House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Last week I visited Kyiv to mark the fourth anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As well as meeting President Zelensky and his Ministers, I spoke to civilians, who have been targeted throughout the war, and I told them that Britain continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and its future, and threats to its security are also threats to the security of Europe and the UK. That is why we stand with Ukraine.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, we salute the fortitude and bravery of the Ukrainian people. As we see conflicts open up elsewhere in the world, particularly the current situation in the middle east, how do we ensure that Ukraine continues to receive all the support it needs to determine its own future, and that the future of the Ukrainian people does not slip down the agenda, leading to another frozen conflict?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the importance of continuing our focus on Ukraine. This is about our security, as well as Ukraine’s security. That is why last week I announced additional support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Russia, particularly on its oil and gas system and its shadow fleet. That is why we are also continuing to provide Ukraine with significant military support. We will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes.
Rachel Gilmour
I would like to declare that I returned from Ukraine last week—I was part of a cross-party delegation—and my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect that.
The newspapers and the television are this week full of pictures of people hunkering in bunkers in the middle east, but it is worth remembering that the people of Ukraine have been doing that for the past four years. The Foreign Secretary will of course be aware of the close relationship between Moscow and Tehran. Russia continues to deploy Iranian-manufactured Shahed drones to terrorise Ukraine’s population. With the crisis in the middle east intensifying, will she set out how the Government now assess the implications of these recent developments for Russia’s war in Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to point out that Iran has been a key enabler of Russia’s war in Ukraine by providing thousands of the Shahed-type drones used to inflict terror on the Ukrainian people, which are now being used to launch indiscriminate attacks across the middle east and the Gulf. That is why we are working with Ukrainian expertise to provide support for partners in the Gulf. We also recognise the importance of continuing to provide that support and working to develop that expertise with Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have shown remarkable resilience, and they have been underestimated for too long.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), I would like to note that my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect the support of the UK Friends of Ukraine for our visit last week.
It was very good to see the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv last Tuesday for the very sad commemoration of the fourth year of the full-scale invasion. As the Ukrainian people have reminded us time and again, it is not just about territory; it is about their very identity. On our visit, we heard about the appalling inhumane treatment of Ukrainians who have been taken as prisoners of war by Putin. There have been constant violations of the Geneva conventions, including reports of torture and near starvation. What talks has the Foreign Secretary had and what more can she do to raise this issue in international circles and put pressure on the Russian regime to treat prisoners more humanely?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The fact that there was such a strong cross-party delegation to Ukraine for the fourth anniversary of the invasion showed the cross-party commitment to supporting Ukraine. Like her, I met those who had the most horrendous stories of having been held and detained during the war by Russian troops, and of having been tortured. We are providing support for survivors and to secure evidence that could be used in future prosecutions, because we must hold the perpetrators to account.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the importance of Russian oil and gas and the need to disrupt the activities of the shadow fleet. Will she confirm that she is working with allies to ensure that as much as possible is being done to stop people using Russian oil and gas, because of how important it is to reduce the cash flows that are behind Russia’s war effort?
Yvette Cooper
I confirm that we are doing exactly that. We have raised that in discussions with colleagues and partners right around the world, because we know that Russia has continued to use oil and gas to fuel its war machine. That is also why we are strengthening the operations, sanctions and pressure on the Russian shadow fleet. We will also continue to pursue further action. We would like to see international support for a maritime services ban.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.
Yvette Cooper
On my visit to Kyiv last week, I announced nearly 300 new sanctions to target Russian revenue streams and military supply chains. More broadly, we are targeting not just the shadow fleet and the oil and gas companies in Russia directly, but those who might support them in third countries. That was our largest Russian sanctions package since 2022, and it is important that we get other countries to support that as well.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK strongly condemns the expansion of illegal settlements and the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that introduced sweeping extensions to their control of the west bank. These actions threaten peace and stability and undermine the 20-point plan. They risk making a two-state solution impossible to achieve. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, they must stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and they must stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer, but since December 2015, 19 new settlements have been approved, bringing the coalition’s total to 68 in three years and around 210 overall, housing 750,000 settlers. Last month, the Israeli Cabinet approved measures to designate large areas as state property and resume land registration in area C—de jure annexation. Those steps defy International Court of Justice advisory opinions and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Given the scale of sanctions that the UK is willing to impose on Russia, when will the Government impose meaningful trade measures, arms controls and sanctions that match the scale of Israel’s illegal actions?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right in his characterisation of the increase in settlements. That increase has been accompanied by a very concerning increase in settler violence. I know that many hon. Members will have been shocked by the footage they have seen of these incidents. The Foreign Secretary raised those issues directly, including the risks of instability that they cause, with Israel’s Foreign Minister Sa’ar in New York last month. We will not accept attempts to advance settlement expansion under the cover of regional instability. We will consider concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter the expansion.
Caroline Voaden
Last year, the Israeli Government issued nearly 10,000 units of settlement housing tenders, which was more than the combined total of tenders over the previous six years. The extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet clearly have the explicit intention of undermining any prospect of a viable Palestinian state, let alone a two-state solution. The Minister said that he condemns the expansion and is considering actions to take, but will he do the right thing now and introduce a full ban on all trade with illegal settlements in the west bank, to show that this Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
The Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution; it has been at the heart of our policy in relation to Israel and Palestine for the entire duration of our time in government. As the hon. Lady will know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and announced three waves of sanctions, and I am sure that she will have listened carefully to my remarks in answer to the previous question.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question; I know she is extremely focused, rightly, on the deterioration of the situation in the west bank. She focuses correctly on the threat of annexation. We oppose that absolutely, as do our American counter-parts, as I am sure she is aware. I am not in a position to provide further commentary on what the steps I alluded to might yet be, for the reasons that we have rehearsed in this Chamber many times. We have taken action, including the three rounds of sanctions that I described, and we will continue to take action while the situation continues to deteriorate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right: Israel must stop. What estimate has he made of the time that we have before a separate Palestinian state becomes, geographically and economically, utterly untenable?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Member and my predecessor for that important question. We have pointed to a whole range of areas of concern in relation to the viability of a Palestinian state. One that has not received mention so far in our exchanges, but which is vital, is the E1 development. The British Government are deeply concerned by the speed with which the Israeli Government are proceeding with a project that we completely oppose. It is clearly designed to try to split two parts of a contiguous Palestinian territory. We oppose it, and we will continue to do so.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?
Mr Falconer
As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I wish to clarify quickly. The British Government oppose forced displacement in Palestine, and that is our long-held position. While we are due to update Parliament on the wider issues posed by the ICJ advisory opinion, I would not wish for there to be any ambiguity about our position. We oppose forcible displacement and, of course, there must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed right across Palestinian and Israeli territory.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.
Mr Falconer
We have taken a range of steps and we continue to take steps, including raising those issues both with our partners and directly with the Israeli Government.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
When I visited the Sudan border a month ago, I promised the women that I met in the Adré camp that I would take their voice to the United Nations, and that the world needed to listen to Sudanese women, not to the military men who perpetuate this war. That is what I did two weeks ago, when I chaired a dedicated session of the United Nations Security Council, where we considered the horrendous fact-finding mission’s report on El Fasher and ensured that Sudanese women’s voices could be heard. As I told the Council members, we need a renewed effort from across the globe to end this brutal war.
Kate Osamor
With half of Sudan’s population under 18 and millions of children growing up amid widespread violence, Sudan is confronting what many now describe as the world’s largest child protection emergency. In that context, what concrete steps will the Department take to promote and defend the UN’s children and armed conflict mandate, so that the protection of children in Sudan remains a sustained diplomatic priority across the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that we continue to champion the UN children and armed conflict mandate and its monitoring work. It is clear that children are the innocent victims of this horrendous and brutal war, and that is why the world must not look away from Sudan. It is why we need a ceasefire, it is why we need to prevent the arms flows, and it is why we need to continue the humanitarian support from across the globe.
Irene Campbell
We know that conflict can dis-proportionately affect women and children and exacerbate gender-based violence. We cannot let this crisis in Sudan be ignored. There has been an alarming rise in gender-based violence and sexual abuse against women and girls. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps her Department is taking to tackle this horrific abuse against women and girls in Sudan at this time of conflict?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right; the scale of the use of rape as a weapon of war in Sudan is truly horrific. Two weeks ago, prior to the Security Council briefing, I convened an event in New York in the UN building to include four women speakers who have been working to tackle sexual violence in Sudan, and also to hear, through video testimony, from a Sudanese woman who has been working to tackle the levels of sexual violence and provide support to survivors in Chad. I have announced a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan. The voices of Sudanese women must be heard.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?
Yvette Cooper
I will certainly look further at the evidence and the horrendous accounts that the right hon. Member describes. We are establishing, with international partners, a coalition for atrocity prevention and justice to work on Sudan and to work together on preventing atrocities and gathering evidence. We have been pursuing some of the findings in the UN’s report on El Fasher, which talked about systematic starvation, torture, killings, rape and deliberate ethnic targeting. The right hon. Member has added a further horrendous account to that, which is why it is important not only to pursue these atrocities but to ensure that there is basic humanitarian support. That is why we are prioritising Sudan for humanitarian support as well.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has referred to the UN report published on 19 February, which said that the horrific events in El Fasher bore all the “hallmarks of genocide”. Does she agree with that assessment?
Yvette Cooper
The account in that report is truly appalling and shocking. It describes deliberate ethnic targeting of particular groups, as well as some of the most horrendous torture, and the use of rape as a weapon of conflict. The long-standing position of successive British Governments is that any formal determination on genocide is a matter for the courts. However, we should be clear that the evidence of atrocities committed by the armed forces across Sudan is staggering and horrendous, and the perpetrators must be held to account.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The UK-United States relationship has been a cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it. The Foreign Secretary and I have regular and wide-ranging discussions with our counterparts. Indeed, in the past week, we have discussed economic ties with governors from across the United States. The Business and Trade Secretary speaks regularly with his US counterparts—including, most recently, the trade representative—to reinforce the importance of delivering on our economic prosperity deal.
Blake Stephenson
Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?
Stephen Doughty
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our relationship with the United States is strong; it has endured, continues to endure, and will endure into the future on the economic and security fronts. We were the first to strike a deal with the US Administration, which removed tariffs on UK aerospace exports and secured reduced tariffs for cars. That saved manufacturers hundreds of millions and protected jobs across this country.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
China’s imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong has significantly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. We remain deeply concerned about that. Our most recent assessment was set out in the last six-monthly report on Hong Kong to Parliament in October, and the next report will be published soon. On his recent visit to Beijing, the Prime Minister raised our concerns at the highest level, including with President Xi, about the situation in Hong Kong and about Jimmy Lai’s case specifically.
Adam Thompson
Many people who have come to us from Hong Kong have made their home in Long Eaton in my constituency. Their children are thriving in our local schools, new businesses are being established, and a vibrant community is taking shape. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, in partnership with local councils and Members of this House, to support the continued integration of Hongkongers into our towns and communities, and to ensure that those who have chosen to settle in Long Eaton feel fully welcomed as part of our community?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his constituency work. I am proud that the UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021. We will continue unequivocally to uphold our commitment to them. As he will know, their contribution enriches our economy and our society, including in Long Eaton. We remain committed to ensuring that they feel safe, supported and valued. Indeed, for five years, the welcome programme has delivered successful integration for the British national overseas community, and mainstream provisions will continue to be available.
Daniel Francis
In addition to the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, there remains evidence of transnational repression against Hong Kong nationals living overseas, including here in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister update us on the work being done on that issue across Government Departments, and on the measures that she is pursuing to end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices in the UK?
Seema Malhotra
Any attempts by foreign Governments to intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the United Kingdom are protected by law. Ministers have raised those issues—including the arrest warrants placed on individuals in the United Kingdom by Hong Kong police—with the Chinese authorities. It is important to note that training and guidance on state threat activity is now being offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just raised a case that I am aware of. I do not want to steal her thunder on that, but I will say that there is a real issue with what is happening in Hong Kong. China has trashed the Sino-British agreement. Hong Kong no longer uses common law, and every single system is being abused. When will the Government deal with these deficiencies by sanctioning somebody? America has sanctioned many people. Many other countries have too, but the UK, which used to run Hong Kong, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Surely we should do so now.
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will be aware that our concerns in relation to China’s breach of the Sino-British declaration are laid out clearly in our six-monthly report on Hong Kong. There will be a further report coming shortly, but Hong Kong is required to ensure, for example, that national security legislation upholds rights and freedoms, as is set out in the Basic Law. Indeed, we have repeatedly called on Beijing to repeal the national security law and release all individuals charged under it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bounties have been placed on the heads of pro-democracy activists living in Hong Kong—a shocking act of transnational aggression. May I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and ask: when will the Government use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners? It is time that we used those sanctions.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm those in the UK are utterly unacceptable. Indeed, these arrest warrants and bounties encourage reckless behaviour on UK soil, and damage Hong Kong’s international reputation. It is important that we continue to address these issues, and we will look further at the situation. We will publish our six-monthly report on Hong Kong soon.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was
“a complete success with fruitful results”
for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had many meetings with counterparts on very important issues of national and international security in Munich, and raised a number of issues, including Jimmy Lai. The Conservatives were in charge for 14 years, and they had almost as many different policies on China during that time. They talked about state threats, but delayed the essential reform of our outdated security laws. In May 2021, the shadow Foreign Secretary launched her consultation on the new legislation, but it took more than two years to get the National Security Act 2023 passed into law, leaving our country without the powers needed to prosecute such cases.
Priti Patel
Clearly, the Minister is desperate, and is having to go backwards, rather than moving forwards to address the situation. For her information, China oppresses Hongkongers, refuses to free Jimmy Lai and supports Russia and Iran in their barbaric actions to undermine freedom and democracy. Those are issues that the Government should take a grip of now. China plots, spies and undermines our security. Rather than kowtowing to China, when will her Government wake up, deal with the threat posed by the CCP, and put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? When will she start taking action and expel CCP diplomats, to show our disgust at their appalling actions when it comes to transnational repression?
Seema Malhotra
The Government have not yet made any decision about whether China will be added to the enhanced tier, but the right hon. Lady will know that we condemn in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. This issue remains a priority for this Government, and she is fully aware of that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The hon. Member refers to sections 3 and 8 of the UK’s 2025 UK-Palestine MOU, which is clear on our commitment to supporting the PA’s reform agenda on education. We welcome President Abbas’s pledge in 2025 to continue reforms in line with UNESCO standards. The Foreign Secretary and I have pressed him and Prime Minister Mustafa on this personally. An external review has been commissioned to verify the implementation of those reform commitments. I will report to the House on our assessment when it is completed in the coming months.
Jack Rankin
The Palestinian Authority have given the British Government repeated assurances that textbooks are being reformed, which one would have thought would be a minimum requirement for the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, in my office, I have an Arabic-language textbook, currently in use on the west bank, that describes Arab fighters using “explosive belts” to
“turn their bodies into fire burning the Zionist tank”.
That is accompanied by an image of a gunman shooting Jews riding a tank. The book is aimed at 14-year-olds. Is the Minister aware that this is going on, and does he have any faith that the Palestinian Authority can change their ways?
Mr Falconer
As I said, there will be an external assessment. I am aware that the process of education reform, which is being led by some of our friends in the European Union, is happening grade by grade. As I understand it, there has been considerable progress on grade 12, and they are looking at some of the other grades. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to send me the textbook, to confirm which grade it relates to.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I accept that there are problems with the curriculum in Palestinian schools, but the eyes of the world are now distracted, and settlement expansion continues, as far as we can tell. I am concerned that when the dust settles and the rubble is cleared, the viability of the Palestinian state will be significantly jeopardised. Does the Minister share my firm belief that what is going on does not really represent the will of the Israeli people?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks. He is right that violent settlement expansion is not the will of most Israelis; polling reflects that time and again. As the Israeli public approach Israeli elections, I hope that there will be a discussion in Israel about the appalling nature of this violence and this expansion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Palestinian Authority continue to show an absolute disregard for the MOU, with deeply disturbing and antisemitic content still being promoted in Palestinian schools. How are the UK Government monitoring this, and ensuring that no UK taxpayer money is being used to fund that? With “pay for slay” continuing, will the Minister tell the House if he raised these concerns with the Palestinian Authority when he met their ambassador last week? What is his assessment of the payments being made? What direct action is he taking to stop “pay for slay”, such as withholding payments until this vile practice ceases?
Mr Falconer
I have tried to answer as precisely as possible on all the sections of the MOU. If the right hon. Lady has a particular area that she would like to raise, I am happy to address it, as I did the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I can confirm that I raised these questions in my most recent interaction with the Palestinian ambassador. She refers to what is sometimes described in public as “pay to slay”—the Tamkeen system. That is being externally audited by a United States auditor. Once we have that audit, we will be in a position to provide a further update to the House.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
The UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated persecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. We continue to call for his immediate release, and for giving him full access to independent medical professionals and all necessary treatment. The Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi in January, and we will continue to raise at every opportunity.
Gregory Stafford
Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?
Seema Malhotra
We continue to keep sanctions under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate on any future designations, since doing so could reduce their impact, as the hon. Member knows. However, although we will not get into the details of any private discussions on Jimmy Lai, the Government will continue to raise his case at every opportunity, as the Foreign Secretary, the previous Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong have attended all court proceedings, and continue to press for consular access.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Sticking with detentions in China, last week I had the great honour of meeting Grace Jin Drexel, the daughter of pastor Ezra Jin, who—along with 18 other pastors from Zion House Church—was arrested and detained by the Chinese authorities last October on the very vague charge of illegal use of information online. Basically, they had an online church service. What can the Government do to advocate for the release of all the Zion House Church leaders, and to promote freedom of religion or belief for all people in China?
Seema Malhotra
Reports from within China about the detention of Zion House Church leaders are a very worrying indication of further persecution of Christians in China. This Government continue to engage with China on the issue of human rights and freedom of belief. We will continue to champion freedom of religion and belief for all and uphold the right to that universal freedom through our positions at the UN and in the G7, as well as through our bilateral engagements.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I welcome the progress that many overseas territories have made on financial transparency. St Helena, Montserrat and Gibraltar now have fully public registers of beneficial ownership, while the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have implemented legitimate interest access registers. However, I have also been clear with those overseas territories where progress has not been quick or comprehensive enough, including the British Virgin Islands, and at the joint ministerial council in November, I pressed for further progress, and agreed to provide technical-level support for that work. We will reconvene later this month to assess the latest position, and we reserve the right to consider all options, if progress is not made. Of course, we prefer to work in constructive co-operation, recognising the wide range of constitutional arrangements, but there are crucial issues here for tackling illicit finance, and for our national security.
Steff Aquarone
Perhaps I can help with that assessment. Transparency International uncovered at least 160 cases since 2022 of luxury yachts being transferred into or out of Russia that were registered to companies in British overseas territories. While the brave Ukrainians are defending their country from a brutal invasion, Putin’s cronies are joyriding their multimillion-pound yachts, enabled by the likes of the BVI. Does this sicken the Foreign Secretary and the Minister as much as it sickens me, and can the Minister tell certain overseas territories that we are fed up with their excuses and their shielding of evil regimes and tax dodgers, and that they must deliver transparency now?
Stephen Doughty
I welcome the work of Transparency International and others in shedding light on these issues. Those are exactly the concerns that I have raised directly with overseas territories’ Governments and have expressed in this place, and we will work to ensure rapid progress on these issues.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
Tens of thousands of children have been killed, injured, orphaned, or separated from their family during this conflict. The UK has medically evacuated 50 children for treatment in the UK, but help on the required scale can only be delivered on the ground in Gaza. We are providing £81 million in humanitarian and early recovery support this year, including social protection services, which have so far supported over 335,000 Palestinian children.
Mrs Blundell
It is estimated that 40,000 children in Gaza have lost either one or both of their parents in the appalling war of recent years, leaving many as orphans without the love and protection that they need in one of the most dangerous places on the planet. As crisis engulfs the region once again and vital aid is still being blocked, what assurances can the Minister give that the UK will play a leading role in supporting those children in the long term, after all the horrors they have had to endure?
Chris Elmore
International NGOs remain indispensable to the UN-led humanitarian response, and we have supported key INGO partners, including through the Disasters Emergency Committee. In January, we marked the UK’s £3 million aid match for the middle east appeal. In total, we have provided £13 million since the appeal began. On 30 December last year, the UK led a statement with nine other countries to underline the vital role that INGOs play in Palestine. We continue to engage those organisations that have been impacted by new registration requirements, and we have raised that issue directly with the Government of Israel.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Amid the illegal attack on Iran by America and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has closed all the border crossings into Gaza. What does the Minister know of this? Food and humanitarian aid are once again being blocked.
Chris Elmore
We would like all borders, including Rafah, to be open as quickly as possible and not in a phased process. We are making representations to the Israeli Government in that regard.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
In recent days, we have seen Iran attack multiple countries that did not attack it. Just as Iran is a threat to the region and to the UK’s allies, it is also a threat to its own people. Time and again, it has responded to legitimate protests with brutal violence, as we saw in January when thousands of protesters were killed. That is why last month, alongside international partners, the UK led efforts to secure a special session of the UN Human Rights Council and imposed a sweeping package of sanctions to hold Iran to account for its human rights violations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out the action we are taking in response to Iran’s attacks on Gulf partners, where UK citizens are currently residing.
Mark Sewards
Not content with suppressing its own people, the Iranian regime now lashes out at civilians and our allies across the region. The new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires and responsible for the repression of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022 in Iran. I urge the Foreign Secretary to urge the Home Secretary to implement the Jonathan Hall framework, so that we can proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible. Will she implement sanctions on those responsible for the bloody crackdowns in Iran, including Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary, I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review exactly because I thought that the legislation might need to be strengthened. He has concluded that it needs to be strengthened to broaden existing counter-terrorism legislation to include state and state-linked threats. We will be taking that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that we keep all proscription decisions under close review.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When some of us campaigned for Hezbollah to be proscribed in full, Foreign Office officials and others said that it was impossible, because it would harm diplomatic relations. That was overcome. The same spurious argument was made with respect to Hamas. That was overcome. Imagine how foolish our country would look today if we had not proscribed Hezbollah and Hamas in full. The same argument has been made by the last Government and by this Government with respect to the IRGC. Will the Foreign Secretary be clear that she will not stand in the way of the full proscription of the IRGC, so that these dangerous criminals who harm our own people and our allies around the world have no place and no home in the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the right hon. Member that I take the threats on UK streets immensely seriously, but he was a Home Office Minister and a Cabinet Minister during an entire period when we saw Iran-backed threats on UK streets. He did nothing to strengthen the legislation in so many years in government. This Government are now taking forward measures to strengthen that legislation.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is currently unclear whether the turmoil unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral military action will bring freedom and security for Iranians who deserve a better future, but we can be certain that the IRGC will seek to crush domestic opposition and, if given the chance, export terror abroad—and that includes the United Kingdom’s streets. Members of the Iranian diaspora here, and the UK’s Jewish community, have expressed their fears of attack. May I echo the words of Members on both sides of the House, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will work with her colleagues in heeding the calls of the Liberal Democrats and other parties for emergency legislation to enact the recommendations of the Hall review and proscribe the IRGC?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that we are taking forward the legislation that Jonathan Hall has recommended, but I also tell him that we take immensely seriously any Iran-backed threats on UK streets, which is why our counter-terrorism police work extremely closely with our security services. They are pursuing live cases, and have been for some time, where Iran is suspected of being involved, and they will continue to do so, to keep all our communities safe, but particularly our Jewish communities that have been so targeted.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the conflict in the middle east and the Gulf. Overnight, we have continued to see Iranian strikes on Gulf nations.
The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority, and I want to update the House on support for British citizens who are in the region. As of this morning, 130,000 British nationals have signed up to the “register your presence” programme, which is vital to the FCDO’s ability to know where people are and to provide updates and advice. As Members will be aware, the airspace is still closed in many of these countries, but I am in close contact with my counterparts across the region. Yesterday, I spoke again to the United Arab Emirates about the excellent support that it is providing, and the departures that it is now securing as they become viable.
We are also working with airlines on increasing capacity out of Muscat for British nationals, with priority being given to vulnerable nationals. A Government charter flight will leave Muscat in the coming days, prioritising those vulnerable nationals. However, British nationals in Oman must wait to be contacted by the Foreign Office about these options. We will continue to work 24/7 on supporting British nationals in the region. This is a very fast-moving situation, and we have unprecedented numbers of British nationals in the region. I will continue to update Members and affected British nationals as the situation evolves.
Lauren Edwards
We are all deeply concerned about the escalating situation in the Gulf. Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with her counterparts in the US, Europe or Israel about measures to secure any nuclear or radiological material in Iran, in the light of the possibility of its trafficking as a result of current events?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is extremely important to ensure that Iran is not able to develop a nuclear weapon, and there are obviously concerns about the security of materials as well. Obviously, we continue to work closely with our operational partners on this issue.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions.
Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I point out that we have had a record number of former Home Office Ministers—both Conservatives and former Conservatives—coming forward to call for things that they failed to do while they were in government. I say to the right hon. Lady that this Government are determined to introduce legislation to take forward the Jonathan Hall review, but it is legislation that the Conservative Government could have delivered over their very many years in office. We will also strengthen the action on the Iranian threat on our streets and internationally.
Priti Patel
Events in the middle east remind us how important to our collective defence and security the Diego Garcia base and the whole of the Chagos archipelago are, and nothing should be done to undermine that. Given the latest comments from the President of the United States on the importance of the base and on the folly of giving sovereignty away, will the Foreign Secretary finally do what is right for the defence of our country, British taxpayers and British Chagossians and tear up Labour’s terrible Chagos surrender treaty?
Yvette Cooper
I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that this Government believe that decisions should be made in the UK’s national interest and according to UK values, not according to any other Government’s national interest, whether in Europe, the US, the middle east or beyond. We will take decisions on the Chagos islands in the interests of our national security. She knows the national security issues that are at stake here. Instead of simply travelling round the world trying to undermine the UK’s national security and the decisions that we are taking, perhaps she should start standing up for the UK’s national interest.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I want to praise the UK armed forces in Akrotiri for their huge professionalism, and for the work that they do to defend the UK’s national security. We have already increased the deployment, with additional defensive capabilities including radar, F-35 jets, and air defence and counter-drone systems, and we work closely with the Cypriot Government on safety and security issues.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister argued that the Government were distinguishing between defensive and offensive operations by US bombers making use of UK bases. On issues of such gravity, clarity is essential to avoid mission creep. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will agree the target, and monitor the outcome, of each of these US sorties? Will the Government report those to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and can she confirm that if one were found to have hit anything other than a missile battery or missile store, the UK would suspend its agreement for the use of its bases?
Yvette Cooper
We have long-standing operational arrangements for partners and allies with which we work closely, and we ensure that those are implemented. The principles that we follow are about ensuring that there is a lawful basis for action and that it is in the UK’s interest. At a time when we have seen strikes from the Iranian regime on countries that were not involved in this conflict and where 300,000 British citizens are currently resident, I think we would find it extremely difficult to justify not taking action to support and protect British citizens who might be threatened with attack.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
The UK’s task must always be to act in the UK’s national interest according to UK values, but at the heart of that national interest and those values are things such as the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance—as well as our partnership with other European countries and other countries on our defence.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
What I can tell the hon. Member is that we take the safety of UK personnel immensely seriously, and I pay tribute to their service for our country. That is why we have already increased deployments to ensure that there is added radar and air protection in Cyprus, for example. We will always continue to take safety seriously and ensure that operational matters are dealt with in the normal way.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We are absolutely committed to strengthening our defence co-operation with the EU and European partners, but with NATO of course as the bedrock. We negotiated in good faith on SAFE, but the terms were not in the UK’s national interest, but we will continue to engage constructively across a range of areas of co-operation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I assure the hon. Member and the House that we are prioritising those areas of continued support in the health sphere of development funding.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Chris Elmore
We take this extremely seriously. Journalists on frontlines across the world are often how we find out where atrocities have taken place. Tomorrow I am hosting a Media Freedoms Coalition discussion, and I reassure my hon. Friend that this will always remain a priority for the UK Government.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Member for his question. [Interruption.] Tomorrow is estimates day, and perhaps he would like to raise it then. On the wider point, he and I have been in correspondence, and discussions about these costs are ongoing.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Chris Elmore
Improving road safety is a global challenge. Every year, 1.2 million people die on the roads—it is the biggest killer of young people. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House’s attention. Through the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK contributes £12.5 million to the Global Road Safety Facility and is represented on its partnership council, and we continue to work on this truly important issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have spoken many times about the risks to children in the west bank and Gaza. It is a priority for this Government. We raise it regularly with our Israeli counterparts, and I am familiar with the report the hon. Lady references.
Spring Forecast
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government have the right economic plan for our country, a plan that is—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, both sides, if you are not interested, you don’t have to stay in the Chamber. I am interested, my constituents are interested, and your constituents are interested as well.
Rachel Reeves
A plan that is even more important in a world that has become yet more uncertain in the last few days. With unfolding conflict in Iran and the middle east, it is incumbent on me and on this Government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and to protect families from the turbulence we see beyond our borders.
I want to express my gratitude to members of our armed forces as they serve across the globe to protect our country. I want to reassure this House that I am in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, with my international counterparts and with key affected industries, including our maritime sector. Tomorrow I will meet our North sea industry leaders to discuss the implications they face and work with them to manage this uncertain period.
In an increasingly dangerous world, I am proud to be the Chancellor that is delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war, with £650 million committed in January to upgrade our Typhoon fighter jets, a new Royal Navy frigate launched from Rosyth last week and, just yesterday, our £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo.
I am in no doubt about Britain’s ability to navigate the challenges we face. The plan that I have been driving forward since the election is the right one: stability in our public finances, investment in our infrastructure, including our armed forces, and reform to Britain’s economy. It is a plan to reshape our economy and break with the failed ideas of the past: building growth on not just the contribution of a few people in a few places, but in every part of Britain, with a state that does not stand back but steps up; strengthening our trading relationships and our alliances; creating capacity in our economy through affordable housing, better transport and free childcare; and being an active and strategic state, building growth and economic security in an uncertain world.
Stability is the single most important precondition for economic growth. That is why we have committed to a single major fiscal event a year, limiting major policy changes to the Budget, and giving businesses and households the certainty they need. Today the new forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that our plan is the right one: inflation is down; borrowing is down; living standards are up; and the economy is growing.
This Government have restored economic stability. The previous Government allowed inflation to skyrocket to over 11%, stoked interest rates to 15-year highs and delivered the first Parliament on record where people were poorer at the end than at the start. That is the Conservatives’ record, and I recognise the impact it had on families. We promised change at the election, and I understand the responsibility on me to deliver that change. I know that the question that people will ask themselves at the next election is, “Are me and my family better off?” I am determined that the answer will be yes.
The change we promised has already started: there have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election—the fastest pace of reduction in 17 years—and inflation has fallen. For businesses, that means lower capital costs and greater certainty, and for families, it means more money in their pockets to spend in local shops and on the high street. Those interest rate cuts will save households over £1,300 a year on a typical new fixed-rate mortgage. Real wages have risen by more in the first 18 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the Tory Government.
At the Budget, I went further to deliver the change that people rightly demand. I extended the 5p cut in fuel duty for a further five months, froze prescription charges for the second year in a row and froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and I am taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In February, the Bank of England confirmed that inflation will fall faster because of the action I took at the Budget, and today the Office for Budget Responsibility expects inflation to come down even faster than it forecast in the autumn.
In the current global context, with the risk that rising energy prices will put upward pressure on inflation, the action that I have taken is even more crucial. Keeping inflation low and stable is the best way to support family incomes and reduce pressures on the cost of living.
But that is not all we have done: this Labour Government have funded 30 hours of free childcare for working families; we are rolling out free breakfast clubs at primary schools; and we are set to achieve the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began by reversing the shameful two-child limit imposed by the Conservatives. That is the moral choice, for the children who will no longer go to school hungry and for the women who will no longer suffer the grotesque indignity of the rape clause. Scrapping the two-child limit is an enduring investment in our children and in our future to realise the potential of young people that would otherwise be wasted.
The Tories have said that they would reinstate that destructive policy, and now Reform is saying exactly the same thing—two parties united in their intention to plunge nearly half a million children back into poverty at a single stroke. If you import failed Tory politicians, you get failed Tory policies too. Labour—and only Labour—has the right economic plan for our country. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Last year, we demonstrated the resilience of Britain’s economy in the face of global headwinds with the fastest growth of any G7 country in Europe. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has updated its growth forecasts, including reflecting lower net migration. Average growth across the forecast period is largely unchanged, while the OBR has adjusted the profile of GDP so that it grows slightly slower in 2026—[Interruption.] And then faster in both 2027 and 2028. GDP is forecast to grow by 1.1% in 2026, 1.6% in both 2027 and 2028 and 1.5% in both 2029 and 2030.
I have always said that growth is for a purpose—to make working people better off. I can confirm that GDP per person is set to grow more than was expected in the autumn, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. That compares with a fall in GDP per capita in the last Parliament. By the next election, after accounting for inflation, people are forecast to be £1,000 a year better off. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not hear the Opposition that time!
We promised change, and we are delivering that change. The economy is growing, living standards are rising and inflation has fallen, but I am not satisfied with those forecasts. I know that the economy is not yet working for everyone and that the deep economic scars left by the Conservative party and their mates in Reform are still blighting the lives of too many people.
In today’s forecasts, unemployment is set to peak later this year and then fall in every year of the forecast period, ending at 4.1%, which is lower than it was at the start of the Parliament. However, young people in particular are still suffering from the aftermath of years of Tory mismanagement. In the last five years of the previous Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training increased by 113,000. The number of inactive young people reached record highs under the Conservative Government, and over the last decade, apprenticeship starts by young people fell by 40%.
This Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. We are already taking action to prioritise young people with additional investment to reform apprenticeships and through the £820 million youth guarantee, providing young people with employment support and a guaranteed job. In the coming weeks, I will set out more reforms to undo the Tory legacy of neglect, and give young people the support and the opportunity that they deserve.
In the face of global uncertainty, we beat the forecasts last year. In the year ahead, the choices that we are making give me confidence that we will beat them again. In the year ahead, more of the choices that we have already made will come into effect: discounts on business energy costs; trade deals with India, the US and the EU; reforms to back our entrepreneurs; investment in our infrastructure; skills funding for further education; and more planning reforms—progress opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the Liberal Democrats, and opposed by the Green party too. It is Labour and only Labour that has the right plan for our country.
Our plan for growth is grounded in a profound rejection of the failed economic dogmas of the past—the trickle-down, trickle-out thinking that produced ever-diminishing returns for working people. I know that an economy cannot be working if it is delivering for only a few people in a few places; I know that it matters where things are made and who makes them; and I believe that the working people who keep our country moving deserve a fair day’s pay for an honest day’s work.
Since the election, I have been making the big choices that will bring about the deep structural changes that our economy needs so that it works again for working people: the choice to take on vested interests and back the builders, not the blockers; the choice to increase public investment and protect our public finances with new fiscal rules; and the choice to give people in all parts of our country the opportunities that they deserve by reforming the Treasury spending rules in the Green Book to unlock investment in all of our urban, rural and coastal communities. Those are the right choices for our country—for security, stability and growth. Today’s forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that they are starting to pay off. I am clear-eyed about where the opportunities for the British economy lie in this Parliament and beyond.
In my second Mais lecture in two weeks’ time, I will set out three major choices that will determine the course of our economy into the future: to go further in strengthening our global relationships, breaking down trade barriers and deepening alliances with our European partners for a more secure and connected economy; to go further in backing innovation and harnessing the power of AI, so that entrepreneurs and innovators thrive here in Britain, and so that working people reap the rewards; and to go further in transforming our economic geography so that we can build growth on a broad and stable basis, spreading opportunity and unlocking opportunity in every part of Britain.
I came into politics because I believe in Governments who stand up for working people; that everyone, no matter where they grow up, deserves security and a fair chance to achieve their potential; and that being able to manage the bills, afford a home and pay for a holiday should never be too much to ask. When Governments lose control of the economy, as the Tories did, it is working people who pay the price—in their pay packets, in their bills and in their mortgages.
That is what the Conservatives inflicted on working people over 14 years. We had austerity, which cut off investment; Brexit, which cut us off from our closest trading partners; and Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, cheered on by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—oh, he’s not here today. [Laughter.] Five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, and 11 plans for growth, and at the end of it all, it was the only Parliament on record where living standards were worse at the end than they were at the start, and there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.
And make no mistake, the Tory tribute act on the Reform UK Benches would do exactly the same thing. They may have changed the colour of their rosettes, but the British people will not forget that they are the exact same people who wrecked our public services and our public finances in the Tory Government—the same people, the same policies, and the same disastrous outcomes for working people.
The Tories left our country, our people and our allies exposed. They had no plan and no intention to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. Reform UK would go one step further, by ditching our allies and siding with Russia, while the Green party wants to take us out of NATO and jeopardise our alliances. Green Members are shaking their heads. I do not know if they have changed their policy, but it was to take us out of NATO. Let me be clear: it is Labour and only Labour that can provide social justice, national security and fiscal responsibility.
In its forecast today, the Office for Budget Responsibility shows that we are set to reduce borrowing by nearly £18 billion compared with the autumn. This year we are set to borrow less than the G7 average—something that the Tories never achieved in any of their 14 years. The forecast today shows that public sector net borrowing is set to fall from 4.3% this year to 3.6% next year, then to 2.9%, 2.5% and to 1.8% in 2029-30. Even after funding other measures announced since the Budget, including the new special educational needs system that was set out by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary last week, headroom against the stability rule in 2029-30 has increased from £21.7 billion to £23.6 billion, and headroom against the investment rule is also higher at £27.1 billion. Debt is now set to be lower in every year of the forecast compared with the autumn. It is because of the choices that I have made to keep our public finances stable and restore our credibility that we can invest in the priorities of working people. That means investment in our communities with Pride in Place; investment in our schools to fix crumbling classrooms and give every child the education that they deserve; and investment in our NHS, to bring waiting lists down and with a record cash settlement.
I have never accepted that we have to choose between social justice and fiscal responsibility, because there is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about spending £100 billion a year—that is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend—just paying the interest of the debt racked up by the Conservatives. After their disastrous mini-Budget, our debt interest rate soared towards the highest in the G7. From my Budget to this forecast, while average yields rose for the rest of the G7, yields on UK Government debt fell. The Tories squandered Britain’s credibility. My plan is rebuilding it.
Already, because of the action that I have taken, we are expected to spend nearly £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast in the autumn. If we stay the course and stick to our plan, and our debt interest returns to the G7 average—where it was before the Conservatives wrecked things with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—we will have £15 billion a year more for the priorities of working people and to make working people better off. That is the prize on offer. That is the prize within our grasp.
This is the right plan—a plan that is more necessary than ever before in a world of uncertainty. It is a plan for a stronger and more secure economy; inflation and interest rates falling; resilient public finances; and in every part of Britain working people better off. Every additional patient treated in an NHS hospital, every child lifted out of poverty, and every breakfast club in every school is because of the choices that we have taken and because I have the right plan for our country.
Let this House be in no doubt: every pound that we have invested, every pound in the pockets of working people, and every pound that we have secured in this forecast today can be wiped out by a change of course. We must reject a return to austerity, protect our public services and invest in Britain’s future. We must reject the temptation of easy answers and reckless borrowing, protect family finances and get the cost of living down. We must reject the political instability that would put at risk all the progress that we have made.
My plan is the right one. I am in no doubt about how great the rewards can be if we stay the course. The forecast today confirmed that the choices this Government have made are the right ones: stability in our public finances, interest rates and inflation falling, living standards rising, more children lifted out of poverty, more appointments in our NHS, more investment in our infrastructure, a growing economy, and more money in the pockets of working people. These are the right choices, this is the right plan, and I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Is that it? What utter complacency—a Chancellor in denial. She speaks of stability, but what planet is she on? She has lurched from putting up taxes to destroying growth and headroom, and then to coming back and putting up more taxes, with more growth destroyed. Round and round we go, like a fiscal twister, ripping up everything in its path. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will hear the shadow Chancellor. People need to recognise that there are two sides—let us hear the other side now.
Sir Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker; they just do not like the truth—that is the truth of it.
As our economy bleeds out, what does the right hon. Lady do? She comes to this House with nothing to say and with no plan—unless, of course, doing nothing is a cunning plan to avoid those U-turns further down the line. She is weak. She has even stripped the OBR of its ability to assess whether she is meeting her fiscal targets. Let it be remembered that at this time in this Chamber, this weak and chaotic Government gave up on the British people.
The right hon. Lady has nothing to say to us today. This is not a spring statement—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gardiner, I expect better. We have to listen to you on a Thursday night; I do not need to hear you now.
Sir Mel Stride
No, they do not like it, Mr Speaker; they do not like the truth.
This is not a spring statement. It is a surrender statement. The Chancellor has the temerity to suggest that she is creating the conditions for renewed growth. She is rather like a dodgy estate agent standing in a crumbling building with the roof gone, the windows gone and the floor gone, saying, “Just think of the potential.” But that potential has been undermined by the terrible state of our public finances.
