently able to lobby their local representatives, including me, to try to protect such spaces, but ultimately we all know that if Glenfield is incorporated within the city boundary, residents’ groups will have fewer and fewer avenues through which to defend the character of their community.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?

[Mr Bedford]

As I said to the hon. Members who intervened earlier, this Government should definitely learn from the mistakes of previous Governments. That is particularly true in relation to the example the hon. Gentleman just gave of local government reform being introduced against the wishes of local people, resulting in an adverse impact on their local services and the community. I take his point and I hope that the Minister will listen to him, too.

I am not raising concerns today because I am a nimby—I fully accept that housing is needed—but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby overbearing mayors, such as those in London, Birmingham or Leicester, are able to force their housing quotas on to the outer edges of their cities and gravely impact the lives of county communities.

Secondly, it is clear from the consternation of many people in my constituency that they do not wish to be ruled by a city mayor who has little chance of being removed. My communities in Anstey, Birstall and Leicester Forest East, and in many of the villages that border the city, fear being permanently outvoted by the urban-focused city electorate.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says; he speaks absolute common sense. An even better example is what has happened in Greater London, where the borough of Havering, which has always been in Essex, is being sucked into Greater London and paying huge sums of money to subsidise inner-London areas, but gets very few services in return. The Mayor of London is dictating to places such as Romford when it comes to building high-rise blocks in the town centre and imposing things such as the ultra low emission zone, as well as his crazy, woke political correctness, which I know most people in my constituency and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are completely opposed to.

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate point about his constituency. I know that he has been working on this issue for many years and I hope the Minister will take heed of what he just said. I know he will continue to champion those causes.

My constituents have watched Leicester itself decline while the county continues to deliver. The previous Conservative administration at county hall presided over better education services, better roads and better social care—all at a fraction of the cost. Quite simply, my constituents do not want Leicester city, or its mayor, to drag them down. Is it any wonder that they ask, “Who in their right mind would want to be a part of an urban-focused Leicester city council?” Indeed, on the doorsteps many of my constituents tell me that they moved to the county precisely to escape the decline of the city. Frankly, I could not agree with them more: I made the same decision just over a decade ago. I believe in devolution, but expansion would leave county representatives outnumbered and overruled while city priorities, such as the climate crisis, take precedence over the needs of areas such as Mid Leicestershire.

Finally, and perhaps crucially, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum—

[Mr Forster]

As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?

[Mr Bedford]

I think all the residents who would be impacted by any changes should be consulted in a referendum. All the constituents who would be part of a potential new authority should be consulted as part of that referendum—that is how I see it working. Of course, there are different models, and the Government could explain and explore those models in any approach they introduce.

As I was saying, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum, because reorganisations directly determine local priorities and how much council tax our constituents will pay. If the boundaries are redrawn and my constituents are absorbed into a city council area, I believe they will face higher taxes for poorer services. Why on earth should we say to my constituents in villages such as Birstall, Anstey or Thurcaston, who are already dealing with the highest tax burden in a generation, that they will pay more for less—and without a say?

To conclude, at a time when trust in politics and in this place is at an all-time low, what better way is there for the Government to show that they are listening than letting ordinary people—the people who are impacted by such reorganisations—have the final say on how their local services are delivered? They should have the final decision on how changes are implemented.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.

14:41

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. It is always right that the House has the opportunity to discuss how local government works, how it can work better and how we ensure that it delivers for the people we represent. Although I do not believe that referendums are necessarily desirable in the context of the current local government reorganisations, for reasons I will come to shortly, I do believe that there is real value in debating these issues openly and transparently. Local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long lasting, so it deserves serious consideration.

It is true that the Conservative-led coalition Government conducted a round of referendums in 2012 across a huge swathe of our major cities. The issue is that when people were asked whether they would like a mayor, every city—bar one—said no, but only a few years later, they got one anyway. They did not seek to repeat that exercise. The referendums the Conservatives held were, in truth, little more than lip service.

I think that most people here will think that mayoralties in the main—with honourable exceptions—have been a successful endeavour: they give power and autonomy to the places that have often been forgotten in the past. Of course, in recent years many places underwent local government reorganisation with no referendum at all.

It is worth mentioning an elephant in the room when it comes to the postponement of elections by a year in places such as Suffolk, which I represent, until all-out elections in 2027 and mayoralty elections in 2028. The Conservative party’s new-found aversion to postponing elections is quite remarkable, not least because, as Local Government Minister, the Leader of the Opposition postponed elections in Cumbria, while the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), also made the decision, as Local Government Minister, to postpone all-out district elections before reorganisation in Buckinghamshire in 2019. And Robert Jenrick—remember him? I was going to say he was the latest recruit to Reform—

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right hon. Member for Newark.

[Jack Abbott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction from a sedentary position. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), while Secretary of State for Local Government, when talking about postponements in places such as Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, said that elections in certain circumstances

“risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]

It is an interesting volte-face for both Reform and the Conservative party. That is the previous Conservative leader, the current Conservative leader, and the right hon. Member for Newark, who, up until last week, was agitating to be the next one, so I will take with a pinch of salt the Conservatives’ new-found desire for referendums or postponements—not least because one particular referendum was arguably the start of a psychodrama that continues to envelop them nearly a decade later.

We did have a referendum in 2024: we had a general election. Local government reorganisation was a clear and explicit part of our Government’s manifesto. I know that, under the Conservative party, delivering on manifesto commitments fell out of fashion—they were little more than vibes, at best, by the end. But we were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it.

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Gentleman says that the electorate endorsed that at the ballot box. I wonder if he might show a little contrition in acknowledging that Labour got less than 50% of the vote, so trying to make out that that general election was a glowing endorsement of this Government and this manifesto commitment is perhaps putting a bit of a shine on it.

[Jack Abbott]

We are sitting here with a parliamentary party of more than 400 MPs. That is an overwhelming mandate under the electoral system that we have been operating under for centuries. The Conservative party can probably reflect on that, if we are talking about numbers.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Can the hon. Member will tell us whether it was also in the Labour manifesto to abolish local council elections?

[Jack Abbott]

As I have already laid out, and as the hon. Gentleman will know from when he was a member of the Conservative party, postponing elections where a local government was undergoing reorganisation happened a number of times. I was not here, so I cannot remember whether he spoke out against his Government at the time for doing so. A number of local government Ministers decided to postpone those elections, and I presume that he fully endorsed those postponements at the time—although I am happy for him to correct the record on that point.

The Government were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it. Our Government are embarking on the biggest transformation of local government in a generation. This is not change for change’s sake, but because the status quo has been failing far too many communities for far too long.

[Tom Gordon]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way and being so generous with his time. He talks about change, but we are seeing the continuation of the same local government reorganisation that we saw under the previous Government, with the rolling out of the same mayoralties as well. This is not change so much as a continuity of plans that were already in place—unless he wants to give us anything new that I am not already aware of.

[Jack Abbott]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken. In my own patch in Suffolk, for instance, the devolution proposed under the previous Government meant handing out a few more powers for a tiny bit of extra money. We are proposing unitarisation of places such as Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, plus a mayoral candidate for the elections in 2028. What we are seeing is far more radical and significant; in fact, for my part of the world, it is the most significant change in local government for more than 50 years, so it is a big step change from what the previous Conservative Government proposed.

For decades, power has been hoarded in Westminster and Whitehall while local councils were stripped of capacity, fragmented in structure and left struggling to meet rising demands after having their funding hollowed out. Nowhere is that failure clearer than in my home county of Suffolk. In a past life I was a county councillor, and I do not believe that the current status quo is working—I do not think many people living locally do, either. Although I accept that that is due to severe hollowing-out of funding over 15 years, a do-nothing approach is clearly not an option for us either.

Those sorts of issues—pot holes left unrepaired, special educational needs provision in crisis, children and families passed from pillar to post and adult social care under unbearable strain—are not abstract problems. They affect people’s daily lives, their dignity and their trust in local democracy. The truth is that the current system is not working, and we needed to do something radical. As I said, a do-nothing approach is not a neutral option, but a decision not to change how local government is structured and empowered. It would simply condemn communities such as mine to more of the same.

That is why the Government are choosing to devolve and not dictate through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. We are rebuilding local government so that it has the strength, scale and capability to deliver—[Interruption.] We hear chortling on the Conservative Benches, but the Conservative Suffolk county council requested this process and has also consulted with the public. People were able to put their views forward.

Our county council has put forward an option for a single unitary authority, and all the district and borough councils have put forward an option for three unitary authorities, so there has been significant consultation at local level. Parties of all stripes, although they may disagree on which outcome they would like to see, have all engaged constructively in this process on the whole.

We are looking to transfer power out of Westminster and into communities, and to give local leaders the tools to drive growth, create jobs and improve living standards. This is about rebalancing decades-old divides and, as I said, we have not seen this sort of reorganisation in my part of the world for more than 50 years.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech for an area of the country that is still two tier. However, having been a representative in a unitary council and lived in one for a number of years, it is worth putting on the record that being part of a unitary authority does not mean that potholes or SEND provision are perfect. I appreciate that that is probably not what he is implying, but someone listening to this debate might be led to believe, mistakenly, that unitarisation is a silver bullet. Does he agree that we need to be realistic about that?

[Jack Abbott]

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly that unitarisation or local government reorganisation alone is not a magic bullet. The things the hon. Member describes are due to severe underfunding. Pothole and road maintenance funding fell to around £17 million a year, down from £20 million, although it crept up again. We are putting much more money into that. We saw bus services shredded in the previous 14 years, but we now have the biggest upgrade to bus services since 1998. Some of those things will help; I believe that unitarisation will help to deliver better public services, and provide more of a single point of accountability for voters, but change also comes down to leadership, culture and investment.

In Suffolk there is a credible, detailed and ambitious alternative to the status quo. In my opinion, the proposal for three unitary councils put forward by all the district borough councils of Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, Babergh, East Suffolk and West Suffolk clearly shows that this is not a partisan project, but a set of proposals put forward by politicians of all stripes. It is a collaborative effort across political parties, grounding in evidence and focused on outcomes.

I believe it would be simpler for residents: there would be a single point of contact, as mentioned earlier, and more accountability, ending the confusion over who is responsible for what. Anyone who has knocked on doors will have heard residents say, “I don’t care who it is—I just want the council to fix it.” That is a sentiment that is shared quite widely.

[Andrew Rosindell]

All of us knock on doors and talk to our constituents. The thing they are really unhappy about, in all councils, is the fact that councils are not operating effectively and getting the true local jobs done in their local communities. The more remote the system and the bigger the council area, the less effective it will be. Does the hon. Gentleman see the point about smaller towns, villages and boroughs losing their identity and local control because it goes to some big bureaucracy somewhere else, a long way from where they are?

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; there is a balancing act to be achieved, ensuring that we have the size and scale of councils to deliver public services efficiently, while also rooting them in their local communities. That is why I am backing a proposal for three unitary councils over the proposal from the Conservatives at Suffolk county council for a single unitary council.

As part of the local government reorganisation, places such as Ipswich, which I hope will turn into a greater Ipswich authority, would still need to retain a town council, and the parish council element would be really strong. I used to be a parish councillor, so I recognise the value and importance of those communities and having that very local representation as part of this.

Funnily enough, that leads me directly on to my next point: crucially, the three unitary councils proposal strikes the right balance: it is big enough to deliver but local enough to care. A greater Ipswich council, alongside strong East and West Suffolk authorities, would allow each area to play to its natural economic strengths, make faster decisions and champion its communities with strong local voices.

Although this has been a constructive debate in my part of the world, the conduct of the county council has at times been deeply disappointing. Rather than making a positive case for its own proposal, it has repeatedly resorted to misleading and aggressive tactics. Nearly £50,000 of taxpayers’ money has reportedly been spent on social media advertising for its own single campaign, with further tens of thousands earmarked for so-called “Alice in Wonderland” leaflets, which seek to ridicule all alternative proposals. That is not engagement; it is propaganda, and I urge the Minister and the Department to look at it carefully. At a time when potholes are going unfilled and children with special educational needs are being failed by that same county council, voters and residents in my area are entitled to ask why public money is being spent on spin, rather than services. The council’s behaviour betrays a lack of confidence in its own case and a disregard for local people.

Local government reorganisation must be about the future. It is about not just tomorrow, but the next 30, 40 or 50 years. It certainly cannot be about the preservation of power, status or the status quo. It must be about improving services, strengthening accountability and restoring trust. The Government have set the direction. We were elected with a mandate for change and we are delivering on that. Devolution is fundamentally about people, ensuring that communities such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine their own futures. That is why referendums are not needed to delay or derail this progress. What we need is leadership, honesty and the courage to build a system that finally works for the people it serves.

14:56

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you presiding over these proceedings today, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate; it is good to have an opportunity to discuss these issues openly.

It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott). He made a lot of the fact that there are hundreds of Labour MPs and the great mandate that that has given this Government. I find it vexing that, with a majority as large as the one this incoming Government have, that they should choose as priorities things such as digital ID, attacking jury trials, taking away school freedoms, trying to ban vaping in pub gardens and trail hunting, and a costly reorganisation of local government.

I am relatively agnostic when it comes to the structure of local government. Some people say that they are in favour of unitaries or of two-tier authorities; I always find that a peculiar position. It is possible to give a decent argument in favour of almost any structure of local government. The one thing I dislike is the upheaval when they are changed. Sometimes there is a good argument for change and we must do it, but we should never pretend that there is no cost to that change. There is a financial cost to reorganisation—what happens to buildings and all sorts of other things—and an effectiveness cost when any organisation is in a state of flux.

In the case of Hampshire, we will be moving from a two-tier system to a single tier of unitaries. There will be some economies of scale and benefits that come with that; for example, bin collections will be on bigger scale, and we should be able to get that at a lower unit cost. There will also be diseconomies in those services that are moving from the county level to the smaller level, for example adult social care and aspects of children’s social care and so on. We do not know—unless the Minister is able to intervene and tell me—what the net effect will be. I have tabled some written questions to ask what the Government’s assumption is on the net effect, and we do not have an answer to that.

If there is a net benefit from the mixture of those economies, diseconomies and costs of transitions, I guarantee that it will not come in year one. All of these plans end up being a classic hockey-stick sales projection—“Of course things are going to get better, but first we have to invest to make that happen,” so the curve goes down before it goes up. I am afraid that, for many sales projections, years one to three turn out to be accurately predicted, but the out years much less so.

There are big choices to be made in reorganising to unitaries—as was alluded to a moment ago in the context of Surrey and Suffolk—in terms of the number of different unitaries in a particular area. That can make a very practical difference to residents. Big-cost items are going to move from county level—the upper tier—into these unitaries. As everybody knows, the two biggest costs are adult social care and high needs children’s social care in education. They are going into the unitaries, so it will make an enormous difference for a district council, depending on which other areas it goes in with.

To fund all that expenditure requires income—from business rates, for example. The overall age structure in the broader footprint of the area also matters. People of working age are net contributors. Retired people and children need cash support. There is also the question of housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire put accurately and succinctly. There is a lot of controversy about the current targets for housing in rural areas, which have gone up under this Government by an average of 71% in new areas and 100% in areas such as mine—East Hampshire.

Some people feel that reorganisation and merging with nearby councils will solve that problem—all that housing will not have to go in the countryside after all; it can go in brownfield sites and developed areas, as it should. I fear that the opposite may be the case. We look to councillors to understand—as they do—the areas they represent. The further away decisions are made on things that really matter to local people, the less likely they are to be good for them.

[Jack Abbott]

What the right hon. Gentleman describes is already happening. Suffolk county council represents the entire county. The argument he is making is already playing out at the moment. We are having these conversations. This has already happened. We have rural councils making decisions about urban issues and vice versa. I do not think it is either/or.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful. I was talking about housing development and planning, which in Hampshire is decided by East Hampshire district council, not by Hampshire county council.

There is also the question of identity. Counties and parishes are anciently formed areas. Districts are quite often not; they are modern constructs in many cases, sometimes dating back only to 1974. How does that affect people’s sense of identity? That is half a century ago. I know that makes us all feel a little depressed; I was born in 1969. Over time, they acquire more of an identity, which we should think about.

The hon. Member for Ipswich was right when he said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He also made a lot of having a mandate for change. There were loads of things about change in the Labour manifesto—it said “change” on the front cover. It did not say that the change would include this precise type of local government reorganisation, involving moving specifically to unitary councils. Because it is complex, consequential and long-lasting, it warrants a steady and sober assessment of the implications for all our residents.

15:03

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate.

I have made no secret of my views, unlike some Members who have kept their views to themselves on the outcome they would like. That is because I have a deep conviction, as someone who grew up in the area, of what feels right and what my constituents wish to see. I am in an interesting position because I am Plymouth born and bred, have served as a unitary city councillor, and now represent 40,000 residents in the city as their MP, but I do not believe the city needs to expand to deliver what it wants to. The plan is for an arbitrary number, which I genuinely believe is for land for homes and increased council tax receipts that villages such as Wembury, Yealmpton, Bickleigh, Woolwell, Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo would provide.

Devon is an interesting county, and a big one. It is the fourth largest county in the country, which I think people often forget, and is therefore very varied. We have national landscapes, Dartmoor national park, the largest naval base in western Europe, the Roman city of Exeter, a huge amount of manufacturing, and cultural gems, such as Saltram House in my constituency. Therefore, a plan that is entirely bottom-heavy—two cities and a large town coming together to say, “We’ll look after ourselves, guv,” and the rest of the county being left on its own—has understandably not landed that well with what is considered “the rest of Devon” but is, I gently point out, more than 50% of the population.

What we know about the county of Devon is that local identity matters hugely. That means that the whole county needs to thrive as a result of local government reorganisation, rather than there just being pockets of investment and development and then everybody else. Along the lines of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about the age profile, in a lot of rural Devon there are lots of older people, and the young and working population is in the big cities.

That is why it is not surprising that 90% of those who completed surveys that I have conducted on the local government reorganisation plans are against the plans to subsume 13 parishes in my constituency into Plymouth city council, and why approximately 1,900 people signed a petition to say the same. I have to say that, although Plymouth city council has done the consultation it is supposed to, the figure it shared with me for the number of residents it heard from was about half the number who have been in communication with me as the MP.

Those statistics come directly from constituents who currently have no formal voice in the LGR process. When the two cities in Devon seem determined to secure their own future rather than be realistic about the economic viability of the rest of Devon, it is not hard to see why my constituents are unhappy. As it stands, the LGR process has resulted in a bidding war and caused local councils, such as some in Devon, to pick the best bits at the expense of the rest. Obviously, that is my opinion, but that is what I am watching happen across the county. That is why I am against Plymouth and Exeter’s proposal to carve off the parishes that they think will get them to the magic number of about 300,000 that they have in their head, never mind what else happens. They literally call it, “the rest of Devon.”

The Government claim that consultation is taking place—I know that it is, because I have been invited to take part in it—but it is not the mass inquiry that I think we are talking about today. I do not necessarily think that it has to be a referendum, but something more formal would have been better. Options for Members of Parliament have been limited. I, for one, have been quite proactive. I have gone out to find out what my constituents think, and will be writing to the Minister to share their views. Other local MPs have written to the Minister simply based on their own political views without surveying their residents.

Local councils are being taken at their word. They may have carried out consultations, but they have been written up by the very people who want the change where there is a huge vested interest in seeing it delivered. They are quite literally marking their own homework. I know they have tried to be fair and spoken to as many people as they possibly can, but I am still not happy that that should be given greater weight than any of the information that Members of Parliament are sharing. One of the consultations the Minister will have received from the council implies that it has consulted with local MPs. Well, the only consultation was when I rang them to say, “Why have you said you have consulted with me when I have not actually heard from you?” They have had an opportunity and it has not been taken properly, which has left quite a bad taste in the mouth of Members of Parliament like me.

What we really need is a formal consultation of the communities affected. In this case, that should be county-wide, rather than just in the pockets that want to see delivery for themselves. Devon is a huge county, and a coherent consultation has been very difficult because so many options have been on the table. There has been a consultation for each individual plan, and none of them look at the big picture; they all look at the view that the particular council or group has been proposing. In a county like Devon, where the two key cities have Labour councils and majority Labour MPs, and with a Labour Government calling for this change, it is unsurprising that local people are doubtful of the proposals. I appreciate that it is all being done in good faith, but that is how it comes across at the moment.

Local identity really matters where there is a connection between urban and rural. That is what I am trying to present this afternoon. I am stuck in the middle, so to speak, between an urban city that ultimately needs money in its most deprived parts, and the country parishes, which are deemed richer. However, the whole south-west is poorer than large parts of the rest of the country, so we are comparing apples and pears, rather than like for like. Some 67% of those surveyed identified as being from Devon. I appreciate this was not a qualitative exercise, but 10% identified as being from Plymouth; and 18% typically named their small town or village as where they are from. That might not change, but to start having rubbish collected and services provided by the big city down the road is deeply concerning for a lot of rural villages, so imposing a top-down decision on communities like mine has, as I have mentioned, gone down very badly.

In the absence of a referendum, I call on the Minister to weigh heavily the evidence from MPs like myself where we can show community engagement among our own constituencies. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps the Department could have encouraged independent consultation rather than each of the groups’ creating their own plan and doing their own consultation, because I genuinely think they have gone and written up the answers that they want to portray. What I have heard is certainly not what I have had presented back to me by the councils.

I urge the Minister to look at Devon as a whole, as a county that has so much to offer. If it is left to cities and the rest of Devon, it will not necessarily be in the greatest interests of the county. I urge her to listen to the views of everybody, not just those from large cities, which, as I have said, make up less than half the county’s population.

I have one further question for the Minister. We have heard plenty this afternoon about the different services that can be provided by different councils. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned precepts. A confusing thing that has not been talked about is that as the change happens, we are not looking at a level playing field on council tax. In Plymouth at the moment we pay council tax to the unitary authority, but the district council, the parish council and county council get money. It is my understanding that precepts will remain for the parts of the unitary that are not in the city, and that we will end up with parts of my constituency paying more council tax than others.

Interestingly, there is an offer of creating town councils in new bits. Some of the independent councillors in one community in my constituency are pushing to create a town council in Plympton. I do not think the constituency is clear whether that means that the council tax will go up to pay for that new town council or the parish council. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, just to make it ultra-clear what we are talking about on the ground.

15:12

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this timely debate. I have listened to colleagues who feel passionate about their towns, villages and counties. We have heard about Leicestershire, Hampshire, Suffolk and now Devon—all wonderful great English counties. It shows that whatever party we belong to, we care about the communities that we come from.

We want the best local government structure that works for local people and delivers services, but it is also about identity. For me, as a proud Essex MP, being stuck in this artificial creation called Greater London has never been good, so radical reform of local government is needed, and it needs to be as local as possible. True democracy is at a local level, not in some bureaucratic organisation in a city. It is local to villages and communities, which is where it should be. We should all work to achieve that and make it as democratic as possible.

On behalf of, I believe, local people the length and breadth of England, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of outrage against this Labour Government’s decision to delay an ever-increasing number of local government elections under the guise of restructuring. That is just an excuse not to hold elections. It is nothing less than a blatant attempt to hide themselves from the scrutiny of the ballot box, silencing the voices of millions of voters on the local issues that matter most to daily lives. I, alongside my new Reform UK colleagues here in Parliament, totally oppose the ditching of democracy in such a way.

Reform UK has launched a legal challenge, including a judicial review, due to be heard this week. We are clear that democracy delayed is democracy denied. The Labour Government are running from the fight of their lives in the upcoming elections on 7 May. There is no way that the British people will let them off the hook. They may delay the elections, but they are just delaying their own defeat and demise. The British people will not forget that it is Labour who have abolished democracy in whole swathes of the country on 7 May.

History tells us that only dictators cancel elections yet, shockingly, 30 local authority leaders have written to the Secretary of State requesting that local democracy be denied and their positions secured for another period without elections.

[Jack Abbott]

As I asked earlier, when the hon. Member did not correct me, did he have an issue when his former leader—either his current former leader or the one before—delayed elections as Local Government Minister? Considering his recent conversion, did he also speak out when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) postponed elections when he was Secretary of State for Local Government? Does he liken those individuals to dictators as well?

[Andrew Rosindell]

There is always a legitimate case to have a short delay when there is a serious purpose for doing so. I remember when Mrs Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council—what a glorious day that was. We did not have elections for the GLC and extended it for one more year. In circumstances such as that, where it is one more year, there are legitimate reasons to delay, but we are talking now about up to three years. That is unacceptable and completely beyond what is reasonable or necessary to get everything organised and ready for any local government restructure.

[Jack Abbott]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am not going to give way because I know what the hon. Member is going to say. In my borough there have been no delays or restructuring for many years, so it has not affected my area. That is why I have not spoken about delayed elections in other areas; that is for other Members to have done during those restructures.