When it comes to the deficit, the right hon. Lady knows that borrowing this year is almost double that which was forecast at the time of the general election. She knows that the forecasts are predicated on the numbers that she has given to the OBR, which it has to accept. That includes squeezing spending at the end of the Parliament, and raising taxes and energy bills at the same time. We know that is unrealistic, and the reason we know it is because she and the Prime Minister have no backbone when it comes to taking difficult decisions. That is what we saw before the Budget: winter fuel payment—U-turn; welfare reform—U-turn; two-child benefit cap—U-turn. It is what we saw in a short period after the Budget: farm tax—U-turn; family business tax—U-turn; public houses—U-turn.
On the deficit, when the right hon. Lady rises again, will she tell the House how she will fill the £6 billion black hole in the special educational needs and disabilities budget? She mentions, quite rightly, the Iran war and the greater threats that our country faces, but could she explain how she is going to fund what we have been urging: 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? How will she fund that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Seriously, we need to hear this—[Interruption.] Oh, I can help hon Members if they do not want to hear it.
Sir Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Lady says the cost of borrowing is coming down, but does she not know that the cost of borrowing in this country has been the highest in the G7 —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Somebody needs to switch their phone off; this is not acceptable.
Sir Mel Stride
Our borrowing is even higher than Greece’s. Indeed, if debt were a Department, it would be the third largest spending Department in Whitehall. That is money not going on the people’s priorities, but simply being flushed down the drain. The right hon. Lady puts great store in the latest forecasts on debt and says that it is coming down, compared with the forecasts back in the autumn, but if we strip away her dodgy definition of debt, we can see that it will be going up in just about every year of the forecast period.
The right hon. Lady has the audacity to praise her own performance. She points to growth, but does she not know that, only last month, the Bank of England downgraded growth for both this year and next year? A moment ago, she said that the Government had beaten the forecasts for growth from last year. The forecast at the beginning of last year was for 2% growth, but the growth outcome at the end of last year was 1.3%. By my mathematics, that is not an improvement. It should be of considerable concern to the entire House that the right hon. Lady clearly thinks that it is.
The right hon. Lady points to interest rates coming down, but does she not know that her ruinous inflationary policies have seen interest rates higher for longer, meaning more expensive mortgages for hundreds of thousands of people across our country? She was slightly coy about unemployment—because, of course, we know that it now stands at a five-year high. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has risen, and this Government are no exception.
The right hon. Lady is fond of saying that she is simply asking people to pay a little more tax. Well, I do not remember the taxman phoning me up and asking me if I would awfully mind paying a little more tax. And what does it mean? It means workers struggling, employers laying off staff, and tens of thousands of the most talented people in our country going to other places, where they believe the opportunities are greater. That is what a little more tax means. And what has that tax done? It has destroyed and deeply damaged entire sectors of our economy. Hospitality has seen almost 100,000 job losses since this Government came to office, and that has particularly impacted our youngest people.
Youth unemployment is the highest in Europe for the first time in a quarter of a century. The dreams, aspirations and hopes of young people—of all those bright young faces—have been smashed on the altar of the right hon. Lady’s incompetence. What is her message to young people today? Her message today has been that her so-called plan is working, but what is the reality? Inflation? Up. Borrowing? Up. Spending? Up. Tax? Up. Welfare? Up. Unemployment? Up. All this speaks to the weakness and chaos of this Government. Is it any wonder that her so-called plan is not working? Our energy costs are among the highest in the world, and yet she is doubling down on net zero. Given where we are, the first thing that the right hon. Lady should do is get rid of those taxes on North sea oil and allow us to start exploiting those opportunities.
We have a welfare bill that is spiralling ever upwards, but what does the right hon. Lady do? She removes the two-child benefit cap. We have taxes heading to the highest level in history because of her choices, destroying the futures of men, women and children right up and down our country—and there is no contrition, no apology and no plan to do anything about it.
It does not have to be this way. At our conference, we set out how we can control public spending with £47 billion of savings, especially on the welfare bill, with some £23 billion of savings. We are a party that believes in work, rather than benefits. We are a party that will do something about it. We are a party of work; Labour is the party of “Benefits Street”. We will bring taxes down to kick-start the economy, abolish stamp duty, scrap business rates for businesses on our high streets, and give our young people a £5,000 tax cut. We have a cheap power plan. We will fix student loans and invest in apprenticeships. Though our golden rule, we will get on top of the deficit and, by doing that, grow the economy.
That is our plan. What is the right hon. Lady’s plan? The truth is that she has no plan, or, as her Health Secretary said, there is
“no growth strategy at all”.
Even if she did have a plan, she would be too weak to deliver it, given the psychodramas swirling around No. 10, the almost daily scandals visiting the door of the Prime Minister, the sight of a person once at the highest level in the diplomatic service being carted away in a car by the police, and Back Benchers calling the shots. The Chancellor’s credibility has gone. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff has gone. His Cabinet Secretary has gone. But somehow the Chancellor hangs on.
Through the chaotic fog, the drums are drawing ever closer. The British people deserve so much better. So, for the hard-working people in our country crushed by taxes, for those denied employment, for the farmers and the family business owners who have suffered in fear for too long, for every hollowed-out high street, for every young person robbed of their future, for every elderly person struggling to survive and for the generations yet to come, we say: go!
Rachel Reeves
I know that the OBR did not publish the forecast until I sat down, but I still think the shadow Chancellor could have done a little bit better than that. To be honest, I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition was going to respond today; after that performance, I expect she does, too! [Hon. Members: “More!”] Don’t worry; I’ve got more.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives set out their economic policy at their conference a few weeks ago. Well, they had 14 years to set out their economic policy, and it is because of their economic policy that they are now sitting on the Opposition Benches. Today’s performance is yet another reminder of how irrelevant the Conservative party now is. I hate to break it to the shadow Chancellor, but people stopped listening to the Conservatives a long while ago. And we can see why: because whether it is in office or in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and his leader have been wrong about the economy time and time again. They opposed economic responsibility and backed Liz Truss—wrong. They opposed closer ties to Europe and backed Brexit—wrong. They opposed cuts in child poverty and want to repeat austerity: wrong values, wrong economics—they are just plain wrong.
After last year’s Budget, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader predicted with characteristic foresight that borrowing would increase every year. She was wrong: borrowing is now coming down faster. That is faster than under the Tories—well, that is not difficult, because under them it went up—it is faster than forecast in the autumn and it is faster than in any other G7 economy. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition told us that energy bills would rise. She was wrong; they are coming down by £117 next month. She also told us that there would be no more Tory defections to Reform. How is that one going?
Let me let me return to the substance of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks—although I have had to reduce this section somewhat! He mentioned student loans, but he neglected to mention that he was in the Government who tripled university tuition fees, froze thresholds and oversaw higher interest rates, which led to the problems we are in today. On special educational needs, the Conservatives left a system in utter crisis, as every parent, every child and every school will tell you, so we will take no lessons from them. But in terms of where the money is coming from, that is set out today in the documents. Of course, the shadow Chancellor does not know that because he did not even bother listening to my statement.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned defence, but he neglected to mention that it was his Government who left office without any plan to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is this Government, with me as Chancellor, who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned the welfare bill. I have to say that that was a little bit rich, because he neglected to mention that the welfare bill rose twice as fast in the last Parliament and that he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His Government broke the welfare system, and it is this Government who are fixing it.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned youth unemployment. As I said, there is more that needs to be done, after the Conservatives increased the number of young people not in education, employment or training by 113,000 and slashed the number of young people starting apprenticeships by 40%. We will take no lessons from them. They are the arsonists, not the fire brigade, and if they cannot be honest about the mess they made, no wonder they cannot recognise that we are fixing it.
Today’s forecast shows that debt is down, borrowing is down, inflation is down, and interest rates are down from 5.25%, where the Conservatives left them, to 3.75% today. And what about investment, living standards and growth? They are all up. Let me break it to the shadow Chancellor and to his leader: there is no blank page for the Tory party—no year zero. They gave us chaos and instability; Labour is fixing it. They gave us austerity; Labour is investing in Britain. They gave us 14 years of barely managed decline, and we are reversing it. We know that if they ever get the chance, they will do all of the same again: more chaos, more kids in poverty, and more and deeper cuts. It would be terrifying if there was any prospect at all that they would ever win an election again.
The Leader of the Opposition can keep turning up every week, but it is a total waste of time. Her party is the past and not the future. I do not know what is more pathetic: the culprits who jumped ship and joined Reform and its Russian mates, or the culprits who stayed in the Conservative party and pretended that the last 14 years never happened. Either way, the choices are clear: investment with Labour or austerity with the Conservatives; stability with Labour, or more chaos with the Conservatives—wrong leader, wrong choices, wrong plan. Only Labour has the right plan for our economy and for our country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have to say that the sound and fury from the shadow Chancellor is extraordinary, given that it was his Government who ran the country and its citizens into chaos, with interest rate and inflation increases under the Truss mini-Budget. I welcome today’s forecast partly because there has been so little speculation along the way, which I am sure the Chancellor, the markets, the public and businesses welcome. That is the stability and confidence that we need to see. The Chancellor laid out her three choices to promote growth. She will be appearing in front of the Select Committee next week, when we hope to probe her further. In the meantime, can she tell us which of those three areas to grow the British economy she is most excited about?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The biggest change that we can make is ensuring that growth takes place in all parts of our country, rather than just for a few people in a few parts of Britain. The changes to economic geography that we have started by changing the Green Book to give every part of our country the fair chance to get the investment and opportunity that they deserve mean that growth will benefit everybody, not just a small few.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The country is paying the price for two anti-growth Labour Budgets. Growth has flatlined, youth unemployment is up, and the cost of living crisis grinds on, pushing people and businesses to the brink. So we plead with the Chancellor: please, for the sake of our country, put a laser-like focus on getting a better trade and defence deal with Europe so that we can protect our country, get Britain growing again and end the cost of living crisis.
The Chancellor said that she will make an announcement about trade relationships in a couple of weeks, but the Government are already 18 months in. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to announce the Government’s intention to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union to kick-start growth, cut red tape for business and build ties with our reliable allies in the face of Trump’s chaos. Why didn’t she?
The spring statement comes at a critical time for our national and economic security. OBR projections will soon be out of date. Trump’s illegal actions in Iran this weekend will be felt in people’s pockets right here in Britain, with the cost of fuel and food set to rise. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to scrap the fuel duty hike, which is due this September. Why didn’t she?
Young people are angry and fed up. The next generation of young people could always expect that they would have a better life than the generation before, but that promise for today’s young people has been ripped away. Almost 1 million young people—the highest in more than 10 years—are now unemployed. We are facing a youth unemployment crisis. The Chancellor’s youth guarantee is simply a sticking plaster for the damage that has been done by the jobs tax. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to reverse the jobs tax changes that have undermined job opportunities for young people and part-time workers. Why didn’t she?
Graduates are being ripped off. They have studied hard—[Interruption.] Graduates are being ripped off—[Interruption.] They have studied hard, they have done everything they were told to do, but they are facing eye-watering repayment costs and they are struggling to get on in life. On this issue, it is a plague on all our houses—partisan point scoring does no favours to those young people. We have set out what we would do. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to end the repayment threshold freeze, putting £100 back in graduates’ pockets in the first year, rising to £210 in the third. Why didn’t she?
With great instability and conflict around the world and a move away from the rules-based system to great power politics, we must look urgently at building our national energy, defence and food security. In so doing, we can and must turn the necessity of building national resilience into strategic opportunities for economic growth. We welcome the fact that the Government have done a deal for helicopters with Leonardo, as a result of the calls from these Liberal Democrat Benches, especially hon. Friends from the south-west, who have raised this issue week in, week out. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to launch a new defence bonds programme as part of a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Why didn’t she?
Finally, I will come full circle. I said that the country has paid the price for two anti-growth Labour budgets. The OBR today is clear: the downgrade in growth in 2026 is bigger than the upgrade in the next two years combined. We have to stop the cycle of short-term Treasury tax grabs over long-term growth. Our United Kingdom is an amazing country and has enormous potential, but we cannot take that for granted. We must accept that we are stuck in a rut, in a doom loop of low economic growth, and that is a big problem. I urge the Chancellor to take the measures that I have outlined to protect our country, to get Britain growing again and to end the cost of living crisis.
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Member gives less an economic programme and more a wish list of things that she would like to see, without any means at all of paying for them. She seems oblivious to the things that the Government are doing. She says that we should have a closer relationship with Europe, and I agree—I said it in my speech—yet she omitted to mention that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have taken action, as the hon. Lady knows, with a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to back British agriculture and on Erasmus, and it is this Labour Government who are working with our EU neighbours to tackle illegal gangs and to improve our security.
The hon. Member calls for a big cut in taxes, but VAT at 20% as the standard rate is the rate the Liberal Democrats introduced when they were part of the coalition Government, and it has been ever since. We have provided £4.3 billion of support in business rates and further support for pubs and live music venues. If the Liberal Democrats want to deliver on this enormous unfunded promise, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell us which public services they would like to cut this time. They cut enough public services when they had a chance and were in office, but they are too scared to tell us which ones they would cut today. Is it the NHS? Is it schools? Is it investment in our regional transport infrastructure? Who knows? She will not tell us.
It is quite extraordinary to hear the Liberal Democrats having the nerve to raise student finance when they trebled tuition fees when they were in government and created the plan 2 scheme. In fact, it was a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State who oversaw that policy, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was in that Cabinet meeting when they signed off that decision. We will take no lectures from them about how to support our young people.
The hon. Lady says that they have set out what they would do on student finance. Is that a bit like what they did in 2010, when they set out what they were going to do on student finance? In 2010, what was it that they were going to do with tuition fees? I think I remember. That’s it: they were going to abolish tuition fees. But that is not what they did, is it? What did they do? Oh, they tripled them. Why should we believe a word that the hon. Lady says now on student finance?
Some of us have not forgotten that they teamed up with the Tories to cut our police, cut local government and cut our armed forces spending. We are dealing with the consequences. This is why we are investing in our public services: to fix the damage that they did with the Conservatives. What have they been doing? They are opposing our investment in the NHS, because that is what it means when they say they want to reverse the tax changes that we have brought in. The only reason we have £29 billion more a year to spend in the NHS is because of the tax changes that we made. The Liberal Democrats need to understand that they cannot have one without the other. They oppose our plans to build more homes. They oppose our plans to make work pay. They opposed VAT on private schools to help the 93% of kids in our state schools. They are simply not serious.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her strong statement and, in particular, for her words on deepening our alliances with our European partners. This is crucial for bringing down the cost of food and for healing the economic self-harm done by the Conservatives. The Bank of England has said that her cuts to energy bills will help bring inflation down to around its target from next month. Will she commit to going further and continue to shield our constituents from global price shocks?
Rachel Reeves
The Bank of England forecast that the actions that I took in the Budget last year would reduce inflation by around 0.4 percentage points, and that inflation will be back close to target from April. That reflects not just taking £150 off energy bills, but freezing prescription charges and rail fares. The events unfolding in Iran and the middle east have resulted, over the last couple of days, in gas prices going up by more than 60% and oil prices by more than 10%. That shows why our plan to take money off energy bills and ensure that our public finances are in a stronger place mean that we are in a better place than we would have been 18 months ago, after the mess left by the Conservatives.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Given what the Chancellor has just said about gas prices going up by nearly 50% in the past week, her Budget promise to reduce household energy bills by £150 will ring hollow for many people. If the cost of living is the real concern, is the biggest mistake not to increase taxes by £66 billion, which is the equivalent of nearly £2,300 per household? If that money is needed for public services, nearly all of that—£54 billion, in fact—could be got by reducing the welfare bill to 2019 levels. Is it sustainable to keep raising taxes on people in work in order to pay ever more benefits to people not in work?
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he left a massive black hole in the public finances. There had not been a spending review for years, and during that time inflation went through the roof because the Conservatives lost control of the public finances. We had to find the money to properly fund our national health service. It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to say that we should bring welfare spending down when it presided over a huge increase in welfare spending.
On the burden of taxation, our choices ensured that those with the broadest shoulders pay higher taxes. We got rid of the non-dom tax status and we are introducing the higher value council tax, VAT on private school fees and the energy profits levy. We are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay the higher prices, rather than allowing the increases in inflation and interest rates in the last Parliament, which hit working people.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The plan that the Chancellor has set out this afternoon shows that inflation, debt and bills are down, and that headroom, growth and living standards are up. That is testament to a plan for stability that is working, but that stability would be undermined if she surrendered to the idea of the £47 billion-worth of unfunded tax cuts set out by the Conservatives, so will she resist those calls? As fiscal headroom opens up, will she look again at what can be done to drive down energy costs for small business and genuinely reform business rates, so that we are backing our wealth creators, and not gambling with the public finances, as the Conservatives did?
Rachel Reeves
We are backing the innovators through the reforms that we made in the Budget last year to make it easier to list in London, and easier to raise finance in the UK. We have permanently changed business rates, so that we have a lower multiplier for high-street businesses and smaller businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We did that by putting £4.3 billion into the system. All of that money would have been withdrawn by the Conservatives.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Undoubtedly, every Government deals with different challenges, and I note that the Chancellor did not mention the challenge of covid in the last period of government. When I was in the Treasury, I did everything I could to support businesses with bounce back loans, and to support our public services, but clearly, covid significantly scarred the economy. When the Chancellor last stood at the Dispatch Box, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” said that growth this year would be 1.4%. It is now 1.1% and flat over the period. The big strategic choice that this Chancellor faces, as the world is different in her tenure in office, is whether she will grip welfare spending at a time of grave insecurity in the world, because an open promise to raise defence spending some time over a five-year period will not cut it for this country’s best interests.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the work that the previous Government did on covid, and of course it was right to support people with furlough and bounce back loans, but it was not right to hand money to friends and donors to the Conservatives through covid contracts. We are getting the money back that they wasted. I say again that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives—especially as the shadow Chancellor was previously the Work and Pensions Secretary—to talk about welfare spending when they presided over a 113,000 increase in young people not in education, employment or training. We have already made reforms to universal credit to narrow the gap between the health element and the standard element. That will ensure that more people are out looking for work, and employment has increased since the start of last year.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is a fundamental part of the British contract, but many self-employed people, and many of those on low wages, are paying to work because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has failed to update its mileage rates for 15 years, while the cost of petrol, road tax and the rest has increased significantly. Can the Chancellor do what the Conservatives failed to do, and ask HMRC to update its mileage rates, so that working people are not paying to go to work?
Rachel Reeves
I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the responsible Minister. I recognise that this is an issue; it is being raised with me by the trade union Unison, among others. This does not just affect self-employed people; it also affects other people in work.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In the three months to December, unemployment reached 5.2%, the highest rate for nearly five years, and youth unemployment has hit a staggering 16%. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses of all kinds across the country. The 2024 Budget added over £5 billion of employment costs on to retailers, almost half of which came from the changes to employer national insurance contributions, with the cost of employing a full-time worker in a retail job rising by 10%, and by 13% for those working part time. One in five people’s first job is in retail, so what steps are the Government taking to tackle these unaffordably high employment costs for the businesses that provide entry for young people into our job market?
Rachel Reeves
What the hon. Lady fails to mention is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that unemployment will come down in every year of the forecast, and will end at a lower rate than it started. It would be a bit more plausible for her to make these points if she did not oppose everything we are doing to grow the economy, whether that is constructing a third runway at Heathrow airport or building the homes that families desperately need.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The rail fare freeze benefits constituents who have seen rail fares rise by 60% since 2010. Also, the recent announcement of two new railway stations in Newport East is warmly welcomed. Can I encourage the Chancellor to continue to invest in Welsh transport infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
Constituents in my hon. Friend’s Newport constituency will benefit when they commute to work or college, or travel to meet friends in Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol and elsewhere. In addition, we are building new railway stations and investing in new transport infrastructure in Wales with the £450 million that we announced at the spending review last year.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Chancellor’s words on defence simply do not reflect the reality, at a time when the world has never felt more unstable. Every corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts. People in Gosport need only look out of their window to see that all our Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth harbour, and this is the first year since the 1980s that we have not had a ship in the Gulf, at a time when the middle east is a tinderbox. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on its knees, and defence companies are being tied up with bureaucracy, dither and delay. The Chancellor has mentioned a couple of contracts, but so many of them are bogged down with dither and delay from this Government. She is gaslighting the British people. This is a disaster for our defence, and for our armed forces. When will she face reality?
Rachel Reeves
I am the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending more on defence than the previous Government were spending. That is why I was able to announce a helicopter contract worth £1 billion yesterday. It is why a new frigate came from Rosyth last week, and it is why we have been able to invest in the Typhoon jets. I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, when we are increasing defence spending and they oversaw a cut.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the changes to the Green Book to support investment in coastal and rural areas. Can the Chancellor confirm that they will lead to investment in transport infrastructure in places like Cornwall, to support the investment being made in our industries, particularly the £50 million going into our critical minerals strategy?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done to promote the investment opportunities in Cornwall. The Green Book means that for the first time, different parts of the country—urban, rural and coastal communities—will all have a fair chance of getting the investment that they need. This Government’s critical minerals strategy will have a direct impact—it is already having it—on Cornwall, where the National Wealth Fund is investing in lithium and tin, as I saw at first hand when I was there last summer.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We have just heard a 40-minute, self-aggrandising monologue on how wonderful everything is in the economy. Does the Chancellor have any clue how her tone-deaf monologue will have landed in the real economy, where growth has been downgraded, unemployment is soaring and the cost of energy has just spiked? There was nothing in her statement about what she intends to do on a strategic level when energy goes to the price it was during the height of the Ukraine crisis. Rather than reading her pre-prepared SNP attack lines, will she guarantee that she will step in and protect bill payers if those prices endure?
Rachel Reeves
We have taken action to reduce energy bills by £150 from next month. As I said in my speech, because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, and the cuts in interest rates, in inflation and in the cost of Government borrowing, we are in a strong position to respond to the headwinds from the middle east and Iran.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The conflict in the middle east is a reminder of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which set the price of our energy bills for consumers and businesses; 80% of the time, gas sets the price of electricity. The £117 reduction in bills that the Chancellor announced in the Budget is welcome, but will she recommit to giving long-term stability to our energy prices, and to bringing bills down in the long term, by supporting investment in the generation of renewables and nuclear, in the expansion of the grid, and in battery storage, which will help domestic and industrial consumers at the same time?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that important question. He is absolutely right: whether through the successful auction round 7 that we have just completed for investment in new renewable energy, or through the planning reforms to make it even easier to build grid connections and wind farms, we are taking action to secure our energy supplies. Through the spending review last year, we invested in Sizewell C and small modular reactors, which will be built in Wales by Rolls-Royce.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Chancellor now accept that there is a correlation between increasing national insurance contributions on employers and higher unemployment, or does she still believe that those two things are not connected in any way?
Rachel Reeves
There is definitely a correlation between the number of years that the Conservatives are in office and how much worse off working people are.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and her commitment to growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. Could she set out in a little more detail what Barnett consequentials arise from her statement? Does she agree that it is increasingly important that, in May, we elect a Government who will spend that money wisely, which means electing a Labour Government in Holyrood, led by Anas Sarwar?
Rachel Reeves
In last year’s spending review, we set out a record settlement for the Scottish Government, as well as for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. I can tell the House and my hon. Friend that, because of the decisions that we are making, I am able to announce an additional £900 million in resource departmental expenditure limits spending, and £20 million in capital departmental expenditure limits spending, for the Scottish Government over the spending review period between 2026-27 and 2028-29. Like her, I very much hope that it will be Anas Sarwar and a Labour Government spending that money, rather than the SNP wasting it and presiding over longer NHS waiting lists.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor is like a rogue landlord who keeps squeezing the tenant with higher and higher rent, and all the while, the property is going to rack and ruin. I do not know who she is speaking to, but she needs to get out and talk to hard-working people who are hard up right now—people who are worried about their bills and the lack of good jobs—rather than the extremists she cosies up to for votes. The Chancellor’s next scheme for raising taxes on working people is to hike fuel duty at the pump. Will she cancel that measure, and give some relief to care workers, white van men and other hard-working people who get up in the morning and drive to work? They are the backbone of this economy.
Rachel Reeves
May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role? I know that it was not the first job that he wanted, or indeed the second, but he makes a spirited intervention none the less. I am not sure whether he shared that one with George Osborne. I can offer one piece of advice: the thing about betraying your party is that you have to stop asking your old friends for advice. Perhaps, given that the right hon. Gentleman called his new colleague “Zia Useless” a couple of months ago, he needs all the friends he can get. It might have been a couple of weeks ago, but he used to be in a party that, just three months after losing office, was going to get rid of the fuel duty support. That was in the plans that we inherited, and we scrapped them. [Interruption.] Conservatives Members say that is rubbish, but it was in their last Budget. Indeed, it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget and manifesto.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I absolutely agree that this year the British public will start to feel the difference that it makes to have a Labour Government. Will she expand on what she is doing to ensure that all dimensions of inequality—inequality of income, wealth, power and health—are tackled, and that the benefits are felt in all communities across the country?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR confirmed today that, by the end of this Parliament, people will be £1,000 a year better off. That is compared with the fall in living standards under the previous Government. My hon. Friend’s constituency benefits from Pride in Place funding, through which we are investing in the places that were forgotten about and left behind during 14 years of Conservative government.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope the Chancellor will accept that I have challenged successive Governments over inadequate defence spending. If she does, will she also accept that it is not a wise idea to keep comparing current defence spending with the levels of defence spending “since the cold war”? We are not in “since the cold war” now; we are in a hot war in Europe and an incendiary war in the middle east. Does she know what percentage of GDP Mrs Thatcher spent during the cold war years of the 1980s? I will give her a clue: it was twice what we spend now in terms of percentage of GDP.
Rachel Reeves
A year and a half ago, the right hon. Gentleman stood on a manifesto that had absolutely no explanation of how his party would increase defence spending. This Government have increased defence spending. I am surprised that he criticises that, rather than welcoming it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for outlining how we will finally turn the corner on the 14 years of suffering felt by many of my constituents and people across the country. Many people still complain about the cost of living, and they are impatient for change. I hope that, through what the Chancellor has set out this afternoon, we will start to see that turn. Rightly, we are seeing a change in business rates, but my constituent who owns Chocolate Dino has highlighted that central London rateable values are still high, while small business rates relief thresholds have remained static. That is having such a big impact on independent and small businesses. Can the Chancellor look into other areas to ensure that such businesses, which are the backbone of UK plc, can thrive?
Rachel Reeves
In my hon. Friend’s constituency, thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty from next month because this Labour Government have chosen to get rid of the two-child policy that was introduced by the Conservatives and supported by their Tory tribute act friends on the Reform Benches. On business rates, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade or a relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. The changes that we have made mean that there is a permanently lower multiplier for smaller businesses and high street businesses.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Many small and medium-sized enterprises add value to our towns and villages, but I am concerned about their survival. The Community Waffle House in Axminster is a community interest company that is struggling under the pressure of last year’s national insurance increases. Waffle Axminster boasts £3.9 million in public sector cost avoidance and value created, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wellbeing valuation for reduced loneliness. Will the Chancellor consider VAT relief to take account of the public sector cost avoidance by that CIC and other hospitality businesses?
Rachel Reeves
This Labour Government have permanently reduced the multiplier faced by small businesses and high street businesses—the business rates system that we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman mentions VAT. When Labour left office in 2010, VAT was 17.5%, and the Conservative Government, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, increased it to 20%. It has been there for 15 years. If his party wants to cut taxes, it also has to explain which public services it is going to cut. We have increased spending on the health service by £29 billion. That was the right decision, but it was only possible because of the tax decisions we have made.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The stability the Chancellor has brought back to our economy has allowed us to allocate record levels of infrastructure investment. Alongside the Green Book review, this creates the conditions for meaningful investment in previously left-behind places like Lancashire. Yet, as the review highlights, places like Lancashire that do not yet have a mayor can lack the capacity and capability to bring forward fully investable business cases. In recent months, myself, Lancashire colleagues and leaders of Lancashire combined authority have written to the Government asking for interim capacity funding to develop fully investable proposals. The need is urgent, so will the Chancellor meet me and colleagues to discuss how we can bring forward the game-changing growth projects that Lancashire needs?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, and he was also a big advocate for the reforms to the Green Book that we managed to bring in at the Budget last year. Because of those changes, we will now look more favourably at investment opportunities in rural areas, coastal communities and places that have been left behind. I welcome any suggestions for specific investments in his constituency, either through the British Business Bank, UK Export Finance or the National Wealth Fund, all of which have had their budgets expanded under this Labour Government.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Chancellor stands there and says that living standards are up and the economy is growing, but people can see the reality in their everyday lives: unemployment up month on month and energy bills higher than when Labour came to power. The latest figures in fact show that per person, our economy is shrinking, yet she stands there and says she has
“the right economic plan for our country”.
Does she have any idea how that sounds to people out there who are working harder than ever, with less and less left over at the end of every month?
Rachel Reeves
It is good to see the hon. Member still on the Conservative Benches—I thought she was going to be joining her Tory tribute act friends over there with the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). What the Office for Budget Responsibility document shows today is that people are going to be £1,000 better off by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Government living standards fell, and GDP per capita is set to be 5.6% higher by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Conservative Government GDP per capita fell.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will hear a lot from politicians today—although it appears not from Reform Members, because they have all gone—but does she agree that the most important people to listen to are not those making the sound and fury in this room but those who lend money to the Government? They believe that her proposals are worth lending money against, and for that reason, the amount we will be spending on debt interest is falling. Unlike the Conservative party, they think the UK is a good credit risk in comparison with other G7 nations. Will she say more about how she can bring electricity prices down to support the growth that she is all about?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend knows that if we can improve living standards and also reduce how much we are spending on servicing the debt racked up by the Conservatives, we will have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Chesterfield and elsewhere. The numbers today confirm that we will be spending £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast even in the Budget just a couple of months ago, and that is because of the stability that we have managed to return to the economy. Under the Conservative Government, before Liz Truss, we were spending the average of the G7 on our debt servicing costs. That rocketed under Liz Truss. We have already managed to reduce some of that borrowing premium, but if we continue, we have a £15 billion prize on offer, and that will be money to spend in our communities, on the priorities of working people, whereas under the previous Government, we just spent more and more on servicing debt interest costs.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?
Rachel Reeves
I believe in fair taxes, and I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share, but I believe in bringing that about in a credible way that actually delivers for our constituents. That is why, in my two Budgets, I have ended the non-dom loophole, charged VAT and business rates on private school fees, raised capital gains tax and introduced a high-value property tax, which I believe the Green party opposes in London. The hon. Member failed to mention her party’s policy on defence and defence spending. This is important, especially now. We know that the Green party wants to leave NATO. She does not want to say it, but it is her party’s policy.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that sound management of the economy has provided the fiscal headroom to invest in large infrastructure projects, in contrast with Scotland, where the SNP Government cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link and sold off the land at a loss?
Rachel Reeves
To be honest, when the SNP gets involved in infrastructure projects like trying to build a couple of ferries, it all seems to go horribly wrong. That is why, despite the fact that the SNP Government have had a record settlement from us, NHS waiting lists in Scotland continue to increase, while in England and Wales, under Labour Governments, they are falling.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Business has been crushed by the taxes brought in by this Chancellor. Just a year ago, in a fairly gloomy forecast by the OBR, it was suggesting 1.8% GDP growth over the forecast period. That has now been reduced to 1.5%. If the central mission of this Chancellor—and supposedly this Government—is economic growth, how can she stand there today and say it is working, when it has been marked by the OBR that she is going in exactly the wrong direction, making all our constituents poorer? Can she please explain that to the House?
Rachel Reeves
That is just completely wrong. What the OBR says today is that people will be £1,000 a year better off by the end of the forecast period and that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% after having fallen under the previous Government. Yes, productivity growth was revised down at the Budget, because of the policies of the previous Government. It has not been revised today.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I was a young person while the Tories were in power, and the reality is that they locked my generation out of home ownership, living standards were worse than those of our parents, and the public services we relied on growing up were cut because of decisions made by their Government. I remember the mini-Budget, which meant that I saw interest rates on my student loan rise—a student loan that is so high because of the plan introduced by the coalition Government and because they changed maintenance grants to loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Labour party can change this country for young people, who finally have a Government that will match their ambition?
Rachel Reeves
When I visited Kettering with my hon. Friend recently, it was just ahead of the capital investment in new SEND provision in her constituency, so that more young people—some of the most vulnerable—can be educated locally in Kettering, with better outcomes for them.
On student finances, the last Government lost control of inflation, and, of course, student loans under plan 2 and other schemes are linked to inflation. Because we have reduced inflation, we will be reducing how much interest people pay on their student loans. That is the best way to help them.
Rachel Reeves
I hear some shouting from the Conservative Benches. Inflation went to more than 11% when they were in government, and they froze the threshold on plan 2 student loans—which they introduced —for many years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor raised a laugh at the start of her statement when she said she was following the right policies for this country—policies that have resulted in lower economic growth, higher unemployment, people staggering under an increased tax burden and businesses being damaged by employment taxes, and yet she has shown no change. Why has she not addressed the issues of lowering the cost of employing people, reducing the tax burden on hard-working people to help with the cost of living crisis, and reducing energy prices, which have been driven up by the net zero policies followed by this Government? Does she realise that people will be angered and amazed at her complacency today?
Rachel Reeves
GDP per capita, which is what matters in people’s everyday lives, has been revised up by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. Unemployment is set to fall in every year of this Parliament, and to be at a lower rate at the end of the Parliament than when it started. We are taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In the spending review last year, we announced a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive. I can confirm today that that settlement increases further, by £318 million over three years for RDEL spending and £10 million for CDEL spending, and that money can be spent on the priorities of the people in Northern Ireland.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I commend the Chancellor on her laser-like focus on young people, including on apprenticeship starts and maintenance grants. Will she work with the Education Secretary so that by the autumn, when the exact impact of this awful war in the middle east will be clear, we will know whether any help can be given to graduates, so that they can become the next people to get mortgages and to get on to the housing ladder?
Rachel Reeves
The £800 million that we are spending on the youth guarantee, together with the increase in money we are spending on further education and apprenticeships, will all benefit young people, including the 60% of young people who never go to university. We are also reintroducing maintenance grants to help the poorest students and we are reducing inflation, which will mean that people pay less back every month on their student loan. My hon. Friend rightly mentions that we set out major fiscal policy in the Budget, but with the events unfolding in the middle east and Iran, we need to ensure we can fund all the Government’s priorities and all the priorities of our constituents.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We have heard several different discussions about defence today, but may I remind the Chancellor that yesterday morning an Iranian Shahed drone struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri? It was not taken out by any counter-drone technology—technology that was due to be included in the defence investment plan that the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me would be announced in autumn 2025. It is now spring 2026 and, despite the fact that we have had a Budget and now a spring forecast since the autumn, we have still not seen the defence investment plan. Will the Chancellor assure us that all the recommendations from the strategic defence review that the Government have pledged to deliver will be delivered in the defence investment plan when it is announced?
Rachel Reeves
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be able to do an awful lot more because we are increasing defence spending compared with the legacy that was left by the Conservative Government, and it will be the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war because of the decisions that we have made as a Government. Because of our Prime Minister’s decisions at the weekend, we are degrading Iran’s capability to continue these attacks.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The thing that animates my constituents most is the cost of living and the crisis in their living standards—a crisis that came about as a result of the failed economic policies of the Conservative party, whose record on living standards in the last Parliament was the worst on record. My constituents particularly welcome the action on energy bills, rail fares and childcare, but will the Chancellor confirm that she and the Government will continue to focus on driving up the living standards of my constituents through every future policy, piece of legislation and Budget?
Rachel Reeves
People in Basingstoke will benefit when they commute to work on a train, when they pay for their prescriptions and when they get their energy bills, which are coming down next month. Reducing borrowing and the cost of borrowing means that we have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Basingstoke, rather than just paying the interest on the debt racked up by the Conservative party.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The OBR’s forecast has again downgraded oil and gas revenue. From March to November last year, it was downgraded by over 41%, and from November to March this year, it has been downgraded by another 20%. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million in tax returns from the oil and gas industry, which used to return billions of pounds every year, because production is falling and investment is going abroad. When the Chancellor meets oil and gas companies tomorrow—I hope she has a great meeting—they will tell her that they need the energy profits levy to be taken away, because it is costing jobs, investment and energy security. Will she listen to those companies or will she keep ignoring the sector?
Rachel Reeves
Our country will continue to rely on oil and gas from the North sea for many years to come, but I encourage the hon. Lady to read the documents properly. The reason why the money from the energy profits levy—just that levy, not all the other taxes paid —falls is because oil and gas prices have fallen sharply since last year’s Budget. Of course, oil and gas prices have increased hugely in the last couple of days. The increase in oil and gas prices was the reason why the Conservative Government introduced the energy profits, and they used that money to take money off people’s bills—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady needs to go back and do her homework—that is just the money from the energy profits levy and the amount reflects the lower energy prices. As some of her colleagues have mentioned, those energy prices are unlikely to persist after what Iran has done.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The OECD and the International Monetary Fund have both recognised the importance of the Government’s fiscal discipline, which is important given the increasingly volatile global economic environment. Will the Chancellor set out more actions that she has taken with others across Government to control public spending, so that the Government can prioritise the long-term investments that boost our global competitiveness and dynamism, and fulfil our defence spending requirements?
Rachel Reeves
By controlling public spending, we can get the cost of borrowing down, as we saw in the most recent public finance numbers. They showed the biggest ever January surplus—in fact, the biggest ever surplus—on the Government national accounts, meaning that we have more money to spend on people’s priorities because we are controlling spending and bringing in the tax revenue that is needed. That is the first time that has happened, and it is because of the choices that we have made as a Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Chancellor refers to opportunities that young people deserve. However, hundreds of college students in my North Devon constituency have spent weeks unable to travel to college due to flooding and rail closures. Will the Government confirm that they will invest in their life chances by doing more to upgrade our transport infrastructure, especially our rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line in North Devon, because that infrastructure is not working?
Rachel Reeves
I am happy to ask the Secretary of State for Transport or one of her Ministers to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about that specific issue in his constituency. As he knows, as a Government we are committed to increasing capital investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, because we know about the importance of infrastructure, whether it is energy infrastructure to get energy bills down, rail infrastructure to get people to work or digital infrastructure to make the most of the AI revolution.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
While I recognise the wisdom of increasing budget headroom and I very much welcome the record Budget settlement the Chancellor has given to Welsh Government, so that they can fund and improve public services, can she explain how she is ensuring that those with the most wealth pay their fair share, so that our Welsh Labour aspiration of “fairness you can feel” becomes a reality for my constituents in Llanelli?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm that because of the choices in today’s spring forecast, the settlement for the Welsh Government over the next three fiscal years will mean an additional £514 million RDEL and £15 million CDEL to spend on the priorities of the Welsh people. It is important to me and to this Government that we ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. We have introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, we have got rid of the non-dom tax status, and we are introducing a high-value council tax to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, and that, as a result, we need to ask for less from ordinary working people.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Small businesses play a critical role in the economy of places such as Ceredigion Preseli. As the Chancellor will know, increased energy costs have put real pressure on their ability to operate in recent years. In the light of events over the weekend and the crisis in the middle east, what consideration are the Government giving to additional support to help small businesses to meet rising energy costs?
Rachel Reeves
We are only a couple of days into this conflict, and it is important to see where things go in the next few days. As I said in my statement, I am in regular contact with international counterparts right across the world, including in the middle east, with the Governor of the Bank of England, and with sectors—both maritime and oil and gas—that are most affected by what is happening. However, people can see from the actions of this Government—whether that is taking £150 off domestic energy bills or the extension of the supercharger to help energy-intensive industries with their energy costs, which will come in next month—that we are determined to help people. In addition, as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), today’s spring forecast includes an additional £540 million of RDEL spending and £15 million of CDEL spending, which the Welsh Government can spend on the priorities of the Welsh people.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Through the National Wealth Fund and the Kernow industrial growth fund, this Labour Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish critical minerals and renewables, which in turn has unlocked vast sums of private sector investment. Does the Chancellor agree that it is precisely because of this Government’s careful nurturing of the UK economy that she can help unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger, and that while Opposition parties scurry around TV studios trying to talk down the UK economy, she is just getting on with the job of fixing the mess they created?
Rachel Reeves
There are huge opportunities in the Cornish economy—in defence, energy and critical minerals—as I saw when I was in Camborne and Redruth and in other parts of Cornwall last summer, including visiting the South Crofty tin mine, which has received National Wealth Fund money. That, alongside the Kernow plan, gives me great confidence that the opportunities that exist in Cornwall will be invested in, both by this Government through our public finance institutions and by the private sector.
Dr Luke Evans
I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?
Rachel Reeves
As I said after last year’s Budget, if a person just gets the basic state pension, they will not be paying tax. We will set out more details in the coming months.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
In Portsmouth North, we inherited a new reality from the previous Government. People felt that new reality in the form of a closed shipyard, stretched households and Tory food banks that kept popping up everywhere. People were struggling with higher mortgages, high street shops and pubs were closing, and there were cuts to education, SEND and apprenticeships. I know that many are desperate for rapid change, but I hope they can see from our statement today that we are on the right track, with retail sales and wages rising, six interest rate cuts, defence investment backing jobs in my city, and a renewed focus on SEND, education and apprenticeships. Does the Chancellor agree that in coastal communities like Portsmouth, stability and long-term investment, not cuts, are how we build household confidence, put more money in people’s pockets and secure a future for my residents?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To support me in getting more Members in, can questions please be short?
Rachel Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend’s Portsmouth constituency will benefit from Pride in Place funding to invest in those places that were forgotten by the previous Government. It will also benefit directly from the uplift in defence spending, which will ensure not only our country’s security, but good jobs that pay decent wages in Portsmouth. Our reforms to the Green Book mean that coastal communities will get their fair share, and will get an opportunity to bid for funding to help grow their economy through the £120 billion that we are putting in for capital investment.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
If lifting the two-child benefit cap is such a moral imperative for this Labour Government, could the Chancellor advise the House why only 20 months ago, a commitment to do so was entirely absent from the Labour party manifesto and why, 19 days after that election, Labour withdrew the Whip from seven of its MPs for the apparent crime of voting for that moral imperative?
Rachel Reeves
I have always been clear that any policies that this Government announce will always be fully costed and fully funded. It was not until last year’s Budget that I was able to guarantee that. We have set out how that policy will be funded—through the gambling tax and by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could advise the House why he wants 500,000 children to return straight into poverty.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
We have heard a lot about young people today, but in my constituency, the thing that young people really want is the chance to own their own home. For years, they have been locked out of that because of sky-high mortgage rates thanks to the policies of the Conservative party. I welcome the six interest rate cuts that this Government have overseen. Will the Chancellor elaborate on what more we are doing to help young people in West Brom get on the housing ladder and to bring down the cost of borrowing?
Rachel Reeves
I know that families and young people in West Bromwich and across the country want to get on the housing ladder. That is why we have committed to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament and why we have returned stability to the economy, allowing the Bank of England to cut interest rates six times. It is also why, in my Mansion House speeches, I have announced regulatory reforms to make it easier for banks and, crucially, building societies to lend more to first-time buyers, and they are doing just that.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor must be concerned that none of the good news she has shared with us today is being felt by people in the real world. Inflation is down, but she will know that that does not suddenly make things more affordable, and interest rates are down, but she will know that millions will lock into higher-rate deals this year when their fixed-rate terms expire. Combine that good news with higher taxes, higher unemployment and a slowdown in growth, and it is no wonder that people still feel as squeezed this year as they did last year. If the Chancellor’s plan is working, when will people actually feel the benefit?
Rachel Reeves
In every month since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer wages have risen faster than inflation. We have increased the national minimum wage and the national living wage to put more money in the pockets of the poorest people, and the interest rate cuts mean that a typical family getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than when I became Chancellor. The OBR confirmed today that GDP per capita will rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. I recognise that the legacy of the previous Conservative Government still runs deep and that it will take a while for people to feel the impact of these policies, but I am confident that this will be the year that things start to turn around.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that restoring confidence and hope for families in Wolverhampton and Willenhall is achieved through a stable economy, with borrowing, debt interest and inflation falling faster than expected, moving away from the chaos of spiralling mortgage rates and towards the stability of falling rates?
Rachel Reeves
I was very pleased recently to spend some time in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where we met a family who are now able to get on the housing ladder because of the reduction in interest rates. Instead of living with mum and dad, that couple and their young child are now able to get a home of their own. That is only possible because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, giving the Bank of England space to cut interest rates six times since I became Chancellor.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor claimed to be cutting debt, but she will know that paragraph 5.9 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” says that
“Public sector net borrowing is forecast to increase”
public sector net debt
“in each year, by an average of £92 billion”.
To avoid misleading the House, will she correct the record?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR has revised down the level of debt in every year of the forecast.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and for the decisions she has taken to ensure the stability of our public finances so that we can improve our public services. As she will know, the number of individuals in the probation system is at an all-time high, with violent reoffending perpetuating the cycle of crime and leaving the public at risk. What steps will the Treasury take to drive down the number of staffing vacancies in the Probation Service, so that those in the service can work relentlessly to reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of the communities we represent?
Rachel Reeves
As Chancellor, it was my responsibility to make sure that we had fair settlements in the spending review for every Department. That included a big uplift in the settlement for the Ministry of Justice so that we can invest in probation staff, in prison officers, and indeed in prisons, which were full to bursting point when we came into government because of the legacy of the previous Government.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is not just an uncertain period for North sea workers; it is a crisis, and it has been a crisis for years. Investment has completely disappeared, jobs are being haemorrhaged and events make it even more clear why we need a home-grown energy supply and why we cannot rely on importing from overseas. Will the Chancellor, as she meets North sea leaders tomorrow, listen to their calls on the energy profits levy, give confidence on the future of the industry and ensure that my constituency and those across the UK do not continue to haemorrhage these jobs?
Rachel Reeves
I am meeting representatives of the North sea oil and gas sector tomorrow because of the huge volatility we are seeing in oil and gas prices. Since the Budget, the OBR forecasts show a sharp fall in oil and gas prices, but we have seen some of that reverse in the past few days. If that continues, it will put pressure on the bills that all our constituents pay. It is important that we get the right balance between taxing profits and making sure that our constituents can fill up their car and pay their gas and electricity bills.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I warmly welcome that the UK will now, thanks to these Labour choices, spend £3 billion less per year on debt interest up to 2030. My constituents need to feel that in their daily lives, so will the Chancellor further outline how we will unlock the ability to tackle living standards by spending less to service debt? How might that support local infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
We are spending £100 billion a year on interest payments on Government debt. That is spending not on reducing Government debt, but just on the interest on Government debt, which is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend. I think there are better ways to spend that money, and that is why I am determined to start bringing down the debt and, crucially, to reduce the interest payments on that debt. The OBR confirmed today that next year we will spend £4 billion less on interest on Government debt, because of the decisions we have made to return stability and give confidence to investors.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The spring statement began well by outlining the desperate international situation and by praising our armed forces, but does the Chancellor agree that her remarks would have been all the more credible had she announced that the dither and delay that has plagued defence spending over the past 18 months would be brought to an end, and had she set a date for the publication of the much-delayed defence investment plan?
Rachel Reeves
It is a little rich for the Conservatives to talk about dither and delay when it comes to defence spending. They had 14 years and defence spending fell as a share of GDP. We are providing the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and that is the right decision in light of the challenges we face. Frankly, if the Conservative Government had made those choices sooner, we might not be in such a position today.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to reducing Government debt, the 95,000 children in Scotland being lifted out of poverty and the revival of Glasgow’s military shipyards, where we will build Labour boats, which, unlike SNP boats, will work and have real windows. Does the Chancellor agree that it is a disgrace that, despite more than £11 billion extra for the Scottish Government, NHS waiting lists in Scotland are at a record level and standards in schools are falling?
Rachel Reeves
Some 95,000 children in Scotland will be lifted out of poverty, and today we have been able to announce a further uplift in the budget available for the Scottish Government. We can only hope that it is a Labour Government, not an SNP Government, who have the chance to spend that money. Otherwise, I fear more increases in NHS waiting lists and worse results for kids at schools, because that is the SNP’s legacy.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Chancellor calls this the right plan, but for whom? Is it the right plan for farmers being taxed to death, WASPI women still waiting for justice, small businesses and hospitality firms barely surviving or hard-working childminders set to lose their 10% tax allowance? The price of energy is rising excessively because of the escalating conflict involving Iran. Families and businesses are already worrying about heating their home or filling their cars, and they have been given no hope—nothing—today. What they see is soaring public spend on housing and support for asylum seekers, and unachievable and expensive net zero spend while their own bills are rising. When will this Government put hard-working British families first?
Rachel Reeves
The Northern Ireland Executive came to us asking for additional money this year to fund their priorities, which we have provided. Today’s settlement includes an extra £380 million in day-to-day spending and £10 million in capital spending for the Northern Ireland Government to invest. If the hon. Lady does not want that money, I am sure other parts of the country would like it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby will be the home of Great British Railways, which, with rail continuing its journey back into public ownership, will be focused on serving passengers rather than profit. Under the previous Government, rail fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2024. Under Labour, they are frozen. Does the Chancellor agree that bold measures such as that to tackle travel costs will help bring down the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
I was pleased in the Budget last year to announce the plan for Derby, alongside my hon. Friend and her neighbour the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the Mayor of the East Midlands. Derby will benefit from hosting Great British Railways, and we will all benefit from better train services under Great British Railways. Rolls-Royce will benefit from higher defence spending and higher energy spending, including on small modular reactors, bringing more good jobs paying decent wages to Derby.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?
Rachel Reeves
The view of the electorate just 18 months ago was that it was time to get rid of the Conservatives, because of the broken system that they had left, whether that was student finances, the NHS, our prisons or our crumbling schools. As a result, the hon. Member is sitting on the Opposition Benches, where I expect he will be for many years to come.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we saw with the shadow Chancellor’s performance that the number of times a politician points their finger is often inversely proportionate to the number of valid points they make? The valid points that really matter to my constituents in Rugby and the surrounding villages are that there have been six interest rate cuts under my right hon. Friend’s chancellorship, inflation is coming down, we have the highest growth of European nations in the G7 and far too much more to mention.
Rachel Reeves
It was a real pleasure after the Budget last year to join my hon. Friend at a community centre in Rugby, where I was able to talk to his constituents about the benefits of the £150 cut in energy bills. The conversation I remember most from my hon. Friend’s constituency was with a woman who had lost her husband just six months before. She had four children and will benefit from the changes we made by getting rid of the two-child limit. That is a conversation I will not forget, and it is the difference we are making in government.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Monkton Elm garden centre, with its 400-cover restaurant employing 120 staff, has been hit by a £70,000 increase in its business rates this year as part of £178,000 in costs put on by the last Budget. If the Government will not accept the 5% cut in VAT that the Liberal Democrats propose—we would fund that by a tax on banks, by the way, not from cutting services—those at the garden centre would like to know whether the Chancellor will none the less extend the 15% discount to pubs on their business rates to restaurants? That would give our local businesses the support they need and give everyone the boost they want to see in our economy.
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are conducting a review of how the Valuation Office Agency calculates business rates, including for our hospitality sector. The last time that the Liberal Democrats were in office and they had a choice over VAT policy, they increased it from 17.5% to 20%. I am not sure why the public should believe that this time it would somehow be different.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for acknowledging the incredible contribution of the workforce at Rosyth to the roll-out of the Type 31 frigate last week. I also thank her for the ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, particularly as we see increasing challenges in the middle east coming towards energy bills. May I ask her to ensure, as she has up to now, that we keep an eye on that situation involving energy bills and, whenever possible, that we invest both for our future energy security and to help people in the short term when that is necessary?
Rachel Reeves
It was a real honour for me to be able to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see the Type 31 frigates being built there. This Government are investing in defence, and in the skills of our young people so that they can get the jobs in these expanding sectors—unlike the SNP Government in Scotland, who are not investing in our young people. Too many defence companies are having to bring in labour from abroad because of the SNP’s dislike of defence spending.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?
Rachel Reeves
The previous Government presided over a 113,000 increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, and the number of youth apprenticeships was cut by 40%. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that unemployment among young people is a challenge? It is because of the decisions that the previous Government made. That is why we are putting more than £800 million into a youth guarantee, it is why we are putting more money into further education—which his Government failed to do—and it is why we are expanding the number of youth apprenticeships. We recognise there is a challenge. The difference between our Government and the hon. Gentleman’s is that we are doing something about it, and they never did.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and welcome the OBR forecast that unemployment will fall to 4.1% by the end of the current Parliament. No doubt that will have been driven by excellent policies such as the youth guarantee and the apprenticeship reforms. The NEET rate remains stubbornly high, though, so may I urge the Chancellor to target any additional headroom that may be available at helping more young people into work and training? Investing in young people is good for them, good for society and good for the UK’s finances, and it is also the best way in which to reduce our welfare bill in the long term.
Rachel Reeves
This Government are investing in young people, by ending the two-child limit, investing in further education—which was neglected by the last Government—and increasing the number of young people who can go on to study or take apprenticeships, and, indeed, through the youth guarantee, which is worth more than £800 million. As I said in my statement, though, we want to do more to tackle the legacy that we inherited from the Conservative Government to ensure that more young people have the opportunity of work, training or a college place.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Given what is happening in the middle east at the moment, there is a concern that petrol and diesel prices will spiral upwards. If that happens, taxation revenue on fuel will do the same. Can the Chancellor commit today to keeping taxation revenue at its current level, thereby reducing tax on fuel to help ease any future cost pressure?
Rachel Reeves
I think it can be seen from the policies that we have introduced over the past year that we are determined to address the cost of living challenges that we inherited from the Conservative party, whether by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, extending the 5p cut in fuel duty until September this year or, indeed, introducing Fuel Finder to improve competition between forecourts and bring down petrol and diesel prices—but of course, as I said in my statement, we are carefully monitoring the impact of what is happening in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that working people do not pay the price for that conflict.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We know that the volatility of oil and gas prices has driven the high cost of living over the last decade. We also know that renewables cut the wholesale costs of electricity because they reduce the amount of time for which electricity prices are driven by gas. Does the Chancellor agree that, given the inevitable impact of the events in the middle east, our drive for clean energy is the right thing to do both for bills and for economic stability, and that those who are advocating continual reliance on oil and gas, and not investing in clean energy, are actually committed to higher bills and to our continued reliance on foreign instability?
Rachel Reeves
Oil and gas will play an important part in our energy system for many years to come, including oil and gas from the North sea, but we do need to improve our energy security. That is the lesson from Ukraine that this Government are addressing by investing in small modular reactors at Sizewell C, but also investing in wind farms and solar farms, because we have got to wean ourselves off foreign oil and gas and prices that are dictated by international markets. That is why we are investing in clean energy, and what we are seeing unfolding in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east shows how necessary those policies are.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
A large part of my constituency’s economy depends on hospitality, tourism and our independent high streets. Those who run pubs, cafés, arts venues, restaurants and hotels are telling me that they are being squeezed from every direction, by higher employer national insurance, rising energy bills, and uncertainty over business rates relief. Does the Chancellor understand the damage that this is doing to communities like mine, and will she commit today to proper business rates reform and targeted support for hospitality and leisure?
Rachel Reeves
The best thing we can do to support our high streets and small businesses is ensure that more people have more of their money in their pockets to spend not on the essentials but on the things that they want to do—for instance, in local shops in the hon. Lady’s constituency. That is why we are taking £150 off people’s energy bills, have frozen prescription charges, and are freezing rail fares.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Whether by delivering a record-breaking fair funding settlement for our council or backing Team Derby, this Government are definitely turning the page on years of brutal Tory austerity. However, many in our city still feel left out and left behind because of the depth of those austerity cuts. Will the Chancellor work to give every neighbourhood the tools that it needs, so that every place is decent to live in?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of the issue. We have done an awful lot in the last year and a half to bring down interest rates and ensure that people have more of their own money in their pockets—and there is more of that to come, with the two-child limit going from April, the £150 off energy bills from April, and last weekend’s changes in rail fares. But all that is against a backdrop of 14 years of people being made worse off by the choices of the Conservative party. I do not expect people to feel all the benefits of the changes we have made straightaway, but I believe that the changes that will come in the next few months will start to be felt in the pockets of people in Derby and across the country.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Government want growth—we all want growth—but surely the Chancellor can see that the carbon tax that will result from extending the marine greenhouse gas emission regulations to the ferries, which are the economic lifeline to Northern Ireland, in circumstances in which there are no zero-emission alternatives, will add hugely to the consumer costs of my constituents and will disincentivise growth. Will she look again at that imposition, especially in view of the fact that the Scottish islands, which depend equally on the ferries, have been given an exemption?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that we wean ourselves off oil and gas prices that are set on international markets, but I absolutely accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to suggest that the relevant Minister meet him.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Liz Truss Budget in September 2022 affected many homeowners, with mortgage rates shooting up and the average two-year fixed rate exceeding 6%. When I was working in the mortgage industry, I saw the impact of that on working people’s finances. That is still being felt, but does the Chancellor agree that it is because of the actions of this Labour Government in restoring economic stability that we have seen six interest rate cuts since the general election—a welcome relief for many? The Opposition parties, by contrast, have no credible plan, and would return this country to the devastating days of Liz Truss.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks with authority about mortgage costs, given the jobs that he did before he became a Member of Parliament. It is true that, since the general election, somebody getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than they were when we came into office. That means they have more money to spend on their high streets, on their families and on the things that matter, rather than just paying for the essentials, the price of which went up under the Conservatives.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Economic policies introduced by the previous Government piled more and more pressure on my generation, adding to intergenerational unfairness, and nowhere is that more clear than with plan 2 student loans; to declare my interest, I still owe more than £40,000. The policy proposed by the Conservative party will not do anything to alleviate the cost of living pressures on young people. Given the better economic outlook that we have seen today, will the Chancellor meet me and other MPs who are concerned about the plan 2 student loan system to talk about how we can make the system fairer and more sustainable?
Rachel Reeves
To help the generation that my hon. Friend speaks about, we have introduced the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we are also bringing down interest rates and inflation. That makes it easier to get on the housing ladder but also, crucially, reduces the interest rates on both plan 2 student loans and other students loans, the threshold for which was frozen for 10 years under the previous Government.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
On days like this, I am particularly grateful that NHS waiting lists are falling. Although it seems a long time ago that we heard from the shadow Chancellor, I was very concerned about his blood pressure; he is no longer in his place, so I hope he has gone to get that checked.
It is important that we take a breath and look at what the economy is actually doing. Borrowing is down, inflation is down and headroom is up. I particularly welcome today’s news from the OBR that investment in housing, as part of the economy, is up. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to continue to invest in housing to make sure that people’s aspirations to buy their own home are supported by this Government?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor’s blood pressure—but, frankly, I am worried about his future employment prospects.
NHS waiting lists are falling because of the money that we have put in, but my hon. Friend makes a point about overall investment in the economy. After lagging behind pretty much every other advanced country in the world, since the general election we have had the fastest investment growth in the G7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
For the final question—the one we have been waiting for—I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement about two hours ago. Fortunately, my Shakespeare quote for the day is “brevity is the soul of wit”, so I will be very quick. We know that the national debt soared under the last Government, and that £1 in every £10 is spent on servicing that debt. What difference can we make to public services in Harlow if we can spend less on debt repayment and more on those services?
Rachel Reeves
It is not Shakespeare, but I always say, “Save the best till last.” If we can spend less money on paying the interest on debt, we will have more money to spend on our NHS, on our defence and on keeping taxes down. That is only possible if we return stability to the economy, and the OBR forecast shows that we have the right plan. Inflation and interest rates are coming down, while Government borrowing costs, Government borrowing and Government debt are on a downward path. That compares with the situation under the previous Government, who lost control of the public finances and, as a result, lost control of family finances. In 18 months, we have begun to turn that around. Is there more to do? Absolutely—but we have started on that course. If we stick to the plan, the prize at the end is huge.
Bill Presented
Geotechnical Data
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the collection of, setting of standards relating to, and secure sharing of geotechnical data derived from ground and site investigations; to require the integration of such data into the National Underground Asset Register; to confer duties on statutory undertakers and public authorities in connection with certain such data; and for connected purposes.
Nearly 200 years ago, in 1835, three of Britain’s leading geologists—William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and Charles Lyell—wrote to the Board of Ordnance to argue for something quite simple: that this country should properly understand what lies beneath its feet. They said that proper geological maps would stop money being wasted in the search for coal and materials. Such maps would improve road construction, guide the construction of canals, help drainage, identify building materials and strengthen agriculture. Out of that thinking came what we know today as the British geological survey. Those geologists’ big idea still stands strong today: that when we understand the ground properly, we can build better, build cheaper and build faster.
We talk a lot in this House about growth and opportunities. As someone who joined the House after working for the best part of 20 years in construction and infrastructure, I am pretty happy about that, because I come from a sector that is the economy made physical. It creates the homes that people live in, the energy networks that power industry, the transport systems that connect people to work, and the water infrastructure that makes development possible. When infrastructure policy is done properly, it reduces poverty. It reduces living costs, unlocks employment and widens access to opportunities, tackling poverty at its roots.
However, growth rests—quite literally—on the ground beneath our feet. Geology underpins everything that we do. It influences groundwater and resilience to flooding, and determines whether a project succeeds or runs into delay and redesign, yet whereas our engineering capability in the UK has advanced enormously over the years, the way we treat data has not kept pace with the digital age. Ground investigation data is collected in vast quantities every year in every corner of the UK, at great public expense. Borehole records, soil classifications, and rock core and groundwater data all get collected from ground investigations, but too often, that data is siloed, commercially locked away, lost between projects, or simply duplicated because it cannot be accessed. That means that we are paying twice to drill the same holes for the same data, facing avoidable surprises, and seeing delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects and planning applications. At the end of the day, that is increasing cost and programme risk. It is a profound waste of money and time that this country cannot afford to leave unresolved. If we are serious about speeding up delivery in this country and getting Britain building again, we cannot ignore the knowledge that we have already paid to collect.
The Government have recognised this problem in part, and are rightly investing in the national underground asset register to map 4 million km of pipes and cables beneath British streets, but the register focuses on the assets that we put into the ground, not the factual data about the ground itself. Although we are modernising how we map buried services, we are not yet systematically ensuring that factual ground investigation data, where it exists, can be securely shared and reused through the same national platform. That is what this Bill seeks to address.
The Bill is not a radical rewrite but a focused, proportionate extension of existing plans. It would bring factual ground investigation data and underground asset data into one place, and build on UK industry’s initiatives on format to allow data to be readily inputted and accessed digitally. It proposes that we initially limit this information to borehole records, site investigation reports, and soil, rock and groundwater data. It does not mandate the extensive, retrospective and expensive upload of data, but it does mirror the regulations created under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to determine what data is shared, where and in which format. The Bill builds on the successes of other nations, such as the Netherlands, which has successfully implemented such a scheme and is already seeing great results. In short, it complements the current framework and what the Government intend to do; it does not change it.
The economic case for the Bill is very strong. The Government believe that the national underground asset register, even in its current state, will generate over £400 million of savings per year. However, the reuse of ground investigation data has been estimated to be worth an additional £1.2 billion per year to the UK economy, and will massively reduce the carbon footprint of construction. We have some proof for those lofty figures, because the British Geological Survey’s national geological repository, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), has already returned up to £36 for every £1 invested, saving £1.5 billion through data reuse.
Those numbers echo the 1835 argument that good geological information prevents waste and improves the use of capital. Early access to ground investigation data sets up projects for success, reducing uncertainty and the chance of delay or cost increases. To give a real example that Members may know about, the cost of ground investigations for High Speed 2 phase 1 is over £300 million. That is £300 million of public money spent on data that will be locked away for decades and lost, but that could be used to help better deliver the growth that we need.
Before bringing forward this Bill, I wanted to make sure that what I am proposing is deliverable, not just a great theoretical idea that will never get off the ground. I am truly grateful for the fact that, through thorough engagement with professionals from AtkinsRéalis, Arup, Mott MacDonald, Arcadis, the British Geological Survey, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, the British Drilling Association and academic experts, it is clear that there is public sector, industry and expert support for my proposals. All were clear that the current system leads to duplication and inefficiency. They want clarity, standards and proportionate regulation that enables the provision and reuse of data, and levels the playing field.
Above all, I pay personal tribute to Holger Kessler—he joins us in the Gallery—the geologist and geoscientist who sparked my idea of including ground data in the national underground asset register. I also pay personal tribute to Theo Shaw, my head of office—also sitting in the Gallery—who now knows more about geology and geotechnical engineering than any parliamentary staffer would probably ever want to.
Ultimately, this Bill is about delivery. It updates nearly 200 years of legislative thinking for the digital age. For too long in this country, we have announced ambition and failed to modernise the systems around that ambition to ensure that it is realised. If we are serious about building 1.5 million homes, reinforcing our grid, strengthening our water infrastructure and delivering clean energy, we must modernise the way we handle the knowledge that underpins all that. This Bill closes a structural gap, strengthens an existing reform and supports growth.
Nearly 200 years ago, Parliament supported the creation of a national geological capability because it understood that better ground data leads to better outcomes. This Bill leads on from that legacy. The United Kingdom, which led the world in establishing the British Geological Survey, should not fall behind. If we understand the ground properly, we can build better and build more, and when we do that right, we will expand opportunity and tackle poverty. That is Labour policy in action, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Mr Luke Charters, Noah Law, Kirsteen Sullivan, Rachel Taylor, Perran Moon, Ms Polly Billington, James Naish, Lizzi Collinge,Amanda Hack and Cat Eccles present the Bill.
Mike Reader accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 395).
Sustainable Aviation Fuel BilL (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 June 2025 (Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Direction to offer revenue certainty contract
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 6.
Keir Mather
I am pleased that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill has returned to this House with only a small number of Government amendments. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their engagement and constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for his skilful steering of this Bill through its initial stages. I also thank Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for his valuable support, and for leading the Bill so effectively through the other place. The Government brought forward six amendments, which were agreed to, and we are considering them today.
Lords amendments 1 to 3 ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only when the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords, peers provided thoughtful and collaborative suggestions on this topic, and I am grateful to them. The amendments to clause 1 provide that sustainable aviation fuel is to be regarded as “UK-produced” where any part of the process for converting feedstocks into fuel occurs within the UK. These amendments give the industry a clear and confident signal of support, and align with our intended objective for this Bill: the objective of supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry.
Lords amendments 4 to 6 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the powers in clauses 1, 3, 10 or 11. This ensures that devolved Governments are fully engaged on matters in their areas of competence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome the leadership that the Government are taking on this important industry. How much sustainable aviation fuel does my hon. Friend anticipate that the UK will be able to provide, and after his amendments have gone through, is it still likely that we will depend on imports of sustainable aviation fuel, alongside the stocks we have in the UK?
Keir Mather
To meet the provisions of the SAF mandate, we believe it will be necessary to have a mixture of sustainable aviation fuel produced in the United Kingdom and SAF imported from overseas. However, the Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism—the first of its kind—to drive this nascent market to increase SAF production. We believe that the mechanism will demonstrably increase the amount of UK-produced SAF in the system, and will have an impact on the production of the good, skilled jobs in our energy industry that we all care about so much. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we believe that the Bill is the right process to go through to stimulate this industry, and to give investors the certainty that they need that the UK Government stand four-square behind the creation of sustainable aviation fuel in this country.
Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period in which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts, and to publish details about the contracts. Clause 10(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations amending financial penalties to reflect inflation, and to specify the basis on which a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of those penalties. The amendments do not affect the delivery of the Bill or its underlying policy intent, and final decisions in relation to the regulation-making powers in the Bill will continue to rest with the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Government’s objective is to implement the revenue certainty mechanism for the SAF industry effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom and to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments to do so. I am grateful for the engagement on the Bill from across the devolved Governments and pleased to confirm that we have obtained legislative consent from all three devolved Governments. I therefore commend all six amendments to the House and urge Members to support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith. I believe it is your birthday. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Happy birthday!
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon.
When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying.
From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real.
My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it.
What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved.
Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention.
There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity.
Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?
Mr Perkins
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I wish him a happy birthday. I am interested in what he has to say. I think the Government have to be given some credit for bringing forward this signal that pushes the industry, in terms of both support for it to produce here in the UK and the mandate. Will he clarify whether he supports the SAF mandate as currently legislated for, or is he saying that he supports only it if it will not lead to any additional cost?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.
The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country.
With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) a very happy birthday. I am sure the rest of the Conservative Members are waiting for him at the party—I know they like those. How was that, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Current events in the middle east have once again demonstrated the volatility and vulnerability of global fuel supplies. A cleaner aviation sector should also be a more resilient one. Producing sustainable aviation fuel at home reduces exposure to geopolitical shocks, while giving airlines and passengers greater long-term certainty. It is for that reason that I believe the Lords amendments are vital. This is about our home and our circular economy.
Before Parliament, I worked in the water industry for 30 years. One of the projects I led was working with farmers on practical measures to prevent flooding, including planting winter cover crops in between pea harvests to protect soil and reduce run-off. Those same winter cover crops, or similar ones, can also play a role as a feedstock for sustainable aviation fuel. That is why I see a real opportunity here to line up environmental improvement and the economic benefits that come from SAF. Better soil structure and less erosion mean better outcomes for our local waterways and a healthier local environment, while farmers and rural communities can gain an additional income stream from doing the right thing for their land.
Since coming to Parliament, one of my biggest goals has been the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport, which is essential to local jobs, growth and prosperity. But I want to go further still: I want Doncaster Sheffield airport to become a beacon of cleaner, greener aviation, and sustainable aviation fuel is a huge part of that transition.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reopening of Doncaster airport is not only critical so that we are part of the sustainable aviation future, but to create the high-skill, high-wage jobs in the green economy that young people in Doncaster deserve?
Lee Pitcher
I certainly do agree. In the business case for Doncaster Sheffield airport, the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority says that around 5,000 jobs will be created directly, with the creation of many more jobs indirectly. When I visit schools, as my hon. Friend does, I see our future pilots, engineers, manufacturers and aircrew. You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? I want people to live in Doncaster, work in Doncaster, have their careers in Doncaster, spend their leisure time in Doncaster and basically have the passion for the place that I do. I know that my hon. Friend does, too.
DSA is ideally placed to lead on how we become a cleaner, greener aviation economy locally. It is surrounded by agricultural land and is close to the Humber, the UK’s leading hub for green energy and fuel. A domestic SAF industry means more UK manufacturing, more skilled work and more investment in the kind of modern facilities that can power regional growth. We know how important that is right now.
Taken together, the benefits are absolutely clear: for our countryside, we can improve soil and water outcomes, support more resilient farming and restore nature; for our rural communities, we can open up new opportunities, diversify incomes and improve productivity; for industry, we can build manufacturing capability and secure supply chains here at home; and for aviation, we can reduce dependence on volatile foreign oil and give the sector a credible route by which to decarbonise. Globally, we can reduce the carbon impact of air travel, which is exactly what we need to do if we are to meet our climate goals in a way that supports jobs and prosperity and secures the planet for our children and future generations. This is the right approach for an industrial strategy that is serious about delivery and an environmental strategy that is serious about our future.
If we are asking the public to help to de-risk and scale up a strategic fuel, the jobs, investment, apprenticeships and manufacturing capacity should be created right here, right now in the UK. These amendments keep the value chain onshore, strengthen British supply chains and ensure that decarbonisation supports growth in our communities, not just demand somewhere else.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.
I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.
Mr Perkins
I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).
Mr Perkins
I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene on his birthday.
Greg Smith
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?
Mr Perkins
I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman says. Frankly, I am not certain about that—he may well be right. I was not seeking to create great division on this, although I do think my general point remains. None the less, as I say, I thank him for what he has said and for his support for the Bill. We have plenty of things to argue about; let us not dance on the head of a pin in this area where we are all agreed.
The Government are clearly committed to greater aviation expansion. The recent work of my Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve the Government’s ambitions to have that growth while protecting nature and the environment. However, the Committee has also demonstrated that that is not by any means inevitable, and that sustainable aviation fuel is one aspect that must play a growing role alongside a suite of other measures if the Government are to reduce carbon emissions from aviation while driving that passenger and economic growth. It is absolutely crucial that the Government take action not just on sustainable aviation fuel, but on the many other elements that will be necessary both to keep the Government’s promise and to keep them out of the courts and from being judicially reviewed. It is important that this is one of a number of measures.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the need for a suite of measures to deliver the Bill’s objectives and the overall reduction in fossil fuel usage by the aviation sector. One of the means of doing that is to massively ramp up green hydrogen production, which will have to happen over a number of years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), whom I have seen bobbing, will no doubt point to that. A quick way to kick-start that marketplace and boost sustainable aviation fuel would be to increase the amount of hydrogen that can be injected into the gas grid to 20%. The evidence is there to say that it would work. It would act as a massive kick-start for the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—it is definitely something worth considering.
The Government have given an important commitment to meet their climate change and environmental targets at the same time as expanding airports and growing the economy, and I welcome that commitment. It is a hugely important promise, but it is also a huge challenge. Sustainable aviation fuel can deliver emissions savings compared with traditional kerosene fuel. Increasing its use is a vital piece of the puzzle in decarbonising aviation.
The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill will provide the minimum price guarantee for producers of SAF in the UK, so whoever was responsible for it, I welcome these amendments. The price certainty will encourage investor confidence in bringing commercial-scale SAF plans to the UK and bringing SAF production and jobs. Alongside that revenue certainty mechanism, the Government have introduced a SAF mandate: a legal obligation on fuel suppliers to the UK to provide an increasing proportion of SAF to airlines. That policy is also essential to driving the uptake of SAF.
What assessment has the Minister made of when these SAF mandates will be achieved? Does he think that they will be achieved in the next year? If not, at what point does he expect those mandates to be met? The Government do not believe that we need to follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and see demand management alongside a suite of other measures as one of the approaches. Instead, they believe that we can get greater amounts of sustainable aviation fuel. Will my hon. Friend tell me how important it is to see the industry achieving these early mandates if we want to give confidence that they will be achieved in much greater numbers in the future?
Despite these welcome policies, the Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence—I think the Minister confirmed that today—that the UK would not be able to provide sufficient SAF to service the level that the Government expect the industry to use. We know that imported SAF is not currently recognised in UK carbon budgets as being a genuine reduction in emissions. Although I understand the Government have plans to include international aviation emissions within their carbon calculations, the UK has yet to formally legislate to include those emissions within the carbon budgets, despite both this and the previous Government agreeing to do so. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within the UK carbon budgets?
The Environmental Audit Committee also heard evidence from the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge University that, while moving to 25% of fuel usage to SAF would offer substantial emissions reductions, the reductions become much less certain beyond that point, because moving towards SAF could push up its price when compared with other sectors. That could lead to the potential of reduced availability of feedstocks for other sectors and a move beyond utilising waste products towards having to grow and cut down crops purely to serve the aviation sector. Therefore, if we go beyond 25% and start aiming for 50%, 60% and 70%, the certainty of this being an environmental and carbon reduction becomes much less certain. I wonder what assessment my hon. Friend has made of that research and whether he has visited the Whittle Laboratory. I also had the opportunity to listen to its modelling on this, so I wonder what he made of it.
Finally, will the Minister reassure me that he will not allow SAF production from feedstocks, potentially undermining the environmental sustainability and the emissions savings of SAF? Has he had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero around the likely needs for the very same stock as part of our energy production in the future, particularly given the potential growth of data centres? Does the Government have a collective approach on the need for both sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels servicing our energy sector? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken me by surprise by not picking me last.
I thank the Minister for opening this debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for his comments and wish him a very happy birthday. Without wanting to get into any party political back and forth, I would like to say that we had a really productive Bill Committee, in which Members from all parts of the House came together collaboratively because we all wanted this to be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who saw the Bill through Committee, was a huge driving force in ensuring that it will get on the statute book and that we will see the benefit of it.
I am being a little bit naughty, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is rare for me, but I particularly wanted to speak in this debate today because I was a member of the Bill Committee—one of my first in this place—and I saw the legislation through all its stages, from First Reading to Committee, only to miss Third Reading due to being on paternity leave. I think that on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I did get my priorities right.
However, as the Bill returns to this Chamber for the consideration of Lords amendments, I want to say how genuinely excited I have been to be part of this process. I believe that the Bill will make a difference not only to the aviation industry, which is hugely important to my constituency of Harlow, but also to Harlow itself. As I have mentioned previously in this place, my constituency starts at the end of Stansted airport’s runway. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was in his place today, he would point out that Stansted airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, so I am doing him a service by mentioning that.
This Bill will make a huge difference to people in my constituency. Hundreds of people are employed at Stansted airport, but Stansted airport college also has huge links with Harlow college. An earlier speaker mentioned how, when he goes into schools, he sees the younger people as the cabin crew, the pilot and the ground staff of the future. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stansted college—I did let the Leader of the Opposition know that I was visiting her constituency—to see the huge difference that that made to young people. We are not just talking about jobs; we are talking about careers and high-level occupations. I am really pleased that we will see 4,100 more jobs at Stansted airport because of its expansion. I am not expecting all of those 4,000 people to come from Harlow—although I have put in a request to the Manchester Airports Group—but that would be nice to see. We also know the difference that this Bill will make to the environment.
Naysayers will say that the increase of SAF production is not the answer, and that we need to decrease the number of people who fly, but we must be realistic about that. As I have said before, the expansion of Stansted airport will mean an additional 4,000 jobs for my area of the country. Aviation supports business travel and freight for millions, but SAF will also help to deliver on the green, clean energy and growth that has been so important to this Government. We know that, over its lifetime of usage, the use of SAF will reduce greenhouse gases by 70%, which is something that we can all get behind.
I know that I am expected to speak about the amendments, so I will briefly touch on Lords amendment 6. I am confident that the Secretary of State and the Minister will continue to consult those they consider appropriate ahead of any legislation. I am very reassured to hear the Minister say that he has already engaged with and got support from the devolved nations on this matter, but will he reflect on the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about how SAF production could be part of the Government’s wider aims and the conversations he has with Energy Ministers about getting to net zero? Decreasing our carbon usage and green energy are so important to that. When I go into schools and meet the pilots, cabin crew and ground staff of the future, the No. 1 thing they bring up are their concerns about climate change.
Finally, it has been a pleasure to be part of this process and see this Bill through Parliament. The Bill is a clear sign that this Labour Government recognise the importance of our aviation sector for the future of young people and for business and international trade. It is also clear that the Government recognise the importance of green energy solutions to ensure that this country and the world have a positive future. Although I missed Third Reading—this is the joke coming—I am glad to be here for the Bill’s final descent towards Royal Assent.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
As a fellow member of the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I welcome the return of the Bill to this place. Its progress is an example of the common-sense approach of this Labour Government.
With airport expansion and infrastructure expansion—such as, perhaps, the Glasgow airport rail link—necessary to support growth in every corner of the United Kingdom, and given the need to decarbonise the sector without pricing the ordinary Brit out of their holiday, the Government’s approach to aviation and this Bill has been the right one. While some Opposition Members—absent from their Benches—seem keen to condemn aviation and its economic benefits to the dustbin of history, this Bill takes the right approach. It will aid the Government’s growth commitment to the aviation sector alongside the progress being made on airspace modernisation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I am pleased to support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill and the Lords amendments. The Bill is about backing a world-class aviation sector and supporting its growth in a way that meets our decarbonisation responsibilities. The fact that SAF could contribute to the 65% reduction in emissions needed by aviation to meet net zero by 2050 is a useful reminder that technological development can ensure a future for higher carbon emitters while improving our environment. That is policy in action, and it will reduce disruption to consumers—something that we also have to bear in mind.
SAF matters not just for its decarbonisation credentials, but for its clear potential to support job creation and economic growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, it will bring into existence a circular economy, including flooding alleviation and the development of feedstocks. That would perhaps alleviate some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about the source of feedstocks.
Increasing home-grown SAF production can position the UK as a leading destination in this new market. Low-carbon fuels can support up to 15,000 jobs and contribute up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050. That is not an abstract prospect for those of us who represent communities built on industry and energy. In northern Lincolnshire, we already see what that can mean. Phillips 66’s Humber refinery in Immingham—in my neighbouring constituency—is the UK’s first and largest commercial scale producer of SAF. I was pleased to discuss the potential for the expansion of SAF operations with P66, especially given its recent acquisition of the Lindsey oil refinery site, which has a uniquely placed direct pipeline to London Heathrow.
It is of the utmost importance that UK refineries such as P66’s Humber refinery play a crucial role in the transition to and upscaling of cleaner fuel sources. That would retain the domestic skills base and supply chains that communities such as mine depend on. That is why I particularly welcome Lords amendments 1 to 3, which will ensure that the Secretary of State can enter revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced in the UK. That is a crucial step in protecting domestic industrial growth. Given recent global events that other colleagues have referred to, the amendments present straightforward, sensible safeguards that help the UK to build fuel capability and resilience in an ever volatile global fuel supply chain.
For SAF to be a success, and as we build the market, we must get the wider policy framework right, including carbon pricing and the UK emissions trading scheme. The ETS can support sustainable aviation fuel investment, but it needs to be negotiated with care so that British industry has the clarity and confidence it needs to invest for the long term. It must not face uncertainty or any unintended disadvantages.
I support the Bill and welcome the Lords amendments. I look forward to working with the Government to strengthen the link between ambition and real industrial opportunity here at home, creating jobs and career opportunities in communities such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
A few of my colleagues have been offering jokes. I was not able to prepare detailed remarks, so I hope they will forgive me if I just wing it. [Laughter.]
Although we have discussed decarbonisation a number of times in this debate, it has not been said yet that the Bill is about addressing the climate crisis. That incredibly important and urgent piece of work demands the utmost urgency and ambition. For that reason, I naturally support it and what it is trying to achieve. Similar mechanisms have been incredibly successful in developing the thriving renewables industry that we now see in the UK, which provides a lot of our energy.
It is worth while recognising that the Bill is part of a much longer journey to decarbonising aviation. I declare an interest early in my remarks: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen. In a very long timeframe, we can potentially see aviation using cryogenic hydrogen as a fuel source, so we should keep that in view.