I would love local government to be restructured in the Greater London area—I have been calling for that for many years. Sadly, my former party refused to countenance such a thing. Tony Blair recreated the GLC under the guise of the GLA and introduced the elected Mayor of London, which nobody really wants and is very costly. We had the opportunity for 14 years to do something about that.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) also has concerns about the way that the Mayor of London and the GLA have operated, and he will reply from the Opposition Front Bench later. I am interested to hear whether a future Government that the Conservatives are part of will be radical and actually do something about the artificial local government structure that has been imposed on us in the Greater London area.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a democratic deficit. West Sussex county council, which is Conservative-led, has chosen to delays its elections for another year, which means that its county councillors will end up serving seven-year terms, without seeking a democratic mandate since 2021. Does he share my concern that the constituents of Romford did not elect a Reform MP?

[Andrew Rosindell]

At the general election, which we need as soon as possible, we will see how many Reform MPs are elected. I am happy to have an election as soon as possible, because this country needs change. We have been stuck in a rut for years and the British people have had enough. So yes, let us have a general election to get rid of this disastrous Government and put our country in a better place. Going back to the original point, most of the boroughs that are delaying their elections are Labour-controlled, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also requested cancellations, so they do not get off the hook scot-free.

As it stands, more than 600 council seats will not be contested later this year. Almost 4 million people will be denied the chance to elect their local council representatives. It really is shameful. It is unnecessary and wrong, and the policy should be changed. This is nothing short of a scandal. The British people deserve better; they deserve a say about who runs their local councils. That is why Reform UK supports serious consultations on local government reorganisation, and ultimately referendums on it. Local voices cannot be silenced, and we will fight to ensure that they are heard.

Although it brings a short-term advantage to the Labour party, blocking elections harms local people. Take my borough of Havering, for example. In 2000, London governance was reorganised in a manner not dissimilar to the reorganisation that is taking place across the country today. In the 1960s, our area had the administrative title of the London borough of Havering imposed on us, but everyone in Havering knows that we are in Essex. We did not need to be told that we are suddenly part of London when for one and a half millennia we have been under Essex, but the bureaucracy imposed that new title on us. Now we are under the thumb of the elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, so please can we have a referendum on whether to stay part of that regional government structure?

Havering is not London. We do not want our local government controlled by a London Mayor—particularly the current one—and I think most of my constituents would like us to get out. We want to connect with our Essex roots, both culturally and administratively. The people of Havering deserve a referendum on whether they want to continue to be dominated by a political mayor. Whether we remain part of that structure must be their decision. I believe it is time to give local constituents in Romford and throughout the borough of Havering a choice about whether we are under the Mayor of London or whether we should regain our independence and our local identity.

At one point, the Ministry stated that

“all elections should go ahead unless there is strong, evidence-based justification for a temporary delay.”

Those words are now haunting the Labour party. I firmly believe that local and regional government is in dire need of reform, not only in my borough of Havering but across the country, but the answer cannot be less engagement with local people. It must be the opposite of that: giving local people a genuine say about the structure of their local councils.

There should be thorough consultations, crystal clear explanations and referendums in local areas so that the decision is made by local people. Central Government bureaucrats must not make decisions above the heads of local people, ignoring what they truly want. The Government’s current excuses are simply that—worse, in fact. The reality is that this is a political stitch-up to keep local authorities under Labour control. From speaking to people in my constituency who have experienced a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor of London, I have to say that the last thing they want is for Labour to be running their local council. Labour is running from the polls and taking democracy with it; it should change this policy quickly.

There is still time for the Government to do their favourite thing: make a U-turn. We have seen a lot of those recently, so let us see another one on this issue. Local government needs fundamental reform, but the Government must consult people more broadly, respect democracy and allow elections to go ahead as planned. Anything else is unacceptable to local people across this country, regardless of their political affiliations. Reform UK will fight this every step of the way.

I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who made a very good point about the identity of the historic counties. For many years, I have fought to combine the historic and the ceremonial counties so that we all have one county identity, rather than the muddle that we have at the moment of ceremonial counties, administrative counties and historic counties. Three definitions of counties is nonsense.

Local government reorganisation means we should go back to the simple concept of a county being a geographical and historical area that we can all feel part of because it is our history and identity. My borough should have always have been under the ceremonial county of Essex. There are lots of other anomalies across the country—in Leicestershire and other parts—but perhaps the Minister could at least take this one back, so that we can have one county identity, which we could then celebrate across the country.

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a focus on identity, whether geographical or party political, but my constituents in Woking are much more concerned about potholes and the appalling child safety issues under the county council. Does the hon. Gentlemen not think those issues should be the primary focus?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.

15:26

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

15:55

On resuming—

[Andrew Rosindell]

I was about to conclude my remarks when the Division bell rang. I hope that the Minister takes on board my point about the historic and ceremonial counties, and that councils across our land will proudly fly the county flags from each town and county hall across England. I know that will delight the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

15:56

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Norfolk county councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing the debate. Might I say how welcome it is that, unlike the Norfolk Conservatives, he is a Conservative who thinks that local government reorganisation requires more democracy, not less?

The Labour Government’s novel approach of centralised devolution has put an enormous strain on local authorities and caused a great deal of concern for my local residents. North Norfolk is an area with unique characteristics, and we have been well served in recent years by a Liberal Democrat-led district council that is well armed with local knowledge to deliver for my constituents.

We have the oldest population in the country, an economy that relies heavily on tourism, and unique environmental factors ranging from England’s largest seal colony to the fastest-eroding coastline in north-west Europe. It beggars belief that the Government, and Norfolk county council’s Conservatives, think that all that could be easily handled by one local authority that also has to contend with the needs of a further 800,000 people and 1,700 square miles of county. Whitehall’s demand to arbitrarily find populations of 500,000 or more for authorities proves that they have not taken the reality of rural areas into account.

Across the Government’s programme for local government reorganisation, little consideration has been given to the specific needs and characteristics of rural and coastal communities. Trying to bundle us together with inland areas completely misunderstands the unique challenges and opportunities we face, and risks worsening both. Furthermore, lumping in our rural economy to compete for funding and resources with an urban economic centre in Norwich and the surrounding area risks pulling support from our local businesses and preventing us from unleashing the rural powerhouse that North Norfolk can be. That is why I, and the vast majority of Norfolk’s councils and MPs, support the Future Norfolk proposal for three local authorities, and I strongly urge the Minister’s Department to go ahead with that.

I know that similar concerns and challenges are felt across the country, with Whitehall trying to dictate devolution and fundamentally misunderstanding much of how the world works outside SW1. It was deeply disappointing to see the Government delay our mayoral election for two further years. Devolution is important in Norfolk and Suffolk to deliver a brighter future for both counties and seize upon the new powers and funding from Government to drive change forward. We are left behind yet again.

I am concerned about the financial black hole that the decision has left, not only in Norfolk but for many authorities with delayed elections. We have heard today about the end of the shared prosperity fund, which was set to coincide with the arrival of combined authority funding and allow for a smooth transition to continue funding for important work done by local authorities. However, the delay means that we now see a cliff edge in September this year, with no support until we elect our mayors in May 2028. Will the Minister confirm what consideration the Department gave to that issue when it delayed our elections? What support is she going to provide for the stretched local authorities that have seen their balance sheets take yet another hit from the Government?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Our mayoral election in Sussex has been postponed until 2028, but the statutory instrument for the creation of combined authorities is still going ahead, and two elected representatives from each local authority are going to form the combined authority. That means Conservative councillors who have not had a democratic mandate since 2021 will create the combined authority; does my hon. Friend agree that that is the reason why they are holding on and delaying elections?

[Steff Aquarone]

Not only do I cynically agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that is precisely why it is so important to have local elections, because of not just the time that will have elapsed but the very important the decisions that authorities will make as part of the local government reorganisation that, as she pointed out, has already been legislated for.

I thank the Minister’s colleague in the Lords, Baroness Taylor, who made the picturesque journey all the way to Cromer to meet local leaders in North Norfolk, and who also made time to meet me and hear my concerns. Frustratingly, her considered approach does not seem to be reflected across Government. On much of the devolution agenda, the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. The Government are giving councils new statutory responsibilities and costs, which must be delivered ahead of LGR, but without providing any certainty about how to ensure that capital investment and budgetary decisions will be well suited to the set-up in a couple of years’ time.

There are valid reasons for, and drawbacks to, having referendums around the programme of local government reorganisation. I can understand sympathetic arguments from both sides. However, I fully understand why, given the track record of Norfolk Conservatives, my constituents are very worried about the blank cheque that the Government handed to them to work on LGR and devolution. Our devolution was delayed for years under the last Government, while the Tories in Norfolk fought among themselves as to who would be coronated as the elected leader. Our devolution was then pulled entirely, before being redrawn by the Labour Government.

When we look at how the Conservatives have run Norfolk since 2017, is it any wonder that my constituents might find the prospect of a referendum on their work appealing? The Conservatives rode roughshod over the views of local residents, threatened to evict people with bailiffs, and acted like playground bullies because people in Sheringham dared to oppose their plans to bulldoze the bus shelter. They are denying children in Holt a long-promised primary school, despite being given the money by the Government and the site being there to build on, and they have allowed our transport system to crumble, spending millions on shiny new buses in Norwich rather than embarking on a much-needed rural transport overhaul.

The Conservatives in Norfolk are also allowing the loss of vital convalescence care beds in Cromer and Cossey, which is worsening our healthcare crisis. They have driven our council to the brink of bankruptcy and are now having to go cap in hand to the Government to get bailed out after blowing £50 million on the white elephant that is the Norwich western link road, without an inch of road to show for it.

Now, to the shock of nobody, the Conservatives in Norfolk want to chicken out of elections for a second year running. They do not even have the guts to admit it: the letter from their administration to the Government was so unclear that they were asked to write it again and explain what they meant. Their assessment of whether our election should be cancelled read like a letter from Vicky Pollard: “Yeah, but no, but—”.

I made the point to a previous Secretary of State that the Conservative administration in Norfolk is totally unfit to preside over Norfolk’s future, and I remain steadfast in that opinion. Failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country—[Interruption.] Sorry, Ms McVey.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.

[Steff Aquarone]

Oh—I haven’t.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.

16:02

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:11

On resuming—

[Steff Aquarone]

As I said, I remain steadfast in the view that failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country. It is simply not right—they should be facing the voters in their areas and held accountable for their years of failure. Although referendums are one of the means for getting democratic legitimacy for local government reorganisation, I would far prefer for that legitimacy to be sought by councillors facing their electorate. I apologise for being out of breath—I ran back here quickly on your instructions, Ms McVey.

Local government reorganisation is too important for the Government to get wrong. It cannot be done to people; it must be done with them. A more collaborative approach from the Government that fully considers local character and issues and does not do this work at the expense of democratic legitimacy would be greatly welcomed.

I finish with a straightforward challenge to the Norfolk Conservatives running scared of an election: we are ready to face the ballot box in May. Are you?

16:12

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on the excellent points he made in his speech.

Local government holds a special place in our multilayered and multifaceted democracy. It is democratically accountable, inherently bottom-up and strongly community-minded. The average local authority delivers more than 800 different services, providing key day-to-day functions that represent, for most people, the most noticeable interactions with political choices and democratic management. Whether it is bins, potholes, recycling and waste, libraries, adult social care or SEND services, the most obvious impact of many people’s choices at the ballot box are those delivered at the local level in their parish, district or county council.

I am especially aware of that having served as a local councillor in the London borough of Bexley for 23 years and, on a regional level, as a London Assembly member for 13 years. It was a privilege to serve my constituents in those positions, just as it is as a Member of Parliament. That is why I know that local government deserves support and respect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that the Labour Government do not share that view.

Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I noted that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He is completely correct on that. However, my right hon. Friend was also completely correct to say that there was nothing in the Labour party manifesto that suggested a top-down, nationwide structural reorganisation of all local councils. There was no mention of riding roughshod over the wishes of local people and local government, but that is exactly the course the Government are pursuing. We have heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how the Government’s plans, which stretch far beyond the platform that they stood for at the election, will impact their local area and constituents.

The Government’s programme of so-called devolution is already having sweeping impacts on councils and local people—not least, as we have seen for the second time in as many years, with the likelihood of the cancellation of local elections across vast swathes of the country. It is telling that of the 63 councils offered the chance to postpone elections by the Government, nearly three quarters of those doing so are Labour run or have a Labour majority. Following on from the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), there are a further four local authorities where the Liberal Democrats have at least a share of power, and one where they are in outright control.

It is widely believed that Labour is denying democracy and running scared of voters by cancelling elections where it feels it will get a pasting. Independent voices—from academia to politics and the Electoral Commission—are urging that the elections should go ahead. Just recently, the Government told us they would. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the House on Monday:

“Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead…I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 58-59.]