Similarly, SAF has various generations of development, with different feedstocks and mechanisms of production. The fuels also have different characteristics and ways of interacting with gas turbine technology. Therefore, the devil will absolutely be in the detail of the mechanisms that the Government are putting forward to build a market for the various generations of SAF. I hope we will see more detail about that strategic approach as this legislation goes forward.
It is important, as the amendments make clear, that the UK benefits from what we are doing in the Bill. I am passionate about seeing the whole UK low-carbon energy supply chain building and scaling rapidly. That includes electrons—the Government already have very ambitious goals around decarbonising electricity—as well as molecules and hydrogen. We are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. I recently spoke to the Minister about that, and I understand that it is close. It is incredibly important that we have an ambitious and comprehensive strategy for the development of the hydrogen economy in the UK that does not just serve a small number of industrial clusters but underpins our decarbonisation of electricity, provides dispatchable power and provides an opportunity for industrial renewal as we move forward.
Hydrogen is an important feedstock for producing SAF by any route. We need a hydrogen economy, and for that we need a price. For a price, we need storage and transmission. As we fulfil our desires for SAF to be ambitious, bold and effective in decarbonising, we must also do the work as a Government to build a hydrogen economy to establish that anchoring price, as well as demand and production, so that we can see a thriving, decarbonising aviation sector, the renewal and regeneration of the whole UK industrial sector, and an absolute renaissance underpinned by low-carbon energy—both electrons and molecules.
Keir Mather
Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to start by asking for the leave of the House to speak again, and then wish a very happy birthday to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I was so keen to wish him a happy birthday, I nearly put a foot wrong when it came to parliamentary protocol. I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday during consideration of the Railways Bill with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). May I say, it was raucous, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) will attest?
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the Lords amendments and for his strong support for the principle of decarbonisation of aviation. I am starting to receive slightly mixed signals from the shadow Transport team as to how passionately they stand behind this prospect across different modes of transport. Perhaps that is one to be hashed out over a beer at his birthday celebrations. I am glad that the shadow Minister agrees with the Government amendments. He is right to point to the economic value of decarbonisation across the United Kingdom and the need to focus on value for money for taxpayers. We are committed to delivering that in the revenue certainty mechanism by controlling the scale and the number of contracts that are entered into, as well as the prices that are negotiated in each contract. I assure him that the cost of the scheme and the impact on passenger ticket prices will be kept under continual review. I do not just acknowledge his commitment to be vigilant on this issue; I actively welcome it, and I thank him for his contributions.
May I also acknowledge the presence of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)? I have already thanked him for his work on the Bill, but he was not in the Chamber, so I would like to take the opportunity to restate my thanks to him for getting this crucial legislation to where it needed to be.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). They were right to focus on and say that the benefits of SAF production must be felt in my home of Yorkshire as well as in Lincolnshire and across the United Kingdom. The point about Doncaster Sheffield airport is important, because the consumers who use our airports and seek to use aviation travel to connect themselves to the world also care that they can do so in a form of technology that the Government are doing their utmost to try to decarbonise. I am glad that they feel that that level of ambition is reflected both in these amendments and in the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) also pointed to that.
The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), was right to say that SAF is only one piece of the puzzle in aviation decarbonisation. Hydrogen flight, greenhouse gas removals and airspace modernisation all require focus. Those points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Worcester (Tom Collins).
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked me about the concerns about crop use in SAF. Currently, crop-based SAF will not be eligible for the SAF mandate, but a call for evidence on the subject is open and will close on 16 March. More broadly, he asked me a range of questions that were quite detailed, some of which lie outside the exact scope of the Lords amendments. I would therefore be grateful if he would write to me and set them out so that I can give him the full response that he requires.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his contribution. He is right to point to the skills benefit that the generation of a thriving UK SAF industry can bring to his constituents and to support the work in Stansted airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also raised the important point of ongoing questions surrounding the Grangemouth refinery. I reiterate, as he asked me to, that we are calling on investors to come forward and join us in the major opportunity to secure the long-term industrial future of Grangemouth as a hub for our clean energy future. With Government backing, we believe that now is the time for private sector partners to step forward and help shape the next chapter for Grangemouth. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to invest £200 million to support those new opportunities. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with us, and we are ready to engage with investors on that point.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
A5036 Park Lane footbridge
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The original footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane, Netherton, provided a safe crossing for thousands of children and adults for decades. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the pedestrian footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West junction is rebuilt, honouring the original promise to restore the bridge and ensuring safe and convenient access for the community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Bootle, Merseyside,
Declares that the footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West Junction should be rebuilt because the removal of the bridge in 2022 has caused significant inconvenience and safety concerns; further declares that the original bridge provided a safe crossing for thousands of children and adults for decades; and further declares that the proposed alternative crossing does not meet the needs of local residents and users.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the pedestrian footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West Junction is rebuilt, honouring the original promise to restore the bridge and ensuring safe and convenient access for the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003166]
SEND Provision: Local Authorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome many aspects of the special educational needs and disabilities White Paper, especially those on early intervention and increased funding. We know that most local authority SEND staff care deeply, and we are grateful for them for that, but local authority SEND provision is chronically underfunded and too often this has led to corner cutting, a culture of dishonesty and brutalisation. I fear that the Government have seriously underestimated the scale of harm. One mum wrote on my Facebook page:
“My daughter is self-harming and suicidal. EHCP behind by weeks. Discharged by CAMHS as educational setting is the main reason for mental health struggles and has to change before any work can be done. We are just left watching our children suffer. How is breaking the law by all these services allowed and not prosecuted?”
To this point, Mathew Purchase KC has said that the schools White Paper has
“a lot of good intentions, but which, on the face of it, are going to reduce the ability for children and families to enforce what they are legally entitled to.”
Last week I published, with The Times, 20 cases of avoidable SEND child suicide caused by failures by local authorities. All 20 of those children would have had their education, health and care plan rights removed under the Government’s plan, so would potentially have been even more vulnerable. Three of their mums have asked me to speak about their children.
Patricia Alban is here today. Her son Sammy was autistic. His local authority removed his EHCP. Despite 13 referrals by the police to the council, it refused to provide him with any of the support he needed. After a history of suicide attempts, Sammy died, aged 13, after falling from a harbour wall. His inquest concluded that he died from
“inadequate support from the local authority and mental health services.”
My constituent, Jen Bridges-Chalkley, started college in October 2021. She was 17 and had been diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Her local authority failed to update the college, through her EHCP, about her risk of suicide. One month later, she was dead. Her 81-page inquest report detailed continuous and prolonged failures by her local authority to provide the support she needed.
Eivie White was 13 when she killed herself, after years of denials and failures by her local authority to provide the support she needed for her autism. Her older sister found her body. She had to continue sleeping in the same bedroom in which Eivie had hanged herself because the local authority would not provide new housing. Six months later, Eivie’s best friend killed herself, aged 13.
Those are just three of over 200 testimonies I have received about avoidable SEND child suicide—it is an epidemic. It is our country’s duty to protect our most vulnerable citizens. How can the Government even consider cutting children’s rights?
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his powerful and sobering speech, and for securing the debate. He and I have talked before about his research, which is heartbreaking and demonstrates powerfully the need for change. We have arranged a date for me to visit and speak to some of the families he is working with, and I am happy to make time after the debate to talk with the families who are here today. This is just unimaginable loss.
The hon. Member set out that he has gathered 200 stories, but I understand that there are thousands more stories in which children and families have been failed. I have travelled around the country to talk to families, and I have also heard so many stories.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his truly emotional and very caring speech. While the Minister is travelling around the country, will she spend some time in west Somerset, where 2,500 children are on the crisis list?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for inviting me to speak to families in her area.
The conversations that I have had have so often been about parents battling for years to get the support that they know their children need, as the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley said, and about the powerlessness they feel as they watch their children struggle and fall behind.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
At my online advice surgery yesterday, I met constituent Jenny Wilson, who has fought tirelessly for her son Maxwell to receive support from their local authority—he is without a formal diagnosis. Jenny and other parents in my constituency would like to know what more the Government are doing to help children who do not have a formal diagnosis and are still being denied EHCPs or any additional support.
Georgia Gould
I very often hear that exact story: too much support is locked behind a diagnosis that takes years, or behind a bureaucratic process. The reforms that we have set out move investment directly into schools and services that wrap around schools. We are introducing two new layers of support—targeted and targeted-plus—that will be available to children, without that battle for external validation. Teachers will be able to draw on that to support children in their classrooms. That is backed up by two new pieces of investment: £1.6 billion going directly into schools; and £1.8 billion into a new “experts at hand” service, to pay for speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, specialist teachers and others who will support schools. Their support will be available for young people, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Chris Coghlan
I agree with what the Minister says, and it is good that all this provision is coming in, but I simply do not understand why, if she is so confident that these reforms will work, it is necessary to reduce children’s rights. I know that she is likely to say that the Government are not doing so, but it is the view of KCs—an authority I trust—that that is happening. In theory, if the reforms succeed, the demand to exercise those legal rights should naturally fall, because families should not need to use them, so whether or not those rights are there should be slightly irrelevant. However, if the reforms do not succeed, those rights gives families whose trust has collapsed the peace of mind that they can, in the worst cases, go to a tribunal and save their children’s lives.
Georgia Gould
It is really important to say to families that we are expanding their support and their rights. There will be new legal duties on schools to develop these new layers of support, which will mean that support is available earlier.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing this debate. It is so important that the lived experiences of parents are valued by local authorities and other services, and too often they are not. In 2023, two of my constituents, Jo and Chris, tragically lost their son Leo to suicide. Leo was a bright, intelligent, inquisitive child. He was also neurodivergent and struggled with his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. He is featured in the Times article that the hon. Member mentioned. The coroner’s report into his death found that he had been failed by multiple agencies over a sustained period. The hon. Member kindly reached out to Jo and Chris to learn more about what happened to Leo and the lessons that could be learned, and I am really grateful to him for doing so. Will the Minister agree to meet me, so that we can ensure the voices of parents like Jo and Chris are given the weight that they deserve?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that tragic story. Of course I would be willing to meet him to discuss it further. These are stories of failure, and we need to do better for these families and change things. We need a system in which every school is set up to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. We are making it mandatory for every teacher to be trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, investing directly in schools to provide that support and setting out new national standards and new accountability for schools.
The hon. Member for Dorking and Horley made a really important point about families still being able to apply for specialist support. Any individual who feels that their child is not getting the support they need through the targeted or targeted-plus offer will be able to have a needs assessment. If they are unhappy with the needs assessment, they will be able to go to the tribunal to challenge that decision, so there will be individual redress in the system.
But it cannot just be for individual families to hold the system to account, because that is the system we have at the moment, with families having to take on legal battles, and for those who do not have the resource, it is not possible to do that. We in the Department for Education and Ofsted have to hold institutions to account. We are really clear that we will provide more support for councils—we are supporting them with 90% of their deficits—but with that support comes much stronger accountability.
Chris Coghlan
I have repeatedly raised with the DFE over the last year very serious misconduct by Surrey county council, including concealing for over 14 months the fact that it had the highest number of complaints in the country and reclassifying complaints as inquiries to reduce complaint volumes. As far as I am aware, no disciplinary action has been taken. This is not a party political point, because it is a Conservative county council, and I know that, off the record, some Conservative county councillors feel exactly the same way about their own administration.
I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care on reforming the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and I was very impressed by its willingness to acknowledge misconduct and the need for accountability and transparency in that case. To be frank, all I have seen from the Department for Education is a culture of protecting one’s own and of cover-ups. When will serious action be taken against local authorities that commit misconduct on SEND and systematic lawbreaking? The Secretary of State for Education said that local authorities will be held to account, but given what has happened with Surrey county council, how can we have any confidence that they actually will?
Georgia Gould
Following the letters that the hon. Member and others wrote to the Secretary of State, she instructed further intensive activity in Surrey, including a number of deep dives into the issues that were raised, which will report back shortly. There are SEND advisers going in, and there is very close monitoring of what is happening in Surrey and the progress being made, but I take the wider point that families have made to me and Members across the Chamber that there needs to be greater accountability for local authorities. We recognise the challenging circumstances that local authorities have been in, but more investment is going in, and with that investment has to come stronger monitoring, accountability and intervention when there is failure.
As is set out in the schools White Paper, we are strengthening what we are able to do in a number of areas. We are very clear that if there is repeated and long-term failure, we will take SEND from local authorities. Working with the Disabled Children’s Partnership, we are setting out new conditions under which local authorities will need to learn from tribunal judgments, publish action plans on the back of them and show much greater transparency and action.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I particularly thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing the debate and for the manner in which he introduced it. Since he has been in this place, he has been a strong advocate for SEND families, and I thank him for that.
The Minister has heard me talk about Sara Sharif before, and my hon. Friend has talked about her during the debate. We are clearly very concerned about children’s services in Surrey county council and I hope that we have shown that intervention is needed. The Minister may disagree, but I beg her to take away that we want to ensure that the culture of children’s services at Surrey county council is not transferred to West Surrey council or East Surrey council in the future. If the Government agree with my assessment that intervention is needed now, they need to intervene to ensure that that culture is not transferred, so that we have the fresh start that vulnerable children in our constituencies so desperately need.
Georgia Gould
As I set out, we have appointed a SEND adviser who is offering that challenge to Surrey county council. We will continue to monitor the situation very carefully and I await the outcomes of the deep dives. I will be meeting parents, along with the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, to hear directly from them. I am committed to continuing to work with all the relevant MPs to ensure that children are getting the support that they need in Surrey. More generally, I am committed to ensuring that there is strong accountability and monitoring of performance, as well as putting in new investment and support.
I want to address the concern mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley that some young people who had previously had support will no longer get that support under the new system. I refer colleagues to the draft annexes that set out the specialist provision packages. I hope that those annexes reassure them that, as well as looking at children who have physical disabilities and complex learning difficulties, two of the specialist provision packages focus on social and emotional needs, and the interface with mental health.
Chris Coghlan
I fully believe that the Minister’s heart is in the right place, but for me the test is what lawyers and KCs—not to big them up too much—are saying about the White Paper: specialist educational lawyers are clear that the White Paper is reducing children’s rights. I would love to support the White Paper, but our country desperately needs reforms in this area, as this debate has highlighted. If the Minister wants my support, she will have to satisfy KCs that there is no reduction in rights, and at the moment there is.
Georgia Gould
Attached to the schools White Paper and the SEND consultation document is our own analysis of children’s rights and all the areas where we are strengthening them. I want to be really clear that the intention of the reforms is to bring in more support earlier and to extend the rights that children have access to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister is being generous with her time and I thank her for giving way. I want to reiterate the point about the families who have already gone through the system and who have fought for EHCPs, many of whom have had to go through tribunals and feel like they are having to do everything on their own. I come from a mental health background, and I am surprised that the system does not have what I would call a care co-ordinator to support families who are going through this difficult process.
Families are genuinely scared that the Government’s proposed reforms will lead to a stripping away of support. In my constituency, where we are served by Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust, it takes a year and a half to get an autism diagnosis, and even longer if people need medication for ADHD. I have raised that in this place with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care, but can the Minister reassure me that as part of the approach to SEND, she and her Department are looking at the interface between education and health? I understand what she says about the absence of a diagnosis not meaning that a child should not be supported—we could have another debate about that—but for many children a diagnosis is very important, and it needs to be timely and treatment needs to be quick and effective.
Finally, before I test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I invite the Minister to come to Meath school, a special educational needs school in Ottershaw in my constituency? It is an amazing place and every time I go there I learn so much, so it would be great if she could come along and meet the fantastic kids and teachers there.
Georgia Gould
I confess that I think I have committed to go to every constituency in the country, but I will do my best. [Laughter.] I cannot promise that every single ask will be responded to quickly, but I want to get to every community, and we will also be doing a number of online events as part of the consultation to ensure that everyone has the chance to feed in.
To respond to the hon. Member’s questions, first, it is important to make clear that we are not saying that children do not need a diagnosis. Diagnosis plays an important part in the system for children and young people, but it cannot and should not be a barrier to accessing support in the education system. Schools must have the tools to identify and respond to need, and the resource and well-evidenced interventions to wrap support around children without a diagnosis. However, we are committed to working with Health colleagues on improving the whole system, and the SEND consultation document is clear about that further work on accountability —not just for local authorities, but for integrated care boards. The hon. Member will know about the review of some of the inequalities in access to diagnosis.
The point about care co-ordinators and parental support is well made—that is something I have heard a lot from families. Within the consultation, we have asked a question about how that can be better delivered, and we are committed to doing more in that space. Lots of different ideas have come forward from different disabled children’s organisations and from parents, but I want to use the consultation to hear directly from parents about what is most helpful for them. In some models, parents who have been through the system are paid to support other parents, and the special educational needs and disabilities information advice and support service already exists. We want to look at all the different models, and I would welcome insights from across the House.
I want to provide some important reassurance to those parents who the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) talked about who are concerned about the changes. First, any child at a special school will remain there for as long as they want. We have deliberately taken a careful and staged approach and are putting investment up front, so we are building a new system before we look to transition into it. We are also asking the Children’s Commissioner to take an independent view of system readiness. Secondly, we are clear that any child transitioning from an education, health and care plan must move on to an individual support plan, with the wraparound support I have mentioned.
Chris Coghlan
The Minister is being very generous with her time, and I am being slightly cheeky.
I have a horrendous case involving a child in Dorking who is 12 years old. I saw the mother in September, a week after the child’s second suicide attempt. The child and adolescent mental health services wrote to the GP one week later, saying that their risk of suicide was low, but there have been more self-harm incidents since then. This child has autism, and last week the county council rejected them from getting an EHCP, so I am literally at my wits’ end about what to do on this case. First, if I were to write to the Minister about this particular case, I would be hugely grateful if she could intervene. Secondly, how would she envisage this child’s situation improving after the reforms?
Georgia Gould
That is a truly tragic case. Of course, I cannot comment without knowing the full circumstances, but I encourage the hon. Member to write to me. There are two ways that the reforms could improve the situation. First, rather than having to wait for years, that support will go in a lot earlier. As well as the particular support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we are working to bring more mental health support into schools to support children and young people. I mentioned the specialist provision packages and the drafts there, because I often hear from parents whose children do not get as much attention in the system because they internalise their social and emotional needs. Children who externalise those needs are sometimes not well supported either, but where they are internalised, those children get missed. We focused on those children and their need for specialist provision. For those children who can be supported in the mainstream, we want to put that support in earlier, but we want to have pathways into specialist support for those who need them.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my usual interest, as my wife is a special needs co-ordinator and one of our children has an EHCP. I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for bringing forward this debate. My constituents have seen our London borough of Bexley council have a safety valve agreement and an Ofsted inspection of systemic failings, which we are hopefully about to come out of. I have seen those things as a councillor and as a parent. I am the parent of twins, and I can tell the House that despite having an EHCP, the transfer for my daughter with an EHCP was so much more stressful than it was for my other daughter. I welcome the changes, as the Minister knows. There are still a few things we need to iron out in these conversations about transition, support for schools and the role of ICBs. Can the Minister commit that, through the consultation and legislative process, we will continue to hear those voices to get the package right? I know at first hand that the system is broken, and we have to get it right for these families.
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-term advocacy on this critical issue and for how much he has inputted into our work to improve the system. I am glad that he asked that question, because I wanted to finish with the voices of children, young people and families. We are committed to the accountability that has been asked for, and we will shortly be writing to all local authorities asking them to develop SEND improvement plans. We will be monitoring that carefully and will ensure that the voices of families are part of the intelligence that we receive about performance.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I apologise for being late for the debate; business was going more rapidly than I expected.
Many of us strongly believe that it is important that children are educated as close to home as possible. Unfortunately, I have a piece of casework in my constituency where one child is doing a three-hour round trip every single day just to get to school, which is unacceptable. With the new changes, will there be an option to change that? It would be helpful if the Minister could expand on that.
Georgia Gould
That is such a critical point, and we have heard too many stories about long travel times, and how having to be in transport provokes stress for children, which holds them back. We are determined that every community has access to that support, whether that is inclusive schools or a range of specialist places. That is why we have put £3.7 billion into creating those specialist places around the country, and it is also why we are working on specialist provision packages to ensure that each area has that range of provision. We are determined to build up local provision so that children can grow up close to their friends. I have spoken to young people who have been in the position that my hon. Friend describes. They come back to their communities at 18, and they do not have support networks or friends, and it is so hard to build a life. That has to change, and we are determined to do so.
We have set out our plans after more than a year of engagement, but we want to hear from the constituents of all the Members here and beyond. I am personally committed to travelling and speaking to different voices around the country. We have heard from all the different contexts how things work in rural communities and different parts of the country. It is critical that we get it right. This is a generational opportunity to make change for families who have been let down. I am determined that this will be a full and an open consultation. I ask everyone who is here today, and everyone who is listening, to help us to spread the word so that we hear the families’ voices. Having heard these stories, I feel very deeply—as, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley—the responsibility to change things for those families, and I am committed to working with Members on both sides of the House to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It be remiss of me not to extend an invitation to the Minister to visit St Edward’s school in my constituency of Romsey and Southampton North.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
In response to the covid-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 in autumn 2020 to enable the roll-out of the covid-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. Those amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and are due to lapse on 1 April 2026.
This instrument will retain several provisions within those regulations as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. It is designed to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as the wider lessons learned during the pandemic and in recent polio and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine catch-up programmes. It will support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider group of vaccines, helping the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future.
I will briefly set out what each of the regulations does. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A enable trained healthcare professionals, or staff under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals, to conduct the final stage of assembly and preparation of covid-19 vaccines, without additional marketing authorisations or a manufacturer’s licence being required. That enabled the bulk assembly of covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Given the more targeted approach of recent covid-19 vaccination campaigns, this instrument allows the provisions in paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A to lapse from 1 April this year.
Paragraphs (3) and (4) of regulation 3A permit holders of a wholesale dealer’s licence who do not hold a manufacturer’s licence to re-label covid-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease. That will enable a more efficient use of the capable vaccinator workforce, and will support further flexibilities in our supply chain.
Regulation 19 allows covid-19 and influenza vaccines to be moved between different NHS service providers at the end of the supply chain, without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease, with relevant safeguards to regulate its use. That will ensure that vaccines can be rapidly deployed in exceptional circumstances in response to public health needs.
Regulation 247A enables the use of an extended workforce who are legally and safely able to administer covid-19 or influenza vaccines without the input of a prescriber, using an approved protocol. This instrument allows regulation 247A to lapse from 1 April 2026, and introduces a new, permanent provision—regulation 235A —to continue the use of an extended vaccinator workforce through the introduction of a vaccine group direction. That will support the use of an extended workforce to administer any vaccine against any infectious disease where directed by a national body, and will ensure that the UK has the necessary agility and flexibility in its workforce to deliver those vaccinations.
Regulation 233 enables persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccination services off their registered premises, under a patient group direction. This instrument expands that provision to include any vaccine against an infectious disease. Additionally, to enable those services to continue after paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3 lapse from 1 April this year, this instrument amends regulation 3 to enable pharmacists to prepare or assemble medicines for a patient in the course of their treatment without a manufacturer’s licence. That will ensure that community pharmacies can deliver vaccination services off their registered premises, enabling them to deliver targeted outreach programmes.
Schedule 17 introduced a category of occupational health vaccinators, who are permitted under the written directions of a doctor to administer covid-19 and influenza vaccines as part of an NHS or local authority occupational health scheme. This instrument amends the list of professionals able to deliver OHS vaccinations, aligning it with the professionals able to supply medicines under a patient group direction. In addition, it expands the scope of schedule 17 to cover any vaccination or immunisation offered as part of an OHS. Those changes will improve access to vaccines for staff within and beyond the health and social care sector, protecting them in the vital roles that they do.
In developing this statutory instrument, from 5 September to 28 November 2025, the Government conducted a public consultation on our proposals, hosted by the Department of Health and Social Care for England, Wales and Scotland, and jointly with the Department of Health for Northern Ireland, as medicines regulation is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, and a reserved matter in Scotland and Wales. The consultation received 218 responses, from organisations and individuals sharing professional and personal views, the majority of which were supportive of the proposals.
We received many positive comments about how the flexibilities within the regulations have helped to increase access and efficiency across the system, while effectively utilising the workforce that came into place to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccinations following the covid-19 pandemic. The consultation posed 15 questions on the technical aspects of the regulations, and we saw broad agreement on each of those proposals. Given the technical nature of the questions and the limited time the Committee has to discuss this instrument, I will not provide an immediate analysis of each response here; however, the published Government response can be accessed on the gov.uk website.
This instrument builds on the successes of the large-scale vaccination programmes during the covid-19 pandemic to support patient safety, improve access to and availability of vaccines, and ensure that the vaccine system continues to innovate. The changes will implement improvements that will help to facilitate the shift from “sickness to prevention”, as described in the Government’s 10-year health plan, helping to restore trust in vaccinations and ultimately increasing vaccine uptake.
Regulations 3 and 8 will enable community pharmacies to play a bigger role in prevention by expanding their role in vaccine delivery and enabling targeted outreach in areas where health inequalities remain pervasive, and where evidence indicates that doing so is clinically appropriate and value for money. The changes will support the delivery of commitments on vaccination and immunisation frameworks in Scotland and Wales, and an instrument will be laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly in parallel to these regulations, to deliver changes to the vaccination system across the United Kingdom.
To conclude, the instrument makes changes that will permanently support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider range of vaccines, and the proposals were supported by the majority of respondents to our consultation. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee, and hope that hon. Members will support them.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these regulations, as anything that improves trust in medicines and vaccines is important. We need to increase the uptake of vaccines; it has fallen gradually and continues to fall, and we need to reverse that.
I have a couple of technical questions. As the Minister said, the principle behind the amendment to regulation 3 of the 2012 regulations is to make prescribing pharmacists equivalent to doctors and dentists. However, regulation 3(8) currently refers to,
“another doctor or dentist…of the same…practice.”
Given that pharmacists will now also be included, should that be amended to “another doctor, dentist or pharmacist”, or “a doctor or dentist”?
Regulation 5 redefines an “occupational health vaccinator” and refers to a list in part 4 of schedule 16 to the 2012 regulations. That significantly broadens the list to include individuals such as speech and language therapists who are not accustomed to dealing with injectable medications, but appears to exclude operating department practitioners, who, as the Minister will be aware of from his practice, are used to dealing with injectable medications. Could the Minister explain the reason for removing those practitioners from the list?
Regulations 8 and 9 talk about the vaccine group direction. The patient group direction is essentially a group prescription, where a clinician signs off the circumstances in which medication—say, paracetamol —may be given by a non-prescriber. We had such a direction for the covid-19 vaccine during the pandemic. This vaccine group direction would be different, so why does the Minister feel that we need a different process to the patient group direction that is already available for vaccines, which are prescription medicines? Instead, those directions can be signed by someone who is not a clinician—such as a manager in the Department of Health or, in fact, a private company—and they do not need to have any clinical skills or qualifications at all. A clinician, or one of the people listed, must decide whether the conditions have been met, and they can then give the patient the medicine without having prescribed it.
I want to ask a couple of questions on this issue. How does that improve trust, when we have a vaccine-sceptic population and lots of material on social media, some of which is not entirely accurate? How does allowing a prescription to be written by someone with no clinical experience help with trust and those rates? Is there a plan to contract out vaccine provision to the private sector, because that is what this provision allows for? Who is ultimately responsible? Is it the non-clinician who signs the vaccine group direction? Who is the clinician ultimately responsible for the decision to give the vaccine in the event that someone has an allergic reaction or an adverse reaction of some other type?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support; she is a learned Member of this House, and I know she takes these matters extremely seriously both here and in her own clinical practice.
She raised a technical point on whether the sub-paragraph should include the word “pharmacist”, given the updating of the regulations—I am very happy to explore that further to ensure that the wording is optimal. I also want to reassure her on the point she made about the workforce; training and a governance framework will be set up by the UK Health Security Agency, which will oversee all of this. Whether it is an operating department practitioner or anyone else, there will be a basal level of training that can reassure all Members of this House, whether we are the clinician prescribing the vaccination or the citizen receiving it. This will be overseen very tightly by the UKHSA.
Dr Johnson
Before the Minister moves on, can I just ask him why ODPs appear to have been removed from the list?
Dr Ahmed
I am not clear on why they have been removed from the list. However, I certainly expect that anyone who is reasonably trained will be able to deliver vaccines in the settings that we have proposed, which include community hospitals and everywhere in between, when we need to think about hard-to-reach communities.
The shadow Minister also asked a question on vaccine group direction versus patient group direction. The primary difference is that the VGD allows for the separation of the decisions to treat and provide consent by a registered healthcare professional, which still need to exist, from the administration of the vaccine, which is then done by a separate individual. That is not possible under a PGD, so it is about separating the roles. However, I reassure her that the consent process in prescriptions is paramount, and she is right that it must continue to be if we want to invite people’s confidence in the vaccination process.
Dr Johnson
Can the Minister confirm that the vaccine group direction—unlike a patient group direction, which ultimately needs to be signed by a clinician—would not need to be signed by a clinician, and can instead be signed by a senior manager either within a company or department?
Dr Ahmed
I will clarify that for the shadow Minister, but we are both cognisant of the wider point that clinicians ultimately take responsibility for prescriptions and informed consent of the vaccination process, and that will still continue. Healthcare professionals will still be seeking consent for treatment; the VGD simply means that they can be separate to the person who is then administering the vaccine in practice. There is no suggestion that there will not be clinical oversight or governance of this process—it is quite the opposite. This provision is designed to tighten governance frameworks and make them more transparent.
As I set out at the start of the debate, the proposed amendments aim to support the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future. They are designed to build upon the benefits that HMRs have provided to date, as well as wider lessons learned during the pandemic, including recent polio and MMR catch-up programmes. In amending these regulations, the Government are seeking to maintain important safety measures while also increasing the effectiveness of the system’s supply chains and workforce in vaccination programmes.
The science unequivocally tells us that, after clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health. It is therefore a solemn duty of this Government to do all we can in this space to support the health system’s ability to deliver vaccines for all those eligible and, in turn, help support vaccine uptake. Given the overall support of the proposals in the consultation, and the ongoing need to support the continued safe and effective supply, distribution and administration of vaccines both now and in future, it is our intention to make permanent the provisions discussed during the debate. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to be in this Committee this afternoon, Sir Alec. The statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 2 February 2026, amends regulations concerning the levies used to fund the operational costs of the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company. The LCCC administers the contracts for difference scheme on behalf of the Government under the Energy Act 2013. Under the same Act, the LCCC also administers schemes modelled on the CfD scheme, including the dispatchable power agreement and the low-carbon dispatchable contracts for difference.
The LCCC acts as the revenue collection counterparty for the regulated asset base for new nuclear under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022. It is anticipated that, subject to future policy decisions and the will of Parliament, the LCCC will conduct additional work to support Government under the Energy Act 2013. That includes work on a new scheme supporting the deployment of large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, as well as work related to proposals by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to support nuclear generation and around potentially supporting landfill gas generation. The ESC administers the capacity market scheme. Those schemes will incentivise the significant investment that is required in our electricity infrastructure, keep costs affordable for consumers and help to deliver our clean power mission while delivering on energy security.
In terms of the existing schemes, CfDs provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The most recent CfD auction—the seventh that we have had—secured a record 14.7 GW of new clean energy capacity across Great Britain, making it the most successful renewables auction in the country’s history. It brought forward a diverse range of renewable technologies while delivering a good deal for bill payers. The LCCC is currently signing the 197 CfDs with projects that were successful in that auction.
Under the Energy Act, DPAs are agreements modelled on CfDs. They have been designed to instil confidence among investors for power carbon capture and storage projects and to incentivise the availability of low-carbon, non-weather-dependent dispatchable generation capacity. The LCCC signed its first DPA on 19 November 2024, which related to the Net Zero Teesside power project. That pioneering project in the north-east aims to build the world’s first commercial-scale gas-fired power station with carbon capture and storage. Over the next three years, the LCCC is expected to sign additional DPAs, which will drive the private sector investment required to bring forward further power carbon capture and storage projects by the mid-2030s. The LCCC will be the counterparty for those, and funds have been included within the budgets before us to support that role.
The LCCC signed its first low-carbon dispatchable CfD with Drax on 4 November 2025. That agreement, which came before this House, will ensure that Drax generates electricity when needed between 2027 and 2031, thus bolstering our energy security. That was a good agreement for consumers, saving £6 a year on household bills compared with the arrangements in place under the previous Government.
The Government subsequently agreed heads of terms for an additional LCD CfD with EP Lynemouth Power Ltd on 6 February 2026. If a full contract is concluded in the coming months, it will further bolster our energy security by ensuring that Lynemouth can continue to generate between 2027 and 2031. The revenue collection contract with Sizewell C Ltd, the first project to use the regulated asset base model for new nuclear, became effective on 4 November 2025. Funds have been included in this budget to cover the LCCC’s operational costs for that RAB.
Turning to the ESC, the capacity market is the tried, tested and most cost-effective way of ensuring that we have electricity capacity when we need it. It provides all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system and generate electricity when we need it by increasing generation or turning down electricity demand in return for guaranteed payments. The capacity auctions to date have secured the capacity that we need to meet the peak demand out to 2028-29. A T-1 auction is ongoing, and a T-4 auction will take place next week, securing most of the capacity that we need toward 2029-30.
In both the CfD and capacity market schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures that costs for consumers are kept as low as possible. DPAs are allocated through a process involving competitive assessment, followed by shortlisting, then a final stage of bilateral negotiations between the developers and DESNZ. LCD CfD contracts are agreed following a structured negotiation process between DESNZ and the generator.
Revenue collection contracts under the RAB are agreed through a structured process involving Ofgem, the LCCC and DESNZ, which provides a stable, regulated revenue stream to projects during construction and operation. In turn, we expect the RAB to lower the cost of financing for nuclear—one of the biggest drivers of new project costs—resulting in better value for money for consumers.
The LCCC and the ESC’s effective administration of all those schemes has demonstrated their ability to deliver the schemes at a low cost to consumers. That is part of the reason why the LCCC has been working with DESNZ and other parts of Government to develop new schemes for incentivising the deployment of even more low-carbon technologies. For example, the LCCC is working with my Department to develop incentives that will be useful in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although they have not been confirmed yet, contracts for such projects could potentially be entered into, following the process outlined in the 2013 Act.
It is important that the LCCC and the ESC are sufficiently funded to perform their roles effectively, given their critical role in administering those schemes, which I have just outlined. However, the Government are clear that both companies must deliver value for money. With that in mind, we have closely scrutinised their operational cost budgets to ensure that they reflect operational requirements and objectives for the companies. The LCCC and the ESC are very mindful of the need to deliver value for money as one of their guiding principles.
Operational costs per contract are expected to fall by 27% per CfD across the budget period, despite the growing CfD portfolio, because of a number of actions to bring down costs. The narrative is similar for the ESC, which expects the number of capacity market electricity meters to exceed 1.2 million over the budget period—a 450% increase on current meter numbers. The ESC intends to invest in a system architecture redesign to manage the growth and minimise costs, and it estimates that costs per meter will fall by 23%. The operational cost budgets for both companies were subject to consultation, which gave stakeholders and others the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, ensure that they represent value for money.
These regulations revise the levies currently in place to enable the companies to collect enough revenue to fund their budgets. Any levy collected that is not spent will be returned to suppliers at the end of the relevant financial year, in accordance with the regulations. Subject to the will of Parliament, the settlement cost levy for the ESC is due to come into force on the day after these regulations are made. The operational cost levies for the LCCC will come into force by 1 April in each of the relevant financial years.
I assure Members that the Government are mindful of uncertainties in setting a budget for the next three years, such as world events impacting on energy demand and policy decisions on new schemes that have not yet been taken. Consequently, we will keep the companies’ budgets under careful review throughout the budget period to ensure that the cost to consumers is minimised. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It has been too long since I have had the pleasure of responding to the Minister in a Committee Room.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations update the mandatory levies that electricity suppliers must pay to support the operation of the CfD scheme, the capacity market and the nuclear RAB model. These are technical changes, and the Conservatives will not oppose them.
However, while I have the Minister’s attention, I have some questions to put to him. The Government came into office pledging to cut energy bills by £300, but, some 18 months later, we have seen no evidence of that promise being fulfilled. The sleight of hand in pushing costs on to tax bills has not had the desired effect. Does the Minister think that the Government will actually deliver a £300 energy bill cut?
The Government’s press release said that the Department’s “internal analysis” proved that CfD allocation round 7 would cut bills, but the Department refused to let us see that analysis when we submitted a written question asking to see it. Why is the Minister’s Department refusing to publish that analysis? What is it trying to hide? Will it finally commit to publishing a full systems-cost analysis of the new energy system, which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State, so that we can have an open and honest debate about the cost of the new system?
Finally, will the Minister commit to implementing the recommendations of the Fingleton review in full to make nuclear power much cheaper, quicker and easier to build in this country?
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec.
The regulations update the electricity supplier payments for the contracts for difference, electrical capacity and nuclear regulated asset base model schemes, and they will allow for funding that covers the operational costs of those schemes. It was the Liberal Democrats who originally created the contracts for difference scheme while in government, which provided support for low carbon sources with fixed prices for the power that they produce. We must continue to support these clean energy schemes, which will bolster the UK’s energy security and price stabilisation.
As we are seeing this week, geopolitical instability and the closure of the strait of Hormuz will have an extensive impact on the price of wholesale gas. Qatar’s decision to close the world’s largest gas terminal could have a direct impact on customers here in the UK. We are seeing some of the fastest spikes in wholesale gas prices, which are surging by more than 40%. Just this morning, we have seen prices spike by 30% for day ahead UK delivery. For month ahead contracts, the price was at 148p per therm this morning, which is a three year high.
That is why we need urgently to turn to renewable energy sources, continue to develop the infrastructure and technology that will actually support an energy secure future, and move away from over dependence on volatile fossil fuel imports. Given that, it is important that electricity suppliers can recover sufficient funds to cover their expected operational costs. I fully recognise the need to support clean energy schemes that will actively boost our energy security and resilience for decades to come.
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for all those technical questions on the statutory instrument before us. Let me turn to the more general questions that were asked. I welcome the support from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; it is always a great pleasure when he supports things that this Government are doing. Unfortunately, he does not do it often enough.
On costs, the Chancellor made a decision in the Budget to take £150 off bills. That has come through in the price cap period, taking into account the need for investment in the network in order to pick up the slack from the time that the shadow Minister was in government—I think he was the Minister for networks for a period. The work to build the grid that the country needs was not done then, so we need to invest in the grid now, but that is a significant investment in bringing down bills, and we stand by the promise to take £300 off bills by the next election.
There are two fronts here. The cost of living is the most important thing facing people across the country, and it is the thing that every bit of Government is seized of taking action on. That is why the £150 was important. Equally, there is no shortcut to bring down bills in the long run, so it is important to say that this work is over the lifetime of the Parliament, to ensure that we put in place the measures that get us off more expensive gas.
The shadow Minister referenced AR7. The outcome from that in terms of cost was that the prices came in at 40% cheaper than the cost of building and running new gas power stations. That is fundamentally the difference here. His party has taken the decision to reference the wholesale cost of gas—given the events of recent days, I wonder whether it might revisit that—while completely ignoring the cost of building and operating the new gas power stations that would be necessary. That power does not just come out of nowhere.
On refusing to publish the analysis, I have the benefit of taking my written questions incredibly seriously, so I signed off the answer to that written question myself, and that was not in fact the answer. I do not know whether it was the shadow Minister who asked the question, but the answer that was sought was in the footnote to the AR7 publication, so we did not have to publish more. It was there in the footnote, if his colleagues had bothered to read it.
We have made it very clear that we will publish a response to the Fingleton review very soon. We had hoped to do that in the past few days, but, given all the things that are going on, we will publish it as soon as we possibly can. We are determined to move forward on the recommendations, because the shadow Minister is absolutely right; we need to build more nuclear much faster in this country.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I am delighted that the Lib Dems still take credit for some things that they did in government—although not so much austerity and tuition fees. We will move past that, because I know she does not like to talk about those days.
The hon. Lady is right to raise the uncertainty in the middle east. That underscores how important it is that we focus on our energy sovereignty here in the UK. This is clearly a turbulent time, but, in truth, we have been living through an uncertain world for a very long time. The only way we can get off the volatile series of ups and downs that we have seen in fossil fuels over decades is to build clean power here in the UK and control the nuclear, the renewables and the storage that goes along with it, which is absolutely critical.
These schemes are really important, and we have seen CfDs and other things being exported to other countries, because they are seen as the way to reduce the cost of capital. That feeds through into all consumer bills, which we are determined to reduce. I welcome the cross-party consensus on the Government’s energy policy—it is a delight to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The statutory purpose of the Construction Industry Training Board—I shall refer to it as the CITB from now on—is to make better provision for training across the construction industry. The 2023 independent review of industry training boards by Mark Farmer confirmed the ITBs’ continued value in addressing persistent and structural workforce challenges within their industry. The review also found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry-wide investment in training. This draft statutory instrument gives effect to the CITB levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the CITB’s primary source of funding, and the order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on in-scope employers.
The funding raised through the levy will enable the CITB to continue its essential work to tackle skills shortages and market failure in training in the construction sector across England, Scotland and Wales. Recognising the differing views within the sector, the CITB continues to receive strong support from employers. The draft order is built on industry consultation, consensus and stability. During the formal consensus process about the proposals in spring 2025, the CITB consulted all 14 prescribed organisations in its industry, alongside a structured survey of non-represented employers. More than 67% of levy-paying employers supported the proposals, representing almost 72% of total levy value—comfortably above the statutory thresholds required for consensus to be achieved.
Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I take this opportunity to return to the findings of the Farmer review. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to consult industry on a proposal to bring together the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, or ECITB, to create a single unified body to support the combined skills needs of the construction and engineering construction sectors. That proposal delivers on the recommendation of the Farmer review, which the Government accepted subject to further scoping. It builds on the ITBs’ existing collaborative approach to working together, as demonstrated through initiatives such as the Sizewell C skills charter: a set of commitments between the ITBs, the local councils and Sizewell C to help ensure the skilled and inclusive workforce needed to deliver that vital nuclear power station.
The consultation is expected to launch shortly, and the views expressed by industry will inform a decision on how to proceed. We cannot prejudice the outcome of the process and, in any case, the earliest the change would be likely to take place is April 2027. Should the Government choose to proceed with the proposed reform, any new levy order will come to the House through the proper parliamentary process. In the meantime, it is vital to the continuity of CITB support for employers that the draft levy order that we are debating today continues as planned.
I return to the proposals for the draft levy order. I give my thanks to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review. This order retains the levy assessment rates that have remained unchanged for four years. Despite employer demand for CITB services having risen by 36% since 2021, levy rates have been deliberately held steady to support businesses still navigating difficult trading conditions at home and globally.
The draft order also raises the exemption and reduction thresholds to protect small and micro businesses from unintended levy burdens caused by wage inflation. Employers with wage bills of up to £149,999 will be exempt, and those with wage bills between £150,000 and £499,999 will receive a 50% reduction. Those thresholds will ensure that about 69% of eligible employers pay no levy at all, while a further 15% benefit from reduced rates. All those employers remain eligible for CITB grants and support. The CITB estimates that the proposals will raise about £243 million per year, to be invested in supporting the skills needs of the construction industry. That investment will fund vital programmes to widen participation, raise skills levels, tackle disadvantage and set occupational standards for the industry.
In 2024-25, the CITB supported over 30,000 apprentices and 20,000 vocational qualification achievements; provided almost £130 million in grant funding—including £60 million for small businesses and microbusinesses; and committed up to £40 million to support fast-track training and apprenticeships in areas of high demand for home-building skills. That funding directly underpins our broader economic priorities.
The construction sector contributes over £211 billion in total output each year and employs more than 2 million people, but the fragmented nature of the industry, which has a high rate of self-employment and complex supply chains, makes voluntary investment in training less likely to occur. Without a statutory levy, the skills that the industry urgently needs will simply not materialise at the scale required. If the draft order is not approved, the CITB will be unable to collect levies in 2026, with potential impacts on apprenticeships, vital industry qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of one of the UK’s most economically significant sectors.
The UK requires an estimated 240,000 additional construction workers by 2029, with the largest pressures felt in home building, infrastructure, and repair and maintenance. Approving this draft order therefore plays a critical role in delivering the Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million safe and decent homes during this Parliament, as set out in our plan for change, and in supporting major infrastructure and clean energy projects across Great Britain that are vital to economic growth and increased opportunity.
In addition to industry support, the proposals before the Committee today have received the support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as do we, that maintaining the CITB’s ability to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensure that employers across all three nations can access the construction skills they need. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
The draft order that we are debating will allow the Construction Industry Training Board to raise one more year of levy on the construction sector for the specific purpose of funding training. The purpose of the levy is to support the construction industry to have a skilled, competent and inclusive workforce for the future. The levy equates to 0.35% for pay-as-you-earn employees and to 1.25% for those with net payment status under the construction industry scheme, and it is reinvested in the industry by the board.
In 2024-25, the CITB provided nearly £130 million in grant support to construction employers and learners. That has helped to confront the training challenges that persist due to the high number of self-employed workers in the sector. The CITB estimates that 48,000 extra construction workers will be needed each year until 2029 to meet demand—a gap that could grow to 160,000 to fulfil the Government’s housing and retrofit ambitions. The industrial training levy will be vital to bridge that gap, and I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans.
Nearly 60,000 potential new entrants leave the industry each year. What specific steps is the Minister taking to improve workforce retention alongside efforts to increase recruitment into the construction industry? Employer demand for CITB support has increased by 36% since 2021 while levy rates have remained unchanged, with demand now exceeding levy income. Given the financial pressures and the projected workforce requirements, can the Minister clarify the extent to which the reforms will not only meet the demand, but support the Government’s housing and infrastructure ambitions? We welcome the support provided to apprenticeship starts through the National Employment Savings Trust, but can the Minister say what proportion of those apprentices remain in sustained employment after 12 months?
I should have declared an interest at the beginning: I have family members who have worked for a local construction industry training group. On the restructuring of how training is funded, I highlighted in an Adjournment debate on 4 January that local training groups, which have played an enormous role in training in the construction industry over many decades, are being sidestepped under the new plans, and their local knowledge of the sector could be lost as delivery changes.
In that debate, I asked how funding will be allocated to areas that do not have a strategic local authority, such as my constituency of South West Devon. That is a key part of how this draft order will be delivered, and I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on this issue, together with assurances that areas without a strategic local authority will not be disadvantaged in any way as the transition takes place. We will not oppose the regulations, but we would appreciate it if the Minister addressed the concerns that I have raised.
Matt Western
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution and for the thoughtful scrutiny applied to the draft levy order. The evidence is consistent: market forces alone will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs, which I suspect is what is driving her questions about how the Government will tackle that. Whether it is meeting the demand for new homes, retrofitting and repairing existing properties, or delivering the critical infrastructure needed for economic growth, there is work to do.
The levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focused skills strategy for the construction industry and ensures that employers of all sizes can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. It also creates opportunities to help apprentices and other new entrants complete high-quality training, and enables existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers. If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will write to her with the specifics on the percentage of apprentices still in meaningful employment, as well as on her question about workforce retention.
On the question of recruitment, particularly through the mechanism of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady will have noted the changes the Government are bringing forward to apprenticeship funding to introduce new foundation apprenticeships, of which construction apprenticeships form a key component. We think that will be essential to driving more young people towards construction apprenticeships and meeting the skills demand that we face if we are to deliver on the 1.5 million homes target.
Clearly, it is our intention to ensure that areas without a strategic authority are not disadvantaged in any way. The number of areas for which that is the case is changing all the time. I represent an area within a combined authority, but it is certainly not our intention for anybody to miss out on opportunities as a consequence of their local governance arrangements.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her questions and for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will come back to her, as I said, on the specifics. For the reasons set out in my opening speech, with which the Opposition spokesperson largely agrees, I commend this levy order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Community Cohesion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of strengthening community cohesion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important and timely debate. We are living in an increasingly divided world. Strong forces are pulling us apart; strong currents are dragging us out to sea. Powerful intoxicants of the snake-oil variety in commerce and politics, and with the social media companies and beyond, are undermining the sense of community cohesion that we innately know is so valuable.
Community cohesion offers a bulwark against those worrying trends. While our sense of community is under threat from online toxicity and barely concealed racism, it is the everyday patriots—the volunteers, the grafters and the hard-working people who run food banks and other organisations—who show us what community truly means. They show us what it means to be British. I will highlight shining examples from my constituency of Rugby, and argue that human interaction is essential if we are to stave off the threats facing our community cohesion.
Why is this happening? I believe that community hinges on human interaction. We are sociable beings, pack animals at heart—just ask the Whips. We require bonds with those around us, yet in an era of rapid urbanisation, fulfilling that innate need is becoming harder. As cities grow larger, people feel further apart, with 83% of the population now living in urban conurbations. For many, the sense of belonging is evaporating, supercharged by social media, where anything that anyone could wish to know sits at their fingertips, and people can be “friends” with someone they have never met.
Technology and social media detach us from one another. Friendly interactions have become electrical impulses down fibre-optic cables; abuse has been amplified by algorithms designed to promote conflict and by those emboldened by the shield of their keyboards. Never have we felt so far apart while being so close electronically—together, alone.
The deteriorating sense of community has started to manifest itself in ugly ways. People, organisations and vested interests are exploiting our fear, anger and alienation. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the demonstration of flags last summer, which in my eyes did not truly represent community.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. One of our vital tasks in creating stronger communities is to counter how patriotism and national symbols are abused by racists and the far right. I am grateful for the work that British Future and Hope not Hate are doing with me on this, alongside excellent local partners such as the Leyton Orient Trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first steps in community cohesion is learning how to be strong and proud in diversity, and saying clearly that our flags belong to all of us, as do our streets and country?
John Slinger
My hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to make similar points. I often say in my constituency—as I did at the Chinese new year celebrations only a week or so ago—that our diversity is a strength, not the weakness that, sadly, so many people increasingly feel it to be. It is a strength, and I am proud to say that again.
The misuse of flags represents division, or even a thinly veiled warning. The infamous Overton window has shifted; values that we thought were sacrosanct—battles that were won—now need to be relitigated. Hoisting flags on lampposts, only to allow them to become torn and dirty, denigrates them. They should be flown high from civic buildings and other places with pride, not weaponised to intimidate.
I will never surrender the flag. It represents the diverse, plural, generous nature of our United Kingdom, but recent displays have left people feeling frightened, fragmented and as though they do not belong here. The problem is not patriotism. I support any true patriot, but no one group, party, skin colour, race or ethnicity owns patriotism. Anyone who wants to build this country up rather than kick it down—anyone who cheers on our national teams, works in our health service, educates our young people, volunteers at a food bank or drives the bus with a smile—is a patriot, and I commend them.
Those who stoke fear and division are not patriots. We saw fever-pitch, dangerous rhetoric last summer when Elon Musk and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon addressed the crowds. It is exactly that kind of language that now manifests itself, leaving my constituents, in Rugby of all places, feeling increasingly frightened.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Liverpool Riverside has the longest established diverse communities in the country, and I am proud that we are a city of sanctuary. When I saw Tommy Robinson galvanising 100,000 people on the streets of London last year, it was very frightening and polarising. However, we have organisations working together. Together Alliance is holding a celebration of the diversity of this country on 28 March, and I recommend that everybody make every attempt to get there. I hope my hon. Friend will attempt to attend.
John Slinger
I concur with my hon. Friend. I commend her and all involved in that event, and I certainly will check my diary—no doubt my head of office is looking at my calendar to see whether there is any space. That is a very important activity, and I hope it is replicated across the country.
In Rugby, the main town in my constituency, I am sad to say that people came up to me after the Unite the Kingdom march to say that they felt not only uneasy, but scared. For the first time, they felt that they were being tutted at, and that people were saying things under their breath as they walked past in the street. They felt glared at. One woman, born and bred in Rugby, who has brown skin, told me as I campaigned that she did not want to go into town on a Saturday. That is absolutely disgraceful.
As an MP, I see my role in part as being a convener. We have the power to bring people together. I campaigned on the theme of “Together we can”. I continue to believe in that and want to espouse it. Last year, I convened an interfaith forum, bringing together leaders of different religions and denominations to discuss how we can strengthen community bonds. I regularly visit churches, temples and other places of worship, as other hon. and right hon. Members do. They play a vital role in promoting tolerance and nurturing belonging.
As an MP, I also have the honour of witnessing the dedication of others. Rugby is a shining example of a town forging community bonds—other constituencies are of course available, as a BBC presenter might say. There are too many initiatives to name, but the Benn Partnership stands out as a shining example of what could and should be replicated across the country. Its community centre in the heart of the Benn ward in Rugby offers meet and eat schemes and community lunches, alongside art and language sessions and very much more—I know that there are similar organisations run by members of staff and volunteers across the country. I hold Joyce Wooding and her team who run the centre in the highest regard.
The peace walk in Rugby, which I had the privilege of attending, is another example of different faiths and non-believers coming together and uniting the community. I have visited the Hill Street, Bradby and Binley Woods youth clubs, and seen their amazing work to bring young people together. I have been on patrols with Rugby’s street pastors, and with the community wardens, who are organised brilliantly by Rugby borough council. They, too, work to strengthen our community. The common denominator in those schemes is the human element and the concept of community: being part of a group larger than ourselves, and having obligations to it as well as receiving benefits from it.
When we meet people who look, speak and worship differently, we discover common ground—“It turns out that you watch rugby too. You enjoy a drink in the pub. You worship the same God, just in a different building on a different road”.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Will he join me in recognising the work that brilliant charities such as the Derby County Community Trust do to bring communities together, whether through the Harrison’s Hub, where it provides meals for those across communities, or its provision of mental health support to men who need it? The work it does in integrating our communities is vital.
John Slinger
I certainly pay tribute to that important organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It knits together different elements of our community, providing support as well as joyous, fun things that people can do together, which strengthens the community.
Through encounters with people who are different from us, horizons broaden and bonds strengthen. We realise that we share the same worries, the same dreams and the same desire for peaceful, happy lives for ourselves, our families and our friends. Exposure to difference does not divide us, it draws us closer—or at least it should. It does not matter what someone’s colour, creed or religion is, or whether they have a religion. If they live in my community, they are my people. Building this cohesion is an active process: it never stops and requires constant nurturing. It is our job to educate children on how to act, to accept difference, to show kindness— a much underrated word—to tolerate and to love.
Different parties will, of course, take different approaches —from David Cameron’s big society to other models of civic renewal—but the principle is the same. If the mainstream fails to strengthen community bonds, others will seek to fracture them. It is not just an exercise in interfaith dialogue, although that is important. It is the other bonds that bring us together: clubs, sports teams, civic society, and public institutions such as libraries, museums and galleries—we have a brilliant one in the heart of Rugby—and faith groups, charities, jobcentres and schools that open themselves up to the community. Of course, as a Labour politician, I believe that the state, both locally and nationally, can, should and must help these groups and organisations, working in partnership with them and with business as well.
I also commend the Jo Cox Foundation, which I met recently, for its tireless work to build bridges where others build barriers. We all have a responsibility for community cohesion, and I am playing my part. The key challenge is to give more opportunities for people to answer the call: to ask not what the community can do for them, but what they can do for the community.
I will hold a strengthening community cohesion roundtable in March. Racism, xenophobia, myths and lies must be called out wherever they lurk. I know the Government are working hard and have been proactive in the face of an increasingly toxic and divisive force operating in our country. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has created various taskforces to deal with some of those issues, particularly around community cohesion, and I commend it for that. Can the Minister update us on the important work that her Department is doing?
In closing, those who strengthen the community are the true patriots: the volunteers, the neighbours, the quiet grafters. They strengthen the bonds between citizens and give us, especially young people—although I am not a young person, just for the record—opportunities to flourish. They ask not what they can receive, but what they can contribute to the community. They are the best of us, and I will champion them for as long as I have the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament.
I will also do all I can to support the good work that the Government are doing across the piece, because it is not just in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department that this work needs to be done, but in education, in culture, on the economy, for access to the creative arts and sports, and on housing, law and order, health and more. It is all part of building an ecosystem that creates community cohesion. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to have the opportunity to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for allowing us to discuss the important issue of community. I may be giving the hon. Gentleman a big head, but may I say what a joy he brings in his contributions in this House, both in Westminster Hall and the Chamber? He is always soft-spoken, and his voice is filled with compassion. That is important, especially with this subject matter.
In Northern Ireland, we have moved beyond where we were in the past. I am a very proud representative of Strangford, and I am privileged and honoured that my constituents have chosen me to be their MP on a number of occasions—Members will be aware of that already. However, most of that pride does not come from me, but from the people I represent, and I want to speak about them. Although we have a tainted history of anger and violence, that does not adequately represent who we really are.
I represent a community that proudly upholds the Northern Ireland tradition of being the most generous charity givers per capita. We do that without coercion or nudging, because we are generous people. I represent people who have the highest amount of kinship fostering in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is another example of what we do. We care about people and we want to help them. The programmes run by churches and community groups are examples that should be highlighted in this place— I am going to do that, because that is about the people we represent, who make the community and the place we live just that bit better.
Northern Ireland is a place of immense strength, resilience and character. That is found in every community, from the beautiful Portaferry at the tip of the Ards peninsula where I live, to the heart of the constituency in Newtownards and down the other side of the lough to Ballynahinch and Spa. Ours is a community shaped by faith—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I say that very sincerely. It is also shaped by family, hard work and deep-rooted traditions. Where once there would have been division over faith, I do not see that ever happening today like it happened in the past.
I am a Democratic Unionist party MP, and we firmly believe in the Union—in Northern Ireland’s proud place within the United Kingdom. We want to be part of it, and we maintain that as part of who we are. We believe in strengthening the bonds between the people who share this land—the Scots, the Welsh, the English and ourselves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised the issue of balancing different opinions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK, we always need to keep at the heart of what we say and do the balance that has to be struck between people, however stringent and difficult the circumstances might be? We need to understand those who may have opposing opinions, and try to ensure that life goes on and that we make progress for everybody, whatever their differences.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague has summed that up incredibly well. That is exactly how I feel about where we are, and the community that we are trying to build for our children and grandchildren. I have six grandchildren, and I want to build a future for them—I want to build a future for every grandchild, by the way, not just mine, because everybody has a share in where we are, and that is where we are coming from.
Community cohesion is not about erasing identity, diluting culture or pretending that our history does not matter. Northern Ireland works best where identity is respected: British identity, Ulster identity, and indeed the Irish identity of those who cherish it. Mutual respect must be the foundation on which we build our future. The Belfast agreement created a framework where differences could be managed peacefully and democratically. That framework must always operate on the principles of consent, fairness and parity of esteem, not on the erosion of one tradition to appease another. That is not about cohesion, resilience or moving forward. I believe with all my heart that we must respect each other.
Cohesion cannot grow where there is imbalance; it requires confidence that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is secure, which I believe it is. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government have said that very clearly, which we should respect and understand—as did the Conservative party, in fairness. It requires confidence that the position is secure and that decisions are made with cross-community support, and it requires that no section of society feels sidelined. Bringing everybody forward is not always easy; it is incredibly hard at times, but if we focus on the goal we can achieve that together.
Strengthening community cohesion also means strengthening opportunity. Too many working-class communities—Unionist and nationalist alike—feel left behind. Economic regeneration, job creation, investment in apprenticeships and support for local businesses are not just economic policies; they are cohesion policies, and part of what we need to move forward. When people have dignity in work and hope for their children, division loses its grip. People are more relaxed, more positive and more confident about the future.
We must also deal honestly with the past. That does not mean endless relitigation of history, nor does it mean selective memory. It means fairness, proportionality and recognition of the suffering experienced by all victims of terrorism, including the thousands murdered by the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. True reconciliation requires truth, but it also requires balance. Community cohesion is not achieved through slogans; it is built day by day in churches, community halls, sports clubs and businesses and in the home itself, where the family is centre of the home. It is built when neighbours look out for one another, and when cultural expression is carried out with respect.
I sincerely believe that our community is something to be proud of. We are stronger together and can be an example to many other communities in United Kingdom, showing how funding and programmes can build foundations that change mindsets. That has been a long process. I lived through the troubles, having been born a long time ago, being older than anyone in this room without a doubt.
Jim Shannon
With one exception—my colleague sitting to my left, who is two years ahead of me. None the less, we understand that for many other communities in the UK, funding and programmes can build the foundations and change mindsets in a long process. That cannot be done without leadership from our communities. I am thankful for all those across Northern Ireland who have turned from the old ways and are leading generations on to a new path.
I am very fortunate in my constituency. The Minister and others will probably know this story about a leader in the community whose name I may not previously have mentioned but will today. There are those who had a coloured past but walked away from the history that formed them to be the new generational leaders. They have walked the path of aggression, controversy and sometimes violence. Davy Mac—Davy McAlonan—is chair of the Scrabo residents association. When any Minister or shadow Minister comes to Northern Ireland, I take them to meet Davy Mac. Why? Because he epitomises the new Northern Ireland and the way we move forward. The Davy Macs of this world believe in respect through differences, and their legacy is of understanding. A community can celebrate its own culture while accepting and working with anyone else as long as there is respect.
I shall finish as I am conscious of time. There is a hard lesson which is still being taught, but one we must continue to sow into with funding and support from Government and hope for a brighter future. I believe in that brighter future, and others in the room do as well. Let us do that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely and important debate.
Back in 2009, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson wrote a book called “The Spirit Level”, in which they argued that material inequality harms a country’s social relationships and sense of community. They argued that it is generally people’s similarity in status that makes social trust possible, since people with similar incomes are more likely to relate positively to each other than those who are divided by vastly different experiences of class or wealth. People in egalitarian societies are more likely to share neighbourhoods and public space, which fosters a sense of community among them. In contrast, people in more hierarchical places are literally divided by their unequal incomes, which separate them geographically into starkly different neighbourhoods, and no-go areas for some.
As income inequality becomes entrenched in populations, high earners can find themselves concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods far away from lower-income individuals. It is therefore no surprise that the more unequal a society, the higher the risk it will become dysfunctional. As income differences widen people are less likely to trust one another, and when we have a breakdown in social trust within a community we see some clear outcomes. Inequality weakens social bonds and civic engagement; people become less involved in community activities, volunteering or helping their neighbours. As a result, social support networks deteriorate and a sense of shared identity and common purpose diminishes.
That low trust and weak social cohesion can lead to increased social isolation, particularly among poorer groups; higher crime rates, which impact all sections of society; reduced social mobility, which holds back our economy; and less effective democratic institutions, as people turn away from the democratic process and either disengage completely or look for an easy solution to complicated problems. That is why reducing inequality will help not only society’s poorest, but people across all social classes. Inequality creates social problems that are not limited to the poor. For example, research shows that across a whole society with greater income equality, death rates are lower and life expectancy is longer.
We urgently need a war on poverty and inequality. We need the Government to enact the socio-economic duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that public sector decisions do not create more poverty when they are introduced. We need to address some of the fundamental barriers preventing our society from being more equal. Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD countries would save the UK up to £128 billion annually by reducing costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health, improving healthy life expectancy, and welfare.
To conclude, voters by and large, including some of those wealthy individuals, support the idea of greater fairness in our economy and society. What lie ahead if we do not tackle the gap between the haves and the have-nots are the conditions that will nurture the far right. Public services at breaking point, visible inequality on our streets and a general stagnation or decline in living standards will begin to erode public confidence and trust in the political system. That is why it is in all our interests to foster and create a more equal society that has community cohesion at its heart.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for bringing forward this important debate on a subject that is dear to my heart.
Community cohesion is not just a nice to have; it is the foundation of our democratic infrastructure. When people feel connected, valued and heard, democracy is strong, but when they feel ignored, divided or left behind, that creates an opening for something far darker to take root. Over the last few decades across the country, we have seen rising mistrust, loneliness and anger. When community cohesion weakens, it creates fertile ground for extremism, scapegoating and racism. That is not just abstract; history shows us, time and again, that it leads to the downfall of countries and civilisations.
Cohesion is prevention, resilience and the national security that starts at street level. We are now seeing the limitations of an individualistic and fragmented society, and I think that, over the coming years, we will see a swing back towards community as the real unit of organisation. I am already seeing that in my constituency, as I will come back to later.
Cohesion grows when people know their neighbours. We got a brief glimpse of what is possible during the covid lockdowns: people who were working from home or on furlough noticed that they had neighbours, and that maybe those neighbours needed something from them. Then the pandemic ended and that sense of cohesion dissipated again, but it was a promising glimpse of what is still there, waiting to be fanned back into flame. We saw people working together on shared challenges.
People need to feel that local decisions are made with them, not to them. They need shared spaces where they can gather together, such as pubs, village halls and churches. That is one reason why I am concerned about the current challenges facing the hospitality trade. In many small villages in my constituency, once the pub goes, there really is nowhere else for people to meet in an informal setting.
Cohesion is eroded when infrastructure fails and development accelerates. I have seen a number of housing developments bolted on to existing towns and villages, which creates real division and sometimes, in the worst-case scenario, even resentment—especially when existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the population.
Cohesion is also eroded when public services such as rural bus routes disappear and when environmental injustice goes unaddressed. It is eroded when people feel powerless, as came up last night in the debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Our current first-past-the-post voting system makes too many people feel powerless, and proportional representation would go a long way towards giving people their voice back in our democracy.
In rural constituencies such as the South Cotswolds, the closure of bus routes, pressure on GP surgeries, pollution in our rivers and unmanaged growth all chip away at trust in Government and the systems that underpin the life of our country. When trust is eroded, narratives of blame rush in to fill the vacuum. Too often, people are tempted to blame a demographic that they can clearly identify rather than the invisible systems that they cannot.
In my constituency, we are attempting an experiment. I am not aware of anything exactly like it that is going on anywhere else. We are calling it Stronger South Cotswolds, and it is based on my belief that over the coming years we are going to see more disruption, whether it is political, economic, technological or climate-related. When things go awry, we fall back on our neighbours and our sense of place. Stronger South Cotswolds is built around four pillars: food and farming, health and wellbeing, flood resilience and water issues, and community energy and nature conservation. At its heart, it is really about connection.
We keep being told by the Government that there is so little money, and so increasingly local government has no money, but I have seen at first hand how a little money can go a very long way when put in the hands of people at the pointy end who know how it can be used. It delivers a fantastic return on investment.
I am going to get into real trouble if I start listing some of the local legends, as we call them, who we are incorporating into Stronger South Cotswolds—perhaps I will save that for this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on small charities—but I will share the general concept that there is already so much good stuff going on in my constituency. On our website, we are recognising those people and groups already doing incredible work and highlighting them in the hope that other people can adopt and adapt those brilliant ideas elsewhere. My constituency straddles two counties, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, so that presents real opportunities for cross-county border transference of inspiration.
These fantastic local initiatives do more than deliver services to people who are struggling with physical, mental or economic poor health, with dementia or with Parkinson’s. I have seen many people really flourishing through these organisations as they create relationships across age, class and socioeconomic background. That really is cohesion in practice.
What I am seeing is that when communities feel strong, difference can be not alienating but enriching, but when communities feel fragile, difference is weaponised. If people believe that the system works only for the powerful, they are more susceptible to voices offering simplistic answers and easy targets. We need to be honest about that and recognise that cohesion is the antidote to division, but it does not happen automatically; it must be cultivated. That is where we as MPs, as the hon. Member for Rugby mentioned, have a real role to play.
We may not have a budget, and we may only have small teams, but we do have that magical power to convene. When we bring people together, the magic can happen. That is what we are trying to do with Stronger South Cotswolds—bring people together with the aspiration that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. That cannot be manufactured by Government in Westminster. Belonging, by definition, happens at that nexus of place, nature and neighbourhood.
I call on the Government to properly fund local groups and make those pots of money available, knowing that they will deliver a fantastic ROI. I ask the Government to please support community ownership of energy, land and community assets; invest in youth services and intergenerational spaces; ensure that planning decisions genuinely involve community voices; and restore trust in environmental regulation. Above all, I ask them to please choose to devolve power rather than concentrate it here in London.
If things are going to get rocky over the next few years, we need to be building community cohesion now. Something I learned from expedition planning is that you have to do your preparation when it is calm, because when the storms hit, you just do not have time. Community cohesion is the same: if we invest now in connection, fairness and shared purpose, we can weather those storms together. If we neglect it, we should not be surprised when division grows. The question for the House is whether national policy will strengthen the work of initiatives like Stronger South Cotswolds or make it harder. I ask the Government to please put the power and resources into the hands of local communities, where they really can make a difference.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. We have three colleagues wishing to speak. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so that means short speeches, please.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing such an important debate at a particularly important moment. I want to talk about something that, sadly, we seem to talk about only during really challenging periods, but without which everything else becomes much harder—community cohesion.
My accent gives me away; I grew up in a town called Burnley, in the north-west of England. For most of my childhood, the only thing that I knew was culturally different about the place where I grew up was that our school summer holidays started two weeks before they did everywhere else. In the summer of 2001, however—which is 25 years ago this summer, shockingly—around the time of my GCSE exams, race riots ripped through my home town. I remember the fear and anger that they caused. For years afterwards, I remember that when telling people that I was from Burnley, all they knew about the place was defined by the race riots—that there had been that awful summer.
That period left a deep mark on me and contributed to who I am today, because it taught me that community cohesion is not a slogan, or a line in a strategy document; it is the difference between a town that can pull together when things get tough and one that fractures when it feels pressure. Those experiences shaped my politics. They shaped my belief that fairness and honesty matter, and that we must confront injustice directly and not pretend that it will fix itself. The riots also shaped my determination that the communities that I represent today should never feel that sense of division.
In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, we are proud of who we are: a county town with deep roots, growing diversity, and incredibly strong traditions of volunteering and neighbourliness. We are home to people of different faiths, backgrounds and experiences. That diversity is a strength, but it only remains a strength if it is underpinned by public trust.
Community cohesion is built in small, everyday ways. It is built when a school brings parents together from different backgrounds around a shared commitment to their children’s future. It is built when local volunteers organise a food bank, youth club or community clean-up—which the people in my constituency excel at. It is built when faith leaders choose dialogue over distance, and partnership over parallel lives.
A few weeks ago, I brought together local faith leaders in Stafford for a multi-faith roundtable. Leaders from our churches, mosque, gurdwara and other faith communities sat around the same table. We talked openly about the challenges that face our communities— from misinformation online to the rising global tensions that are rippling into our local lives. It struck me that everyone in the room wanted the same thing: safe streets, opportunities for young people, respect and stability. There was a sense that whatever differences we had, we all belonged to the same place. That is what cohesion is. It is not about erasing difference; it is about recognising our shared commonality and humanity.
We cannot be complacent, however. We live in an age in which misinformation spreads faster than facts, social media algorithms reward outrage over understanding, global conflicts inflame local tensions in a matter of hours, and economic pressures can make it easier to burn bridges than build them. In that context, cohesion requires leadership. That is not an abstract thing; it is about standards.
When those elected to represent our communities use racist language, promote prejudice or undermine the dignity of others, it does not just harm individuals; it corrodes trust in everything and the institutions that hold us together. When councillors are forced to resign or are removed because of racist conduct, that should concern us all; I do not care what party they are from. That is not because of the headlines but what it signals about the tone of our public life. I think that leadership means refusing to normalise that kind of politics; we cannot strengthen cohesion locally if we tolerate that in our politics. As Members of this House, we must choose our words carefully to avoid stoking division for short-term political gain, and we must call out racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate, consistently and clearly.
It also requires investment in the places that bring us all together. Staffordshire had the third-worst cuts to youth services in the country, and I deal weekly with the impacts of those cuts. Community centres, libraries, sports clubs, and arts and cultural groups—they are not nice to have extras; they are the infrastructure of belonging somewhere. They are the places that 14 years of Conservative austerity have decimated.
Strengthening community cohesion also requires us all to listen. In my constituency, I hold regular coffee mornings and community meetings. In fact, at the one I had just this weekend, people talked about feeling left behind economically. I hear from families worried about the future. I hear from people who feel misunderstood, and when people feel ignored and unheard, resentment breeds.
Cohesion is also about fairness in action. It is about making sure that every opportunity reaches every estate, village and high street. It is also about good jobs, decent housing, strong public services and visible delivery. When people feel secure, they are more open. When they feel abandoned, they are more vulnerable to division.
Growing up in Burnley, I saw what happens when economic decline and racial tension collide. It starts, not with violence, but with really small fractures—with rumours, with a sense that someone else is getting more than you. If we want cohesive communities, we have to tackle the root causes. So I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to ensure that towns, such as Stafford, that have experienced economic pressure over the years, are being supported with real investment and opportunity, rather than becoming targets for those who seek to inflame resentment and prejudice for political gain?
In Stafford, I see huge hope. I see schools where children of different faiths and backgrounds learn side by side and form friendships that defy stereotypes. I see local businesses that bring together apprentices and staff from across our community. I see volunteers who show up week after week for people they have never met before, and I see faith leaders willing to work together rather than retreat into silos. Community cohesion is not about pretending that we do not disagree; it is about how we disagree. It is about holding space for different views without dehumanising one another. It is about ensuring that our identity as a shared community is stronger than any single dividing line.
My message today is simple. Community cohesion does not maintain itself; it must be nurtured, as has been said, and it must be defended and resourced. It must also be modelled by us. In Stafford, we are choosing to build, not to blame; to listen, not to shout; and to stand up for fairness and not allow prejudice to go unchallenged. I know what the alternative looks like—I lived it. Division does not explode overnight; it is cultivated. I am determined that the communities that I represent will always be stronger together than they are apart.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate on this important issue. Community cohesion in Birmingham has never been an abstract concept. It is a lived reality: it is the church that hosts a food bank for families of every background, the neighbour who checks in during Ramadan, and the gurdwara serving langar to anyone who walks through its doors. Our city works because, despite our differences, we choose to stand together.
In recent years, we have seen how damaging political language can be. When politicians make statements that create suspicion or feed division, the consequences are felt far beyond Westminster. Words matter and narratives matter. When race or religion is weaponised for short-term political gain, it erodes trust between communities who have lived side by side for generations. We have also seen the constant drip-feed of misinformation from some politicians and commentators—misinformation that paints entire communities as problems to be solved, rather than partners in building our future. That kind of politics does not strengthen Britain; it weakens it. It does not make us safer; it makes us more fractured.
No one knows that fact more than the people of Birmingham, who have seen their city trounced by people who take no effort to understand it. During the bin strikes, a narrative from outside was not about the council refusing to negotiate or the impact of years of austerity, but about blaming residents for the mess and asking silly questions like, “Why don’t they simply clean up the streets and take their rubbish to the tip?” We even saw the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) roam the streets for an hour, blaming residents for the supposed lack of integration in an area that not only hosts a vibrant community, but has been decimated by 14 years of austerity under his previous Government. We saw that again during the Maccabi Tel Aviv saga, when those raising legitimate concerns about safety and cohesion were smeared as extremists.
We see the same story every time. The people of Birmingham have been subject to ridicule from outsiders who have made no effort to understand them—from politicians to media outlets who have stirred hate and division against a community they have never tried to understand. That is why measures such as the Hillsborough law matter so much. The principle behind the Hillsborough law, a duty of candour on public authorities and officials, is about more than one historical injustice. It is about changing the culture of public life and ensuring that those in authority act with honesty, transparency and responsibility.
The tone set at the top shapes the reality on our streets, and that does not apply just to Birmingham. The same goes for all the towns and cities up and down the country that have been neglected and stripped of their identities. Those places have been left behind by successive Governments and are now being kicked while they are down. It is in these places, where people have lost all sense of community, that resentment and hate take hold. Many will channel that anger into taking to the streets to raise flags or mount protests at asylum hotels and, before someone knows it, they are not a true patriot unless they look on non-white neighbours from abroad, even fellow British nationals, with contempt. Of course, the exception is those they know on a personal level.
That is why it is so crucial that we get this right, not just by holding politicians and media outlets to a higher standard, but by investing in the very places that have been deprived of the means to understand and interact with one another. Community centres, youth clubs and grassroots sports are all things that we need to create cohesion, yet they are dwindling in supply. Birmingham Perry Barr lost out on £20 million over 10 years in Pride in Place funding. We have the highest unemployment, the highest inequality and high rates of homelessness and crime, but we still received none of the Pride in Place funding. There are 10 Birmingham constituencies, eight of which are represented by Labour parliamentarians. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr was left out.
Birmingham has always shown that people of different races, religions and backgrounds can live, work and thrive together, but we must protect that legacy. We must challenge misinformation wherever we see it. We must refuse to let division define us, and we must demand better from those who represent us. Will the Minister address my point about funding for Birmingham Perry Barr? Pride in Place funding should be for communities that have the highest levels of deprivation in all indices. Birmingham Perry Barr has, but it has not received that funding.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this important and timely debate.
Social cohesion can feel like quite an abstract, nebulous term, but we all know, and have heard today, that the practice of social cohesion and how it is lived are vital for healthy, dynamic and thriving communities where people feel that they want to stay, live, socialise, invest and start and grow businesses. When we have the opposite of social cohesion, we have discord and division. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeing that in many of our communities. We have heard countless examples of how that is lived out.
We very much see the opposite of social cohesion present in my community in Hillingdon. We see instances of hate crime. I have councillors who are British being told to go back home. I have residents telling me how they are abused in the street. Police are attacked at apparently peaceful protests. Just last week, the doctors surgery in Otterfield emailed me to say that doctors at the surgery face countless instances of racial abuse every week. Even now, the GP surgery has been vandalised and attacked. That is clearly unacceptable and needs addressing.
So how do we address the problem of social cohesion? I will briefly touch on three key areas of action. The first is leadership. We have heard that, nationally, we all have a responsibility in this place and across our institutions to show leadership. We have a duty to call out these abhorrent instances of hatred; to act; to choose our words carefully and wisely; to seek to work with others in our community and across different divides in this place; to promote cohesion and unity; and to appeal to the common threads that we often see throughout those in public life and those in our community groups.
Locally, we also have a duty and a responsibility to promote cohesion. Local councils, which are key institutions in this country, should have a responsibility to promote community cohesion and to produce plans locally to do that. Unfortunately, in my community, our local authority is falling short of meeting that responsibility. We have seen little action, if any, from it to address some of the issues on our streets. To be frank, in some instances, there is denial about these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby rightly talked about our flag, which is for all of us—it is my flag, your flag and the flag of everyone in our community. Unfortunately, however, the flag has been increasingly weaponised by certain segments of our community, who do not share the view that it is everyone’s flag. They believe that it is only a particular sort of person’s flag and do not appeal to unity, but to division and hatred.
I have been contacted recently by many local residents who are concerned about the continued presence of flags on our streets. I was particularly struck by a piece of correspondence from a gentleman who contacted me to say, “I am a combat veteran with 20 years’ experience, including in Afghanistan, and I know the value of pride in one’s nation and our flag, having served under it. The flags in West Drayton show none of these values, and that Hillingdon Council has not taken these torn and dirty flags down that line our streets signals to me that the council is either endorsing the racist intent of some of those who put these flags up, or is too afraid to remove them. Either way, it’s a poor show, and I feel for the families and young children who have to look at these flags every day and are reminded that some people think that they are not welcome.”
That perfectly describes the situation we face. We must not hide behind our flag, but address this issue head on. That is difficult. I know that there is abuse and even hatred of council officers who try to remove flags, and we need to stand with them if they make that decision. Inaction is not enough when we see these issues on our streets. We also have to ensure that institutions locally and nationally promote true and accurate information, particularly about sensitive topics and when they are using state-funded sources of information, such as local council publications.
Secondly, we have to tackle online misinformation, as we have heard. On countless occasions, we have seen how online platforms are used to sow division. We know that there are actors, locally and internationally, who actively inflame hate. It is hard to tackle online misinformation issues; I am not going to pretend otherwise. However, we are seeing a positive start to the Government’s consultation on the use of social media by young people. I support that and hope we can do more in this space.
Thirdly, we also need to support the organisations that are the glue of our communities. We have heard about the excellent work of schools, charities, voluntary groups and faith groups. I have had the pleasure of hosting the multi-faith Hillingdon group here in Parliament and of launching Hillingdon Together alongside many of these organisations, in order to try and bring people together. There are 200 individuals and organisations signed up.
It is true that these organisations have often faced cuts in recent years. In particular, it is paradoxical that the communities where cohesion is needed most often have less infrastructure, and are often unable to access the funding pots that become available, because it is difficult to move quickly and to put in bids to national and local funds. I hope that the Minister can address that issue in the future cohesion strategy.
Finally—I appreciate your patience, Dr Murrison— I am very proud to have been born in Hillingdon, to have grown up there and to represent that community today. I represent every single person in Hillingdon, whether they have lived there for 20 years or 20 days. Every single one of them makes Hillingdon the fantastic place that it is. They work in our NHS, run businesses and keep our community working, and I am proud of each and every one of them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this very important debate. His speech was incredibly powerful, and I congratulate him on the work he is doing to support and empower his constituents to build positive relationships and communities. It has also been good to hear from other Members of the positive stories about their communities coming together and of the clear vision, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere among colleagues, that we can together create more cohesive communities.
We meet at a moment when communities across the UK are experiencing uncertainty and rising tensions. Alongside those challenges, however, we continue to see wonderful examples of solidarity, co-operation and everyday kindness. Our job as politicians is to empower more of the second through thoughtful policy so that it can continue to flourish. Community cohesion is not built by rhetoric or grand gestures; it lives in the ordinary moments of daily life, in shared spaces and shared conversations, and in the quiet confidence that difference does not threaten one’s sense of belonging. It is also built by the everyday choices that people make to treat one another with dignity and respect, not by the divisive narratives that some, sadly even in this place, choose to deploy.
At the same time, many feel that the social contract—the belief that we all contribute to and benefit from a shared civic life—is under strain. Over the past decade, local authorities and community organisations have faced significant funding reductions; youth services have closed, community centres have disappeared and the everyday spaces where people once met across different backgrounds have diminished. Those were not mere local government services; they were the backbone of community life, allowing people to mix, understand one another and build solidarity. When those shared spaces disappear, so too do the opportunities for understanding.