Her argument was supported by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), who said:

“As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 60.]

He is surely correct in his assertion that this is what lies behind the Government’s actions. When 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote and the Government’s excuse is their own radically top-down and botched reorganisation of local government, it is no wonder that local people feel so ignored and insulted, as hon. Members have made clear today.

Let me make it clear again: the Conservative party’s position is that the elections should go ahead. Our line has been completely clear and consistent. This mass suppression of democracy is, perhaps, the most egregious of the many negative outcomes of the Government’s bungled restructuring programme, although it is far from the only one.

The greatest scandal comes in the Government’s approach to local councils as they seek to carry out this unmandated position. It is vital that local councils—the elected representatives of local people—and the communities in which they live are heard throughout any process affecting the make-up, functions and form of their local democratic institutions. Instead, Labour’s approach has been to dictate from Whitehall, forcing councils to sign up to a prescribed model of restructuring, imposed from the centre and leaving local people without a voice. We believe that true devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, elections and structure, but the Government have offered none of those things.

While local referenda are expensive and non-binding, they provide another collective voice that could feed into the debate about how people want to be represented. The voices of local people should be front and centre of any restructuring process, but sadly, given their current approach, even if there were local referenda, it appears likely that this Government would simply ignore any view that did not correspond with their own.

[Jack Abbott]

I think there is a short-term memory issue here. The hon. Gentleman talks about referendums, but the Conservative Government held a whole heap on mayoralties in 2012 and then ignored all the outcomes. He says he values local government, which is incredibly welcome, but his party hollowed out local government funding, and we have seen the cost of that. When the Conservatives were in power, they suspended a number of elections to consider local government reorganisation, including those involving the Leader of the Opposition—why has there suddenly been this volte-face in the last few weeks?

[Gareth Bacon]

Three local elections were delayed by one year in 2021, all of which were the result of local government reorganisations; a consultation took place with the authorities affected in advance and their views were taken on board. That is in complete contrast with what the Labour Government are doing right now. They are riding roughshod over the views of local people and cancelling elections for the second year running.

It is vital that communities get the real empowerment they deserve, that taxpayers get the accountability they pay for and that new structures face proper scrutiny. That is why, on Report and Third Reading of the devolution Bill, the Opposition urged the Government to look again and accept amendments to ensure that the Bill provided those key tenets; true to form, the Government ignored those entreaties. The Opposition will continue to vote against the Government in Parliament on their botched handling of this issue.

If the Government do not listen to local people, through whatever democratic means, we face a future for local government in which power is stripped from genuinely local authorities and people—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions—and centralised within geographically and demographically distant authorities instead. While the Government’s track record speaks for itself with rushed, top-down reorganisations of local government and higher council tax burdens on residents, the Conservatives believe that communities deserve a voice—not another expensive restructure that sidelines local priorities, moves decision making further away from voters and inflates the cost for taxpayers.

While referenda, like elections, could be ignored by a Government who appear indifferent to the views of voters, the Opposition believe in local voices and will continue to stand up for our local democratic institutions. Our electoral process should not be abused or bent to the will of a particular party for its own partisan benefit. Ministers should treat voters with respect instead of disdain, stop undermining our democratic system and let the people of this country make their own decisions.

16:20

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On behalf of everyone, I thank you for the excellent way in which you dealt with the suspensions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation. He made the case on behalf of his constituents very well, and I was listening to what he said.

I also listened to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Many Members spoke up for the identity of their constituents and the culture and history of their constituencies. It is important that we are able to do that in this House, and I congratulate all Members on doing so. I will try as best I can to respond to the points they raised.

I will set out why we are reorganising local government and why it matters. Nearly a third of the population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government, which splits functions and services across county and district councils, slows down decisions as different councils try to agree and leads to fragmented public services. It is confusing for citizens in terms of who does what and who is responsible.

My constituency is in the Wirral, which was reorganised six years before I was born. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, over time, the Wirral has come to have its own identity, but people still have identities from long before. The county of Cheshire, which is near my constituency, still has a strong identity—as you will know, Ms McVey. It was reorganised in 2009, but, while the unitary authorities have grown in different ways, that Cheshire identity is still there.

This is a continuing journey, as Members have said. In the area of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, Leicestershire county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. We can all do better than that, and I want to work with local government to make that happen. We want to simplify local government and have single-tier, unitary councils everywhere, making stronger local councils that are equipped to create the conditions for growth, improve public services and empower communities. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the biggest reform to local government in 50 years. We want to make the most of that opportunity. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that everyone everywhere is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation can help to do that: with one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions, grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who made an important contribution, asked what the net effect would be. It is different for each area, which makes it hard to forecast, but I want to point out another issue. We are currently seeing spiking costs in particular areas, including SEND, as he will know well, children’s care, temporary accommodation and homelessness. I would be wary of drawing hard and fast conclusions because of the cost environment that we are in. We will have a number of opportunities to discuss the finances of local councils on the Floor of the House in the months to come, but I would be happy to discuss those issues with him. Local government finance is complicated but very important, and I noted his strong contribution.

Particularly in these areas, we want public services to be designed for people’s lives rather than in council silos. Bringing housing, public health and social care together under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is very important in the case of children’s care, where we want to take a preventive approach and improve parenting support.

Strong local government is the only way that we can really tackle deprivation and poverty in the round. People living in neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation especially deserve public services that will help them to reach their full potential. Rather than multiple councils with confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for making sure that its area turns a corner.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the time he has spent engaging with me on these issues. He will know that the Government took an unprecedented decision in relation to debt in Surrey, and we continue to be concerned about ensuring that we can reach financial sustainability, for all the reasons that he describes. I would say to his residents that their MPs are engaging with the Government and others on the subject. It is very serious, and we will continue to work together on it.

In early February, we expect to launch a consultation on proposals for the remaining 14 areas, including the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I know that he is actively engaged in the discussion on reorganisation in Leicestershire and has been encouraging his constituents to have their say, as he described—I applaud and welcome that. I reassure him and other Members that we take people’s views very seriously; as I said before, I was listening very carefully to the contributions that colleagues have made. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment form part of our judgment in looking at proposals for new councils, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution on that subject.

Like existing councils, new councils must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhoods to shape the places where they live. That is part of another area of policy in the Department; whether it is pride in place or the measures in the Bill that is going through the House at the moment, community engagement is important.

The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about precepts. Deciding on that process will be a part of the reorganisation. If she would like further details, I would be happy to correspond with her, but it is part of the overall set of arrangements that we need to decide.

Residents can make their views known through the upcoming consultation on local government reorganisation. The responses to the consultation will all be taken into account, and I hope that Members will consider this process as part of the discussion that we are having.

I thank Members for engaging. If there are issues that I have not picked up for reasons of time, I will respond to them individually in writing. All Members are most welcome to take part in the discussions and consultations on the reorganisation. In the end, this is about outcomes; we want to see our country grow economically and socially. I thank Members for taking part in making the process work.

16:29

[Mr Bedford]

I thank all Members from across the House for contributing to the debate. There is clearly passion across the House about our local areas and constituencies. Local decision making matters so much to our residents. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach, particularly in the light of my point that local people should always have the final say on structural changes in their areas. That could be achieved by introducing local referenda. I reiterate my point to the Minister and ask the Government to reconsider their position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government reorganisation.

UK Wine Industry

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

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

16:31

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK wine industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank all the Members who are here. As we are running half an hour late—I appreciate your management of the Divisions earlier, Ms McVey—if Members are here for the bins, that debate will be in half an hour. I say that as a courtesy.

I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on the UK wine industry—a personal passion—to discuss how can we build on a sector that already has strong roots in the community I serve and across the country. I notice we have some winegrowers and producers in the Public Gallery.

I have a natural bias, given my Kent heritage and my constituency being home to many established vineyards and growers. The north Kent chalk escarpment has a number of leading brands, including Chapel Down, with its famous Kit’s Coty sparkling white wine and Bacchus smooth white; Balfour, a grape wine producer in the weald; and Gusbourne—all established and high-quality producers. This is not just about high-quality producers, however, but the plethora of start-up and established small businesses growing across our country, not just in Kent but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The industry is a success story that we should celebrate. It is represented by extremely strong voices from the growers, alongside passionate advocates GB Wines, who have supported me, and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Coupled with producers and growers, they are strong advocates, but they are a small voice and need to be heard more loudly. We are discussing a genuinely dynamic and growing part of our rural economy. Our food and drink culture is part of our natural heritage and national story that we should celebrate.

The UK wine sector has moved from being a curiosity 20 to 30 years ago to a serious contender in the space of a single generation. It deserves serious attention from Government. For those who do not know, the 2025 harvest has been described by growers as a vintage of outstanding quality. After the driest summer on record, grapes ripened fully and harvest began three weeks earlier than in 2024. Estimates suggest production of around 15 million to 16 million bottles, potentially the second largest harvest ever in UK history. That demonstrates that, even within the constraints of the UK’s cool climate, British growers are capable of consistently producing high-quality wine at a commercial scale, through expertise, innovation and careful vineyard management.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member join me in welcoming Hendred Vineyard to Westminster today, which has been exhibiting the best it has to offer at the “Taste of Oxfordshire” event? Does he agree that English sparkling wine is now better than champagne? Will he encourage MPs to purchase English sparkling wine rather than champagne?

[Tristan Osborne]

I went to the Oxfordshire event today and tried some of the wine, which is of outstanding quality from an established producer of 50 years; long may that success continue. The hon. Member is correct that we have award-winning sparkling wines, and across Europe we are now seen as a choice region for many champagne producers.

That sustained growth is being seen over the long term as well. In 2024, there were 1,030 vineyards in the UK— 87 more than the year before—occupying 4,000 hectares under vine. That is a 123% increase over a decade and production is now trending upward too, with 21.6 million bottles produced in 2023.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about bottles, but they are not the only way of packaging up wine. In my constituency, the innovative packaging company ecoSIP makes single serve wine portions but, bizarrely, regulations mean that they cannot sell them in 125 ml containers. Does my hon. Friend think that is a strange anomaly, and would the Minister care to comment on it later?

[Tristan Osborne]

Indeed, different ways of distributing wine have been established in this country by Tetra Pak and others. There are innovations that we need to consider and there are lessons to be learned from other European nations.

Demand is rising in whatever form. Sales of domestic wine increased by 10% in 2023, with sparkling wine sales up 187% since 2018. This is a real success story of our rural landscape.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Somerset is more often known for its cider production, but I have a brilliant, multi-award winning winemaker, Smith & Evans, based in Aller on the Somerset levels. As he rightly points out, sales of UK wine are increasing, but there are difficulties, such as the tax thresholds that are hampering growers’ innovation. Does he agree that the Government must justify the cumulative cost burden of extended producer responsibility for glass packaging alongside those rising costs?

[Tristan Osborne]

Absolutely, there are challenges in the industry and I will raise a number of them in a moment, but first I want to offer an overview of the success of the sector. There are a lot of hard-working wine growers and merchants. Despite some of the challenges, the industry is already showing real success and we need to support it.

British wine is gaining recognition not just in this country but across the world. Japan is now a key market and the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea and Denmark are all beginning to respect our wines and see them as a go-to product choice. The export market is expanding at pace and, with support, this could be a real positive multiplier in our rural communities, much maligned and struggling in many cases. This is a growth industry that could sustain our rural economy and grow it in a more promising way. Many practices that wine producers engage with are inherently sustainable and support the local community, both directly in terms of wine producing, but also in spin-offs such as restaurants and wine tourism.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I know the hon. Member trained as a teacher. Plumpton college educates many students in Mid Sussex and last year, it pledged £500,000 of fully funded training in the wine sector. Does he agree that to grow the wine industry, the Government also need to support skill development in rural economies and communities?

[Tristan Osborne]

I agree 100% that we do need to support more agricultural colleges. Clearly, individual courses will need to have throughput with apprenticeships into wine producers. There are not many of those and they are, at present, quite contained. I absolutely agree that, as the industry grows, we need to encourage skills development in that space.

I have other queries similar to the hon. Lady’s, and some of these policy interventions would not be expensive for the Government. On support for wine tourism, apparently 19% of our domestic wine is sold directly to visitors and local customers at the cellar door. These are not just transactions; they are experiences that anchor vineyards in their communities, create hospitality jobs and bring people into rural areas. A carefully designed relief on duty for on-site sales would not distort the market and threaten revenues but empower producers to grow sustainably. If we can offer small-scale support to the sector at this stage of the industry’s growth, we can realise and return greater revenues later.