Alongside all that, many now face real pressures, with difficulties accessing services, finding affordable housing and making ends meet. When support feels distant, frustration grows, and the risk is that people turn inward rather than reaching outward. Those tensions reflect pressure and uncertainty, not a lack of good will. Rebuilding community cohesion requires more than responding to those who stoke division; it requires reinvestment in the local institutions and services that allow our communities to meet and thrive.
Across the country, people are experiencing increasing hostility because of their race, faith, sexuality or gender identity. Even incidents that fall below the legal threshold of hate crime, when repeated or unaddressed, erode trust and weaken community cohesion. Police forces record thousands of non-crime hate incidents each year. Those are early warnings of tensions that can grow if they are ignored.
I hear from some in my constituency how, every single day, they face unpleasant, abusive—even aggressive —and unsolicited interactions with others because of their race, gender or sexuality. The figures for Surrey show that hate crime remains significantly under-reported, which underscores the importance of early intervention to build trust so that people feel confident to come forward.
In times of uncertainty, we really must resist narratives that divide people or single out newcomers or minorities. Those might offer simple answers, but they weaken the fabric of civil society. Strong communities are built not by excluding people, but by ensuring that everyone feels that they belong.
Across the country are countless examples of cohesion in action, led by charities and faith groups. One example in my constituency and across Surrey is Big Leaf, which brings together displaced young people alongside other young people to create music, play sport and do so much more, fostering community and optimism. If we went around this Chamber and across the House of Commons, I am sure that we would have so many more examples, but I will stop there.
I will focus on faith communities, not only because of their remarkable contributions, but because many of them face rising levels of abuse. Faith communities are deeply embedded in our society; they run food banks and warm hubs, support the vulnerable and isolated, and provide safe spaces for dialogue, care and belonging. During Ramadan, for example, many mosques open their doors for shared meals and community outreach, which are powerful expressions of the values that underpin cohesion.
I am honoured to chair the all-party parliamentary group on faith and society. One of the things that we have led on has been local faith covenants, and I have seen how those create practical frameworks for partnership between councils and faith groups. They help to build trust, improve consultation and strengthen support for residents. Early feedback from academic evaluation of the faith covenant framework shows that it is improving relationships and co-operation across the country.
As local government reorganisation continues, I hope that people will grasp the opportunity to instigate more faith covenants across the country, so that faith groups are treated not simply as stakeholders, but as trusted partners in the work that we all want to see in our communities to build community cohesion. Will the Minister support faith covenants and other structured engagement at the local level as part of any community cohesion strategy?
On the subject of community cohesion strategies, ahead of the general election, the Prime Minister wrote to faith leaders recognising the vital role that faith communities play and the importance of partnership. That recognition was welcome, yet the progress on the actions that he outlined has been slow. Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking about those promises and, in particular, when we will see the community cohesion strategy. Sadly, I have not yet received a response. I know that there are communities right across the country who want to contribute and are ready to contribute, and they want to see clear national leadership on this.
As Liberal Democrats, we stand ready to work constructively with the Government, local authorities, police, civil society and faith communities to help to shape a strategy that reflects the realities of our communities. A clear strategy would align national ambition with local actions. When can we expect to see the publication of the community cohesion strategy? Which Department is leading the work? How will cross-government co-ordination be ensured?
Community cohesion cannot be built in Westminster alone. It is built in conversations between neighbours, in partnerships between councils and faith communities, in the extraordinary work of charities and in the daily choices that people make to choose understanding over division. But goodwill is not enough; cohesion also requires national leadership, clear policy direction and adequate funding for local government to sustain the spaces and services that bring people together. It requires partnership frameworks, like the faith covenant, that build trust at a local level, and it requires a message of hope that unites people rather than dividing them.
In every single conversation that I have with charities and with faith and community leaders, the same themes emerge: people want fairness, clarity, protection from hatred and the freedom to live their lives without fear. They want to be heard, to be included and to be part of the renewal of our society’s welcoming and inclusive heart. If we listen, work in partnership and invest in the relationships and institutions that bind communities together, we can strengthen the trust on which cohesion depends.
Cohesion is not an abstract ideal. As many in this Chamber have already said today, it is something that we nurture together.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison.
As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges.
It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate.
The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported.
As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country.
We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need.
We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society.
Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On Sunday, I celebrated iftar at the local Epsom Islamic Centre. We enjoyed lots of wonderful food and a real community spirit. Unfortunately, last October the centre was the target of vandalism and abuse, which included words and devils spray-painted on the building. That hatred does not represent the majority of people in Epsom and Ewell, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those in our country who seek to divide us. Does the hon. Member agree that we must support our communities in standing firm against hatred and violence in all its forms?
David Simmonds
I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.
We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.
All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.
I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.
Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.
Leigh Ingham
Does the hon. Member agree that we saw a hollowing-out of state institutions that really matter to our communities during the 14 years of Conservative Government between 2010 and 2024? I refer to the point I made in my speech: under the Conservative-led Staffordshire county council, we saw the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. In fact, I spent last Thursday afternoon talking about youth justice with young people in my constituency who told me that they had never seen things so bad. Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, would he accept that there is a heritage to where we are now and what this Government are dealing with?
David Simmonds
I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.
It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.
The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.
The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate and for his powerful and eloquent contribution, and all the hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions and insight. There is clear passion and commitment across the House to tackle this issue, which I agree is cross-party.
Throughout our history, the United Kingdom’s ability to withstand external challenges has been underpinned by a shared sense of pride, tolerance and courage. We are accepting of our neighbours, proud of our varied experiences, traditions, national identities and customs, and confident that those differences enrich our communities and our country. Those core foundations that have kept us united in the face of adversity on so many occasions are now under threat.
One of the privileges of my role is that I have been able to talk to communities across the country. Time and again, I have heard clearly about the rising tide of hate and division seen in communities. I talk to our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities, and hear that people, who have made this country their own and have been here for generations, feel scared in this country, in their communities and in their homes. We have got to turn the tide on that.
People are under pressure, and in that context—it is a tale as old as time—bad faith actors will try to exploit our communities in order to tear them apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) is absolutely right; at the heart of this is a story about economic neglect and of the failure of the Conservatives to properly fund our amazing councils and invest in our communities. We see the impacts of that in terms of closed shops on our high streets, shut up libraries, closed youth clubs and the abandonment of so many of our vital community assets that bring people together. That sense of decline on too many of our doorsteps has bred a real, justified sense of frustration, anger and a lack of control.
I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is not just a question of local growth; it is a question about cohesion. We cannot and we will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but as both a Labour Government and as a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore cohesion and pride in our communities does not lie in this building or the corridors of Whitehall. The answer is in the communities and people that we represent. We all know that the bonds that hold society together are anchored locally, so often it is the voluntary community and charity groups and the grassroot bodies at the heart of our communities—we all have them in our constituencies—that bring people together every day.
To build stronger communities, we must bring people together to make positive, meaningful change in their own neighbourhoods. That ethos is at the heart of our groundbreaking Pride in Place programme, which, importantly, will mean local people will decide how money is invested. They will work together to unite their communities and bring everyone around the table to find common ground and invest in their priorities. That point has been made time and again by hon. Members, who have provided amazing examples of how that is happening.
As a Government, we see our role as supporting and enabling that, whether it is through places that have received Pride in Place funding or, more broadly, the approach that we want to increasingly see where we create the ability for communities to get a grip on the funding the Government are already spending. That will enable them to shape it, drive it and, fundamentally, invest in their priorities. To achieve all that, we are working closely with pioneering councils and communities. A great example is in Rugby, where the local authority and other partners are stepping forward as one of the first to deliver the work that we want to see on our high streets through, for example, high street renewal auctions. That will unlock vital spaces on our high streets for local businesses and community groups so that everyone can be part of building thriving high streets. That is renewal in action, led by people who know their patch better than we ever will in this place. They are backed by the Government who are choosing unity over division.
Let me pick up the point on flags that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby, for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I absolutely agree that we must reclaim our flags and national symbols, and push back on those who want to use them to divide and intimidate our communities. We know this is a difficult area for councils to navigate, and that is why we are providing guidance, best practice and training to support them in navigating this terrain and to ensure they can hold our national symbols so that they represent all our communities, and to push back on those who want to use them in a divisive way.
We are absolutely clear that we need to work on social cohesion. We are working across Government to develop a response, led by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we will say more very shortly. To update hon. Members, this includes three key strands. First, building confident communities that bring people together so that we can build common ground. Pride in Place is one example, but this is about creating spaces and places where people can cohere around issues they care about in their area. There is a critical role for voluntary, community and faith organisations in doing this hard work. Many have been doing so during difficult periods under the Conservative Government, but without support from Government.
Ayoub Khan
I gently ask the Minister, in relation to Pride in Place funding: why is Birmingham Perry Barr, which is at the centre of Birmingham and has the highest level of deprivation, not being given any money? Why should those residents feel left out?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have a very clear methodology based on a combination of deprivation, connection and access to assets in local places. That is published for every hon. Member to see. We have provided Pride in Place funding in particular parts of Birmingham. I would love to have Pride in Place in every deprived community, and I will continue to make that case and champion it. We are rolling out a further 40 areas, considering both deprivation and cohesion, and will say more about that shortly.
Critically, we want this to be an approach that applies to all parts of the country. Irrespective of whether an area is part of the programme, we want it to have access to funding and the ability for local community groups to come together to drive priorities and regenerate their place. We will say more through our high streets strategy and the ongoing work we are doing.
On cohesion, the first strand is building confident communities. The second is strengthening integration. That means supporting people who come to this country, both existing and new migrants, so that they are integrated into society, speak the language and contribute to the community, while ensuring there is zero tolerance for those who want to sow hate and division. Whether that is the rise in religious hate or racism, there must be proper enforcement, with a clear line we say people cannot cross, and if they do, action is taken against it.
The final strand is tackling extremism, which we know is on the rise, with robust action to disrupt it in our communities and, critically, online, where we know we are seeing increasing division, hate and radicalisation. We know we must respond. We recognise that this is a first step. The hard work of trying to build cohesion in our communities is ongoing, and we as a Government are absolutely committed to playing our part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made the important point that whatever we do on cohesion must be rooted in a wider strategy to tackle inequality and poverty, because that is the breeding ground for division. It is essential that the work my Department is doing sits alongside wider Government action to increase living standards and tackle poverty, whether through the child poverty action plan, removing the two-child benefit cap, lifting the national living wage, tackling homelessness, building the next generation of social housing or reviving public services so they provide a foundation for everyone to live well and do well.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), raised the important point of asylum accommodation. We inherited a legacy of asylum hotels from the last Government that was an absolute shambles and paid no regard to community cohesion, tension or consent. We will do the hard work of closing those hotels, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities to provide accommodation in a way that brings communities with us and has their consent.
We know this is a critical task, and the Prime Minister has told me it is one of the most important things that we will do as a Government. He is right. The Government will play their part, but we all have a responsibility as Members of this House and as politicians, because the words and language we use have an impact on what happens on the ground. We all have a collective responsibility to step up, working with local government and with grassroots organisations to do the vital work of holding and cohering our communities.
John Slinger
I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it was an interesting debate. We must be catalysts for community cohesion and create an unstoppable, positive chain reaction that will strengthen our communities. From what I have heard today, I am sure that we will do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency Services: Cancer Patients
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will call Kate Osamor to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may speak only with prior permission from 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.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the experience of cancer patients with accident and emergency services at North Middlesex Hospital.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank you and the House for granting me the opportunity to speak about the urgent care pathway for cancer patients at North Middlesex university hospital, and to discuss the potential for dedicated funding for an oncology assessment unit.
In Edmonton and Winchmore Hill, as in many constituencies across the country, too many people with cancer are being let down. In the UK, cancer mortality rates are significantly higher than in comparable countries, and the survival rate is lower. I am glad that the Government have recognised the issue and are taking steps to address it, most significantly through the national cancer plan. I welcome the plan’s ambition to diagnose more cancers early, to ensure that treatment starts more quickly and to improve survival.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is right to illustrate this important issue at her local hospital, which is replicated wherever we might be the United Kingdom. Indeed, people back home are waiting 12 hours for admission or discharge. Those who attend A&E should be treated within four hours, but that is not happening. Does the hon. Lady agree that strengthening community-based cancer services is essential to protect patients, ease pressure on emergency departments and ensure that people with cancer get the right care in the right place at the right time?
Kate Osamor
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; later in my speech I will discuss the work the community is doing.
Faster diagnosis and quicker treatment are vital to improving outcomes for cancer patients. However, I am concerned that the Government are placing less emphasis on other critical aspects of the care that cancer patients receive. The case of North Middlesex hospital in my Edmonton and Winchmore Hill constituency, which I am very proud to represent, is evidence of that. On the one hand, since 2023, North Middlesex hospital has received two new radiotherapy machines, which should help to ensure that cancer patients receive treatment more quickly and limit the number of hospital visits they need to make. But on the other hand, the hospital is under-resourced in other important areas, which is having a negative impact on patients’ experiences.
I have particular concerns about the experience of cancer patients in the accident and emergency department. From talking to my constituents and their families, I know that oncology patients who are admitted to the hospital are often assessed in the emergency department, but it does not have the physical space or isolation capacity required to safely manage immunocompromised individuals. Despite an acute oncology service that works extremely hard to prioritise those patients, the North Middlesex hospital emergency department often struggles to provide appropriate private triage areas or guarantee a rapid review for vulnerable cancer patients, because of high patient volumes and infection-control pressures. Over recent years, this has caused a number of my constituents to be put in an environment that is unsuitable for their condition, and caused a great deal of upset and discomfort.
I have been in correspondence with one of my constituents, Mrs Mary Thorn, regarding the experience of her late husband, Mr Jack Thorn, at North Middlesex hospital, and Mrs Thorn has given me permission to discuss the experience of her late husband at the hospital. Mr Thorn was diagnosed with cancer in July 2022, and in January 2023 he began chemotherapy treatment. Following the conclusion of the first type of chemotherapy treatment, Mr Thorn was told multiple times that he needed to be admitted back into hospital. However, upon arriving at hospital, rather than being admitted straight into the cancer ward, he was made to sit in the A&E waiting room to be triaged. On one occasion, he was made to wait for 15 hours. Because of the immunosuppressive treatment that many cancer patients undergo, they are at a heightened risk of infection, meaning that staying in A&E wards for extended periods risks worsening their condition.
Since my correspondence with Mrs Thorn, I have heard from several other constituents who have suffered similar ordeals. One of my constituents, who has now sadly passed away, went to the North Middlesex emergency department following a concerning reaction to the immunotherapy treatment she was receiving for her cancer. She arrived at the hospital on a Saturday and was not moved into a side room until the Monday, meaning that she was forced to sleep in a chair for two days while very unwell. During this time she could not shower, had no privacy and was unable to return home to collect any belongings or change clothing.
Since hearing of Mr Thorn’s experience, I have engaged closely with the North Middlesex hospital and the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust, which now manages the hospital. The trust has been taking steps to improve the experience of oncology patients at North Middlesex hospital through efforts to reduce waiting times and speed up the pathway for them. Those steps include the creation of the same-day emergency care hub and the emergency ambulatory care unit, which provide a safer and more appropriate environment for patients, away from the emergency department.
Despite those measures, North Middlesex hospital has not been provided with the necessary resources for the triage of patients who require isolation. The trust proposes an initiative to establish an oncology assessment unit for patients who require minimal intervention, to bypass the emergency department, but this has been prevented from progressing further, after some promising initial steps. This was due to there being no available funds in existing budgets and the lack of external funding to hire the additional specialist staff required to establish the oncology assessment unit.
The situation highlights the urgent need for targeted investment. Without dedicated support, the trust will not be able to guarantee the safer, specialist-led pathway for cancer patients that clinicians have repeatedly recommended. The experiences of Mr Thorn and my other constituents demonstrate the human impact of the gap in provision, and the response of the trust makes it clear that local efforts alone cannot solve the issue. If the Government are serious about putting cancer patients “front and centre”, as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has previously stated, they must do more to support stretched and under-resourced hospitals such as the North Middlesex, as well as its dedicated and hard-working staff—not only to protect the dignity and wellbeing of cancer patients, but to improve outcomes and survival rates.
I have three requests that I would like the Minister to consider. First, will the Department consider taking steps to ensure that North Middlesex hospital is granted the funding it needs to establish an oncology assessment unit, so that patients who experience treatment-related complications can be assessed properly in an appropriate environment, avoiding the risks associated with overcrowded emergency departments? Secondly, will the Minister consider carrying out a wider assessment of the safety and suitability of the settings in which immunocompromised oncology patients are placed when they are admitted to hospitals across the country, and how that may affect outcomes for cancer patients? Lastly, how will the proposals in the 10-year health plan for England on shifting from hospital to community care affect the experience of those suffering from cancer, to prevent them from having to attend A&E in the first place?
I pay tribute to Mrs Thorn for her tireless advocacy on this matter, with me and my office, with the North Middlesex hospital and with the wider Royal Free London foundation trust, to push for improvements in oncology care following the death of her husband Mr Jack Thorn. Her constant advocacy in the face of such devastating loss is truly commendable.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor) for securing the debate. I echo her comments about Mrs Thorn in the light of her husband Jack’s experience. My hon. Friend has worked diligently on behalf of her constituent. We know that constituents should not have to take on such advocacy when they are suffering such trauma, but their experience is always valuable. Constituency MPs are always grateful to people who share their experiences, and my hon. Friend has done an excellent job on behalf of her constituent this morning.
We are clear that every patient should be treated with dignity and respect. For far too long, NHS performance and practices have not met the high standards that patients should expect, which is why we are taking action to improve cancer pathways and urgent emergency care, to build an NHS that is fit for the future. On the treatment of cancer patients in A&E in particular, far too many cancer patients and their families have been failed by the NHS, with care lacking empathy and dignity. It is not right that patients, and particularly those with a cancer diagnosis, face distressing situations waiting for care in A&E.
Through our recently published national cancer plan, which my hon. Friend alluded to, we commit to addressing poor experiences, driving earlier diagnosis and supporting general practitioners to spot cancer earlier through, for example, Jess’s rule and reducing inappropriate diagnosis in A&E. Jess’s rule is a patient-safety principle that requires GPs to reflect, review and rethink a patient’s diagnosis after three unresolved presentations, to reduce missed and delayed cancer diagnosis.
My hon. Friend and I entered Parliament at the same time; she had experience in primary care and I had experience as a commissioner. She will be as shocked as I am, because in 2026 cancer patients should not be going through A&E when they are known to have a condition. We have been working on that for a very long time. Our plan will reduce the need for people who are undergoing cancer treatment to attend A&E—for example, through rapid access to a booked appointment in same-day emergency care. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we already see that in other trusts, such as the Whittington in her area. That should be standard, and is in many places.
We recognise that some cancer patients will have more extensive needs. For those patients, we need to deliver an enhanced level of care during and after treatment, known as supportive oncology. This will include support for severe and sometimes sudden symptoms, when people need rapid access to the right care in their home or community. That will be key to getting those patients the support they need, and thereby reducing the need for them ever to attend A&E.
It is vital to deliver compassionate care in the best setting for each patient. Our national cancer plan will redesign cancer services around people’s lives, not just around hospitals, recognising that more people are living longer with and beyond cancer and need ongoing co-ordinated support. That support will increasingly be delivered through neighbourhood services and be accessible digitally through the NHS app. We will ensure that patients have a named neighbourhood lead to help to co-ordinate their care locally, working alongside hospital specialists to provide continuity, reduce fragmentation and make it easier for people to navigate services, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
We will deliver greater use of virtual monitoring and growing opportunities for treatment and follow-up in community settings, where that is safe and appropriate. This will help to ensure that patients get high-quality support early, thereby reducing the crisis situations that my hon. Friend alluded to that currently drive unacceptable and unnecessary A&E visits.
Where patients do need to attend A&E, we are committed to improving standards and returning to the waiting times set out in the NHS constitution. We have expert improvement teams providing tailored support to challenge trusts like the North Middlesex, and they have shown progress, as my hon. Friend has highlighted. I pay tribute to the work of leaders locally in improving the situation—they have made progress since last year.
In addition, the NHS team in London recently agreed to a pilot for the oncology assessment unit, to proactively support cancer patients away from the emergency department, as my hon. Friend discussed. If she needs more detail on the final confirmation of that pilot, I will make sure she gets it in writing after the debate, because we do think that is an appropriate way to proceed.
Nationally, we recently published guidance on the model emergency department, setting out the core principles and pathways for high-performing emergency departments. Our urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26 sets out a clear path to strengthen urgent care outside hospital. We are using data from shared patient care records and digital tools to support better triage, join up services and anticipate pressures before they arise. That is backed by £2 billion of investment in NHS digital infrastructure.
We are also investing £250 million to strengthen same-day emergency care and urgent treatment centre provision, helping systems to avoid unnecessary admissions for patients and supporting the same-day diagnosis, treatment and discharge of patients. The plan is working: A&E performance is improving and people are receiving their cancer diagnosis within a month. We do not underestimate how much more there is to do and how difficult it is for many patients at the North Middlesex hospital, as my hon. Friend has spoken about, and other places. We want to take the best to the rest. We know there is more to do, but the investment and modernisation along clear pathways are starting to make a difference, and the NHS is showing clear signs of recovery.
The NHS is under pressure. The Government are taking decisive action through our urgent care emergency plan, the national cancer plan and our longer-term reforms. We are putting the service back on its feet and ensuring that patients receive the high-quality, timely care they deserve. I welcome my hon. Friend raising this issue on behalf of her constituents, and many other Members discussing the issues with me. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend and local NHS leaders on how we can further strengthen urgent emergency care services and the delivery of the cancer plan, to reduce the disparities and support patients to receive the right care in the right place.
Question put and agreed to.
Small Charity Sector
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the small charity sector.
It is a great privilege to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I am astonished and happy to see that so many Members take the small charity sector seriously, because it is a serious issue. As you will specifically know, Sir Roger, the sector is critical to everything that we do. The Government can do only a certain amount; the two other groups that aid the people and support the natural fabric of society are families and small community groups and charities. Small charities do much more than even the large charities that we hear all the headlines about. The charities that do the most are the ones about which we probably know the least. The purpose of this debate is to find out about them and discuss what we can do to help them.
I want to start with a few facts and figures that may astound colleagues from all parties. First, the “UK Charity Insights Report” found that 30%—fewer than a third—of charity leaders think that the sector is in a healthy position. Some 44% of charity leaders cite cost rises as one of their main challenges, up from 14% four years ago. We know that that is the case for many charities. Demand for charities’ services is growing, with 83% of charities recording an increase in demand over the last 12 months. Only one in 10 charity leaders said that they have been able to smoothly meet the rise in demand.
The “UK Giving Report 2025” said that although donations from the public to charity increased to £15.4 billion in 2024, which is quite remarkable, really, only half of people say that they donated to charity in the previous 12 months. That, obviously, is to do with levels of income. I am not making a party political point; this is just a statement about the situation for these small community groups.
The downward trend is evident across all age groups, but it is especially pronounced among young people. A little more than a third of 16 to 24-year-olds say they donated or sponsored in the past 12 months, compared with 52% in 2019. The small charity sector has been doing fantastic work, but it has been healthier. I hope that it can become a focus for us and the Government. It is a delicate flower and we need to nurture it in everything that we do.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. It is obvious that a large number of Members wish to participate in the debate; time is going to be very short. Before we embark on the inevitable round of interventions, which are perfectly permitted, I remind hon. Members who intervene that they are expected to remain for the whole debate.
Alex Easton
Does the right hon. Member agree that the small charity sector, including community and faith-based groups, plays a vital role in reaching the hardest-to-reach communities—not only in my constituency of North Down, but across our United Kingdom? Does he agree that the sector should be commended on its local leadership, which so often fills the gaps in statutory provision?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do indeed. I am going to be careful about taking an intervention unless the Member nods their head to suggest that they are prepared to stay for the rest of the debate. I am like a spider at the centre of the web, but I promise I will not trap anyone if I do not have to; I have great confidence in Sir Roger’s stewardship.
Some 20 years ago, I visited the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow, which was one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. At that time, the people there no longer looked to Government as their safety net from poverty; instead, it was local charities that stepped forward. People at the grassroots were present every day, patiently helping people into work and out of debt and addiction. The lifespan of individuals there was incredibly low, much lower than the UK average. That visit stayed with me throughout the latter part of my time as party leader. I saw deprivation and problems, but I also saw innovation at a local level to solve key problems. Innovation is critical, and that is what the small charity sector is about.
For that reason, I founded the Centre for Social Justice in 2004 to create a bridge between local poverty fighters and policymakers here in Westminster; we described it as connecting the back streets of Britain to the corridors of power. The work that the organisation does now is informed by an alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots charities. Today it is led by former charity leader and CSJ award-winner Andy Cook. This is all about real people doing things away from Westminster and achieving things that are never exalted enough; nor is experience of them ever transferred to central Government.
The CSJ harnessed the experiences of those charities to identify five distinct pathways to poverty, which it could then change; that idea still holds as true today as it did when I set the organisation up. Those pathways are worklessness and welfare dependency; addiction; educational failure; debt; and of course family dysfunction and breakdown. What I learned about the impact of worklessness and the other pathways helped to shape some of my thinking later on.
Every year since 2004, we have had an awards programme that recognises outstanding small community groups and charities that work quietly but effectively across the country. To see what they have achieved is one of the most moving things. They will not be known to many people, but what they do is remarkable and the lessons from their work ring out to policymakers. Instead of inventing new ways of doing things, we should look at what these groups do, see whether we can bring it to Westminster and, if necessary, make legislation that shapes lives along the same lines.
I want to refer to some community groups and charities that I know about—I hope other Members will do the same, to give a cross-party sense of what is going on in our communities. The first I want to talk about is Ripple, a suicide prevention charity based in Portsmouth. After the tragic suicide of her brother Josh, Alice Hendy dedicated herself to preventing harmful online internet searches from leading others to the same fate. We face a growing nightmare out there, with many people committing suicide as a result of what they see online. It is a real problem.
From her bedroom in Portsmouth, Alice created a browser extension that intercepts crisis searches, offering a calming breathing exercise before signposting people to accessible local services. I have seen it myself, and it is quite brilliant—the members of the Government who saw it were also taken aback by how remarkable it is. What began as a response to personal tragedy has become a lifesaving tool that has now been downloaded—believe it or not—more than 2 million times. This is a small idea, from a small set-up in a bedroom, that is now being used more and more widely.
That is why we need to learn from what these groups are doing, pick it up and see what we can do centrally. Many individuals will not have committed suicide as a direct result of that particular initiative, but there are many other examples. With the right Government engagement, tools like Ripple’s could be made available in schools, hospitals and jobcentres across the country, for example, yet Alice and her team still have to approach institutions one by one.
I say again to the Minister: these are the kind of huge, life-changing things we can take from this debate—I am sure colleagues will give similar examples—and we do not have to invent them from scratch, because they already exist.
Another shining beacon in our charity network is the BAC—the BAC O’Connor centre in Staffordshire; I first encountered it some years ago during my visits to grassroots charities. For 30 years, BAC O’Connor has been helping people to recover from addiction. We have long argued that, for obvious reasons, addiction is a reinforcer of poverty. BAC’s founder, Noreen Oliver, who sadly is no longer with us, was a much-loved member of this family. I was lucky enough to visit the centre again last year with the hon. Members for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).
Some still new to political leadership in various other parties think that simply legalising drugs is a single-stroke way of ending the drugs problem and saving lives. BAC O’Connor believes in changing and transforming lives; its rehabilitation programmes remind us that recovery, not normalisation, remains the desired outcome. BAC O’Connor does groundbreaking work, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will want to explain further. It created its own restaurant for those coming out of addiction and is a very good example of what I am talking about.
In my constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green there are some remarkable small charities, from which the Government could learn important lessons. They include the Dream Factory, founded in 2008 by Avril Mills BEM. It supports children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions or with severe disabilities by making their dreams—the things that they hoped or wished to do but have not been able to—a reality. It is a simple device: no matter what their situation is, Avril wants to hold them and say that they are worthy of achieving some of their dreams, although they may not be around long enough to see all of them.
Wanstead and Woodford Migrant Support, a Christian charity based in Woodford Green, offers free immigration advice, housing support, advocacy and social spaces for refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants. By providing community-based advice early, it helps prevent homelessness. Immigration and housing policy should recognise and learn from its preventive work and the savings created by local and interactive support.
There are others. Read Easy Waltham Forest offers free, confidential one-to-one coaching for adults who want to learn to read. One of the main reasons why people—mostly young men—end up in prison is that they simply cannot read and write. We discovered that they are too embarrassed to go into jobcentres, where they will be confronted by things that they need to read and write. They will probably be sitting in front of an efficient woman who is trying to help them, and they are embarrassed about admitting that they simply cannot read what she is putting in front of them. They will leave the jobcentre and fall into a life of crime because, without reading and writing, there is nothing out there that people can do for regular work. Many people who cannot read and write struggle; that is an often overlooked barrier to employment and to a straightforward, well-lived life.
The central issue that I hope this debate will address is this: the Government take grassroots charity too much for granted—they did before and still do now, to a greater or lesser degree; this is not party political, as I said. The Government fail to listen when charities are delivering what works, and I urge the Minister to raise that point with her colleagues. They ought to be looking with MPs at what is going on in their constituencies and seeing what we can bring forward. The Government should rise up to serious, lifesaving policy work that does not need degrees or involve people writing new policies on the backs of envelopes and everybody getting excited about them. The programmes of these charities have been tried and tested, and they work—in life, it is always a good start to look at what works and copy it. That is what most of us would want to do.
We need to foster a stronger culture of philanthropy in the UK that is closer to the American model. In its “Supercharging Philanthropy” report, the CSJ proposed practical steps to get us there. It suggested unlocking matched funding schemes to drive philanthropy and creating an evidence fund, so that smaller organisations can prove their impact and compete on a higher-level playing field. I want this debate to focus on how the Government can better learn from charities. There is a clear policy pipeline through which Ministers and Departments can systematically learn from grassroots charities working on the ground.
The problem is that larger charities have public affairs teams and a lot of money, so they can fill up the inboxes of the Government on a daily basis, which they do—I have experience of that. I am not attacking them; I am simply saying that the real innovation is in smaller charities. It is the same in the economy—job creation in the business sector is all about small businesses. They are the ones that take the risks, are dynamic and produce the most employment in the United Kingdom.
Small charities and community groups are exactly the same: they are innovators that see a problem, want to solve it and innovate to do that. When it works they really grow, but it is difficult because there is a glass ceiling that they must get through to reach the Government. That is what the Centre for Social Justice is trying to enable, but the issue needs to be recognised on a wider scale. That innovation must be harnessed to produce solutions.
I remain proud of what the CSJ has done to bring these voices to the national debate. The CSJ Foundation has now given more than £25 million to grassroots charities and hopefully will raise more. I hope that, as this debate continues, the Government will listen and recognise that, through discussions with groups such as the Centre for Social Justice and others, we can harness and recognise the issues. There are a significant number of colleagues here for a debate such as this on a normal day, and they all work with local community groups and charities. Let us find a way to show what is really good about what those do and get the Government to act, once and for all, on things that we know work, rather than doing experiments in public policy.
I rest on the basis that those charities are the lifeblood of what keeps society going, and we do not recognise them fully enough. I know that colleagues do, but the Government never do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Could colleagues who wish to speak please remain standing while the Clerk ticks off the names? I do not normally do this from the Chair, but 10 Members have put forward their names in advance; I propose to call them first. In order, on the Opposition Benches they are Peter Bedford, Danny Kruger, John Cooper, Wera Hobhouse, John Glen and Jim Shannon. On the Government Benches they are Brian Leishman, Patrick Hurley and Terry Jermy.
I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on each speech; that should take us—allowing for interventions—to just past quarter past 3. We have to call the Front Benchers at 3.30 pm, so there should be a little wriggle room at the end for anybody who was not on that list and wishes to speak. Otherwise, your card is marked, so intervene. I will also not allow interventions from anybody who arrived after the start of the debate.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate.
When times are hard, the charity sector is always asked to do more. The unholy trinity of austerity, which made millions poorer, a global pandemic, which widened the inequalities created by that austerity, and the ongoing cost of living crisis has placed incredible demands on the charity sector across various communities in my constituency—I will speak about some of the fantastic charities that do so much.
It was an honour to be invited by Andy Roxburgh and Johanna Wilkinson to celebrate the Wee County Veterans 10th birthday just a few weeks ago. That group provides camaraderie and companionship for veterans who find themselves back on civvy street. There is no doubt that the support that the group has given has saved the lives of brave ex-servicemen and women.
The Sauchie Community Group has done so much for nearly 35 years. Laura’s Tiny Tots group gives children the best start in life; Anne always guarantees a warm welcome at Chatty Latte; and Keith’s recently formed history group preserve and promote Sauchie legends. There are also lots of other positive mental health activities in various musical groups, all of which are fantastic. The Sauchie resource centre is always busy.
Love in a Box was founded by two ladies from Alloa: Sharon McCafferty and Margaret Douglas. They want every kid in Clackmannanshire to experience the festive season. They make sure that every child wakes up on Christmas morning with presents to open.
Heading across the Forth to Grangemouth, it was a pleasure to meet Kirsty from Talbot House, who runs a lunch club for pensioners. Coming together to spend an afternoon in company over a meal and playing bingo is a social highlight for so many.
In Larbert and Stenhousemuir, Keeping Larbert and Stenhousemuir Beautiful was originally set up to tidy green spaces and plant and maintain flowers in the community. Now, it also runs a food pantry for vulnerable people in low-income households. It is a vital community drop-in centre for local people to come and spend some time.
Then there is the Carronshore heritage forum, a volunteer-led organisation dedicated to strengthening local community spirit in the village through projects, initiatives and events. For example, it is always great to see so many people come to the Christmas lights switch-on and for kids to meet Santa Claus. I thank the trustees, Craig, Colin, Stewart, Gordon, Robert and Davy, for inviting me along to serve up tasty dinners at the senior citizens Christmas lunch. It was commented that seeing an MP do an honest day’s work was somewhat refreshing.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing this immensely important debate. The UK’s charity sector is facing mounting challenges. Just like many small businesses, charities across the country have seen a sharp increase in their running costs, driven by persistent inflation and, unfortunately, unhelpful economic policies from the Treasury.
The increase in the national living wage, the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions and changes to business rates have placed considerable pressures on organisations that do so much for our constituents in need. For a sector that contributes £20 billion in economic value to the country each year, that should concern us all. As we have heard, these organisations are more innovative and grassroots-led, and ultimately they are generally supported by the public. If small and medium-sized charities continue to close at the current rate, it will impact our communities and place further strain on already stretched public services.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Small charities with excepted charity status, including many individual scout and guide groups, do not have a registered charity number. 1st Ram Hill Scouts in my constituency tell me that they reckon they are excluded from about 80% of grants because they lack a charity number. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a serious sustainability priority for small groups?
Mr Bedford
The hon. Member has made her point clearly, and I am very sympathetic to the argument she puts across. In my constituency, I have seen the impact of these economic policies and the tough environment for small and medium-sized charities such as Wyggestons and Trinity Almshouses, which provides sheltered accommodation and residential care. It believes that the Charity Commission could also be doing more to support these groups.
Meanwhile, other charity-funded local care providers, such as Rainbows hospice for children and young people and LOROS, have made it clear that the economic climate is making their future more uncertain. These organisations are incredibly important to my constituents, and it would be an absolute travesty to see them reduce their services or close altogether. The Government need to think about creating a carve-out for the charity sector, so that it does not have to pay astronomical employment costs—something that Conservative Members argued for during the national insurance debate. That would be a sensible move to protect jobs and sustain local services, and it would command broad public support.
To conclude, charities are at the heart of our communities. They reduce pressure on public services and command widespread public support, yet we in this place are not doing enough to support and protect them. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments that the CSJ and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green have eloquently presented. My plea to the Government is to create a carve-out for the wider sector to ensure that running costs do not drive many charities, including those in my constituency, to close.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In the interests of time, and given your advice, I have cut a huge chunk from my speech, in the hope that we can get more colleagues in. I wish to commend two charities in my constituency, and then make two requests of the Minister.
First, I commend Greta and the team at the Light for Life charity. I want to place on record my thanks to them—they are in Parliament today, and when the debate is over, I will go to see them. Light for Life provides support to people experiencing homelessness, at the most vulnerable point in their lives. It provides food and essential supplies and, perhaps more importantly, respect and connection to those in real difficulty.
I also want to recognise Richard and the team at Compassion Acts, with its food bank provision and financial and monetary advice to families; in the past, it has provided school uniform support to children who need it the most. These are the sorts of small charities that are, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, the backbone of our communities. We would be much worse off without them.
There are some practical ideas that would, I hope, make a positive difference to the charities sector. One is to unlock unclaimed gift aid and match-funding mechanisms, which could incentivise and increase philanthropic giving, especially if targeted and supported directly for the smaller charities sector. Another proposal is to establish an evidence fund, maybe also financed from unclaimed gift aid, which would help small charities to demonstrate impact and compete more fairly for grants and contracts against the big boys—the larger charities that we all know and that overwhelm our inboxes.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address two questions. Does the Department view match funding as a practical tool to increase giving to small and medium-sized charities? Secondly, what steps can be taken to ensure that small charities can engage meaningfully in tendering grant applications and consultations?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I have two quick declarations of interest. I am the founder and still chairman of a charity working in prisons. It is 21 years old this year. My second declaration of interest is the fealty I owe to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—my original, and still my feudal lord. He is the leader that I first worked for. I pay tribute to all the work he has done over many years. I remember very well the Easterhouse visit and setting up the Centre for Social Justice, and all the work that he has done over the last two decades to advance the cause of social justice, particularly through the work of small charities.
We all love our small charities, and I, too, could run through a list of brilliant ones that work in East Wiltshire—I do want to quickly mention the LINK service, which drives people around the county, particularly to medical appointments. That is such an important service, provided totally free and voluntarily to the community.
However, I want to use the time I have to make a more strategic point. The role of small charities is not just for us as MPs to champion in a sort of neutral sense—“Oh, aren’t they good?” There is something profoundly important about this network for public policy. I was involved, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was, in those early years of thinking about social responsibility in the era of David Cameron. I think the big society was the best thing that David Cameron did—except perhaps for calling a referendum on the European Union—yet it did not quite work.
It did not quite work for two main reasons. One is that the Treasury did not really believe in it— George Osborne never got the point of the charity sector and its role in public life and in policy. Secondly, the difficulty is that if the state starts to support charities, it ends up basically enabling big charities to occupy the space that state agencies did previously. They effectively game the provisions that are made with the purpose of supporting the small charity sector, to exclude the small charities and create barriers to entry for those small organisations that it is so difficult for national Government to see and to work with.
Fundamentally, we need a big, new settlement with the charity sector; in fact, with society itself. This is not just about registered charities. It is about social organisations in all their forms. We need to trust communities much more fully, with all the mess, the disparity and what is called the postcode lottery that that can sometimes induce. We need to support philanthropy and direct public support—I think the United Kingdom could become the absolute global centre of philanthropy. The City of London should regard that as one of its key investment markets.
But this is not actually just about money, private or public. It is about the state enabling and authorising its agency throughout the public sector to rely meaningfully on the charity sector, so that it can do that in all the areas we have been discussing, including addiction, re-offending, homelessness, children in care—these knotty, wicked problems that cause so much distress and pain in our society and which the state is so inadequate at dealing with.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate.
During my life, I have been involved with a number of different charities across my constituency, either in an employed capacity or voluntarily. That has included the Keystone Development Trust, the Benjamin Foundation, the Charles Burrell Centre and the G.W. Staniforth Charity. It is through that involvement that I have come to appreciate how small charities are so often crucial to local communities. They provide essential services and respond quickly to new risks or increases in demand. Sometimes they are formed out of personal tragedy, as was the case with the Benjamin Foundation set up by Richard and Vanessa Draper to remember their son Benjamin, who tragically passed away.
The services that small charities provide are crucial. It is important that organisations are supported by the Government. That support could materialise in many ways, but I want to highlight one in particular: access to cash and banking. Many groups and charities tell me that they increasingly struggle to process funds that they receive in cash. Although many things can be purchased digitally, if you are anything like me, Sir Roger, the odds are that you still buy raffle and tombola tickets with cash. The lack of availability of banks, particularly in rural areas such as mine, is now a real barrier to fundraising for smaller charities. The added costs of processing cash and the associated risks of staff and volunteers handling cash are important to consider. I ask the Government to give some thought to what can be done to assist local charities with this practical challenge.
I want to take a moment to thank the dozens and dozens of small local charities across my constituency and the volunteers that sustain them, including two groups that I have been able to meet with recently, the Downham Art Circle and Swaffham environment group. In the interests of time, I shall finish there.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We Scots are often portrayed as parsimonious—or, to put it another way, as tight as two coats of paint. It is a myth largely down to comedian and singer Sir Harry Lauder, who, to raise money for wounded great war veterans after the death of his son in 1917, portrayed on stage a canny Scot who regarded every penny as a prisoner. Lauder raised £1 million for charity—an astronomical sum. How ironic that such generosity birthed the legend of the tightwad Scot. Today, in straitened times, our generosity continues, with an estimated £1.2 billion donated in 2023 and 76% of Scots reporting some sort of charity donation.