We also need to safeguard what British wine actually means. Consumers deserve clarity, and our producers deserve protection. Wine labelled as “English”, “British” or “UK-made” should genuinely be made from 100% British grapes, and labelling reforms should enhance transparency, rather than create loopholes. At the same time, we need to beware of regulatory changes that could undermine domestic sparkling producers, and we should instead allow domestic producers the opportunity to make a protected geographical indication category for English prosecco, for example. Adding to that, it is vital that we do not dilute internationally recognised standards.

As has been mentioned, we of course need to support education, research and development, and the promotion of skills. Much of the grant funding that once supported equipment, education and research has fallen away over the years. In my view, if we are serious about growing a high-value rural industry, which is already showing this growth, strategic investment in training, research and overseas marketing is not a luxury; it is a requirement to oversee growth. We know that we operate in a global market, and competing wine nations, such as France and others close to us in Europe, are already providing this backing to their industries. We need to be in this space to ensure that our producers are competitive on a level playing field.

On exports more broadly, no new wine region has succeeded internationally without some initial state backing. If we want English wine on shelves in Tokyo, New York and Copenhagen, the Government must be a partner, which is why supporting wine producers at expo conferences and trade fairs is absolutely critical. Small amounts of money to support advertising in those locations could generate significant throughput and expansion in exports.

My colleagues are right to mention taxation, and we need to be open to considering a level playing field. When it comes to small cider and beer production in this country, tax relief is offered at the cellar door, and I believe that the Government could also consider doing that for small wine producers. I understand that a statutory review of the system is due in August, and I urge the Minister to lobby her colleagues in the Treasury, as tricky as that might be, to look at both the level and methodology of wine duty to ensure that it supports, rather than constrains, this growing sector. I understand that the challenges with the Treasury might be significant, but it is nevertheless worth me articulating that.

On packaging policy, there are of course real challenges. Under extended producer responsibility, the fee for glass is around eight times higher than in other comparable European schemes. Although I am an advocate for our environment, as well as for the sustainability of many workplaces, we know that the wine industry relies on glass as a premium product and this problematic double-charging has an impact on communities. Can EPR fees be reviewed in the light of the size or turnover of a company, or the scale of its operation? Although I accept the premise of extended producer responsibility, perhaps there are some areas that could be looked at.

Land use planning must also recognise the unique nature of vineyards. As has been mentioned, they are not simply farms but rural assets—they are agricultural enterprises that not only produce high-value crops but act as tourist destinations, attracting visitors to local economies. Balfour, which is a Kent-based winery that I have had the pleasure of visiting, now offers a bespoke restaurant and hotel. That is now standard in many wineries, and some are aligned with pubs and other hospitality venues. Tasting rooms, restaurants and event venues are also linked to many of these producers as they diversify their businesses. They are not just environmental stewards, maintaining landscapes and biodiversity; they are indigenous parts of our communities. As we have seen in other European nations, we should be celebrating and talking about that.

As we look ahead, the UK wine industry will be a vibrant part of our national story, and it is one that we can absolutely sell to the world. I believe that this vision is aligned with our Government’s strategy to create a more dynamic rural economy and to support the economies of the future—as our climate changes, this space is only going to grow. I believe that we can build those jobs and pride, while delivering world-class British produce in our communities.

Lastly, outside of Government, supermarkets and distributors have a part to play. If we visit France and go down a wine aisle, we see that the French actively celebrate their product and market it with a logo, and they encourage their people to purchase it. I believe that our supermarkets should have that responsibility as well, and we can encourage them to market English wines in a similar way. Domestic demand would dramatically increase if there was consumer access to the wines that we produce—I say that to restaurants as well.

The industry is now going through a phase where there is movement and tumult as new wineries open and close, but in 20 years’ time the sector will be double or triple the size it is today. The Government should enable that as much as possible and ensure that our rural economies benefit, so we get the pleasure of tasting the best wine in the world.

16:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) on securing the debate and on his work in championing the UK’s growing wine industry. It is particularly good that he has managed to get it in dry January.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

It’s nearly over!

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, nearly over. The UK has always been a major trade hub for wine. We are the world’s second largest importer of wine by value and volume, bringing in an estimated 1.7 billion bottles every year. The UK is also the 11th largest exporter of wine, so it is very much a two-way trade.

The scale and connectivity matter. The UK’s role as a global hub anchors expertise and investment across bottling, logistics, retail and export, and increasingly, as we have heard from my hon. Friend today, in viticulture. Our domestic wines have earned a reputation for exceptional quality, as demonstrated by the nine gold medals awarded to English wines at the 2025 International Wine and Spirit Competition in London. Nyetimber’s head winemaker, Cherie Spriggs, was named sparkling winemaker of the year for a second time, which is an exceptional achievement. She was the first person outside Champagne to win the award, thereby giving some credence to my hon. Friend’s claim that the only champagne to drink at the moment, even if we cannot call it that, is English sparkling wine.

Such achievements show the quality that British producers can attain when talent, innovation and investment come together and are applied to British viticulture. Across the country at fantastic vineyards such as Chapel Down’s Kit’s Coty in the constituency of my hon. Friend, the production of award-winning wines is translating into good jobs, as he pointed out, as well as tourism growth and renewed confidence in local, often rural, economies. We recognise the challenges the industry faces: a tougher trading environment, rising costs and tariffs. Yet through working in partnership with the industry, we intend to help it seize opportunities and ensure growth is felt by farmers and communities alike.

Exports of domestic wines are gaining real momentum. English and Welsh wines now ship to 45 countries, with exports more than doubling their share of total sales from 2021 to 2024. The 16 agrifood attachés from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs play a key role in this success by promoting UK wine, removing market access barriers and helping businesses navigate consumer demand and import procedures. The Government are supporting WineGB to boost the global profile of English and Welsh sparkling wine at Wine Paris in February. We want to ensure that British producers have a strong, confident presence in key global markets.

Our trade deals have enabled greater access to international markets for UK wines, whether through simplified customs procedures under our recently announced free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea or the approval of a greater range of winemaking practices for exports to Australia and New Zealand. The Government are working to make it easier and less costly for UK wine producers to do business abroad.

The success story of the UK wine sector does not start overseas; it begins at home. Industry forecasts suggest that the retail value of English and Welsh wines could reach £1 billion by 2040, but I wonder whether we can get there faster. With more than 1,100 vineyards, and production exceeding 10 million bottles, viticulture is one of the fastest-growing agricultural sectors in the country, and the Government are committed to supporting that growth. Through the farming innovation programme, we have committed at least £200 million through to 2030 to support viticulture. That will help producers invest, innovate and plan with confidence.

On whether we can change the regulations on single-serve wine portions, there has not yet been a decision on reforms, but we are keen to engage on ideas about innovation, including on that issue. I ask my hon. Friend to please keep in touch with me and the Department on that innovation and others so that we can see whether it is worth our while changing regulations that may have become out of date.

Wine tourism is a vital part of the success, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In 2023, about 1.5 million visits were made to vineyards and wineries, and tourism accounted for roughly a quarter of income for many estates. This is about jobs, economic opportunity and resilient rural economies. The Government are committed to supporting that vision, including by backing regional identity initiatives. Our ongoing efforts will ensure that regions gain the recognition that they deserve, both at home and abroad.

My hon. Friend mentioned cellar door relief. I would certainly welcome any data that he and the industry can provide me with so that we can see how we might deal with that. We have to get evidence before we can make changes to the way that such relief is given. If evidence exists out there, I strongly suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with the wine-growing bodies so that they can present it to us and we can consider it.

My hon. Friend mentioned packaging reforms. The Government are committed to moving towards a circular economy that delivers sustainable growth and reduces waste. Our collection and packaging reforms, including extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme, are designed to drive investment in modern recycling infrastructure. Extended producer responsibility is already used successfully across more than 30 countries and is a proven way to increase reusable packaging in the market and improve long-term environmental issues. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we have to move forward and try to get to a place where we can recycle much more packaging to ensure it does not go to landfill. The Government recognise the pressures that alcohol producers face, and we want to assist in any way we can.

The Government committed to upskilling the workforce, and we are working closely with Skills England and the Department for Education on the growth and skills levy, which includes apprenticeships. If my hon. Friend wants to convene the industry to talk about how that might be applied with respect to viticulture, I am more than happy to hear what he has to say when he has done that work.

The growth of the UK wine industry is impressive, but we are only just beginning to realise its full potential. It is about far more than bottles sold or medals won, although they are very important and we celebrate them; it is about skilled jobs, thriving rural economies and the confidence that comes when communities seek growth and opportunity on their doorstep. This Labour Government believe in backing British industry, supporting working people and building an economy that works for every part of the country. That is why, as a Minister, I am committed to working closely with the sector to drive innovation, expand exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK fully share the benefits of this success story.

Question put and agreed to.

16:54

Sitting suspended.

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:58

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to open this debate. Waste collections and waste services are at the heart of what local authorities do, and underpin an essential part of the daily service that they provide to their taxpayers. However, over the last 12 months there has been a breakdown in waste collection services in Birmingham, which has impacted the wider west midlands area, including my own constituency in the borough of Walsall, because of the year-long industrial action in the Labour-run city.

The industrial action has led to rubbish being piled high on the streets, fly tipping across the city and, in neighbouring boroughs such as mine, rats—or as they have become known, “squeaky blinders”—running rampant through the streets. The Army has even been called in to manage a logistical operation to prevent a public health disaster. The region is being reported right across the globe for all the wrong reasons. I spoke with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who is sadly unable to be with us today; he reported that the situation in his town is, in some areas, getting worse.

I want to start by focusing on some positives from my own Conservative borough of Walsall. Like all boroughs, Walsall faces challenges with waste collection, waste management and, importantly, waste crime. Just before Christmas, our council cabinet approved a new waste strategy for 2025 to 2035: “Waste Not, Want Not: Walsall’s Journey to Sustainability”. At its heart, it recognises that waste management is fundamental to public health.

Central to the ambition will be the opening of a new state-of-the-art household waste recycling centre and waste transfer station in my own Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. That £32 million investment is designed to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill by improving recycling rates and sorting capacity. It has the capacity to manage up to 40,000 tonnes of waste a year. A reuse shop and workshop area will also operate on site, refurbishing items for resale and keeping usable goods out of the waste stream.

Last September our council invested a further £4.4 million in key areas of environmental enforcement, which was seen as a priority by members of the public. That additional support includes a fly-tipping crackdown, an expansion of fixed-penalty notices, bulky-waste enforcement and an expansion of CCTV—things that, as I know from my own inbox and social media, matter to people. That series of initiatives will have a significant impact on ensuring better environment management. I congratulate the council on it.

Good environmental management and waste collection is also massively underpinned by networks of volunteers who, week in and week out, go about their communities to clear rubbish or pick up litter. In my own constituency, we are greatly supported by volunteers such as Mike Hawes in Aldridge, Bev Cooper in Pheasey Park Farm and Martin Collins in Pelsall—to name but a few. They give their time freely to maintain civic pride in our communities. I also commend the work of Keep Britain Tidy, an organisation that helps foster thousands of people taking action to reduce litter, protect nature and create a cleaner, greener future for everyone.

Improving the environment on our doorsteps is so important. Positive action by local councils such as my own in Walsall, along with a strong network of community volunteers assisted by organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, are helping us promote environmental management and responsibility, to reduce waste crime and improve our ability to focus on improved rates of waste management and recycling.

The same cannot be said of our nearest neighbours in Birmingham. When there is a major industrial waste dispute on the doorstep, that impacts on neighbouring communities and the wider region—as the strike in Birmingham has most definitely demonstrated. The ongoing saga that is the Birmingham bin strike has now entered its second year. The whole strike is causing massive reputational damage to the United Kingdom’s second city and to the wider west midlands region. Indeed, the battering that the city has taken stretches across the globe, with news outlets such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, under the headline “Rats on the loose”, and the international press openly debating the mayhem in the midlands as those squeaky blinders ran riot.

The sheer cost to the taxpayer is also simply eye-watering. Between January and August last year, the council spent £8.4 million on agency staff and a further £5 million on outsourced contractors—a staggering total of £1.65 million per month. That is three times the monthly spend on waste collection services in 2024, which were costing £533,000 per month—all this from a council that is effectively bankrupt. At the same time, it is estimated that the council has lost £4.4 million in revenue as it was forced to suspend garden waste services to prioritise waste collections.