Another myth that persists is that deprivation and poverty are issues only in urban areas—not so. My constituency is rural and gorgeous, but people cannot eat the scenery. Rural isolation, loneliness and poverty are sadly all too real amidst the splendour of the Galloway hills. Loneliness and social isolation are profound challenges across Dumfries and Galloway. Our scattered communities, limited public transport and persistent digital exclusion—we have many notspots—leave many individuals cut off from social contact.
However, the people of Dumfries and Galloway are resilient self-starters and we have a plethora of charities fighting to make lives better. Take our telephone and in-person befriending service, A Listening Ear, which is having a real impact, delivering community-led preventive solutions to mental ill health. Its modest budget provides a big bang for a small buck. Prostate Buddies is reaching out to men, urging them to get checked for what is too often a silent killer, and offering advice and support so that more men can get treatment sooner.
There are dozens of similar such initiatives, often volunteer-led, that could benefit from greater support from Government. Take The Usual Place café, which is right next to my constituency office—I am a frequent flyer there. That charity takes young people with a range of mental and physical issues and teaches them catering skills, which massively boosts their chances of finding paid employment. Even with a thriving café and external catering business, The Usual Place has struggled financially, not least since the Government increased employer national insurance contributions.
Small charities do mighty work, especially in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. May I make a plea for them to have a seat as the Government draw up the policy table? Sir Harry Lauder sang “Stop Yer Tickling, Jock.” Perhaps we should update that to “Start Yer Listening, Minister.”
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate and on his kind words about Noreen Oliver. I had the pleasure of meeting Noreen when I was first elected. The legacy she leaves in north Staffordshire is phenomenal. Noreen’s Recovery Lounge, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is in Fenton Manor in my constituency. It is a wonderful place, which provides the opportunity for people in alcohol and drug addiction recovery to spend meaningful time with other people and acquire work experience and skills. That is something that we should all aspire to.
I commend to the debate the recent report from Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, the infrastructure organisation expertly led by Lisa Healings and her team, that brings together multiple parts of the charitable sector, offering the support and guidance they need. The report points out that there are 396 registered charities operating in Stoke-on-Trent, spending a collective amount of £144.7 million. That is a phenomenal amount of investment into my city, and its value is huge. That money is being spent to prevent much greater demands on other services. It closes the gaps in some communities, to give people the life chances and opportunities they would not otherwise have.
That money cannot come from the public sector alone. Nicky Twemlow, the newly appointed chief executive of the YMCA, founded the Made in Stoke network, which brings together people who have a physical or social connection to Stoke-on-Trent, trying to ensure that they can use their philanthropic aims to fund small charities in Stoke. It is a matchmaking service that is having a real benefit.
Although there are many wonderful things in Stoke that I could talk about, I just want to touch briefly on three changes that would help. One issue is the short-term cycle of funding; charities often tell me that they get funding for one or two years. By the time they have stood up a project, it is time to start shutting it down again. By the time they have recruited staff, they are worried about redundancy costs. Another concerns large contracts for commissioned services by the third sector from public sector bodies, but the value of the contract is so large that small charities are shut out. Unless they can offer huge swathes of different services, they are unable to get a look in. The big charities mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green get all the spoils, when a coalition of smaller charities could deliver a service more effectively and with more focus on a community but they cannot compete on the price point.
My final point, which I want to raise briefly, is around the complex nature of the needs that too many of these charities are meeting. In Stoke we have lots of good charities, such as Chit Chat 4U, Birches Head Get Growing or Step-Up Stoke CIC. They are often trying to meet one need, but that is spread across multiple phases. If there were a way the Government could help with multiple needs assessments that allow charities to work collectively, it would be a massive boon for my city.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate.
I hear time and again from local Bath charities that they are disadvantaged due to their size. They are incredible, committed and dedicated niche charities, doing excellent work in our communities. Because they are small and locally focused they can deliver swift, sensitive and tailored personal services to the people who need them, but they are disadvantaged because they are small. They are disadvantaged because they cannot afford a team of experienced bid writers who know the tips and hacks to unlock the larger funding schemes, and because they are all going for the same pots of funding at the same time, for largely the same aims. They are also disadvantaged because they lack the economies of scale that benefit the nationals, and the central infrastructure to navigate onerous administration, monitoring and governance rules.
I recently convened a roundtable of smaller charities all working in the domestic abuse space in Bath, to hear about their challenges. Outstanding local charities such as Southside, the Nelson Trust, Developing Health & Independence, Voices, Society Without Abuse and Julian House attended, along with our local authority partners, officers and councillors, who are vital elements for policy setting, commissioning and delivery. Bringing them together created a space to work towards a more joined-up response for domestic abuse victims and survivors in Bath, working together rather than competing with each other.
Overwhelmingly, I heard from them how the fragmentation of local delivery impeded their effectiveness, and how partnerships and collaborations were key to reducing that. As a result, regular roundtables are now taking place, at which they share best practice, limit duplication of support to some clients, and locate the gaps in provision to others. It is an opportunity to map out a clearer, more collaborative and less fragmented domestic abuse pathway for local organisations. We are creating a space where charities can build rapport with one another while discussing some of the issues that the sector faces.
I hope that will begin to eliminate the barriers that smaller charities face due to the administration, monitoring and governance issues that the large national charities navigate with relative ease. I hope that in this way we can ensure that the size of a charity never determines the difference that it can make. While I echo the concerns that have been raised today, I very much hope that my example from Bath can help other hon. Members and the charities in their local areas.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate.
The stories, as has been said many times, of small and medium-sized charities and the impact that they have can be seen across our cities, towns and communities. They are the ones directly impacting lives and making a day-to-day difference on the ground in our communities. We have much to thank them for, but also much to learn from them. One such charity from my constituency that I often mention in Parliament is WeMindTheGap. Every year it works with hundreds of young people for whom traditional education may not have worked, and who may have fallen through the gaps. Through its holistic programmes, including long-term mentoring, paid work placements, skills development and pastoral support, it often gives the young people that it works with a new lease of life, and 70% of “Gappies”—as they are known—move on to work, training or future education.
WeMindTheGap works in and supports schools and similar organisations, providing specialist and targeted measures that they do not always have the capacity to provide themselves. Those partnerships make a tangible difference to both pupils and schools, with bespoke solutions in partnership with schools, colleges, businesses and others. This is the power of smaller charities.
Programmes such as these are particularly timely given the recent release of CSJ’s “Lost Boys” report, which painted an increasingly bleak picture for young men from disadvantaged and working-class backgrounds, highlighting rising educational disengagement and economic inactivity. I ask the Minister to describe how the Government can help support charities such as these and the vital work that they are doing in that sphere.
In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks by thanking all the smaller charities in Wrexham and beyond for the vital work they do, year in and year out, in so many different but equally impactful ways.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who for 34 years has made such an enormous contribution in this place. When he set up the Centre for Social Justice, he was determined to look at the deeper causes of social problems in our country. It has been instrumental in doing so. I agree with him that the annual attempt to champion and reward all those charities doing so much throughout the country is really important.
I also draw attention to the previously mentioned “Supercharging Philanthropy” report. It looked across six hubs around the country, undertook serious engagement and came forward with 39 recommendations across 90-odd pages. It is a serious attempt to look at how we can underpin more support for small local charities that exist across our constituencies, and how we can bring back some of the things that have happened before around community-matched funding challenges. There is an enormous pool of surplus wealth that many are seeking to invest in activities and actions in communities that make a real difference. The Government could do well to look at the options that exist and those 39 recommendations and see what can be brought forward.
I want to make a specific point about several charities in my constituency, many of whom I have engaged with—and one or two of which I am a patron of. In particular Rise:61—of which I am not a patron—is embedded in a distinct community of Bemerton: Bemerton Heath. It is run by Robin Imeson, who has basically devoted his life so far to youth work in that community. He lives there and runs bike clubs, drop-ins and creative clubs with his team. He also runs football and drama workshops. They have been absolutely foundational to the lives of hundreds of young people on that estate.
I ask the Minister to reflect that, in the context of the Pride in Place work that is going to happen in Bemerton, she could ensure that the role of small charities is put front and centre of the options that neighbourhood plans and boards have. It is important that those people who really understand what is going on in a community are allowed to be meaningful beneficiaries, over 10 years, of the investment the Government are making, and that everything is done to hear their voices. Often they are taken out of the main conversation, so I welcome the opportunity today to talk of Rise:61 and of the enormous contribution they make to my constituency in many ways and forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading the debate. We should do more to ensure the long-term sustainability of the charity sector.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. Our secretariat is run by a small charity called the FoRB Foundation, the task of which is to raise awareness, recover rights and rebuild the lives of those affected by FORB violations. The foundation has many volunteers who make the time to do many things.
The charity sector in Northern Ireland is a major employer, with some 53,620 employees, representing some 7% of the total workforce. Some 4.3 million people across the UK have sought the support of charities in recent years, highlighting the need for charity support nationwide.
Let me name a few of the charities in my constituency. The Ards suicide awareness group started a few years ago, and it reaches out to try to help those of a male disposition, and in respect of those who have unfortunately lost their lives. There are also food banks, the Home-Start team, the Beyond the Battlefield veterans team, and the Link, where a number of churches come together to give help.
Beyond the Battlefield provides pivotal and comprehensive support for veterans, service members and their families. It offers free, specialised services, including counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder; housing assistance for the homeless; help with war pensions, benefit entitlements and medical claims; and support through tailored long-term care.
The Newtownards food bank, which is run by the House church—Richard, Natalie, Lisa and their team—reminds us all of the scale of how food poverty is affecting Northern Ireland, and how critical the small charity sector is in terms of food poverty. Those are just a few of the charities in my constituency.
Between 2014 and 2023—excluding the pandemic years 2020 to 2022—the average number of registered charities that was removed annually was about 63. That tells us that there is a decrease in the number of charities being sustained annually. Many small charities, especially those with limited reserves, are under significant pressure, and that has been exacerbated by cuts to core Government grants.
Sustained Government support is critical for the survival and effectiveness of Northern Ireland’s small charity sector. Without adequate funding, many organisations will face closure or the scaling back of essential services, putting vulnerable communities at risk. We must never underestimate the impact of charities on the community and how they have saved so many from personal and financial devastation. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response; not to throw any pressure on her, but the charities need help.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate.
I want to speak briefly about mental health charities. Fundamentally, we have an enormous problem in the UK: the public sector no longer funds the mental health sector properly, and the charities cannot fill the gap. Almost 800,000 kids in the 16 to 24-year-old group are not in education or employment, and covid has meant that the situation is effectively becoming a national emergency for the young. We all see in our casework an enormous number of parents getting in touch about their children. We have a big issue.
There is one thing that the Minister could do to help. My wife’s father committed suicide. He was a farmer in Northern Ireland. Without the charities that I know of, I think a lot more people who are contemplating suicide would take their own lives. I would like to mention the charities Ewen’s Room, Lochaber Hope, and Mikeysline in Inverness. They have one particular request. Unlike VAT-registered businesses, charities cannot reclaim the VAT they pay on essential costs, from maintaining their premises to repairing vehicles. Does the Minister agree that reviewing the VAT rules for small charities could be a practical and immediate step to relieve some of the intense financial pressures facing the sector?
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate.
From my short time as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, and having spent over a decade as a local councillor, I know how small charities form the very lifeblood of our area. Although larger organisations no doubt do incredible amounts of good, I have found that it is the smaller groups that can only be found at the grassroots level that can reach out to the people who are most in need.
I have had the privilege of meeting and working with many small-scale local charities in my time, and I am always encouraged by the hard work and decency of those looking to make our community a better place. Let me give three quick examples. The George Coller Memorial Fund is a local charity that has punched well above its weight over the years, campaigning successfully to enable schools to store and administer emergency inhalers—vital treatments—and recently campaigning to make a dose counter mandatory in emergency inhalers, which we are working on.
I want to recognise and pay tribute to the work of Faizan Global Relief Foundation UK, which mobilised at the peak of the bin strikes, when there were piles and piles of rubbish across the city of Birmingham, to help the local community. The foundation also does enormous work with our youth, trying to address knife crime, substance abuse and so much more.
I also want to raise the plight of Kevin, a retiree who volunteers day and night to run the Bethany food bank in my constituency. The charity feeds over 1,000 people a month, but receives its donations largely in the form of food rather than cash. With Birmingham city council applying only limited relief on business rates, Bethany food bank is at risk of shutting down permanently amid a cost of living crisis.
Those sorts of small organisations do enormous work in constituencies up and down the country. When they are being squeezed at the same time as the cost of living is spiralling out of control and families are so desperate, we must support organisations that do not require an enormous amount of financial support but actually deliver so much. Will the Minister indicate what additional grants the Government can make available to smaller charities, because they are the charities that have the greatest impact?
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading this important debate.
The small charity sector plays a crucial role in supporting communities in my constituency and across the whole country. Some 86% of the small charities working in the south-west have an income of under £100,000. One of the greatest privileges of my role as an MP is meeting the amazing people behind these organisations: the volunteers, organisers and community leaders who give so generously of their time and energy to help others.
That commitment to local action speaks directly to Liberal Democrat values: localism, community power, and the belief that solutions are strongest when they are shaped by the people closest to the challenge. Our small charities live out that principle every single day. Their impact might not be fully measurable, but I know it is massive. They demonstrate that when people look out for one another and create opportunities for others to flourish, society becomes more resilient, more compassionate and more connected.
I would like to recognise just a few of the exceptional organisations in my constituency, many of which are now included in my Stronger South Cotswolds initiative. I am proud to be patron of the Churn community hub in Cirencester, which works to reduce isolation and improve wellbeing; HEALS of Malmesbury supports individuals and families who are vulnerable or experiencing hardship, offering help ranging from debt advice to emergency food provision; and the Tetbury Goods Shed brings people together for creative opportunities that span the generations.
I would love to namecheck a few other incredible organisations—I hope they will forgive me for not being able to do full justice to their value: Fruitful Malmesbury, Greening Tetbury, Cirencester Pantry, Sustainable Sherston, Food for Thought Cotswolds, Working 4 Wellbeing, the Cotswold friends, People For You, Pips Community café, Tetbury Area Youth and Community Trust, and the many groups that support people suffering from cancer, dementia, Parkinson’s and other ailments.
Those charities, as valuable as they are, are in crisis. Rising employer national insurance contributions place a direct financial strain on them, and the ongoing cost of living crisis compounds the challenge. As households struggle, donations fall and fundraising becomes harder, while at the same time more and more people turn to charities for support. We have rising demand, falling income and increasing costs. If we truly value the small charity sector—and we should—let us look at how we can make more funding available to it.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. It has been a pleasure to hear about so many wonderful charities and volunteers.
Small local charities have played an increasing role in the community life of this country and have stepped in to fill critical gaps in public services. They support young people, the elderly and the isolated. They counsel the bereaved, look after abandoned animals and reach people in crisis when statutory services cannot. A thriving voluntary sector is essential.
Small charities in my constituency—including Pavilion on the Park, the Eastleigh Basics Bank, Fledge, the Asian Welfare and Cultural Association, St Francis Animal Welfare and 1Community—all do fantastic work, and I am incredibly proud of the contribution they make every day, the commitment of all their volunteers and staff, and the work they do to strengthen the bonds in our community. However, as we have heard, small charities are facing huge challenges.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I am terribly sorry; I appreciate that there are conflicting demands on Members, but the hon. Lady must be aware that if a Member comes in late, it is quite straightforward: no intervention.
Liz Jarvis
Decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operating costs, and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting the charitable sector have piled pressure on organisations that are already struggling.
Small charities account for the overwhelming majority of the sector by number. Micro and small charities are defined as those with incomes under £10,000 and between £10,000 and £100,000 respectively, and they make up over 80% of all registered charities. Charities with incomes under £1 million represent 96% of the entire sector. By contrast, the UK’s largest charities—those with incomes over £10 million—make up less than 1% of the sector by number, yet account for the majority of total income.
Given the vital community work that small charities carry out, it is concerning that the majority of donations are given to bigger rather than smaller charities, which do not have the resources and superior brand recognition of bigger organisations. Small local charities do not have the financial runway and resilience built into their operations to weather storms.
The demand for charitable services is rising sharply, with the proportion of people receiving food, medical or financial support from charities having tripled in five years. However, around 42% of charities spent more than they received, and well over half are now running deficits. More charities are closing, and most of those closures are among organisations with incomes below £1 million. Nearly a third of voluntary organisations now describe themselves as vulnerable or struggling. Many expect to freeze recruitment and make redundancies as a direct consequence of financial pressure.
I urge the Minister to reduce the financial burden faced by small charities. What more can be done to supercharge philanthropy across the UK? How can we unlock billions in unclaimed gift aid and dormant funds and explore match-funding mechanisms, which can significantly increase donations? We should ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, rather than being crowded out by larger organisations.
Small veterans charities, including Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, are not immune to the challenges facing the sector. The CEO of Veterans Aid has warned that if these specialist organisations disappear, the Government will lose the very partners they depend on to keep veterans from falling into crisis. I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on that.
The fact is that more charities are closing at a time when increasing numbers of people depend on their services. If we continue on this course, we risk losing an essential pillar of the social fabric that holds our communities together. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that small charities are supported in the UK. They are embedded in their local communities and are often their beneficiaries’ only lifeline. The Government must take all necessary steps to ensure they can maximise their impact for the people and communities who depend on them.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. Few others—indeed, perhaps no one else in this place—have done more over the last 20 years to champion the causes of social justice, a field in which many of our small charities operate.
Over the last five years, the charity sector has faced unprecedented pressure, with donations falling and volunteer numbers still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Rising costs driven by the autumn Budget, increased national insurance contributions and post-pandemic expenditure outstripping income have placed a strain on small charities, limiting their ability to support local communities. These organisations remain consistently underfunded and frequently overlooked, and the current funding model is proving unsustainable for too many. Small and medium-sized charities with incomes under £1 million account for 97% of all charity closures in the past decade.
Financially, the current system works against small charities, favouring large, well-established organisations with the capacity to navigate complex processes and absorb financial shocks. Too many smaller charities are excluded from the core unrestricted and multi-year funding that would give them the stability and ability to plan ahead. Instead, they are often trapped in cycles of short-term grants, burdensome applications and reporting requirements that, for them, are often disproportionate to some of the modest sums available. Meanwhile, 88% of charitable income in England and Wales goes to just 5% of registered charities, leaving the remaining 95%—the small charities that form the backbone of the sector—far more vulnerable to declines in public giving. Without a shift in Government focus towards these organisations and the vital role they play in their communities, that gap will only continue to widen.
Small and medium-sized charities are often better placed than large national charities to know their communities and to deliver lasting change in people’s lives. A number of charities on the Isle of Wight do just that. For example, Aspire is a community hub that runs food pantries, suicide prevention programmes and the award-winning “Living Well and Early Help” service. More recently, it has opened accommodation in Ryde for women who would otherwise face being homeless. We also have the award-winning Tidal Family Support centre and PATCH—the People’s Approach to Cancer Help—which helps people with the costs of accessing health appointments across the Solent on the mainland. Community Action Isle of Wight and the Bay Youth Project do important youth intervention work in Sandown, Lake and Shanklin.
Such smaller charities are often more agile in responding to the needs of their communities, typically spending a lower proportion of their income on fundraising and lobbying so it can go directly to delivering on their charitable objectives. Many funders value that closeness, preferring to support organisations that have deep, long-standing relationships with the people they serve. Charities often focus on meeting immediate needs, allowing them to respond quickly to people in their local communities, yet many corporate donors feel it is harder to justify supporting smaller charities, partly because they have fewer resources to showcase their work. Some national charity brands are, of course, used by local charities, such as Age UK Isle of Wight—and Age UK is in many constituencies and areas across the country. There is often a misunderstanding that they benefit from central donations, but very often they are in fact small, local charities, entirely reliant on local fundraising—notwithstanding the benefit of that brand association with an excellent national charity such as Age UK.
Smaller charities are often so absorbed in day-to-day delivery that they lack the capacity to analyse evidence and present impact in the way that funders increasingly expect, which leaves them at a disadvantage when bidding for support. Smaller charities can also lack meaningful avenues to feed their experience into national policy, with few mechanisms in place for Government to learn from their frontline insight. Their limited national influence, stemming from the absence of large public affairs teams, stands in stark contrast to the growing professionalisation of major charities—which in itself is of course a good thing.
I am pleased to have been appointed as a commissioner to the Centre for Social Justice’s midlife mission, looking at how to support people approaching midlife and beyond to thrive in the labour market. The CSJ aims to bring together more than 1,000 small charities to give voice to and inform the work that they are doing.
I now address the Minister directly. Last year, the Government announced the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy, intended to help Whitehall to identify, source and build partnerships to scale the social impact of public investment and expand opportunities across the country. Since that announcement, however, there has been no public update on how that initiative is being implemented, or how the associated funding is being used.
I ask the Minister this: first, to what extent does she recognise match funding as a core tool for leveraging public funds, and what steps are being taken to expand its use across Government? Secondly, what mechanisms does the Department have in place to ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, and that the administrative burden of doing so does not exclude them? Finally, will the Minister establish a £585 million evidence fund, as recommended by the CSJ, paid for through one year of unclaimed gift aid, enabling small charities to demonstrate impact and to compete more effectively for contracts and grants?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. His commitment to small charitable organisations is evident not only in his speech, but through his work in that area, and indeed in this place, over many years.
I begin by paying tribute to small charities and the critical support that they provide to people across the country, which has been highlighted today. Small charities make up the vast majority of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector. Those responsive, locally engaged groups are often best placed to understand the strengths, capabilities and cultures that make up their local communities. In this debate, we heard a number of examples, and I want to mention a few of them.
The right hon. Member spoke about Ripple, based in Portsmouth, and about how, in response to personal tragedy, it set up a lifesaving tool. It is incredibly important that he shared that example with the House today, and I will reflect it to the relevant Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke powerfully about a number of charities, as did Members from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that Greta, a representative of one of his local charities, is here in Parliament. I join him in welcoming them.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) raised important issues, such as digital poverty, that affect rural communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who shared an example of her work bringing local domestic violence charities together; I am pleased to hear that that work is ongoing. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) raised a specific question about Pride in Place. It is a policy led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I have met with the relevant Minister. The policy is grounded in local leadership, but I will ensure that the right hon. Member’s points are put to that Minister and will write to him accordingly.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of small charities in tackling food poverty, something that I have seen in my constituency. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan); I will write to him about his specific question, but I will touch on some of the points he made later in my speech. I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), on his new role at the CSJ, and will address some of the points he put to me later.
Yesterday I met a range of charitable organisations at events hosted by the York Centre for Voluntary Services and the Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership. Those charities play a vital role in their local communities, giving a voice to those living in poverty, supporting unpaid carers and empowering women, often victims of domestic violence, to improve their lives. In my area of Barnsley, whether it be BIADS—Barnsley Independent Alzheimer’s and Dementia Support—of which I am a patron, or the world-class Barnsley Youth Choir, small charities are at the forefront of innovation and social change.
In last month alone I have met two great small charities from across the country: the Family Volunteering Club, a small charity led by Maddy Mills, creating opportunities for young children and their families to volunteer, and Ruff & Ruby, a King’s award-winning youth charity carrying out important work in Stoke-on-Trent. Ruff & Ruby has the UTH CITY app, which connects young people with resources, education, employment, volunteering and suicide prevention. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) gave some excellent examples of its work, and I was pleased to visit his area last year to meet a number of charities and hear at first hand about the work they are doing.
I acknowledge the financial pressures faced by the sector. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and a number of others put to me points around national insurance, which we have debated a number of times, and a specific point about VAT. That is an issue for the Treasury, but I will reflect his request to the relevant Minister and write to him. We want to reduce administrative burdens on businesses, including charities, by a quarter by the end of this Parliament. Last October, I set out a series of changes to the financial thresholds for charities that will come into force this year. These will save charities an average of £47 million each year, while ensuring that the regulation of the sector remains proportionate.
The civil society covenant, which represents a fundamental shift in how Government works with the sector, is a recognition of the value that civil society brings, and a commitment to work in partnership to deliver better for citizens and communities. I was pleased to meet a number of civil society organisations at London City Hall towards the end of last year to discuss how the civil society covenant can help the Government to connect with the whole sector. In that context, I do not recognise the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green’s characterisation that the Government do not listen and engage, or that they simply take small charities for granted. I acknowledge that we can always do better, but the covenant is about having the ambition to do exactly that.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has launched an £11.6 million local covenant partnership fund. The fund will support local government, public service providers and civil society organisations to work collaboratively to tackle local policy priorities and better meet the needs of local communities. Outside this place, I know that there have been questions from charities regarding the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024; while that question has not been raised in this debate, I make it clear to Members and the sector that charities can continue to claim gift aid where eligible and compliant with consumer law, where it applies.
I met with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to discuss the topic last week, alongside colleagues from the Department for Business and Trade. I am aware of the sector’s concerns and I am committed to working with colleagues in DBT and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the issue. I wrote to the Chair of the Committee today in response to her letter to me on Friday to provide an update and confirm that, in relation to gift aid, secondary legislation is not necessary at this time.
I will touch on some of the broader DCMS and Government support for charities, answering a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger). Last summer, DCMS published the Government’s first ever dormant asset strategy, mapping out how the £440 million of funding will be distributed. That will include £132.5 million to benefit young people and £87.5 million for social investment. Funding will go towards providing small, affordable loans to grassroots organisations alongside tailored support to help small enterprises to grow and become more financially resilient. I recognise that there is a need to support more civil society organisations to grow their income from public sector contracts. At present, civil society organisations secure just 4% of the total value of those contracts, a figure that has remained unchanged for the past 10 years.
The national procurement policy statement published in February 2025 underlines the Government’s commitment to strengthening the UK economy by maximising opportunities for civil society organisations to access public contracts. That is a clear signal that the sector’s expertise and value will be recognised and supported throughout the public sector, highlighting our ambition to make it easier for civil society organisations of all sizes, and small and medium-sized enterprises, to deliver public contracts. I think that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister agree that small local charities cannot compete with national charities? We have made that point time and again, but she has not made any comment on how competition can be achieved or how local charities can get priority. I have many examples in Bath where a national charity gets a bid through the bidding process but does not deliver as well as a local charity. We find that out afterwards, but then it is too late.
Stephanie Peacock
That is a very fair point, and one that I have seen in my own constituency of Barnsley. In the interest of time, I will not share the details of my example, but I will take that point away and write to the hon. Lady directly on it. We want to address that specific point through the covenant.
Moving on to the second point of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about tax reliefs for charities, charities and their donors received around £6.7 billion in tax relief in the 2024-25 tax year. The long-running gift aid scheme has raised over £1.7 billion alone during that period. I attended a roundtable hosted by Amazon and co-chaired by Gordon Brown on the new VAT relief for business donations on goods to charities. As the Chancellor announced at the Budget, that new relief will increase the supply of essential items available to charities and make it easier for businesses to support charitable work. The former Prime Minister deserves huge credit for his leadership on that issue throughout his establishment of Multibank.
As he outlined in his speech, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and the Centre for Social Justice have a keen interest in growing philanthropy in the UK, especially for small charities. A number of other Members raised that issue too. We recognise that many small charities rely on donations from the public to support their work, and while I am aware that there is more work to do, I acknowledge the £15 billion that was donated last year. We want to better connect, unlock and partner with philanthropists to mobilise private funds for public good, a point put to me by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). I recently chaired a roundtable on that subject, bringing together philanthropists, business leaders and other Government Departments to discuss how we can build philanthropic giving into Government missions.
We are committed to a place-based philanthropy strategy. That will set out how the Government can create an environment that encourages philanthropists to support local communities and ensures that the benefits of philanthropy are felt nationwide. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised the issue of philanthropy being a priority for the City of London. I was pleased to attend and speak at the Giving and Impact summit last year at the London Stock Exchange.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Office for the Impact Economy. Launched by the Prime Minister, it is the Government’s new central hub for investors, philanthropists and businesses looking to make social impact. The office will make sure that charities can access funding beyond traditional grants and give direction to individuals and organisations looking to make a difference. I am happy to set up a meeting for Members who are interested in that area with the new office, so please do contact me.
We cannot debate charities without mentioning volunteers. Volunteers keep charities running, with around 12 million volunteers giving their time and commitment each year. Yesterday in York, I met the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, which shared with me the work it does to encourage people to get involved in a variety of ways. It was a particular pleasure to speak to the young volunteers, and I wish the York Centre for Voluntary Services the very best with its volunteering fair tomorrow, which will bring together many charities from across their city.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is right to recognise the importance of volunteers, and we all recognise that—we meet them every day of our lives—but charities also employ people and pay their wages, so there is an economic advantage to having them as well. Does she recognise that?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely recognise those volunteers and staff members, who often do huge amounts of work to deliver amazing outcomes. The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, as always. I know that volunteers across the country dedicate their time—week in, week out.
If the House will indulge me, I want to share an example from my own area of Barnsley. Last Saturday, I took part in the Barnsley parkrun along with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis). It is a brilliant initiative, organised by volunteers every week. We ran the parkrun alongside Oliver Smith, who is just nine years old. He is running nine marathons in four months to raise money for the Brain Tumour Charity following his dad’s diagnosis. Oliver’s commitment to fundraising and raising awareness is incredibly inspiring, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all his amazing efforts. I was also pleased last week to visit a small charity in Barnsley, the Barnsley Hospital Charity, which has run a number of campaigns over the years and is currently raising funds particularly for breast cancer care.
My Department wants to do what it can to support volunteering. We have commissioned an open data initiative that will help break down barriers for more people to get involved in the causes that mean the most to them. It will make it easier for small charities to advertise volunteering opportunities and expand their reach, generating further support and interest for their work in their local areas.
Gareth Snell
One thing that might help is if there was a settled model for how small charities could quantify volunteer hours to use as a bank against matched funding. Some charities in my patch tell me that they have lots of social value but no cash, and when they go for matched funding, the funders want to see an income stream, not necessarily the other things they have. If there was a way that everyone recognised and supported of quantifying those other things, it could free up income from philanthropic organisations to be match funded against time, assets or skills.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point; the young volunteers were also talking to me about that data point yesterday.
One example is that the DCMS launched the voluntary, community, and social enterprise business hub last year, alongside the VCSE Crown representative. The hub contains a host of resources intended to support civil society organisations in finding and bidding for public funding. That is especially important for smaller charities with fewer resources to dedicate to seeking out such funding, and it is a vital source of information in our mission to encourage more civil society organisations into public sector contracts. Obviously, however, data is helpful across the board.
Danny Kruger
This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value. Why do we not just localise public sector funding so that small charities can be properly trusted?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues will have noticed that I have deliberately allowed the Minister to overrun her time because, given the time, it seemed important that she was able to respond fully to the debate. I now have to remind the Minister that I want the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate to have time to wind up properly.
Stephanie Peacock
I take that point, Sir Roger, and I heard what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said.
I will end where the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green began. He spoke about how the Government, families and community groups can work together, and are best placed, alongside small charities, to support local areas and to tackle challenges. He said that the ones that do the most, we often hear the least about. I think this debate has gone some way to changing that by shining a light on so many brilliant examples of hard working charities across our country. I conclude by acknowledging the huge contribution that small charities make, and I thank them for all their work.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
This has been an excellent debate, not least because all parties have been represented in it, and all parties have spoken with one voice. We value the incredible efforts made by local community groups and charities, but all of us also recognise that much more can be done to release them and to recognise some of the incredible schemes that they have come up with—I named a number of them. There have been many suggestions about the best way to do that.
There have been comments about the need to modernise gift aid, and to uprate the thresholds of the gift aid small donations scheme, so that charities that receive small cash donations can get gift aid-style repayments of tax. That is a useful idea that has been put forward. There is also the whole idea of placed-based giving. Small charities are embedded in communities throughout the UK, and it is important that local and placed-based giving is encouraged so that smaller charities are supported and can continue delivering their vital services.
I also picked up a general concern, which is quite right, about the fall-off of corporate giving in the UK towards the small charities sector. The big problem is that—forgive me, I cannot remember who made this point—something in the order of 80% of charitable giving goes to about 20% of all charities. They are the big charities that are staffed up with lots of people to lobby us and to always come in and see us. The small community groups and charities, however, that do 80% or more of the work often do not get access to that. Rewarding companies for supporting charities and community groups in their local areas would be a very good way of increasing corporate giving.
Only 25% of British businesses donate to charities in the form of time, cash or goods. An estimated £4.26 billion was donated by British businesses in 2024, and that was flatlining. I say to the Minister that we need to do more to encourage a greater level of local support and giving, because philanthropic giving is vital. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we need to look at what the USA does in its tax structure for charitable giving. Particularly, we want to look at small community groups and charities benefiting from that, and raising more money given directly by those individuals, who are rewarded for that because it is a common good.
This debate has been an excellent opportunity. I recommend that anybody who wants to inform themselves more about the policy work speaks to the Centre for Social Justice. All parties are welcome to look at this. I hope to have a chance at some point to meet the Minister to discuss with her any possibilities that we can raise.
I have one abiding thought. Recently, we held another of our annual awards where we give out money to winning charities in six categories—money matters to small community groups and charities. I have to say that it was one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I listened to people who have grown their support groups out of tragedy in their own families and communities, and have risen to that and overcome it. Alone among all other reasons, it is not the structure or organisation, but the beating heart of small community groups and charities that helps us survive out there. It is time that we motored on in recognising them and making sure that they get a proper fair crack at what is out there to help them deliver their great services.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the small charity sector.
Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I will call Mark Sewards to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. That does not apply to interventions, which are in order. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for environmental health inspections of funeral premises.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the outset, I will say that we must keep firmly in mind the needs of grieving families: people who, in their most vulnerable moments, deserve dignity, clarity and the reassurance that they can trust that their loved ones’ remains are being cared for.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
A grieving family in my constituency contacted me last year. They said that their deceased father, who had been left in the care of a local funeral home, had been stored in such a way that his body had decomposed to the extent that it was “covered in maggots” by the time it was sent to the coroner. That was reported to the family by the coroner. I understand that the funeral home was not regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the case in my constituency highlights the case for further regulation and a more rigorous inspection regime for those who work in this industry?
Mark Sewards
I absolutely agree. There have been too many cases in recent memory of people not being cared for with the dignity that they deserved.
This topic first came to my attention when my constituents Cody and Liam Townend contacted me, along with another mum, Zoe Ward. They lost babies in different circumstances and went to the same funeral director, an organisation called Florrie’s Army. To their horror, their babies’ bodies were taken to the private home of the person in charge of Florrie’s Army, and they were not treated with the care and respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here, but the BBC report can be found online. Cody and Zoe asked what I could do to help, because although it was reported to the police, they found nothing actionable.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he is deeply passionate about our shared work in the all-party parliamentary group for funerals, coroners and bereavement, where we have learnt about the cases he described. Does he agree that the Minister would benefit from meeting our APPG to discuss the funeral sector and how it can develop the clear standards, robust oversight and proper enforcement it so desperately requires?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.
Mark Sewards
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.
This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.
There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.
Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.
Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.
Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.
There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.
However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.
That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.
The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?
In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.
That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We need regulation. One story of the mismanagement of a loved one is one too many. Does the hon. Member agree that in certain faith communities—and especially in the Jewish and Muslim communities—the expediency with which people wish to bury their loved ones must be taken into consideration within that regulation?
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. Any regulatory regime introduced nationally needs to take into account how different faiths and cultures bury their dead.
In order for environmental health officers to conduct their work properly, they would need the backing of the Local Government Association, but it recently indicated in comments to the BBC that it would prefer the Ministry of Justice to take on the responsibility for a national scheme rather than leaving it at a local level. It would appear that the LGA has no desire to take on the responsibility for inspections on a permanent basis. Does the Minister agree with the LGA’s position?
There are other options available. Both the NAFD and SAIF require their members to undergo inspections, but they have no enforcement powers and there is no requirement for members to register with them as trade bodies—although about 80% of the sector’s players do. These bodies can expel a member, but they cannot stop them operating, and that is the gap that, in time, statutory regulation must fill. There is a strong argument for backing those trade bodies in relation to inspections. They have the respect of the industry, and with Government support and the possibility of placing their inspection regime on a statutory footing, they could play a central role within any future regulatory system. The Government may consider advising consumers to use only funeral directors who are members of the NAFD and SAIF to add an extra layer of protection.
Although this falls under a different Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—it would be remiss of me not to mention the Human Tissue Authority. Expanding its role so that it becomes the sector’s regulator is another option. The HTA has considerable experience and expertise, and expanding its remit may be more time efficient than establishing an entirely new independent regulator from scratch.
Where does this leave us today? In the medium to long term, the inspection of funeral premises undoubtedly needs to come through a statutory regulatory regime and a national standard. That is what the Fuller inquiry recommended, what the majority of the public would back and—importantly for me—what my constituents want. In the short term, the Government must move at pace and come to a decision that can reassure the public and maintain confidence in the funeral sector. That may mean utilising local authorities or the existing capacity of trade bodies to bridge the gap before regulation in the ways that I have described. I do not have all the answers, but any conversation must include the families and victims of these horrific crimes. I use the word “crimes” even though my constituents found nothing actionable when they contacted the police, because what happened to them was abhorrent. They have borne the greatest burdens, and any proposal must work for them.
I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Members from across the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has worked relentlessly on behalf of her constituents to ensure that the voices of the bereaved remain at the centre of every discussion of this topic. Action must be taken as soon as is reasonably possible, both to reassure the public and to recognise the good work of those who operate in the profession and the funeral industry. As everyone in the House knows, introducing primary legislation can take a long time. If we cannot act quickly, we need to consider every non-legislative solution outside of full statutory regulation.
What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the need for environmental health inspections at funeral premises? What conversations, if any, have taken place between her Department and the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business and Trade on statutory regulation of the funeral sector? Will MHCLG, through local authorities, be supporting environmental health inspections at any point, now or in the future, and will the Minister commit to wider engagement with the funeral sector ahead of proposed implementation of any kind of inspection?
Families deserve dignity, transparency and peace of mind; the sector deserves Government support in reassuring those families; and Cody, Zoe and Liam, and all the affected families, deserve the peace of mind that what happened to them will never happen to anyone ever again.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on introducing the debate and thank all Members who have participated in it.
First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents. We cannot imagine what they have been through, and I find their bravery to seek support from their Member of Parliament, meet with Ministers and try to make a difference for other families inspiring. Through my hon. Friend, I thank them wholeheartedly, as I do all those around the country who have experienced some of the horrendous things that Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and others—have discussed this afternoon for doing likewise.
The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult things to go through in life. We will all experience it at some point, and I know that, in our hearts, we would all want to make sure that our loved ones are kept safe and treated with dignity after death, wherever and however they are cared for.
Hon. Members will be aware that the independent Fuller inquiry published its phase 2 report in July. That report was unequivocal. It found serious weaknesses and inconsistencies across settings—not isolated failure, but systematic gaps in how we protect the dignity of our loved ones. The inquiry chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, said:
“My overall conclusion is that the current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking.”
That is a challenging statement for us all to hear and read.
The report makes 75 recommendations, including the introduction of statutory regulation for all settings that care for the deceased. I want to be really clear on this point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is leading the Government’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned several Departments that are involved. I reassure him and other Members that the Ministers who, collectively, are involved have discussed this issue, and we will continue to do so because it is extremely important. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has taken an interest in this matter. It sounds as though she has supported the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, and I am glad about that.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care published an interim update on 16 December 2025. He has already accepted 11 recommendations in full and a further 43 in principle, subject to further work. That leaves 21 that the Government are still considering, including those on regulation of the sector. The Department of Health and Social Care will respond to the report in full by the summer.
On regulation, we need to strike the right balance between boosting public assurance, for all the reasons that Members have mentioned, and getting it right for the more than 6,500 funeral providers, many of which are small family firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley explained very clearly that many of them take great pride in their work and do it extremely carefully. The vast majority of funeral directors provide compassionate, professional care for our loved ones, and 85% of providers are already members of a trade body offering guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection.
The Government will think through the options very carefully. This is a sensitive and meaningful area of public life; when things go wrong, the harm is profound and long-lasting. At this point, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He pointed out the importance of including all of our faith communities in this work, which is extremely important to all of us.
In December, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), informed the House that he is
“working closely with the NHS, local authorities, the Human Tissue Authority, the Care Quality Commission, and other partners”—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 59WS.]
to examine how “robust and consistent standards” can be applied across all settings. I am sure that part of that work will consider the possible role that local authorities will play in the future.