If the strike continues until the end of March, the one-off costs, including additional street cleaning and security as well as lost income, are anticipated to rise to £14.6 million. On 28 January 2025, almost a year ago, Birmingham city council acknowledged its extremely poor recycling rates, which are the second lowest of any unitary authority in the country at only 22.9%. That is a far cry from the 65% target expected by local authorities in 2035. Of course, such was the impact of the strikes across the city that one of the first services to be cancelled was recycling.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am sorry to have missed the start of the right hon. Lady’s speech. I am listening carefully to what she says. I am curious to know whether she raised concerns about the cancellation of services in Birmingham in the days when the authority was suffering the sharpest cuts in funding of any metropolitan council, amounting to 40p in the pound for every Brummie.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my Birmingham neighbour, for his intervention. In relation to the issue of waste, my focus is the impact on my constituency. It is just over 10 years since I was first elected, and this is the worst situation that I have ever seen on my doorstep. I have staff members living in the Labour-run Birmingham city council area who still have wrapping paper from Christmas 2024 in their recycling bins.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the first moments of the debate. This situation is having a profound impact, and what is going on is a travesty. There is a complete failure of leadership. This is bleeding out into the wider area. My constituency borders Birmingham, and we have streets of two halves—one half is in the Birmingham city council area, where the bins are piling up, and the other half is in Bromsgrove, where the bins are collected. We are seeing an acute rise in fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a failure of leadership, and that there is no excuse for a global city in a developed G7 country to be facing a leadership failure this acute?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are talking about the UK’s second largest city. I really worry about its reputation and about the distinct lack of political leadership. Our mayor seems to want to wash his hands of the issue. I try and try to raise the matter in this House, much to the annoyance of Mr Speaker, but I know that there are residents across Birmingham, and friends of mine, who find this deeply frustrating. They pay their council tax, and do not get this most basic of services.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that it was under the previous Government that unelected commissioners were imposed on Birmingham city council by a previous Conservative Secretary of State, Michael Gove? Since that day, it has been run by unelected commissioners. She is trying to blame the political leadership, which in effect is held to ransom by the commissioners. Is she saying that it was the wrong decision to impose unelected commissioners on Birmingham?

[Wendy Morton]

No, I am not. The reason why the commissioners were put in place was that Labour-run Birmingham city council was failing. That is why the commissioners came in. I am saying that we are facing a lack of political leadership.

I try to raise this issue in various fora, but nobody seems to want to get it resolved. What bothers me most is that there are residents who pay their council tax and who need a voice. They need somebody to stand up alongside other Birmingham MPs and councillors and say, “It is time to get this fixed.” The other reason why I am standing up on this issue is that I have constituents who work in the sector. They are being impacted, as are the peripheral parts of my constituency, as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). It is my constituents who have to pay the extra cost for the extra fly-tipping. That cannot be fair.

The net result of cancelling recycling is that the already poor figure of 22% has plummeted to just 15%. There are major fly-tipping hotspots right across the city; when bins go uncollected for months on end, fly-tipping respects no borders. In Pheasey Park Farm ward, which borders the Birmingham city council area, we have seen a constant uptick in people crossing the border to fly-tip.

In all of this, the point about the consistent lack of political leadership keeps cropping up. Where has the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands been through all of this? Nowhere. As recently as 18 December, he said on Radio West Midlands:

“I don’t employ the workforce”.

He also said:

“I have done all I can.”

To be honest, to the outside world that does not appear to have been an awful lot—that is my reply, Mr Mayor.

The mayor may not employ the workforce—I get that—but he knows the reputational damage that is being done not just to Birmingham but to the wider west midlands. As the most senior elected politician in the region, he should have been far more proactive and visible in ensuring that a resolution was found, or in encouraging people to get round the table to sort the situation out. Does anyone believe that had Andy Street still been the Mayor of the West Midlands, he would not have moved heaven and earth to ensure that the escalation of the strike was stopped, and the dispute resolved, at the earliest opportunity? I am pretty damn certain that he would have done so.

Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, some of whom were appointed as far back as September of last year, have responded to me and others in the House, but it appears that they have not even held meetings with the leaders of Birmingham city council so that a resolution can be moved towards.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

Of course; I am nothing if not generous.

[Laurence Turner]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is indeed being generous with her time. I listened to her comments about the former Mayor of the West Midlands with half a smile on my face; in my constituency I find that I have to chase up on endless promises made to my constituents about things that would be delivered—promises that were as real as fairy dust. However, that is a topic for another day. Does the right hon. Lady accept, and I say this as a former trade union official, that there are only ever two parties to a dispute? In this case, they are the union and the council. Those are the two parties who need to sort out this dispute. To suggest otherwise gives an impression to our constituents that is not accurate.

[Wendy Morton]

No—with all due respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, there may be only two parties who can find a resolution, and I would be the first to admit that I am not a trade union specialist nor a trade union member, but I am saying there needs to be leadership on behalf of the residents, with someone saying that we need to get this resolved once and for all. That is what is absolutely lacking.

If the Mayor of the West Midlands will not show any political leadership, Ministers should surely show some. Where are the leaders of Labour Birmingham city council? Councillor John Cotton walked away from negotiations on 9 July; that is 196 days ago today. To me, that is not political leadership; it is letting down the communities that he serves and that elected him.

We constantly hear the refrain that the hands of the political leadership at Birmingham city council are tied, because, of course, of the intervention of the commissioners, which was highlighted earlier. If we accept that, then we also have to accept that the commissioners are the appointees of the Government, and are now—under this Government—responsible to Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is surely where we should be getting the political leadership, or even common sense, that is badly needed to resolve this dispute once and for all.

This strike is harming residents, it is harming local communities and it is harming our reputation. As recently as last week, civic leaders were calling for urgent action to end this dispute, and they quite rightly commented:

“Waste collection is not an optional extra, it is a fundamental public service”.

The Government must take heed, because waste collection is a fundamental service. When people cannot manage waste collections, they cannot manage their local authority, because they have fundamentally let down their residents at the most basic level.

To conclude, now is the time for action on the part of this Government to get to grips with waste management in Birmingham, to ensure that this ongoing industrial action stops impacting not just Birmingham residents but those in the wider west midlands, including the borough of Walsall.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I also remind them that the latest that this debate can go to is 6.8 pm.

17:14

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. I will be absolutely clear about what is happening in Birmingham: this is not a strike for more money; it is a strike against brutal pay cuts, bullying, and union-busting.

Bin workers employed by Birmingham city council have been on all-out strike since March because the council started downgrading their jobs, slashing wages by up to £8,000 a year. In some cases that is a quarter of their income gone overnight. That is not reform; that is robbery. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, these crucial public servants, who we clapped for during covid, are being expected to lose a huge chunk of their wages, something that would drive many of them into poverty. Would MPs in this place accept that proposal? I very much doubt it.

It has now escalated; since December, agency workers have joined the strike. That is unprecedented. These workers were brought in to break the strike, but instead they are striking themselves. Why? Because of the bullying, harassment and blacklisting they faced for standing with the union. It is unprecedented; as a former trade union organiser, I have never heard anything like it. One agency manager was even caught on video threatening workers with being barred from permanent jobs if they joined the picket line. That is straight-up intimidation, and it is now the subject of legal action by Unite the union.

What is the council’s response? Further strikebreaking, this time on an industrial scale. Despite denying it, the council’s own figures expose the truth. Since the strike began, it has been spending over £1 million extra every month on agency labour and outsourcing—new agencies, new contractors and millions handed out not to workers but to private firms. The result has been more than £20 million wasted so far, rising by almost £70,000 per day. That money could have settled the dispute many, many times over. In fact, it nearly did.

In ACAS talks last year, a ballpark deal was agreed, with compensation payments of around £14,000 to £20,000 per worker. It was cheaper than the strike and the legal claims, sensible and fair. Why did it not happen? It was blocked by the council leadership and Government-imposed commissioners. Now, the very same council that blocked that deal faces over 400 legal claims due to the mishandling of the dispute. These are claims that its own legal position has described as extremely weak, and that will cost millions of pounds more. Let me kill one more myth: settling this dispute does not create a new equal pay risk. That does not come from Unite; it is the advice of one of the country’s leading KCs. The real legal danger comes from not settling.

Here is the truth: this strike can be ended. The money is there; the deal was there to be made. What is missing is the political will. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government must step in now, because every day this strike is on workers are paying the price, communities are suffering, and public money is being burnt.

This dispute is not inevitable; it is an ideological choice. It is time to change that choice for the benefit of the striking workers who want to resume their jobs serving the people of Birmingham—people who are suffering at the moment, as outlined by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, because of the choices being made by the council.

17:18

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am a trade unionist and a Unite member. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a trade union lawyer, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), in my many years as a member of the trade union movement I never came across anything like this.

Back in 2009, the then Conservative-Lib Dem-Green-run Leeds city council tried to take up to a third of the pay away from Leeds refuse workers. What flowed from that was a strike by GMB and Unison members against that swingeing, unfair pay cut that lasted for three months—the longest continuous dispute in Yorkshire since the miners’ strike. That dispute ended successfully for the workers. What we have here is a dispute that has lasted for 10 months, and from the outside people are wondering why on earth it has not settled. But we know why.

A ballpark figured was agreed, but the leadership of the council, and, crucially, the commissioners—unelected, of course—stepped in to block that deal, so the strike continues, with all that means for the workers and the residents of the fine city of Birmingham. We need to put it very clearly on the record that to expect refuse workers, drivers and loaders doing an important job to accept a pay cut of up to £8,000—which can be up to a quarter of their wages—is simply unacceptable.

I know, of course, the history of Birmingham city council as a Labour council. However, if Labour colleagues and trade unionists stepped back from that background, more and more colleagues would be speaking out against it. One of the mottoes of the trade union movement is “an injury to one is an injury to all”, and that applies whichever party’s leadership is running the council.

I pay tribute not only to the striking workers, because it is not easy to go on strike and people do not do it unless it is a last resort—whatever the newspapers and right-wing politicians might say—but also to the agency refuse workers who are now on strike.

[Tahir Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the narrative played out by the leadership of the council is that the dispute will have a huge impact on equal pay? If that is the case, just as Unite has published the KC’s advice, should the council not show the public its own advice so that we can all see what it has received?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend, himself a diligent and passionate Birmingham MP, makes a very important point. I agree with him that, if the council leadership or the commissioners have that legal advice, they should indeed publish it, because the advice of Unite’s King’s counsel, Oliver Segal, is very clear and runs contrary to the representations made by the other side.

We know what the block is. We know the awful position faced by workers in Birmingham—a pay cut of up to £8,000. We know the awful situation faced by Birmingham residents. It seems to me that this is a matter for all trade unionists across the country, who want to see a fair resolution to the dispute. It is so frustrating to see that it was so close, but was scuppered, it seems, by the leadership of the council and by the commissioners.

What can unblock that blockage? What can see things return to how they should be, and what can result in a fair resolution for workers and residents? Only intervention from the Government can do that. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government should get involved, unblock that process and help to fairly end this dispute. That, I think, is what the public want and what trade unionists want.

I want to finish by paying tribute to members of Unite the union who have been on strike since March. They will not like the inconvenience that is inevitably caused by strikes to local residents, because they live there too. Too often, when people talk about trade unionists and workers, they talk about them as if they are not local residents themselves—and they are. Those Birmingham residents should not be asked to take pay cuts of up to £8,000. They cannot afford it, especially in this cost of living crisis. They are right to step up to the plate to defend their working terms and conditions and pay, not just for themselves but for others. This is not a dispute to try to get a pay rise; it is about defending pay at a time when people need it more than they have done for decades because of the cost of living crisis.

I pay tribute to those people and to trade unionists from other trade unions who have shown real solidarity with these workers, in the best traditions of the labour and trade union movement. I hope the Minister, when she responds, can give us some hope that the Government will intervene and bring a fair end to this dispute.

17:24

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

Birmingham is the city where I was born and raised, and the one that I have had the privilege to represent for the past eight years. It is a proud, resilient city of hard-working families, students, older people, businesses and communities who care deeply about the place they call home. Yet for more than a year, those communities have been living with a broken waste collection service: overflowing bins, rising fly-tipping and streets that do not feel clean or safe. These are not minor inconveniences; they are public health risks, environmental hazards and a source of stress for many families, for those with mobility challenges, for older residents and for everyone who cares about their neighbourhood.

Last year I wrote to the council, urging it to declare a public health emergency, and it did so. That declaration allowed the Government to provide logistical support and for waste to be collected. But the reality is that the dispute has dragged on for far too long, and residents are paying the price. We need to be honest about how we got here. Years of Conservative austerity and underfunding of local government hollowed out councils such as Birmingham, with nearly £1 billion of funding having been cut since 2010, the workforce halved, services that people relied on stretched and resilience stripped away.