As the Minister for Local Government, I am a huge supporter of local authorities. They deliver essential services up and down the country every day. Their hard-working staff do a brilliant job serving their communities, often in very difficult circumstances. They are independent of Government, directly elected by their communities, and they often take difficult decisions every single day. In relation to this issue, councils are only too aware that they do not have powers of inspection or the power to enter funeral premises. If the Government decide that that is the right approach, we will need to consider how to make that work. We are not automatically assuming that role for councils or environmental health officers, but we need to do the work to understand, if that is the route, how we would make it work. I do not want to pre-empt consideration of that; the work is ongoing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked me about the feedback from the work that was undertaken previously. The MHCLG had a roundtable with the LGA in January to discuss the issue that he mentioned, and the information from the work that he described was fed back into the MOJ. That just shows the importance of working across the ministerial team, which I can assure everybody we will do.
As I mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has promised a response to all to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer. I will ask the Health Minister to meet the APPG, because he will know better the right moment to do that, given the forthcoming response. Between now and then, the Government will carefully consider the potential regulation. That work is under way and we will see the results this summer.
The issues raised by the Fuller inquiry demand a response that is serious and, most importantly, grounded in dignity. The Department of Health and Social Care is leading that response on behalf of the Government. I will work very closely with my colleagues in that Department, the Ministry of Justice, the DBT and any others with responsibility to make sure that we take those recommendations in the serious way that they deserve, given the subject matter. We want to make sure that the care of the deceased is treated with the seriousness, respect and humanity it deserves. I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley for the work that he has done to ensure that this issue is progressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered environmental protections and biodiversity trends.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Unfortunately for everyone involved, this will be one of my longer speeches, so I had better not take too many interventions. Let me also say at the outset that this speech is intended first and foremost to support and encourage the Minister in the task ahead of her. She has one of the most important jobs for the whole Government and for the future of the country.
On that upbeat note, I turn to the litany of despair that constitutes a brief review of biodiversity trends in this country. Not a single one of England’s rivers is in good overall health. The same is true of our sea floor. Just 7% of our woodland is in good condition. Half of England’s hedgerows, which now should be bursting into bud and sprays of blossom, have been ripped up and grubbed out. Eighty-five per cent of our heathland is gone, as are 95% of our chalk downland meadows—the European equivalent of tropical rainforests. Our traditional orchards have declined by 81%, and 85% of England’s salt marshes have also been lost.
It is little wonder that one in six species in these islands is at risk of extinction. The scale of the wealth that we have squandered in pursuit of vapid notions of progress is staggering. It is more than just depressing; it is an existential threat to our way of life. The Government’s recent national security report on biodiversity loss confirmed that the collapse of nature is putting at risk the ecosystem services on which our society depends.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making it clear that biodiversity and our natural environment are in complete crisis. Given that, would he agree that the slogan “Back the builders, not the blockers” is one of the worst slogans that the Labour party has ever come up with? People do care about local democracy, biodiversity and nature, so that slogan should be put in the bin, where it belongs—the recycling bin, of course.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. In the time available for this debate, that almost constitutes a speech. I had intended to say this after the hon. Gentleman moved the motion, but I had better say it now: please understand that any person who intervenes in this debate will be expected to stay until the end. It is not a case of speak and go.
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I was saying, the ecosystem services—including water, food, clean air and critical resources—are all at risk. Even our soils, the very substance of growth, have lost around half their organic carbon, threatening the sustainability of our agriculture and our ability to keep our citizens fed.
More than that, however, the collapse of England’s biodiversity is a threat to our culture, national identity and one of the essential components of happiness. As iconic species continue to disappear from these islands, I wonder how many of us in this room will see a swallow or mayfly to herald summer this year?
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the Minister will work with expert organisations such as Northumberland national park to determine how we can best protect ground-nesting birds such as the curlew, which is mainly resident in my constituency of Hexham?
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of protecting our curlews, and the curlew action plan is a hugely important step, which the Government should be looking at. I also wonder how long it will be before the screaming sky falls silent, as each year, fewer swifts return to grace the air above our towns and villages.
Even our English language is losing its power, as the colours of the countryside are allowed to run dry. How could Brontë have conjured Heathcliff to love Cathy without the wild of the Yorkshire moors? How could Tolkien have fathered an entire fantasy genre without a shire worth fighting for? What hope is there for a future Vaughan Williams with so few larks left to ascend? Worse still, what stories will we have left to enchant the next generation of children with when the Hundred Acre Wood has been declared a blocker, Ratty and Mole have been evicted from their river home by decades of effluent, and—this is probably only a matter of time—someone tries to redefine Watership Down as grey belt?
All in all, the scale of the nature crisis is difficult to overstate, and any move to lower standards risks turning that crisis into a catastrophe. Yet, despite all this, we still get senior politicians declaring war on what little remains of our wildlife, with repeated suggestions that even this dire baseline is somehow too high. We continue to hear the unevidenced claim that Britain is held back not by a broken economic model but by bats and newts, and that profiteering developers would build genuinely affordable homes for all if only the last remnants of the natural world were less burdensome.
Liz Truss may be gone, but the spirit and lazy rhetoric of deregulatory Trussonomics bulldozers inexorably onwards with a planning and infrastructure Bill that sought to allow developers to pay cash to trash nature, despite having no meaningful evidence to substantiate the claim that environmental protections slow down infrastructure. Then, after we managed to head off the worst of that, we have had the wholesale rejection of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s recommendations on species protections, as well as a nuclear regulatory review based on fundamentally flawed evidence that inflates the costs of environmental protections and downplays ecological risks. I would welcome the Minister taking this opportunity to distance the Government from that particular exercise in scapegoating nature for developer incompetence.
Each additional deregulation and attack on environmental protections is a blow to the very root of what it means to be English. It is a truly bleak vision for our country to suggest that the only way to secure investment, build infrastructure or deliver homes is to rip up our environmental protections. Such measures are not only bad policy but directly contradictory to the manifesto we were elected on and deeply unpopular. Only 14% of British people think politicians are aligned with their values on nature, and three quarters of young people actually want more of the UK countryside protected.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may know that Sheffield is well known for being the outdoor city and is one of the few major cities in the UK that has a national park within its boundaries. I support him in his red lines for nature campaign. Does he agree that protecting nature is vital, not just to protect our green spaces, but to make sure that communities have access to the right types of space, so that they are happier and more fulfilled?
Chris Hinchliff
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the red lines campaign. She is absolutely right about what makes life worth living. Investing in our country, strengthening standards and restoring our natural world will do far more to improve the lives of ordinary people than a short-sighted race to the bottom. That is the Labour tradition: action to correct market failure, not dogmatic deregulation.
There is a nature-loving majority in this country, including the millions of members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wildlife trusts, national trusts and so many more. Our Labour Government should be working alongside those groups, not squaring up to them. At the end of the day, there is a lot more of them than there are developer lobbyists. Let us stop this endless cycle of skirmishes. It does not have to be like this. Enough is enough.
Chris Hinchliff
I am very sorry, but I had better make progress at this point.
Today, I am calling for clear red lines for nature: no further weakening of environmental protections, no funding cuts to environmental bodies and no more collapsing biodiversity but instead a fully funded nature recovery plan to meet our legally binding targets. There are no more branches left to prune without killing the tree. There can be no more backward steps. Hand wringing will not protect habitats. Lip service will not stop extinction. Let us have a little optimism and idealism instead.
We know from projects such as Knepp and trailblazers such as my constituents at Finches Farm in Benington that with decisive action our biodiversity can come booming back again. Across the country, we have a vast, untapped pool of potential crying out for employment and meaningful, healthy work. It is ready to contribute to leaving the world in a better state than we found it, and there is so much work to be done: restoring our meadows, orchards, coppices and temperate rainforests; relaying hedgerows; re-wetting the lost marshes; re-wriggling our rivers; bringing back the species that haunt our islands; saving the curlew and red squirrel; and monitoring, measuring and enforcing our essential environmental protections. There is enough skilled work to deliver a huge boost towards full employment across every region of the country. Like new Labour’s “New Deal for a Lost Generation”, we need a green job guarantee to deliver essential environmental restoration work now and brilliant careers for years to come.
Now is the time for the honesty to admit that, for generation after generation, we have spent down and frittered away the vast wealth that was the natural inheritance of these islands. The truth is that the reality of GDP growth has been little more than a heaping up of virtual wealth—a hoarding of digital zeros in the bank accounts of the wealthy, while the real world around all of us suffered. Any further weakening of environmental protections will only push us over the edge into total bankruptcy. We cannot retreat a single step further. We must defend these last red lines for nature for the sake of every generation to come. My plea to the Minister is simply this: defy the lobbyists, side with the public and the planet over profit, and give us our nature back.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. We are faced with a very difficult situation. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, which means, given the number of people on the speakers’ list, I am going to start with a time limit of two minutes. That may not get everybody in. I am not going to call anybody who has already intervened, for a start, and if anybody else feel like dropping out and intervening, I would welcome that. I do not normally do this, but it may help if I give Members the batting order as it stands at the moment: on the Opposition Benches, we have Danny Chambers, Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Tim Farron, John Milne, Roz Savage and Jim Shannon, and on the Government Benches, we have Barry Gardiner, Terry Jermy, Martin Rhodes, Michelle Welsh, Rachael Maskell, Tristan Osborne and Anna Gelderd. It is up to you how you play this, but I am going to stop calling Back-Bench Members at 5.10 pm.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I promise I will be as quick as possible. There is so much I would like to say about biodiversity net gain and the importance of the natural environment to people in Winchester, but I will speak only about a specific issue with one of our chalk streams that I believe the Minister could help us with. The beautiful River Meon runs through a little village called Droxford. For various historical reasons, it is classified as a public highway, and that means that people drive 4x4s along the river for a few hundred metres. It is not a shortcut to anywhere—it is not simply a river crossing—but it is damaging the riverbed. It also disrupts the spawning of the very rare Atlantic salmon that come from southern chalk streams.
For over two years now, I have been working to try to stop the traffic from damaging this very precious habitat. The South Downs national park wants it to stop. The local people want it to stop. Lib Dem-run Winchester city council wants it to stop. For various reasons, we cannot get the Conservative-run Hampshire county council either to change the designation of the river so that it is no longer a highway or even just to put in a traffic regulation order to prevent people from driving 4x4s along the stretch of river. I would really appreciate a meeting with the Minister, maybe with some of the various stakeholders, to work out how we can cut through this red tape, because it is ecological vandalism, it provides absolutely no benefit to the environment and there is overwhelming support to stop the damage.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was one of the finest on the environment that I have heard in this House for a long time. One day, the Government will see sense and he will become Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I will cut most of what I wanted to say. The national security assessment, mentioned by my hon. Friend, says:
“Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.”
Why is that not the subject of a great debate in Parliament? Yesterday, we had the Prime Minister’s vital statement on Iran. The whole House sat in a packed Chamber to discuss the US bombing of that evil regime and the security implications for the world. Yet we have our own national security assessment telling us that global ecosystem degradation and collapse is one of the most serious threats to UK national security, and we still have had no debate on it.
The collapse of biodiversity over my lifetime is not a matter of spreadsheets. It is felt in silent fields that were once singing meadows, in poisoned waters that were once shimmering streams, in children who have grown up in a depleted world without knowing how much has been lost, or how abnormal is the world they inhabit. The monitoring and enforcement system currently in place under environmental regulators lacks capacity and is chronically poor.
Take our water sector: of the 2,778 serious pollution incidents reported in 2024, officials downgraded 98% as “minor incidents”, yet only 496 were actually attended or inspected before being downgraded. There can be no doubt that the regulatory system is as rotten as the pipes the water companies have abandoned since 1989. I welcome the Red Lines for Nature campaign as far as it goes, but that is scarcely far enough when it talks of no further weakening of environmental protections and no funding cuts to environmental bodies.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I also praise the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passion for nature and the topics we are discussing.
My constituency has seen some of the fastest housing growth in the country: 8,000 new houses added between 2011 and 2021. I understand the need for housing, but a major concern for local residents is how to balance the objective of more housing with the objectives of protecting our green environment and ensuring that amenities are there to protect the housing. The constituency has many wonderful and rare habitats that require protection. If we fail to do that, there will be wide-reaching, catastrophic impacts to our environment.
The Letcombe Brook chalk stream is a precious habitat running from Letcombe Regis to East Hanney, providing water for local use. The Letcombe Brook project does great work protecting it. The River Thames, which also runs through my constituency, has often been subject to sewage dumping, due to the well documented issues with Thames Water.
I pay tribute to local organisations that do so much to protect nature and make it accessible. I recently met members of the Earth Trust in Little Wittenham, who took me on a walk around the Wittenham Clumps. Their work is transformative, including the recent restoration of a neglected coppice in Little Wittenham wood into a thriving, biodiverse habitat, encouraging bees with new apiaries on their farm and levelling up opportunities for environmental education by removing barriers of cost and transport to resource-stretched schools.
In the towns in my constituency, Sustainable Didcot, Sustainable Wantage and Sustainable Wallingford are doing fantastic work to lead community climate change action through projects on waste, transport, food, biodiversity and social justice. Finally, the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust manages nature reserves, monitors species and runs projects to support declining species such as water voles. All those organisations need Government support to ensure that they can continue to play their part in protecting nature and our environment.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Norfolk is home to some of the finest natural environments anywhere in our country. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Brecks, a unique biodiversity hotspot in the UK, vital for rare and threatened species. It supports more than 12,500 species of plants and animals, 2,000 of which are endangered. Like many hon. Members, I am passionate about chalk streams—in my case the River Nar and the River Little Ouse. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England, many of them in my constituency. Sadly, after 14 years of neglect under the previous Government, our rivers are in a sorry state.
Currently, extensive areas of the Brecks enjoy habitats regulations protections, allowing rare birds, plants and butterflies to be protected from further harm. The same can be said for some of our chalk streams. If the recommendations in the Fingleton review are accepted in full and transferred more broadly as a planning framework, as has been suggested by some, that is under threat. The hard work that I have seen being undertaken by Natural England, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Norfolk Rivers Trust, alongside farmers and landowners, risks being undermined.
No one is saying that we should not build more houses, and no one is saying that we should not be investing in clean energy and infrastructure, but economic growth and environmental protection should not be mutually exclusive; in my opinion, they depend on one another. The potential cost to our economy if we do not protect these areas is staggering and terrifying, particularly for areas such as my South West Norfolk constituency. Wildlife trusts in Norfolk have highlighted to me the devastating financial costs of environmental damage, warning of a 12% reduction in GDP. In my constituency, that would be due to flooding, water treatment wastage, loss of tourism and the permanent destruction of agricultural land. Nature has never been at odds with development and planning.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on this important debate. I, like many others, would love to speak about a whole host of things, but given the time constraints, I will just talk about chalk streams.
Chalk streams are globally rare ecosystems; there are approximately 200 in the world, and 85% of them are in England. They are internationally significant freshwater habitats and should be a conservation priority. In West Dorset, our chalk streams—the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream—are in decline, alongside the salmon populations in them, because we have not had proper environmental protections or biodiversity being properly prioritised. The Rivers Trust sewage discharge map shows that the South Winterbourne was affected by storm overflows 223 times in 2020, for a total of more than 2,641 hours.
My proposal is that we introduce a blue flag style standard for chalk streams, mirroring coastal bathing water classifications—clear, public facing measures that are visible and easy to understand. Mandatory, regular testing and enforceable consequences for failure would help rebuild public trust and provide the transparency that people rightly demand.
Given that I have spoken far faster than I thought I would, I will also make a plea for the upcoming water White Paper to make water companies statutory consultees on all new planning projects, and to make rainwater harvesting mandatory on all new builds. Pre pipe solutions are the key to taking the strain off our sewerage system. The water White Paper is a fantastic opportunity for the Government to do those three things. If they do them, it will be brilliant for the public.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Three for the price of one! I call Martin Rhodes.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this debate. Much of his speech focused on England and on rural areas. As the Member for Glasgow North, I hope to open up the debate slightly, in terms of crossing the border into Scotland, the rest of the UK and the world, and also into urban as well as rural.
Often, there is a focus on climate rather than nature based solutions to help mitigate and adapt to the environmental crisis that we face. Many argue that the protection of nature is hampering economic development. Not only are they compatible but, more fundamentally, the decline of nature will undermine economic development. Wetlands protect us from flooding; mangroves protect us from storm surges; and peatlands store carbon and regulate water flow. This is our natural infrastructure. They are essential not only in tackling climate change but in limiting damage to built infrastructure, reducing insurance costs and strengthening economic resilience.
In 2022, parties to the United Nations convention on biological diversity signed the global biodiversity framework. This landmark agreement, among other ambitions, seeks to conserve 30% of land and waters by 2030—“30 by 30”, as it is commonly known. However, much more needs to be done if we are to achieve those ambitions. Analysis from the Natural History Museum reveals that we are not sufficiently protecting the most critical ecosystems upon which global biodiversity—and indeed humanity—relies. In areas delivering the most vital ecosystem services, biodiversity is decreasing faster.
I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. Nature has an essential role to play, helping us to mitigate and adapt. Our national and international commitments can enable us to progress towards other biodiversity targets, including those focused on restoration, resilience building and nature’s contribution to people and the economy more broadly. We must continue to champion this cause.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who made a fantastic speech.
Some 70% of our land mass in this country is agricultural land. We are achieving nothing for biodiversity if we do not work with the people who work that land. The most damaging thing the Government have done on this issue over the last 12 months—it was indeed 12 months ago—was to close the sustainable farming incentive with no notice whatsoever.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State has announced the reopening of SFI in June, but it is worth bearing in mind that that will only be for up to two months and there is no guarantee, even in the Department’s statement on the issue, that it will last two months. If the money runs out before then, people will be excluded from applying. That means that we are back to first come, first served. Those farmers who are wealthier, who have more time on their hands and who have staff will be able to get in, and smaller farmers, particularly in the uplands areas, will not be able to do so. That will be damaging for biodiversity.
The limitations on the scheme are deeply concerning. They are meant to incentivise farmers to have part of their farm for environmental protection and part of their farm for food production. This is the error that we have been making for the last 40 years—the idea that we either produce food or care for the environment. We absolutely must do both; that is what farmers want to do. I fear that this scheme is wrong-headed.
Some 55% of the food we eat in this country is produced in this country. That is dangerously low given the international situation; this is something we already knew. We need to support farmers not just to care for the environment, but to feed us.
The Government limit the June window to farms up to 50 hectares, which excludes upland farmers on less than minimum wage who farm the commons at the top of mountains. That is foolish. I ask the Minister to rethink. My final word is this: the greenest thing we can do is to keep Britain’s farmers farming to care for our environment.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Protecting our natural environment and biodiversity is essential for our fight against climate change and our drive towards sustainability, and for future generations to enjoy the spaces so dear to people. I often hear from constituents about their concerns regarding the protection of species and habitats, sewage dumping and the threats of global warming, deforestation, droughts and flooding. I know from representing such communities that there are often competing demands when it comes to our green spaces, especially as, across the country, there is a need for stronger local infrastructure and affordable housing; but that should never be to the detriment of our environment and biodiversity.
Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills in my constituency is an unfortunate example of this. Located in Hucknell, this is a green space treasured by the community and a vital space for nature, health, wellbeing and local history. Many of my constituents regularly use this space to exercise and enjoy activities. Ashes have been scattered there; there have been first dates, first steps and memories of sledging. Its beautiful views even inspired Lord Byron’s work.
Ashfield district council has put in a local plan that will use greenfield sites, when brownfield and greyfield sites were available. That will cause damage to our local environment. The Planning Inspectorate rightly rejected this plan, but it has left the area of Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills vulnerable, which is why we have a speculative planning application. The developers have shown an utter disregard for the community, refusing to meet with them and ignoring local knowledge.
Recognising Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills as a country park would transform the community in Hucknell by ensuring that there is green space for absolutely everyone. In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, more than 4,000 children live in poverty. I ask the Minister to meet with me to discuss how a solution can be found before we lose this space altogether, and I urge the Government to consider introducing new ways for communities to have a voice in the protection of their environment.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for leading this debate.
I would like to focus on the biodiversity net gain industry, or BNG, which has been threatened by changes in Government policy. BNG is one of the most effective tools we have for restoring nature at scale, and it is working. Projects like rewilding on the Knepp estate in my Horsham constituency show what can be achieved when landowners are empowered to invest in habitat restoration. They have built a thriving habitat bank and are supporting neighbouring farmers through major restoration projects. Crucially, all of that depends on a functioning BNG market. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the Knepp estate.
Across England, more than 5,160 hectares have already been restored thanks to mandatory BNG, generating jobs, investment and genuine ecological recovery. That is why proposals to exempt sites under 0.2 hectares are so deeply concerning; they could severely undermine the emerging nature markets just as they are beginning to deliver results. The industry wants to work with Government, and has recommended an exemption for sites under 0.1 hectares. Doubling that is a mistake that the Government should address.
I say gently to Ministers that environmental protections are not barriers to growth; they are the foundations of long-term sustainable growth. Weakening BNG now would undermine nature recovery, destabilise green investment and damage the rural economies that depend on it. Nature-based solutions are not optional extras, but an essential part of our climate infrastructure. That is why we must defend BNG and empower rewilding and restoration projects across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The power of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) must resonate around Whitehall and warn the City, developers and all who seek to profit from our natural habitats.
Today, I want to talk about York. York is described as a humane city and the Strays of York are green fingers that reach into its heart. Walking along the river, we barely see bricks and mortar. We have our own biometric marker, the tansy beetle—an iridescent, beautiful beetle, about a centimetre in length. It is known as the jewel of York, and yet it is the barometer of all that is going wrong. Flooding caused by the grouse shooting up on the moors is destroying its habitat. We are left with so few beetles in the country, because we will not find them anywhere else. Yorkshire Water has failed to manage our water system, and drought is causing the tansy beetle’s habitat to dry and the tansy plant, the only one on which it lives, to wither. The pollution coming down the River Ouse is also causing real strain.
The tansy beetle has its own action group to conserve this precious jewel. In 2016, 46,000 of the beetle were found. The group’s work raised that to 91,000 by 2023, and yet today the beetle is at risk. We cannot let those who profit from our system and destroy our natural habitats rob us of these precious parts of our nature. It is so important that the Government take action. We need not a national security assessment, but a nature security assessment.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
We are told that access to green and blue space improves mental health and could save the NHS more than £2 billion annually. We are told that urban nature provides around £823 million a year in air pollution removal benefits. We are told that England’s natural capital is valued at around £1.3 trillion, and we are told that ecosystem services deliver more than £37 billion in annual benefits. I want to discard my prepared remarks and speak more idealistically. That same idealism led me to abandon a normal life and row alone across our three oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis. It is this mindset of putting a price tag on our natural assets that has led us to the predicament—this heartbreaking situation—that we find ourselves in.
To reduce our natural environment to mere pound signs is an insult—a very anthropocentric perspective, where we value nature according to what it delivers to us. I suggest that we have a moral duty to future generations to halt the extinctions. It is not our job to play God—to decide which species are worth saving and which are not based on whether we find them useful, charismatic or cuddly. Every single species plays a crucial role in the web of life that we are far from fully understanding.
I thank the Minister in advance for her remarks today—in many ways, I feel that I am preaching to the converted, because I know that she already gets this. I wish that we could get any other Minister or Secretary of State into this Chamber to hear these arguments; we need to put respect for nature at the heart of all decision making across Government if we are truly going to get on track for the future that the next generations deserve.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passionate speech. Chatham has a proud maritime history and connection with the oceans, as well as the beautiful chalk streams of the escarpment that flow into the River Medway.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Chalk streams are rare and irreplaceable. In Hampshire, we have some of the most iconic ones in the Test, the Itchen and the Loddon. Does my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the inclusion of chalk streams for the first time in the national planning policy framework, and will he join me in urging the Government to find other ways to protect and restore such vital habitats?
Tristan Osborne
I could not agree more. I am proud that chalk streams are part of the portfolio that we are looking at to safeguard our natural world.
However, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, my focus is on a different ecosystem—one that is no less important than our terrestrial ecosystems. I want to ask the Minister several questions on oceans. Last summer, we celebrated with David Attenborough the ban on bottom trawling in this country. Will the Minister provide an update on when we can expect to implement that ban in UK waters?
Enhanced marine protected areas are also key. We should celebrate the fact that the UK recently signed the UN global ocean treaty, but are we looking to enhance our marine protected areas to protect our species within those? Lastly, we know that microplastics and plastic pollution are a significant problem in oceans around the world; as part of the circular economy review that we are shortly to publish, can we reduce the amount of plastics being fed into our oceans and environment? Ultimately, the Earth and the oceans do not belong to us; we belong to them. We are custodians of the future for generations to come. I hope that our oceans will be part of that tapestry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. Some 12% of species are threatened with extinction in the countryside we live in, as he underlined very clearly. The 50% loss of biodiversity since the ’70s is a serious problem. I want to give an example of what my council, Ards and North Down borough council, does. The council has a strategy of planting and rewilding council land; indeed, it is actively trying to purchase other land for the same purpose. I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place—I wish her well, including for her recovery. I ask her what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will do to help councils to make more of a difference, if councils are willing to step up and do something.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Wood Lane playing fields in my constituency are in difficulty because the council faces bankruptcy and is looking to sell property. Does the hon. Member agree that something needs to be done about that?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do, and I will hand over to the Minister to respond at the end of the debate.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Nature underpins our wellbeing and our economy, and in South East Cornwall we truly understand that. Take the Cornish black bee: hardy, resilient and well suited to our Atlantic winds, it heads out to gather pollen even in unfavourable conditions, and that determination feels very familiar to Cornish people. The Cornish chough tells a similar story. Once lost from Cornwall, it returned in 2001, and its comeback shows that, with the right protection, species can recover.
I am proud to serve as a seagrass champion, because seagrasses are one of the most powerful natural climate solutions: they absorb and store carbon at a remarkable rate, soften wave energy and reduce coastal erosion—something extremely needed since the start of this year, as Cornwall has been battered by back-to-back storms that have severely impacted my region. Protecting seagrass meadows is a practical climate action and a sound economic policy.
In my local area, fishing and farming have shaped the economics of our villages and towns for generations. They rely on healthy soils, clean water and abundant seas, so clean water remains a priority. The proposal for designated bathing water in Lostwithiel is therefore very welcome, and I encourage residents to engage with the consultation on that before it closes at the end of the month. However, my constituents are rightly frustrated by the impact of sewage discharges, and confidence in South West Water has been undermined by a history of poor transparency. I call for decisive action to improve its operations, alongside meaningful engagement with local residents, businesses and me.
On Dartmoor, biodiversity and traditional land management are closely linked. Will the Minister provide further information on how the sustainable farming incentive could play a part in protecting the Dartmoor ponies, which were at risk under the previous Government? Finally, I ask her to continue to focus on rural and coastal areas that have long been forgotten and to use Cornwall and our unique natural heritage as a pilot area in future Government schemes. I look forward to working with her in Cornwall in the future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. You have five minutes.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I commend, as we all do, the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this important debate—it could not be more timely.
I start by asking the Minister why this Government refused to publish the full national security report on global biodiversity loss. The reason for that refusal is pertinent to today’s debate; it seems to be a refusal to be honest with the public about the inextricable links between nature, climate change and our national security, and how vulnerable it makes our country and society when we do not act on the evidence. That evidence states that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse have severe consequences for food and water insecurity, crop failures, fisheries collapse and intensified natural disasters. That is cause for alarm and action.
Instead of responding with urgency, however, the Office for Environmental Protection has confirmed that not only do the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental commitments, but, worryingly, they have committed to
“doing little that is new or different”
to change that. The latest State of Nature data shows decline, with one in six species at risk of extinction. We have heard that just 14% of England’s rivers are in good ecological health. Action on nature loss and climate breakdown cannot be dealt with in silos. That is why the Liberal Democrats, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), have pushed for an annual climate and nature statement from Government.
The Conservatives and Reform, meanwhile, refuse to accept that climate change is one of the greatest drivers of nature loss and propose the rolling back of climate legislation. There seems to be a similar siloed approach from this Labour Government—this time a nature-blind approach. While we commend the Government’s drive towards decarbonisation, the loss of nature is also accelerating climate change by disrupting habitats that capture and store carbon, such as peatlands and woodlands.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that habitat loss will not be helped if the Government accept recommendation 19 of the Fingleton review, which will weaken the duty to support our national parks? Our national parks did not stop the building of Sellafield, or of Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia national park; the Quantocks national landscape did not stop the building of Hinkley. We need to protect our national parks and landscapes.
Pippa Heylings
More than 20 leading nature organisations, including the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and the RSPB, have warned that the changes my hon. Friend mentions would weaken environmental law by effectively allowing developers to pay to destroy protected wildlife.
I would like the Minister to respond on proposed recommendations 11, 12 and 19 of the Fingleton nuclear regulatory review. We do not want any more of the damaging framing of nature as a blocker to growth, or any more actions such as the weakening of key biodiversity safeguards in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. As my hon. Friend said, the proposed exemptions to biodiversity net gain risk hollowing out one of the most important tools for nature recovery. That is not just the case with nuclear energy; the Prime Minister has said that he also wants environmental deregulation across the entire industrial strategy, which would risk breaching level playing field provisions in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
Liberal Democrats take a different view. We would accelerate environmental land management schemes with an extra £1 billion a year to support nature-friendly farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. We would halt and reverse nature’s decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. We would strengthen the Office for Environmental Protection, and properly fund Natural England and the Environment Agency.
We have heard much about chalk streams, the jewel of our natural heritage, which is why I brought forward legislation with cross-party support to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as UNESCO natural world heritage sites. I hope the Minister will support that legislation. Nature is our joy and our pride, and it underpins our economy, our health, our food security and our safety.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.
As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, I recognise the importance of biodiversity and protecting our environment. Epping Forest, the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees, and has a wonderful mix of ancient woodland, open grassland plains, heathland and wetland habitats. It hosts 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1,500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. However, it is sadly affected by actions, including fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, that can significantly impact wildlife and nature. I urge the Minister to work closely with the Home Office to help to tackle, deter and prevent such rural and semi-rural crimes.
Epping Forest is not immune to the Government’s intrusion into the green belt with centralised housing planning and excessive solar development, which harm our biodiversity, food security, and the communities that depend on it for leisure, sports and access to local environments. This is not the answer. The Government must work to build on brownfield first and protect nature and biodiversity.
The previous Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including on increasing species abundance so that by 2042 it is far greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than in 2032, and on restoring or creating more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. It also set the framework for local nature recovery strategies, seeking to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, map the most valuable existing natural areas, and create or improve habitats and meet wider environmental goals. All local authorities should have published their strategy before the end of last year, but some have not. Will the Minister update us on when all the strategies will be published?
Our Conservative environmental improvement plan built on that Act. It committed to protect 30% of our land and sea by 2030, supporting the COP15 global target to protect 30% of global land and ocean that we agreed. We also announced the species survival fund—£25 million of funding specifically to protect our rarest species, from red squirrels to water voles. In farming, we provided the innovative farming in protected landscapes funding, which helps biodiversity and nature restoration. The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations. The current Government must continue that work in earnest.
The recent Government report “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security” highlights the danger of inaction and raises serious questions about the UK’s preparedness if action is not taken or is not successful. I hope that Ministers will take the report very seriously and consider how some of the Government’s actions, such as the family farm tax, have pressured food production and supply.
Habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are also threatening countries and their resilience across the world. It is extreme folly for the UK Labour Government to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius and charge UK taxpayers £35 billion in the process, for the British Indian Ocean Territory is home to one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on Earth. Mauritius does not have the record to maintain these high conservation standards. In the 2024 environmental performance index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, 83rd for marine habitat protection and 131st for marine protection stringency. Quite apart from the adverse defence implications, I am deeply concerned by the Labour Government’s wilful blindness to the fact that Mauritius does not have the record to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.
The Government report highlights how ecosystem degradation can threaten UK national security, and we know that biodiversity and food security depend crucially on strong biosecurity. Just last week, foot and mouth disease was confirmed in Cyprus. The Government must be vigilant and not hesitate to take action. We need to act at many levels, in the UK and internationally, to protect our ecosystems for the sake of national and international security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Roger. For anyone who is unaware, I broke my wrist playing beach volleyball; the score was Germany 1, England nil—let us hope that is not repeated at the world cup this year. I thank all colleagues who have sent their good wishes.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on his excellent opening speech, and I thank other Members for their thoughtful contributions. I am not the water Minister or the oceans Minister, so I will do my best, but if I am unable to reply, we will organise the meetings that Members seek so that they get the answers they deserve.
Nature is the monopoly provider of everything we need to exist, and it is our duty to protect and restore it. In my own Coventry constituency, where there is one the poorest and most highly developed wards in the country, there are signs of water voles—Ratty is alive and well. I saw my first ever kingfisher about a mile from Coventry city centre, and there are also otters living in the canal and at Coventry golf club. Nature is all around us if we sit, look and know where to find it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Does the Minister also agree that, where there is political will—such as the Mayor of London with his white storks and baby beavers, or even in progressive boroughs like Haringey that plant thousands of trees—we really have hope of making some progress?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate the mayor; he is a trailblazer both nationally and internationally through his climate and nature work. I know that Justin Beaver and his wife—I cannot remember her name, but it is a similarly cringeworthy pun—are living happily ever after. Actually, I do not know whether beavers live happily ever after; I think they are quite mean to each other. But they are definitely living happily in Ealing and providing those natural ecosystem services that we need—they are nature’s original ecosystem engineers.
In December, we published our 2025 environmental improvement plan, and over the next five years, it will accelerate progress towards those Environment Act targets. I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), that some of those targets do not have a baseline. When I was talking to our chief scientific adviser yesterday, I asked how we will meet some of those species targets, and we will have a baseline developed by 2028-29. It is all very well legislating, but it is also about how things are measured. As a former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am all about how we measure it, because that is how the Government are held to account. I want to hold to account myself or any future Minister, whoever it may be.
Mary Creagh
I will just finish my point. Over the next five years, we will improve species abundance, reduce species extinction risk, and restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich land. We are also delivering our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, which will help us to tackle the climate and nature crises while supporting growth.
We have heard a little about housebuilding versus infrastructure, and the system we inherited was too slow and too fragmented. Across the country, we have more than 164,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation. In my city of Coventry alone, 2,000 children wake up to that reality every day—we have one of the highest rates of child homelessness outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) also has about 800 homeless children in his constituency.
Those realities of nature loss and homeless children have a similar root cause: political short-termism and the ducking of big decisions on land use, investment and environmental recovery, leaving the nature and housing crises to deepen. Politics has failed both, and the nature restoration fund can unlock stored housing and infrastructure while still achieving enormous, tangible environment outcomes. We want more for infrastructure and more for nature, not less.
Mary Creagh
I will not give way, as I want to respond to some of the points that hon. Members made.
The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned biodiversity net gain, which became mandatory in February 2024. There is emerging evidence that it is working as intended, and we will publish our response to our consultation on that shortly. Developers are seeking ecological advice earlier in the planning process so that they do not waste money trying to build on precious sites, and they are seeking to avoid biodiversity impacts when choosing between sites.
The shadow Minister talked about local nature recovery strategies, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hard work of local authorities to finalise and publish those strategies is bearing fruit. When we came into office, those authorities were not really sure what the strategies were for, so we had to provide a lot of guidance and work with local councils and regional combined authorities to publish 28 of the 48 strategies, with the remainder fast approaching completion. Those strategies will be a new tool in driving action on the ground, and helping partnerships in the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together to focus collective efforts on where they will achieve the most.
We will also go further and faster on protected landscapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and I saw kids from Newcastle who were out for their first ever walk in his gorgeous Northumberland national park. Making sure that our green spaces are greener, wilder and more accessible is crucial to what we want to do. On species recovery, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the red-billed chough and the tough little Cornish black bee. Bees’ Needs Week is coming up soon, and I urge everyone to go to the website and get their local organisations involved. Kew at Wakehurst will host the prizegiving this year, and I encourage local groups to get involved.
Since the early 90s, we have prevented 35 national extinctions through the species recovery programme and supported 1,000 species, such as the fen orchid, the large blue butterfly and the red-billed chough. We are committed to funding that programme—there is a new round of funding until 2029. More than 200 projects have applied, and we will announce the successful ones in May. We talked about beavers, and I was thrilled to visit the National Trust’s Holnicote estate in Somerset for the release of a mother beaver and her two kits last month, which was one of two wild releases in south-west England this year. Beavers bring many benefits: creating havens for other wildlife, improving water quality and reducing the impact of flood and droughts. That is part of our mission to protect and restore nature.
On landscape recovery, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about the vital role of farmers and land managers in creating wildlife-rich environments. The plans for landscape recovery are backed by a down payment of £500 million over the course of this Parliament, which is the lifetime cost for the first tranche of projects coming through in round one. We expect future tranches to be delivered with further funding allocations. That part of the largest nature-friendly farming budget in history goes alongside significant funding for further nature-friendly farming schemes.
We heard from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that, last year, tree planting in England reached its highest level in over 20 years, but our woodland cover is still too low. We are committed to meet the Environment Act target to increase woodland cover to 16.5% by 2050, and the new national forest in the Ox-Cam arc is going to make his constituents closer to nature. That shows that we can build beautiful housing, a new railway line and new nature alongside each other.
This year, we will publish a new trees action plan for England, outlining how we will meet our Environment Act target and improve the resilience and conditions of trees and woodlands nationwide. We have £1 billion for tree planting and forestry sector support over this Parliament, which is the largest investment in nature in our history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) raised the issue of our overseas impacts and the 30 by 30 work. Our overseas territories hold over 90% of the UK’s unique species. We reaffirmed our joint ambition with the territories to protect their ecosystems and launched the first ever co-created overseas territories biodiversity strategy with every territory Government. We have funded 43 new Darwin Plus projects worth over £7.9 million. Nature-based solutions include Saint Helena’s cloud forest, which is providing clean drinking water, the British Virgin Islands mangroves and the Falklands Islands peatlands.
We have heard about salt marshes and seagrass, and they are incredible buffers against the increasingly intense storms that are buffeting our ocean. Our ocean is also under threat from acidification and heating, and that is why we are driving to protect marine ecosystems and working for a global plastic pollution treaty. A new chair has been elected for that process, and we look forward to making further progress.
We have committed £14 million to eight projects in our ocean grant scheme to support locally led solutions to protect the ocean and the communities who depend on it. In Mozambique, for example, that is supporting local partners to establish a corridor of 20 locally managed marine areas.
I am not the Minister for chalk streams, but I want to address them very quickly and say to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) that we will be delivering more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration. I will take his message back to the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy). On the national policy planning framework, the consultation is still live, and I think we are looking in that consultation to put chalk streams as features of high environmental value into planning policy.
We welcome and support the ambition of the curlew action plan. There are many such plans across many of our protected landscapes. I am happy to get the water Minister to meet the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). On soils, we have committed to bringing 40% of our agricultural soil into sustainable management by 2028 and increasing that to 60% by 2030. Soil is the foundation of our food system, but also an important part of our climate system. That will be achieved via our environmental management schemes—
Written Statement
New Medium Helicopter
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am updating the House regarding the new medium helicopter procurement. In an incredibly volatile and unpredictable world, characterised by emerging threats and shifting geopolitical dynamics, the importance of a robust and agile sovereign defence industry cannot be underestimated, and medium lift will remain an enduring requirement moving forward.
The Government have been clear that we intend to spend more of a rising defence budget with British-based firms, helping to make defence an engine for growth.
I am announcing today that the Government have selected Leonardo’s AW149 for the NMH requirement. We inherited this procurement from the previous Government, and through joint working between the Ministry of Defence and Leonardo, including by the Defence Secretary and Leonardo’s global CEO, the Government have secured an improved agreement with Leonardo in respect of the NMH acquisition.
The new deal delivers on the strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy—improving warfighting readiness and strengthening the UK’s defence industrial base.
The Government recognise the importance of Leonardo UK in delivering sovereign capabilities in rotary lift. Leonardo UK’s work in respect of developing new autonomous helicopter options is world leading, and I am grateful to the team at Leonardo Helicopters in Yeovil, businesses across the UK, Leonardo in Italy and its UK supply chain for their commitment to renewing the capabilities of our armed forces.
The agreement with Leonardo will deliver the 23 new medium helicopters and four training simulators, securing 3,300 jobs at Yeovil in Somerset. But our agreement goes further than the previous procurement started by the last administration.
I am pleased to report that we have gained an agreement from Leonardo that paves the path for future military international orders to be built in the UK, with an increased workshare for the UK above 40%. Leonardo have also agreed to make the United Kingdom the home of exports for the AW149, enabling greater access to the market and the potential for over £15 billion of export opportunities over the next decade.
Furthermore, Leonardo has agreed to make Yeovil its global centre of excellence for autonomous helicopters, and today I can confirm to the House that the Ministry of Defence will also invest further in Proteus, the UK’s first autonomous uncrewed air system, which is built by Leonardo and recently undertook its first flight. The development of uncrewed and autonomous technology in the UK is at the heart of the Government’s defence industrial strategy and could offer the opportunity to make platforms such as NMH optionally-crewed.
This Government are committed to a new partnership with industry. Working collaboratively, we have secured a substantial deepening of the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Leonardo UK. It increases UK workshare in the new medium helicopter and secures the operations of Yeovil for many years to come.
This is a substantial improvement on the previous arrangement and is not only the renewal of the MOD-Leonardo UK helicopter relationship, but a clear articulation of the new approach the Government are taking as we prepare for the publication of the defence investment plan.
[HCWS1376]