On top of that, historical equal pay liabilities—some dating back decades—have placed immense pressure on the council’s finances. Those pressures are not abstract numbers. They shape whether residents get their bins emptied, whether streets are clean and whether public services can function effectively. That context matters, because it explains why any solution now must be sustainable. It is about fairness: fairness for women in being paid the same as men, and fairness for the citizens of Birmingham in knowing that their money is being spent on the services they need.

Let me be clear about my position: I am on the side of Birmingham’s residents. I am not here to take sides between the council and the union, or to attack anyone involved. My concern is the people who live, work and raise families in our city, and who depend on a clean and reliable waste service. I support the transformation of Birmingham’s waste service because, before the industrial action began, I regularly received complaints from constituents about missed collections. Residents and businesses deserve a service that is modern, reliable and in line with other major cities.

[Tahir Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. On fairness of pay, does she agree that we should not be equalising downwards, but that women’s pay should be equalised up to what men are paid?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Prior to coming to this place, I worked for the city council for many years. I saw the impact of equal pay liabilities, and how they cripple public finances and the very services that the last Labour Government invested in. Children’s services were decommissioned and youth services were stripped away, and many of my communities do not want to see our city council’s public finances go in the same direction. That is why the council must take legal advice, and the right steps, to agree and come to a settled negotiation.

The council does now have a plan for transformation, including a new fleet of council-owned vehicles, changes to how services will be monitored and a phased roll-out of a new collection model from June 2026. But transformation cannot mean endless disruption, and it cannot come at the cost of reopening equal pay liabilities, which would put the council back into crisis and risk hundreds of millions more being taken away from public services—this is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about.

Our Government also have a role to play. Having raised the issue of fair funding for Birmingham with Ministers, I was pleased to see that the local government finance settlement will increase the council’s core spending power by more than £650 million over the next three years. Ministers must now also hold Birmingham’s commissioners to account; they must bring both sides back to the table and reach a negotiated settlement. Leadership and accountability are required at every level.

Next week, I will meet directly with Unite workers to hear their perspective, to understand the challenges they face and make sure that their voices are a part of any solution. Let me be clear that residents, not politics, must be the priority. My message to all parties is simple: “Enough is enough. It is time to return to the table in good faith. It is time for negotiation, compromise and delivery.” The council, the commissioners, the workers and the union leadership all have a responsibility to make that happen. The Government must ensure that the conditions are in place for a settlement to succeed, alongside holding commissioners to account, and secure agreement, not stalemate.

Birmingham is a proud city, and its people are patient, but that patience has been tested long enough. It is time to end this dispute and restore a reliable waste service that puts residents and businesses first.

17:29

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is an ardent and extremely consistent advocate for Birmingham despite not being a Member of Parliament for the city. Her constituency borders Birmingham, and she has highlighted the devastating impact that the bin strikes have been having on her constituents.

Earlier this month marked one year since the bin strikes began, yet the council walked out of negotiations in the summer. It has made absolutely no effort to secure a negotiated settlement to the dispute. For more than a year, Birmingham city council has continued in its pursuit to cut the pay of essential workers. After bankrupting the city, it is diverting what little taxpayer money it has available and using it, not to reverse some of the budget cuts it installed, but to prolong a process that has caused rubbish to pile up in our streets. At no point has the council leadership—or this Government–– done the one thing it should have all along and admitted who is truly at fault for stalling negotiations, inflicting misery upon residents and prolonging this saga.

It was a Labour-run council whose incompetence bankrupted the city before passing a budget that slashed public services by £300 million, raised council tax bills by 18% and made the cuts to the waste management service that triggered the dispute. It was a Labour-run council that stood idly by while the deal put forward by its own managing director was vetoed by the Government-appointed commissioners, and it is a Labour-run council that has refused to re-enter negotiations for six months, even as the agency staff it hired to replace the striking workers have joined the picket line in droves.

Reports due before Birmingham city council show that attempts to break the bin strikes have already cost more than £33 million. That figure includes lost income from waste services, emergency street cleansing, security and temporary facilities. Even that figure is likely to underestimate the true cost once spending on agency staff and contractors is fully accounted for. While that is happening, nearly £20 million of those costs are being met by cutting spending elsewhere, placing further strain on already underfunded services and raising a fundamental question about value for money. A dispute that could have been resolved at a fraction of the cost has been allowed to spiral into a financial and service delivery disaster.

While the council drags its feet on reaching a deal that it has spent inordinate amounts of money to avoid, it is the residents who are harmed the most. It is the residents who are being asked to tolerate collapsing services while tens of millions of pounds are burned on band-aid solutions. Across the city, most have gone weeks —sometimes even months—without a single bin collection. Piles of waste have become the new normal. As the streets grow dirtier, fly-tipping has surged, unchecked and unchallenged. On many occasions, I have been out late at night, side by side with local community organisations, collecting rubbish from the streets of Birmingham. For more than a year now, my constituents have filled in where the council is nowhere to be seen, doing the job it has failed to do. The situation has got so bad that some feel it is right to blame local residents for not taking it on themselves.

Let me be clear: the people of Birmingham take pride in their communities. They care about their streets, their neighbours and their city just as much as anyone else. They do not deserve to be scapegoated for a mess that is not of their making. The blame lies squarely with the Labour-run council, which has broken the social contract between itself and Birmingham’s 1.2 million residents. It took taxpayer’s money to deliver essential services and failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It did not need to come to this. A proactive council would have sat down, found a solution and put residents first. Instead, it has let things deteriorate to the point that the Army has had to be called in to clean our streets.

This situation exposes the limits of pretending that this is purely a local matter. The Government have repeatedly shirked responsibility by claiming that this is a matter for the local authorities, but Birmingham city council is under a statutory intervention. Government-appointed commissioners are involved in improving outcomes, yet Ministers have repeatedly sought to distance themselves from responsibility. If the Government have a role in overseeing decisions, they also have a responsibility to ensure that those decisions are not prolonging misery or unnecessarily inflating costs.

Ultimately, Birmingham’s residents want two things: to have their bins collected safely and reliably, and to be confident that their money is not being squandered through mismanagement at a local and national level. If the council and Government cannot manage even to consider a negotiated settlement, it will be the residents who are forced to pay for their mistakes. As I have repeatedly asked in the main Chamber, I ask the Minister whether the Government will now ask Birmingham city council leaders to sit at the table with Unite the union and come to a resolution, so that residents can have a proper bin service?

17:35

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate.

I am a proud trade unionist, and I declare my membership of Unite the union. For generations, trade unions have fought for workers’ rights against right-wing Governments, which always have the richest and most powerful economic interests behind them and are often supported and propped up by a hostile media. Having an ideologically right-wing Government as one’s opponent is, in some ways, rather easy; working-class people can generally recognise that a Conservative Government will be diametrically opposed to their interests.

But the British political landscape is changing. Now, working-class people also need to appreciate that any future Reform Government would be no friend of theirs. Reform was bitterly against the Employment Rights Act 2025, though its Members are not in the Chamber today—and when we look at its latest recruits, it is abundantly clear that they are no friends of working-class communities. But, as a trade unionist and as a proud Labour party member, what really devastates me is that the Labour party under the current national leadership is abandoning the bin workers of Birmingham. For a party born out of the trade union movement to imagine that it is okay for workers to receive an £8,000 pay cut is nothing short of a betrayal of what a proud Labour party should always stand for.

As Gordon Brown once said:

“Leaders come and leaders go”.

But the mission remains the same. At one time in the dispute, Unite were making progress with the Birmingham city council managing director, Joanne Roney. Unite states that she met with general secretary Sharon Graham in ACAS talks last summer. They discussed a “ballpark agreement” that both sides could work with as the basis of a written deal, and agreed to meet again in two days’ time.

Joanne Roney then delayed the meeting, messaging:

“I need some more time to deal with the commissioners. I’ve asked the team to keep you informed and ACAS advised. Not clear on the issues but you know the discussion is not just resting with me...also the commissioners...it needs wider approval. Frustrating for us all.”

Then she went quiet for three weeks. Finally, she messaged again:

“Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. It’s been a challenge for me, it’s not how I usually do business and I share your frustration. However, I now have an offer for you to consider and will meet on Sunday, I am free after 5, I hope you know I fought really hard for this offer which is the closest I can get to what we discussed.”

Finally, there was a second meeting, with a written offer agreed by the Government-imposed commissioners, but it was much lower than the ballpark deal, and was by no means a fair offer. Members should bear in mind that workers are getting a pay cut of up to £8,000. The council presented this as a “take it or leave it” offer, then stopped talks and sent out redundancy letters in July. It has not come back to talks since then.

All this time, while thinking it is acceptable for working people to become poorer by thousands of pounds, Birmingham city council are spending millions on the dispute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, more than £20 million has already been spent on the strike, including on lost revenue and agency fees. How much does a fair deal cost, Minister? What farcical behaviour from Birmingham council, the commissioners and, frankly, any political administration at any level of government that claims to be left wing and socialist in its nature. The truth is that I do not care about the Tories or Reform. I know what they both are. I know who they represent in this place, just like I know what and who the Labour party should always stand for.

As well as asking what a fair deal would cost, I put the following questions to the Minister. Does she think that working-class people should be £8,000 worse off? Does she agree with agency and contract workers being used to break a strike? Does she have any appreciation that the Labour party is facing electoral oblivion in Birmingham, and that the polling from Scotland and Wales before the devolved Parliament elections in May looks dire? Does the Minister not see that issues like this in Birmingham, cutting welfare to disabled people, letting down WASPI women, delaying the Hillsborough law, trying to limit people’s right to protest and removing citizens’ right to trial by jury are not the policies and actions of the real Labour party?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Brian Leishman]

I will.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Before you do, I think we are going off topic. Can we keep to the topic?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I say gently and respectfully to my hon. Friend, who is not from Birmingham, that given that I was born and raised there and have represented a seat for eight years, I can see the difference that the Labour Government are making after the impact of austerity, when nearly £1 billion was taken from the largest council in Europe. Pride in Place money is being given to Woodgate and Bartley Green, an area with a high population of people not in education, employment or training. It is about investing in our communities. My hon. Friend is doing a disservice to the Labour-run Birmingham council and the Government. Since coming to power, they have been trying to make a difference for the communities I represent.

[Brian Leishman]

I might not be from Birmingham, as people can tell from my accent, but what I am is a trade unionist. This involves trade union disputes. I am also here to represent not only the communities of Alloa and Grangemouth but the wider working class, including the working class of Birmingham, and it is undoubtedly working-class people—the bin strikers and their families—who are being impacted. No one in this Chamber or in this place should have any doubt that they have my full solidarity.

My final question to the Minister is this: will she tell the leadership that the grassroots members in constituency Labour parties up and down the country think that the commitment to socialist ideals and principles is something we should make and actually be proud of? History shows that Labour Governments do not come around that often, but when they do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) said, working-class people absolutely do benefit. I make no apologies. We have done good things in government, but I am greedy. After 14 years of Conservative austerity, I want more, and I make no apologies for that.

17:43

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for introducing this important debate.

I note with dismay that as Birmingham’s bin strike reaches its first anniversary, the people of Birmingham continue to pay the price. The fundamental cause of the current dispute, and the pay cuts and the reduction in pay progression, lies in the Labour council’s settlement of the 2017 bin strike. That caused the equal pay claims, which forced two section 114 notices on to the city council in 2023.

But the Conservatives should check their own record. For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less. Since then, the people of Birmingham have had to suffer what Councillor Paul Tilsley referred to as the four horsemen of the apocalypse: council tax hikes, significant service reductions, the sale of important city assets, and hundred of staff redundancies. Last March, a major incident was declared due to the 17,000 tonnes of uncollected waste.

Furthermore, there has been a revolving door of senior management for around a decade. As senior managers have left for jobs elsewhere, the residents of Birmingham have been left to foot the bill. As my Liberal Democrat colleague and Birmingham city councillor Deborah Harries said:

“The very least a citizen can expect from their council, in return for paying their council tax, is for their bin to be collected.”

That basic service has not been delivered in Birmingham for more than a year, despite residents’ being asked to pay a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, on the back of a 10% increase last year.

Currently, agency crews are collecting residents’ general waste every week, but recycling and garden waste collections are suspended, leaving families with more rubbish than they can contend with.

[Ayoub Khan]

Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is not just the lack of green and recyclable waste collections, but that communities who live in inner-city areas, where more individuals live in a particular home and that home is terraced, suffer most?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I understand that recycling is now at 15% in this authority; given that there have been no weekly recycling collections for almost a year, it is a surprise that any recycling gets done. Perhaps it is the result of the good work of residents, who are doing their best to take rubbish to the tips, despite the failings of the council and the Government. Missed collections and overflowing communal bins for flats are all too common, waste to landfill has doubled and recycling rates have crashed. Sadly, I suspect that Birmingham might now be the worst-performing authority for recycling in the country.

Fly-tipping is another recurring issue, not only in Birmingham but across the west midlands, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. Rubbish, furniture, electrical goods and all sorts of waste get dumped on the streets of our cities, on lay-bys and on farmland. That matters deeply to our constituents. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to commit to proper community policing, and to a rural crime strategy that includes fly-tipping. Will the Minister set out steps to help support local authorities and enforcement agencies to tackle that environmental crime?

Back in Birmingham, the Liberal Democrat group leader on the council, Councillor Roger Harmer, informed me that there have been no negotiations since July 2025. The council and Unite are in deadlock, and Unite’s mandate for industrial action is active until at least March 2026. I say to my Labour colleagues that talks are needed urgently, as the alternative is the strike continuing into the summer, which would not benefit anyone.

In two of the 10 constituencies in the council area, over half of children are living in poverty. The financial fallout of the bin strikes and the cumulative financial crises of the council are being felt in the hungry bellies of increasing numbers of children. I hope that the councillors, trade unionists and the Government keep those children and their parents in mind and make a renewed effort to end this crisis.

The deadlock must end, and Birmingham’s Labour councillors need to get around the table to negotiate, or step aside to make space for those who will. Likewise, the Government must tackle the funding crisis in local government, and they must get a grip on adult and children’s social care, on provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and on the prevention of homelessness to help alleviate the financial burden on councils.

17:49

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. She is an absolute champion for her local area, and I know how hard she has worked to secure this debate on Government support for waste collections in Birmingham and the west midlands—a debate that could have been completely avoided, had the Government done due diligence on ensuring that local authorities deliver for local communities.

A person is in a topsy-turvy world when they find themselves in utter agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but that is the situation I find myself in this afternoon. In response to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I say that despite his passionate speech, he does not have a monopoly on representing working-class people. I happen to represent lots of working-class people and am working class myself. It was because I am working class that I joined the Conservative party. The hon. Member talks about the electoral oblivion of the Labour party. I suggest that it is socialist speeches of the 1980s that will destine the Labour party to electoral oblivion, not the current policies that they are putting out today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is absolutely right to bring forward this issue today. Quite frankly, it is a national embarrassment that one of our nation’s greatest cities—indeed, the second largest in the country—is facing a situation like this. As my hon. Friend said, the “squeaky blinders” are running freely down the streets and into piles of rubbish found outside hard-working people’s homes. I certainly would not want to see rats in my street, and I am sure that all Members taking part in this debate can absolutely agree with that. What is just as embarrassing is that, on a local and national level, the Government and Labour-run Birmingham city council have failed to address the situation soon enough.

As has already been mentioned here today, the waste management dispute began in March 2025, with some residents having had no collections since Christmas 2024. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is now January 2026 and the Government have stood idly by. This Government shamefully still fail to recognise the importance of this issue. On 13 January they referred to the waste dispute as a “local issue” and left it to their failing colleagues at Birmingham city council. The industrial action taking place in Birmingham has left residents without their rubbish collected for well over a year. That is simply not good enough; it is chaotic and shambolic.

The issue is much more than bins not being collected; as colleagues have highlighted, there are serious implications for public health. As the hon. Member for Leeds East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, there are commissioners in Birmingham city council, and the Government put those commissioners into the local authority. The Government have legislative cover to commission and start talks for negotiations to end the strike. So far, the political leadership of this Government have determined not to do that. That is a stain on the character of this Government, and it has caused a reduction in services for the people of the great city of Birmingham.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills outlined, the fiscal ineptitude of Birmingham city council is deeply concerning. It has allowed taxes to soar and effectively bankrupted itself through extra spending and the using up of its reserves. In other words, it has deeply let down residents in Birmingham and the west midlands. There is a clear need for Government intervention. Instead, Birmingham is set to receive one of the most generous payouts from the Government’s unfair funding review—a review designed to benefit poorly run, Labour-run urban councils. That narrative explains itself.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something fundamentally wrong when a council like Birmingham city council has been almost rewarded in its funding settlement for failure?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend has made that point expertly. That is also on the back of a 7.5% increase in council tax after a previous 10% increase.

Finally, after that intervention, I would like to piggyback on my right hon. Friend and thank local Conservative councils, particularly Walsall, and recognise the work of Keep Britian Tidy and the individual volunteers who my right hon. Friend mentioned, who go to their communities to clear rubbish. It is great to hear that there are still individuals who take pride in what their local area looks like and who want to protect nature and work together towards a greener future. I am delighted that Aldridge-Brownhills will have a new household waste recycling centre and a waste transfer station opening next month, and that it will actively help reduce landfill waste and increase recycling.

To conclude, I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend and, it turns out this afternoon, also Members from across the House, who say that waste collections are a fundamental service. That is fact. It is paramount that the Government take decisive action to resolve the ongoing waste management saga in Birmingham and the west midlands. That has been clearly called for from all quarters—the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and independent Members, and us as the official Opposition. They all want to see leadership from the Government to control the people that they put in to control that local authority, to bring them to the table. I encourage the Minister to do that, because this problem has simply gone on for too long.

17:54

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue.

I share the concerns and frustrations that have surfaced in the debate. The industrial action has gone on far too long. The ongoing disruption is not in anybody’s interests: it is holding back the great city of Birmingham, a city that I am incredibly fond of, and the people of Birmingham, who deserve better. It is the people of Birmingham who matter: it is their voices that must be heard, and they should be at the centre of the resolution of the dispute.

I have heard the points made by all Members, and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) says. Birmingham is a city that its people are deeply proud of, and they deserve to be. She was right to mention the funding settlement that we have just awarded to Birmingham city.

I want to address directly a point that has just been raised. The reason why Birmingham is seeing a core spending power increase of 45% under this Government is not that it is some kind of reward for what has happened there. That is ridiculous. The reason is that we are reconnecting council funding with deprivation—with poverty. We are reversing what we saw under the Tories, which was town halls dealing with the worst of austerity, and the places that had the least being hit the worst. That is going to change, because we need to sort out poverty in this country. We cannot do that without a town hall that has the resources that it needs to help people. That is why we are changing it. I do not take kindly to the idea that we should not help councils to tackle poverty in this country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Labour Members fully agree with the Minister on that point, certainly. I refer to my registered interest as a member of Unite.

As time is limited, will the Minister address the key question that several Members have put to her? The Government have a specific, special role in this matter. It is not like other disputes between the council and a workforce: because of the role of commissioners appointed by the Government, there is a responsibility that falls on the Government’s shoulders.

There will be a major picket on 30 January that trade unionists will be coming to from across the country, to support their comrades—their brothers and sisters—in the dispute in Birmingham. I will be going as well. There is a limited time in which that picket could be made redundant if the Government convened a meeting of all the parties concerned. It behoves the Government to do so, because it seems as though it is the commissioners who are blocking the settlement. I urge the Minister to convene that meeting and get people round the table, because I think a negotiated deal could be forthcoming as a result.

[Alison McGovern]

My right hon. Friend spells out the situation: clearly the Government are not the employer but, given that we have commissioners, we will want to hear regularly about what is happening in Birmingham. I will come to that point later.

The Government are not a party to the ongoing dispute. It is an issue for the parties involved to work towards a sustainable solution, notwithstanding the question I have just been asked and my response—given the arrangements with commissioners, I will want to hear from them directly. The Government have that responsibility because of the decision that was taken.

I call on all involved to end the disruption. Last spring, the Government took action to avert a public health crisis, as a number of Members have mentioned, and supported the council in clearing the streets. As a result, the council was able to remove thousands of tonnes of waste from the street and restart regular kerbside collections. As a result, thankfully, we have not seen a return to the crisis that the city faced last spring, and the waste has not piled up to dangerous levels. The council and my Department will continue to monitor the situation closely and ensure that waste does not build up again. It is important to note that although residual waste is now being collected regularly, recycling remains suspended, as Members have said. That situation must change.

[Wendy Morton]

To be absolutely clear, if the Minister thinks that waste is not piling up, does she think that the situation in Birmingham is acceptable?

[Alison McGovern]

No, not at all. I have set out my opinion that this needs to be brought to an end. Members have set out the consequences for the residents of Birmingham, for staff and for others, including the right hon. Member’s constituents. Of course the strike needs to be brought to an end; the point I was making is that the Government took steps to bring a public health crisis to a close.

Government commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. In their most recent report, the commissioners highlighted the positive progress that the council has made in key areas—we needed to see progress on other issues as well, not just the dispute—but they noted that the dispute has consumed council time, diverted attention and slowed overall progress. That is a real concern for me. The council still has work to do towards financial sustainability. Given the points made by the commissioners, we all want to see things brought to an end. As I say, I will want to hear regularly from the commissioners about the progress.

In recent weeks, the city has faced additional strike action by agency workers in waste. As I understand it, and as Members have mentioned, a small number of agency workers began a separate strike on 1 December due to alleged bullying and harassment. I am sure that everyone here will agree that bullying and harassment are totally unacceptable, so the council and the agency, who are the employers, must address the issue.

Since the new year, some disruption has been caused by recent snowfall across the midlands, and there have been issues at council depots, but I am told that the council has plans in place to resolve any backlogs created. Disruption at pickets has also been a big factor affecting waste collection, since contingency arrangements were put in place. I understand that Unite the union has acknowledged and apologised for that behaviour, which no one wants to see repeated.

In recent months, Unite has urged the council to come to the table to find a way forward to end the strike. I am obviously extremely sympathetic to that goal, as I have mentioned on a couple of occasions. The council has duties and responsibilities beyond the industrial action. I support the leader of the city council, John Cotton, in his position that any solution to end the strike must be both lawful and financially viable. We all want a resolution to be found.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will, briefly.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

The intervention needs to be short.

[John McDonnell]

It is almost heartbreaking to witness this happening. It is pure sophistry to say that the Government do not have a role or that they have no locus. The Government appointed the commissioners, who report to them. I appeal to the Minister: simply get people in the same room, because a deal is available.

[Alison McGovern]

All the parties will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, what I have said, and the priority that we put on getting a decent service for the residents of Birmingham and getting staff in a position where they can do their jobs. We all support that, and everyone will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly on that point?

[Alison McGovern]

Very briefly, although I am conscious of your strictures, Ms McVey.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister answer this question for me? Since she or even her predecessor took office, what specific advice has she sought from officials to see whether she has the cover—as a Minister of the Crown, through legislation—to get those people in a room? Does she or do the Government have that power?

[Alison McGovern]

I have received advice from the commissioners and others on the situation in Birmingham. I will happily set that out for the shadow Minister. He will know that the commissioners have the responsibility to produce reports and so on. The relationship between commissioners and the Government is well understood, but I will happily write to him with the detail.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will not give way any more, because I feel that would test your patience, Ms McVey. I have set out a range of responses to Members’ points.

Members have also raised the equal pay challenges that Birmingham has faced over the past 15 years, which have cost the council and the residents of Birmingham more than £1 billion. Commissioners are now in place to deal with the situation. In October last year, the council signed an agreement with unions to settle historical pay claims, which was a significant step forward. Members will appreciate that the council cannot reopen this by incurring any new equal pay liabilities or perpetuate any further discrimination.

Birmingham’s overall waste service has not been good enough for a long time, despite the very hard-working staff. Collections have been inconsistent and recycling rates have been low since long before the dispute began. Members have talked through these issues. I understand that the council is trying to move forward and make sure that it delivers for Birmingham, as it must do and as it wants to do. I am sure that we all share that goal, despite the different perspectives that have been aired. As I say, I will meet commissioners and local leaders as necessary to progress towards that goal.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part. Birmingham deserves a waste service that works, it deserves a council that can support all its needs, and it deserves an end to the uncertainty that has overshadowed the city for too long. I am pleased that the new funding settlement will invest in Birmingham, because Birmingham people deserve much better. Working together, I am sure that we can see Birmingham move past this, be the proud city it deserves to be, and make sure that the people there come first.

18:06

[Wendy Morton]

I thank all Members, across Westminster Hall, for their contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says, it feels like a topsy-turvy world of politics when we agree on a certain topic, but it shows that occasionally it can be done. That said, the message is very clear: the people of Birmingham and the wider west midlands deserve better. Our collective message to the Government is also very clear: “Get a grip, Minister. Get everyone around the table. Bring an end to this strike, once and for all. For the sake of the city, the wider west midlands, the residents and our constituents, please take responsibility.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

18:07

Sitting adjourned.